Search and Seizure
Bar 1982
On a Saturday night, the Metrocom
decided to set up a checkpoint at the foot
of Quezon Bridge in Manila. Motor vehicle
passing through said check-point were
stopped at random and searched. A’s car
was ordered to stop upon inspection, a
plastic bag containing fried marijuana
leaves was discovered in the glove
compartment. In the ensuing prosecution
for the offense of illegal possession of
prohibited drug, the marijuana leaves,
were presented in evidence. The defense
objected on the ground that it was taken
under unlawful search, Decide with
reasons.
Answer: Unlawful search. Checkpoints
should only be of visual searches. It is
limited. They cannot even ask you to
alight.
Section 2, Article III
The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects
against unreasonable searches and
seizures of whatever nature and for any
purpose shall be inviolable, and no search
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue
except upon probable cause to be
determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of
the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce, and particularly describing the
place to be searched and the persons or
things to be seized.
Section 3(2), Article III
Any evidence obtained in violation of this
or the preceding section shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding. (Exclusionary rule)
Exception to the exception: (you can
search without search warrants or warrant
of arrest)
1. Custom searches
2. Searches of moving vehicles
3. Seizure of evidence in plain view
4. Consent searches
5. Searches incidental to lawful arrest
6. Stop and frisk (Terry searches)
Bar 2016
Ernesto, a minor, while driving a motor
vehicle, was stopped at a mobile
checkpoint. Noticing that Ernesto is a
minor, SPOI Jojo asked Ernesto to exhibit his
driver’s license but Ernesto failed to
produce it. SPOI Jojo requested Ernesto to
alight from the vehicle and the latter
acceded. Upon observing a bulge in the
pants of Ernesto, the policeman frisked him
and found an unlicensed .22-caliber pistol
inside Ernesto’s right pocket. Ernesto was
arrested, detained and charged. At the
trial, Ernesto, through his lawyer, argued
that, policemen at mobile checkpoints are
empowered to conduct nothing more
than a “visual search”. They cannot order
the persons riding the vehicle to alight.
They cannot frisk, or conduct a body
search of the driver or the passenger of the
vehicle. Ernesto’s lawyer this posited that:
[b] The arrest made as a consequence of
the invalid search was likewise illegal,
because an unlawful act (the search)
cannot be made the basis of a lawful
arrest.
WON the search is validly made.
Answer: The search is illegal.
But different if the person is not minor.
Stop and Frisk Rule
Where a police officer observes unusual
conduct which leads him reasonably to
conclude in light of his experience that
criminal activity may be afoot and that the
persons with whom he is dealing may be
armed and presently dangerous, where in
the course of investigating this behavior he
identifies himself as a policemen and
makes reasonable inquiries, and where
nothing in the initial stages of the
encounter serves to dispel his reasonable
fear for his own or others’ safely, he is
entitled for the protection of himself and
others in the area to conduct a careful
There should be probable cause.
Bar 1993
Larry was an overnight guest in a motel.
After he checked out the following day,
the chambermaid found an attache case
which she surmised was left behind by
Larry. She turned it over to the manager
who, to determine the name and address
of the owner, opened the attache case
and saw packages which had a peculiar
smell and upon squeezing felt like dried
leaves. His curiosity aroused, the manager
made an opening on one of the packages
and took several grams of the contents
thereof. He took the packages to the NBI,
and in the presence of agents, opened
the packages, the contents of which upon
laboratory examination, turned out to be
marijuana flowering tops. Larry was
subsequently found, brought to the NBI
Office where he admitted ownership of the
attache case and the packages. He was
made to sign a receipt for the packages.
Larry was charged in court for possession of
prohibited drugs. He was convicted. On
appeal, he now poses the following issues:
The packages are inadmissible in evidence
being the product of an illegal search and
seizure;
Decide.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
On the assumption that the issues were
timely raised, the answers are as follows:
The packages are admissible in evidence.
The one who opened the packages was
the manager of the motel without any
interference of the agents of the National
Bureau of Investigation. As held in People
vs. Marti 193 SCRA 57, the constitutional
right against unreasonable searches and
seizures refers to unwarranted intrusion by
the government and does not operate as
a restraint upon private individuals.
Answer:
Searched conducted by private
individuals:
The Constitutional right against
unreasonable searched and seizure refers
to unwarranted intrusion by the
government and does not operate as a
restraint upon private individuals.
Bar 2000
Crack officers of the Anti -Narcotics Unit
were assigned on surveillance of the
environs of a cemetery where the sale and
use of dangerous drugs are rampant. A
man with reddish and glassy eyes was
walking unsteadily moving towards them
but veered away when he sensed the
presence of policemen. They approached
him, introduced themselves as police
officers and asked him what he had
clenched in his hand. As he kept mum, the
policemen pried his hand open and found
a sachet of shabu, a dangerous drug.
Accordingly charged in court, the
accused objected to the admission in
evidence of the dangerous drug because
it was the result of an illegal search and
seizure. Rule on the objection.
What are the instances when warrantless
searches may be effected?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The objection is not tenable. In
accordance with Manalili v. Court of
Appeals, 280 SCRA 400 (1997), since the
accused had red eyes and was walking
unsteadily and the place is a known hang-
out of drug addicts, the police officers had
sufficient reason to stop the accused and
to frisk him. Since shabu was actually found
during the investigation, it could be seized
without the need for a search warrant.
A warrantless search maybe effected in SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the following cases: (memorize this and its
elements) a. Yes, the firearms are admissible in
evidence, because they were validly
1. Searches incidental to a lawful arrest; 
 seized. In Valmonte vs. De Villa, 178 SCRA
2. Searches of moving vehicles; 

