G.R. No.

200304

January 15, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
DONALD VASQUEZ y SANDIGAN @ "DON," Accused-Appellant

That on or about April 3, 1998 in the City of Manila, Philippines, thru buy bust operation the said
accused not having been authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any
regulated drug, did then and there [willfully], unlawfully and knowingly sell or offer for sale,
dispense, deliver, transport or distribute transparent plastic sachets of white crystalline substance
known as "Shabu" containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, which is a regulated drug.
Accused avers he was framed up by the NBI.

Issue: WON the arrest is lawful.

Ruling:
Having established the validity of the warrantless arrest in this case, the Court holds that the
warrantless seizure of the illegal drugs from the appellant is likewise valid. We held in People v.
Cabugatan55 that:
This interdiction against warrantless searches and seizures, however, is not absolute and such
warrantless searches and seizures have long been deemed permissible by jurisprudence in
instances of (1) search of moving vehicles, (2) seizure in plain view, (3) customs searches, (4)
waiver or consented searches, (5) stop and frisk situations (Terry search), and search incidental to
a lawful arrest. The last includes a valid warrantless arrest, for, while as a rule, an arrest is
considered legitimate [if] effected with a valid warrant of arrest, the Rules of Court recognize
permissible warrantless arrest, to wit: (1) arrest in flagrante delicto, (2) arrest effected in hot
pursuit, and (3) arrest of escaped prisoners. (Citation omitted.)
Thus, the appellant cannot seek exculpation by invoking belatedly the invalidity of his arrest and
the subsequent search upon his person.

HON. RENATO C. CORONA vs UNITED HARBOR PILOTS ASSOCIATION OF THE

PHILIPPINES and MANILA PILOTS ASSOCIATION
G.R. No. 111953
December 12, 1997
ROMERO, J.

Facts

An Administrative Order No. 04-92 (PPA-AO No. 04-92) was issued, limiting the term of
appointment of harbor pilots to one year subject to yearly renewal or cancellation.
On August 12, 1992, respondents United Harbour Pilots Association and the Manila
Pilots Association, through Capt. Alberto C. Compas, questioned PPA-AO No. 04-92.
On December 23, 1992, the OP issued an order directing the PPA to hold in abeyance
the implementation of PPA-AO No. 04-92. On March 17, 1993, the OP, through then
Assistant Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs
Renato C. Corona, dismissed the
appeal/petition and lifted the restraining order issued earlier.
Respondents filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and injunction with prayer for the
issuance of a temporary restraining order and damages, before Branch 6 of the Regional Trial
Court.

Issue:
Whether or not PPA-AO-04-92 is constitutional

Held:
The Court is convinced that PPA-AO No. 04-92 was issued in stark disregard of
respondents' right against deprivation of property without due process of law.
The Supreme Court said that In order to fall within the aegis of this provision, two
conditions must concur, namely, that there is a deprivation and that such deprivation is done
without proper observance of due process. As a general rule, notice and hearing, as the
fundamental requirements of procedural due process, are essential only when an administrative

body exercises its quasi-judicial function. In the performance of its executive or legislative
functions, such as issuing rules and regulations, an administrative body need not comply with the
requirements of notice and hearing.
There is no dispute that pilotage as a profession has taken on the nature of a property
right. It is readily apparent that PPA-AO No. 04-92 unduly restricts the right of harbor pilots to
enjoy their profession before their compulsory retirement.

Lupangco vs Court of Appeals

Facts:
PRC issued Resolution No. 105 as parts of its "Additional Instructions to Examiness," to all
those applying for admission to take the licensure examinations in accountancy.
Petitioners, all reviewees preparing to take the licensure examinations in accountancy, filed with
the RTC a complaint for injunction with a prayer with the issuance of a writ of a preliminary
injunction against respondent PRC to restrain the latter from enforcing the above-mentioned
resolution and to declare the same unconstitutional.

Issue:
Can the Professional Regulation Commission lawfully prohibit the examiness from attending
review classes, receiving handout materials, tips, or the like 3 days before the date of the
examination?

