Veroy v. Layague [GR 95630, 18 June 1992] En Banc, Paras (J): 12 concur Facts Leopoldo and Ma.

Luisa Veroy are husband and wife residing in Davao City. When Veroy was promoted to the position of Assistant Administrator of the Social Security System sometime in une !"##$ he and his family transferred to %ue&on City. 'he care and up(eep of their residence in Davao City was left to ) houseboys$ immy *avia and +ric ,urgos$ who had their assigned -uarters at a portion of the premises. 'he Veroys would occasionally send money to +dna So-uilon for the salary of the said houseboys and other e.penses for the up(eep of their house. While the Veroys had the (eys to the interior of the house$ only the (ey to the (itchen$ where the circuit brea(ers were located$ was entrusted to +dna So-uilon to give her access in case of an emergency. /n !) April !""0$ Capt. 1eynaldo /brero of the 'alomo 2atrol Station$ 2C3452 raided Veroy6s house in Davao City on information that the said residence was being used as a safehouse of rebel soldiers. 'hey were able to enter the yard with the help of the careta(ers but did not enter the house since the owner was not present and they did not have a search warrant. 2ermission was re-uested by phone to Ma. Luisa Veroy who consented on the condition that the search be conducted in the presence of Ma7or Macasaet. 'he following day$ Capt. /brero and Ma7. Macasaet met at the Veroy6s house to conduct the search pursuant to the authority granted by Ma. Luisa. Capt. /brero recovered a .89 cal. handgun with a maga&ine containing : live bullets in a blac( clutch bag inside an unloc(ed drawer in the children6s room. ; half<full 7ute sac(s containing printed materials of 1AM<S*2 were also found in the children6s room. A search of the children6s recreation and study area revealed a big travelling bag containing assorted clothing$ a small blac( bag containing a boo( entitled =4slamic 1evolution *uture 2ath of the 5ation>$ a road map of the 2hilippines$ a telescope$ a plastic bag containing assorted medicines and religious pamphlets was found in the master6s bedroom. 4nventory and receipt of sei&ed articles were made. 'he case was referred for preliminary investigation to the %ue&on City Assistant 2rosecutor $ who was designated Acting 2rovincial 2rosecutor for Davao City by the D/ through Department /rder ## ?!@ May !""0A. 4n a resolution dated @ August !""0$ the *iscal recommended the filing of an 4nformation against the Veroys for violation of 2D !#@@ ?4llegal 2ossession of *irearms and Ammunitions in *urtherance of 1ebellionA. Bence$ on # August !""0$ an 4nformation for the said offense was filed by the /ffice of the City 2rosecutor of Davao City before the 1'C Davao CityA. 5o bail was recommended by the prosecution. 'he fiscal6s resolution was received by the Veroys on !; August !""0. 'he latter filed a motion for bail on the same day which was denied for being premature$ as they have not been arrested yet. 'he Veroys voluntarily surrendered to Cen. 2antaleon Dumlao$ but who refused to receive them o the ground that his office has not received copies of their warrants of arrest. 4n the meantime$ on !9 August !""0$ the Veroys were admitted to the St. Lu(e6s Bospital for various ailments brought about or aggravated by the stress and an.iety caused by the filing of the criminal complaint. /n !: August !""0$ Cen. Dumlao granted their re-uest that they be allowed to be confined at the hospital and placed under guard thereat. Dpon arraignment on ! /ctober !""0$ the Veroys pleaded not guilty and filed a motion for hospital confinement$ which was denied. 'he court ordered their commitment at the Davao City 1ehabilitation Center pending trial on the merits. At the conclusion thereof$ the court issued a second order denying their motion for reconsideration. 'he Veroys were returned to the St. Lu(e6s Bospital where their physical condition remained erratic. Cen. Dumlao informed the Veroys that he had issued a directive for their transfer from the St. Lu(e6s Bospital to Camp Crame on the basis of the ) /ctober !""0

/rder. 'hey would proceed with their transfer pursuant to the order of the trial court$ unless otherwise restrained by the court. 'he Veroys filed the petition for certiorari$ mandamus and prohibition. !ssue Whether the permission granted by ma. Luisa Veroy for ascertaining thereat the presence of alleged =rebel soldiers> include the authority to conduct a room to room search once inside the house. "e#$ 'he Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons$ houses$ papers and effects against unreasonable searches and sei&ures ?Article 444$ Section ) of the !"#: ConstitutionA. Bowever$ the rule that searches and sei&ures must be supported by a valid warrant is not an absolute one. Among the recogni&ed e.ceptions thereto areE ?!A a search incidental to an arrestF ?)A a search of a moving vehicleF and ?;A sei&ure of evidence in plain view ?2eople v. Lo Bo WingA. 'he necessity of the permission obtained from Ma. Luisa underlines the recognition of Capt. /brero of the need of a search warrant to enter the house. 'he permission granted by was for the purpose of ascertaining thereat the presence of the alleged =rebel> soldiers. 'he permission did not include any authority to conduct a room to room search once inside the house. 'he police officers had ample time to procure a search warrant but did not. Warrantless searches were declared illegal because the officials conducting the search had every opportunity to secure a search warrant. 'he items ta(en were$ therefore$ products of an illegal search$ violative of their constitutional rights. As such$ they are inadmissible in evidence in the criminal actions instituted against them. 'he offense of illegal possession of firearms is malum prohibitum but it does not follow that the sub7ect thereof is necessarily illegal per se. Motive is immaterial in mala prohibita but the sub7ects of this (ind of offense may not be summarily sei&ed simply because they are prohibited. A search warrant is still necessary. Bence$ the rule having been violated and no e.ception being applicable$ the articles sei&ed were confiscated illegally and are therefore protected by the e.clusionary principle. 'hey cannot be used as evidence against the Veroys in the criminal action against them for illegal possession of firearms. ,esides$ assuming that there was indeed a search warrant$ still in mala prohibita$ while there is no need of criminal intent$ there must be (nowledge that the same e.isted. Without the (nowledge or voluntariness there is no crime. %eo&#e v. '(a)eng [GR 99050, 2 *e&te(+er 1992] Third Division, Davide (J): 3 concur, 1 on leave Facts 4n the morning of !) September !"##$ 2C constables with the Mt. 2rovince 2C Command put up a chec(point at the 7unction of the roads$ one going to Sagada and the other to ,ontoc. 'hey stopped and chec(ed all vehicles that went through the chec(point. At "E!9 a.m.$ they flagged down a cream<colored *ord *iera ?A,'<@;8A coming from the ,ontoc 2oblacion and headed towards ,aguio. 'he vehicle was driven by Conway /maweng and had no passengers. 'he Constables ?Layong$ et.al.A as(ed permission to inspect the vehicle to which /maweng acceded to. When they peered into the rear of the vehicle$ they saw a travelling bag which was partially covered by the rim of a spare tire under the passenger seat on the right side of the vehicle. 'hey as(ed permission to see the contents of the bag to which /maweng consented to. When they opened the bag$ they found that it contained 8! plastic pac(ets of different si&es containing pulveri&ed substances. 'he constable gave a pac(et to his team leader$ who$ after

