Group 8: Arrest, Search and Seizures
The distinction must be made clear: while an RTC judge
Placer v. Villanueva
In relation to the assassination of the representative of
Masbate and his security escorts, the MTC of Masbate, after the
presentation of affidavits and answers of the prosecution’s
witnesses, concluded that probable cause existed for issuance of a
warrant of arrest against Vicente Lim and company. When the
hearing of the case was transferred to Makati RTC and upon
petition of spouses Lim for transmission of initial records of the
preliminary investigation, the respondent Judge concluded that
probable cause existed due to the declaration made by two
competent officers – the MTC of Masbate and the Fiscal.
Facts:
The Congressman of the municipality of Masbate,
Masbate (Moises Espinos, Sr.) and his security escorts
(Provincial Guards Antonio Cortes, Gaspar Amaro and Artemio
Fuentes) were attacked and killed by a lone assassin. One
security escort (Dante Siblante) survived the assassination plot
but suffered a gunshot wound.
After an investigation of the incident, the designated
investigator (Harry Tantiado of the PC Criminal Investigation
Service at Camp Bagong Ibalon, Legazpi City) filed an amended
complaint accusing Vicente Lim, Sr., Mayor Susana Lim of
Masbate, Jolly T. Fernandez, Florencio T. Fernandez, Jr.,
Nonilon A. Bagalihog, Mayor Nestor C. Lim and Mayor Antonio
Kho of the crime of multiple murder and frustrated murder.
The Municipal Trial Court of Masbate, upon weighing
the affidavits and answers given by the witnesses for the
prosecution during the preliminary investigation in searching
questions and answers, concluded that a probable cause had been
established for the issuance of a warrant of arrest against the
Lim, et.al. The recommended amount for bail of each of the
accused was Php 200,000.00. Except for Cabarles, all of the
accused posted bail.
The Fiscal (Antonio Alfane), a month after the entire
records of the case (261 pages) were transmitted, issued a
resolution which affirmed the finding of a prima facie case
against Lim, et.al. but differed in the designation of the crime.
He ruled that all of the accused should not only be charged with
Multiple Murder with Frustrated Murder, but for a case of
murder for each of the killing of the four victims and a physical
injuries case for inflicting gunshot wound on the buttocks of
Siblante. Said Fiscal filed with the RTC of Masbate four separate
informations of murder against the 12 accused with a
recommendation of no bail.
The hearing of the case, due to the verified petition filed
by Lim with the SC, was transferred to the RTC of Makati, Branch
56 (under Judge Nemesio Felix). The Lims filed with the said
court motions and manifestations, which include, among others,
issue an order for transmission of the initial records of the
preliminary investigation conducted in Masbate. These were
denied by the respondent court for lack of merit.
Felix said that there exists probable cause that the
“offense of multiple murder was committed… affirmed upon
review by the Provincial Prosecutor... Considering that both the
two competent officers to whom such duty was entrusted by law
have declared the existence of probable cause, each information
is complete in form and substance, and there is no visible defect
on its face…”
Issue: Whether or not a judge may issue a warrant of
arrest without bail by simply relying on the prosecution’s
certification and recommendation that a probable cause exists?
Ruling:
The issuance of a warrant is not a mere ministerial
function; it calls for the exercise of judicial discretion on the part
of the issuing magistrate (from Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of
Court). Under this section, the judge must satisfy himself of the
existence of probable cause before issuing a warrant or order of
arrest. If on the face of the information the judge finds no
probable cause, he may disregard the fiscal’s certification and
require the submission of the affidavits of witnesses to aid him in
arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of a probable cause.
The 1988 Amendments to the 1985 Rules on Criminal
Procedure (effective on October 1, 1988) did not restore the
authority of conducting preliminary investigations to Judges of
RTC; said amendments did not in fact deal at all with the officers
or courts having authority to conduct preliminary investigations.
This does not mean, however, that RTC judges also lost the
power to make a preliminary examination for the purpose of
determining whether probable cause exists to justify the issuance
of a warrant of arrest or search warrant. Such power, is as much
a duty as it is a power, has been and remains vested in every
judge by the provision of the Bill of Rights securing the people
against unreasonable searches and seizures, thereby placing it
beyond the competence of mere Court Rule or Statute to revoke.
may no longer conduct preliminary investigations to ascertain
whether there is sufficient ground for the filing of a criminal
complaint or information, he retains the authority, when such a
pleading is filed with his court, to determine whether there is
probable cause justifying the issuance of a warrant of arrest. It
might be added that this distinction accords, rather than
conflicts, with the rationale of salta, because both law and rule, in
restricting judges the authority to order arrest, recognize the
function to be judicial in nature.
