Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

RODOLFO ESPANO vs.

COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES


G.R. No. 120431

April 1, 1998

Facts:
Pat. Pagilagan together with other police officers went to Zamora and Pandacan
Streets, Manila to confirm reports of drug pushing in the area. They saw petitioner selling
something to another person. After the alleged buyer left, they approached petitioner,
identified themselves as policemen, and frisked him. The search yielded two plastic cellophane
tea bags of marijuana. When asked if he had more marijuana, he replied that there was more
in his house. The policemen went to his residence where they found ten more cellophane tea
bags of marijuana. Petitioner was brought to the police headquarters where he was charged of
possession of prohibited drugs.
Issue:
Whether or not the pieces of evidence were inadmissible
Ruling:
The Supreme Court held that Section 5 Rule 113 of the Rules of Court provides:
Arrest without warrant; when lawful a peace officer or a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person:
When, in the presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense . . .
Petitioners arrest falls squarely under the aforecited rule. He was caught in flagrante
as a result of a buy bust operation conducted by police officers on the basis of information
received regarding the illegal trade of drugs within the area. The police officer saw petitioner
handling over something to an alleged buyer. After the buyer left, they searched him and
discovered two cellophane of marijuana. His arrest was, therefore, lawful and the two
cellophane bag of marijuana seized were admissible in evidence, being fruits of the crime.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MIKAEL MALMSTEDT


G.R. No. 91107
June 19, 1991

Facts:
Captain Alen Vasco, the commanding officer of the first regional command (NARCOM)
stationed at camp Dangwa, ordered his men to set up a temporary checkpoint for the purpose
of checking all vehicles coming from the Cordillera Region. The order to establish a checkpoint
was prompted by persistent reports that vehicles coming from Sagada were transporting
marijuana and other prohibited drugs. And an information also was received about a Caucasian
coming from Sagada had in his possession prohibited drugs.
In the afternoon the bus where accused was riding stopped. Sgt. Fider and CIC Galutan
boarded the bus and announced that they were members of the NARCOM and that they would
conduct an inspection. During the inspection CIC Galutan noticed a bulge on accused waist.
Suspecting the bulge on accused waist to be a gun, the officer asked for accuseds passport
and other identification papers. When accused failed to comply, the officer required him to
bring out whatever it was that was bulging o his waist. And it turned out to be a pouched bag
and when accused opened the same bag the officer noticed four suspicious looking objects
wrapped in brown packing tape. It contained hashish, a derivative of marijuana.
Thereafter, the accused was invited outside the bus for questioning. But before he
alighted from the bus accused stopped to get two travelling bags. The officer inspects the bag.
It was only after the officers had opened the bags that the accused finally presented his
passport. The two bags contained a stuffed toy each, upon inspection the stuff toy contained
also hashish.
Issue:
Whether or not there is a violation of the constitutional right against unreasonable
search and seizure
Ruling:
The Supreme Court held that under Section 5 Rule 113 of the Rules of Court provides:
Arrest without warrant; when lawful a peace officer or a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person:
a) When, in the presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing,
or is attempting to commit an offense;
b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts
indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
c)
When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporary confined while his
case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another
Accused was searched and arrested while transporting prohibited drugs. A crime was actually
being committed by the accused and he was caught in flagrante delicto, thus the search made
upon his personal effects falls squarely under paragraph 1 of the foregoing provision of law,
which allows a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest.
Probable cause has been defined as such facts and circumstances which could lead a
reasonable, discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed, and that
the object sought in connection with the offense are in the placed sought to be searched.
When NARCOM received the information that a Caucasian travelling from Sagada to Baguio
City was carrying with him a prohibited drug, there was no time to obtain a search warrant.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. IDEL AMINNUDIN y AHNI


