PEOPLE V.

VALDEZ (1999) boarded the bus and looked for the

person that fit the description and
noticed him holding the green bag.
He ordered the person to get off
TOPIC SEARCH & ZEIZURE
the bus. Once off the bus, he
CRIME Illegal transport of
ordered the suspect to open the
INVOLVED marijuana leaves,
bag and saw a water jug and lunch
The Dangerous Drugs
Act of 1972 box. When opened, the contents
DOCTRINE Warrantless search were marijuana leaves. Suspect’s
and seizures; name was revealed as Samuel
exceptions: Valdez.
1. Warrantless  RTC found Valdez guilty of violating
search and Sec. 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Act
seizure of 1972
incidental to a  Valdez’ appealed and his defense is
lawful arrest that marijuana seized from him
recognized was a product of an unlawful
under Sec. 12
search, hence, inadmissible in
Rule 126 Rules
of Court (now evidence
Sec. 13)
2. Seizure of III. RATIO
evidence in  The constitutional right that no
plain view arrest, search and seizure can be
3. Search of a made without a valid warrant
moving vehicle issued by a competent judicial
4. Consented authority serves as safeguards
warrantless against wanton and unreasonable
search invasion of privacy and liberty.
5. Customs search
 Exceptions:
6. Stop and frisk
a. Warrantless search and seizure
7. Exigent and
emergency incidental to a lawful arrest
circumstances recognized under Sec. 12 Rule
126 Rules of Court (now Sec.
13)
I. ISSUES b. Seizure of evidence in plain
view
W/N there was a valid warrantless search
c. Search of a moving vehicle
and seizure. YES
d. consented warrantless search
W/N the evidence found is admissible. e. Customs search
YES f. Stop and frisk
g. Exigent and emergency
II. FACTS circumstances

 On his way to Lagawe, Ifugao,  Also, lawful arrest without a

SPO1 Mariano was tipped off by a
civilian “asset” that a thin Ilocano
person with a green bag was
about to transport marijuana from
Banawe, Ifugao
 Mariano flagged down one of the
buses bound for Manila. He
warrant may be made by a police
officer or a private person under
the following circumstances:
a. When, in his presence, the
person to be arrested has
committed, is actually
 committing, or is attempting to DISPOSITIVE
commit an offense
b. When an offense has in fact just APPEAL IS DENIED.
been committed, and he has
personal knowledge of facts
that the person to be arrested
has committed it
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.
 In this case, Valdez was caught in
flagrante since he was carrying
marijuana at the time of his arrest.
A crime was actually being
committed, thus, the search made
upon his personal effects falls
squarely under paragraph (a).
 Since there was a valid warrantless
search by the police officer, any
evidence obtained during the
course of the search is admissible
against the suspect.
 Jurisprudence holds instances
where tipped information has
become sufficient probable cause
to effect a warrantless search and
seizure.
 SPO1 Mariano clearly had probable
cause to stop and search the buses
coming from Banaue in view of the
information he got from the civilian
“asset” that somebody having the
same appearance as that of Valdez
and with a green bag would be
transporting Marijuana.
 Valdez also contends that the
civilian “asset” should have been
presented in court. The Court held
that presentation of an informant in
illegal drugs cases is not essential
for conviction nor is it
indispensable for a successful
prosecution because his testimony
would be merely corroborative and
cumulative.