Preliminary investigation should be distinguished as to
whether it is an investigation for the determination of a sufficient
ground for the filing of the information or it is an investigation
for the determination of a probable cause for the issuance of a
warrant of arrest. The first kind of preliminary investigation is
executive in nature, and part of the prosecution’s job. The second
kind of preliminary investigation, which is more properly called
preliminary examination, is judicial in nature and is lodged with
the judge.
Soliven v. Makasiar
The President of the Philippines filed a complaint for
libel against the petitioners, who were the publisher and
columnist of the Philippine Star, based on the following
statement in Beltran's column of Oct. 12, 1987 totle "The Nervous
Officials of the Aquino Administration": "If you recall, during the
August 29 coup attempt, the President hid under her bed while
the firing was going on - perhaps the first Commander-in-Chief
to do so."
Facts:
In this case, upon the issue raised by petitioner Beltran,
the constitutional provision on the issuance of warrants of arrest
was called for an interpretation. Beltran wrote in the Philippine
Star that “during the August 29 coup attempt, the President hid
under her bed while the firing was going on.” Due to this, the
President filed a libel complaint against petitioners.
Beltran argues that the addition of the word “personally”
after the word “determined” and the deletion of the grant of
authority by the 1973 Constitution to issue warrants to “other
responsible officers as may be authorized by law.” This
interpretation convinced him that the Constitution now requires
the judge to personally examine the complainant and his
witnesses in his determination of probable cause for the issuance
of warrants of arrest.
Issue: Whether or not Beltran’s constitution rights were
violated when the respondent RTC judge issued a warrant of
arrest without personally examining the complainant and the
witnesses to determine probable cause
Ruling:
The judge is not required to personally examine the
complainant and his witnesses. What the Constitution
underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the
issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause.
Instead, he shall (a) personally evaluate the report and the
supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the
existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a
warrant of arrest; or (b) if on the basis thereof he finds no
probable cause, he may disregard the fiscal’s report and require
the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in
arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause.
This procedure should be followed, otherwise judges would be
unduly laden with the preliminary examinations and
investigation of criminal complaints instead of concentrating on
hearing and deciding cases filed before their courts.
In making the required personal determination, a Judge
is not precluded from relying on the evidence earlier gathered by
responsible officers. The extent of the reliance depends on the
circumstances of each case and is subject to the Judge’s sound
discretion.
Harvey v. Santiago
Harvey, together with Sherman and Del Elshout, were
alien pedophiles and were caught to have possessed
articles/instruments indicating that they were engaged in child
prostitution. Prior to the apprehension, members of the
Commission on Immigration and Deportation performed close
surveillance in Pagsanjan, Laguna. Petitioners questioned the
validity of their detention due to the violation of the right against
unreasonable searches and seizures.
Facts:
Petitioners (Andrew Harvey, 52, John Sherman, 72,
Adriaan Van Del Elshout, 58) were among the 22 alien
pedophiles who were apprehended after three of close
surveillance by the Commission on Immigration and Deportation
 Group 8: Arrest, Search and Seizures
agents in Pagsanjan, Laguna. They were the only ones who have
chosen to face deportation.
Seized during petitioners’ apprehension were rolls of
photo negatives and photos of suspected child prostitutes shown
in salacious (lustful) poses as well as boys and girls engaged in
the sex act. There were also posters and other literature
advertising the child prostitutes.
Based from the operation report on Harvey and
Sherman dated February 29, 1988, Harvey was found together
with two young boys while Sherman was found with two naked
boys inside his room. Meanwhile, Del Elshout, the “after mission
report” dated February 27, 1988, revealed that there were two
children ages 14 and 16 which subject readily accepted having
been in his care and live-in for quite sometime.
Deportation proceedings were instituted against the
petitioners for being undesirable aliens under Section 69 of the
Revised Administrative Code, being pedophiles who are inimical
to public morals, public health and public safety.
