CrimPro Consolidated Case Digests

1.Padilla V CA
PADILLA v. COURT OFAPPEALS [269 SCRA 402 (1997)]
Nature: Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the CA.

Facts: Padilla figured in a hit and run accident in Oct 26, 1992. He was later on
apprehended with the help of a civilian witness. Upon arrest following high powered
firearms were found in his possession:
1. .357 caliber revolver with 6 live ammunition
2. M16 Baby Armalite magazine with ammo
3. .380 pietro beretta with 8 ammo
4. 6 live double action ammo of .38 caliber revolver

Padilla claimed papers of guns were at home. His arrest for hit and run incident
modified to include grounds of Illegal Possession of firearms. He had no papers. On
Dec. 3, 1994, Padilla was found guilty of Illegal Possession of Firearms under PD 1866
by the RTC of Angeles City. He was convicted and sentenced to an indeterminate
penalty from 17years 4 months, 1 day of reclusion temporal as minimum to 21 years of
reclusion perpetua as maximum. The Court of Appeals confirmed decision and
cancelled bail bond. RTC of Angeles City was directed to issue order of arrest. Motion
for reconsideration was denied by Court of Appeals. Padilla filed lots of other petitions
andall of a sudden, the Solicitor General made a complete turnaround and filed
Manifestation in Lieu of Comment praying for acquittal

Issues:1. WARRANTLESS ARREST: WON his was illegal and consequently, the firearm
sand ammunitions taken in the course thereof are inadmissible in evidence under the
exclusionary rule

No. Anent the first defense, petitioner questions the legality of his arrest. There is no
dispute that no warrant was issued for the arrest of petitioner, but that per se did not
make his apprehension at the Abacan Bridge illegal. Warrantless arrests are sanctioned
in Sec. 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedurea 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. When caught in flagrante delicto with possession of an unlicensed firearm
and ammo, petitioners warrantless arrest was proper since he was actually committing
another offence in the presence of all those officers. There was no supervening event
or a considerable lapse of time between the hit and run and the actual apprehension.
Because arrest was legal, the pieces of evidence are admissible. Instances when
warrantless search and seizure of property is valid:
1. warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section
12, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court[45] and by prevailing jurisprudence[46],
2. Seizure of evidence in "plain view", the elements of which are:[47]
(a). a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in
which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official
duties;
(b). the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who
had the right to be where they are;
(c). the evidence must be immediately apparent, and
(d). "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence without further
search.[48]
3. search of a moving vehicle.[49] Highly regulated by the government, the
vehicle's inherent mobility reduces expectation of privacy especially when
its transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion
amounting to probable cause that the occupant committed a criminal
activity.[50]
4. consented warrantless search, and
5. customs search.

2. People V Burgos
The State (P) vs. Suspect NPA Rebel (D)
GR L-68955, September 4, 1986 (144
SCRA 1)

Summary: An informant identified a certain person as a member of a subversive group

who forcibly recruited him and based on this information, the police went to arrest the
suspect. At the time of the arrest, the suspect was merely plowing his field.
Rule of Law: In a warrantless arrest, 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.
Facts: Cesar Masamlok personally and voluntarily surrendered to the authorities stating
that he was forcibly recruited by accused Ruben Burgos (D) as member of the NPA,
threatening him with the use of firearm against his life, if he refused. Pursuant to this
information, PC-INP members went to the house of the Burgos (D) and saw him plowing
his field when they arrived. One of the arresting offices called Burgos (D) and asked him
about the firearm. At first, Burgos (D) denied having any firearm, but later, Burgos's (D)
wife pointed to a place below their house where a gun was buried in the ground.
After recovery of said firearm, Burgos (D) pointed to a stock pile of cogon where the
officers recovered alleged subversive documents. Burgos (D) further admitted that the
firearm was issued to him by Nestor Jimenez, team leader of sparrow unit.

Issues: Is the warrantless arrest valid? Is the warrantless search valid?

Ruling: No. Under Section 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. (Sayo vs. Chief of Police, 80 Phil. 859).

