People v.
Montilla Held: Yes, the warrantless arrest,
Facts:
The accused was Ruben
Montilla y Gatdula, alias “Joy”. He
was charged on August 22, 1994
for violating Section 4, Article II of
the Dangerous Drugs Act No. 1972,
Republic Act. 6425, as amended by
Republic Act No. 7659.
1.) Accused-appellant was
apprehended on June 20, 1994
near a waiting shed located at
Barangay Salitran, Dasmarias,
Cavite by members of the Cavite
PNP Command based in Dasmarias.
2.) The said members of the PNP
was aided by an informer when
they caught Montilla transporting
28 marijuana bricks contained in a
traveling bag and a carton box.
3.) The informer had informed
them the day before, or on June 19,
1994 at about 2:00 P.M., that a
drug courier, whom said informer
could recognize, would be arriving
somewhere in Barangay Salitran,
Dasmarias from Baguio City with
an undetermined amount of
marijuana.
4.) The informer pinpointed to the
arresting officers the appellant
when the latter alighted from a
passenger jeepney on the
aforestated day, hour, and place
which lead to the latter’s arrest
and subsequent seizure.
5.) Accused-appellant now assails
the validity of the warrantless
arrest, search and seizure.
Issue: Whether or not the
warrantless, search and seizure
was valid.
search and seizure was valid.
What made the warrantless
search and seizure valid, that
is to say what made the arrest
preceding the search valid?
1.) As soon as appellant had
alighted from the passenger
jeepney, the informer at once
indicated to the officers that their
suspect was and that the
marijuana was likely hidden inside
the traveling bag and carton box
which appellant was carrying at the
time.
2.) Accordingly, they approached
appellant, introduced themselves
as policemen, and requested him
to open and show them the
contents of the traveling bag,
which appellant voluntarily and
readily did.
5.) Upon cursory inspection, the
bag yielded the prohibited drugs,
so, without bothering to further
search the box, they brought
appellant and his luggage to their
headquarters for questioning.
6.) Because of this, there were
sufficient facts antecedent to the
search and seizure that already
constitutive of probable cause, and
which by themselves could
properly create in the minds of the
officers a well-grounded and
reasonable belief that appellant
was in the act of violating the law.
The search yielded affirmance both
of that probable cause and the
actuality that appellant was then
actually committing a crime by
illegally transporting prohibited
drugs. With these attendant facts,
it is ineluctable that appellant was
caught in flagrante delicto,
hence his arrest and the search of
his belongings without the requisite
warrant were both justified.
Suppose the Supreme Court
found that the exception of
search incidental to a lawful
arrest cannot be
countenanced, could there
have been another exception
to anchor the validity of the
search and seizure on?
When the officers
approached appellant and
introduced themselves as
policemen, they asked him about
the contents of his luggage, and
after he replied that they contained
personal effects, the officers asked
him to open the traveling bag.
Appellant readily acceded,
presumably or in all likelihood
resigned to the fact that the law
had caught up with his criminal
activities. When an individual
voluntarily submits to a search or
consents to have the same
conducted upon his person or
premises, he is precluded from
later complaining thereof.
People v. Luisito Go
Facts:
The accused was Luisito Go y
Ko. He was charged for violating RA
6452 (Dangerous Drugs Act) and
PD 1866 (Illegal/Unlawful
Possession of Firearms).
1.) On October 22, 1992 members
of the Intelligence and Follow-up
Unit of the Calamba Police, went to
the police outpost at Crossing,
Calamba, Laguna, to follow up an
intelligence report that shabu was
being supplied there. Police civilian
reported to them that he saw
accused-appellant Luisito Go, also
known as "King Louie", enter the
Flamingo Disco House with two
women. Panuringan said that he
spotted a gun tucked in accused-
appellant's waist. The policemen
proceeded to the Flamingo.
2.) When they arrived, the police
officers informed the owner that
they were conducting a search for
illegally possessed firearms. Police
officers saw accused-appellant and
his lady companions seated at a
table. They identified themselves
and asked accused-appellant to
stand up. When the latter did so,
the policemen saw the gun tucked
in his waist. Accused-appellant was
unable to produce the license. The
gun was confiscated by the police
officers. Accused-appellant was
invited to the police precinct for
questioning.
3.) On the way out, accused-
appellant asked permission to
bring his car. When accused-
appellant opened the door, police
officers saw pieces of glass tooters
and tin foils on the backseat and
floor of the car. They asked
accused-appellant why he had
these items, but he did not say
anything. Instead, accused-
appellant suggested that they talk
the matter over, and intimated that
he had money but officers rejected