On April 4, 1988, petitioners availed of a petition for a
writ of habeas corpus. They question the validity of their
detention on the ground that, among others, respondent (Miriam
Santiago) violated Section 2, Article III prohibiting unreasonable
searches and seizures since the CID agents were not clothed with
warrants of arrest, search and seizure as required by said
provision.
Issue:
is the search warrant issued to the two aliens violative of
their constitutional right under section 2 Article III of the 1987
constitution prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures?
Ruling:
The right against unreasonable searches and seizures as
guaranteed by Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution is
available to all persons, including aliens, whether accused of
crime or not. One of the constitutional requirements of a valid
search warrant or warrant of arrest is that it must be based upon
probable cause.
An arrest may be effected by a peace officer or even a
private person, even without warrant, when the offense has, in
fact, been committed and he has personal knowledge of facts
indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. In
this case, the arrest of petitioners was based on probable cause
determined after close surveillance for three months during
which period their activities were monitored. The existence of
probable cause justified the arrest and the seizure of the photo
negatives, photographs and posters without warrant.
That petitioners were not caught in the act does not
make their arrest illegal. They were found with boys in their
respective rooms, the one with Sherman being naked. Under
those circumstances, the CID agents had reasonable grounds to
believe that petitioners had committed pedophilia.
Roan v. Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687
Roan’s house was searched by virtue of a search warrant
and the said search was performed by military authorities.
During their search, the authorities found a Colt Magnum
revolver and 18 live bullets which they confiscated and served as
bases for the charge of illegal possession of firearms. However,
the application of said search warrant was based on the accounts
of two witnesses. The applicant did not have personal knowledge
of said firearm.
Facts:
A search warrant was issued by respondent judge
(Gonzales) on May 10, 1984. Application for the said search
warrant was personally filed by PC Capt. Mauro Quillosa.
Together with Quillosa were two witnesses (Esmael Morada and
Jesus Tohilida), who presented to respondent judge their
respective affidavits. The application was not yet subscribed and
sworn to, as such respondent Judge proceeded to examine
Quillosa on the contents of the application to ascertain if he knew
and understood the same. Afterwards, Quillosa subscribed and
swore the said application before respondent.
Petitioner’s (Josefino Roan) house was searched two
days after the issuance of the search warrant. The said search
was performed by military authorities. Despite none of the
articles listed in the warrant was discovered, the officers who
conducted the search found one Colt Magnum revolver and 18
live bullets which they confiscated. The said items served as
bases for the charge of illegal possession of firearms against the
petitioner.
Issue: Whether or not a search warrant be annulled on
the ground that it violates the privacy of one person’s house
Ruling/Decision:
To be valid, a search warrant must be supported by
probable cause to be determined by the judge or some authorized
officer after examining the complainant and the witnesses he
may produce. There must be a specific description of the place to
be searched and the things to be seized, to prevent arbitrary and
indiscriminate use of the warrant. Probable cause, as described
by Judge Escolin in Burgos v. Chief of Staff, refers to “such facts
and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and
prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and
that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the
place sought to be searched.” The probable cause must refer to
only one specific offense.
The applicant (Capt. Quillosa) was asking for the
issuance of the search warrant on the basis of mere hearsay and
not of information personally known to him as required by
settled jurisprudence.
It is axiomatic that the magistrate must be probing and
exhaustive, not merely routinary or pro-forma, if the claimed
probable cause is to be established. The examining magistrate
must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit but must
make his own inquiry on the intent and justification of the
application.
Prohibited articles may be seized but only as long as the
search is valid. In this case, it was not because: (a) there was no
valid search warrant; and (b) absent such a warrant, the right
thereto was not validly waived by the petitioner. In short, the
military officers who entered the petitioner’s premises had no
right to be there and therefore had no right to seize the pistol and
bullets.
People v. Bolasa y Nakoboan
Three police officers (Salonga, Carizon and Arenas)
peeped through a small window and saw a man and a woman
repacking suspected marijuana, as they were informed by an
anonymous caller. The police officers entered the house and
introduced themselves as police officers and thereupon
confiscated the tea bags and some paraphernalia. After the
examination of the tea bags, it was confirmed that same
contained marijuana.
Facts:
PO3 Dante Salonga and PO3 Albert Carizon were
informed by an anonymous caller that a man and woman were
repacking prohibited drugs at a certain house in Sta. Brigida St.,
Karuhatan, Valenzuela. Together with SPO1 Fernando Arenas,
they proceeded immediately to the house of the suspects. As they
walked toward their quarry’s (prey) lair, the three were
accompanied by their unnamed informer.
