Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

RODOLFO ESPANO vs CA On the other hand the Fiscal appeared at the proceedings to prosecute

the petitioner, indicating that he was in agreement with the complaint

The said accused have in his possession and under his custody and already filed." There was no denial thereof by petitioner.
control twelve (12) plastic cellophane (bags) containing crushed flowering
tops, marijuana weighing 5.5 grams which is a prohibited drug. ISSUE: WON the issuance of arrest warrant valid.
In violation of Article II, Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended,
otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act. HELD: Yes. With the express admission by petitioner that she had
The evidence for the prosecution, based on the testimony of Pat. Romeo posted the required bail to obtain her provisional liberty, it becomes
Pagilagan, shows that he and other police officers of the Western Police futile to assail the validity of the issuance of the warrants of arrest.
District (WPD), Narcotics Division went to Zamora and Pandacan Streets, Posting of a bail bond constitutes waiver of any irregularity attending
Manila to confirm reports of drug pushing in the area. the arrest of a person, stop him from discussing the validity of his
They saw petitioner selling something to another person. arrest.
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. Petitioner was arrested by the Philippine Constabulary.
When asked if he had more marijuana, he replied that there was more in The arrest was without warrant.
his house.
He has been detained at Camp Alagar, Cagayan de Oro City, since his
The policemen went to his residence where they found ten more arrest to the present.
cellophane tea bags of marijuana. The City Fiscal of Cagayan de Oro filed an information for murder
Petitioner was brought to the police headquarters where he was charged against petitioner.
with possession of prohibited drugs The information was accompanied by the affidavits of several persons.
Petitioner contends that the trial and appellate courts erred in convicting him
on the basis of the following: (a) the pieces of evidence seized were
They were not subscribed before Judge Villaraza who did not ask the
inadmissible; (b) the superiority of his constitutional right to be presumed affiants to ratify their oaths nor did he ask them searching questions.
innocent over the doctrine of presumption of regularity; (c) he was denied the The information has no certification by the City Fiscal that he had
constitutional right of confrontation and to compulsory process; and (d) his conducted a preliminary investigation.
conviction was based on evidence which was irrelevant and not properly It is obvious that the information was filed with Judge Villaraza so that he
identified. would conduct a preliminary examination and thereafter issue a warrant
of arrest.
ISSUE: WON the petitioners arrest was lawful.
The circumstances attending the issuance of the warrant of arrest have
HELD: Yes. Petitioners arrest falls squarely under the aforecited rule. He been invoked in the petition for habeas corpus.
was caught in flagranti as a result of a buy-bust operation conducted by And it is the warrant of arrest that has been invoked in the return of the
police officers on the basis of information received regarding the illegal trade writ to justify petitioner's detention and it is also the basis for the decision
of drugs within the area of Zamora and Pandacan Streets, Manila. The police of Judge Rosete on denying the petition.
officer saw petitioner handing over something to an alleged buyer. After the Petitioner claims, and Judge Rosete agrees, that respondent Judge
buyer left, they searched him and discovered two cellophanes of marijuana. Villaraza should not have issued a warrant of arrest without a
His arrest was, therefore, lawful and the two cellophane bags of marijuana preliminary examination of the witnesses for the prosecution.
seized were admissible in evidence, being the fruits of the crime.
ISSUE: WON the arrest was valid.
The 1987 Constitution guarantees freedom against unreasonable searches
and seizures under Article III, Section 2. An exception to the said rule is a HELD: Although the warrant of arrest was irregularly issued, any infirmity
warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest for dangerous weapons attached to it was cured when petitioner submitted himself to the
or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an jurisdiction of the court by applying for bail, submitting a
offense. It may extend beyond the person of the one arrested to include memorandum in support thereof, and filing a motion for
the premises or surroundings under his immediate control. In this case, reconsideration when his application was denied.
the ten cellophane bags of marijuana seized at petitioners house after his
HON. RICARDO G. PAPA, as Chief of Police of Manila vs REMEDIOS
arrest at Pandacan and Zamora Streets do not fall under the said exceptions.
MAGO and HILARION U. JARENCIO, as Presiding Judge of Branch 23
JOHN W. TERRY VS OHIO The head of the counter-intelligence unit of the Manila Police Department,
acting upon a reliable information to the effect that a certain shipment of
The officer noticed the Petitioner talking with another individual on a street personal effects, allegedly misdeclared and undervalued, would be
corner while repeatedly walking up and down the same street. released from the customs zone of the port of Manila and loaded on two
The men would periodically peer into a store window and then talk some trucks,
more. The men also spoke to a third man whom they eventually followed Upon orders of petitioner Ricardo Papa, Chief of Police of Manila and a
up the street. duly deputized agent of the Bureau of Customs, conducted surveillance
The officer believed that the Petitioner and the other men were casing a The load of the two trucks consisting of nine bales of goods, and the two
store for a potential robbery. trucks, were seized without warrant on instructions of the Chief of Police.
