PART IV: WARRANTLESS ARRESTS
1. Prescinding from Article III, Section 2 of
the 1987 Constitution, arrests may only be valid if
they are done pursuant to a valid warrant.
However, as a matter of exception, the Rules of
Court provide for limited instances when a valid
arrest may be made even without a warrant.
Specifically, Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of
Court provides for three (3)
instances, thus:
“Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.
— A peace officer or a private person may,
without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be
arrested has committed, is actually committing,
or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) 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;
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 is
temporarily confined while his case is pending or
has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another.
In cases falling under paragraph (a) and (b)
above, the person arrested without a warrant
shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police
station or jail and shall be proceeded against in
accordance with section 7
of Rule 112.”
2. While the Rules of Court only provide for
three (3) instances, there is a fourth instance –
when the right to contest the illegality of the
arrest was waived. Each of which shall be
tackled in turn.
3. Before proceeding, take particular
notice as well that both a peace officer and a
private person may carry out a warrantless arrest
in any of the three (3) instances provided for
under Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Court.
When a private person carries out the warrantless
arrest, such is called a “citizen’s arrest.”
IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO
4. In the case of People v. Aminnudin, the
Supreme Court highlighted the legal
infirmity of an arrest for noncompliance with the
requisites of an in flagante delicto
exception.
People v Aminnudin
Idel Aminnudin was arrested on June 25, 1984,
shortly after disembarking from the M/V Wilcon
9 at about 8:30 in the evening, in Iloilo City. The
PC officers who waere in fact waiting for him
simply accosted him, inspected his bag and
finding what looked like marijuana leaves took
him to their headquarters for investigation. The
two bundles of suspect articles were
confiscated from him and later taken to the
NBI laboratory for examination. When they
were verified as marijuana leaves, an
information for violation of the Dangerous
Drugs Act was filed against him. Later, the
information was amended to include Farida Ali
y Hassen, who had also been arrested with
him that same evening and likewise
investigated. Both were arraigned and
pleaded not guilty. Subsequently, the fiscal
filed a motion to dismiss the charge against Ali
on the basis of a sworn statement of the
arresting officers absolving her after a
"thorough investigation." 5The motion was
granted, and trial proceeded only against the
accused- appellant, who was eventually
convicted.
In his defense, Aminnudin disclaimed the
marijuana, averring that all he had in his bag
was his clothing consisting of a jacket, two
shirts and two pairs of pants. He alleged that
he was arbitrarily arrested and immediately
handcuffed.|||
SC acquitted the accused
- Though the SC was not convinced by
the defense, it didn’t stop them in
acquitting the accused. The prosecution
obtained the evidence illegally
because, fruit of a poisonous tree,
search warrant was not produced by the
police. (they’re contending warrantless
arrest)
- The police, as per evidence, arrested the
accused because of the tip an
informant. However, they should have
secured a warrant because they
 gathered the information days before
the arrival of the accused, they could
have persuaded a judge that there was
probable cause, indeed, to justify the
issuance of a warrant. Yet they did
nothing. No effort was made to comply
with the law.
- The accused, during the time of his arrest
, was not committing a crime nor it was
shown that he was about to do so or he
has just done so. ( he was not caught in
flagrante delicto )
i. What was the criminal charge against
Aminnudin?
- Violation of the Dangerous drugs Act
ii. What were the circumstances surrounding the
arrest of Aminnudin?
- Shortly after disembarking from the ship at
about 8:30 in the evening,. The PC officers
who were in fact waiting for him simply
accosted him, inspected his bag and
finding what looked like marijuana leaves
took him to their headquarters for
investigation. It was then verified as
marijuana.
iii. Based on testimony, what impelled the
arresting officers to plan the arrest of
Aminnudin? How long were they sitting on such
information?
- They had received a tip from a trusted
informant.
- They had at least 2 days (the police were
inconsistent, some said 2 days, 3 days and
even some said 1 week.)
iv. Was there a sense of urgency in the case to
forego with securing a warrant?
- No there was no sense of urgency (they
had at least 2 days)
v. Was there any overt act by Aminnudin which
may have been used to carry
out a warrantless arrest?
- No there was not. The accused, during the
time of his arrest , was not committing a
crime nor it was shown that he was about
to do so or he has just done so. ( he was not
caught in flagrante delicto )
vi. Must the seized marijuana be admitted in
evidence? Support your answer.
- No, That evidence cannot be admitted,
and should never have been considered
by the trial court for the simple fact is that
the marijuana was seized illegally.
5. In the case of People v. Molina, the Supreme
Court explained whether a warrantless arrest
may be justified based on “reliable information”
sans any overt act indicating the commission of a
crime.
People v Molina and Mula
SPO1 Paguidopon was then with his informer
when a motorcycle passed by. His informer
pointed to the motorcycle driver, accused-
appellant Mula, as the pusher.
As to accused-appellant Molina, SPO1
Paguidopon had no occasion to see him before
the arrest. Moreover, the names and addresses
of the accused-appellants came to the
knowledge of SPO1 Paguidopon only after they
were arrested.
In the morning of August 8, 1995, the PNP,
Precinct No. 3, Matina, Davao City, dispatched
tha team of Police Officers to proceed to the
house of SPO1 Marino Paguidopon, after the
latter received an information from his informer
that an alleged marijuana pusher will be passing
at that place anytime that morning. At around
9:30, a "trisikad" carrying Nasario Molina and
Gregorio Mula passed by. SPO1 Paguidopon then
pointed at Nasario and Gregorio as the pushers.
The team then immediately boarded the vehicle,
overtook the "trisikad" and then requested it to
stop. Mula then handed the black bag, which he
was holding to Molina. After introducing himself
as police officer, Pamplona requested Molina to
open the bag. Molina replied " Boss, if possible
we will settle this." Pamplona however insisted on
opening the bag, which revealed the marijuana
leaves inside.
SC acquitted the accused-appelants
- Accused-appellants manifested no
outward indication that would justify their
arrest. In holding a bag on board a trisikad,
accused-appellants could not be said to
be committing, attempting to commit or
have committed a crime. It matters not
that accused-appellant Molina responded
"Boss, if possible we will settle this" to the
request of SPO1 Pamplona to open the
bag. Such response which allegedly
reinforced the "suspicion" of the arresting
officers that accused-appellants were
committing a crime, is an equivocal
statement which standing alone will not
constitute PROBABLE CAUSE to effect an in
flagrante delicto arrest. Note that were it
not for SPO1 Marino Paguidopon (who did
not participate in the arrest but merely
pointed accused- appellants to the
arresting officers), accused-appellants
could not be the subject of any suspicion,
reasonable or otherwise.
- While SPO1 Paguidopon claimed that he
and his informer conducted a surveillance
of accused-appellant Mula, SPO1
Paguidopon, however, admitted that he
only learned Mula's name and address
after the arrest. What is more, it is doubtful if
SPO1 Paguidopon indeed recognized
accused-appellant Mula. It is worthy to
note that, before the arrest, he was able to
see Mula in person only once, pinpointed
to him by his informer while they were on
the side of the road.
i. What was the criminal charge against Molina?
- Violation of Section 8, of the Dangerous Drugs
Act of 1972 (Republic Act No. 6425), as
amended by Republic Act No. 7659
ii. What were the circumstances surrounding the
arrest of Molina?
- It all started when a police officer
(Paguidopon) received a tip from his
informant that the accused-appellant was
indeed a pusher. However, that information
was doubtful since it was never proven that
such police officer established probable
cause since he only saw the accused
once, when it was pointed out by his
informant.
- On the day of the arrest, such police officer
received an information from his informer
that an alleged marijuana pusher will be
passing at that place anytime that
morning.
- the accused-appellants were just holding a
bag on board a trisikad and it could not be
said that they are about to commit a crime
etc.
iii. In the case, the Supreme Court cited the cases
of People v. Chua Ho San, People v. Doria, and
People v. Aminnudin to explain the requirement
of “probable cause” to carry out a warrantless
arrest. What must be the basis of probable cause
and how did the Supreme Court discuss the
same in the case?
- The arresting officer, therefore, must have
personal knowledge of such fact or, as
recent case law adverts to, personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances
convincingly indicative or constitutive of
probable cause (People v Chua Ho San)
- 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 guilt of the person to
be arrested. A reasonable suspicion
therefore must be founded on probable
cause, coupled with good faith on the part
of the peace officers making the arrest.
(People v Doria)
- As applied to in flagrante delicto arrests, it is
settled that "reliable information" alone,
absent any overt act indicative of a
felonious enterprise in the presence and
within the view of the arresting officers, are
not sufficient to constitute probable cause
that would justify an in flagrante delicto
arrest.
- To all appearances, he was like any of the
other passengers innocently disembarking
from the vessel. It was only when the
informer pointed to him as the carrier of the
marijuana that he suddenly became
suspect and so subject to apprehension
(People v Aminnudin)
 - In the case at bar, the overt acts of
committing such crime were absent.
Therefore, it is not sufficient for it to be
considered “probable cause”. Further,
Paguidopon (who alleged that he
established probable cause because of
the info he received from his informat) was
not the arresting officer, it was Pamplona.
iv. What are the two (2) requisites, highlighted by
the Supreme Court in the case, in order to carry
out a valid in flagrante delicto arrest?
- to constitute a valid in flagrante delicto arrest,
two requisites must concur:
(1) the person to be arrested must execute an
overt act indicating that he has just committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit
a crime; and
(2) such overt act is done in the presence or
within the view of the arresting officer.
v. Were these requisites complied with?
-none of which were complied
6. In the case of People v. Mengote, it can be
read that a warrantless arrest may be justified on
the basis of ‘reasonable suspicion’ or ‘probable
cause’ that a crime is being committed.
However, such ‘reasonable suspicion’ or
‘probable cause’ must arise from overt acts
indicating the commission of a crime.
People v Mengote
The incident occurred Police District received a
telephone call from an informer that there were
three SUSPICIOUS- LOOKING PERSONS at the
corner of Juan Luna and North Bay Boulevard in
Tondo, Manila. A surveillance team was
dispatched to the place. As later narrated at the
trial by Patrolmen, they there saw two men
"looking from side to side," one of whom was
holding his abdomen.
They approached, whereupon the two tried to
run away but were unable to escape because
the other lawmen had surrounded them. The
suspects were then searched. One of them, who
turned out to be the accused-appellant, was
found with a .38 caliber Smith and Wesson
revolver with six live bullets in the chamber. One
other witness presented by the prosecution was
Danganan, who identified the subject weapon as
among the articles stolen from him during the
robbery in his house. He pointed to Mengote as
one of the robbers. He had duly reported the
robbery to the police, indicating the articles
stolen from him, including the revolver.
For his part, Mengote made no effort to prove
that he owned the firearm or that he was
licensed to possess it and claimed instead that
the weapon had been "planted" on him at the
time of his arrest.
SC acquitted the accused-appellant
- These requirements have not been
established. the accused-appellant was
merely "looking from side to side" and
"holding his abdomen,". There was
apparently no offense that had just been
committed or was being actually
committed or at least being attempted by
Mengote in their presence.
- The caller did not explain why he thought
the men looked suspicious nor did he
elaborate on the impending crime.LL
- The prosecution has not shown that at the
time of Mengote's arrest an offense had in
fact just been committed and that the
arresting officers had personal knowledge
of facts indicating that Mengote had
committed it. All they had was HEARSAY
INFORMATION
- Without the evidence of the firearm taken
from him at the time of his illegal arrest, the
prosecution has lost its most important
exhibit and must therefore fail. The
testimonial evidence against Mengote
(which is based on the said firearm) is not
sufficient to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime imputed to
him.
i. What was the criminal charge against
Mengote?
- Illegal possession of firearms
ii. What were the overt acts which impelled
the police officers to carry out a warrantless
arrest?
- they there saw two men "looking from side
to side," one of whom was holding his
abdomen.
iii. Was the arrest a valid in flagrante delicto
arrest?
In the landmark case of People v. Burgos
(cited in the case of Mengote)
In arrests without a warrant under
Section 6(b), however, it is not enough
that there is reasonable ground to
believe that the person to be arrested
has committed a crime.
- A crime must in fact or actually have been
committed first.
- That a crime has actually been committed
is an essential precondition.
- It is not enough to suspect that a crime may
have been committed.
- The fact of the commission of the offense
must be undisputed. The test of reasonable
ground applies only to the identity of the
perpetrator. (Emphasis supplied)
In the case at bar, it was not a valid in flagrante
delicto arrest. There was apparently no offense
that had just been committed or was being
actually committed or at least being attempted.
7. The case of People v. Laguio is another case
which illustrates an invalid arrest in flagrante
delicto.
People v Laguio
On 16 May 1996, Police operatives , arrested
SPO2 Vergel de Dios, Rogelio Anoble and a
certain Arellano, for unlawful possession of shabu.
In the course of the investigation of the three
arrested persons, Redentor Teck, alias Frank, and
Joseph Junio were identified as the source of the
drug. An entrapment operation was then set.
That same date, Redentor Teck and Joseph
Junio were arrested while they were about to
hand over another bag of shabu to SPO2 De Dios
and company. They informed the police
operatives that they were working as talent
manager and gymnast instructor, respectively, of
Glamour Modeling Agency owned by Lawrence
Wang. Redentor Teck and Joseph Junio did not
disclose their source of shabu but admitted that
they were working for Wang.
They also disclosed that they knew of a
scheduled delivery of shabu early the following
morning , and that their employer (Wang) could
be found at the Maria Orosa Apartment in
Malate, Manila. The police operatives decided
to look for Wang. Police Inspector Cielito Coronel
and his men then proceeded to Maria Orosa
Apartment and placed the same under
surveillance. TCacIE
Prosecution witness testified that at about 2:10
a.m. of 17 May 1996, Wang, who was described
to the operatives, came out of the apartment
and walked towards a parked BMW car. On
nearing the car, he (witness) together with
Captain Margallo and two other police officers
approached Wang, introduced themselves to
him as police officers, asked his name and, upon
hearing that he was Lawrence Wang,
immediately frisked him and asked him to open
the back compartment of the BMW car. When
frisked, there was found inside the front right
pocket of Wang and confiscated from him an
unlicensed AMT Cal. 380 9mm automatic Back-
up Pistol loaded with ammunitions. At the same
time, the other members of the operatives
searched the BMW car and found inside several
sachets of shabu.
The respondent judge, Laguio, Jr., issued the
Resolution granting Wang's Demurrer to
Evidence and acquitting him of all charges for
lack of evidence,
SC affirms the decision of the trial court judge
Take note:
There are actually two (2) acts involved in this
case, namely, the warrantless arrest and the
warrantless search. There is no question that
warrantless search may be conducted as an
incident to a valid warrantless arrest. The law
requires that there be first a lawful arrest before a
search can be made; the process cannot be
reversed. However, if there are valid reasons to
conduct lawful search and seizure which
thereafter shows that the accused is CURRENTLY
committing a crime, the accused may be
lawfully arrested in flagrante delicto without
need for a warrant of arrest.
i. Who were the accused in this case and
what were the criminal charges against
them?
- SPO2 Vergel de Dios, Rogelio Anoble and a
certain Arellano. Their source of the drugs
was Redentor Teck and Joseph Junio.
Lawrence Wang was the employer of Teck
and Junio. The prosecution alleges that Mr.
Wang was their source. Violation of the
Dangerous drugs acts, Illegal possession of
firearms, and violation of COMELEC
gunban
ii. What were the prior circumstances
which prodded the arrest of Wang?
- Teck and Junio informed the Police that
they are working for Wang. They also
disclosed that they knew of a scheduled
delivery of shabu early the following
morning , and that their employer (Wang)
could be found at the Maria Orosa
Apartment
iii. What motion/s was/were filed by the
Defense camp after the prosecution
rested its case? Who was the judge of
the RTC and how did he resolve the
motion/s? What was his basis/es?
- The respondent judge, Laguio, Jr., issued
the Resolution granting Wang's Demurrer
to Evidence and acquitting him of all
charges for lack of evidence,
- he inserted one of his fingers in a plastic bag
iv. May a warrantless search be done
pursuant to a lawful warrantless arrest?
- . There is no question that warrantless
search may be conducted as an incident
to a valid warrantless arrest. The law
requires that there be first a lawful arrest
before a search can be made; the process
cannot be reversed.
v. What were the overt acts of Wang
surrounding his arrest? Were these acts
sufficient to carry out a warrantless
arrest?
- He was merely walking from the Maria
Orosa Apartment and was about to enter
the parked BMW car
SC said- The facts and circumstances
surrounding the present case did not manifest
any suspicious behavior on the part of private
respondent Lawrence Wang that would
reasonably invite the attention of the police.
He was not committing any visible offense then.
Therefore, there can be no valid warrantless
arrest in flagrante delicto It is settled that "reliable
information" alone, absent any overt act
indicative of a felonious enterprise in the
presence and within the view of the arresting
officers, is not sufficient to constitute probable
cause that would justify an in flagrante delicto
arrest.
8. The case of People v. Claudio is an example of
a case in which the Supreme Court upheld the
validity of the warrantless arrest in flagrante
delicto. What were the overt acts in this case
that prompted the police officer to carry out an
arrest?
People v Claudio
Obiña, a policeman, testified that while on board
the Victory Liner heading back to his home in
Olongapo. Claudio boarded the same bus and
took the seat in front of him after placing a
woven buri bag made of plastic containing
some vegetables she was carrying at the back of
Obiña’s seat. With the feeling that there was
some unusual, he had the urge to
search(secretly) the woven plastic bag so when
they reached San Fernando, Pampanga,
located at the bottom of the woven bag and
smelt marijuana. He could recognize the smell of
marijuana because he was assigned at that time
at the ANTI-NARCOTICS Unit. He did not,
however, do anything after he discovered that
there was marijuana inside the plastic bag of the
accused until they reached Olongapo City and
the accused alighted from the bus.
Obina intercepted her and showed her his ID
Identifying himself as a policeman and told her
he will search her bag because of the suspicion
that she was carrying marijuana inside said bag.
Claudio replied, "Please go with me, let us settle
this at home." However, the witness did not heed
her plea and instead handcuffed her right hand
and with her, boarded a tricycle right away and
brought the suspect to the police headquarters
with her bag appearing to contain
vegetables. At the police headquarters
Investigation Section, the bag was searched in
the presence of Investigator Cpl. Tiongco, Obiña,
Claudio and Sgt. Leoncio Bagang. I
- Appellant Claudio was caught transporting
prohibited drugs. Pat. Daniel Obiña did not need
a warrant to arrest Claudio as the latter was
caught in flagrante delicto. The warrantless
search being an incident to a lawful arrest is in
itself lawful.
Law enforcers are presumed to have regularly
performed their duty in the absence of proof to
the contrary because in this case the accused
was inconsistent in her positions to the briefs
being submitted.
9. Take particular notice, however, of the cases
of People v. Tangliben and People v. Maspil. In
both cases, the Supreme Court upheld the
validity of a warrantless arrest in flagrante delicto
pursuant to a tipped reliable information. This is in
stark contrast to the decision of the Supreme
Court in the case of People v. Aminnudin. What
facts were present in the cases of Tangliben and
Maspil which were not present in the case of
Aminnudin?
People v Tangliben
Late evening of March 2 1982, patrolmen
together with tanods were conducting
surveillance mission at the Victory Liner Terminal
compound located at San Nicolas, Pampanga. It
was aimed not only against persons who may
commit misdemeanors at the said place but also
on persons who may be engaging in the traffic of
dangerous drugs based on informations supplied
by informers; that it was around 9:30 in the
evening that said Patrolmen noticed a person
carrying a red traveling bag who was acting
suspiciously and they confronted him; that the
person was requested by Patrolmen to open the
red traveling bag but the person refused, only to
accede later on when the patrolmen identified
themselves; that found inside the bag were
marijuana leaves and was asked of his name
and the reason why he was at the said place
and he gave his name as Medel Tangliben and
explained that he was waiting for a ride to
Olongapo City to deliver the marijuana leaves;
SC said:
Accused was caught in flagrante, since he was
carrying marijuana at the time of his arrest. This
case therefore falls squarely within the exception.
The warrantless search was incident to a lawful
arrest and is consequently valid.
In this case before us presented urgency. The
transcript of stenographic notes reveals that
there was an informer who pointed to the
accused-appellant as carrying marijuana. Faced
with such on-the-spot information, the police
officers had to act quickly. There was not enough
time to secure a search warrant. We cannot
therefore apply the ruling in Aminnudin (the case
about the police officers that should have
secured warrant in the 2 -day window from which
the info was obtained) to the case at bar. To
require search warrants during on-the-spot
apprehensions of drug pushers, illegal possessors
of firearms, jueteng collectors, smugglers of
contraband goods, robbers, etc. would make it
extremely difficult, if not impossible to contain the
crimes with which these persons are associated.
People v Maspil
A checkpoint was set up by the police to
monitor, inspect and scrutinize vehicles on
the highway going towards Baguio City. This was
done because of a confidential report by
informers that Maspil and Bagking, would be
transporting a large quantity of marijuana to
Baguio City. In fact, the informers were with the
policemen manning the checkpoint. As
expected, at about 2 oclock in the early morning
of November 1, 1986, a jeepney approached
the checkpoint, driven by Maspil, with Bagking as
passenger. The officers stopped the vehicle and
saw that on it were loaded 2 plastic sacks, a jute
sack, and 3 big round tin cans. When opened,
the sacks and cans were seen to contain what
appeared to be marijuana leaves. The
policemen thereupon placed Maspil and
Bagking under arrest, and confiscated the leaves
which, upon scientific examination, were verified
to be marijuana leaves.