211 and 185 SCRA 665, the Supreme Court
3. Searches of prohibited articles in plain
view; 
 held that checkpoints may be set up to
4. Enforcement of customs law; 
 maintain peace and order for the benefit
5. Consented searches; 
 of the public and checkpoints are a
6. Stop and frisk (People v. Montilla, 285 security measure against unauthorized
SCRA 703 [1998]); 

firearms. Since the search which resulted in
7. Routine searches at borders and ports of
entry (United States v. Ramsey, 431 the discovery of the firearms was limited to
U.S. 
 606 [1977]); and 
 a visual search of the car, it was
8. Searches of businesses in the exercise of reasonable. Because of the ban on
visitorial powers to enforce police
firearms, the possession of the firearms was

 regulations (New York u. Burger,
482 U.S. 691 [1987/). prohibited. Since they were found in plain
view in the course of a lawful search, in
accordance with the decision in
The police officers have probable cause Magoncia vs. Palacio, 80 Phil. 770, they are
kung bakit ganun yung asta niya. admissible in evidence.

b. No, the drugs cannot be used in

Manalili v. CA
Since the accused had red eyes and . . .
Bar 1992
During the recent elections, checkpoints
were set up to enforce the election period
ban on firearms. During one such routine
search one night, while looking through an
open window with a flashlight, the police
saw firearms at the backseat of a car,
partially covered by papers and clothes
a) Antonio, owner and driver of the car in
question, was charged for violation of the
firearms ban. Are the firearms admissible in
evidence against him? Explain.
evidence against Antonio if he is
prosecuted for possession of prohibited
drugs. The drugs were found after a more
extensive search of he various
compartments of the car. As held in
Valmonte us. De Villa, 185 SCRA 665, for
such a search to be valid, there must be a
probable cause. In this case, there was no
probable cause, as there was nothing to
indicate that Antonio had prohibited drugs
inside the compartments of his car.
a. Allowed. Visual search.
b. YES, valid under lawful searches.
However, there is a protocol