sniffing the stuff concluded that it was mari7uana. 'he Constables thereafter boarded the vehicles and proceeded to the ,ontoc poblacion to report the incident to the 2C Bead-uarters. 'he prohibited drugs were surrendered to the evidence custodian. 'he 2C *orensic Chemist at Camp Dangwa$ La 'rinidad$ ,enguet conducted ) chemistry e.aminations of the substance contained in the plastic pac(ets ta(en from appellant and found them to be positive for hashish or mari7uana. /maweng was indicted for the violation of Section 8$ Article 44 of 1A @8)9 ?Dangerous Drugs Act of !":)A$ as amended$ in a criminal complaint filed with the M'C ,ontoc$ Mountain 2rovince on !) September !"##. Dpon his failure to submit counter<affidavits despite the granting of an e.tension of time to do so$ the court declared that he had waived his right to a preliminary investigation and$ finding probable cause against /maweng$ ordered the elevation of the case to the proper court. /n !8 5ovember !"##$ the /ffice of the 2rovincial *iscal of Mountain 2rovince filed an 4nformation charging /maweng with the violation of Section 8: Article 44 of the Dangerous Drugs Act of !":)$ as amended ?Crim Case :!;A. After his motion for reinvestigation was denied by the 2rovincial *iscal$ /maweng entered a plea of not guilty during his arraignment on )0 une !"#". During the trial on the merits$ the prosecution presented 8 witnesses. /maweng did not present any evidence other than portions of the oint Clarificatory Sworn Statement$ dated ); December !"##$ of prosecution witnesses oseph Layong and David *omocod. /n )! March !""!$ the trial court promulgated its udgment convicting /maweng of the crime of transporting prohibited drugs ?Section 8$ Article 44 of 1A @8)9$ as amendedA. /maweng appealed to the Supreme Court. !ssue Whether /maweng was sub7ected to search which violates his Constitutional right against unreasonable searches and sei&ures. "e#$ /maweng was not sub7ected to any search which may be stigmati&ed as a violation of his Constitutional right against unreasonable searches and sei&ures. Be willingly gave prior consent to the search and voluntarily agreed to have it conducted on his vehicle and travelling bag. 'he testimony of the 2C Constable ?LayungA was not dented on cross<e.amination or rebutted by /maweng for he chose not to testify on his own behalf. /maweng waived his right against unreasonable searches and sei&ures when he voluntarily submitted to a search or consents to have it made in his person or premises. Be is precluded from later complaining thereof right to be secure from unreasonable search may$ li(e every right$ be waived and such waiver may be made either e.pressly or impliedly. Since in the course of the valid search 8! pac(ages of drugs were found$ it behooved the officers to sei&e the sameF no warrant was necessary for such sei&ure. Lo&e, vs. -o((.ss.oner o/ -usto(s [GR L021968, 3 2ece(+er 1915] Second Division, Fernando (J): 4 concur, 1 too no !art Facts M3V olo Lema had been under strict surveillance by the combined team of agents of the 5,4$ 2C$ 1ASAC$ and City 2olice of Davao prior to its apprehension at a private wharf in ,at7a($ Sasa$ Davao City. M3V G olo LemaH was s(ippered ?sicA by Capt. A-uilino 2antinople and chartered by Mr. 'omas Velasco. During the period from the latter part of August to September !#$ !"@@$ the said vessel was in 4ndonesian waters where it loaded copra and coffee beans from 'aruna$ 2itta$ and Mangenito$ all of 4ndonesia. 4n its trip to 4ndonesia it brought various merchandise from the 2hilippines which were e.changed and3or bartered for copra and coffee beans and subse-uently ta(en to Davao City. Said vessel passed Marore$ 4ndonesia on !#

September !"@@ on its a way to 'ahuna$ 4ndonesia before proceeding to Davao City where it was apprehended on !" September !"@@. At about ;E00 p.m. of the said day$ when the vessel was searched and after Captain 2antinople informed the team that Velasco$ the charterer of the vessel$ had other documents showing that vessel came from 4ndonesia carrying smuggled copra and coffee$ a combined team of Constabulary and 1egional Anti<Smuggling Center operatives headed by +arl 1eynolds$ Senior 5,4 Agent of Davao$ proceeded to the Velasco6s room at the S(yroom Botel in Davao City$ to as( for said document. Velasco was not inside the hotel room when they entered the room. 'here are conficting claims whether the manicurist 'eofila 4baIe& or whether Velasco6s wife$ who was allegedly inside the room at that time$ voluntarily allowed the police officers to enterF and whether the police officers =forcibly opened luggages and bo.es from which only several documents and papers were found$ then sei&ed$ confiscated and too( away the same$> or whether Mrs. Velasco volunteered to open the suitcases and baggages of Velasco and delivered the documents and things contained therein to 1eynolds. 'he Collector of Customs of Davao sei&ed !$8#0 sac(s of copra and #@ sac(s of coffee from the M3V motor vessel olo Lema. 'he sei&ure was declared lawful by the Court of 'a. Appeals$ and its decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court on )" 5ovember !":8 in 5asiad vs. Court of 'a. Appeals ?C1 L<)";!#$ 5ovember )"$ !":8$ @! SC1A );#A. 4n the present special civil action for certiorari$ prohibition and mandamusF the only -uestion left then is whether the search conducted by a party headed by 1eynolds without the search warrant for the hotel room of Velasco$ who entered into a contract with ose C. Lope&$ the awardee of such 2hilippine 1eparations Commission vessel$ for its operation and use ostensibly for fishing$ is violative of such constitutional provision. !ssue Whether there was consent on the part of the person who was the occupant of the hotel room then rented by Velasco. "e#$ 'here was an attempt on the part of Lope& and Velasco to counteract the force of the recital of the written statement of 'eofila 4baIe& ?allegedly wife of 'omas VelascoA by an affidavit of one Cora&on J. Velasco$ who stated that she is the legal wife of Velasco$ and another by Velasco himselfF reiterating that the person who was present at his hotel room was one 'eofila 4baIe&$ =a manicurist by occupation.> 4f such indeed were the case$ then it is much more easily understandable why that person$ 'eofila 4baIe&$ who could be aptly described as the wrong person at the wrong place and at the wrong time$ would have signified her consent readily and immediately. Dnder the circumstances$ that was the most prudent course of action. 4t would save her and even Velasco himself from any gossip or innuendo. 5or could the officers of the law be blamed if they would act on the appearances. 'here was a person inside who from all indications was ready to accede to their re-uest. +ven common courtesy alone would have precluded them from in-uiring too closely as to why she was there. Dnder all the circumstances$ therefore$ it can readily be concluded that there was consent sufficient in law to dispense with the need for a search warrant %eo&#e vs. 2a(aso [GR 93516, 12 3ugust 1992] First Division, "edialdea (J): 3 concur Facts /n !# une !"##$ Lt. Candido %ui7ardo$ a 2hilippine Constabulary officer connected with the !9)nd 2C Company at Lingayen$ 2angasinan$ and some companions were sent to verify the presence of C22352A members in ,arangay Catacdang$ Arellano<,ani$ Dagupan City. 4n said