When they reached the house, they “peeped through a
small window and saw one man and a woman repacking
suspected marijuana.” They entered the house and introduced
themselves as police officers to the occupants and thereupon
confiscated the tea bags and some paraphernalia. Examination
of the tea bags by NBI Forensic Chemist confirmed the suspicion
that the tea bags contained marijuana. As such, Zenaida Bolasa
and Roberto delos Reyes were charged with violation of Sec. 8,
Art. II of RA 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972).
Both denied on the witness stand ownership over the
confiscated tea bags and drug implements.
delos Reyes claimed that he and his wife were merely
tenants in Bolasa’s house and at the time he was arrested he had
just arrived from work. He added that when he learned that
Bolasa was repacking marijuana inside their room, he
immediately ordered her to leave. As for Bolasa, she claimed that
she was about to leave the house when she met a certain “Rico”
and conversed with him for some time.
The trial court, upon finding the version of the
prosecution to be plausible, convicted both accused Bolasa and
delos Reyes.
On appeal, Bolasa asserted that the search in her
residence was illegal as her arrest preceding it was illegal. She
argued that the marijuana seized from her could not be properly
used as evidence against her. Together with delos Reyes, Bolasa
said that PO3 Carizon was not among the arresting officers, as
such Carizon had no personal knowledge regarding the conduct
of the arrest and the search thus making his testimony hearsay.
Issue: Is the arrest done by PO3 dante and PO3 Albert
Carizon lawful without obtaining first Search warrant?
Ruling:
An arrest is lawful even in the absence of a warrant: (a)
when the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is about to commit an offense in his presence; (b)
when an offense has in fact been committed and he has
reasonable ground to believe 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 temporarily confined while
his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from
one confinement to another. The manner by which accused were
 Group 8: Arrest, Search and Seizures
apprehended does not fall under any of the above-enumerated
categories. From the above, the arrest is illegal.
It cannot be said that the objects were seized in plain
view. First, there was no valid intrusion. As already discussed,
accused were illegally arrested. Second, the evidence later on
found to contain marijuana was not inadvertently discovered.
The police officers intentionally peeped first through the window
before they saw and ascertained the activities of accused-
appellants inside the room. In like manner, the search cannot be
recognized as a search of a moving vehicle, a consented
warrantless search, a customs search or a stop and frisk; it
cannot even fall under exigent and emergency circumstances, for
evidence at hand is deprived of any such showing.
It indicates that the apprehending officers should have
conducted first a surveillance considering that the entities and
address of the suspected culprits were already ascertained. After
conducting the surveillance and determining the existence of
probable cause for arresting accused, they (the police) should
have secured a search warrant prior to effecting a valid arrest and
seizure. The arrest being illegal ab initio, the accompanying
search was likewise illegal. Every evidence obtained during the
illegal search cannot be used against accused; hence, they were
acquitted.
Stonehill v. Diokno
42 search warrants were issued by judges, upon
application by officers of government. 29 out of the 42 search
warrants were intended for the corporations and offices which
the petitioners were affiliated with; the rest were intended for
their residences. Petitioners were charged for violating the
Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Law, Internal Revenue
and RPC. In the performance of the search warrants, several
items were seized including books of accounts, financial records
and documents showing all business transactions.
Facts:
A total of 42 search warrants were issued against
petitioners and/or corporations of which they were officers by
several judges upon the application of the officers of government
(Diokno as Secretary of Justice, Jose Lukban as Acting Director
of NBI, among others). Said search warrants directed any peace
officer to search the persons of petitioners (Harry Stonehill,
Robert Brooks, John Brooks, Karl Beck) and/or the premises of
their offices, warehouses and/or residences, and to seize and take
possession of personal property, which includes: books of
accounts, financial records, vouchers, correspondence, receipts,
ledgers, journals, portfolios, credit journals, typewriters, and
other documents and/or papers showing all business
transactions including disbursements receipts, balance sheets
and profit and loss statements and Bobbins (cigarette wrappers).
Said items/articles are “the subject of the offense, stolen or
embezzled and proceeds/fruits of the offense” or “used or
intended to be used as the means of committing the offense,”
which is violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs
Laws, Internal Revenue, and the RPC.