Rule:

We realize that the questioned resolution was adopted for a commendable

purpose which is "to preserve the integrity and purity of the licensure
examinations." However, its good aim cannot be a cloak to conceal its
constitutional infirmities. On its face, it can be readily seen that it is
unreasonable in that an examinee cannot even attend any review class,
briefing, conference or the like, or receive any hand-out, review material, or
any tip from any school, college or university, or any review center or the like
or any reviewer, lecturer, instructor, official or employee of any of the
aforementioned or similar institutions.
The unreasonableness is more obvious in that one who is caught committing
the prohibited acts even without any ill motives will be barred from taking
future examinations conducted by the respondent PRC. Furthermore, it is
inconceivable how the Commission can manage to have a watchful eye on
each and every examinee during the three days before the examination
period.
Resolution No. 105 is not only unreasonable and arbitrary, it also infringes on
the examinees' right to liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. Respondent
PRC has no authority to dictate on the reviewees as to how they should
prepare themselves for the licensure examinations. They cannot be
restrained from taking all the lawful steps needed to assure the fulfillment of
their ambition to become public accountants. They have every right to make
use of their faculties in attaining success in their endeavors

People vs. Escano, Usana and Lopez[GR 129756-58, 28 January 2000]

First Division, Davide Jr. (CJ): 4 concur
Facts:
On 5 April 1995 and during a COMELEC gun ban, some law enforcers of the Makati Police At
about past midnight, they stopped a Kia Pride. P03 Suba saw a long firearm on the lap of
the person seated at the passenger seat, who was later identified as Virgilio Usana. They asked
the driver, identified as Julian D. Escao, to open the door. P03 Suba seized the long firearm, an
M-1 US Carbine, from Usana. When Escao, upon order of the police, parked along Sen. Gil
Puyat Ave., the other passengers were searched for more weapons. The three passengers were
thereafter brought to the police station Block 5 in the Kia Pride driven by PO3 Nonato. Upon
reaching the precinct, Nonato turned over the key to the desk officer. Since SPO4 de los Santos
was suspicious of the vehicle, he requested Escao to open the trunk. Escao readily agreed and
opened the trunk himself using his key.

Issue:
Whether the search conducted on Escanos car is illegal, and whether the evidenceacquired
therein would be sufficient to convict Lopez and Usana for possession of illegaldrugs.

Held:
The Court has ruled that not all checkpoints are illegal.
Those which are warranted by the exigencies of public order and are conducted in a way
least intrusive to motorists are allowed.
The check point herein conducted was in pursuance of the gun ban enforced by the COMELEC.
The facts adduced do not constitute a ground for a violation of the constitutional rights of the
accused against illegal search and seizure. PO3 Suba admitted that they were merely stopping
cars they deemed suspicious, such as those whose windows are heavily tinted just to see if
the passengers thereof were carrying guns. At best they would merely direct their flashlights
inside the cars they would stop, without opening the cars doors or subjecting its passengers to a
body search. There is nothing discriminatory in this as this is what the situation demands.

MICLAT v PEOPLE
August 31, 2011 | Peralta, J. | Petition for Review on Certiorari | Warrantless
Arrests - Plain View

Facts: Police operatives conducted a surveillance operation in Caloocan City

after being informed of drug-trading activities. The informant of the police
directed them to the residence of the accused. PO3 Antonio then positioned
himself at the perimeter of the house, while the rest of the members of the
group deployed themselves nearby. Through a small opening in the curtaincovered window, PO3Antonio peeped inside and saw accused arranging
several pieces of small plastic sachets which he believed to be containing
shabu. At the same instance they arrested the petitioner. Accused claimed
that he was watching TV with his father and sister when the police
operatives barraged themselves into their house, and that the seizure was
unlawful. SC denied the petition saying that the seizure was lawful under the
plain view doctrine.
ISSUE/S:
1. WON the warrantless arrest was valid YES
2. WON the seized drugs were admissible YES
1. RULING: Appeal DENIED. Sec 5(a) Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on
Criminal Procedure states that a warrantless arrest is reasonable and
valid when the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. Two elements must
be present in order to fall under this: (1) the person to be arrested must
execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is
done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.
The established facts reveal that Miclat was caught in flagrante delicto
and the police authorities effectively made a valid warrantless arrest. The
seizure made by PO3 Antonio of the plastic sachets from the petitioner
was not only incidental to a lawful arrest, but it also falls within the
purview of the plain view doctrine.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, paintiff-appellee,

vs
RUBEN BURGOS y TITO, defendant-appellant.
G.R. No. L-68955, September 4, 1986
FACTS:
Prosecution version: Upon obtaining information from one Cesar Masamlok, who
personally and voluntarily surrendered to the Davao del Sur police HQ stating that accused
Ruben Burgos forcibly recruited him to join the NPA with the use of a firearm against his life, a
team was dispatched the following day to arrest Burgos. Through the help of Pedro Burgos, the
brother of accused, the team was able to locate Ruben Burgos, who was plowing his field at the
time.
On the other hand, accused-appellants claims that he was taken to the PC barracks and
when he denied ownership of the gun, he was beaten, tortured, mauled and subjected to physical
agony. He was forced to admit possession or ownership of the gun. 2 witnesses as well as
Rubens wife Urbana, were presented by the defense in support of the accuseds denial of the
charge against him. Urbana claimed that it was Masamlok who left the firearm there.