SC said:
The search was conducted within reasonable
limits. There was information that a sizeable
volume of marijuana will be transported to take
advantage of the All Saints Day holiday(no court
available) wherein there will be a lot of people
going to and from Baguio City. In fact, during the
three day (October 30, 1986 to November 1,
1986) duration of the checkpoint, there were also
other drug related arrests made aside from that
of the two appellants.
The appellants were caught in flagrante delicto
since they were transporting the prohibited drugs
at the time of their arrest.
In the Aminnudin case, the records showed that
there was sufficient time and adequate
information for the PC officers to have obtained
a warrant. The officers knew the name of the
accused, that the accused was on board M/V
Wilcon 9, bound to Iloilo and the exact date of
the arrival of the said vessel.
On the other hand, in this case there was no
information as to the exact description of the
vehicle and no definite time of the arrival. A
jeepney cannot be equated with a passenger
ship on the high seas. The ruling in the Aminnudin
case, is not applicable to the case at bar.
HOT PURSUIT
10. Survey the following cases: People v. Del
Rosario, People v. Samus, Go v. Court of Appeals,
People v. Gerente, Robin Padilla v. Court of
Appeals,and People v. Abriol.After which, supply
the answers to the following questions:
People v Del Rosario
Accused Joselito Del Rosario was found guilty as
co-principal in the crime of Robbery with
Homicide and he was sentenced to suffer the
death penalty and to pay damages to the heirs
of the victim.
Del Rosario alleged that he was just hired by
Virgilio Santos to drive him to a cockpit. He was
not aware of the plan of Santos and his two
companions to rob and kill the victim. He was not
able to seek assistance because Santos
threatened to shoot him if he did. He also failed
to inform the police authorities about the
incident because the culprits has threatened him
and his family. He claimed exemption from
criminal liability as he allegedly acted under the
compulsion of an irresistible force.
SC said
-acquitted the accused because he is exempted
(compulsion of an irresistible force)
- there must be a large measure of immediacy
between the time the offense was committed
and the time of the arrest, and if there was an
appreciable lapse of time between the arrest
and the commission of the crime, a warrant of
arrest must be secured. Aside from the sense of
immediacy, it is also mandatory that the person
making the arrest must have personal knowledge
of certain facts indicating that the person to be
taken into custody has committed the crime.
Again, the arrest of del Rosario does not comply
with these requirements since, as earlier
explained, the arrest came a day after the
consummation of the crime and not immediately
thereafter. As such, the crime had not been "just
committed'' at the time the accused was
arrested.
Likewise, the arresting officers had no personal
knowledge of facts indicating that the person to
be arrested had committed the offense since
they were not present and were not actual
eyewitnesses to the crime, and they became
aware of his identity as the driver of the getaway
tricycle only during the custodial investigation.
People v Samus
Appellant was a farmer, the victims were the
neighbors of appellant's father at San Ramon de
Canlubang, Brgy. Canlubang, Calamba,
Laguna. The Police was at his office when he
received an order from his superior to investigate
the murder of the two victims. Their office had
received a telephone call from a local barangay
official informing them of the victims' deaths.
Arriving at the victims’ residence, his team
conducted an investigation. They found a pair of
maong pants, a white T-shirt, a handkerchief and
dirty slippers in the bathroom and roof of the
house. A pair of earrings worn by victim was
likewise reported missing from her body.
On that same day, the accussed pawned the
earings to the wife of his friend(ponciano).
On the same day, the criminal investigation
group received an information that the
appellant was the principal suspect and that he
was sighted inside the residence of spouses Rolly
and Josie Vallejo. The police then asked
permission from the Vallejo spouses to enter the
house, which was granted. Shortly thereafter,
they heard loud footsteps on the roof. Rushing
outside, they saw appellant crawling on the roof.
They ordered him to stop, but he suddenly
jumped from the roof and landed hard on the
ground, sustaining an injury on his ankle and
bruises on his left and right forearm. At that point,
the police team closed in on appellant who,
while trembling and shaking, admitted the killings
upon a query from Rolly Vallejo.
SC said:
- It is undisputed that when the CIS team
went to the Vallejo residence on the
evening of September 10, 1996, it had no
warrant of arrest against appellant. Yet,
they arrested him
- Under sec 5 rule 113 of the rules of court,
None of these circumstances was present
when members of the Criminal
Investigation Group (CIG) arrested
appellant. He was not a prisoner. The killing
of Dedicacion and John Ardee Balisi was
not done in the presence of the arresting
officers. Since it took place on September
2, 1996, it could not have been considered
as "having just been committed." Evidently,
they unlawfully arrested appellant on
September 10, 1996. When they did so, we
cannot ascribe to them the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official
functions, contrary to the court a quo's
finding.
Go v CA
According to the findings of the Police in their
Investigation, At the corner of Wilson and J. Abad
Santos Sts., petitioner's and Maguan's cars nearly
bumped each other. Petitioner alighted from his
car, walked over and shot Maguan inside his car.
Petitioner then boarded his car and left the
scene. A security guard at a nearby restaurant
was able to take down petitioner's car plate
number. The police arrived shortly thereafter at
the scene of the shooting and there retrieved an
empty shell and one round of live ammunition for
a 9mm caliber pistol. Verification at the Land
Transportation Office showed that the car was
registered to one Elsa Ang Go.
The following day, the police returned to the
scene of the shooting to find out where the
suspect had come from; The police obtained a
facsimile or impression of the credit card used by
petitioner from the cashier of the bake shop. The
security guard of the bake shop was shown a
picture of petitioner and he positively identified
him as the same person who had shot Maguan.
Having established that the assailant was
probably the petitioner, the police launched a
manhunt for petitioner.
On 8 July 1991, petitioner presented himself
before the San Juan Police Station to verify news
reports that he was being hunted by the police;
he was accompanied by two (2) lawyers. The
police forthwith detained him. An eyewitness to
the shooting, who was at the police station at
that time, positively identified petitioner as the
gunman. That same day, the police promptly
filed a complaint for frustrated homicide 2against
petitioner with the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor of Rizal. First Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor Dennis Villa Ignacio ("Prosecutor")
informed petitioner, in the Presence of his
lawyers, that he could avail himself of his right to
preliminary investigation but that he must first sign
a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the
Revised Penal Code. Petitioner refused to
execute any such waiver.
SC said:
- Petitioner's "arrest" took place six (6) days
after the shooting of Maguan. The
"arresting" officers obviously were not
present at the time petitioner had allegedly
shot Maguan. Neither could the "arrest"
effected six (6) days after the shooting be
reasonably regarded as effected "when
[the shooting had] in fact just been
committed" within the meaning of Section
5 (b). Moreover, none of the "arresting"
officers had any "personal knowledge" of
facts indicating that petitioner was the
gunman who had shot Maguan.
- The information upon which the police
acted had been derived from statements
made by alleged eyewitnesses to the
shooting — one stated that petitioner was
the gunman; another was able to take
down the alleged gunman's car's plate
number which turned out to be registered
in petitioner's wife's name. That information
 did not, however, constitute "personal
knowledge."
- It is thus clear to the Court that there was
no lawful warrantless arrest of petitioner
within the meaning of Section 5 of Rule 113
People v Gerente
Edna Reyes testified that, appellant Gabriel
Gerente, together with Fredo Echigoren and
Totoy Echigoren, started drinking liquor and
smoking marijuana in the house of the appellant
which is about six (6) meters away from her house
(they were neighbors) on that day. She
overheard the three men talking about their
intention to kill Clarito Blace. She testified that she
heard Fredo Echigoren saying, "Gabriel,
papatayin natin si Clarito Blace," and Totoy
Echigoren allegedly seconded Fredo's suggestion
saying: "Papatayin natin 'yan mamaya."
Appellant allegedly agreed: "Sigue, papatayin
natin mamaya."
Fredo and Totoy Echigoren and Gerente carried
out their plan to kill Clarito Blace on the same
day. The prosecution witness, Edna Edwina
Reyes, testified that she witnessed the killing.
SC said:
- The policemen arrested Gerente only three (3)
hours after Gerente and his companions had
killed Blace. They saw Blace dead in the hospital
and when they inspected the scene of the
crime, they found the instruments of death: a
piece of wood and a concrete hollow block
which the killers had used to bludgeon him to
death. The eye-witness, Edna Edwina Reyes,
reported the happening to the policemen and
pinpointed her neighbor, Gerente, as one of the
killers. Under those circumstances, since the
policemen had personal knowledge of the
violent death of Blace and of facts indicating that
Gerente and two others had killed him, they
could lawfully arrest Gerente without a warrant. If
they had postponed his arrest until they could
obtain a warrant, he would have fled the law as
his two companions did.
The warrantless arrest made by the police was
valid.
Robin Padilla v CA
Manarang and his compadre Danny Perez were
inside a Restaurant in Sto. Kristo, Angeles City.
While inside the restaurant, Manarang noticed a
vehicle, a Mitsubishi Pajero, running fast down
the highway prompting him to remark that the
vehicle might get into an accident considering
the inclement weather. True enough,
immediately after the vehicle had passed the
restaurant, Manarang and Perez heard a
screeching sound produced by the sudden and
hard braking of a vehicle running very fast
followed by a sickening sound of the vehicle
hitting something. They went out to investigate
and immediately saw the vehicle occupying the
edge or shoulder of the highway giving it a slight
tilt to its side. Manarang, decided to report the
incident to the Philippine National Police of
Angeles City. He took out his radio and called
the Viper, the radio controller of the Philippine
National Police of Angeles City. By the time
Manarang completed the call, the vehicle had
started to leave the place of the accident taking
the general direction to the north.
"Manarang went to the location of the accident
and found out that the vehicle had hit
somebody. Manarang Chased the vehicle.
During the chase he was able to make out the
plate number of the vehicle as PMA 777. He
called the Viper through the radio once again
reporting that a vehicle heading north with plate
number PMA 777 was involved in a hit and run
accident. The Viper, in the person of SPO2 Ruby
Buan, upon receipt of the second radio call
flashed the message to all units of PNP Angeles
City with the order to apprehend the vehicle
When he reached the Abacan bridge, he found
Mobile No. 3 and SPO2 Borja and SPO2 Miranda
watching all vehicles coming their way. He
approached them and informed them that there
was a hit and run incident. Upon learning that
the two police officers already knew about the
incident, Manarang went back to where he
came from.
"Soon the vehicle was within sight of SPO2 Borja
and SPO2 Miranda of Mobile No. 3. SPO2
Miranda went to the vehicle with plate number
PMA 777 and instructed its driver to alight. The
driver rolled down the window and put his head
out while raising both his hands. They recognized
the driver as Robin C. Padilla, when he alighted
with both his hands raised, a gun tucked on the
left side of his waist was revealed, SPO2 Borja
made the move to confiscate the gun. When
the senior police officers arrived, they noticed
that a long magazine of a baby armalite was
tucked in appellants back. They searched the
car and they saw that, there were many guns
inside the Pajero.
SC said:
- Paragraph (a) sec5 rule 113 of RRCP
requires that the person be arrested (i) after
he has committed or while he is actually
committing or is at least attempting to
commit an offense, (ii) in the presence of
the arresting officer or private person. Both
elements concurred here, as it has been
established that petitioner's vehicle figured
in a hit and run — an offense committed in
the "presence" of Manarang, a private
person, who then sought to arrest
petitioner. It must be stressed at this point
that "presence" does not only require that
the arresting person sees the offense, but
also when he "hears the disturbance
created thereby AND proceeds at once to
the scene."
- He was also caught in flagrante delicto
with possession of an unlicensed firearm ,
petitioner's warrantless arrest was proper as
he was again actually committing another
offense (illegal possession of firearm and
ammunitions) and this time in the presence
of a peace officer
People v Abriol
On nearby Colon Street, SPO1 Eleazar Abrigana
and PO2 Romeo Abellana were cruising aboard
patrol car No. 208, when they heard a radio
message that the suspects in the shooting
incident were aboard a "Jiffy." As they turned left
at Leon Kilat Street, they saw the "Jiffy" heading
towards Carbon Market. They pursued the "Jiffy"
which stopped in front of the Don Bosco Building
near BBRC, when police car No. 205, with PO
Eugenio Badrinas and PO2 Gerald Cue aboard,
blocked the "Jiffy's" path. Cue red a warning
shot and three persons alighted. The driver was
appellant Astellero, whom Cue had recognized
and seen before at the BBRC. Abrigana and Cue
approached the trio who stood a meter away
from the "Jiffy." SPO1 Abrigana frisked Abriol and
seized from his waist a .38 caliber revolver with
serial number PO8485 with six (6) empty shells in
its cylinder. 11 Under Abriol's seat, the police also
found a .45 caliber pistol bearing serial number
PGO 13506 with nine (9) live rounds in its
magazine and another .45 caliber pistol with
serial number 52469 loaded with five (5) unfired
bullets.
SC said:
- There are eight (8) instances where a
warrantless search and seizure is valid. They
are: (1) consented searches;(2) as an
incident to a lawful arrest;(3) searches of
vessels and aircraft for violation of
immigration, customs, and drug laws;(4)
searches of moving vehicles; (5) searches
of automobiles at borders or constructive
borders; (6) where the prohibited articles
are in "plain view;" (7) searches of buildings
and premises to enforce fire, sanitary, and
building regulations; and (8) "stop and frisk"
operations.
- In this case, the warrantless search and
seizure of the subject handguns and
ammunition is valid for two reasons. It was a
search incidental to a lawful arrest. It was
made after a fatal shooting, and pursuit of
a fast-moving vehicle seeking to elude
pursuing police officers, and a more than
reasonable belief on the part of the police
officers that the seeing suspects aboard
said vehicle had just engaged in criminal
activity. The urgent need of the police to
take immediate action in the light of the
foregoing exigencies clearly satisfies the
requirements for warrantless arrests under
the Rules of Court. Moreover, when caught
in flagrante delicto with firearms and
ammunition which they were not
authorized to carry, appellants were
actually violating P.D. No. 1866, another
ground for valid arrest under the Rules.
i. In which cases did the Supreme Court
find a valid warrantless arrest and in
which cases did it not?
INVALID VALID
People v Del Rosario People v Gerente
People v Samus Robin Padilla v CA
Go v CA People v Abriol
 ii. What were the criminal charges against
the respective accused and what were
the circumstances surrounding the
commission of their respective crimes?
People Robbery w/homicide - Del Rosario
v Del alleged that he was just hired by
Rosario Virgilio Santos to drive him to a
cockpit. He was not aware of the plan
of Santos and his two companions to
rob and kill the victim. He was not
able to seek assistance because
Santos threatened to shoot him if he
did.
People Murder- the accussed killed and stole
v Samus the earings of one of the victims. He
then pawned such earings to the wife
of his friend.
Go v Murder- petitioner's and Maguan's
CA cars nearly bumped each other.
Petitioner alighted from his car,
walked over and shot Maguan inside
his car. Petitioner then boarded his car
and left the scene.
People the accused was charged with
v Murder and Violation of Section 8,Art.
Gerente 2 of RA 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972) – the accused and his friends
were smoking weed and they
decided to kill one of their friends.
They decided to kill his friend. The
witness in this case was the neighbor(6
meters away) of the accused.
Robin Illegal possession of firearms – the
Padilla accussed was involved in a hit and
v CA run. Eventually he was caught by the
police, and they noticed that the
accussed was carrying with him some
high caliber weapons which doesn’t
have any permit.
People murder and illegal possession of
v Abriol firearms – the accused-appellants
killed the victim and right after they
escaped the scene using a car
iii. In each case, who arrested the accused
and how long since the commission of
the crime were the arrests made?
People Police officer - the arrest came a day
v Del after the consummation of the crime
Rosario and not immediately thereafter.
People Criminal Investigation Group (police
v Samus rapud ni sila) – 8 days from the
commission of the crime
Go v Petitioner presented himself before
CA the San Juan Police Station to verify
news reports that he was being
hunted by the police; he was
accompanied by two (2) lawyers. The
police forthwith detained him. It was 6
days after the commission of the
crime.
People Policeman – 3 hours after the incident
v
Gerente
Robin Policeman – within couple of hours
Padilla
v CA
People Policeman- within couple of hours
v Abriol
iv. What were the circumstances leading
from the commission of the crimes
leading to the arrest?
People When the tricycle was identified by
v Del the police, the accused was invited
Rosario for an interview(not arrest)(a day after
the commission), The transcript reveals
that during the encounter at Brgy.
Dicarma, del Rosario was handcuffed
by the police because allegedly they
had already gathered enough
evidence against him and they were
afraid that he might attempt to
escape.
People Criminal Investigation Group received
v Samus information that appellant was the
principal suspect in the killing of the
two (2) victims and that he was
sighted inside the residence of a
certain couple. He then formed and
led the team and went to the Vallejo
residence where they saw the
appellant crawling on the roof. They
ordered him to stop, jumped from the
roof and landed on the ground where
they team closed in on the accused
and that’s when he admitted the
 killings of the victim.
Go v the police arrived shortly after the
CA shooting and found out where the
suspect had come from and there
obtained a facsimile of the credit
card used by the accused. A security
guard of the bakeshop was shown a
picture of the accused and positively
identified as the same person who
had shot the victim. The police
launched a manhunt for the accused.
People The policemen arrested Gerente only
v some three (3) hours after Gerente
Gerente and his companions had killed Blace.
They saw Blace dead in the hospital
and when they inspected the scene
of the crime, they found the
instruments of death: a piece of wood
and a concrete hollow block which
the killers had used to bludgeon him
to death. The eye-witness, Edna
Edwina Reyes, reported the
happening to the policemen and
pinpointed her neighbor, Gerente, as
one of the killers. Under those
circumstances, since the policemen
had personal knowledge of the
violent death of Blace and of facts
indicating that Gerente and two
others had killed him, they could
lawfully arrest Gerente without a
warrant.
Robin A private individual chased the
Padilla v vehicle of padilla when it commited
CA “hit and run”. Then it was reported the
police, and right after how many
hours, the police caught him. He was
also caught in flagrante delicto for
illegal possession of firearms when the
police saw a gun tucked in his pants
when he was arrested for “hit and
run”
People A police officer he heard gunshots in P
v Abriol del rosario St Cebu, he saw “jiffy”
together with 3 people inside which is
trying to escape. He radioed for
assistance. Some police responded
and saw the suspects was riding a
“JIFFY”. The jiffy was captured by the
police and the accused-appellants
tested positive in the paraffin test (gun
powder test in the skin
v. What are the salient relevant differing
nuances in the cases in which the
Supreme Court found a valid warrantless
arrest from those in which it did not?
People It was not a valid warrantless arrest
v Del since ,under Sec. 5, par. (b), Rule 113
Rosario of the RRCP, the crime the arrest
came a day after the consummation
of the crime and not immediately
thereafter. As such, the crime had not
been "just committed'' at the time the
accused was arrested. Likewise, the
arresting officers had no personal
knowledge of facts indicating that the
person to be arrested had committed
the offense since they were not
present and were not actual
eyewitnesses to the crime, and they
became aware of his identity as the
driver of the getaway tricycle only
during the custodial investigation
People Considering that the arrest of the
v Samus accused was unlawful, he
(defendant) did not make a timely
objection to the admissibility of the
said testimony made [ the prosecution
presented a testimony made by the
accused without a counsel,
confessing that he committed the
crime ], the prosecution could have
been warned of the need to present
additional evidence to support its
case. It could not have been
admissible but because of the failure
to object, it was deemed that the
defense waived the objection to its
inadmissibility.
Go v Petitioner's "arrest" took place six (6)
CA days after the shooting of Maguan.
The "arresting" of cers obviously were
not present, within the meaning of
Section 5(a), at the time petitioner
had allegedly shot Maguan. Neither
could the "arrest" effected six (6) days
after the shooting be reasonably
regarded as effected "when [the
shooting had] in fact just been
committed" within the meaning of
Section 5 (b). Moreover, none of the
"arresting" officers had any "personal
knowledge" of facts indicating that
petitioner was the gunman who had
shot Maguan. The information upon
 which the police acted had been
derived from statements made by
alleged eyewitnesses to the shooting
Indeed, petitioner was not arrested at
all. When he walked into the San Juan
Police Station, accompanied by two
(2) lawyers, he in fact placed himself
at the disposal of the police
authorities. He did not state that he
was "surrendering" himself.
People The arrest was within the purview of
v Sec 5 par B of rule 113 of the RCCP,
Gerente the crime has just been commited
(3hours) and the policemen had
personal knowledge of the violent
death of Blace when he when he
inspected the scene of the crime, he
found the instruments of death: a
piece of wood and a concrete hollow
block which the killers had used to
bludgeon him to death. The eye-
witness, Edna Edwina Reyes, reported
the happening to the policemen and
pinpointed her neighbor.
Robin Paragraph (a) requires that the person
Padilla v be arrested
CA
(i) after he has committed or while he
is actually committing or is at least
attempting to commit an offense, (
ii) in the presence of the arresting
officer or private person.
Both elements concurred here, as it
has been established that petitioner's
vehicle figured in a hit and run — an
offense committed in the "presence"
of Manarang, a private person, who
then sought to arrest petitioner.
That Manarang decided to seek the
aid of the policemen (who admittedly
were nowhere in the vicinity of the hit
and run) in effecting petitioner's arrest,
did not in any way affect the
propriety of the apprehension. It was
in fact the most prudent action
Manarang could have taken rather
than collaring petitioner by himself,
inasmuch as policemen are
unquestionably better trained and
well-equipped in effecting an arrest of
a suspect
For the illegal possession of firearms,
he was caught (in flagrante deicto)
then and there upon his arrest for the
hit and run
People A fatal shooting, and pursuit of a fast-
v Abriol moving vehicle seeking to elude
pursuing police officers, and a more
than reasonable belief on the part of
the police officers that the seeing
suspects aboard said vehicle had just
engaged in criminal activity. The
urgent need of the police to take
immediate action in the light of the
foregoing exigencies clearly satisfies
the requirements for warrantless
arrests under the Rules of Court.
Moreover, when caught in flagrante
delicto with firearms and ammunition
which they were not authorized to
carry, appellants were actually
violating P.D. No. 1866, another
ground for valid arrest under the Rules.
ARREST OF AN ESCAPEE
11. There is not much to be tackled here. The
provision under the Rules of Court is to be taken
as it is.
WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO QUESTION THE
ILLEGALITY OF THE ARREST
12. In essence, when the right is voluntarily
waived, then the illegality of the arrest may no
longer by invoked to effect the release of the
person arrested. The question then becomes:
how may an accused waive his right to question
the illegality of the arrest?
In People v Cunanan - In any event,
jurisprudence is settled that "any irregularity
attending the arrest of an accused should be
timely raised in a motion to quash the Information
at any time before arraignment, failing [in] which,
he is deemed to have waived" his right to
question the regularity of his arrest.
As the records show, except during the inquest
proceedings before the prosecutor's office,
appellant never objected to the regularity of his
arrest before his arraignment. In fact, he even
actively participated in the trial of the case. With
these lapses, he is estopped from raising any
question regarding the same
In People v Cachola - the question of the legality
of the warrantless arrest of the appellants cannot
be raised for the first time before this Supreme
Court. As arrests fall into the question of the
exercise by the trial court of its jurisdiction over
the person of the accused, the question should
have been raised prior to their arraignment.
Their claim that they requested an extension of
time to file a motion to quash the information or
to dismiss the case, which the trial court
allegedly denied, cannot save the day for them.
The fact remains that before arraignment, no
such motion was filed. Even assuming that their
arrest was illegal, their act of entering a plea
during their arraignment constituted a waiver of
their right to question their arrest
13. The answer to the foregoing question is found
in the following cases, for instance: People v.
Cunanan15 and People v. Cachola.16
People v Cunanan
A confidential informant (CI) went to the police
and informed PSI Abalos that a certain "Paeng
Putol," later identified as the appellant, was
engaged in selling illegal drugs. Acting on the
information, PSI Abalos organized a buy-bust
team to entrap appellant.
Thereafter, the team proceeded to and arrived
at the target area. After receiving the marked
money from PO1 Gunda, appellant entered a
narrow alley and came back with a small plastic
sachet containing white crystalline substance
which he handed to PO1 Gunda.
Thereupon, PO1 Gunda gave the pre-arranged
signal to inform the buy-bust team of the
consummated transaction and arrested
appellant. When asked to empty his pocket,
recovered from appellant were the two marked
100-peso bills used as buy-bust money. Appellant
was then informed of his constitutional rights and
the nature of the accusation against him and
brought to the EPD Headquarters.
SC said:
Appellant was lawfully arrested after he was
caught in flagrante delicto selling an illegal drug
in a buy-bust operation, and contrary to his
contention, it was not inconceivable that he
would openly sell an illegal drug in public. The
transaction made in the buy-bust operation
involved the illegal sale of dangerous drug. This
was sufficiently shown by the prosecution
through its establishment of the following
elements of the offense: (1) the identity of the
buyer and the seller, object and consideration;
and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment therefor.” Undoubtedly, appellant was
lawfully arrested after he was caught in flagrante
delicto selling shabu in a buy-bust operation.
People v Cachola
The family of Jessie Barnachea was slaughtered
by a group of men. They came into the house
riding a jeep with a marking of “el Shaddai” in
the front side. Aside from the marking in the front,
there is also a mark indicating, fruits and
vegetable dealer. The incident was immediately
reported to the police, and the description of the
"El Shaddai" jeep used by the malefactors was
relayed through radio to the police stations in the
province of La Union. On the same day, the jeep
was intercepted at a checkpoint set up in the
highway by the police force in Aringay, La Union.
On board were the eight appellants. No firearms
were found in the vehicle. The jeep and the eight
appellants were thereafter brought to the
Aringay police station and then turned over to
the Bauang police.
The eight appellants were thereafter subjected
to paraffin test. But only the right hands of
Cachola and Amay yielded positive results for
gunpowder nitrates
SC said:
The question of the legality of the warrantless
arrest of the appellants cannot be raised for the
first time before the Court. As arrests fall into the
question of the exercise by the trial court of its
jurisdiction over the person of the accused, the
question should have been raised prior to their
arraignment. That the appellants objected to the
arrests prior to the arraignment is
unsubstantiated. Their claim that they requested
an extension of time to file a motion to quash the
information or to dismiss the case, which the trial
court allegedly denied, cannot save the day for
them. The fact remains that before arraignment,
no such motion was filed. Even assuming that
their arrest was illegal, their act of entering a plea
during their arraignment constituted a waiver of
their right to question their arrest.
 PART V: WARRANTLESS SEARCHES the contents of the bag. Appellant consented to the
request but told them that it only contained some
As in arrests, prescinding from Article III, Section clothes.
- When Layong opened the bag, he found that it
2 of the 1987 Constitution, searches and
contained forty-one (41) plastic packets of different
seizures may only be valid if they are done sizes containing pulverized substances. Layong gave
pursuant to a valid search warrant. However, a packet to his team leader, constable David Osborne
there are exceptions, such that even without a Fomocod, who, after sniffing the stuff concluded that it
warrant, searches and seizures may still be was marijuana.
upheld as validly made. Unlike arrests, - The PC constables, together with appellant, boarded
however, the instances of valid warrantless the latter’s Ford Fiera and proceeded to the Bontoc
poblacion to report the incident to the PC The
searches are not provided for by the Rules of
prohibited drugs were surrendered to the evidence
Court, but by jurisprudence, save for searches custodian, Sgt. Angel Pokling.
incidental to a lawful arrest. - Major Carlos Figueroa, a PC Forensic Chemist at
Camp Dangwa, La Trinidad, Benguet, who has
The following are instance of valid warrantless conducted more than 2500 professional examinations
searches: of marijuana, shabu and cocaine samples, conducted
two chemistry examinations of the substance
i. Consented Search contained in the plastic packets taken from appellant
and found them to be positive for hashish or
ii. Search incidental to a lawful arrest
marijuana.
iii. Plain View Doctrine
iv. Stop and Frisk or Terry Search
v. Search of vessels and aircrafts
 What were the criminal charges
vi. Search of moving vehicles
involved and who were indicted for
vii. Inspection of buildings and other premises
for the enforcement of fire, sanitary, and them?
building regulations
viii. Customs Search - Accused Conway B. Omaweng
ix. Exigent and emergency circumstances was originally indicted for the
violation of Section 4, Article II of
CONSENTED SEARCH = THE RIGHT AGAINST
Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise
UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES WAS
known as the Dangerous Drugs
VALIDLY WAIVED.
Act of 1972, as amended, in a
People v. Omaweng criminal complaint filed with the
Municipal Trial Court of Bontoc,
FACTS:
- In the morning of September 12, 1988, Joseph Mountain Province on 12
Layong, a PC constable with the Mt. Province PC September 1988. Accused was
Command at Bontoc, Mt. Province proceeded with prosecuted for the dispatching in
other PC soldiers to Barrio Dantay, Bontoc and, per
instruction of their officer, Capt. Eugene Martin, put up
transit or transporting of
a checkpoint at the junction of the roads, one going to prohibited drugs.
Sagada and the other to. They stopped and checked
all vehicles that went through the checkpoint. At about
 What were the items seized and who
9:15 A.M., Layong and his teammate, Constable
David Osborne Famocod (sic), saw and flagged down seized them?
a cream-colored Ford Fiera coming from the Bontoc
Poblacion and headed towards Baguio.
- 10¼ kilos of processed marijuana
- The vehicle was driven by appellant and had no
passengers. Layong and his companions asked in powder form contained in 41
permission to inspect the vehicle and appellant plastic bags of different sizes
acceded to the request. When they peered into the which were placed in a travelling
rear of the vehicle, they saw a travelling bag which
was partially covered by the rim of a spare tire under bag destained were seized from
the passenger seat on the right side of the vehicle. the accused. It was seized by
Layong and his companions asked permission to see Joseph Layong, a PC constable
 with the Mt. Province PC
Command at Bontoc, Mt.
Province together with other PC
soldiers.
 How was the waiver/consent given?
- The accused willingly gave prior
consent to the search and
voluntarily agreed to have it
conducted on his vehicle and
travelling bag. Thus, the accused
waived his right against
unreasonable searches and
seizures. To note, the appellant
consented to the request of
Layong and the other PC
constable but told them that it
only contained some clothes.
When Layong opened the bag,
he found that it contained forty-
one (41) plastic packets of
different sizes containing
pulverized substances. When said
packages were identified by the
prosecution witnesses and later
on formally offered in evidence,
the accused did not raise any
objection whatsoever.
 May implied acquiescence be
considered as consent freely given?
- In People vs. Malasugui:
“When one voluntarily submits to
a search or consents to have it
made of (sic) his person or
premises, he is precluded from
later complaining thereof
(Cooley, Constitutional
Limitations, 8th ed., vol. I, page
631.) The right to be secure from
unreasonable search may, like
every right, be waived and such
waiver may be made either
expressly or impliedly."
- Since in the course of the valid
search forty-one (41) packages
of drugs were found, it behooved
the officers to seize the same; no
warrant was necessary for such
seizure. Besides, when said
packages were identified by the
prosecution witnesses and later
on formally offered in evidence,
the accused did not raise any
objection whatsoever.
People v. Lacerna
FACTS:
- At about 2:00 p.m., appellant and co-accused, who
were aboard a taxicab, passed by Police Officer 3
(PO3) Carlito P. Valenzuela’s place of assignment,
somewhere along the sides streets of Radial Road
near Moriones Street.
- PO3 Valenzuela and his co-police officer asked
permission to search the vehicle of the accused. As
the occupants readily agreed, the police officers went
about searching the luggages in the vehicle which
consisted of a knapsack and a dark blue plastic
grocery bag. They asked appellant what the contents
of the plastic bag were. Co-accused Noriel Lacerna
immediately answered that the bag contained his
vomit.
- Skeptical of what appellant and co-accused disclosed
as regards the contents of the plastic bag, PO3
Valenzuela made a hole in the bag and peeped
inside. He found several blocks wrapped in
newspaper, with the distinct smell of marijuana
emanating from it. PO3 Valenzuela opened one of the
boxes and saw dried marijuana leaves. He told
appellant and co-accused that the contents of the bag
were marijuana, which co-accused readily affirmed.
According to both Lacernas, the bag was a "padala"
of their uncle. Specifically, they claimed that the bag
was sent by their uncle, who happened to be in
Baguio City, for shipment to Iloilo.
RULING: SC ruled that appellant and his baggage were validly
searched, not because he was caught in flagrante delicto, but
because he freely consented to the search. True, appellant
and his companion were stopped by PO3 Valenzuela on mere
suspicion — not probable cause — that they were engaged in
a felonious enterprise. But Valenzuela expressly sought
appellant's permission for the search. Only after appellant
agreed to have his person and baggage checked did the actual
search commence. It was his consent which validated the
search, waiver being a generally recognized exception to the
rule against warrantless search.