place$ the group apprehended Cregorio *lameniano$ ,erlina Aritumba$ 1evelina Camboa and Deogracias Mayaoa. When interrogated$ the persons apprehended revealed that there was an underground safehouse at Cracia Village in Drdaneta$ 2angasinan. After coordinating with the Station Commander of Drdaneta$ the group proceeded to the house in Cracia Village. 'hey found subversive documents$ a radio$ a ! . : caliber .89 firearm and other items. After the raid$ the group proceeded to ,onuan$ Dagupan City$ and put under surveillance the rented apartment of 1osemarie Aritumba$ sister of ,erlina Aritumba whom they earlier arrested. 'hey interviewed Lu&viminda Morados$ a visitor of 1osemarie Aritumba. She stated that she wor(ed with ,ernie Mendo&a3,asilio Damaso. She guided the group to the house rented by Damaso?KMendo&aA. When they reached the house$ the group found that it had already vacated by the occupants. Since Morados was hesitant to give the new address of Damaso ?KMendo&aA$ the group loo(ed for the ,arangay Captain of the place and re-uested him to point out the new house rented by Damaso ?KMendo&aA. 'he group again re-uired Morados to go with them. When they reached the house$ the group saw Lu& 'anciangco outside. 'hey told her that they already (new that she was a member of the 52A in the area. At first$ she denied it$ but when she saw Morados she re-uested the group to go inside the house. Dpon entering the house$ the group$ as well as the ,arangay Captain$ saw radio sets$ pamphlets entitled =Ang ,ayan$> .ero. copiers and a computer machine. 'hey also found persons who were companions of Lu& 'anciangco ?namely$ 'eresita Calosa$ 1icardo Calosa$ Marites Calosa$ +ric 'anciangco and Lu&viminda MoradosA. 'he group re-uested the persons in the house to allow them to loo( around. When Lu& 'anciangco opened one of the rooms$ they saw boo(s used for subversive orientation$ one M<!8 rifle$ bullets and ammunitions$ Lenwood radio$ artificial beard$ maps of the 2hilippines$ Mambales$ Mindoro and Laguna and other items. 'hey confiscated the articles and brought them to their head-uarters for final inventory. 'hey li(ewise brought the persons found in the house to the head-uarters for investigation. Said persons revealed that Damaso ?KMendo&aA was the lessee of the house and owned the items confiscated therefrom. 'hus$ ,asilio Damaso$ was originally charged in an information filed before the 1egional 'rial Court of Dagupan City with violation of 2residential Decree !#@@ in furtherance of$ or incident to$ or in connection with the crime of subversion$ together with Lu&viminda Morados y Calang K La Mel$ 'eresita Calosa y Macabangon K La 'essie$ 1icardo Calosa y 2ere& K La 1ic$ Marites Calosa y +vangelista K La 'ess$ +ric 'anciangco y Capira K La 1ic and Lu& 'anciangco y 2encial K La Lu&. Such information was later amended to e.clude all other persons e.cept Damaso from the criminal charge. Dpon arraignment$ Damaso pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. 'rial on the merits ensued. 'he prosecution rested its case and offered its e.hibits for admission. 'he defense counsel interposed his ob7ections to the admissibility of the prosecution6s evidence on grounds of its being hearsay$ immaterial or irrelevant and illegal for lac( of a search warrantF and thereafter$ manifested that he was not presenting any evidence for the accused. /n !: anuary !""0$ the trial court rendered its decision$ finding Damaso guilty beyond reasonable doubt$ sentencing the latter to suffer the penalty of 1eclusion 2erpetua and to pay the costs of the proceedings. Damaso appealed. !ssue Whether there was waiver on the part of Damaso to allow the warrantless search of his house. "e#$ Damaso was singled out as the sole violator of 2D !#@@$ in furtherance of$ or incident to$ or in connection with the crime of subversion. 'here is no substantial and credible evidence to

establish the fact that the appellant is allegedly the same person as the lessee of the house where the M<!8 rifle and other subversive items were found or the owner of the said items. +ven assuming for the sa(e of argument that Damaso is the lessee of the house$ the case against him still will not prosper$ the reason being that the law enforcers failed to comply with the re-uirements of a valid search and sei&ure proceedings. 'he constitutional immunity from unreasonable searches and sei&ures$ being a personal one cannot he waived by anyone e.cept the person whose rights are invaded or one who is e.pressly authori&ed to do so in his or her . 'he records show that Damaso was not in his house at that time Lu& 'anciangco and Lu& Morados$ his alleged helper$ allowed the authorities to enter it. 'here is no evidence that would establish the fact that Lu& Morados was indeed Damaso6s helper or if it was true that she was his helper$ that Damaso had given her authority to open his house in his absence. 'he prosecution li(ewise failed to show if Lu& 'anciangco has such an authority. Without this evidence$ the authorities6 intrusion into Damaso6s dwelling cannot be given any color of legality. While the power to search and sei&e is necessary to the public welfare$ still it must be e.ercised and the law enforced without transgressing the constitutional rights of the citi&ens$ for the enforcement of no statute is of sufficient importance to 7ustify indifference to the basic principles of government. As a conse-uence$ the search conducted by the authorities was illegal. 4t would have been different if the situation here demanded urgency which could have prompted the authorities to dispense with a search warrant. ,ut the record is silent on this point. 'he fact that they came to Damaso6s house at nighttime$ does not grant them the license to go inside his house. %eo&#e v. 4arros [GR 90650, 29 6arc7 1995] Third Division, Feliciano (J): 3 concur Facts /n @ September !"#:$ M3Sgt. *rancis Jag<as and S3Sgt. ames Ayan$ both members of the 2.C. Mountain 2rovince Command$ rode the Dangwa ,us bearing 2late A,M<)8) bound for Sabangan$ Mountain 2rovince. Dpon reaching Chac(cha(an$ ,ontoc$ Mountain 2rovince$ the bus stopped and both M3Sgt. Jag<as and S3Sgt. Ayan$ who were seated at the bac($ saw ,onifacio ,arros carrying a carton$ board the bus and seated himself on seat !# after putting the carton under his seat. 'hereafter$ the bus continued and upon reaching Sabangan$ M3Sgt. Jag<as and S3Sgt. Ayan before they alighted$ it being their station$ called C)C G*ernandoH ,ongyao to inspect the carton under seat !#. After C)C ,ongyao inspected the carton$ he found out that it contained mari7uana and he as(ed the passengers who the owner of the carton was but nobody answered. 'hereafter$ C)C ,ongyao alighted with the carton and S3Sgt. Ayan and C)C ,ongyao invited ,arros to the detachment for -uestioning as the latter was the suspected owner of the carton containing mari7uana. Dpon entering the detachment the carton was opened in the presence of ,arros. When ,arros denied ownership of the carton of mari7uana$ the 2.C. officers called for the bus conductor who pinpointed to ,arros as the owner of the carton of mari7uana. ,arros was charged with violating Section 8 of 1A @8)9$ as amended ?Dangerous Drugs Act of !":)A. After trial$ the trial court convicted ,onifacio ,arros of violation of Section 8 of 1A @8)9 as amended and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of 2)0$000.00. ,arros appealed. !ssue Whether the failure of the carton bearer to ob7ect to the search made in the moving vehicle$ resulting to his warrantless arrest$ constitutes a waiver.