b) If upon further inspection by the police,

prohibited drugs were found inside the
various compartments of Antonio’s car,
can the drugs be used in evidence against
Antonio if he is prosecuted for possession of
prohibited drugs? Explain. (1992 Bar
Question)
Search incidental to lawful arrest
When an arrest was made by virtue of a
warrant or under warrantless arrest:
 A search may be made as an
incident to such arrest
 Individual may be frisked for
concealed weapons that may be
used against the arresting officer
and all unlawful articles found in his
person or within his immediate
control may be seized
 May be made only in the place
within the immediate control if the
person being arrested,
1989 Bar
Pursuing reports that great quantities of
prohibited drugs are being smuggled at
nighttime through the shores of Cavite, the
Southern Luzon Command set up
checkpoints at the end of the Cavite
coastal road to search passing motor
vehicles. A 19-year old boy, who finished
fifth grade, while driving, was stopped by
the authorities at the checkpoint. Without
any objection from him, his car was
inspected, and the search yielded
marijuana leaves hidden in the trunk
compartment of the car. The prohibited
drug was promptly seized, and the boy
was brought to the police station for
questioning.
Was the search without warrant legal?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the search was not valid, because
there was no probable cause for
conducting the search. As held in Almeda
Sanchez vs. United States, 413 U.S. 266,
while a moving vehicle can be searched
without a warrant, there must still be
probable cause. In the case in question,
there was nothing to indicate that
marijuana leaves were hidden in the trunk
of the car. The mere fact that the boy did
not object to the inspection of the car
does not constitute consent to the search.
As ruled in People vs. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1,
the failure to object to a warrantless search
does not constitute consent, especially in
the light of the fact.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. The requirement of probable cause
differs from case to case. In this one, since
the police agents are confronted with
large-scale smuggling of prohibited drugs,
existence of which is of public knowledge,
they can set up checkpoints at strategic
places, in the same way that of in a
neighborhood a child is kidnapped, it is
lawful to search cars and vehicles leaving
the neighborhood or village: This situation is
also similar to warrantless searches of
moving vehicles in customs area, which
searches have been upheld. (Papa vs.
Mago, 22 SCRA 857 (1968). The rule is
based on practical necessity.
Answer: an illegal search and seizure
Consent searches
The question whether a consent to a
search was in fact voluntarily is a question
Relevant:
a. The age of the defendant;
b. Whether he was in a public or
secluded location;
c. Whether he objected to the search
or passively looked on;
d. The education and intelligence of
the defendant;
e. The presence of coercive police
procedures;
f. The defendant’s belief that no
incriminating evidence will be found;
g. The nature of the police questioning;
h. The environment
i. . . .
2005 Bar Article 3 (1), Article III

Emilio had long suspected that Alvin, his The privacy of communication and
employee, had been passing trade secrets correspondence shall be inviolable except
to his competitor. Randy, but he had no upon lawful order of the court, or when
proof. One day, Emilio broke open the public safety or order requires otherwise, as
desk of Alvin and discovered a letter prescribed by law.
wherein Randy thanked Alvin for having
passed on to him vital trade secrets of
Emilio. Enclosed in the letter was a check
for P50.000.00 drawn against the account
of Randy and payable to Alvin. Emilio then
dismissed Alvin from his employment.
Emilio's proof of Alvin's perfidy are the said
letter and check which are objected to as
inadmissible for having been obtained
through an illegal search. Alvin filed a suit
assailing his dismissal.

Rule on the admissibility of the letter and

check.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The check is admissible in evidence

against Alvin, because the constitutional
prohibition against unreasonable searches
and seizures is a restraint upon the
government and not upon private parties.
[Waterous Drug Corporation v. National
Labor Relations Commission, 280 SCRA 735
(1997)].

However, the letter is inadmissible as

evidence against Alvin, because the
constitutional provision declaring that the
privacy of communication and
correspondence is inviolable is applicable
to private parties. The letter was seized
without a lawful court order, as required by
Section 3(1), Article EH of the Constitution.
Zulueta v. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 699
(1996)