The officer decided to approach the men for questioning, and given the Upon investigation, a person claimed ownership of the goods and showed
nature of the behavior the officer decided to perform a quick search of the to the policemen a "Statement and Receipts of Duties Collected in
men before questioning. Informal Entry No. 147-5501", issued by the Bureau of Customs in the
A quick frisking of the Petitioner produced a concealed weapon (pistol and name of a certain Bienvenido Naguit.
revolver) and the Petitioner was charged with carrying a concealed ISSUE: WON the search was valid
weapon. HELD: Yes. The Chief of the Manila Police Department, Ricardo G. Papa,
having been deputized in writing by the Commissioner of Customs, could,
ISSUE: WON a search for weapons without probable cause for arrest is an for the purposes of the enforcement of the customs and tariff laws, effect
unreasonable search under the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution searches, seizures, and arrests, and it was his duty to make seizure, among
others, of any cargo, articles or other movable property when the same may
HELD: It was held that it is a reasonable search when an officer be subject to forfeiture or liable for any fine imposed under customs and tariff
performs a quick seizure and a limited search for weapons on a person laws. The Tariff and Customs Code authorizes him to demand assistance of
that the officer reasonably believes could be armed. A typical beat officer any police officer to effect said search and seizure, and the latter has the
would be unduly burdened by being prohibited from searching individuals legal duty to render said assistance. The Tariff and Customs Code does
that the officer suspects to be armed. The court distinguished between an not require said warrant herein. The Code authorizes persons having
investigatory "stop" and an arrest, and between a "frisk" of the outer clothing police authority under Section 2203 of the Tariff and Customs Code to
for weapons and a full-blown search for evidence of crime. enter, pass through or search any land, inclosure, warehouse, store or
building, not being a dwelling house; and also to inspect, search and
FAUSTINA CALLANTA vs. HON. FELIPE VILLANUEVA examine any vessel or aircraft and any trunk, package, box or envelope
or any person on board, or stop and search and examine any vehicle,
The denial by respondent Judge Felipe Villanueva grant the motions to beast or person suspected of holding or conveying any dutiable or
quash the 2 complaints for grave oral defamation against petitioner gave prohibited article introduced into the Philippines contrary to law,
rise to these suits for certiorari without mentioning the need of a search warrant in said cases. The
The validity of the issuance of the warrants of arrest by Judge Villanueva guaranty of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures is construed
being contested on the ground that it should have been the City Fiscal as recognizing a necessary difference between a search of a dwelling house
who should have conducted the preliminary examination. or other structure in respect of which a search warrant may readily be
There was then, in the opinion of petitioner's counsel, a jurisdictional obtained and a search of a ship, motorboat, wagon, or automobile for
infirmity. contraband goods, where it is not practicable to secure a warrant, because
From the very petition itself, however, it was shown that after such the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which
issuance of the warrants of arrest with the bail fixed in the amount of the warrant must be sought. Having declared that the seizure by the
P600.00, petitioner posted such required bail bonds, thus obtaining her members of the Manila Police Department of the goods in question was in
provisional liberty. accordance with law and by that seizure the Bureau of Customs had
If the Fiscal did not agree with the Judge in the latter's investigation of the acquired jurisdiction overthe goods for the purposes of the enforcement of
case, he would have asked for a further reinvestigation of the cases. But the customs and tariff laws, to the exclusion of the Court of First Instance of
the City Fiscal did not. Manila.
PEOPLE vs. CFI of RIZAL vehicle. In addition, the search was conducted at the vicinity of Lima Gate
The Regional Anti-Smuggling Action Center (RASAC) was informed by of the Manila Domestic Airport which, like every gate in the airport perimeter,
an undisclosed Informer that a shipment of highly dutiable goods would has a checkpoint. Finally, the petitioner and his companions agreed to the
be transported to Manila from Angeles City on a blue Dodge car. search after one of them was caught with a suspicious-looking packet. Under
Upon order of the Chief of Intelligence and Operations Branch, RASAC- these circumstances, the search and seizure is legal and the seized items
MBA, Col. Antonio Abad, Jr., the RASAC agents stopped the blue Dodge are admissible in evidence.