 What were the criminal charges
involved and who were indicted for
them?
- The Information charged
appellant Marlon Lacerna y
Aranador with "giving away to
another" prohibited drugs, a
charge which was different from
"delivery" defined under Section 2
(f) 13 of RA. 6245, as amended.
 What were the items seized and who
seized them?
- 18 blocks of marijuana, each
wrapped in newspaper were
seized by olice Officer 3 (PO3)
Carlito P. Valenzuela, a member
of the Mobile Patrol Division of
the Western Police District (WPD).
 How was the waiver/consent given?
- Appellant himself who was
"urbanized in mannerism and
speech" expressly said that he
was consenting to the search as
he allegedly had nothing to hide
and had done nothing wrong. In
his brief, appellant explicitly, even
if awkwardly, reiterated this:
"Confident that they [the
accused] have not done
anything wrong, they allowed to
be searched." This declaration of
appellant is a confirmation of his
intelligent and voluntary
acquiescence to the search. The
marijuana bricks were, therefore,
obtained legally through a valid
search and seizure. They were
admissible in evidence; there was
no poisonous tree to speak of.
 May implied acquiescence be
considered as consent freely given?
- In Aniag, Jr. vs. COMELEC
outlawed a search based on an
implied acquiescence, because
such acquiescence was not
consent within the purview of the
constitutional guaranty, but was
merely passive conformity to the
search given under intimidating
and coercive circumstances.
- In the case-at-bar, consent was
expressly given.
Q: Are searches made pursuant to routine
airport security procedure valid? Supply the
answer and provide the relevant facts of the
case of People v. Susan Canton.
PEOPLE V. SUSAN CANTON
FACTS:
- On February 12, 1998 at the Ninoy Aquino
International Airport the accused has in her
possession nine hundred ninety eight point two eight
hundred zero nine (998.2809) grams of
methamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug,
without the corresponding prescription or license.
- Appellant Susan Canton was charged before the
Regional Trial Court of Pasay City with the violation of
Section 16 of Article III of the Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972 (Republic Act No. 6425), as amended.
- Unsatisfied with the decision of the trial court, Susan
imputed to the trial court the following errors: (1) in
justifying the warrantless search against her based on
the alleged existence of probable cause; (2) in holding
that she was caught flagrante delicto and that the
warrantless search was incidental to a lawful arrest;
(3) in not ruling that the frisker went beyond the limits
of the “Terry search” doctrine; (4) in not ruling that
Susan was under custodial investigation without
counsel; (5) in admitting to the records of the case the
report of Dr. Ma. Bernadette Arcena, which was not
testified on or offered in evidence, and using the
same in determining her guilt; (6) in justifying under
the rule on judicial notice its cognizance of the
medical report that has not been offered in evidence;
and (7) in applying the ruling in People v. Johnson.
ISSUE:
WON made pursuant to routine airport security procedure
valid.
RULING:  What were the criminal charges
YES, the search made pursuant to routine airport security
involved and who were indicted for
procedure is allowed under Section 9 of Republic Act No. them?
6235, that every ticket issued to a passenger by the airline or
air carrier concerned shall contain among others the following
- Bonifacio Barros was charged
condition printed thereon: “Holder hereof and his hand-carried
luggage(s) are subject to search for, and seizure of, prohibited with violating Section 4 of R.A.
materials or substances. Holder refusing to be searched shall No. 6425, as amended (known as
not be allowed to board the aircraft,” which shall constitute a the Dangerous Drugs Act of
part of the contract between the passenger and the air carrier.
1972).