G.R.No. 74869

July 6, 1988

Facts:
The PC (Philippine Constabulary) officer received a tip from one of their informers that
the accused was on board a vessel bound for Iloilo City and was carrying marijuana. He was
identified by name. Acting on this tip, they waited for him in the evening and approached him
as he descended from the gangplank after the informer pointed at him. They detained him and
inspected the bag he was carrying. It was found to contained three kilos of what were later
analyzed as marijuana leaves by the NBI forensic examiner. On the basis of the finding, the
corresponding charge was then filed against Aminnudin.
Issue:
Whether or not accused constitutional right against unreasonable serach and seizure
is violated
Ruling:
The Supreme Court Held that warrantless arrest allowed under Rule 113 of the rules of
court not justified unless the accused was caught in flagrante or a crime was about to be
committed or had just been committed.
A vessels and aircraft are subject to warrantless searches and seizures for violation of the
customs law because these vehicles may be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction
before the warrant can be secured.
In the present case, from the conflicting declarations of the PC witnesses, it is clear that
they had at least two days within which they could have obtained a warrant to arrest and
search Aminnudin who was coming to Iloilo on the M/V Wilcon 9. His name was known. The
vehicle was identified. The date of his arrival was certain. And from the information they have
received, they could have persuaded a judge that there was a probable cause, indeed, to
justify the issuance of a warrant. Yet they did nothing. The Bill of Rights was ignored altogether
because the PC lieutenant who was the head of the arresting team had determine on his own
authority that a search warrant was not necessary.
The evidence of probable cause should be determined by a judge and not law
enforcement agents.
ACQUITTED
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. DON RODRIGUEZA
G.R. No. 95902

February 4, 1992

Facts:
CIC Taduran et al was in their headquarters at the office of the Narcotics Regional Unit
at Camp Bagong Ibalon, Legaspi City when a confidential informer arrived and told them that
there was an ongoing illegal traffic of prohibited drugs. They form a team to conduct a buy
bust operation. The money with ultra violet powder was given to Tadura who acted as the
poseur buyer. He was told to look for a certain Don, The alleged seller of prohibited drug.
Tudara went to Tagas alone, and while along the road he met Samuel Segovia. He asked
Segovia where he could find Don and where he could buy marijuana. Segovia left for a while
when he return he was accompanied by Don.
Don gave Tudaran a certain object wrapped in a plastic which was later identified as
marijuana and received payment thereof. Thereafter Taduran return to the headquarter and
made a report.
In the evening they arrested appellant however they ae not armed with warrant of
arrest.
Then they conducted a raid in the house of Jovencio Rodriqueza, father of appellant.
During the raid they were able to confiscate dried marijuana leaves and a plastic syringe. The

search however was not authorized by any search warrant.


Ruling:
A search warrant to be valid, must generally be authorized by search warrant duly issued by
proper government authority. The court has allowed government authorities to conduct
searches and seizure even without search warrant. Thus, when the search is incidental to a
lawful arrest, when it is made on vessels, aircraft for violation of custom laws, when it made to
automobile for the purpose of preventing violation of smuggling or immigration laws, when it
involves prohibited article in plain view or in case of inspection of building and other premises
for the enforcement of fire, sanitary and building regulation.
In the case at bar the raid conducted was not authorized by search warrant and it does not
appear that the situation falls any of the aforementioned cases.
Buy bust must be in flagrante delicto = requires that the suspected dealer must be
caught red handed in the act of selling marijuana or any prohibited drugs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EDISON SUCRO
G.R. No. 93239