Answer: Yes.
Arrests
Rule 113 of ROC
Bar Zone
What is an arrest?
Luz v. People, 667 SCRA 421 (2012)
Arrest is the taking of a person onto
custody in order that he or she may be
bound to answer for the commission of an
offense. It is effected by an actual restraint
of the person to be arrested or by that
person’s voluntary submission to the
custody of the one making the arrest.
Neither the application of actual force,
manual touching of the body, or physical
restraint, nor a formal declaration of arrest,
is required. It is enough that there be an
intention on the part of one of the parties
to arrest the other, and that there be an
intent on the part of the other to submit,
under the belief and impression that
submission is necessary.
It can be a person not in authority –
citizen’s arrest.
Apprehension is not equal to arresting.
Bar Zone
A police officer flagged down a rider for
driving w/o a helmet. The police officer
invited the rider to come inside their sub-
station located near the area. While issuing
a citation ticket for violation of a municipal
ordinance, the police officer. noticed that
the accused was uneasy and kept on
reaching something from his jacket. He
then asked the rider to take out the
contents of his jacket’s pocket. It turned
out, the rider has in his possession two
plastic sachets of suspected shabu. The
RTC convicted him of illegal possession of
dangerous drugs since he had been
lawfully arrested for a traffic violation and
then subjected to a valid search, which led
to the discovery on his person of two
plastic sachets of shabu. On appeal, the
CA affiremed the RTC’s Decision.
In his appeal to the SC, the rider claims
that . . .
Answer:
Intention to arrest or to submit
There was no intention on the part of the
police to arrest him, deprive him of his
liberty, or take him into custody. Prior to the
issuance of the ticket, the period during
which appellant was at the police station
may be characterized merely as waiting
time.
Bar 2016
Ernesto, a minor, while driving a motor
vehicle, was stopped at a mobile
checkpoint. Noticing that Ernesto is a
minor, SPOI Jojo asked Ernesto to exhibit his
driver’s license but Ernesto failed to
produce it. SPOI Jojo requested Ernesto to
alight from the vehicle and the latter
acceded. Upon observing a bulge in the
pants of Ernesto, the policeman frisked him
and found an unlicensed .22-caliber pistol
inside Ernesto’s right pocket. Ernesto was
arrested, detained and charged. At the
trial, Ernesto, through his lawyer, argued
that, policemen at mobile checkpoints are
empowered to conduct nothing more
than a “visual search”. They cannot order
the persons riding the vehicle to alight.
They cannot frisk, or conduct a body
search of the driver or the passenger of the
vehicle. Ernesto’s lawyer this posited that:
The arrest made as a consequence of the
invalid search was likewise illegal, because
an unlawful act (the search) cannot be
made the basis of a lawful arrest. Rule on
the contention of the lawyer
Search must be incidental to arrest
Lawful arrest must precede the search of a
person and his belongings.
What kind if arrest? – whether with warrant
or warrantless arrest
General Rule and Exception
Section 2. The right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects against unreasonable searches and
seizure of whatever nature and for any
purpose shall be inviolable, and no search
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue
except upon probable cause to be
determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of
the complaint and the witnesses he may
produce, and particularly describing the
place to be searched and the person or
things to be seized.
Exception to the exception (Section 5, Rule
113, ROC)
 Arrests in Flagrante Delicto (caught
red-handed)- When, in his presence,
the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing,
or is attempting to commit an
offense (eg. Rebellion – continuing
crime) – presence – use of senses
 Hot Pursuit Arrest – 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
 Arrest of Escaped Prisoners – 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
Bar Zone
Pat Magtalong is an American Citizen who
was found to have been overstaying in the
Philippines.
The immigration commissioner issued
warrant of arrest against P M so that it can
be determined is she can be deported.
Rule on the integrity of the issuance of the
warrant.
Who may issue a warrant of arrest?
Section 2, Article III . . . no search warrant
or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge . . .
An instance that a person is not secure.
Not actually an exception to the rule:
What is an Administrative Arrest?
Arrest as an incident to a deportation
proceeding.
Bureau of Immigration does not issue a
warrant of arrest but an order of arrest for
the purpose of carrying out a deportation
order that has already become final.
Order of arrest – can be issued by the
commissioner of immigration or the
President (because the Bureau is under the