ISSUE:
1. WON the arrest was lawful and WON the search of his house and the subsequent confiscation
of a firearm and documents conducted in a lawful manner.

HELD/RATIO:
1. NO. Art.III Sec.2 of the Constitution safeguards against wanton and unreasonable
invasion of the privacy and liberty of a citizen as to his person, papers and effects. In this case,
the arrest was made without warrant and since it does not fall within the exceptions of arrests
that can be made without a warrant, it is unlawful and therefore, the fruit of the poisonous tree
doctrine applies.
ReasoningUnder Sec.6 (a) of Rule 113, the officer arresting a person who has just
committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense must have personal
knowledge of that fact. The offense must also be committed in his presence or
within his view. There is no such personal knowledge in this case. Whatever

knowledge was possessed by the arresting officers, it came in its entirety from the
information furnished by Cesar Masamlok. The location of the firearm was given
by Burgos wife. At the time of arrest, Burgos was not in actual possession of any
firearm or subversive document. Neither was he committing any act which could
be described as subversive. He was, in fact, plowing his field at the time.
Umil vs Ramos

Facts: Military agents were dispatched to a Hospital in Quezon City to verify a

confidential information which was received by their office, about a "sparrow man" (NPA
member) who had been admitted to the hospital with a gunshot wound. That the wounded man in
the said hospital was among the five male "sparrows" who murdered two (2) Capcom mobile
patrols the day before, before a road hump in Caloocan City. The wounded man's name was
listed by the hospital management as "Ronnie Javellon," twenty-two (22) years old of Laguna
However it was disclosed later that the true name of the wounded man was Rolando Dural. In
view of this verification, Rolando Dural was transferred to the Regional Medical Services of the
CAPCOM, for security reasons. While confined thereat, he was positively identified by the
eyewitnesses as the one who murdered the 2 CAPCOM mobile patrols. He was then arrested
without warrant.

Issue: Is the Arrest and Detention Lawful?

Ruling: As a general rule, no peace officer or person has the power or authority to arrest anyone
without a warrant of arrest, except in those cases express authorized by law. The law expressly
allowing arrests without warrant is found in Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court which
states the grounds upon which a valid arrest, without warrant, can be conducted.
Mere suspicion of being a Communist Party member or a subversive is absolutely not a ground
for the arrest without warrant of the suspect. The Court predicated the validity of the questioned
arrests without warrant in these petitions, not on mere unsubstantiated suspicion, but on
compliance with the conditions set forth in Section 5, Rule 113, Rules of Court, a long existing
law, and which, for stress, are probable cause and good faith of the arresting peace officers, and,
further, on the basis of, as the records show, the actual facts and circumstances supporting the
arrests. More than the allure of popularity or palatability to some groups, what is important is
that the Court be right.

Go Vs Court of Appeals
Feb. 11, 1992

G.R. No. 101837

FACTS:
On July 2 1991, Eldon Maguan was allegedly shot to death by
accused Rolito Go due to a traffic altercation when petitioners car and the
victims car nearly bumped each other. The Security Guard of the Cravings
Bake Shop saw the whole incident and point herein petitioner as the
gunman, which he positively identified when questioned by the authorities.
Being convinced of the suspects identity, the police launched a manhunt
operation that caused petitioner to present himself before the San Juan
Police Station to verify the said issue; he was then detained by the police.
ISSUE:
Whether or not herein petitioners arrest valid?
RULING:
The reliance of both petitioner and the Solicitor General upon Umil
v.Ramos is, in the circumstances of this case, misplaced. In the instant case,
the offense for which petitioner was arrested was murder, an offense which
was obviously commenced and completed at one definite location in time
and space. No one had pretended that the fatal shooting of Maguan was a
"continuing crime."