Petitioners contend that the search warrants are null
and void for: (a) they do not describe with particularity the
documents, books and things to be seized. (b) cash money, not
mentioned in the warrants, were actually seized, (c) the warrants
were issued to fish evidence against the aforementioned
petitioners in deportation cases filed against them, (d) the
searches and seizures were made illegally, and (e) the documents,
papers and cash money seized were not delivered to the courts
that issued the warrants.
Respondents, in their answer, alleged that the contested
search warrants are valid and have been issued in accordance
with law, that the defects of said warrants, if any, were cured by
petitioners’ consent, and that the effects seized are admissible in
evidence against petitioners, regardless of the alleged illegality of
the aforementioned searches and seizures.
Issue: Are the search warrants issued by the judges for
the corporations and it's offices and petitioners residences valid?
Ruling:
In deciding this case, the Court split the documents,
papers, and things seized into two major groups: (a) those found
and seized in the offices of the aforementioned corporations and
(b) those found and seized in the residences of petitioners.
With regard to the first group, i.e., those found and
seized in the offices of the aforementioned corporations,
petitioners have no cause of action to assail the legality of the
contested warrants and of the seizures made pursuant thereof. It
is for the reason that said corporations have their respective
personalities, separate and distinct from the personality of
petitioners, regardless of the amount of shares of stock or of the
interest and whatever office they may hold. The legality of the
seizure can be contested only by the party whose rights have been
impaired and that the objection to an unlawful search and seizure
is purely personal and cannot be availed of by third parties.
Petitioners may not validly object to the use of articles seized
from the offices as evidence against them since the right to object
to the admission of said papers in evidence belongs exclusively
to corporation to whom the seized effects belong and may not be
invoked by the corporate officers in proceedings against them in
their individual capacity.
As for the second group, i.e., those found and seized in
petitioners’ residences, said items/articles cannot be used as
evidence against them. None of the requirements laid down by
the Constitutional provision (that no warrant shall issue but upon
probable cause, to be determined by the judges in the manner set
forth in said provision, and that the warrant shall particularly
describe the things to be seized) has been complied with in the
contested warrants. No specific offense has been alleged in said
applications for the said applications stated that the persons
concerned have violated Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs
Laws, Internal Revenue and RPC. As a consequence, it was
impossible for the judges who issued the warrants to have found
existence of probable cause. More so, the applications did not
allege any specific act performed by petitioners.
The constitutional provision on searches and seizures
seek to outlaw general warrants. More so, no search warrant
shall issue for more than one specific offense.
Respondents, citing Moncado v. People’s Court,
maintained that, despite the unconstitutionality of the searches
and seizures, the items/articles seized are admissible in evidence
against petitioners. However, said doctrine is abandoned.
The non-exclusionary rule is contrary both to the letter
and spirit of the constitutional injunction against unreasonable
searches and seizures. (The non-exclusionary rule is that
established in Moncado v. People’s Court. ) To be sure, if the
applicant for a search warrant has competent evidence to
establish probable cause of the commission of a given crime by a
party against whom the warrant is intended, there is no reason
why the applicant should not comply with the requirements of
the fundamental law. Upon the other hand, if he has no such
competent evidence, then it is not possible for the judge to find
that there is probable cause, and, hence, no justification for the
issuance of the warrant. The only possible explanation for its
issuance is the necessity of fishing evidence of the commission of
a crime. But, this fishing expedition is indicative of the absence
of evidence to establish a probable cause.
The search warrants of petitioners’ residences (group 2)
are null and void. As for the warrants in 29 places, offices and
other premises (group 1), they are valid.
People v. Alunday
Alunday was found to have planted, cultivated and
cultured marijuana fruiting tops and have in his possession an
M16 Rifle without any written authority or permit. He was
rendered a decision of conviction for violation of Dangerous
Drugs Act, but was acquitted for reasonable doubt for violating
PD 1866. Alunday contended however that he was arrested
without warrant and his warrantless arrest does not fall under
the circumstances contemplated by Section 5, Rule 113 of the
1985 Rules of Court.
Facts:
Accused (Ricardo Alunday alias “Kayad”), “without
being authorized by law, and with intent to plant and cultivate,…
unlawfully and feloniously” planted, cultivated and cultured
marijuana fruiting tops weighing more than 750 grams. Said
marijuana fruiting tops had an estimated value of Php 10 million.
For this, he was charged with violation of Section 9 of RA 6425
(Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972).
