[RULE 126, SEC.

13] Rule 126, Section 13 of the Rules of Court allows for but it cannot be mere suspicion. It has to be a “genuine reason to serve the
searches incidental to a lawful arrest. For there to be a lawful arrest, there purposes of the “stop and frisk” exception.
should be either a warrant of arrest or a lawful warrantless arrest as
enumerated in Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Court. The “stop and frisk” search was originally limited to outer clothing and for the
purpose of detecting dangerous weapons.
PEOPLE VS. COGAED
June 30, 2014, G.R. No. 200334 There was not a single suspicious circumstance in this case, and there was no
LEONEN, J. approximation for the probable cause requirement for warrantless arrest. The person
searched was not even the person mentioned by the informant. The informant gave
FACTS: Victor Cogaed was riding a jeepney with a bag from Barangay Lun-Oy and the name of Marvin Buya, and the person searched was Victor Cogaed. Even if it
during a checkpoint, the driver of the jeepney he rode made a signal to the police was true that Cogaed responded by saying that he was transporting the bag to
telling that Cogaed was carrying marijuana inside Cogaed’s bag; the police officer Marvin Buya, this still remained only as one circumstance. This should not have been
then approached Cogaed and asked the accused about the contents of his bags. enough reason to search Cogaed and his belongings without a valid search warrant.
Cogaed replied that he did not know what was inside and that he was just
transporting the bag in favor of Marvin, a barriomate. Cogaed subsequently opened Likewise, the facts of the case do not qualify as a search incidental to a lawful arrest.
the bag revealing the bricks of marijuana inside. He was then arrested by the police The apprehension of Cogaed was not effected with a warrant of arrest. None of the
officers. instances enumerated in Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Court were present
when the arrest was made. At the time of his apprehension, Cogaed has not
ISSUE: Whether there was a valid search and seizure; and, whether the marijuana committed, was not committing, or was about to commit a crime. There were no
confiscated is admissible as evidence. overt acts within plain view of the police officers that suggested that Cogaed was in
possession of drugs at that time. Also, Cogaed was not an escapee prisoner that
HELD: NO. There is no valid search and seizure; thus, the marijuana confiscated time; hence, he could not have qualified for the last allowable warrantless arrest.
shall not be admissible as evidence.
There can be no valid waiver of Cogaed’s constitutional rights even if we assume
As a general rule, searches conducted with a warrant that meets all the requirements that he did not object when the police asked him to open his bags. Appellant’s
of Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution are reasonable. This warrant requires the silence should not be lightly taken as consent to such search. The implied
existence of probable cause that can only be determined by a judge. acquiescence to the search, if there was any, could not have been more than mere
passive conformity given under intimidating or coercive circumstances and is thus
However, there are instances when searches are reasonable even when warrantless. considered no consent at all within the purview of the constitutional guarantee.
The known jurisprudential instances of reasonable warrantless searches and seizures
are: The Constitution provides that any evidence obtained in violation of the right against
unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
(1) Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest proceeding. Otherwise known as the exclusionary rule or the fruit of the poisonous
(2) Seizure of evidence in “plain view,” tree doctrine, this rule prohibits the issuance of general warrants that encourage law
(3) Search of a moving vehicle; enforcers to go on fishing expeditions. Evidence obtained through unlawful seizures
(4) Consented warrantless search; should be excluded as evidence because it is “the only practical means of enforcing
(5) Customs search; the constitutional injunction against unreasonable searches and seizures.” It ensures
(6) Stop and frisk; and that the fundamental rights to one’s person, houses, papers, and effects are not
(7) Exigent and emergency circumstances. lightly infringed upon and are upheld.

The search involved in this case was initially a “stop and frisk” search, but it did not Considering that the prosecution and conviction of Cogaed were founded on the
comply with all the requirements of reasonability required by the Constitution. search of his bags, a pronouncement of the illegality of that search means that there
is no evidence left to convict Cogaed.
“Stop and frisk” searches (sometimes referred to as Terry searches) are necessary
for law enforcement. That is, law enforcers should be given the legal arsenal to
prevent the commission of offenses. However, this should be balanced with the need
to protect the privacy of citizens in accordance with Article III, Section 2 of the
Constitution. The balance lies in the concept of “suspiciousness” present in the
situation where the police officer finds himself or herself in. This may be undoubtedly
based on the experience of the police officer. It does not have to be probable cause,
[RULE 126, SEC. 13] A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous
weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the
commission of an offense without a search warrant.

PEOPLE VS. MEDARIO CALANTIAO

June 18, 2014, G.R. No. 203984
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

FACTS: Upon a complaint filed by Edwin Lojera regarding a shooting incident, PO1
Nelson Mariano and PO3 Eduardo Ramirez proceeded to Caloocan City where they
found the white taxi reported by Lojera. While approaching said vehicle, two armed
men alighted, fired their guns towards them and ran away. PO1 Mariano and PO3
Ramirez chased them but they were subdued. PO1 Mariano recovered from
Calantiao a black bag containing 2 bricks of dried marijuana fruiting tops. Calantiao
was charged before the RTC of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No.
9165. However, Calantiao questions the admissibility of the marijuana found in his
possession as evidence against him on the ground that it was discovered via an
illegal search.

ISSUE: Whether the marijuana is admissible as evidence.

HELD: YES. The marijuana is admissible as evidence since earches and seizure
incident to a lawful arrest are governed by Section 13, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure, which states that a person lawfully arrested may be searched
for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in
the commission of an offense without a search warrant. The purpose of allowing a
warrantless search and seizure incident to a lawful arrest is "to protect the arresting
officer from being harmed by the person arrested, who might be armed with a
concealed weapon, and to prevent the latter from destroying evidence within reach.
A valid arrest allows the seizure of evidence or dangerous weapons either on the
person of the one arrested or within the area of his immediate control. In the case at
bar, the marijuana was found in a black bag in Calantiao's possession and within his
immediate control. He could have easily taken any weapon from the bag or dumped
it to destroy the evidence inside it. As the black bag containing the marijuana was in
Calantiao's possession, it was within the permissible area that the apprehending
officers could validly conduct a warrantless search.