his offer. Accused-appellant took
out a case from the car and opened
it which contained shiny white
substance wrapped in cellophane
and P120,000.00 in cash. The
substance turned out to be shabu
after its investigation.
4.) Accused-appellant now assails
the validity of the warrantless
arrest, search and seizure.
Issue: Whether or not the
warrantless, search and seizure
was valid.
Held: Yes, the warrantless arrest,
search and seizure was valid.
What made the warrantless
search and seizure valid, that
is to say what made the arrest
preceding the search valid?
The police saw the gun
tucked in appellant's waist when he
stood up which was plainly visible.
No search was conducted as none
was necessary. Accused-appellant
could not show any license for the
firearm, whether at the time of his
arrest or thereafter. Thus, he was
in effect committing a crime in
the presence of the police
officers. No warrant of arrest was
necessary in such a situation, it
being one of the recognized
exceptions under the Rules.
As a consequence of
appellant's valid warrantless arrest,
he may be lawfully searched for
dangerous weapons or anything
which may be used as proof of the
commission of an offense, without
a search warrant, as provided in
Rule 126.
Suppose the Supreme Court
found that the exception of
search incidental to a lawful
arrest cannot be
countenanced, could there
have been another exception
to anchor the validity of the
search and seizure on?
The drugs discovered was as
a result of a consented search
because the accused himself lead
the policeman to his own car,
opened the car himself, and even
tried to bribe the officers when the
illegal drugs was discovered.
Hence, the drugs are admissible in
evidence.
However, in the case of People v.
Aruta:
Facts:
Rosa Aruta y Menguin was
arrested and charged with violating
Section 4, Article II of Republic Act
No. 6425 or the Dangerous Drugs
Act.
1.) On December 13, 1988, a
policeman was tipped off by his
informant that a certain Aling Rosa
would be arriving from Baguio City
the following day with a large
volume of marijuana. Acting on
said tip, PNP assembled a team.
2.) Said team proceeded to West
Bajac-Bajac, Olongapo City in the
afternoon of December 14, 1988
and deployed themselves near the
PNB building along Rizal Avenue
and the Caltex gasoline station.
Dividing themselves into two
groups, one group and the
informant posted themselves near
the PNB building while the other
group waited near the Caltex
gasoline station.
3.) While thus positioned, a bus in
front of the PNB building at around
6:30 in the evening of the same
day from where two females and a
male got off. The informant pointed
out to the team Aling Rosa who
was carrying a travelling bag.
4.) The team approached her and
introduced themselves as NARCOM
agents. When asked about the
contents of her bag, Aling Rosa
handed it to the agents.
5.) Upon inspection, the bag was
found to contain dried marijuana
leaves so they confiscated the bag.
Accused-appellant was then
brought to the NARCOM office for
investigation where a Receipt of
Property Seized was prepared for
the confiscated marijuana leaves.
6.) Upon examination of the seized
marijuana specimen, it yielded
positive results for marijuana, a
prohibited drug. After the
presentation of the testimonies of
the arresting officers and their
technical report, the prosecution
rested its case.
7.) Accused-appellant now assails
the validity of the warrantless
arrest, search and seizure.
Issue: Whether or not the
warrantless, search and seizure
was valid.
Held: No, the warrantless arrest,
search and seizure was invalid.
Why was the warrantless
search and seizure valid, that
is to say what made the arrest
preceding the search invalid?
The NARCOM agents did not
apply for a search warrant when
they could have secured one
without too much difficulty. The
person intended to be
searched has been
particularized and the thing to
be seized specified. The time
was also sufficiently ascertained to
be in the afternoon of December
14, 1988. Aling Rosa turned out to
be accused-appellant and the thing
to be seized was marijuana. The
vehicle was identified to be a
Victory Liner bus. In fact, the
NARCOM agents purposely
positioned themselves near the
spot where Victory Liner buses
normally unload their passengers.
Assuming that the NARCOM agents
failed to particularize the vehicle,
this would not in any way hinder
them from securing a search
warrant. The above particulars
would have already sufficed. In any
case, this Court has held that the
police should particularly describe
the place to be searched and the
person or things to be seized,
wherever and whenever it is
feasible.
Permissible Area of the Search
In People v. Che Chun
Ting, it was held that a person
lawfully arrested searched for
dangerous weapons or anything
which may be used as proof of the
commission of the offense, without
a search warrant. The search may
extend beyond the person of the
one arrested to include the
permissible area or surroundings
within his immediate control. The
accused was admittedly outside
unit 22 and in the act of delivering