Alunday was likewise additionally charged with
violation of PD 1866 for he was found to have possessed an M16
Rifle without any written authority or permit previously acquired
from authorities to carry or transport the said firearm.
The RTC found Alunday guilty of violating RA 6425
while he was acquitted for violating PD 1866 for reasonable
doubt. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Accused, in his appeal, assailed his conviction for being
improper and illegal, asserting that the court a quo never
acquired jurisdiction over his person because he was arrested
without a warrant and that his warrantless arrest was not done
under any of the circumstances enumerated in Section 5, Rule
113 of the 1985 Rules of Court. He insisted that the arresting
officers had 3 months within which to secure a warrant from the
time they received the information about an existing marijuana
plantation in Mount Churyon, Sadanga in May 2000 until they
effected arrest on August 2000. Also, he contended that the
arresting officers’ failure to secure a warrant can never be
justified by the urgency of the situation.
 Group 8: Arrest, Search and Seizures
Issue: Is the arrest of Ricardo Alunday falls under Section
5, Rule 113 of The 1985 Rules of Court?
Ruling:
Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court provides that a
peace officer or a private person may, without warrant, arrest a
person: (a) when the person to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing, or is about to commit an offense in his
presence; (b) when an offense has in fact been committed and he
has reasonable ground to believe 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 temporarily confined while
his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from
one confinement to another.
Section 5(a) refers to arrest in flagrante delicto. In
flagrante delicto means caught in the act of committing a crime.
This rule, which warrants the arrest of a person without warrant,
requires that the person arrested has just committed a crime, or
is committing it, or is about to commit an offense, in the presence
or within view of the arresting officer.
In the case at bar, the information was received by the
Intelligence Section of the Provincial Office of the Mountain
Province in May 2000 while the accused was arrested during the
police raid at the plantation at Mount Churyon, Sadanga on
August. This is so because the arrest was effected only after a
series of validations conducted by the team to verify or confirm
the report that indeed a marijuana plantation existed at the area,
which was confirmed on August 2. During the day of the arrest
(August 3), the arresting team of SPO1 Saipen proceeded to the
marijuana plantation and Saipen saw Alunday personally cutting
and gathering marijuana plants. Therefore, his arrest was legal
because he was caught in flagrante delicto.
It is much too late in the day to complain about the
warrantless arrest after a valid information has been filed, the
accused arraigned, trial commenced and completed, and a
judgment of conviction rendered against him. He raised the
additional issue of irregularity of his arrest only during his appeal
to the SC. He is, therefore, deemed to have waived such alleged
defect by submitting himself to the jurisdiction of the court by his
counsel-assisted plea during his arraignment; by his actively
participating in the trial and by not raising the objection before
his arraignment.
People v. Lo Ho Wing (alias Peter Lo), Lim Cheng
Huat (alias Antonio Lim) and Reynaldo Tia
Reynaldo Tia, “a deep penetration agent” of the SOG,
reported of his undercover activities on the suspected criminal
syndicate led by Lo and Lim. Moreover, Tia informed his
superior regarding their return to the country. Upon arrival in
the Philippines, Lo and Tia rode in one taxi cab while Lim rode in
another. They were pursued by the members of the NARCOM
and were stopped. With permission of Lo and Tia, a tin can of tea
was taken out of the red travel bag and, upon examination by the
PC-INP Crime Laboratory, contained metamphetamine.
Petitioner contend that a warrant was needed.
Facts:
The Special Operations Group received a tip from one of
its informers about an organized group engaged in the
importation of illegal drugs, smuggling of contraband goods and
gunrunning. As part of the operations, the recruitment of
confidential men and “deep penetration agents” was carried out
to infiltrate the crime syndicate. One of those recruited was
Reynaldo Tia.
Tia was introduced to Lim Cheng Huat (Antonio Lim)
where the latter expressed a desire to hire a male travel
companion for his business trips abroad. Tia offered his services
and was hire. Together with Lim, Tia, in one of the meetings in
China, was introduced to Lo Ho Wing (Peter Lo) whom tia found
out to be the person he was to accompany to China in lieu of Lim.
As “deep penetration agent,” Tia regularly submitted
reports of his undercover activities on the suspected criminal
syndicate to Capt. Luisito Palmera, head of Oplan Sharon 887 –
the group created in order to bus the suspected syndicate. Tia
informed Palmera of their return to the Philippines after they (Lo
and Tia) left for Hong Kong.