"e#$ 'he general rule is that a search and sei&ure must be carried out through or with a 7udicial warrantF otherwise such search and sei&ure becomes =unreasonable> within the meaning of Section )$ Article 444 of the !"#: Constitution. 'he evidence secured thereby N i.e.$ the =fruits> of the search and sei&ure N will be inadmissible in evidence =for any purpose in any proceeding.> 'he re-uirement that a 7udicial warrant must be obtained prior to the carrying out of a search and sei&ure is$ however$ not absolute. 'here are certain e.ceptions recogni&ed in our law$ one of which relates to the search of moving vehicles. 2eace officers may lawfully conduct searches of moving vehicles N automobiles$ truc(s$ etc. N without need of a warrant$ it not being practicable to secure a 7udicial warrant before searching a vehicle$ since such vehicle can be -uic(ly moved out of the locality or 7urisdiction in which the warrant may be sought. 4n carrying out warrantless searches of moving vehicles$ however$ peace officers are limited to routine chec(s$ that is$ the vehicles are neither really searched nor their occupants sub7ected to physical or body searches$ the e.amination of the vehicles being limited to visual inspection. When$ however$ a vehicle is stopped and sub7ected to an e.tensive 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 sub7ect matter or the proceeds of some criminal offense. 'he Court has in the past found probable cause to conduct without a 7udicial warrant an e.tensive search of moving vehicles in situations where ?!A there had emanated from a pac(age the distinctive smell of mari7uanaF ?)A agents of the 5arcotics Command ?>5arcom>A of the 2hilippine 5ational 2olice ?>252>A had received a confidential report from informers that a si&eable volume of mari7uana would be transported along the route where the search was conductedF ?;A 5arcom agents were informed or =tipped off> by an undercover =deep penetration> agent that prohibited drugs would be brought into the country on a particular airline flight on a given dateF ?8A 5arcom agents had received information that a Caucasian coming from Sagada$ Mountain 2rovince$ had in his possession prohibited drugs and when the 5arcom agents confronted the accused Caucasian$ because of a conspicuous bulge in his waistline$ he failed to present his passport and other identification papers when re-uested to do soF and ?9A 5arcom agents had received confidential information that a woman having the same physical appearance as that of the accused would be transporting mari7uana. Berein$ there is nothing in the record that any circumstance which constituted or could have reasonably constituted probable cause for the peace officers to search the carton bo. allegedly owned by ,arros. 'he testimony of the law enforcement officers who had apprehended the accused ?M3Sgt. *rancis Jag<as and S3Sgt. ames AyanA$ and who had searched the bo. in his possession$ ?C)C *ernando ,ongyaoA$ simply did not suggest or indicate the presence of any such probable cause. *urther$ 'he 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 ob7ect.> 'o constitute a waiver$ it must appear first that the right e.istsF secondly$ that the person involved had (nowledge$ actual or constructive$ of the e.istence of such a rightF and lastly$ that said person had an actual intention to relin-uish the right. 'he fact that the accused failed to ob7ect to the entry into his house does not amount to a permission to ma(e a search therein. As the constitutional -uaranty is not dependent upon any affirmative act of the citi&en$ the courts do not place the citi&en in the position of either contesting an officer6s authority by force$ or waiving his constitutional rightsF but instead they hold that a peaceful submission to a search or sei&ure is not a consent or an invitation thereto$ but is merely a demonstration of regard for the supremacy of the law. Courts indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights and

that we do not presume ac-uiescence in the loss of fundamental rights. Accordingly$ the search and sei&ure of the carton bo. was e-ually non<permissible and invalid. 'he =fruits> of the invalid search and sei&ure N i.e.$ the 8A (ilos of mari7uana N should therefore not have been admitted in evidence against ,arros. %eo&#e v. Ra(os [GR 85501002, 5 June 1990] Third Division, #utierre$ Jr% (J): 3 concur, 1 too no !art Facts /n )" 5ovember !"#)$ a civilian informer came to the 5arcotics Command /ffice in /longapo City and reported that a cigarette vendor by the name of =Mama 1ose> ?1osalinda 1amosA was selling mari7uana at the corner of ;rd Street and 1i&al Avenue in /longapo City. 'ests buys were made using mar(ed money. 'he 5arcotics Command ?5A1C/MA team proceeded to the place where appellant was selling cigarettes$ and arrested the latter for illegal peddling of mari7uana. 1amos was re-uested to ta(e out the contents of her wallet. 'he four mar(ed five<peso bills used in the test buys were found among her possessions and were confiscated after the serial numbers were confirmed. Search of 1amos6 stall yielded )0 stic(s of mari7uana cigarettes in a trash can placed under the small table where 1amos displayed the wares she was selling. 1amos was thereafter brought to the station. At the station$ 1amos e.ecuted a statement confessing to her crimes which she swore to before Assistant City *iscal. 'he mari7uana stic(s confiscated were sent to the 2hilippine Constabulary Crime Laboratory ?2CCLA for analysis$ and thereafter were confirmed to be mari7uana. 'he defense contends however that she assented to the invitation of the 5A1C/M operatives for investigation$ after search of her buri bags ?which she stores the fruits that she sellsA were fruitless. She claimed that she was forced to affi. her signature on the four 9<peso bills by one Sgt. Sudiacal$ purportedly to be the same money which was used to buy mari7uana from her$ but which she insists was her money being saved for the rentals. She was later brought to the *iscal6s /ffice after investigation$ where she signed a document. She claimed she was not assisted by any counsel during the investigation$ neither during the time she signed the document at the *iscal6s /ffice. 'wo informations were filed against 1amos$ one for sale ?Criminal Case 9""!A and the other for possession of mari7uana ?Criminal Case 9""0A. After trial$ the 1'C /longapo City ?,ranch :;A found her guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case 9""0 for violating Section # of 1A @8)9 and sentenced her to imprisonment of @ years and ! day and a fine of 2@$000. She was li(ewise found guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case 9""! for violating Section 8 of 1A @8)9 and was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of 2)0$000. 1amos sought reversal of the decisions with the Supreme Court. !ssue Whether 1amos waived her right against the warrantless search of the trash can$ where illegal drugs were found$ under her control. "e#$ 'he trash can ?where the contraband were foundA was found under the table where her legitimate wares were being sold. 1amos he was the only person who had access to the trash can. 'he same was under her immediate physical control. She had complete charge of the contents of the trash can under the table to the e.clusion of all other persons. 4n law$ actual possession e.ists when the thing is in the immediate occupancy and control of the party. ,ut this is not to say that the law re-uires actual possession. 4n criminal law$ possession necessary for conviction of the offense of possession of controlled substances with intent to distribute may be constructive as