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 the wife of Burgos (D).
In arrests without a warrant under Section 6(b), however, it is not enough that there is
reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a crime. A
crime must in fact or actually have been committed first. That a crime has actually been
committed is an essential precondition. It is not enough to suspect that a crime may
have been committed. The fact of the commission of the offense must be undisputed.
The test of reasonable ground applies only to the identity of the perpetrator.
In this case, the Burgos (D) was arrested on the sole basis of Masamlok's verbal report.
Masamlok led the authorities to suspect that the accused had committed a crime. They
were still fishing for evidence of a crime not yet ascertained. The subsequent recovery
of the subject firearm on the basis of information from the lips of a frightened wife
cannot make the arrest lawful. If an arrest without warrant is unlawful at the moment it is
made, generally nothing that happened or is discovered afterward can make it lawful.
The fruit of a poisoned tree is necessarily also tainted.

3. People V Amminudin
Facts: Idel Aminnudin, accused-appellant was arrested on June 25, 1984, shortly after
disembarking from the M/V Wilcon 9 at about 8:30 inthe evening, in Iloilo City. The
PC officers who were in fact waiting for him because of a tip from one their informers
simply accosted him, inspected his bag and finding what looked liked marijuana leaves
took him to their headquarters for investigation. The two bundles of suspect articles
were confiscated from him and later taken to the NBI laboratory for examination. It was
found to contain three kilos of what were later analyzed as marijuanaleaves by an
NBI forensic examiner. An information for violation of theDangerous Drugs Act was filed
against him. Later, the information was amended to include Farida Ali y Hassen, who
had also been arrested with him that same evening and likewise investigated. Both
were arraigned and pleaded not guilty. Subsequently, the fiscal filed a motion to dismiss
the charge against Ali on the basis of a sworn statement of the arresting officers
absolving her after a 'thorough investigation." The motion was granted, and trial
proceeded only against the accused-appellant, who was eventually convicted. In his
defense, Aminnudin disclaimed the marijuana, averring that all he had in his bag was

his clothing consisting of a jacket, two shirts and two pairs of pants. He alleged that he
was arbitrarily arrested and immediately handcuffed. His bag was confiscated without a
search warrant. At the PC headquarters, he was manhandled to force him to admit he
was carrying the marijuana, the investigator hitting him with a piece of wood in the chest
and arms even as he parried the blows while he was still handcuffed. He insisted he did
not even know what marijuana looked like and that his business was selling watches
and sometimes cigarettes. However the RTC rejected his allegations. Saying that he
only has twowatches during that time and that he did not sufficiently proved the injuries
allegedly sustained.

Issue: Whether or not search of defendants bag is legal.

Held: The search was illegal. Defendant was not caught in flagrante delicto, which
could allow warrantless arrest or search. At the moment of his arrest, he was not
committing a crime. Nor was he about to do so or had just done so. To all appearances,
he was like any of the other passengers innocently disembarking from the vessel. The
said marijuana therefore could not be appreciated as evidence against the defendant,
and furthermore he is acquitted of the crime as charged.

4. Posadas v. Court of Appeals, 188 SCRA 288

G.R. No. 89139 August 2, 1990ROMEO POSADAS y ZAMORA,
petitioner,vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
respondents.
GANCAYCO,
J.:
Facts: While Pat. Ungab and Umpar were conducting a surveillance along Magallanes
Street,Davao City, they spotted petitioner carrying a "buri" bag and they noticed him to
be acting suspiciously. They approached the petitioner and identified themselves as
members of the INP. Petitioner attempted to flee but his attempt to get away was
thwarted by the two notwithstanding his resistance. They then checked the "buri" bag of
the petitioner where they found one (1) caliber .38revolver, two (2) rounds of live

ammunition for a .38 caliber gun 2 a smoke (tear gas) grenade,

3 and two (2) live
ammunitions for a .22 caliber gun. The petitioner was asked to show the necessary
license or authority to possess the firearms and ammunitions but failed to do so.

Issue: Whether or not the warantless arrest and search was valid.