Upon arrival in the Philippines, they were met by Lim.
After Lim and Lo finished their conversation, Lo hailed a taxicab.
Lo and Tia boarded the taxicab while Lim followed in another
taxi cab. Meanwhile, the operatives of the NARCOM (Narcotics
Command), having been notified by Palmera, stationed
themselves in strategic places around the arrival area. Upon
seeing Lo and Tia leave the airport, the operatives followed them.
Along Imelda Avenue, the car of the operatives overtook the
taxicab ridden by Lo and Tia and cut into its path which forced
the taxi driver to stop. The other tax cab carrying Lim, however,
sped away but was later caught on Retiro Street, Quezon City.
Going back to Lo and Tia, the operatives approached the
taxicab and asked the driver to open the baggage compartment.
Three pieces of luggage were retrieved from the back
compartment of the vehicle. The operatives requested from Lo
and Tia permission to search their luggage. A tin can of tea was
taken out of the red travel bag owned by Lo. A certain Sgt.
Cayabyab, one of the operatives, pried the lid open, pulled out a
paper tea bag from the can and pressed it in the middle to feel its
contents. Some crystalline white powder resembling crushed
aluminium came out of the bag. The sergeant then opened the
tea bag and examined its content more closely. He had the three
travel bags opened for inspection. From the red travel bag, 6 tin
cans were found, including the one previously opened and
nothing else was recovered from the other bags.
The tea bag contained metamphetamine after
examination by the PC-INP Crime Laboratory. One of
metamphetamine’s derivatives is metamphetamine
hydrochloride (shabu/poor man’s cocaine).
The three were charged with violation of Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972.
Lo contends that the search and seizure was illegal. He
contends that the officers concerned could very well have
procured a search warrant since they had been informed of the
date and time of arrival of the accused at the NAIA well ahead of
time. Moreover, as claimed by Lo, the fact that the search and
seizure in question were made on a moving vehicle does not
automatically make the warrantless search fall within the
coverage of exceptions of the necessity of a valid warrant to effect
search.
Issue Is the information of the date and time of the
arrival of the accused makes the seizure illegal?
Ruling:
The search and seizure supported by a valid warrant is
not an absolute rule. As set forth in Manipon, Jr. v.
Sandiganbayan, there are at least 3 well-recognized exceptions,
namely: (a) a search incidental to an arrest, (b) a search of a
moving vehicle, and (c) seizure of evidence in plain view. In the
case at bar, there is a clear showing that the search in question,
having been made in a moving vehicle, does not need a valid
warrant to effect search.
A warrantless search of a moving vehicle is justified on
the ground that it is not practicable to secure a warrant because
the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction
in which the warrant must be sought.
Salazar v. Achacoso
Salazar’s properties in her residence and dance studio
were seized by virtue of a search warrant issued by the POEA.
Facts:
Petitioner (Hortencia “Horty” Salazar) was charged by a
Rosalie Tesoro wth the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration. According to Tesoro, after she surrendered her
PECC Card to petitioner, she promised her of “booking” in Japan.
However, after 9 months, Tesoro was still in the Philippines and
was never able to travel to Japan, and that her PECC card was not
released by Salazar.
Public respondent Atty. Ferdinand Marquez sent a
telegram to petitioner. Respondent requested the petitioner
before him being a part of POEA Anti-Illegal Recruitment Unit.
On the same day, having ascertained that the petitioner had no
license to operate a recruitment agency, administrator Tomas
Achacoso issued a closure and seizure order, numbered 1205.
The Director of POEA Licensing and Regulation (Atty.
Estelita Espiritu) issued an order designation Atty. Marquez,
Atty. Abara and Atty. Vistro as members of the team tasked to
implement the Closure and Seizure Order rendered by Achacoso.
After proceeding to petitioner’s residence, the team, assisted by
Mandaluyong policemen and mediamen, went to Hannalie Dance
Studio, which petitioner operated.
Before entering Hannalie Dance Studio, the team served
said order on a certain Mrs. Flora Salazar who voluntarily
allowed them entry into the premises. When required to show
credentials, Salazar was unable to produce any. The team
confiscated assorted costumes when they chanced upon 12 talent
performers practicing a dance number. The confiscation was
duly receipted for by Mrs. Asuncion Maguelan and witnessed by
Salazar.