well as actual. 4t is only necessary that the defendant must have dominion and control over the contraband. 'hese re-uirements are present in the situation described$ where the prohibited drugs were found inside the trash can placed under the stall owned by 1amos. 4n fact$ the 5A1C/M agents who conducted the search testified that they had to as( 1amps to stand so that they could loo( inside the trash can under 1amos6 papag. 'he trash can was positioned in such a way that it was difficult for another person to use the trash can. 'he trash can was obviously not for use by her customers. 'herefore$ the twenty stic(s of mari7uana are admissible in evidence and the trial court6s finding that 1amos is guilty of possession is correct. %eo&#e vs. -orrea [GR 119256, 30 January 1998] En Banc, "artine$ (J): 12 concur Facts A wee( before !# une !""8$ Leonardo Dulay was placed under surveillance by the 2olice /peratives from the Drug +nforcement Dnit of the Western 2olice District Command ?D+D<W2DCA on account of confidential and intelligence reports received in said Dnit about his drug traffic(ing around ,ambang Street$ 'ondo$ Manila. 'he police surveillance brought forth positive results and confirmed Dulay6s illegal drug trade. /n !: une !""8$ operatives were alerted that Dulay would transport and deliver a certain -uantity of drugs that night on board a owner<type 7eep ?*M1"8#A. 'hereafter$ the operatives$ together with the informer proceeded to A. ,onifacio Street on board ; vehicles$ and inconspicuously par(ed along the side of 5orth Cemetery and waited for the suspect. 'he police informant spotted Dulay6s vehicle at ;E00 am. 'he operatives tailed the sub7ect 7eepney until they reached ,ambang e.tension and ose Abad Santos Avenue$ where they accosted the passengers of said 7eepney. 'he team inspected a cylindrical tin can of +l Cielo Vegetable Coo(ing Lard$ about two feet high$ loaded in the vehicle of the appellants. 'he can contained # bundles of suspected dried mari7uana flowering tops wrapped in pieces of paper and plastic tapes. 'he team sei&ed the suspected contrabands and mar(ed each bundle consecutively. 'he ; suspects were brought to the police head-uarters at D+D<W2DC for investigation. 'he pac(ages of suspected mari7uana were submitted to the 5,4 for laboratory analysis to determine their chemical composition. 'he tests confirmed that the confiscated stuff were positive for mari7uana and weighed !@.!:#" (ilograms. 'he defense$ however$ contends that the ; accused were arrested without warrant in Camarin D$ Caloocan City$ enroute to Dulay6s house to get the things of his child allegedly rushed previously to the Metropolitan Bospital$ for an alleged charge of traffic(ing on 6shabu$6 and were brought to the W2DC head-uarters at D.5. Avenue$ where they were detained. /n !) uly !""8$ an 4nformation was filed with the 1'C Manila ?,ranch ;9A indicting Antonio Correa y Cayton K =,oyet$> 1ito Cunida y Sesante K =Dodong$> and Leonardo Dulay y Santos K =,oy Luba> for having violated Section 8$ Article 44 of 1A @8)9$ as amended. When arraigned$ the ; accused pleaded not guilty. After trial and on ; March !""9$ the lower court found the appellants guilty as charged and were sentenced to death and a fine of 2!0 million. !ssue Whether the accused are precluded from assailing the warrantless search and sei&ure$ due to waiver on their part. "e#$ Antonio Correa y Cayton K =,oyet$> 1ito Cunida y Sesante K =Dodong$> and Leonardo Dulay y Santos K =,oy Luba> are precluded from assailing the warrantless search and sei&ure when they voluntarily submitted to it as shown by their actuation during the search and sei&ure.

'hey never protested when the police officer opened the tin can loaded in their vehicle$ nor when he opened one of the bundles$ nor when they$ together with their cargo of drugs and their vehicle$ were brought to the police station for investigation and subse-uent prosecution. When one voluntarily submits to a search or consents to have it made on his person or premises$ he is precluded from later complaining thereof 'he right to be secure from unreasonable search may$ li(e every right$ be waived and such waiver may be made either e.pressly or impliedly.> *urther$ they effectively waived their constitutional right against the search and sei&ure by their voluntary submission to the 7urisdiction of the trial court$ when they entered a plea of not guilty upon arraignment and by participating in the trial. %eo&#e v. -7e -7un 8.ng [GR 130568069, 21 6arc7 2000] En Banc, Bellosillo (J): 14 concur Facts *ollowing a series of buy<bust operations$ the elements of the Special /peration Dnit$ 5arcotics Command$ apprehended a suspected drug courier$ Mabel Cheung Mei 2o$ after she delivered a transparent plastic bag containing a white crystalline substance to an informant$ in full view of 5A1C/M agents. When -uestioned$ Mabel Cheung Mei 2o cooperated with the government agents and revealed the name of Che Chun 'ing as the source of the drugs. /n ): une !""@ 5A1C/M deployed a team of agents for the entrapment and arrest of Che Chun 'ing. At :E00 am they proceeded to the 1o.as Seafront Carden in 2asay City where Che Chun 'ing was and had the place under surveillance. When they moved to the McDonald6s par(ing lot$ Mabel called Che Chun 'ing through her cellular phone and spo(e to him in Chinese$ ordering one ?!A (ilo of shabu. At !0E;0 am Mabel receive a call from the accused. Mabel$ along with 5A1C/M agents$ proceeded to the 1o.as Seafront Carden. Mabel hon(ed twice upon arriving at the said place and went to Dnit !)). 5A1C/M agents par(ed ) meters away saw the door of the unit open as a man went out to hand Mabel a transparent plastic bag containing a white crystalline substance. 'he 5A1C/M agents immediately alighted and arrested the surprised man who was positively identified by Mabel as Che Chun 'ing. Dnit !)) was searched by the agents$ where a blac( bag with several plastic bags containing a white crystalline substance in an open cabinet in the second floor was sei&ed. 'he bag was e.amined in the presence of Ma7. Carbo$ the accused and his girlfriend. 'he accused and the evidence were brought to Camp Crame. 'he contents of the ban( were tested and found positive for shabu. 'he Defense alleged otherwise. 4t alleged that it was 5oli /rti&$ the brother of Che Chun 'ing6s girlfriend who rang the doorbell of Dnit !)). When 5imfa opened the door$ ) 5A1C/M officers suddenly forced their way inside and searched the premises. 5oli alleged that he did not see any blac( bag sei&ed but saw his sister6s video camera being carted away by the 5A1C/M agents. Be claimed that his sister was frightened and crying during the conduct of the search while Che Chun 'ing was asleep at the second floor. Defense further contends that Dnit !)) is owned by 5imfa /rti& and that Che Chun 'ing lived at !00! Domingo 2oblete St.$ ,* Bomes$ 2araIa-ue. Che Chun 'ing was found guilty by the trial court on )) August !"": of delivering$ distributing and dispatching in transit """.8# grams of shabuF and$ having in his custody$ possession and control 9$9:#.@# grams of the same regulated drug. Be was meted two ?)A death sentences$ one for violation of Sec. !9 and the other for violation of Sec. !@$ both of Art. 444$ of 1A @8)9 ?'he Dangerous Drugs Act of !":)$ as amendedA. Be was li(ewise ordered to pay a fine of 2!$000$000.00 in the first case$ and 2!)$000$000.00 in the second. Be is now before the Supreme Court on automatic review.