to Mabel Cheung Mei Po a bag of
shabu when he was arrested by the
NARCOM operatives. Moreover, it is
borne by the records that Unit 122
was not even his residence but that
of his girlfriend Nimfa Ortiz, and
that he was merely a sojourner
therein. Hence, it can hardly be
said that the inner portion of the
house constituted a permissible
area within his reach or immediate
control, to justify a warrantless
search therein.
The case explained that the
warrantless search is sanctioned
only with respect to the person
of the suspect, and things that
may be seized from him are limited
to "dangerous weapons" or
''anything which may be used as
proof of the commission of the
offense." The search must have
been conducted at about the time
of the arrest or immediately
thereafter and only at the place
where the suspect was arrested, or
the premises or surroundings
under his immediate control.
In People v. Cubcubin, it was
held that a valid arrest allows only
the seizure of evidence or
dangerous weapons either in the
person of the one arrested or
within the area of his immediate
control. The rationale for such
search and seizure is to prevent
the person arrested either from
destroying evidence or from using
the weapon against his captor. It is
clear that the warrantless search in
this case cannot be justified on this
ground. For neither the t-shirt nor
the gun was within the area of
accused-appellants immediate
control. In fact, according to the
prosecution, the police found the
gun only after going back to the
house of accused-appellant.
PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE
In the case of People v.
Musa,1 the Supreme Court
surveyed American jurisprudence,
and in which cases, the earlier
applications of the plain view
doctrine were made.
Facts:
Mari Musa was charged of
selling marijuana in violation of
Article II, Section 4 of Republic Act
No. 6425, as amended, otherwise
known as the Dangerous Drugs Act
of 1972.
1.) In the morning of December 13,
1989, NARCOM team based at
Calarian, Zamboanga City
conducted surveillance and test
buy on a certain Mari Musa of
Suterville, Zamboanga City.
Information received from civilian
informer was that this Mari Musa
was engaged in selling marijuana
in said place. NARCOM proceeded
to the house of Mari Musa. A
NARCOM agent was able to buy
marijuana from Musa.
2.) The next day, a buy-bust was
planned. They proceeded to the
house of Mari Musa, while the rest
of the NARCOM group positioned
themselves at strategic places
about 90 to 100 meters from Mari
Musa's house. Transaction was
then made by an agent and musa.
After receiving the money, Mari
Musa went back to his house and
1
came back and gave the dried
marijuana. The teams went to the
house.
3.) An agent found a plastic bag
containing dried marijuana inside it
somewhere in the kitchen. Mari
Musa was then placed under arrest
and brought to the NARCOM office.
Was such item legally seized
by the police officers? Why or
why not?
The appellant was arrested
and his person searched in the
living room. Failing to retrieve the
marked money which they hoped
to find, the NARCOM agents
searched the whole house and
found the plastic bag in the
kitchen. The plastic bag was,
therefore, not within their "plain
view" when they arrested the
appellant as to justify its seizure.
The NARCOM agents had to move
from one portion of the house to
another before they sighted the
plastic bag.
What American jurisprudence
was used by the Supreme
Court to compare the present
case? What were the
distinctions drawn by the
Supreme Court?
In the case of Ker vs.
California, the police officer had
reason to walk to the doorway of
the adjacent kitchen and from
which position he saw the
marijuana, the NARCOM agents in
this case went from room to room
with the obvious intention of
fishing for more evidence.
Unlike Ker v. California,
where the marijuana was visible to
the police officer's eyes, the
NARCOM agents in this case could
not have discovered the
inculpatory nature of the contents
of the bag had they not forcibly
opened it. Even assuming then,
that the NARCOM agents
inadvertently came across the
plastic bag because it was within
their "plain view," what may be
said to be the object in their "plain
view" was just the plastic bag and
not the marijuana.
May the plain view doctrine be
used for exploratory searches?
Why or why not?
The "plain view" doctrine
may not be used to launch
unbridled searches and
indiscriminate seizures nor to
extend a general exploratory
search made solely to find
evidence of defendant's guilt. The
"plain view" doctrine is usually
applied where a police officer is
not searching for evidence against
the accused, but nonetheless
inadvertently comes across an
incriminating object.
In the more recent case of
People v. Sarap, the Supreme
Court clearly identified the
requisites that must be complied
with for a proper application of the
plain view doctrine.
Facts:
Melly Sarap y Arcangeles was
charged for violating Section 4 of
Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise
known as the Dangerous Drugs Act