PEOPLE V. BARROS  What were the items seized and who

FACTS:
seized them?
- Both M/Sgt. Yag-as and S/Sgt. Ayan who were
seated at the back of a bus saw the accused carrying
a carton who boarded the same bus and seated - S/Sgt. Ayan and C2C Bongyao
himself on seat No. 18. Upon reaching Sabangan, seized a carton containing four 4
M/Sgt. Yag-as and S/Sgt. Ayan before they alighted
called C2C [Fernando] Bongyao to inspect the carton paper-wrapped packages of
under seat No. 18. dried marijuana.
- After C2C Bongyao inspected the carton, he found
out that it contained marijuana and he asked the
passengers whoever owns the carton, but nobody
 How was the purported
answered. waiver/consent given?
- Thereafter, C2C Bongyao alighted with the carton and
S/Sgt. Ayan and C2C Bongyao invited the accused to
- The consent waiver/consent was
the detachment for questioning as accused was the
suspected owner of the carton containing marijuana. not given. The police authorities
Both P.C. officers Yag-as and Ayan saw accused, had impermissibly extracted
Bonifacio Barros carrying that same carton when he confessions from the accused
boarded the bus at Chackchakan.
- Upon entering the detachment the carton was opened after two (2) hours of
in the presence of accused and accused Bonifacio interrogation, "under intimidating
Barros was asked if he owned the carton of marijuana circumstances," by four (4)
and accused denied this. When accused denied
ownership of the carton of marijuana, the P.C. officers
soldiers one after the other. The
called for the bus conductor who pinpointed to accused complains that he was
Bonifacio Barros as the owner of the carton of not informed of his rights to
marijuana. It was during the oral investigation of
remain silent and to counsel, that
accused that he finally admitted ownership of the
carton containing four 4 paper-wrapped packages of he had not waived his rights as
dried marijuana. an accused person, and that he
had signed a confession
RULING:
involuntarily and without the
As the constitutional guaranty is not dependent upon any assistance of counsel. He
affirmative act of the citizen, the courts do not place the citizen essentially contends that the
in the position of either contesting an officer's authority by
force, or waiving his constitutional rights; but instead they hold
confession is inadmissible as
that a peaceful submission to a search or seizure is not a evidence against him.
consent or an invitation thereto, but is merely a demonstration
of regard for the supremacy of the law.
 Why were they not considered by
SC applied the rule that: "courts indulge every reasonable
presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional the Supreme Court as valid waiver?
rights and that we do not presume acquiescence in the
loss of fundamental rights." (Johnson vs. Zerbts, 304 U.S.
- In Burgos, the SC Court ruled that
458)
the accused is not to be
 presumed to have waived the
unlawful search conducted on
the occasion of his warrantless
arrest "simply because he failed
to object" —
. . . To constitute a waiver, it must
appear first that the right exists;
secondly, that the person
involved had knowledge, actual
or constructive, of the existence
of such a right; and lastly, that
said person had an actual
intention to relinquish the right
(Pasion Vda. de Garcia vs.
Locsin, 65 Phil. 689).
*NOTES:
 The general rule is that a search
and seizure must be carried out
through or with a judicial warrant;
otherwise such search and
seizure becomes "unreasonable"
within the meaning of the above
quoted constitutional provision.
The evidence secured thereby —
i.e., the "fruits" of the search and
seizure — will be inadmissible in
evidence "for any purpose in any
proceeding.
 In carrying out warrantless
searches of moving vehicles,
however, peace officers are
limited to routine checks, that is,
the vehicles are neither really
searched nor their occupants
subjected to physical or body
searches, the examination of the
vehicles being limited to visual
inspection.
In Valmonte vs. De Villa, the
Court stated:

Not all searches and seizures are
prohibited. Those which are
reasonable are not forbidden. A
reasonable search is not to be
determined by any fixed formula
but is to be resolved according
to the facts of each case.
 Where, for example, the officer
merely draws aside the curtain of
a vacant vehicle which is parked
on the public fair grounds, or
simply looks into a vehicle, or
flashes a light therein, these do
not constitute unreasonable
search. (Citations omitted)
 When, however, a vehicle is
stopped and subjected to an
extensive search, such a
warrantless search would be
constitutionally permissible only if
the officers conducting the
search have reasonable or
probable cause to believe,
before the search, that either the
motorist is a law-offender or the
contents or cargo of the vehicle
are or have been instruments or
the subject matter or the
proceeds of some criminal
offense
ANIAG V. COMELEC
FACTS:
- On 10 January 1992, pursuant to the "Gun Ban," Mr.
Serapio P. Taccad, Sergeant-at-Arms, House of
Representatives, wrote petitioner who was then Congressman
of the 1st District of Bulacan requesting the return of the two
(2) firearms3 issued to him by the House of Representatives.
Upon being advised of the request on 13 January 1992 by his
staff, petitioner immediately instructed his driver, Ernesto
Arellano, to pick up the firearms from petitioner's house at
Valle Verde and return them to Congress.
- Meanwhile, at about five o'clock in the afternoon of
the same day, the Philippine National Police (PNP) headed by
Senior Superintendent Danilo Cordero set up a checkpoint
outside the Batasan Complex some twenty (20) meters away
from its entrance. About thirty minutes later, the policemen
manning the outpost flagged down the car driven by Arellano
as it approached the checkpoint. They searched the car and
found the firearms neatly packed in their gun cases and placed
in a bag in the trunk of the car. Arellano was then apprehended
and detained. He explained that he was ordered by petitioner
to get the firearms from the house and return them to
Sergeant-at-Arms Taccad of the House of Representatives.
 What were the criminal charges
involved and who were indicted for
them?
- Petitioner Congressman
Francisco B. Aniag, Jr. and his
driver, Ernesto Arellano were
charged for violation of Sec. 261,
par. (q), of B.P. Blg. 881 otherwise
known as the Omnibus Election
Code, in relation to Sec. 32 of
R.A. No. 7166;7 and petitioner to
show cause why he should not
be disqualified from running for
an elective position, pursuant to
COMELEC Resolution No. 2327, in
relation to Sec. 32, 33 and 35 of
R.A. 7166, and Sec. 52, par. (c), of
B.P. Blg. 881.
 What were the items and who seized
them?
- The Philippine National Police
headed by Senior Superintendent
Danilo Cordero seized two (2)
firearms.
 Why were they not considered by
 How was the purported
waiver/consent given?
- At about five o'clock in the
afternoon of the same day, the
Philippine National Police (PNP)
set up a checkpoint outside the
Batasan Complex some twenty
(20) meters away from its
entrance. About thirty minutes
later, the policemen manning the
outpost flagged down the car
driven by Arellano as it
approached the checkpoint.
They searched the car and found
the firearms neatly packed in
their gun cases and placed in a
bag in the trunk of the car.
Arellano was then apprehended
and detained. He explained that
he was ordered by petitioner to
get the firearms from the house
and return them to Sergeant-at-
Arms Taccad of the House of
Representatives.
- Petitioner strongly protests
against the manner by which the
PNP conducted the search.
According to him, without a
warrant and without informing
the driver of his fundamental
rights the policemen searched his
car. The firearms were not tucked
in the waist nor within the
immediate reach of Arellano but
were neatly packed in their gun
cases and wrapped in a bag
kept in the trunk of the car. Thus,
the search of his car that yielded
the evidence for the prosecution
was clearly violative of Secs. 2
and 3, par. (2), Art. III, of the
Constitution.
the Supreme Court as valid waiver?
- In the case of petitioner, only his
driver was at the car at that time
it was stopped for inspection. As
conceded by COMELEC, driver
Arellano did not know the
purpose of the checkpoint. In the
face of fourteen (14) armed
policemen conducting the
operation, driver Arellano being
alone and a mere employee of
petitioner could not have
marshalled the strength and the
courage to protest against the
extensive search conducted in
the vehicle. In such scenario, the
"implied acquiescence," if there
 was any, could not be more than
a mere passive conformity on
Arellano's part to the search, and
"consent" given under
intimidating or coercive
circumstances is no consent
within the purview of the
constitutional guaranty.
*NOTES:
 An extensive search without
warrant could only be resorted to
if the officers conducting the
search had reasonable or
probable cause to believe
before the search that either the
motorist was a law offender or
that they would find the
instrumentality or evidence
pertaining to the commission of a
crime in the vehicle to be
searched.
 The existence of probable cause
justifying the warrantless search is
determined by the
 What were the criminal charges
facts of each case.
PEOPLE V. TUDTUD
FACTS:
- Sometime during the months of July and
August 1999, the Toril Police Station, Davao
City received a report from a “civilian asset”
named Bobong Solier about a certain Noel
Tudtud.
- Solier related that his neighbours have been
complaining about Tudtud, who was
allegedly responsible for the proliferation of
marijuana in their area. Relating to the
 What were the items seized and who
report, the police conducted surveillance in
Solier’s neighbourhood in Sapa, Toril, Davao
City. For 5 days, they gathered information
and leared that Tudtud was involved in illegal
drugs. According to his neighbours, Tudtud
was engaged in selling marijuana.
- Solier informed the police that Tudtud had
headed to Cotabato and would be back later
that day with new stocks of marijuana. Solier
described Tudtud as big bodied and short,
and usually wore a hat. At around 4:00 pm
that same day, a team of policemen posted
themselves at the corner of Saipon and
McArthur Highway to await. Tudtud’s arrival.
All wore civilian clothes.
- About 8:00 pm, 2 men disembarked from a
bus and helped each other carry a carton
marked “King Flakes.” Standing some 5 feet
away from the men, PO1 Desierto and PO1
Floreta observed that one of the men fit
Tudtud’s description. The same man also
toted a plastic bag.
- PO1Floreta and PO1 Desierto then
approached the suspects and identified
themselves as police officers. PO1 Desierto
informed them that the police had received
information that stocks of illegal drugs would
be arriving that night. The man who
resembled Tudtud’s description denied that
he was carrying any drugs. PO1 Desierto
asked if he could see the contents of the
box.
- Tudtud then said “it was alright” and let them
see the box which contained bundles of
dried fish, one wrapped in a plastic bag and
another in newspapers. When the bundles
were unwrapped, there contained marijuana
leaves.
- The police arrested Tudtud and his
comapanion. They were charged with illegal
possession of prohibited drugs before the
RTC of Davao City which convicted the
accused.
involved and who were indicted for
them?
- Noel Tudtud y Paypa and his
companion Dindo Bulong were
charged before the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Davao City with
illegal possession of prohibited
drugs.
seized them?
- PO1 Floreta and PO1 Desierto
seized a plastic bag containing
3,200 grams of marijuana leaves
and another 890 grams wrapped
in newspaper.
 How was the purported introduced themselves as such
waiver/consent given? and requested appellant that
they see the contents of the
- PO1 Floreta and PO1 Desierto carton box supposedly
then approached the suspects containing the marijuana,
and identified themselves as appellant Tudtud said it was
police officers. PO1 Desierto alright. He did not resist and
informed them that the police opened the box himself.
had received information that Acquiescence in the loss of
stocks of illegal drugs would be fundamental rights is not to be
arriving that night. The man who presumed. The fact that a person
resembled Tudtud's description failed to object to a search does
denied that he was carrying any not amount to permission thereto.
drugs. PO1 Desierto asked him if
he could see the contents of the *NOTES:
box. Tudtud obliged, saying, "it
 There is an effective waiver of rights
was alright." Tudtud opened the
box himself as his companion against unreasonable searches and
looked on. seizures if the following requisites are
present:
a. It must appear that the rights exist;
 Why were they not considered by
the Supreme Court as valid waiver? b. The person involved had knowledge,
actual or constructive, of the existence
of such right;
- The right against unreasonable
searched and seizures is secured c. Said person had an actual intention to
by Sec. 2, Art. 3 of the relinquish the right.
Constitution. Appellants implied
acquiescence, if at all, could not PEOPLE V. DAMASO
have been more than mere
passive conformity given under Q: Supply the relevant facts of the case
coercive or intimidating relating to such pronouncement of the
circumstances and is, thus, Supreme Court and the reasoning made by it.
considered no consent at all
FACTS:
within the purview of the
constitutional guarantee. - On June 18, 1988, Lt. Candido
Consequently, appellants lack of Quijardo, a Philippine
objection to the search and Constabulary officer connected
seizure is not tantamount to a with the 152nd PC Company at
waiver of his constitutional right or Lingayen, Pangasinan, and some
a voluntary submission to the companions were sent to verify
warrantless search and seizure. the presence of CPP/NPA
members in Barangay
- The prosecution failed to Catacdang, Arellano-Bani,
establish the second and third Dagupan City.
requisites. Records disclose that - In said place, the group
when the police officers apprehended Gregorio
 Flameniano, Berlina Aritumba,
Revelina Gamboa and
Deogracias Mayaoa. When
interrogated, the persons
apprehended revealed that
there was an underground
safehouse at Gracia Village in
Urdaneta, Pangasinan. After
coordinating with the Station
Commander of Urdaneta, the
group proceeded to the house in
Gracia Village. They found
subversive documents, a radio, a
1 x 7 caliber .45 firearm and other
items.
- After the raid, the group
proceeded to Bonuan, Dagupan
City, and put under surveillance
the rented apartment of
Rosemarie Aritumba, sister of
Berlina Aritumba whom they
earlier arrested. They interviewed
Luzviminda Morados, who guided
the group to the house rented by
appellant. When they reached
the house, the group found that it
had already been vacated by
the occupants. Since Morados
was hesitant to give the new
address of Bernie Mendoza, the
group looked for the Barangay
SC:
Captain of the place and
requested him to point out the
new house rented by appellant.
The group again required
Morados to go with them. When
they reached the house, the
group saw Luz Tanciangco
outside.
- They told her that they already
knew that she was a member of
the NPA in the area. At first, she
denied it, but when she saw
Morados she requested the
group to go inside the house.
Upon entering the house, the
group, as well as the Barangay
Captain, saw radio sets,
pamphlets entitled "Ang Bayan,"
xerox copiers and a computer
machine. They also found
persons who were companions of
Luz Tanciangco (namely, Teresita
Calosa, Ricardo Calosa, Maries
Calosa, Eric Tanciangco and
Luzviminda Morados).
- The group requested the persons
in the house to allow them to look
around. When Luz Tanciangco
opened one of the rooms, they
saw books used for subversive
orientation, one M-14 rifle, bullets
and ammunitions, Kenwood
radio, artificial beard, maps of
the Philippines, Zambales,
Mindoro an(d) Laguna and other
items. They confiscated the
articles and brought them to their
headquarters for final inventory.
They likewise brought the persons
found in the house to the
headquarters for investigation.
Said persons revealed that
appellant was the lessee of the
house and owned the items
confiscated therefrom.
- Waiver must be given by the
person whose right is violated.
- The constitutional immunity from
unreasonable searches and
seizures, being personal one,
cannot be waived by anyone
except the person whose rights
are invaded or one who is
expressly authorized to do so in
his or her behalf (De Garcia v.
Locsin, 65 Phil. 689, 695).
- In the case at bar, the records
show that appellant was not in his
house at that time Luz
 Tanciangco and Luz Morados, his
FACTS:
alleged helper, allowed the
authorities to enter it.
- There was no evidence that
would establish the fact that Luz
Morados was indeed the
appellant's helper or if it was true
that she was his helper, that the
appellant had given her authority
to open his house in his absence.
The prosecution likewise failed to
show if Luz Tanciangco has such
an authority. Without this
evidence, the authorities'
intrusion into the appellant's
dwelling cannot be given any
color of legality. While the power
to search and seize is necessary
to the public welfare, still it must
be exercised and the law
enforced without transgressing
the constitutional rights of the
citizens, for the enforcement of
no statute is of sufficient
importance to justify indifference
to the basic principles of
government (Rodriguez v.
Evangelista, 65 Phil. 230, 235).
SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO A LAWFUL ARREST
This exception is authorized by Rule 126,
 Who is the accused and what was
Section 13 of the Rules of Court which
provides:
―Rule 126, Section 13. A person lawfully
arrested may be searched for dangerous
weapons or anything which may have been
used or constitute proof in the commission of
an offense without a search warrant.‖
PEOPLE V. CALANTIAO
- Appellant was apprehended at around 4:00
A.M. of June 20, 1994 near a waiting shed
located at Barangay Salitran, Dasmariñas,
Cavite by SPO1 Concordio Talingting and
SPO1 Armando Clarin, both members of the
Cavite Philippine National Police Command
based in Dasmariñas.
- Appellant, according to the two officers, was
caught transporting 28 marijuana bricks
contained in a traveling bag and a carton
box, which marijuana bricks had a total
weight of 28 kilos.
- These two officers later asserted in court that
they were aided by an informer in the arrest
of appellant. That informer, according to
Talingting and Clarin, 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,
Dasmariñas from Baguio City with an
undetermined amount of marijuana. It was
the same informer who pinpointed to the
arresting officers the appellant when the
latter alighted from a passenger jeepney on
the aforestated day, hour, and place.
- On the other hand, appellant disavowed
ownership of the prohibited drugs. He
claimed during the trial that while he indeed
came all the way from Baguio City, he
traveled to Dasmariñas, Cavite with only
some pocket money and without any
luggage. His sole purpose in going there was
to look up his cousin who had earlier offered
a prospective job at a garment factory in said
locality, after which he would return to
Baguio City. He never got around to doing so
as he was accosted by SPO1 Talingting and
SPO1 Clarin at Barangay Salitran.
the criminal charge against him?
- Accused-appellant Medario
Calantiao y Dimalanta
(Calantiao) was charged fkor
violating Section 11, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165 or the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002.
 What were the circumstances
surrounding his arrest and the
subsequent search and seizure?
- Edwin Lojera narrated that while
driving a towing truck and
traversing along EDSA,
Balintawak, Quezon City, he had
a traffic dispute (gitgitan) with a
white taxi cab prompting him to
follow said vehicle until they
reached along 8th avenue street.
Thereat, one of the passengers of
said taxicab, Medario Calantiao
(accused), alighted and fired
their guns. Surprised, Lojera could
not do anything but continued
his driving until he reached a
police station nearby where he
reported the incident. By this, the
officers on duty, PO1 Mariano
and PO3 Ramirez immediately
proceeded to the scene where
they found the white taxi. While
approaching said vehicle, two
armed men alighted therefrom,
fired their guns towards them
(police officers) and ran away.
The officers chased them and
recovered from the armed men
a black bag containing two
cricks of marijuana and a
magazine of super 38 stainless
with ammos, and recovered from
Calantiao‘s companion, Rommel
Reyes, a .38 revolver. The two
suspects and the confiscated
items were then turned over to
SPO3 Temena, police investigator
at Bagong Barrio Police Station
for investigation and markings of
the seized items and forwarded
to the PNP Crime Laboratory for
chemical analysis. The result of
the examination revealed that
the same was positive for
marijuana.
 Was the warrantless search and
seizure valid?
- YES
 According to the Supreme Court,
what is the purpose of allowing a
warrantless search and seizure as an
incident to a lawful arrest?
- The purpose of allowing a
warrantless search and seizure
incident to a lawful arrest is "to
protect the arresting officer from
being harmed by the person
arrested, who might be armed with a
concealed weapon, and to prevent
the latter from destroying evidence
within reach." It is therefore a
reasonable exercise of the State‘s
police power to protect (1) law
enforcers from the injury that may be
inflicted on them by a person they
have lawfully arrested; and (2)
evidence from being destroyed by
the arrestee. It seeks to ensure the
safety of the arresting officers and
the integrity of the evidence under
the control and within the reach of
the arrestee.
In People v. Valeroso, the Supreme
Court had the occasion to reiterate
the permissible reach of a valid
warrantless search and seizure
incident to a lawful arrest, viz:
When an arrest is made, it is
reasonable for the arresting officer to
search the person arrested in order
to remove any weapon that the
latter might use in order to resist
arrest or effect his escape.
Otherwise, the officer‘s safety might
 well be endangered, and the arrest
itself frustrated. In addition, it is
entirely reasonable for the arresting
officer to search for and seize any
evidence on the arrestee‘s person in
order to prevent its concealment or
destruction.
 What does the phrase “within the
area of his immediate control”
mean?
- The phrase ―within the area of his immediate
control‖ means that it was within the
permissible area that the apprehending
officers could validly conduct a warrantless
search.
*NOTES:
 The Plain View Doctrine is actually the
exception to the inadmissibility of
evidence obtained in a warrantless
search incident to a lawful arrest outside
the suspect‘s person and premises
under his immediate control.
- This is so because objects in the
‗plain view‘ of an officer who has
the right to be in the position to
have that view are subject to
seizure and may be presented as
evidence.
- The doctrine is usually applied
where a police officer is not
searching for evidence against
the accused, but nonetheless
inadvertently comes across an
incriminating object. It serves to
supplement the prior justification
– whether it be a warrant for
another object, hot pursuit,
search incident to lawful arrest, or
some other legitimate reason for
being present unconnected with
a search directed against the
accused – and permits the
warrantless seizure.
- In the case-at-bar, the Plain View
Doctrine finds no applicability in
Calantiao‘s situation because
the police officers purposely
searched him upon his arrest. The
police officers did not
inadvertently come across the
black bag, which was in
Calantiao‘s possession; they
deliberately opened it, as part of
the search incident to
Calantiao‘s lawful arrest.
PEOPLE V. MONTILLA
 In the case of People v. Montilla,
who is the accused and what was
the criminal charge against him?
- Accused-Appellant Ruben
Montilla y Gatdula alias "Joy,"
was charged on August 22, 1994
for violating Section 4, Article II of
the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972,
Republic Act No. 6425, as
amended by Republic Act No.
7659.
 What were the circumstances
surrounding his arrest and the
subsequent search and seizure?
- Two officers were aided by an
informer who 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, Dasmariñas from Baguio
City with an undetermined
amount of marijuana. It was the
same informer who pinpointed to
the arresting officers the
appellant when the latter
alighted from a passenger
 jeepney on the aforestated day,
hour, and place. As soon as
appellant had alighted from the
passenger jeepney, the informer
at once indicated to the officers
that their suspect was at hand by
pointing to him from the waiting
shed. SPO1 Clarin recounted that
the informer told them that the
marijuana was likely hidden
inside the traveling bag and
carton box which appellant was
carrying at the time. The officers
thus realized that he was their
man even if he was simply
carrying a seemingly innocent
looking pair of luggage for
personal effects. 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. Upon cursory
inspection by SPO1 Clarin, the
bag yielded the prohibited drugs,
so, without bothering to further
search the box, they brought
appellant and his luggage to
their headquarter for questioning.
 What made the warrantless search
and seizure valid, that is to say what
made the arrest preceding the
search valid?
- There were sufficient facts
antecedent to the search and
seizure that, at the point prior to
the search, were 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.
- Furthermore, that appellant also
consented to the search is borne
out by the evidence. 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. he
spontaneously performed
affirmative acts of volition by
himself opening the bag without
being forced or intimidated to do
so, which acts should properly be
construed as a clear waiver of his
right.
 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?
- A search incidental to a lawful
arrest is ound under Section 5(a),
Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.
Under the provision, a peace
officers or a private person may,
without a warrant, arrest a person
when, in his presence, the person
to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an
offense.
*NOTES:
 What is a probable cause?
- The conventional view is that
probable cause, while largely a
relative term the determination of
which must be resolved
according to the facts of each
case, is understood as having
reference to such facts and
circumstances which could lead
a reasonable, discreet, and
prudent man to believe and
conclude as to the commission of
an offense, and that the objects
sought in connection with the
offense are in the place sought
to be searched.

