Manalili vs Court of Appeals (October 9, 1997)Ponente: PanaganibanNature: Petition for review on certiorari of a ecision of t!

e Court of Appeals"acts:Pat# $o%eo &spiritu an Pat# Anger 'u%abas were patrolling t!e vicinit( of t!e )aloo*an Cit( Ce%eter( ueto reports of rug a icts roa%ing t!e area# +!e( c!ance upon a %ale (w!o turne out to be petitioner Alain Manalili ( ,i-on) w!o see%e to be .!ig!/ on rugs in front of t!e ce%eter(# 0e was observe to !ave re is! e(es an to be wal*ing in a swa(ing %anner# 1!en Manalili trie to avoi t!e police%en, t!e latter approac!e !i% an as*e w!at !e was !ol ing in !is !an s# Manalili trie to resist, but t!e police%en were persistent until !e (iel e !is wallet w!ic! t!e( e2a%ine an foun to contain crus!e %ari3uana resi ue# "urt!er e2a%ination b( t!e "orensic C!e%istr( 4ection of t!e N56 confir%e t!e fin ings# +rial court convicte Manalili of violation of 4ection 7, Article 66, of $A 89:;# <ponappeal, t!e Court of Appeals affir%e t!e ecision of t!e trial court#(6n !is efense, Manalili clai%e t!at !e was not wal*ing= t!at !e was ri ing a tric(cle until t!e t!ree police%enor ere t!e river of t!e tric(cle to stop because t!e river an passenger were allege l( un er t!e influence of %ari3uana# 0e clai%e t!at !e was searc!e an !is pants were turne insi e>out but not!ing was foun # +o so%ee2tent !e i%plie t!at t!e %ari3uana sa%ple foun in !is entit( was fra%e up b( t!e police%en#)6ssue: 1ON t!e evi ence sei-e uring a stop>an >fris* operation is a %issible#0el : ?es$atio: +!e general rule is t!at a searc! an sei-ure %ust be vali ate b( a previousl( secure 3u icial warrant#0owever, t!is is not absolute an e2ceptions !ave been conte%plate b( t!e law:1# 4earc! inci ental to a lawful rrest:# 4earc! of %oving ve!icles@# 4ei-ure in plain view 9# Custo%s searc!;# 1aiver b( t!e accuse t!e%selves of t!eir rig!t against unreasonable searc! an sei-ure#6n t!e cite cases, t!e searc! an sei-ure %a( be %a e onl( wit! probable cause as essential reAuire%ent#Probable cause (in relation to searc! an sei-ure): &2istence of suc! facts an circu%stances w!ic! coul lea areasonabl( iscreet an pru ent %an to believe t!at an offense !as been co%%itte an t!at t!e ite%, article, or ob3ectsoug!t in connection wit! sai offense or sub3ect to sei-ure an estruction b( law is in t!e place to be searc!e # A .stop>an >fris*/ operation is anot!er e2ception to t!e general rule# 6n t!is case, probable cause wasestablis!e wit! ManaliliBs suspicious be!aviour# --------------------------------

MANALILI V. COURT OF APPEALS - 280 SCRA 400

FACTS:
Narcotics offic rs ! r "oi#$ s%r& i''a#c a#" c(a#c " %)o# t( acc%s " i# a c * t r+ !(o s * " to , (i$( o# "r%$s. - tri " to r sist t( )o'ic offic rs a#" acc%s " !as )oss ssi#$ !(at s * " to , %)o# i#.%ir+/ fo%#" t(at t( cr%s( " *ari0%a#a ' a& s.

-EL1:
A sto)-a#"-fris2 !as " fi# " as t( & r#ac%'ar " si$#atio# of t( ri$(t of a )o'ic offic r to sto) a citi3 # o# t( str t/ i#t rro$at (i*/ a#" )at (i* for ! a)o#s. It (as , # ( '" as o# of t( 4c )tio#s to t( $ # ra' r%' a$ai#st s arc( s !it(o%t !arra#t. --------------------------