!ssue Whether the search of Dnit !)) is within the purview of the warrantless search incidental to an arrest. "e#$ 'he !"#: Constitution ordains that no arrest$ search or sei&ure can be made without a valid warrant issued by a competent 7udicial authority. 'he right of the people to be secure in their persons$ houses$ papers and effects against unreasonable searches and sei&ures of whatever nature and for any purpose$ shall be inviolable$ and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue e.cept upon probable cause to be determined personally by the 7udge after e.amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce$ and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be sei&ed. 'he right is not absolute and admits of certain well<recogni&ed e.ceptions. A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense$ without a search warrant. 'he search may e.tend beyond the person of the one arrested to include the permissible area or surroundings within his immediate control. 'he lawful arrest being the sole 7ustification for the validity of the warrantless search under the e.ception$ the same must be limited to and circumscribed by the sub7ect$ time and place of the arrest. As to sub7ect$ the warrantless search is sanctioned only with respect to the person of the suspect$ and things that may be sei&ed 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. Berein$ although the case falls within the e.ception$ Che Chun 'ing was admittedly outside unit !))$ which was not his residence but a so7ourner thereof$ and in the act of delivering to Mabel Cheung Mei 2o a bag of shabu when he was arrested by the 5A1C/M operatives. 'he inner portion of the house can hadly be said to constitute a permissible area within his reach or immediate control$ to 7ustify a warrantless search therein. 'he search in Dnit !)) and the sei&ure therein of some 9$9:#.@# grams of shabu were illegal for being violative of one6s basic constitutional right and guarantee against unreasonable searches and sei&ures$ and thus are inadmissible in evidence under the e.clusionary rule. 'he inadmissibility of such however does not totally e.onerate the accused. 'he illegal search in Dnit !)) was preceded by a valid arrest. 'he accused was caught in flagrante delicto as a result of an entrapment conducted by 5A1C/M operatives on the basis of the information provided by Mabel Cheung Mei 2o regarding the accused6s illegal trade. 5A1C/M agents 234nsp. Santiago and S2/; Campanilla saw him handing over a bag of white crystalline substance to Mabel Cheung Mei 2o. Bis arrest was lawful and the sei&ed bag of shabu weighing """.8; grams was admissible in evidence$ being the fruit of the crime. %eo&#e vs. 8ang#.+en [GR L063630, 6 3&r.# 1990] Third Division, #utierre$ Jr% (J): 4 concur Facts 4n the late evening of ) March !"#)$ 2atrolmen Silverio %uevedo and 1omeo L. 2un&alan of the San *ernando 2olice Station$ together with ,arangay 'anod Macario Sacdalan$ were conducting surveillance mission at the Victory Liner 'erminal compound located at ,arangay San 5icolas$ San *ernando$ 2ampanga. 'he surveillance mission 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. Around "E;0 p.m.$ said 2atrolmen noticed a person carrying a red traveling bag who was acting suspiciously and they confronted him. 'he person was re-uested by 2atrolmen %uevedo and 2un&alan to open the red traveling bag but the person refused$ only to accede later on when the patrolmen identified themselves. *ound inside the bag were mari7uana leaves wrapped in a plastic wrapper and weighing one (ilo$ more or less. 'he person was as(ed of his name and the reason why he was at the said place and he gave his name as Medel 'angliben and e.plained that he was waiting for a ride to /longapo City to deliver the mari7uana leaves. 'he accused was ta(en to the police head-uarters at San *ernando$ 2ampanga$ for further investigationF and that 2at. Silverio %uevedo submitted to his Station Commander his 4nvestigator6s 1eport. 'he 1egional 'rial Court$ ,ranch 8!$ 'hird udicial 1egion at San *ernando$ 2ampanga$ found Medel 'angliben y ,ernardino guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 8$ Article 44 of 1epublic Act @8)9 ?Dangerous Drugs Act of !":) as amendedA and sentenced him to life imprisonment$ to pay a fine of 2)0$000 and to pay the costs. 'angliben appealed. !ssue Whether the warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest$ even in light of the Court6s ruling in 2eople vs. Aminnudin. "e#$ /ne of the e.ceptions to the general rule re-uiring a search warrant is a search incident to a lawful arrest. 'hus$ Section !) ?Search incident to a lawful arrestA of 1ule !)@ of the !"#9 1ules on Criminal 2rocedure provides that =A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense$ without a search warrant.> Meanwhile$ 1ule !!;$ Sec. 9?aA provides that =A peace officer or a private person may$ without a warrant$ arrest a personE ?aA When$ in his presence$ the person to be arrested has committed$ is actually committing$ or is attempting to commit an offense.> 'angliben was caught in flagrante$ since he was carrying mari7uana at the time of his arrest. 'his case therefore falls s-uarely within the e.ception. 'he warrantless search was incident to a lawful arrest and is conse-uently valid. 'he Court is not unmindful of its decision in 2eople v. Aminnudin ?!@; SC1A 80) G!"##HA. 4n that case the 2C officers had earlier received a tip from an informer that accused<appellant was on board a vessel bound for 4loilo City and was carrying mari7uana. Acting on this tip$ they waited for him one evening$ approached him as he descended from the gangplan($ detained him and inspected the bag he was carrying. Said bag contained mari7uana leaves. 'he Court held that the mari7uana could not be admitted in evidence since it was sei&ed illegally$ as there was lac( of urgency$ and thus a search warrant can still be procured. Bowever$ herein$ the case presented urgency. Although the trial court6s decision did not mention it$ the transcript of stenographic notes reveals that there was an informer who pointed to 'angliben as carrying mari7uana. *aced with such on<the<spot information$ the police officers had to act -uic(ly. 'here was not enough time to secure a search warrant. 'he Court cannot therefore apply the ruling in Aminnudin herein. 'o re-uire search warrants during on<the<spot apprehensions of drug pushers$ illegal possessors of firearms$ 7ueteng collectors$ smugglers of contraband goods$ robbers$ etc. would ma(e it e.tremely difficult$ if not impossible to contain the crimes with which these persons are associated. 9s&ano vs. -ourt o/ 3&&ea#s [GR 120531, 1 3&r.# 1998] Third Division, &o'ero (J): 3 concur