..... None of the "arresting" officers had any "personal knowledge"

of facts indicating that petitioner was the gunman who had shot Maguan.
The information upon which the police acted had been derived from
statements made by alleged eyewitnesses to the shooting one stated that
petitioner was the gunman; another was able to take down the alleged
gunman's car's plate number which turned out to be registered in petitioner's
wife's name. That information did not, however, constitute "personal
knowledge."

Valdez vs People

FACTS: Bautista testified that at around 8:00 to 8:30 p.m. of 17 March 2003, he was conducting
the routine patrol along the National Highway in Barangay San Benito Norte, Aringay, La Union
together with Aratas and Ordoo when they noticed petitioner, lugging a bag, alight from a minibus. The tanods observed that petitioner, who appeared suspicious to them, seemed to be looking
for something. They thus approached him but the latter purportedly attempted to run away. They
chased him, put him under arrest and thereafter brought him to the house of Barangay Captain
Orencio Mercado (Mercado) where he, as averred by Bautista, was ordered by Mercado to open
his bag. Petitioners bag allegedly contained a pair of denim pants, eighteen pieces of eggplant
and dried marijuana leaves wrapped in newspaper and cellophane. It was then that petitioner was
taken to the police station for further investigation.

The RTC and the CA convicted the accused. The CA further held that there was probable cause
to arrest petitioner. It observed further:

That the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the seized
marijuana is of no moment. Such circumstance finds prominence only when the
existence of the seized prohibited drugs is denied. In this case, accused-appellant
himself testified that the marijuana wrapped in a newspaper was taken from his
bag. The corpus delicti of the crime, i.e.[,] the existence of the marijuana and his
possession thereof, was amply proven by accused-appellant Valdezs own
testimony

Ruling:

As to the illegality of the arrest effected by the tanods:

At the outset, we observe that nowhere in the records can we find any objection by petitioner to
the irregularity of his arrest before his arraignment. Considering this and his active participation
in the trial of the case, jurisprudence dictates that petitioner is deemed to have submitted to the
jurisdiction of the trial court, thereby curing any defect in his arrest. The legality of an arrest
affects only the jurisdiction of the court over his person. Petitioners warrantless arrest therefore
cannot, in itself, be the basis of his acquittal.

Stonehill vs Diokno (20 SCRA 383)

Facts: Respondents issued, on different dates, 42 search warrants against petitioners personally,
and/or corporations for which they are officers directing peace officers to search the persons of
petitioners and premises of their offices, warehouses and/or residences to search for personal
properties books of accounts, financial records, vouchers, correspondence, receipts, ledgers,
journals, portfolios, credit journals, typewriters, and other documents showing all business
transactions including disbursement receipts, balance sheets and profit and loss statements and

Bobbins(cigarettes) as the subject of the offense for violations of Central Bank Act, Tariff and
Customs Laws, Internal Revenue Code, and Revised Penal Code.

Upon effecting the search in the offices of the aforementioned corporations and on the respective
residences of the petitioners, there seized documents, papers, money and other records.
Petitioners then were subjected to deportation proceedings and were constrained to question the
legality of the searches and seizures as well as the admissibility of those seized as evidence
against them.

On March 20, 1962, the SC issued a writ of preliminary injunction and partially lifted the same
on June 29, 1962 with respect to some documents and papers.

Held:

Search warrants issued were violative of the Constitution and the Rules, thus, illegal or being
general warrants. There is no probable cause and warrant did not particularly specify the things
to be seized. The purpose of the requirement is to avoid placing the sanctity of the domicile and
the privacy of communication and correspondence at the mercy of the whims, caprice or passion
of peace officers.
Document seized from an illegal search warrant is not admissible in court as a fruit of a
poisonous tee. However, they could not be returned, except if warranted by the circumstances.
Petitioners were not the proper party to question the validity and return of those taken from the
corporations for which they acted as officers as they are treated as personality different from that
of the corporation.

People vs Marti

Facts:
Marti went to a packaging centre in Manila for the latter to deliver the package of the
former in Switzerland. Before the delivery, there is this standard operating procedure of Bureau
of Customs and Bureau of Post to open the package. A private individual, working in the said
establishment, opened the package. He saw a Marijuana in the box. Marti now is charged under
Dangerous Drugs Act. Marti contended however that the seizure is illegal therefore the evidence
against him should be inadmissible.
Issue:
Whether Marti can invoked his right against illegal seizure in the case at bar
Held:
No. The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures applies as a
restraint directed only against the government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of
the law. It is not meant to be invoked against acts of private individuals.