Ruling:An arrest without a warrant may be effected by a peace officer or private person,
among others, when in his presence the person to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; or when an offense has in
fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the
person arrested has committed it. Contrary to the argument of the Solicitor General that
when the two policemen approached the petitioner, he was actually committing or had
just committed the offense of illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions in the
presence of the police officers and consequently the search and seizure of the
contraband was incidental to the lawful arrest in accordance with Section 12, Rule 126
of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure; At the time the peace officers in this case
identified themselves and apprehended the petitioner as he attempted to flee they did
not know that he had committed, or was actually committing the offense of illegal
possession of firearms and ammunitions. They just suspected that he was hiding
something in the buri bag. They did not know what its contents were. The said
circumstances did not justify an arrest without a warrant.

5. GO V CA

GO VS. COURT OF APPEALS [206 SCRA 138; G.R. NO. 101837; 11 FEB 1992]

Facts: Petitioner, while traveling in the wrong direction on a one-way street, almost had
a collision with another vehicle. Petitioner thereafter got out of his car, shot the driver of
the other vehicle, and drove off. An eyewitness of the incident was able to take down
petitioners plate number and reported the same to the police, who subsequently
ordered a manhunt for petitioner. 6 days after the shooting, petitioner presented himself
in the police station, accompanied by 2 lawyers, the police detained him. Subsequently
a criminal charge was brought against him. Petitioner posted bail, the prosecutor filed
the case to the lower court, setting and commencing trial without preliminary
investigation. Prosecutor reasons that the petitioner has waived his right to preliminary

investigation as bail has been posted and that such situation, that petitioner has been
arrested without a warrant lawfully, falls under Section 5, Rule 113 and Section 7, Rule
112 of The 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure which provides for the rules and
procedure pertaining to situations of lawful warrantless arrests. Petitioner in his petition
for certiorari assails such procedure and actions undertaken and files for a preliminary
investigation.
Issues:
(1) WON warrantless arrest of petitioner was lawful.
(2) WON petitioner effectively waived his right to preliminary investigation.
Held: Petitioner and prosecutor err in relying on Umil v. Ramos, wherein the Court
upheld the warrantless arrest as valid effected 1 to 14 days from actual commission of
the offenses, which however constituted continuing crimes, i.e. subversion,
membership in an outlawed organization, etc. There was no lawful warrantless arrest
under Section 5, Rule 113. This is because the arresting officers were not actually there
during the incident, thus they had no personal knowledge and their information
regarding petitioner were derived from other sources. Further, Section 7, Rule 112, does
not apply.
Petitioner was not arrested at all, as when he walked in the police station, he neither
expressed surrender nor any statement that he was or was not guilty of any crime.
When a complaint was filed to the prosecutor, preliminary investigation should have
been scheduled to determine probable cause. Prosecutor made a substantive error,
petitioner is entitled to preliminary investigation, necessarily in a criminal charge, where
the same is required appear thereat. Petition granted, prosecutor is ordered to conduct
preliminary investigation, trial for the criminal case is suspended pending result from
preliminary investigation, petitioner is ordered released upon posting a bail bond.
6. Larranaga V CA
Larranaga vs CA
G.R. No. 130644
March 13, 1998
Facts:
Petitioner Larranaga was charged with two counts of kidnapping and serious illegal
detention before the RTC of Cebu City. He was arrested and was detained without the
filing of the necessary Information and warrant of arrest. The petitioner alleged that he
must be released and be subject to a preliminary investigation. However pending the
resolution of the Court for the petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with writs
of preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunction filed by the petitioner, RTC judge
issued a warrant of arrest directed to the petitioner.
Issue:
1. Whether petitioner is entitled to a regular preliminary investigation.

2. Whether petitioner should be released from detention pending the investigation.

Held:
1. Yes. Our ruling is not altered by the fact that petitioner has been arraigned on
October 14, 1997. The rule is that the right to preliminary investigation is waived when
the accused fails to invoke it before or at the time of entering a plea at
arraignment. Petitioner, in this case, has been actively and consistently demanding a
regular preliminary investigation even before he was charged in court. Also, petitioner
refused to enter a plea during the arraignment because there was a pending case in this
Court regarding his right to avail of a regular preliminary investigation. Clearly, the acts
of petitioner and his counsel are inconsistent with a waiver. Preliminary investigation is
part of procedural due process. It cannot be waived unless the waiver appears to be
clear and informed.
2. No. The filing of charges and the issuance of the warrant of arrest against a person
invalidly detained will cure the defect of that detention or at least deny him the right to
be released because of such defect.The original warrantless arrest of the petitioner was
doubtless illegal. Nevertheless, the Regional Trial Court lawfully acquired jurisdiction
over the person of the petitioner by virtue of the warrant of arrest it issued on August 26,
1993 against him and the other accused in connection with the rape-slay cases. It was
belated, to be sure, but it was nonetheless legal.