President)
Katchigan? 1969 case
Bar 1986
The Minister of Trade and Industry is
empowered under an Executive Order to
take all steps and enforce all laws
necessary to stop dollar smuggling, the
highest form of economic sabotage. There
is an existing Presidential Decree enacted
by the former President to the same effect.
On the basis of a preliminary investigation
conducted by the Fiscal detailed to his
office, the Minister issues a warrant for the
arrest of Mr. Fat Cat, long known in police
circles as the head of a big syndicate of
smugglers. As Fat Cat’s counsel, what
would you do to prevent his arrest and
detention? Explain the basis of your action.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I will question the validity of the warrant of
arrest issued by the Minister of Trade and
Industry on the ground that he does not
have the power to do so and that for that
matter, PD 1936, which authorizes
prosecutors designated by the Anti-Dollar
Smuggling Task Force, to issue warrants of
arrest, is unconstitutional. What Art. IV, Sec.
3 authorizes nonjudicial authorities to do is
simply to determine the existence of
probable cause, but he issuance of a
warrant if arrest can only be done by a
judge. Thus, in People v. Villanueva, 110
SCRA 467 (1981). Justice Aquino expressed
the view that a fiscal is a “responsible
officer authorized by law” to determine the
existence of probable cause and that his
finding is a sufficient basis for a judge to
issue a warrant of arrest. Although this view
was concurred in by only two Justices, in
the later case of Placer v. Villanueva, 126
SCRA 463 (1983), the Court held that while
the judge may rely on the fiscal’s finding of
probable cause, the judge is not, however,
bound to issue a warrant thus implying that
only the judge can issue a warrant if arrest.
In fact in Lino v. Fugoso, 77 Phil. 933 (1947)
it was held that the City Fiscal of Manila
“has no authority to issue warrants of
arrest.”
*** lecture answer
I would question the validity of the warrant
of arrest . . .
Section 2, Article 3 – black letter law
Bar Zone
While on routine patrol, police officers
chanced upon two individuals chanting
and in the act of exchanging something.
The police officers introduced themselves
and then inquired from Rebellion what he
was holding. Three strips of aluminum foil
and a plastic sachet which contained
white crystalline substance which looked
like tawas were confiscated from them.
Suspecting that the substance was shabu,
the police officers confiscated the plastic
sachet and brought Rebellion and his
companion to the MAC station. Was there
a valid warrantless arrest?
Requisites of in flagrante delicto arrest:
1. Person to be arrested must commit
an overt act indicating that he has
just commited, is actually commiting,
or is attempting to commit a crime;
2. Such overt act is done in the
presence of or within the view of the
person making the arrest.
Overt act- observable
A lawful arrest must precede the search.
Here, there is no lawful arrest, therefore,
the search is also invalid.
Bar 1993
Johann learned that the police were
looking for him in connection with the rape
of an 18- year old girl, a neighbor. He went
to the police station a week later and
presented himself to the desk sergeant.
Coincidentally. the rape victim was in the
premises executing an extrajudicial
statement. Johann, along with six (6) other
suspects, were placed in a police line- up
and the girl pointed to him as the rapist.
Johann was arrested and locked up in a
cell. Johann was charged with rape in
court but prior to arraignment invoked his
right to preliminary investigation. This was
denied by the judge, and thus, trial
proceeded. After the prosecution
presented several witnesses, Johann
through counsel, invoked the right to bail
and filed a motion therefor, which was
denied outright by the Judge. Johann now
files a petition for certiorari before the
Court of Appeals arguing that: His arrest
was not in accordance with law. Decide.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the warrantless arrest of Johann was
not in accordance with law. As held in Go
v. Court of Appeals, 206 SCRA 138, his case
does not fall under the Instances in Rule
113, sec. 5 (a) of the 1985 Rules of Criminal
Procedure authorizing warrantless arrests. It
cannot be considered a valid warrantless
arrest because Johann did not commit a
crime in the presence of the police
officers, since they were not present when
Johann had allegedly raped his neighbor.
Neither can It be considered an arrest
under Rule 113 sec. 5 (b) which allows an
arrest without a warrant to be made when
a crime has in fact just been committed
and the person making the arrest has
personal knowledge offsets indicating that
the person to be arrested committed it.
Since Johann was arrested a week after
the alleged rape, it cannot be deemed to
be a crime which "has just been
committed". Nor did the police officers
who arrested him have personal