Petitioner, through a letter to POEA, requested that the
personal properties seized at her residence be returned.
Issue: Whether the POEA validly issue warrants of search
and seizure (or arrest) under Article 38 of the Labor Code.
 Group 8: Arrest, Search and Seizures
building, not being a dwelling house; and also to inspect, search
Ruling: and examine any vessel or aircraft and any trunk, package or
Under the present Constitution, it is only a judge who envelope or any person on board, or to stop and search and
may issue warrants of search and arrest. It was declared that examine any vehicle, beast or person suspected of holding or
mayors may not exercise this power, neither by a mere conveying any dutiable or prohibited articles.
prosecuting body. The exception is in cases of deportation of
illegal and undesirable aliens, whom the President or the
Commissioner of Immigration may order arrested, following a
final order of deportation, for purpose of deportation.
Section 38(c), as amended by PD 1920 and 2018,
bestowed to the Minister of Labor the power to recommend the
arrest and detention of any person engaged in illegal recruitment.
More so, PD 1920 gave the Minister of Labor arrest and closure
power. That, the Minister of Labor and Employment has the
power to cause the arrest and detention of such non-licensee or
nonholder of authority if after proper investigation it is
determined that his activities constitute a danger to national
security and public order or will lead to further exploitation of
job-seekers. Meanwhile, PD 2018 bestowed upon the Minister of
Labor search and seizure powers. However, the decrees in
question stood as dying vestiges of authoritarian rule in its
twilight moments. Thuss, the Secretary of Labor, not being a
judge, may no longer issue search or arrest warrants. Article
38(c) of the Labor Code is declared unconstitutional and of no
force and effect.

Papa v. Mago
Papa, Chief of Police of Manila and a duly deputized
member of the Bureau of Customs, together with Alagao and
other elements of the counter-intelligence unit, seized 9 bales of
goods from two trucks. Said items, according to an information,
were misdeclared and undervalued. The cargo owner,
respondent in this case, claimed that the MPD seized said goods
without a search warrant.

Facts:
Petitioner Martin Alagao (head of the counter-
intelligence unit of the MPD), having received a reliable
information that a certain shipment of personal effects were
allegedly misdeclared and undervalued and were to be released
from the customs zone of the port of Manila, conducted
surveillance of said zone. With him were petitioner Ricardo
Papa, the Chief of Police of Manila and a duly deputized member
of the BOC, and other elements of the counter-intelligence unit.
The information which reached Alagao specified that said
misdeclared and undervalued items were loaded on two trucks.
The trucks left the gate where Alagao’s group conducted
surveillance. However, such trucks were later intercepted. The
load of the two trucks consisted of 9 bales of goods.
The cargo was owned by Remedios Mago while the truck
was owned by Valentin Lanopa. In their petition in the CFI of
Manila, they claimed that the MPD seized the goods without
search warrant issued by a competent court, and that Papa
denied the request of Mago’s counsel that the bales be not
opened and the goods not examined.
The respondent judge issued an order restraining
petitioners from opening the nine bales in question. However,
some bales were already opened by examiners of the BOC when
the restraining order was received.
Respondent contended that, since the inventory of the
goods seized did not show any article of prohibited importation,
such articles should be released upon her posting of the bond to
be determined by court. Petitioners contended however that
most of the goods, as shown in the inventory, were not declared
and were thus subject to forfeiture. Respondent judge issued an
order releasing the good upon the filing of the bond in the
amount of Php 40,000.00 to which the respondent complied
with.

Issue: Is there a need to procure a warrant before search

be made?

Ruling:
The Bureau of Customs acquires exclusive jurisdiction
over imported goods, for the purposes of enforcement of the
customs laws, from the moment the goods are actually in
possession or control, even if no warrant of seizure or detention
had previously been issued by the Collector of Customs in
connection with seizure and forfeiture proceedings. In the case at
bar, the moment the BOC actually seized the goods in question,
the BOC acquired jurisdiction over the goods for the purposes of
enforcement of the tariff and customs laws, to the exclusion of
the regular courts.
Petitioner Alagao and his companion policemen had
authority to effect the seizure without any search warrant issued
by a competent court. The Tariff and Customs Code does not
require said warrant in the instant case. The Code authorizes
persons having police authority under Section 2203 to enter, pass
through or search any land, inclosure, warehouse, store or