Manalili v CA

GR 113447
Oct. 9, 1997

Facts:
At about 2:10 PM on April 11, 1988, Police Anti-Narcotics Unit of Kalookan City conducted surveillance
along A. Mabini Street, in front of the Kalookan City Cemetery. This was done after receiving information
that drug addicts were roaming around said area.
Upon reaching the cemetery, the policemen chanced upon a male person, the petitioner, in front of the
cemetery who appeared high on drugs. The petitioner had reddish eyes and was walking in a swaying
manner.
Petitioner was trying to avoid the policemen, but the officers were able to introduce themselves and
asked him what he was holding in his hands. Petitioner resisted. Policeman Espiritu asked him if he could
see what the petitioner had in his hands. The petitioner showed his wallet and allowed the officer to
examine it. Policeman Espiritu found suspected crushed marijuana residue inside. He kept the wallet and
its marijuana contents and took petitioner to headquarters to be further investigated.
The suspected marijuana was sent to the NBI Forensic Chemistry Section for analysis.

Issue:
Whether or not the search and seizure of the suspected marijuana is unreasonable, and hence
inadmissible as evidence.

Held:
The general rule is a search and seizure must be validated by a previously secured judicial warrant;
otherwise, such a search and seizure is unconstitutional and subject to challenge. Any evidence obtained
in violation of this constitutionally guaranteed right is legally inadmissible in any proceeding.
The exceptions to the rule are: (1) search incidental to a lawful arrest, (2) search of moving vehicles, (3)
seizure in plain view, (4) customs search, and (5) waiver by the accused of their right against
unreasonable search and seizure. In these cases, the search and seizure may be made only with
probable cause. Probable cause being at best defined as a reasonable ground of suspicion, supported by
circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man in the belief that the person
accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged; or the existence of such facts and
circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has
been committed and that the item(s), article(s) or object(s) sought in connection with said offense or
subject to seizure and destruction by is in the place to be searched.
Additionally, stop-and-frisk has already been adopted as another exception to the general rule against a
search without a warrant.
In the present case, petitioner effectively waived the inadmissibility of the evidence illegally obtained
when he failed to raise the issue or object thereto during the trial.
The Supreme Court affirmed with modifications the assailed Decision and Resolution of the respondent
 
court.