- A legitimate warrantless arrest,

necessarily cloaks the arresting
police officer with authority to
validly search and seize from the
offender (1) dangerous weapons,
and (2) those that may be used
as proof of the commission of an
offense. On the other hand, the
apprehending officer must have
been spurred by probable cause
in effecting an arrest which could
be classified as one in cadence
with the instances of permissible
arrests set out in Section 5(a).
These instances have been
applied to arrests carried out on
persons caught in flagrante
delicto.
Issuance of a valid warrantless arrest search and seizure
incidental to a lawful arrest
PEOPLE v. LUISITO GO
FACTS: Police civilian Panuringan reported to SPO1 Piamonte
and SPO3 Liquido that he saw Lusito Go also known as “King
Louie” enter the Flamingo Disco House. He said that he spotted
a gun tucked in Lusito Go’s waist. The police officers proceeded
to the Disco House and conducted an “Operation Bakal”
where they search for illegally possessed firearms. The
policemen saw the gun tucked in his waist. The police officer
asked for the license but was unable to produce any. Police
officers accompanied accused –appellant to his car. Through
the windshield they notice a PNP ID Card hanging from the
rearview. They asked Go for his driver’s license and the
registration papers of the vehicle but was unable to produce it.
Also, the police officers saw pieces of glass tooters and tin foils
on the backseat and floor of the car.
Accused-appellant took out an attaché case from the car and
opened it. There were two black clutch bags inside. Accused-
appellant opened the first bag, which contained shiny white
substance wrapped in cellophane. The second bag contained
P120, 000.00 in cash.
SC HELD: the gun was tucked in appellant's waist when he stood
up. The gun 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, Section 12.
This is a valid search incidental to the lawful arrest. The
subsequent discovery in his car of drug paraphernalia and the
crystalline substance, which was later identified as shabu,
though in a distant place from where the illegal possession of
firearm was committed, cannot be said to have been made
during an illegal search. As such, the seized items do not fall
within the exclusionary clause, which states that any evidence
obtained in violation of the right against warrantless arrest
cannot be used for any purposes in any proceeding. Hence,
not being fruits of the poisonous tree, so to speak, the objects
found at the scene of the crime, such as the firearm, the shabu
and the drug paraphernalia, can be used as evidence against
appellant. Besides, it has been held that drugs discovered as a
result of a consented search is admissible in evidence.
v. Who is the accused and what was the criminal charge
against him?
The accused is Luisito Go aka “King Louie” and is criminally
charged with violation of Article III of R.A. 6452 (Dangerous
Drugs Act) and of PD 1866
vi. What were the circumstances surrounding his arrest and the
subsequent search and seizure of the gun? How about the
drug paraphernalia?
 When the police officers conducted an “Operation
Bakal” where they searched for illegally possessed
firearms. The gun was tucked in appellant’s waist when
he stood up. The Gun was plainly visible.
 When accused-appellant opened the door, the police
officers saw pieces of glass tooters and tin foils on the
backseat and floor of the car. When asked why he had
these items, he did not say anything.
 Accused-appellant took out an attaché case from the
car and opened it. There were two black clutch bags
inside. Accused-appellant opened the first bag, which
contained shiny white substance wrapped in cellophane.
The second bag contained P120,000.00 in cash.
vii. What made the warrantless search and seizure valid, that
is to say what made the arrest preceding the search valid?
The gun 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,
Section 12. The seized items do not fall within the
exclusionary clause, which states that any evidence
obtained in violation of the right against warrantless arrest
cannot be used for any purposes in any proceeding. Hence,
not being fruits of the poisonous tree, so to speak, the objects
found at the scene of the crime are admissible.
viii. 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?
CONSENTED SEARCH is another exception to anchor the
validity of the search and seizure. It has been held that
drugs discovered as a result of a consented search is
admissible in evidence. In the present case, the accused-
appellant willingly took out an attaché case from the car
and opened it which signifies consent to the search
conducted by the police officers.
23. Compare the two (2) immediately foregoing cases to the
case of People v. Aruta in which the Supreme Court invalidated
the search and seizure made purportedly incidental to a lawful
arrest.
PEOPLE V. ARUTA
FACTS: In the morning of December 13, 1988, the law
enforcement officers received information from an informant
named "Benjie" that a certain "Aling Rosa" would be leaving for
Baguio City on December 14, 1988 and would be back in the
afternoon of the same day carrying with her a large volume of
marijuana; At 6:30 in the evening of December 14, 1988,
accused-appellant alighted from a Victory Liner Bus carrying a
travelling bag even as the informant pointed her out to the law
enforcement officers. The law enforcement officers
approached her and introduced themselves as NARCOM
agents. When asked by Lt. Abello about the contents of her
travelling bag, she gave the same to him. When they opened
the same, they found dried marijuana leaves. Accused-
appellant was then brought to the NARCOM office for
investigation.
SC HELD: The NARCOM agents were admittedly not armed
with a warrant of arrest. To legitimize the warrantless search and
seizure of accused-appellant's bag, accused-appellant must
have been validly arrested under Section 5 of Rule 113.
Accused-appellant Aruta cannot be said to be committing a
crime. Neither was she about to commit one nor had she just
committed a crime. Accused-appellant was merely crossing
the street and was not acting in any manner that would
engender a reasonable ground for the NARCOM agents to
suspect and conclude that she was committing a crime. It was
only when the informant pointed to accused-appellant and
identified her to the agents as the carrier of the marijuana that
she was singled out as the suspect. The NARCOM agents would
not have apprehended accused-appellant were it not for the
furtive finger of the informant because, as clearly illustrated by
the evidence on record, there was no reason whatsoever for
them to suspect that accused-appellant was committing a
crime, except for the pointing finger of the informant.
This Court could neither sanction nor tolerate as it is a clear
violation of the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable
search and seizure. Neither was there any semblance of any
compliance with the rigid requirements of probable cause and
warrantless arrests.
Consequently, there was no legal basis for the NARCOM agents
to effect a warrantless search of accused-appellant's bag,
there being no probable cause and the accused-appellant not
having been lawfully arrested. Stated otherwise, the arrest
being incipiently illegal, it logically follows that the subsequent
search was similarly illegal, it being not incidental to a lawful
arrest. The constitutional guarantee against unreasonable
search and seizure must perforce operate in favor of accused-
appellant. As such, the articles seized could not be used as
evidence against accused-appellant for these are "fruits of a
poisoned tree" and, therefore, must be rejected, pursuant to
Article III, Sec. 3(2) of the Constitution.
i. Who is the accused and what was the criminal charge
against him?
The accused is Rosa Aruta Y. Menguin. She was arrested and
charged with violating Section 4, Article II of the Republic Act
No. 6425 or the Dangerous Drugs Act.
ii. What were the circumstance surrounding the arrest and the
subsequent search and seizure?
 Accused-appellant was merely crossing the street and
was not acting in any manner that would engender a
reasonable ground for the NARCOM agents to suspect
and conclude that she was committing a crime.
 The NARCOM agents would not have apprehended
accused-appellant were it not for the furtive finger of the
informant because, as clearly illustrated by the evidence
on record, there was no reason whatsoever for them to
suspect that accused-appellant was committing a crime,
except for the pointing finger of the informant.
 Having ascertained that accused-appellant was "Aling
Rosa," the team approached her and introduced
themselves as NARCOM agents. When P/Lt. Abello asked
"Aling Rosa" about the contents of her bag, the latter
handed it to the former. Upon inspection, the bag was
found to contain dried marijuana leaves packed in a
plastic bag marked "Cash Katutak." The team
confiscated the bag together with the Victory Liner bus
ticket to which Lt. Domingo affixed his signature.
iii. Why was the warrantless search and seizure valid, that is to
say what made the arrest preceding the search invalid?
To legitimize the warrantless search and seizure of accused-
appellant's bag, accused-appellant must have been validly
arrested under Section 5 of Rule 113. However, in the present
case the Accused-appellant Aruta cannot be said to be
committing a crime. Neither was she about to commit one nor
had she just committed a crime. Consequently, there was no
legal basis for the NARCOM agents to effect a warrantless
search of accused-appellant's bag, there being no probable
cause and the accused-appellant not having been lawfully
arrested.
24. In a valid warrantless search and seizure incidental to a
lawful arrest, what is the permissible area of the search?
The answer to such questions may be found in the cases of
People v. Che Chun Ting and People v. Cubcubin.
PEOPLE V. CHE CHUN TING
FACTS: Following a series of buy-bust operations, the
elements of the Special Operation Unit, Narcotics
Command, apprehended a suspected drug courier,
Mabel Cheung Mei Po, after she delivered a transparent
plastic bag containing a white crystalline substance to an
informant, in full view of NARCOM agents. When
questioned, Mabel Cheung Mei Po cooperated with the
government agents and revealed the name of accused
Che Chun Ting as the source of the drugs. The narcotics
command deployed a team of agents for the entrapment
and arrest of Che Chun Ting. Mabel received a call from
the accused that he was ready to deliver the stuff. Mabel
went to UNIT 122. When the 2 NARCOM agents, saw the
door of the unit open as a man went out to hand Mabel a
transparent plastic bag containing white crystalline
substance.

The NARCOM agents immediately alighted and arrested the
surprised man who was positively identified by Mabel as Che
Chun Ting. Then the agents radioed their superiors in the other
car and coordinated with the security guard on duty at the
Roxas Seafront Garden to make a search of Unit 122. During
the search SPO3 Campanilla seized a black bag with several
plastic bags containing a white crystalline substance in an
open cabinet at the second floor.
CHE CHUN TING alias "DICK," a Hong Kong national, was found
guilty by the trial court on 22 August 1997 of delivering,
distributing and dispatching in transit 999.43 grams
of shabu; and, having in his custody, possession and control
5,578.68 grams of the same regulated drug. He was meted two
(2) death sentences, one for violation of Sec. 15 and the other
for violation of Sec. 16, both of Art. III, of RA 6425
(The Dangerous
Rrrr Drugs Act of 1972, as amended).
Accused Che Chun Ting now contends that the trial court
erred: (a) in convicting him on the basis of the shabu seized
inside Unit 122, which was constitutionally inadmissible as
evidence since it was seized without a search warrant
SC HELD: The search in Unit 122 and the seizure therein of some
5,578.68 grams of shabu do not fall within the exception,
hence, were illegal for being violative of one's basic
constitutional right and guarantee against unreasonable
searches and seizures.
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 lawful arrest being the sole justification for the validity of
the warrantless search under the exception, the same must be
limited to and circumscribed by the subject, time and place of
the arrest. As to subject, 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." With respect to the time and place of the
warrantless search, it must be contemporaneous with the
lawful arrest. Stated otherwise, to be valid, 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.
i. Where were the accused arrested and what was the scope of
the search made by the arresting officers?
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. They made a search of Unit
122 and seized a black bag with several plastic bags containing a
white crystalline substance in an open cabinet at the second
floor. 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.
ii. What pieces of evidence were considered by the SC as
seized outside the immediate control of the accused?
With respect to the time and place of the warrantless search,
it must be contemporaneous with the lawful arrest. Stated
otherwise, to be valid, 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.
PEOPLE V. CUBCUBIN
FACTS: Desk officer of the Cavite City police station received
a call that a person had been shot near the cemetery. A
police team responded to the call and found Henry P.
Piamonte slumped dead on his tricycle which was then
parked on the road. A tricycle driver testified that the
accused-appellant and the victim were last seen together
coming out of the Sting Café. Another tricycle driver told the
police officers that a person known as alias “Jun Dulce” fitted
the description. The former who knew where the accused-
appellant lived, led the police officers to the accused-
appellant’s house in Garcia Extension. The police operatives
identified themselves and informed him that he was being
sought in connection with the shooting near the cemetery.
Accused-appellant denied involvement in the incident. Upon
the conduct of their search, the police officers found a white
t-shirt bearing the brand name “Hanes” and the two bullet
shells. SPO1 Malinao, Jr. then asked accused-appellant to go
with them to Sting Cafe for purposes of identification. There,
accused-appellant was positively identified by Danet
Garcellano as the victim's companion. The police
investigators asked the accused-appellant where the fatal
gun is. However, the latter refused to tell them where he hid
the gun so the Police officers sought his permission to go back
to his house to conduct a further search. Inside the house,
they on top of a drum outside the bathroom a homemade
smith and Wesson caliber .38 revolver (six shooter), without a
serial number and found the gun loaded with 5 bullets.
Accused-appellant contends that neither he nor his son gave
permission to the arresting police officers to search his house
and, therefore, the "Hanes" t-shirt, the two spent slugs, and the
.38 caliber revolver allegedly found in his house are
inadmissible in evidence. The prosecution, on the other hand,
insists that accused-appellant consented to the search of his
house
SC HELD: The search cannot be justified as incidental to a
valid arrest. 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-
appellant's immediate control. In fact, according to the
prosecution, the police found the gun only after going back
to the house of accused-appellant.
i. Where were the accused arrested and what was the scope
SC Held: In the instant case, the appellant was arrested and
of the search made by the arresting officers?
his person searched in the living room. Failing to retrieve the
marked money which they hoped to find, the NARCOM
Upon the conduct of their search, the police officers found a
agents searched the whole house and found the plastic
white t-shirt bearing the brand name “Hanes” and the two
bag in the kitchen. The plastic bag was, therefore, not within
bullet shells. SPO1 Malinao, Jr. then asked accused-appellant
their "plain view" when they arrested the appellant as to
to go with them to Sting Cafe for purposes of identification.
justify its seizure. The incriminating nature of the contents of
There, accused-appellant was positively identified by Danet
the plastic bag was not immediately apparent from the
Garcellano as the victim's companion. The police investigators
"plain view" of said object. It cannot be claimed that the
asked the accused-appellant where the fatal gun is. However,
plastic bag clearly betrayed its contents, whether by its
the latter refused to tell them where he hid the gun so the
distinctive configuration, its transparency, or otherwise, that
Police officers sought his permission to go back to his house to
its contents are obvious to an observer.
conduct a further search. Inside the house, they found on top
of a drum outside the bathroom a homemade smith and
Wesson caliber .38 revolver (six shooter), without a serial i. Who is the accused and what was the criminal charge
number and found the gun loaded with 5 bullets. against him?

ii. What pieces of evidence were considered by the SC as
seized outside the immediate control of the accused?
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-appellant's 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
The accused is Mari Musa and was charged with violating
Article II, Section 4 of R.A No. 6425, as amended, otherwise
known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.
ii. What item was purported to have been seized in plain view
and what are the circumstances surrounding the seizure?
In the instant case, 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. When the NARCOM agents saw the plastic bag
hanging in one corner of the kitchen, they had no clue as to its
contents. They had to ask the appellant what the bag
contained. When the appellant refused to respond, they
opened it and found the marijuana.