7. Malacat V CA
Facts:
On August 29, 1990 at about 6:30 in the evening, allegedly in response to bomb threats
reported seven days earlier, Rodolfo Yu of the Western Police District, Metropolitan
Police Force of the Integrated National Police, Police Station No. 3, Quiapo, Manila,
was on foot patrol with three other police officers (all of them in uniform) along Quezon
Boulevard, Quiapo, Manila, near the Mercury Drug store at Plaza Miranda. They
chanced upon two groups of Muslim-looking men, with each group, comprised of three
to four men, posted at opposite sides of the corner of stop and frisk, where a warrant
and seizure can be effected without necessarily being preceded by an arrest and
whose object is either to maintain the status quo momentarily while the police officer
seeks to obtain more information; and that the seizure of the grenade from Malacat
was incidental to a lawful arrest. The trial court thus found Malacat guilty of the crime of
illegal possession of explosives under Section 3 of PD 1866, and sentenced him to
suffer the penalty of not less than 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of Reclusion Temporal,
as minimum, and not more than 30 years of Reclusion Perpetua, as maximum. On 18
February 1994, Malacat filed a notice of appeal indicating that he was appealing to the
Supreme Court. However, the record of the case was forwarded to the Court of Appeals

(CA-GR CR 15988). In its decision of 24 January 1996, the Court of Appeals affirmed
the trial court. Manalili filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Whether the search made on Malacat is valid, pursuant to the exception of stop and
frisk.
Ruling:
The trial court ruled that the warrantless search and seizure of petitioner was akin to a
stop and frisk, where a warrant and seizure can be effected without necessarily being
preceded by an arrest and whose object is either to maintain the status quo
momentarily while the police officer seeks to obtain more information. Probable cause
was not required as it was not certain that a crime had been committed, however, the
situation called for an investigation, hence to require probable cause would have been
premature. The RTC emphasized that Yu and his companions were confronted with
an emergency, in which the delay necessary to obtain a warrant, threatens the
destruction of evidence and the officers had to act in haste, as petitioner and his
companions were acting suspiciously, considering the time, place and reported cases
of bombing. Further, petitioners group suddenly ran away in different directions as
they saw the arresting officers approach, thus it is reasonable for an officer to conduct
a limited search, the purpose of which is not necessarily to discover evidence of a
crime, but to allow the officer to pursue his investigation without fear of violence. The
trial court then ruled that the seizure of the grenade from petitioner was incidental to a
lawful arrest, and since petitioner later voluntarily admitted such fact to the police
investigator for the purpose of bombing the Mercury Drug Store, concluded that
sufficient evidence existed to establish petitioners guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the challenged decision of the Seventeenth Division of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 15988 is SET ASIDE for lack of jurisdiction on the part of
said Court and, on ground of reasonable doubt, the decision of 10 February 1994 of
Branch 5 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila is REVERSED and petitioner SAMMY
MALACAT y MANDAR is hereby ACQUITTED and ORDERED immediately released
from detention, unless his further detention is justified for any other lawful cause.
8. People V Aruta
PEOPLE VS. ARUTA [288 SCRA 626; G.R. NO. 120515; 13 APR 1998]
Friday, February 06, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes
Labels: Case Digests, Political Law
Facts: On Dec. 13, 1988, P/Lt. Abello was tipped off by his informant that a certain
Aling Rosa will be arriving from Baguio City with a large volume of marijuana and
assembled a team. The next day, at the Victory Liner Bus terminal they waited for the
bus coming from Baguio, when the informer pointed out who Aling Rosa was, the team

approached her and introduced themselves as NARCOM agents. When Abello asked
aling Rosa about the contents of her bag, the latter handed it out to the police. They
found dried marijuana leaves packed in a plastic bag marked cash katutak.
Instead of presenting its evidence, the defense filed a demurrer to evidence alleging the
illegality of the search and seizure of the items. In her testimony, the accused claimed
that she had just come from Choice theatre where she watched a movie Balweg.
While about to cross the road an old woman asked her for help in carrying a shoulder
bag, when she was later on arrested by the police. She has no knowledge of the identity
of the old woman and the woman was nowhere to be found. Also, no search warrant
was presented.
The trial court convicted the accused in violation of the dangerous drugs of 1972