1.) Armed with a search warrant,
SPO4 Gelacio R. Guarino and
others raided the house of Conrado
Ricaforte at Rizal Street, Poblacion,
Banga, Aklan on March 2, 1996,
relative to the reported sale of
marijuana by its occupants, Jonalyn
Duran, Joysie Duran and Pepe
Casabuena. The three were
apprehended for illegal possession
of marijuana and were detained at
the Banga Police Station.
2.) In the course of their
investigation, the police learned
that a certain Melly from Capiz and
one Roger were the suppliers of
marijuana and that they will be
back on March 4, 1996.
3.) The police learned of a certain
Melly from Capiz and one Roger
were the suppliers of marijuana
and that they will be back on March
4, 1996.
4.) On March 4, 1996, Janet Iguiz,
caretaker of the house of Conrado
Ricaforte informed Guarino that
there were two strangers looking
for the Duran sisters.
5.) Accordingly, Guarino and
Navida recorded the report in the
police blotter and proceeded to the
house of Conrado Ricaforte, which
is more or less three hundred
meters away from the police
station.
6.) When they arrived there,
Guarino saw a woman, who turned
out to be accused-appellant Melly
Sarap, walking in the alley near the
house. Accused-appellant saw
Guarino and Navida in police
uniform and immediately threw
away her black canvass bag, which
her companion Roger Amar picked
up. Guarino blocked Saraps path
and grabbed from her the green
plastic bag she was holding. Upon
inspection, the plastic bag was
found to contain two blocks of
marijuana fruiting tops. In the
meantime, Navida pursued Amar
and arrested him.
7.) The marijuana confiscated from
Sarap was brought to the Iloilo
Headquarters for laboratory
examination. The chemical analysis
revealed that the substance was
indeed marijuana or Indian hemp.
Consequently, the above-quoted
information was filed against Sarap
and Amar.
8.) Accused-appellant now assails
the validity of the warrantless
arrest, search and seizure.
Issue: Whether or not the
warrantless, search and seizure
was valid.
Held: No, the warrantless arrest,
search and seizure was invalid.
What are the requisites of
plain view?
(a) a prior valid intrusion based on
the valid warrantless arrest in
which the police are legally present
in the pursuit of their official duties;
(b) the evidence was inadvertently
discovered by the police who had
the right to be where they are;
(c) the evidence must be
immediately apparent;
(d) plain view justified mere seizure
of evidence without further search.
Was such item legally seized
by the police officers? Why or
why not?
 In the absence of probable
cause to effect a valid warrantless
arrest, the search of Saraps bag
was also not justified as
seizure of evidence in plain
view under the exception. The
marijuana fruiting tops contained in
the green plastic bag carried by
Sarap were not clearly visible.

Was the warrantless arrest

valid in this case? Why or why
not?

No, there was no probable cause,

so the warrantless arrest was held
to be invalid.

Take the case of People v. Figueroa

for example. Here, the Supreme
Court found that there was a valid
seizure in plain view of a pistol, a
magazine and seven rounds of
ammunition. The .45 caliber pistol,
magazine and rounds of
ammunition were not unlawfully
obtained. The search and seizure
was done admittedly on the
occasion of a lawful arrest. A
significant exception from the
necessity for a search warrant is
when the search and seizure is
effected as an incident to a lawful
arrest.