knowledge of facts indicating that Johann
raped his neighbor.
***
Was he validly arrested?
His arrest was illegal.
You have to let him go.
Then, file another case.
Arrest with warrant – There is an
appreciable lapse of time between the
arrest and the commission of the crime
Warrantless arrest – there must be a large
measure of immediacy between the time
the offense is committed and the time of
the arrest
Bar 2008
Having received tips the accused was
selling narcotics, two police officers forced
open the door of his room. Finding him
sitting party dressed on the side of the bed,
the officers spied two capsules on a night
stand beside the bed. When asked, “Are
these yours?” the accused seized the
capsules and put them in his mouth. A
struggle ensued, in the course of which the
officer pounced on the accused, took him
to a hospital where at their direction, a
doctor forced an emetic solution though a
tube into the accused’s stomach against
his will. This process induced vomiting. In
the vomited matter were found two
capsules which proved to contain heroin.
In the criminal case, the chief evidence
against the accused was the two capsules.
(a) As counsel for the accused, what
constitutional rights will you invoke in his
defense?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
As counsel for the accused I would invoke
the constitutional right to be secured
against unreasonable searches and
seizures (Art. III, Sec. 2 of the Constitution)
which guarantees: (1) sanctity of the
home, (2) inadmissibility of the capsules
seized, (3) and inviolability of the person. A
mere tip from a reliable source is not
sufficient to justify warrantless arrest or
search (Peo vs. Nuevas, G.R. No. 170233
Feb. 22,2007).
(b) How should the court decide the case?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The court should declare the search and
seizure illegal:
 1. The entry into the
accused’s home was not a permissible
warrantless action because the police had
no personal knowledge that any crime was
taking place.
 2. Due to the invalid entry
whatever evidence the police gathered
would be inadmissible.
 3. The arrest of the
accused was already invalid and causing
him to vomit while under custody was an
unreasonable invasion of personal privacy
(U.S. vs. Montoya, 473 US 531 [1985])
***
(a) Section 2, Article III
(b) I will decide the case in favor of the
accused
Black letter law: Section 2, Article III
Probable cause of police officers
An actual belief or reasonable grounds of
suspicion. The grounds of suspicion are
reasonable when, in the absence of actual
belief of the arresting officers, the suspicion
that the person to be arrested is probably
guilty of committing the offense, is based
on actual facts, i.e., supported by
circumstances sufficiently strong in
themselves to create the probable cause
of guilty of the person to be arrested. A
reasonable suspicion therefore must be
founded on probable cause, coupled with
good faith of the peace officers making
the arrest.
Coupled with good faith*
In the Bar Q, no reasonable grounds of
suspicion, therefore no probable cause on
their part.
Pp v. Tudtud; reasonable grounds of
suspicion
Search incidental to lawful arrest instances
In the following cases, the search was held
to be incidental to a lawful arrest because
of suspicious circumstances:
(a) Pp v. Tangliben (accused was
acting suspiciously,
(b) Pp v. Malmstedt (a bulge on the
accused’s waist),
(c) Pp v. de Guzman (likewise a bulge
on the waist of the accused, who
was wearing tight-fitting clothes).
Mere tip cannot occasion warrantless
arrest
Notwithstanding tips from confidential
informants and regardless of the fact that
the search yielded contraband, the mere
act of looking from side to side while
holding one abdomen, or of standing on a
corner with one eyes moving very fast,
looking at every person who came near,
does not justify a warrantless arrest under
said Section 5(a). Neither does putting
something in ones pocket, handing over
ones baggage, riding a motorcycle nor
does holding a bad on board a trisikad
sanctioned
Bar 2009
Crack agents of the Manila Police Anti-
Narcotics unit were on surveillance of a
cemetery where the sale and use of
prohibited drugs were rumored to be
rampant. The team saw a man with
reddish and glassy eyes walking unsteadily
towards them, but he immediately veered
away upon seeing the policemen. The
team approached the man, introduced
themselves as peace officers, then asked
what he had in his clenched fist. Because
the man refused to answer, a policeman
pried the fist open and saw a plastic
sachet with crystalline substance. The
team then took the man into custody and
submitted the contents of the sachet to
forensic examination. The Crystalline
substance in the sachet turned out to be
shabu. The man was accordingly charged
in court. During the trial, the accused
challenged the validity of his arrest.
Decide.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The warrantless arrest of the accused was