car and saw boxes therein (resp. do not know the contents). PEOPLE vs MIKAEL MALMSTEDT
Respondents (Jessie Hope & Monina Medina) were asked where they Commanding Officer of the First Regional Command (NARCOM), ordered
were bringing the boxes, to which respondent Medina replied that they his men to set up a temporary checkpoint for the purpose of checking all
were bringing them (boxes) to the Tropical Hut at Epifanio de los Santos. vehicles coming from the Cordillera Region as prompted by persistent
The agents together with the respondents went to Tropical Hut reports that vehicles coming from Sagada were transporting marijuana
They waited for the man who according to Monina Medina was supposed and other prohibited drugs.
to receive the boxes. The information was received that a Caucasian coming from Sagada had
As the man did not appear, Col. Abad "called off the mission" and brought in his possession prohibited drugs.
respondents and their car to Camp Aguinaldo Mikael Malmstedt, a Swedish national, entered the Philippines for the third
The boxes were opened upon the orders of Col. Abad and there revealed time in December 1988 as a tourist.
several branded watches that are believed to be untaxed. Accused left for Baguio City and the following day, he took a bus to
Thereafter they requested the Bureau of Customs for the issuance of a Sagada and stayed in that place for 2 days.
warrant for the seizure of the articles and the blue Dodge car. The bus where accused was riding was stopped
Collector of Customs issued the warrant pursuant to Sec. 2530 of the Upon inspection, they noticed a bulge on accused's waist.
Tariff and Customs Code. The bulging object turned out to contain hashish, a derivative of
ISSUE: WON the seizure of the merchandise in a moving vehicle to enforce marijuana.
customs law without warrant of seizure valid. Thereafter, accused was invited outside the bus for questioning. But
HELD: Yes. Persons exercising police authority under the customs law before he alighted from the bus, accused stopped to get two (2) travelling
may effect search and seizure without a search warrant in the bags from the luggage carrier. Teddy bears with hashish
enforcement of customs laws (Section 2203 of the Tariff and Customs Accused was charged of violation of Section 4, Art. II of Republic Act
Code). The State holds on the proposition that the rules governing search 6425, as amended, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of
and seizure had been liberalized when a moving vehicle is the object of the 1972, as amended.
search and the necessity of a prior warrant has been relaxed on the ground ISSUE: WON search of his personal effects was illegal because it was made
of practicality, considering that before a warrant could be obtained, the without a search warrant.
place, things and persons to be searched must be described to the HELD: No. The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure
satisfaction of the issuing judge a requirement which borders on in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches
impossibility in the case of smuggling effected by the use of a moving vehicle and seizures. However, where the search is made pursuant to a lawful
that can transport contraband from one place to another with impunity. arrest, there is no need to obtain a search warrant.
PEOPLE vs WILSON B. QUE A lawful arrest without a warrant may be made by a peace officer or a private person
SPO1 Dexter Corpuz, a member of the Provincial Task Force on Illegal under the following circumstances:
Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private person may, without
Logging, received an information that a ten-wheeler truck loaded with
a warrant, arrest a person:
illegally cut lumber will pass through Ilocos Norte. (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed is actually
When they apprehended the said truck, they checked the cargo and found committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
that it contained coconut slabs. (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal
When interviewed, accused-appellant told SPO1 Corpuz that there were knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
sawn lumber inserted in between the coconut slabs. (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 temporarily confined while
Accused-appellant Wilson Que failed to present supporting documents for his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to
the Cargos, specifically: (1) certificate of lumber origin, (2) certificate of another.
transport agreement, (3) auxiliary invoice, (4) receipt from the DENR, and Accused was searched and arrested while transporting prohibited drugs
(5) certification from the forest ranger regarding the origin of the coconut (hashish). A crime was actually being committed by the accused and he
slabs. was caught in flagrante delicto. Thus, the search made upon his
All he could show was a certification from the Community Environment personal effects falls squarely under paragraph (1) of the foregoing
and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) that he legally acquired the provisions of law, which allow a warrantless search incident to a lawful
coconut slabs. arrest.
Wilson Que was charged with violation of Section 68 of P.D. 705 as PEOPLE vs CHUA HO SAN @ TSAY HO SAN
amended by E.O. 277. In response to reports of rampant smuggling of firearms and other
ISSUE: WON the warrantless search and seizure valid. contraband, Chief of Police Jim Lagasca Cid of Bacnotan Police Station,
HELD: Yes. A warrantless search had been upheld in cases of moving LaUnion began patrolling the Bacnotan coastline with his officers.
vehicles, and the seizure of evidence in plain view. The mobility of motor While monitoring the coastal area of Barangay Bulala, he intercepted a
vehicles makes it possible for the vehicle to be searched to move out of the radio call at around 12:45 p.m. from Barangay Captain Juan Almoite of
locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. When a vehicle Barangay Tammocalao requesting for police assistance regarding an
is stopped and subjected to an extensive search, such a warrantless unfamiliar speedboat the latter had spotted.
search has been held to be valid as long as the officers conducting the According to Almoite, the vessel looked different from the boats ordinarily
search have reasonable or probable cause to believe before search used by fisher folk of the area and was poised to dock at Tammocalao
that they will find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime, shores.
in the vehicle to be searched. Cid and six of his men led by SPO1 Reynoso Badua, proceeded
TOMAS SALVADOR vs PEOPLE immediately to Tammocalao beach and there conferred with Almoite.
