Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

c c  ccc

à àà 

6  6 

 àà ×

× ××



6  
Accused-appellant went to a forwarding agency to send four packages to a friend in
Zurich. Initially, the accused was asked by the proprietress if the packages can be
examined. However, he refused. Before delivering said packages to the Bureau of
Customs and the Bureau of Posts, the husband of the proprietress opened said boxes for
final inspection. From that inspection, included in the standard operating procedure and
out of curiosity, he took several grams of its contents.

He brought a letter and the said sample to the National Bureau of Investigation. When the
NBI was informed that the rest of the shipment was still in his office, three agents went
back with him. In their presence, the husband totally opened the packages. Afterwards,
the NBI took custody of said packages. The contents, after examination by forensic
chemists, were found to be marijuana flowering tops.

The appellant, while claiming his mail at the Central Post Office, was invited by the
agents for questioning. Later on, the trial court found him guilty of violation of the
Dangerous Drugs Act.

  
1. Whether or not the items admitted in the searched illegally searched and seized.
2. Whether or not custodial investigation was not properly applied.
3. Whether or not the trial court did not give credence to the explanation of the appellant
on how said packages came to his possession.

  
1. No. ³The case at bar assumes a peculiar character since the evidence sought to be
excluded was primarily discovered and obtained by a private person, acting in a
private capacity and without the intervention and participation of State authorities.
Under the circumstances, can accused/appellant validly claim that his constitutional
right against unreasonable searches and seizure has been violated. Stated otherwise,
may an act of a private individual, allegedly in violation of appellant's constitutional
rights, be invoked against the State. In the absence of governmental interference, the
liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked against the State. It was
Mr. Job Reyes, the proprietor of the forwarding agency, who made search/inspection
of the packages. Said inspection was reasonable and a standard operating procedure
on the part of Mr. Reyes as a precautionary measure before delivery of packages to
the Bureau of Customs or the Bureau of Posts. Second, the mere presence of the NBI
agents did not convert the reasonable search effected by Reyes into a warrantless
search and seizure proscribed by the Constitution. Merely to observe and look at that
which is in plain sight is not a search. Having observed that which is open, where no
trespass has been committed in aid thereof, is not search.´

2. No. ³The law enforcers testified that accused/appellant was informed of his
constitutional rights. It is presumed that they have regularly performed their duties
(See. 5(m), Rule 131) and their testimonies should be given full faith and credence,
there being no evidence to the contrary.´

3. No. ³Appellant signed the contract as the owner and shipper thereof giving more
weight to the presumption that things which a person possesses, or exercises acts of
ownership over, are owned by him (Sec. 5 [j], Rule 131). At this point, appellant is
therefore estopped to claim otherwise.´
     6 6  6
 !"#!$
c$%&%% !'!( !%)
c  
× ×
c 66
 &
"c %"%*"*
 *%&%& !( %&

+)$,-." 6 /+×  0××× 6 +66 6 c

 

× ××,1× !'#-,


-22-3

6  

The United States Government sent to the Philippine Government Note Verbale No. 0522
dated June 16, 1999, supplemented by Note Nos. 0597, 0720 and 0809 requesting the
extradition of Mark B. Jimenez, also known as Mario Batacan Crespo.

Upon learning of the request for his extradition, Jimenez sought and was granted a TRO
by the RTC of Manila, Branch 25. The TRO prohibited the DOJ from filing with the RTC
a petition for his extradition.

Before the RTC could act on the Petition, Respondent Jimenez filed before it an Urgent
Manifestation/Ex-Parte Motion, which prayed that petitioner¶s application for an arrest
warrant be set for hearing.

The RTC granted the Motion of Jimenez and set the case for hearing on June 5, 2001.
After the hearing, the court    required the parties to submit their respective
memoranda. In his Memorandum, Jimenez sought an alternative prayer: that in case a
warrant should issue, he be allowed to post bail in the amount of P100, 000.

The alternative prayer of Jimenez was also set for hearing on June 15, 2001. Thereafter,
the court below issued its questioned July 3, 2001 Order, directing the issuance of a
warrant for his arrest and fixing bail for his temporary liberty at one million pesos in
cash. After he had surrendered his passport and posted the required cash bond, Jimenez
was granted provisional liberty via the challenged Order dated July 4, 2001.

  

1. Whether or not Jimenez is entitled to notice and hearing before a warrant for his
arrest can be issued, and

2. Whether or not he is entitled to bail and to provisional liberty while the


extradition proceedings are pending.

  

1. No. There is no requirement to notify and hear the 


 before the issuance of
warrants of arrest. The case under consideration is an extradition and not a
criminal action; therefore it is not sufficient to justify the adoption of a set of
procedures more protective of the accused.