March 18, 1991

Facts:
Pat. Roy fulgencio, a member of the INP Kalibo, Aklan was instructed by P/Lt Vicente
Seraspi Jr., Station commander, to monitor the activities of appellant. Fulgencio positioned
himself to a house, adjacent of which i a chapel. Fulgencio saw appellant enter the chapel
taking something which turn out later to be marijuana from a compartment of a cart found
inside the chapel and return to the street where he handed the same to a buyer.
Fulgencio radioed Seraspi and reported the activity, Seraspi instructed Fulgencio to
continue monitoring.
At about 6:30 PM Fulgencio again called up Sraspi to report the third buyer later
identified as Ronnie Macabante, was transacting with appellant.
At that point, the team seraspi proceeded to the area and fulgencio told seraspi to
intercept Macabante and Appellant. Team Seraspi caught up with macabante at a crossing.
Upon seeing the police Macabante throw something at the ground which turned to a tea bag of
marijuana. Macabante admitted that he brought the same from appellant. The police team was
able to overtake and arrest appellant.
Issue:
1. Whether or not the arrest without warrant of the accused is lawful
2. Whether or not the evidence resulting from arrest is admissible
Ruling:
The Supreme Court held that under Section 5 Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure for
the instance that arrest without warrant is considered lawful. A peace officer or a private
person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be
arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b)
When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on
personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it;
and (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his
case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. In
cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall
be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in
accordance with section 7 of Rule 112.
An offense is committed in the presence or within the view of an officer when the officer sees
the offense, although at the distance, or hears the disturbance created thereby and proceed at
once at the scene the act of surveillance
Second requirement: the act of macabante, throwing of the marijuana and the admission,
constitute that he just committed an illegal act which the police officer had personal
knowledge, being members of the team which monitors Sucros nefarious activity
People vs bati police officers have personal knowledge of the actual commission of the crime
when it had earlier conducted surveillance activities.
Evidence - ad

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. NORMANDO DEL ROSARIO Y LOPEZ


G.R. No. 109633

July 20, 1994

Facts:
Del Rosario was charged with illegal possession of firearms and ammutions and illegal
sale of regulated drugs
Upon application of SPO3 Raymundo Untiveros of PNP Cavite, before RTC judge Arturo
de Guia issued a search warrant authorizing the search and seizure of an : undetermined
quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride commonly known as shabu and its
paraphernalia in the premises of appellants house. However, the search warrant was not
implemented immediately due to lack of police personnel to form the raiding team.
In the course of the search they found a black canister containing shabu, an aluminum
foil, a plastic .22 caliber, three set of ammunitions and three wallets containing the marked
money.
Issue:
Whether or not there is a violation of the constitutional right against unreasonable
search and seizure
Ruling:
The Supreme Court held that the accused cannot be convicted of the illegal possession
of firearms and ammunitions. The search warrant implemented by the raiding party authorized
only the search and seizure of the described quantity of shabu and paraphernalia.
A search warrant is not a sweeping authority empowering a raiding party to undertake
a fishing expedition to seize and confiscate any and all kinds of evidence or articles relating to
a crime. The constitution itself and the Rules of Court specifically mandate that the search
warrant must particularly describe the things to be seized. Thus, the search warrant was no
authority for the police officers to seize the firearms which was not mentioned, much less
described with particularity, in the search warrant.
Neither may it maintain that the gun was seized in the course of an arrest, for as earlier
observed, accused arrest was far from regular and legal. Aid firearm, having been illegally
seized, the same is not admissible in evidence. missible because the arrest is valid
ROMEO POSADAS y ZAMORA vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and THE
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 89139

August 2, 1990

Facts:
Pat. Ursicio Ungad and Pat. Umbra Umpar were conducting surveillance along
Magallanes Street Davao City. While they were within the preemies they spotted petitioner

carrying a buri bag and they noticed him to be acting suspiciously. They approached petitioner
and identified themselves as members of the INP. Petitioner attempted to flee but his attempt
to get away was thwarted by the two. They checked the bag and found one caliber and two
ammunitions.
Issue:
Whether or not the arrest is a valid warrantless arrest
Ruling:
Section 12 Rule 126 of the 1985 Rules on criminal Procedure is not applicable because
at the time the police officers identified themselves and apprehended petitioner as he
attempted to flee, they did not know that he had committed or actually committing the offense
of illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions. They just suspected that he is hiding
something.
The probable cause is that when the petitioner acted suspiciously and attempted to
flee with the buri bag there was a probable cause that he was concealing something illegal in
the bag and it was the right and duty of the police officers to inspect the same
It is too much indeed to require the police officers to search the bag in the possession
of the petitioner only after they shall have obtained a search warrant for the purpose. Such
exercise may prove to be useless, futile and mush too late.

Оценить