Issue: Whether or Not the police correctly searched and seized the drugs from the
accused.

Held: The following cases are specifically provided or allowed by law:

1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section 12, Rule
126 of the Rules of Court 8 and by prevailing jurisprudence
2. Seizure of evidence in "plain view," the elements of which are: (a) a prior valid
intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in
the pursuit of their official duties; (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the
police who had the right to be where they are; (c) the evidence must be immediately
apparent, and (d) "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence without further search;
3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the government, the vehicle's
inherent mobility reduces expectation of privacy especially when its transit
in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable
cause that the occupant committed a criminal activity;
4. Consented warrantless search;
5.Customs Search
6. Stop and Frisk;

7. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances.

The essential requisite of probable cause must still be satisfied before a
warrantless search and seizure can be lawfully conducted.
The accused cannot be said to be committing a crime, she was merely crossing the
street and was not acting suspiciously for the Narcom agents to conclude that she was
committing a crime. There was no legal basis to effect a warrantless arrest of the
accuseds bag, there was no probable cause and the accused was not lawfully
arrested.
The police had more than 24 hours to procure a search warrant and they did not do so.
The seized marijuana was illegal and inadmissible evidence.

RULE 113, RULES OF COURT

Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when 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 paragraph (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.

RULE 126, RULES OF COURT

Section 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 regionwhere 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.
Section 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 windowof a house or any part of a
house or anything therein to execute the warrant or liberate himself or any person
lawfully aiding him when unlawfully detained therein.
Section 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 complained
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.

9. People V Claudio
Facts :
Anita was carrying a woven buri-like plastic bag which appeared to contain camote
tops,boarded a bus bound for the province. She placed the bag on the back seat.
Coincidentally,on board the bus,behind her sat a trained narcotics agent. The smell of

the marijuana got the agent's suspicion aroused. He inserted his finger inside the bag
and found out that what was inside the bag contains marijuana. After alighting the bus,
Anita was arrested by the agent.
Issue : Is there a valid arrest here??
Held :
Yes. The court ruled that the warrantless arrest was made under the in flagrante delicto
exception.The warrantless search being an incident to a lawful arrest is in itself lawful
citing Nolasco v. Pano, 147 SCRA 509 case. Therefore, there was no infirmity in the
seizure of the 1.1 kilos of maijuana which was incidental to her lawful warrantless arrest.
Yes. In the case at bar, alibi does not deserve much credit as it was established only by
the accused herself. Moreover, it is a well-established rule that alibi cannot prevail over
positive testimony. The judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED.
Sec. 4, Art II of R.A. 5425
The provision provides the Sale, Administration, Delivery Distribution and Transportation
of Prohibited Drugs where the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging
from twenty thousand to thirty thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person who,
unless authorized by law, shall sell, administer, deliver, give away to another, distribute,
dispatch in transit or transport any prohibited drug, or shall act as a broker in any of
such transactions. Although the accused contends that she may not be convicted of this
provision, the court held that contention is without merit. A closer perusal of the subject
provision shows that it is not only delivery which is penalized but also the sale,
administration, distribution and transportation of prohibited drugs. Claudio was caught
transporting 1.1 kilos of marijuana, thus the lower court did not err in finding her guilty of
violating Sec. 4.
As held in the case of People v. Toledo, (140 SCRA 259, 267) "the possession of such
considerable quantity as three plastic bags of marijuana leaves and seeds coupled with
the fact that he is not a user of prohibited drugs cannot indicate anything except the
intention of the accused to sell, distribute and deliver said marijuana.
Rule 126, Sec. 12

The provision provides the Search incident to lawful arrest where a person lawfully
arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as
proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant in paragraph (12a).
Thus, appellant Claudio was caught transporting prohibited drugs. Pat. Daniel Obia did
not need a warrant to arrest Claudio as the latter was caught in flagrante delicto. The
warrantless search being an incident to a lawful arrest is in itself lawful. (Nolasco v.
Pano, 147 SCRA 509). Therefore, there was no infirmity in the seizure of the 1.1 kilos of
marijuana.