25. In the case of People v. Musa, the Supreme Court iii. Was such item legally seized by the police officers? Why or
surveyed American Jurisprudence, and in which cases, the Why not?
earlier applications of the plain view doctrine were made.
The plastic bag containing marijuana leaves was illegally
seized by the police officers. Because it was not within their
PEOPLE V. MUSA "plain view" when they arrested the appellant as to justify its
seizure.
FACTS: Sgt. Amado Ani conducted surveillance and test
buy on a certain Mari Musa of Suterville, Zamboanga City. iv. What American Jurisprudence was used by the Supreme
Information received from civilian informer was that this Court to compare the present case? What were the
Mari Musa was engaged in selling marijuana in said place. distinctions drawn by the SC?
Amado Ani was able to buy one newspaper-wrapped
dried marijuana Sgt. Ani returned to the NARCOM office In the present case: Ker v. California
and turned over the newspaper-wrapped marijuana to The NARCOM agents in this Unlike Ker vs. California,
T/Sgt. Jesus Belarga. Sgt. Belarga inspected the stuff turned case went from room to where the police officer had
over to him and found it to be marijuana. room with the obvious reason to walk to the
intention of fishing for more doorway of the adjacent
The next day a buy-bust was planned. Sgt. Amado Ani was evidence. kitchen and from which
assigned as the poseur buyer for which purpose he was position he saw the
marijuana.
given P20.00. A pre-arranged signal was arranged
The NARCOM agents in this Unlike Ker v. California,
consisting of Sgt. Ani's raising his right hand, after he had
case could not have where the marijuana was
succeeded to buy the marijuana. Ani gave Mari Musa the discovered the inculpatory visible to the police officer's
P20.00 marked money. After receiving the money, Mari nature of the contents of eyes.
Musa went back to his house and came back and gave the bag had they not
Amado Ani two newspaper wrappers containing dried forcibly opened it
marijuana. Sgt. Belarga frisked Mari Musa but could not find
the P20.00 marked money with him. Mari Musa was then v. May the plain view doctrine be used for exploratory
asked where the P20.00 was and he told the NARCOM searches? Why or why not?
team he has given the money to his wife (who had slipped
NO. The "plain view" doctrine may not be used to extend a
away). Sgt. Belarga also found a plastic bag containing
general exploratory search from one object to another until
dried marijuana inside it somewhere in the kitchen. Mari
something incriminating at last emerges.
Musa was then placed under arrest and brought to the
NARCOM office.
 26. 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.
PEOPLE V. SARAP
FACTS: Armed with search warrant, the police officers
raided the house of Conrado Ricaforte, relative to the
reported sale of marijuana by its occupants. The 2
occupants were apprehended for illegal possession of
marijuana. In the course of their investigation, the police
learned that a certain Melly from Capiz and one Roger
were the suppliers of marijuana. On March 4, 1996, the
caretaker of the house informed Guarino that there were
2 strangers looking for the Duran sisters. 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. 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
Sarap’s 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.
SC held: In the absence of probable cause to affect a
valid warrantless arrest, the search of Sarap’s bag was also
not justified as seizure of evidence in plain view under the
fourth exception. The marijuana fruiting tops contained in
the green plastic bag carried by Sarap were not clearly
visible.
i. Who is the accused and what was the criminal charge
against him?
The accused is Melly Sarap y Arcangeles guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violation of Section 4 of Republic Act
No. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act,
ii. What item was purported to have been seized in plain
view and what are the circumstances surrounding the
seizure?
Guarnino not armed with a search warrant saw 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 Sarap’s 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.
iii. 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;
and (d) "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence
without further search.
iv. 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 Sarap’s bag was also not
justified as seizure of evidence in plain view under the fourth
exception. The marijuana fruiting tops contained in the green
plastic bag carried by Sarap were not clearly visible.
v. Was the warrantless arrest valid in the case? Why or why
not?
The warrantless arrest was invalid. In the instant case, Sarap
cannot be said to be committing a crime. Neither was she
about to commit one nor had she just committed a crime.
She was merely walking in the alley near the house of
Conrado Ricaforte. It was only when Janet Iguiz led Sarap
downstairs and identified her as Melly that she was singled
out as the suspect. Guarino would not have apprehended
Sarap were it not for Janet Iguiz’s identification. Moreover,
the evidence on record clearly illustrated that it was only
after Janet Iguiz pointed to Sarap as Melly that Guarino
suspected that the bag she was holding contained
marijuana.
27. 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. What were the circumstances surrounding the
seizure of said items and why were they validly seized in
plain view?
PEOPLE V. FIGUEROA
FACTS: The Executive Officer of the 215th PC Company,
and his men arrived at the residence of accused Arturo
Figueroa at Barangay San Juan, San Francisco
Subdivision, General Trias, Cavite, to serve a warrant for
his arrest issued. While serving the warrant of arrest, the
officers noticed, strewn around, aluminum foil packages
of different sizes in the sala. Suspecting thus the presence
of "shabu" in the premises, the arresting officers requested
appellant, as well as his brother and sister, to acquiesce
to a search of the house. The search yielded a .45 caliber
pistol, a magazine, seven live ammunitions, and a match
box containing an aluminum foil package with "shabu."
SC held: The .45 caliber pistol, magazine and rounds of
ammunition were not unlawfully obtained. While we
might concede difficulty in readily accepting the
statement of the prosecution that the search was
conducted with consent freely given by appellant and
members of his household, it should be pointed out, in
any case, that the search and seizure was done
admittedly on the occasion of a lawful arrest.
28. If the object seized is in inside a closed package, is it seized
in plain view? The answer to such question is found in the
cases of Caballes v. CA and People v. Nuevas. Supply the
answer and give a summary of the relevant facts in the
foregoing cases.
CABALLES V. CA
FACTS: Sgt. Victorino Noceja and Pat. Alex de Castro, while
on a routine patrol in Barangay Sampalucan, Pagsanjan,
Laguna, spotted a passenger jeep unusually covered with
"kakawati" leaves. Suspecting that the jeep was loaded
with smuggled goods, the two police officers flagged
down the vehicle. The jeep was driven by appellant. When
asked what was loaded on the jeep, he did not answer; he
appeared pale and nervous. With appellant's consent, the
police officers checked the cargo and they discovered
bundles of 3.08 mm aluminum/galvanized conductor wires
exclusively owned by National Power Corporation (NPC).
SC held: It cannot likewise be said that the cable wires
found in petitioner's vehicle were in plain view, making its
warrantless seizure valid. Jurisprudence is to the effect that
an object is in plain view if the object itself is plainly
exposed to sight. It is clear from the records of this case
that the cable wires were not exposed to sight because
they were placed in sacks and covered with leaves. They
had no clue as to what was hidden underneath the leaves
and branches. As a matter of fact, they had to ask
petitioner what was loaded in his vehicle.
PEOPLE V. NUEVAS
FACTS: Fami and Cabling conducted a stationary
surveillance and monitoring of illegal drug trafficking along
Perimeter Street, Barangay Pag-asa, Olongapo City. They
had received information that a certain male person, more
or less 5’4" in height, 25 to 30 years old, with a tattoo mark
on the upper right hand, and usually wearing a sando and
maong pants, would make a delivery of marijuana dried
leaves. While stationed thereat, they saw a male person
who fit the description, carrying a plastic bag, later
identified as Jesus Nuevas (Nuevas), alight from a motor
vehicle. Nuevas voluntarily pointed to the police officers a
plastic bag which, when opened, contained marijuana
dried leaves and bricks wrapped in a blue cloth. Shortly, in
his bid to escape charges, Nuevas disclosed where the
two (2) other male persons would make the delivery of
marijuana weighing more or less five (5) kilos.
SC held: The search could not be justified under the plain
view doctrine. An object is in plain view if it is exposed to
sight. Records show that the dried marijuana leaves were
inside the plastic bags that Nuevas and Din were carrying
and were not readily apparent or transparent to the police
officers. In Nuevas’s case, the dried marijuana leaves
found inside the plastic bag were wrapped inside a blue
cloth.
29. Another interesting case which laid down a
jurisprudential principle pertaining to plain view is the case of
People v. Salanguit.
PEOPLE V. SALANGUIT
FACTS: Sr. Insp. Aguilar applied for a warrant He presented
as his witness SPO1 Edmund Badua, who testified that as a
poseur-buyer, he was able to purchase 2.12 grams
of shabu from accused-appellant. The sale took place in
accused-appellant's room, and Badua saw that
the shabu was taken by accused-appellant from a
cabinet inside his room. The application was granted, and
a search warrant issued. The police officers along with
one civilian informer went to the residence of the
accused appellant to serve the warrant. They found 12
small heat-sealed transparent plastic bags containing a
white crystalline substance, a paper clip box also
containing a white crystalline substance, and two bricks
of dried leaves which appeared to be marijuana
wrapped in newsprint. The warrant authorized the seizure
of "undetermined quantity of shabu and drug
paraphernalia." No drug paraphernalia was seized.
Accused-appellant contends, however, that the search
warrant issued is void because no evidence was
presented showing the existence of drug paraphernalia
and the same should not have been ordered to be seized
by the trial court
SC held: The fact that there was no probable cause to
support the application for the seizure of drug
paraphernalia does not warrant the conclusion that the
search warrant is void. This fact would be material only if
drug paraphernalia was in fact seized by the police. The
fact is that none was taken by virtue of the search
warrant issued. The search warrant is void only insofar as it
authorized the seizure of drug paraphernalia, but it is valid
as to the seizure of methamphetamine hydrochloride as
to which evidence was presented showing probable
cause as to its existence.
Is it possible for a search and seizure to be invalid if a prior
search and seizure was made pursuant to a lawful search
warrant?
YES, it is possible for a search and seizure to be invalid if an
ITEM wherein there was no probable cause to support the
application was seized by the police.
30. Then, inquire into the case of United Laboratories v. Isip.
Expound the requirement of inadvertence and the
immediately apparent test explained by the SC in said case.
The immediate requirement means that the executing officer
can, at the time of discovery of the object or the facts
therein available to him, determine probable cause of the
object’s incriminating evidence. In other words, to be
immediate, probable cause must be the direct result of the
officer’s instantaneous sensory perception of the object. The
object is apparent if the executing officer had probable
cause to connect the object to criminal activity. The
incriminating nature of the evidence becomes apparent in
the course of the search, without the benefit of any unlawful
search or seizure. A NEXUS EXISTS BET. A VIEWED OBJECT AND
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
The requirement of inadvertence, on the other hand, means
i. What is/are the difference/s between a search incidental to
that the officer must not have known in advance of the
a lawful arrest and a terry search or a stop and frisk?
location of the evidence and intend to seize it. Discovery is
not anticipated.
Search incidental to a Terry search or a stop and
lawful arrest frisk
STOP AND FRISK OR TERRY SEARCH Require that a crime be Conducted to prevent the
committed in flagrante occurrence of a crime
delicto
31. Take this problem: suppose a police officer is on routine A lawful arrest must precede Seizure must precede the
patrol duty and he observes two people outside a variety the search and seizure. arrest
store. Both his experience and training tell him that their acts
are consistent with acts of people with criminal designs ii. What is the justification for allowing a terry search?
although he has no concrete facts showing probable cause
that a crime has been committed or that it is actually being (1) The general interest of effective crime prevention and
committed. He knows that mere suspicion is not sufficient to detection, which underlies the recognition that a police officer
make a valid arrest, but his instincts honed by years of may, under appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate
experience in the streets tell him something untoward is manner, approach a person for purposes of investigating
imminent. May he briefly stop the persons, ask them possible criminal behavior even without probable cause; and
questions and engage in a protective search for a
concealed weapon short of a full-scale arrest? The Supreme (2) The more pressing interest of safety and self-preservation
Court of the US addressed a similar situation in 1968 in the which permit the police officer to take steps to assure himself
landmark case of Terry v. Ohio. Read the case and supply that the person with whom he deals is not armed with a
the answer to the question. Provide a summary of the deadly weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used
relevant facts and ruling of the SC of the United States of against the police officer
America.
iii. What is the allowable scope of a stop and frisk?

YES the police officer’s interrogation was warranted and that

Stop a citizen on the street, interrogate him, and pat him for
for his own protection had the right to pat down the 2
weapon(s) or contraband.
suspected individuals ‘ outer clothing having reasonable
cause to believe that they might be armed. Like in the
landmark case of Terry v. Ohio, wherein McFadden on a iv. Is ‘probable cause’ similar with ‘genuine reason’?
downtown beat which he had been patrolling for many
years, observed two strangers on a street corner. Suspecting
the two men of “casing a job, a stick-up,” The officer PROBABLE CAUSE GENUINE REASON
decided to approach the three for questioning, and given A reasonable ground of It refers to as what a
the nature of the behavior the officer decided to perform a suspicion supported by reasonable person, or a
quick search of the men before questioning. A quick frisking circumstances sufficiently normal, average person
of the Petitioner produced a concealed weapon and the strong in themselves to would consider
Petitioner was charged with carrying a concealed weapon. warrant a cautious man to suspicious.
The SC HELD pursuant to the Fourth Amendment right against believe that the person
unreasonable searches and seizures- a reasonably prudent accused is guilty of the
officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in offense with which he is
believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he charged.
may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person
iv. What is required in order to properly carry out a TERRY
believed by him to be armed and dangerous regardless of
SEARCH?
whether he has probable cause to arrest that individual fro
crime or the absolute certainty that the individual is armed.
A genuine reason must exist, in light of the police officer's
Though the police must whenever practicable secure a
experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief
warrant to make a search and seizure, that procedure
that the person detained has weapons concealed about him.
cannot be followed where swift action based upon on-the-
spot observations of the officer on the beat is required.