A Special Mission Group from the PAF Special Operations Squadron, Cid then observed that the speedboat ferried a lone male passenger, who
conducted routine surveillance operations at the Manila Domestic Airport was later identified as Chua Ho San.
to check on reports of alleged drug trafficking and smuggling being
When the speedboat landed, the male passenger alighted, carrying a
facilitated by certain PAL personnel. (Aurelio Mandin, Danilo Santos and
multicolored strawbag, and walked towards the road.
petitioner Tomas Salvador)
Upon seeing the police officers, the man changed direction.
Later, they reported that the 3 persons who earlier boarded the Airbus 300
Badua held Chuas right arm to prevent him from fleeing.
had disembarked with their abdominal areas bulging.
They then introduced themselves as police officers; however, Chua did
The team searched their bodies and found that the three were wearing
not understand what theyre saying.
girdles beneath their uniforms, all containing packets wrapped in
packaging tape. And by resorting of sign language, Cid motioned with his hands for the
man to open his bag. The man acceded to the request.
Mandin yielded five (5) packets, while petitioner and Santos had four (4)
each. The team confiscated the packets and brought all the accused to The said bag was found to contain several transparent plastics containing
yellowish crystalline substances, which was later identified to
the PAFSECOM Office. (13 packets containing assorted smuggled
bemethamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
watches and jewelries valued at more than half a million pesos).
Chua was then brought to Bacnotan Police Station, where he was
They were with violation of Section 3601 of the Tariff and Customs Code.
provided with an interpreter to inform him of his constitutional rights.
They conspire in the concealment and unlawful importation of the
ISSUE: WON there was probable cause to conduct warrantless arrest,
smuggled watches and jewelries.
ISSUE: WON there was probable cause for the arrest and search of the search and seizure.
HELD: No. SC found no probable cause. True, CHUA entered Philippine
persons of the accused.
HELD: Yes. There was sufficient probable cause for the PAF territory without a visa. This was not obvious to the police. But gossamer to
the officers sense perception and view were CHUA disembarking from a
surveillance team to stop and search petitioner and his companions.
speedboat, CHUA walking casually towards the road, and CHUA
They boarded the parked Air Bus 300 PAL plane at the time when there were
carrying a multicolored strawbag these acts did not convey any
no other PAL personnel working therein. They stayed inside the plane for
impression that he illegally entered Philippine shores. The search was
sometime and surprisingly, came out with bulging waists. They then stopped
and looked around and made apparent signals. All these acts were not incidental to an arrest. There was no warrant of arrest and the
sufficient to engender a reasonable suspicion that petitioner and his warrantless arrest did not fall under the exemptions allowed by the Rules of
Court as already shown. From all indications, the search was nothing but
colleagues were up to something illegal. Moreover, the search and
a fishing expedition.
seizure was conducted in connection with the enforcement of customs
law when the petitioner and his co-accused were riding a motor
The Constitution bars State intrusions to a person's body, personal
effects or residence except if conducted by virtue of a valid search warrant
issued in compliance with the procedure outlined in the Constitution and
reiterated in the Rules of Court; otherwise such search and seizure become
unreasonable within the meaning of the aforementioned constitutional
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 consent searches,
(5) stop and frisk situations (Terry search), and
(6) search incidental to a lawful arrest.
The last includes a valid warrantless search and seizure pursuant to an
equally 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 arrests, to wit:
(1) arrests in flagrante delicto,
(2) arrests effected in hot pursuit, and
(3) arrests of escaped prisoners.[13]
In cases of in flagrante delicto arrests, a peace officer or a private
person may without a warrant, arrest a person, when, in his presence, the
person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting
to commit an offense.
The arresting officer, therefore, must have personal knowledge of such
fact or as recent case law adverts to, personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances convincingly indicative or constitutive of probable cause.
The State then attempted to persuade this Court that there was a
consented search, a legitimate waiver of the constitutional guarantee against
obtrusive searches. It is fundamental, however, that to constitute a waiver,:
(1) it must first appear that the right exists;
(2) secondly, that the person involved had knowledge, actual or
constructive, of the existence of such a right;
(3) and lastly, that said person had an actual intention to relinquish the