10. People V Tangliben

PEOPLE VS. TANGLIBEN [184 SCRA 220; G.R. No.L-63630; 6 Apr 1990]
Facts: Patrolmen Silverio and Romeo Punzalan were conductingsurveillance at the San
Fernando Victory Liner Terminal. At around 9:30pm they noticed a person, Medel
Tangliben, carrying a traveling bag who acted suspiciously. They confronted him,
inspected his bag, and there they found marijuana leaves. The accused was then taken
to the Police Headquarters for further investigations. The TC found Tangliben guilty of
violating sec.4 art. 2 of the RA 6425 or the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.
Issue: Whether or Not there was an unlawful search due to lack of search warrant.
Held: No. Rule 113 sec. 5 provides the a peace officer or a private person may w/o a
warrant arrest a person when in his presence the person to be arrested has committed,
is committing,

or

is

attempting

to

commit

an

offense.

In the present case, the accused was found to have been committingpossession of
marijuana and can be therefore searched lawfully even without a search warrant.
Another reason is that this case poses urgency on the part of the arresting police
officers. It was found out that an informer pointed to the accused telling the policemen
that the accused was carrying marijuana. The police officers had to act quickly and
there was not enough time to secure a search warrant

11. People V Malmsted

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
12. People V Montilla
Political Law Search and Seizure Informers Tip Warrantless Arrest
On 19 June 1994 at about 2pm, police officers Talingting and Clarin were informed by
an asset that a drug courier would be arriving from Baguio to Dasmarias carrying an
undetermined amount of marijuana. The next day, the informant pointed at Montilla as
the courier who was waiting in a waiting shed Brgy Salitran, Dasmarias. Montilla was
then apprehended and he was caught in possession of a bag and a carton worth 28
kilos of marijuana. Montilla denied the allegation and he said he came to Cavite from
Baguio for work and he does not have any effects with him at that time except for some
pocket money. He was sentenced to death thereafter. He averred that the search and
seizure conducted was illegal for there was no warrant and that he should have been
given the opportunity to cross examine the informant. He said that if the informant has
given the cops the information about his arrival as early as the day before his
apprehension, the cops should have ample time to secure a search warrant.
ISSUE: Whether or not the warrantless arrest conducted is legal.
HELD: The SC ruled that the warrantless arrest is legal and so was the warrantless
search. Sec 2 Art 3 of the Constitution has its exception when it comes to warrantless
searches, they are:
(1) customs searches;
(2) searches of moving vehicles,
(3) seizure of evidence in plain view;

(4) consented searches;

(5) searches incidental to a lawful arrest;
(6) stop and frisk measures have been invariably recognized as the traditional
exceptions.
In the case at bar, it should be noted that the information relayed by informant to the
cops was that there would be delivery of marijuana at Barangay Salitran by a courier
coming from Baguio in the early morning of June 20, 1994. Even assuming that the
policemen were not pressed for time, this would be beside the point for, under these
circumstances, the information relayed was too sketchy and not detailed enough for the
obtention of the corresponding arrest or search warrant. While there is an indication that
the informant knew the courier, the records do not reveal that he knew him by name.
On such bare information, the police authorities could not have properly applied for a
warrant, assuming that they could readily have access to a judge or a court that was still
open by the time they could make preparations for applying therefor, and on which there
is no evidence presented by the defense. In determining the opportunity for obtaining
warrants, not only the intervening time is controlling but all the coincident and ambient
circumstances should be considered, especially in rural areas.
A legitimate warrantless arrest, as above contemplated, necessarily cloaks the arresting
police officer with authority to validly search and seize from the offender
(1) dangerous weapons, and
(2) those that may be used as proof of the commission of an offense.