Plain view doctrine PADILLA VS.

CA Facts: FACTS: Accused Robin Padilla was apprehended by policemen in Angeles City, Pampanga after he was pursued for a hit-and-run accident. He was ordered by police officers to alight his Mitsubishi Pajero. When he went out with his both hands raised, a gun tucked on the left side of his waist was revealed. A long magazine of an armalite rifle in his back right pocket was also exposed. A baby armalite lying at the driver's seat was also seen. Accused was unable to produce any permit to carry said firearms. He was arrested and said firearms were seized. Issue: Whether or not seizure of said firearms is valid under the plain view doctrine. Ruling: Seizure was valid. All firearms came within the "plain view" of the policement who inadvertently discovered the revolver and magazine tucked in accused's waist and back pocket, and M-16 armalite immediately apparent to policemen who took casual glance at the Pajero's driver's seat. Seizure of evidence in plain view is valid when the following elements concur: (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) evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they are; (c) evidence must be immediately apparent; (d) "plain" view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search Note: In this case, search and seizure of firearms can also be valid under: (1) search incidental to a lawful arrest, and (2) search of a moving vehicle. Nilo Solayao was charged by the RTC of Biliran with the crime of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition. A a 49-inch long firearm was discovered and seized when his companions fled after seeing CAFGU members conducted an intelligence patrol. There were reports on the presence of armed persons roaming around the barangays. ISSUE: Whether the action to "stop and frisk" the accused was justifiable, that his right to be secure in his person and effects against unreasonable searches was not violated. PEOPLE VS. SOLAYAO

HELD: There was justifiable cause to "stop and frisk" accusedappellant when his companions fleed upon seeing the government agents. Under the circumstances, the government agents could not possibly have procured a search warrant first. There was no violation of the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures. The homemade firearm can be admitted as evidence.

Search of moving vehicles Enforcement of fishing, customs and immigration laws PEOPLE VS. SUZUKI FACTS: This is an automatic review of the RTCs Decision convicting Suzuki of illegal possession of 1.9 kgs of marijuana. At Bacolod Airport Terminal, the accused was frisked because the alarm sounded when he passed the metal detector. Marijuana was found on his box marked Bongbongs piaya. The accused ran outside the pre-departure area but he was apprehended by PASCOM agents. The RTC convicted him with death. Issue: Whether the evidences are admissible in court on the ground that they were obtained without search warrant but were seized through a moving vehicle. Facts: Three aircraft mechanics employed by PAL were arrested by intelligence operatives of the Philippine Air Force (PAF) for possessing smuggled watches and jewelries. They were charged for violation of Tarrif and Customs Code. When the accused were searched, they were boarding an airplane tow truck. Trial court ruled as guilty and affirmed by CA. Salvador et al vs. People

ISSUE: Whether the constitutional right of the accused against unreasonable search and seizure was violated on the ground that the PASCOM has no authority to conduct search.

Held: The articles involved were validly seized by the authorities even without a search warrant, hence, admissible in evidence.

HELD: We find the search conducted by the airport authorities reasonable and, therefore, not violative of his constitutional rights. 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 accused was caught in flagrante delicto, justifying his arrest even without a warrant under Rules of Criminal Procedure. Neither was the search incidental to a lawful arrest since appellant was not yet arrested at the time of the search. To be considered a search incidental to a lawful arrest, the law requires that there must be a lawful arrest before the search can be made. The search of a moving vehicle is recognized as a valid exception to the requirement for a search warrant. The accused were on board a moving PAL aircraft tow truck. Our jurisprudence provides for privileged areas where searches and seizures may lawfully be effected without a search warrant: (1) search of moving vehicles; (2) search in plain view; (3) customs searches; (4) waiver or consented searches; (5) stop-and-frisk situations; and (6) search incidental to a lawful arrest.

Stop and frisk