32. Read the cases of People v. Chua and Esquillo v. People.

Supply the answers to the ff. questions:
 v. What are the relevant facts in the foregoing cases in
relation to the answer to the previous questions?
PEOPLE V. CHUA
FACTS: SPO2 Mario Nulud and PO2 Emmeraldo Nunag
received a report from their confidential informant that
accused-appellant was about to deliver drugs that night at
the Thunder Inn Hotel in Balibago, Angeles City. The police
officers conducted their operation. Their informer pointed to a
car driven by the accused-appellant. After the accused
alighted from the car carrying a sealed Zest-O juice box, SPO2
Nulud and PO2 Nunag hurriedly accosted him and introduced
themselves as police officers. As accused-appellant pulled out
his wallet, a small transparent plastic bag with a crystalline
substance protruded from his right back pocket. Forthwith,
SPO2 Nulud subjected him to a body search which yielded
twenty (20) pieces of live .22 caliber firearm bullets from his left
back pocket. When SPO2 Nunag peeked into the contents of
the Zest-O box, he saw that it contained a crystalline
substance. SPO2 Nulud instantly confiscated the small
transparent plastic bag, the Zest-O juice box, the twenty (20)
pieces of .22 caliber firearm bullets and the car used by
accused-appellant.
Accused-appellant maintains that there was no compelling
reason for the haste within which the arresting officers sought
to arrest and search him without a warrant.
SC held: There was no valid "stop-and-frisk" in the case of
accused-appellant. To reiterate, accused-appellant was first
arrested before the search and seizure of the alleged illegal
items found in his possession. The apprehending police
operative failed to make any initial inquiry into accused-
appellant’s business in the vicinity or the contents of the Zest-O
juice box he was carrying. The apprehending police officers
only introduced themselves when they already had custody of
accused-appellant. Besides, at the time of his arrest, accused-
appellant did not exhibit manifest unusual and suspicious
conduct reasonable enough to dispense with the procedure
outlined by jurisprudence and the law. There was, therefore,
no genuine reasonable ground for the immediacy of accused-
appellant’s arrest.
ESQUILLO V. PEOPLE
FACTS: On the basis of an informant’s tip, PO1 Cruzin, together
with PO2 Angel Aguas (PO2 Aguas) Bayanihan St., Malibay,
Pasay City to conduct surveillance on the activities of an
alleged notorious snatcher operating in the area known only
as "Ryan." As PO1 Cruzin alighted from the private vehicle that
brought him and PO2 Aguas to the target area, he glanced in
the direction of petitioner who was standing three meters
away and seen placing inside a yellow cigarette case what
appeared to be a small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet
containing white substance. While PO1 Cruz was not sure what
the plastic sachet contained, he became suspicious when
petitioner started acting strangely as he began to approach
her. He then introduced himself as a police officer to petitioner
and inquired about the plastic sachet she was placing inside
her cigarette case. Petitioner assails the appellate court’s
application of the "stop-and-frisk" principle in light of PO1
Cruzin’s failure to justify his suspicion that a crime was being
committed, he having merely noticed her placing something
inside a cigarette case which could hardly be deemed
suspicious.
SC held: The Court finds that the questioned act of the police
officers constituted a valid "stop-and-frisk" operation. The
search/seizure of the suspected shabu initially noticed in
petitioner’s possession - later voluntarily exhibited24 to the
police operative - was undertaken after she was interrogated
on what she placed inside a cigarette case, and after PO1
Cruzin introduced himself to petitioner as a police officer. And,
at the time of her arrest, petitioner was exhibiting suspicious
behavior and in fact attempted to flee after the police officer
had identified himself.
Other Exceptions
32. As to the other exceptions, find at
least two cases decided by the Supreme
Court explaining each of them
respectively. Summarize the relevant
facts and the relevant discussion of the
Supreme Court relating to such.
SEARCH OF VESSELS AND AIRCRAFTS
Hizon v. CA
265 SCRA 517 G.R. No. 119619
Petitioners were charged with violation
of the Fisheries Decree of 1975. Fishing
boat F/B Robinson, owned by a
domestic corporation represented by
Richard Hizon, was the vessel used in
catching fish using the poisonous
substance sodium cyanide.
In response to reports, the PNP Maritime
Command organized a task force which
later reported to them fishing by “muro
ami” in Brgy San Rafael, Puerto Princesa.
The police boarded the F/B Robinson
and inspected the boat with the
acquiescence of the boat captain.
The NBI tested fish samples and
confirmed the use of sodium cyanide.
Thus the trial court found the accused
guilty and ordered the confiscation of
their boat, sampans, and 1 ton of fish
caught. The CA affirmed the RTC ruling.
On appeal, the petitioners contend that
the fish samples were illegally seized in
view of a warrantless search of the fishing
boat and thus should have been held as
inadmissible basis for their conviction.
SC Ruling
As a general rule, any evidence
obtained without a judicial warrant is
inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding. The rule is, however,
subject to certain exceptions.
Search and seizure without search
warrant of vessels and aircrafts for
violations of customs laws have been the
traditional exception to such a
requirement. It is rooted on the
recognition that a vessel and an aircraft,
like motor vehicles, can be quickly
moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in
which the search warrant must be
sought and secured. Yielding to this
reality, judicial authorities have not
required a search warrant of vessels and
aircrafts before their search and seizure
can be constitutionally effected. The
same exception ought to apply to
seizures of fishing vessels and boats
breaching our fishery laws. These vessels
are normally powered by high-speed
motors that enable them to elude
arresting ships of the Philippine Navy, the
Coast Guard and other government
authorities enforcing our fishery laws.
People v. Saycon
236 SCRA 325 G.R. No. 110995
Alvaro Saycon was charged with
violating R.A. No. 6425 as amended for
transporting 4 grams of shabu from
Manila to Dumaguete City. The
Coastguard personnel received
information from an agent that a
suspected "shabu" courier as on board
the vessel MV Doña Virginia , which was
arriving at that moment in Dumaguete
City
NARCOM agents and Philippine
Coastguard personnel awaited Saycon
at the gate of Pier 1. They claim that
Saycon willing went with them and
willingly opened his bag. Inside Saycon’s
wallet was shabu. After the NARCOM
agents arrested him without a warrant,
the PNP's Forensic Analyst confirmed the
substance in Saycon’s wallet was shabu.
The RTC convicted him of the crime.
Saycon denied ownership of the shabu.
He claimed he was held at gunpoint and
he protested the search of his bag. In his
appeal, Saycon contends that the
search of his bag was illegal because it
had been made without a search
warrant and that, therefore, the "shabu"
discovered during the illegal search was
inadmissible in evidence against him.
SC Ruling
The requirement that a judicial warrant
must be obtained prior to the carrying
out of a search and seizure is not
absolute. In the case at bar, the
pertinent exception is that relating to the
search of moving vehicles. In People v.
Barros, the Court held it is not it not
practicable to secure a judicial warrant
before searching a vehicle, since such
vehicle can be quickly moved out of the
locality or jurisdiction. In People v. Bagista
and People v. Lo Ho Wing, routine
checks limited to visual inspection are
valid warrantless searches. In Valmonte
v. De Villa, the Court said: “A reasonable
search is not to be determined by any
fixed formula but is to be resolved
according to the facts of each case.”
Mere visual inspections do not constitute
unreasonable searches. However, an
extensive search without a warrant is
constitutionally permissible only if the
officers conducting the search have
reasonable or probable cause to
believe, before the search, that either
the motorist is a law-offender or the
contents or cargo of the vehicle are or
have been instruments or the subject
matter or the proceeds of some criminal
offense.
By analogy, Saycon is like a driver
subjected to an extensive search.
Saycon’s warrantless search and arrest
would be constitutionally permissible
only if the officer conducting the search
had reasonable or probable cause to
believe, before the search, that Saycon
was violating some law or that the
contents of his luggage included some
instrument or the subjects matter or the
proceeds of some criminal offense.
There did exist reasonable or probable
cause to believe that appellant Alvaro
Saycon would be carrying or
transporting prohibited drugs upon
arriving in Dumaguete. First, three weeks
prior, Saycon was confirmed through a
test-buy operation that he was a drug
distributor. Second, the NARCOM officers
did not enough time to obtain a search
warrant or a warrant of arrest because
they were uncertain as to the precise
date and time and only learned a few
hours earlier before Saycon’s ship
docked where he would be specifically.
SEARCH OF MOVING VEHICLES
Valmonte v. De Villa
178 SCRA 211 G.R. No. 83988
Petitioner Ricardo C. seeks the
declaration of checkpoints in
Valenzuela, Metro Manila as
unconstitutional. The National Capital
Region District Command was activated
with the mission of conducting security
operations for maintaining peace and
order and it installed checkpoints as part
of its duty.
Petitioners argue that the said
checkpoints gave the respondents a
blanket authority to make searches or
seizures without a warrant in violation of
the Constitution.
SC Ruling
Petitioners have not shown the necessary
proof that the military committed
specific violations of petitioners' right
against unlawful search and seizure.
Valmonte must state the details which
amount to the such a violation instead of
making general allegations.
Not all searches and seizures are
prohibited. Those which are reasonable
are not forbidden. A reasonable search
is not to be determined by any fixed
formula but is to be resolved according
to the facts of each case.
The setting up of checkpoints may be
considered a reasonable security
measure in the interest of public security.
The Court takes judicial notice of the shift
to urban centers and their suburbs of the
insurgency movement reflected in the
increased killings of police and military
men by NPA “sparrow units” and the
abundance of unlicensed firearms. One
can rightly consider these as abnormal
times. The state protecting its existence
and promoting public welfare prevails
over the individual’s right against a
warrantless search.
True, the manning of checkpoints by the
military is susceptible of abuse by the
men in uniform, in the same manner that
all governmental power is susceptible of
abuse. At the cost of occasional
inconvenience, discomfort and even
irritation to the citizen, the checkpoints
during these abnormal times, when
conducted within reasonable limits, are
part of the price we pay for an orderly
society and a peaceful community.
Dissent
The majority’s sweeping statements
threaten individual liberty. The Bill of
Rights was intended precisely to limit the
authority of the State even if asserted on
the ground of national security. The case
at bar is not mere visual inspection but
includes detention and extensive
searching. Thus, instead of the petitioners
burden of providing details of the
violation of their rights, the State has the
burden of at least providing proof of
probable cause if not a warrant. The
absence alone of a search warrant
makes checkpoint searches
unreasonable and thus invalid.
Caballes v. CA
G.R No. 136292, January 15, 2002
The CA affirmed the trial court finding
petitioner Caballes guilty of theft for
stealing aluminum cable conductors
from the National Power Corporation.
Two police officers on routine patrol
flagged down appellant’s jeep upon
suspecting it was loaded with smuggled
goods.
In defense, appellant interposed denial
and alibi. Petitioner argues that his
constitutional right was violated when
the police officers searched his vehicle
and seized the wires without a warrant.
SC Ruling
In the exceptional events where warrant
is not necessary to effect a valid search
or seizure, or when the latter cannot be
performed except without a warrant,
what constitutes a reasonable or
unreasonable search or seizure is purely
a judicial question, determinable from
the uniqueness of the circumstances
involved, including the purpose of the
search or seizure, the presence or
absence of probable cause, the manner
in which the search and seizure was
made, the place or thing searched and
the character of the articles procured.
Before obtaining a warrant from the
issuing judge, the place, things and
persons to be searched must be
described to his satisfaction. This
requirement borders on the impossible in
the case of the use of a moving vehicle
that can quickly move out of the locality
or jurisdiction. Such warrantless searches
are also allowed to prevent violations of
smuggling or immigration laws, provided
such searches are made at borders or
‘constructive borders’ like checkpoints
near the boundary lines of the State.
Routine inspections, limited to
circumstances involving only visual
inspection or conducted in a fixed area,
are valid and reasonable warrantless
searches. The case at bar is not a routine
inspection but an extensive search
because they intruded into the car, lifted
the leaves and looked inside the sacks.
This is a warrantless extensive search of a
vehicle and requires probable cause to
believe that the motorist is a law-
offender or that they will find evidence
pertaining to a crime. In the case at bar,
the officers merely noticed that the jeep
covered with leaves was uncommon.
The vehicle looking suspicious because
of the leaves does not constitute
"probable cause" as would justify the
conduct of a search without a warrant.
Tipped information has been considered
sufficient probable cause but none exists
in this case.
Respondents cannot avail of the plain
view doctrine because the wires were
covered and thus not exposed to sight.
Neither was there consented search
because in the case of herein petitioner,
the statements of the police officers
were not asking for his consent; they
were declaring to him that they will look
inside his vehicle
INSPECTION OF BUILDINGS AND OTHER
PREMISES FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF FIRE,
SANITARY, AND BUILDING REGULATIONS
This is an exercise of police power of the
State, and would not require a search
warrant. These are routine inspections
which, however, must be conducted
during reasonable hours.
CUSTOMS SEARCH
People vs CFI
G.R. No. L-41686
Regional Anti-Smuggling Action Center
agents, informed by that a shipment of
highly dutiable goods would be
transported to Manila from Angeles City
on a blue Dodge car, stationed
themselves at a toll gate. On the same
day, the informant personally identified
the car. The agents chased it and
obtained in the course of a warrantless
search and seizure four boxes on the
back seat. The boxes were opened and
revealed some "4,441 more or less wrist
watches of assorted brands; 1,075 more
or less watch bracelets of assorted
brands" supposedly untaxed.
The ASAC Chairman requested the
Bureau of Customs to issue a Warrant of
Seizure and Detention against the
articles including the Dodge car. In
conjunction with the Warrant of Seizure
and Detention issued by the Collector of
Customs, seizure proceedings were
instituted.
The substantive issue as urged in the
petition is whether or not the seizure of
the merchandise in a moving vehicle by
authorized agents commissioned to
enforce customs laws without warrant of
seizure breaches the constitutional
immunity against unreasonable search
and seizure and therefore, such
merchandise are inadmissible in
evidence.
SC Ruling
Under the law, the authority of persons
duly commissioned to enforce tariff and
customs laws is quite exceptional when it
pertains to the domain of searches and
seizures of goods suspected to have
been introduced in the country in
violation of the customs laws.
In order to discharge their official duties
more effectively, these persons having
police authority under Section 2203 of
the Tariff and Customs Code may
exercise specific searching functions
(Section 2208, 2210 and 2211) without
needing a search warrant unlike the
function defined in Section 2209 which
involves searching a dwelling house.
Aware of this delineation, the Court in
the case of Papa v. Mago expressed the
considerd view that "except in the case
of the search of a dwelling house,
persons exercising police authority under
the customs law may effect search and
seizure without a search warrant in the
enforcement of customs laws.
Searches and seizures without warrant
are valid if made upon probable cause.
The records show that the officers only
had general knowledge that some
highly dutiable goods would be
transported. Lacking the essential
determination of exactitude, the agents
could not have possibly secured a valid
warrant. The agents also acted not on
the basis of a mere hearsay but on a
confirmed information worthy of belief
and probable cause enough for them to
adopt measures to freeze the fleeting
event.
The circumstances of the case at bar
undoubtedly fall squarely within the
privileged area where search and
seizure may lawfully be effected without
the need of a warrant.
People v. Wong Chuen Ming
256 SCRA 182 G.R. Nos. 112801-11
Apellants were charged with unlawfully
transporting into the country. After
passing through and obtaining
clearance from immigration officers at
the NAIA, Wong Chuen and his tour
group proceeded to have their
baggages examined. The customs
examiner found shabu hidden inside
cereal boxes in one of Ming’s
companions. Duty Collector Zenaida
Reyes Bonifacio made the accused sign
the bundles cereal boxes allegedly
recovered from their respective
luggages. A field test on a sample of the
substances confirmed they were shabu.
The trial court found the accused guilty.
The accused argues that the evidence
presented against them is inadmissible
because they were not made aware of
their fundamental constitutional rights
during the investigation.
SC Ruling
The Court holds that the signatures of
accused on the boxes, as well as on the
plastic bags containing "shabu", are
inadmissible in evidence. These
signatures of accused are tantamount to
an uncounselled extra-judicial
confession which is not sanctioned by
the Bill of Rights.
EXIGENT AND EMERGENCY
CIRCUMSTANCES

People v. De Gracia
233 SCRA 716 [1994]

This case took place during the height of

the coup d' etat staged in December,
1989 by ultra-rightist elements headed by
the Reform the Armed Forces
Movement-Soldiers of the Filipino People.
There were intelligence reports that the
Eurocar Sales Office building was being
used as headquarters by the RAM during
a coup detat. A surveillance team was
fired at by a group of armed men
coming out of the building and the
occupants of said building refused to
open the door despite repeated
requests. 4 days later they raided the
building and found there were large
quantities of explosives and ammunitions
inside it. Nearby courts were closed and
general chaos and disorder prevailed
thus the raiding team did not secure a
search warrant.
SC Ruling
The instant case falls under one of the
exceptions to the prohibition against a
warrantless search. First, the existing
circumstances sufficiently showed that a
crime was being committed. In short,
there was probable cause to effect a
warrantless search of the building.
Second, the raiding team had no
opportunity to apply for and secure a
search warrant from the courts.
 PART VI. WARRANTLESS SEARCHES

EXCLUSIONARY RULE

34. By now, after reading all the foregoing cases, you must have already understood what the ‘Exclusionary
Rule’ is. Summarize the rules pertaining to such rule and provide legal bases.

Evidence obtained in violation of Section 2, Article III, shall be inadmissible for any purposes in any
proceeding (Section 3 (2), Article III) because it is “the fruit of the poisoned tree.”

a. To come under the exclusionary rule, however, the evidence must be obtained by government agents
and not by private individuals acting on their own. (People v. Marti)

b. The specific incorporation of the rule into the constitutional text produces two other consequences.

1. It divorces the rule from the self-incrimination clause. Now, evidence obtained in violation of the
search and seizure clause, whether or not it is also self-incriminating testimonial evidence, is
inadmissible.

2. By making such evidence inadmissible “for any purpose in any proceeding,” the Constitution has
closed the door for any judicial temptation to erode the rule by distinguishing and splitting hair.

c. Failure of the accused to object to the admissibility of the evidence obtained through an unlawful arrest
and search, In the case of People v. Diaz, It was held that the accused deemed to have waived their
right against their admissibility. Amidst a waiver, the trial court did not err in admitting the evidence.

d. However, even if the accused were illegally arrested, such arrest does not invest eye-witness accounts
with constitutional infirmity as “fruits of the poisonous tree”: thus, where the conviction could be secured
on the strength of testimonial evidence given in open court, the illegality of the arrest cannot be
invoked to reverse the conviction. (People v. Salazar)

e. The inadmissibility of the evidence, however, does not mean that it must be returned where it came
from. If the object is not a prohibited object it, it must be returned. But if contraband, it can be
confiscated. (Tambasen v. People)