2. No. The constitutional provision on bail applies only when a person has been
arrested and detained for violation of Philippine criminal laws. It does not apply
to extradition proceedings, because extradition courts do not render judgments of
conviction or acquittal.
c c  ccc
c àà , vs. + +  

M àà 

× ××4 !'#,


6  

Cesar Masamlok surrendered to the authorities at the Davao del Sur Constabulary Head Quarters.
He testified that Ruben Burgos forcibly recruited him as member of NPA. Burgos threatened him
with the use of a firearm. Masamlok attended the seminar where Burgos spoke about his
membership with the NPA and the organization¶s desire to overthrow the government.

Pursuant to this information, PC-INP members went to house of accused. Accused was plowing
the field when they arrived. Pat. Bioco called the accused and asked him about the firearm.
Accused denied possession of said firearm but later, his wife pointed to a place below their house
where a gun was buried in the ground. After the recovery of said firearm, accused pointed to a
stock pile of cogon where the officers recovered:

1. maroon notebook
2. pamphlets: Ang Bayan, Pahayagan ng Paritdo Komunista ng Pilipinas etc.

Accused admitted that firearm was issued to him by Nestor Jimines, team leader of sparrow unit.

  

1. Whether or not the warrantless arrest of Ruben Burgos was lawful?


2. Whether or not the search of his house and the subsequent confiscation of a firearm and
documents allegedly found therein conducted in a lawful and valid manner?
3. Whether or not the evidence sustaining the crime charged meet the test of proving guilt
beyond reasonable doubt?
  

1. No. Under Section 6(a) of Rule 113, the officer arresting a person who has just committed, is
committing, or is about to commit an offense must have à
 knowledge of that fact. The
offense must also be committed in his presence or within his view. In this case, the accused
was arrested on the sole basis of Masamlok's verbal report. Masamlok led the authorities to
suspect that the accused had committed a crime.

2. No. If an arrest without a warrant is unlawful at the moment it is made, generally nothing that
happened or is discovered afterwards can make it lawful. Neither can it be presumed that
there was a waiver, or that consent was given by the accused to be searched simply because
he failed to object.

3. No. The Constitution itself mandates that any evidence obtained in violation of right is
inadmissible in evidence. With the extra-judicial confession, the firearm, and the alleged
subversive documents inadmissible in evidence against the accused-appellant, the only
remaining proof to sustain the charge of Illegal Possession of Firearm in Furtherance of
Subversion is the testimony of Cesar Masamlok. In the instant case, Masamlok's testimony
was totally uncorroborated. Considering that Masamlok surrendered to the military certainly
his fate depended on how eagerly he cooperated with the authorities
c c  ccc
c àà , vs. + +  

M àà 

× ××4 !'#,


6  

Cesar Masamlok surrendered to the authorities at the Davao del Sur Constabulary Head Quarters.
He testified that Ruben Burgos forcibly recruited him as member of NPA. Burgos threatened him
with the use of a firearm. Masamlok attended the seminar where Burgos spoke about his
membership with the NPA and the organization¶s desire to overthrow the government.

Pursuant to this information, PC-INP members went to house of accused. Accused was plowing
the field when they arrived. Pat. Bioco called the accused and asked him about the firearm.
Accused denied possession of said firearm but later, his wife pointed to a place below their house
where a gun was buried in the ground. After the recovery of said firearm, accused pointed to a
stock pile of cogon where the officers recovered:

3. maroon notebook
4. pamphlets: Ang Bayan, Pahayagan ng Paritdo Komunista ng Pilipinas etc.

Accused admitted that firearm was issued to him by Nestor Jimines, team leader of sparrow unit.

  

4. Whether or not the warrantless arrest of Ruben Burgos was lawful?


5. Whether or not the search of his house and the subsequent confiscation of a firearm and
documents allegedly found therein conducted in a lawful and valid manner?
6. Whether or not the evidence sustaining the crime charged meet the test of proving guilt
beyond reasonable doubt?
  

4. No. Under Section 6(a) of Rule 113, the officer arresting a person who has just committed, is
committing, or is about to commit an offense must have à
 knowledge of that fact. The
offense must also be committed in his presence or within his view. In this case, the accused
was arrested on the sole basis of Masamlok's verbal report. Masamlok led the authorities to
suspect that the accused had committed a crime.

5. No. If an arrest without a warrant is unlawful at the moment it is made, generally nothing that
happened or is discovered afterwards can make it lawful. Neither can it be presumed that
there was a waiver, or that consent was given by the accused to be searched simply because
he failed to object.

6. No. The Constitution itself mandates that any evidence obtained in violation of right is
inadmissible in evidence. With the extra-judicial confession, the firearm, and the alleged
subversive documents inadmissible in evidence against the accused-appellant, the only
remaining proof to sustain the charge of Illegal Possession of Firearm in Furtherance of
Subversion is the testimony of Cesar Masamlok. In the instant case, Masamlok's testimony
was totally uncorroborated. Considering that Masamlok surrendered to the military certainly
his fate depended on how eagerly he cooperated with the authorities