valid. The cemetery was rumored to be a
place where the sale of drugs was
rampant. The eyes of the accused were
reddish and glassy. He was walking
unsteadily, veered away from the
policemen upon seeing them, and refused
to say what was in his clenched fist. The
policemen had sufficient reason to stop
him and investigate if he was high on
drugs. Since the investigation showed that
the accused was in possession of shabu,
he could be arrested without the need for
a warrant (Manalili v. Court of Appeals, 280
SCRA 400 [1997]).

***

In this case, there is already probable

cause.

Reasonable suspicion

The grounds of suspicion are reasonable

when, in the absence of actual belief of
the arresting officers, the suspicion that the
person to be arrested is probably guilty of
committing the offense, is based on actual
facts supported by circumstances
sufficiently strong in themselves to create a
probable cause of guilty of the person to
be arrested and coupled with good faith.
Abratique Notes on cases under these
principles:
1. Silahis Internationa Hotel, Inc. and
Panlilio v. Soluta et al . 482 SCRA 660
(2006)
- Warrantless search and seizure by
a private person is VALID. Bill of
rights intends to temper the
power of the State against its
citizens. Object seized are
admissible in evidence.
2. Stonehill vs. Diokno
- General or roving warrants are
void. Constitution requires that
the place to be searched and
the persons or things to be seized
must be specifically and
particularly described. Warrant
must (1) readily identify properties
to be seized/ establish identity of
person to be seized, (2) leave
peace officers with no discretion
in serving warrant.
3. Disini vs. Sec of Justice
- Power of Department of Justice
to restrict or block access to
computer data in effect places
the computer dara under seizure
and control of DOJ without a
valid warrant.
o Even if the computer was
found in violation of
Cybercrime Law
4. Mendoza vs. People (G.R. No.
197293, April 21, 2014)
- Probable cause determination is
the duty of the prosecution but
judge may dismiss the case if
based on personal assessment of
evidence, there is no probable
cause. (2 kinds of probable
cause)
- Want of evidence, not a basis for
dismissal by a judge for lack or
probable cause
- Judicial determination ex parte is
allowed
- Lack of probable cause different
from lack of evidence
5. People vs. Butial G.R. No. 192785,
February 4, 2015
- Absence of markings, failure to
preserve the identity of the drugs
warrant an acquittal. If weight of
those mentioned different from
those presented, drug’s identity
may have been compromised.
6. Pestilos vs. Generoso. G.R. No.
182601, November 10, 2014
- GR: Warrantless arrest are invalid
- XPN: If as provided for by law or
jurisprudence. Arrest cannot be
done on mere suspicion or
hearsay (personal knowledge
needed).
o Probable cause – use of
reasonable judgment
(prudence in actions) by
arresting officer
o Good faith on the part of
arresting officer based on
existing facts
o If victims pointed to the
alleged perpetrators of the
crime, there is personal
knowledge (observation)
 Positive identification
by victim
7. People vs. Belocura G.R. No. 173474,
August 29, 2012
- Checkpoint with ununiformed
men where drugs were found
upon breach of traffic rules (using
red plate illegally)
- As long as caught in flagrante
delicto for any crime, persons
may be searched as long as
there is prior arrest. Search is
valid.
- Failure to establish identity if
seized drugs is fatal.
8. Gamboa vs. Chan G.R. No. 193636,
July 24, 2012*
- Surveillance of mayor by police
due to existence of private arymy
– Writ of Habeas Data
- Zones of privacy are protected in
our laws subject to intrusion
based on compelling state
interest
- PNP is expected to forward
findings to Zeñarosa Commission
o Component of intelligence
gathering.
- Intelligence gathered must be
delivered exclusively to
authorities.
 - To be entitked to habeas data – 12. Aberca vs. Ver G.R. No. L-69866,
proof of connection between April 15, 1988
privacy and threat to life, liberty, - Civil damages for violation of
or security must be established rights against unreasonable
with substantial evidence. searches and arrests
o Yes, based on the Civil
9. Nolasco vs. Pano G.R. No. L-69803 Code.
October 8, 1985 - Senior officers are exempt from
- Search warrants that are general liabilty.
or applicable to an entire group - Action for damages not barred
for things vaguely described such by suspension of the privilege of
as “subversive documents” are Writ of Habeas Corpus – it does
invalid. not validste an illegal arrest
- Search warrants should minimize - Command responsibility not
discretion of peace officers in the applicable because illegal
service of warrants. search and arrest is not a delict
- Questions propounded by the
judge must not be general in 13. Pollo vs. Constantino-David G.R. No.
nature 181881, October 18, 2011
- Can the things obtained be - Search of an office computer of
returned? No. May be used as employee administratively
evidence in Rebellion case, charged.
which accused was already - All files were backed-up –
facing prior to the search. pleadings in favor of parties woth
pending cases were found.
- Search of files in an office-owned
10. Luz vs. People G.R. No. 197788, computer is an investigation of a
February 29, 2012 work-related misconduct.
- Flagged-down for traffic - Must be weighed in the
violations then drugs were found reasonableness of the
– there was no valid arrest circumstances
becausse he was not informed of - Officer under investigation has no
his rights. actual expectations of privacy in
- If arrest is illegal, so is the search his computer (gov’t issued). Filed
consequent to the arrest. in computer are owned by the
- Drugs found inside jacket is not agency.
plain view, as it was inside a - Search was judtified in its
metal container. inception and scope –
- Ordering to reveal contents of commission has to act fast to
one’s pocket is not consented prevent destruction of evidence
search. or other tampering of files.
- Intrusion done is not minimal. - The warrantless search was done
(Stop and Frisk) in an open manner.
- Waiver of illegality of arrest does
not mean waiver of admissibility 14. People vs. Jalosjos G.R. No. 132875-
of evidence. 76, February 3, 2000
- For offesnses punishable by more
11. People vs. Enriquez G.R. No. 197550, than 6 years, there is no immunity
September 25, 2013 from arrest
- Month-long surveillance but
police resorted to buy-bust
instead of securing a warrant –
not irregular
- Failure to inventory and mark is
fatal in drugs for the preservation
of the evidence’s integrity.
15. Garcia vs. Executive Secretary G.R.
No. 198554, July 30, 2012*
- Detention as a result of court
martial for violation of Articles of
War (conduct unbecoming an
officer)
- Criminal law principles apply to
court martial proceedings.
- Approval of detention by
President is upheld.
16. People vs. Bravo G.R. No. 135562,
November 22, 1999
- Incriminating admission before
the police during arrest is
inadmissible if not assisted by
counsel and not done in writing.
- “Informal talk” already part of
custodial investigation.
17. Gamboa vs. Cruz G.R. No. L-56291,
June 27, 1988
- Person uder investigation must be
assisted by counsel
- Afforded due process
18. People vs. Lara G.R. No. 199877,
August 13, 2012
- Objection of the validity of an
arrest must be done before
entering a plea. Otherwise, it is
waived.
- Illegal arrest is not sufficient to
overturn a conviction.
- Police line-up is not part of
custodial investigation unless he
is the lone focus of police
investigation.
19. Mangila vs. Pangilinan G.R. No.
160739, July 17, 2013*
- Lawful restraint is not subject to
habeas corpus
- Court will not inquire into the merit
of a criminal act in a writ of
habeas corpus
- It is not a writ of error
- Orderly course of trial must be
pursued
- Habeas corpus is a summary
remedy made to enforce a right
of liberty unlawfully restrained
- Covers only legality of detention
20. Government of Hong Kong vs. Olalia
G.R. No. 153675, April 19, 2007*
- May a potential extradite be
granted bail? – Modern trend in
international law looks for
primacy of the individual and his
rights
- If bail can be granted in
deportation, then bail can be
granted in extradition.
- Extradition is not a criminal
proceeding but stil a machinery
of criminal law.
- Temporary detention is legal but
extended detention viplated
rights to liberty of the individual
but there must be clear and
convincing evidence to grant
bail.
*Not included
21. Laud vs. People G.R. No. 199032
November 19, 2014
- Finding probable cause, the
judge of RTC of Manila issued the
search warrant which may be
served in places outside the
territorial jurisdiction of the court
(in Davao City). Notably, the fact
that a search warrant application
involves a special criminal case
(of heinous crime) excludes it
from the compelling reason
requirement (Section 2, Rule 126)
- A description of a place to
be searched is sufficient if the
officer with the warrant can with
reasonable effort ascertain and
identify the place intended and
distinguish it from other places in the
community,
- Human remains be valid subjects
of a search warrant under the
criminal procedure provision.
- A search warrant which covers
several counts of a certain
specific offense, does not violate
one-offense rule (Section 4, Rule
126).