Facts /n !8 uly !""!$ at about !)E;0 a.m.$ 2at. 1omeo 2agilagan and other police officers$ namely$ 2at. Wilfredo A-uilino$ Simplicio 1ivera$ and +rlindo Lumboy of the Western 2olice District ?W2DA$ 5arcotics Division went to Mamora and 2andacan Streets$ Manila to confirm reports of drug pushing in the area. 'hey saw 1odolfo +spano selling =something> to another person. After the alleged buyer left$ they approached +spano$ identified themselves as policemen$ and fris(ed him. 'he search yielded two plastic cellophane tea bags of mari7uana . When as(ed if he had more mari7uana$ he replied that there was more in his house. 'he policemen went to his residence where they found ten more cellophane tea bags of mari7uana. +spano was brought to the police head-uarters where he was charged with possession of prohibited drugs. /n )8 uly !""!$ +spano posted bail and the trial court issued his order of release on )" uly !""!. /n !8 August !"")$ the trial court rendered a decision$ convicting +spano of the crime charged. +spano appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals. 'he appellate court$ however$ on !9 anuary !""9 affirmed the decision of the trial court in toto. +spano filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court. !ssue Whether the search of +spano6s home after his arrest does not violate against his right against unreasonable search and sei&ure. "e#$ +spano6s arrest falls s-uarely under 1ule !!; Section 9?aA of the 1ules of Court. Be was caught in flagranti as a result of a buy<bust operation conducted by police officers on the basis of information received regarding the illegal trade of drugs within the area of Mamora and 2andacan Streets$ Manila. 'he police officer saw +spano handing over something to an alleged buyer. After the buyer left$ they searched him and discovered two cellophanes of mari7uana. Bis arrest was$ therefore$ lawful and the two cellophane bags of mari7uana sei&ed were admissible in evidence$ being the fruits of the crime. As for the !0 cellophane bags of mari7uana found at +spano6s residence$ however$ the same inadmissible in evidence. 'he articles sei&ed from +spano during his arrest were valid under the doctrine of search made incidental to a lawful arrest. 'he warrantless search made in his house$ however$ which yielded ten cellophane bags of mari7uana became unlawful since the police officers were not armed with a search warrant at the time. Moreover$ it was beyond the reach and control of +spano. 'he right of the people to be secure in their persons$ houses$ papers and effects against unreasonable searches and sei&ures of whatever nature and for any purposes shall be inviolable$ and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue e.cept upon probable cause to be determined personally by the 7udge after e.amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce$ and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be sei&ed.> An e.ception to the said rule is a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense. 4t may e.tend beyond the person of the one arrested to include the premises or surroundings under his immediate control. Berein$ the ten cellophane bags of mari7uana sei&ed at petitioner6s house after his arrest at 2andacan and Mamora Streets do not fall under the said e.ceptions. %eo&#e v. 6a#(ste$t [GR 91101, 19 June 1991] En Banc, Padilla (J): ( concur, 1 on leave Facts Mi(ael Malmstedt$ a Swedish national$ entered the 2hilippines for the ;rd time in December !"## as a tourist. Be had visited the country sometime in !"#) and !"#9. 4n the

evening of : May !"#"$ Malmstedt left for ,aguio City. Dpon his arrival thereat in the morning of the following day$ he too( a bus to Sagada and stayed in that place for ) days. /n !! May !"#"$ Capt. Alen Vasco of 5A1C/M$ stationed at Camp Dangwa$ ordered his men to set up a temporary chec(point at Lilometer !8$ Acop$ 'ublay$ Mountain 2rovince$ for the purpose of chec(ing all vehicles coming from the Cordillera 1egion. 'he order to establish a chec(point in the said area was prompted by persistent reports that vehicles coming from Sagada were transporting mari7uana and other prohibited drugs. Moreover$ information was received by the Commanding /fficer of 5A1C/M$ that same morning$ that a Caucasian coming from Sagada had in his possession prohibited drugs. At about !E;0 pm$ the bus where Malmstedt was riding was stopped. Sgt. *ider and C4C Calutan boarded the bus and announced that they were members of the 5A1C/M and that they would conduct an inspection. During the inspection$ C4C Calutan noticed a bulge on Malmstedt6s waist. Suspecting the bulge on Malmstedt6s waist to be a gun$ the officer as(ed for Malmstedt6s passport and other identification papers. When Malmstedt failed to comply$ the officer re-uired him to bring out whatever it was that was bulging on his waist$ which was a pouch bag. When Malmstedt opened the same bag$ as ordered$ the officer noticed 8 suspicious<loo(ing ob7ects wrapped in brown pac(ing tape$ which turned out to contain hashish$ a derivative of mari7uana$ when opened. Malmstedt stopped to get ) travelling bags from the luggage carrier$ each containing a teddy bear$ when he was invited outside the bus for -uestioning. 4t was observed that there were also bulges inside the teddy bears which did not feel li(e foam stuffing. Malmstedt was then brought to the head-uarters of the 5A1C/M at Camp Dangwa for further investigation. At the investigation room$ the officers opened the teddy bears and they were found to also contain hashish. 1epresentative samples were ta(en from the hashish found among the personal effects of Malmstedt and the same were brought to the 2C Crime Laboratory for chemical analysis$ which established the ob7ects e.amined as hashish. Malmstedt claimed that the hashish was planted by the 5A1C/M officers in his pouch bag and that the ) travelling bags were not owned by him$ but were merely entrusted to him by an Australian couple whom he met in Sagada. Be further claimed that the Australian couple intended to ta(e the same bus with him but because there were no more seats available in said bus$ they decided to ta(e the ne.t ride and as(ed Malmstedt to ta(e charge of the bags$ and that they would meet each other at the Dangwa Station. An information was filed against Malmstedt for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. During the arraignment$ Malmstedt entered a plea of =not guilty.> After trial and on !) /ctober !"#"$ the trial court found Malmstedt guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 8$ Article 44 of 1A @8)9 and sentenced him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of 2)0$000. Malmstedt sought reversal of the decision of the trial court. !ssue Whether the personal effects of Malmstedt may be searched without an issued warrant. "e#$ 'he Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons$ houses$ papers and effects against unreasonable searches and sei&ures. Bowever$ where the search is made pursuant to a lawful arrest$ there is no need to obtain a search warrant. A lawful arrest without a warrant may be made by a peace officer or a private person under the following circumstances. Section 9 provides that =a peace officer or a private person may$ without a warrant$ arrest a person ?aA When$ in his presence$ the person to be arrested has committed$ is actually committing$ or is attempting to commit an offenseF ?bA When an offense has in fact 7ust been committed$ and he has personal (nowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested

has committed itF and ?cA When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final 7udgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending$ or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. 4n cases falling under paragraphs ?aA and ?bA hereof$ the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or 7ail$ and he shall be proceeded against in accordance with 1ule !!)$ Section :.> Berein$ Malmstedt was caught in flagrante delicto$ when he was transporting prohibited drugs. 'hus$ the search made upon his personal effects falls s-uarely under paragraph ?!A of the foregoing provisions of law$ which allow a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest. %eo&#e v. :a#u+.ran [GR 85019, 6 6ay 1991] First Division, )ru$ (J): 4 concur Facts 5estor Lalubiran was arrested on !) uly !"#9$ in Dumaguete City$ by 5arcotics Command ?5A1C/MA elements. Bis arrest was the result of a =buy<bust> operation in which 2at. Leon %uindo acted as the buyer while the other team members lay in wait to arrest Lalubiran at the pre<arranged signal. %uindo approached the accused<appellant$ who was with a group of friends in front of the Camo Memorial Clinic$ and as(ed if he could =score$> the 7argon for buying mari7uana. Lalubiran immediately produced two stic(s of mari7uana$ for which %uindo paid him a previously mar(ed 29.00 bill. %uindo then gave the signal and Cpl. Levi Dorado approached and arrested Lalubiran. Dorado fris(ed the accused<appellant. Be recovered the mar(ed money and found !: more stic(s of mari7uana on Lalubiran6s person. 'he other team members$ namely M3Sgt. 1anulfo Villamor and Sgt. 1uben Laddaran$ came later in a 7eep$ where they boarded Lalubiran to ta(e him to the police station. 'he !" stic(s of mari7uana were mar(ed and then ta(en to the 2C Crime Laboratory$ where they were analy&ed$ with positive results. Lalubiran contended however that one %uindo approached and fris( him on the same night$ and found nothing on him. Bowever$ he was called bac( by one Villamor$ who told him at gun point to board the 7eep and ta(en to 2C head-uarters$ then to the police station. Be was released the following day with the help of a lawyer. After trial$ the 1egional 'rial Court ?1'CA Dumaguete City found Lalubiran guilty as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment plus a 2)0$000 fine. Lalubiran appealed. !ssue Whether Lalubiran should be made to answer for the !" stic(s of mari7uana found in his possession during his arrest. "e#$ Lalubiran was arrested in flagrante delicto as a result of the entrapment and so came under Section 9$ 1ule !!; of the 1ules of Court$ authori&ing a warrantless arrest of any person actually committing a crime. 'he search was made as an incident of a lawful arrest and so was also lawful under Section !) of 1ule !!@. 4n addition to the 1ules$ there is abundant 7urisprudence 7ustifying warrantless searches and sei&ures under the conditions established in the case. Bowever$ Lalubiran was accused only of selling the two stic(s of mari7uana under Section 8 of the Dangerous Drugs Act when he should also have been charged with possession of the !: other stic(s found on his person at the time of his arrest. 4t is unfortunate that he cannot be held to answer for the second offense because he has not been impleaded in a separate information for violation of Section # of the said law.

%eo&#e vs. $e#a -ru, [GR 83260, 18 3&r.# 1990] Second Division, &e*alado (J): 4 concur Facts After receiving a confidential report from Arnel$ their informant$ a =buy<bust> operation was conducted by the !;th 5arcotics 1egional Dnit through a team composed of '3Sgt. aime 1aposas as 'eam Leader$ S3Sgt. 1odelito /blice$ Sgt. Dante Jang$ Sgt. Vicente imene&$ 232fc. Adolfo Arcoy as poseur<buyer and 2at. Deogracias Corgonia at Maliclic St.$ 'ondo$ Manila at around )E;0 p.m. of 8 May !"#: to catch the pusher3s. 232fc. Adolfo Arcoy acted as the poseur< buyer with Arnel as his companion to buy mari7uana worth 2!0.00 from the two accused$ uan de la Cru& and 1eynaldo ,eltran. At the scene$ it was uan de la Cru& whom Arcoy first negotiated with on the purchase and when Arcoy told De la Cru& that he was buying 2!0.00 worth of mari7uana$ De la Cru& instructed 1eynaldo ,eltran to give one aluminum foil of mari7uana which ,eltran got from his pants6 poc(et and delivered it to Arcoy. After ascertaining that the foil of suspected mari7uana was really mari7uana$ Arcoy gave the prearranged signal to his teammates by scratching his head and his teammates who were strategically positioned in the vicinity$ converged at the place$ identified themselves as 5A1C/M agents and effected the arrest of De la Cru& and ,eltran. 'he 2!0.00 mar(ed bill used by Arcoy was found in the possession of uan de la Cru& together with two aluminum foils and containing mari7uana. uan de la Cru& y Con&ales and 1eynaldo ,eltran y Aniban were charged in Criminal Case #:<988!: of the 1egional 'rial Court ?1'CA of Manila with violation of Section 8$ Art. 44$ in relation to Section )!$ Article 4V of 1epublic Act @8)9$ as amended. 'he court$ on !9 March !"##$ found Dela Cru& and ,eltran guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua$ with the accessory penalties provided by lawF to pay a fine of 2)0$000.00$ without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency$ and each to pay one<half of the costs. *rom this decision$ de la Cru& and ,eltran appealed. 4n a letter of the Warden$ Manila City ail$ dated ; March !"#"$ the Court was informed of the death of de la Cru& on )! *ebruary !"#". 'hus$ the criminal case against de la Cru& was dismissed in the Supreme Court resolution of )9 September !"#". 'he present appellate proceeding is limited only to ,eltran. !ssue Whether the warrantless sei&ure incidental to the buy<bust operation violates ,eltran6s constitutional rights against unreasonable search and sei&ure. "e#$ A buy<bust operation is the method employed by peace officers to trap and catch a malefactor in flagrante delicto. 4t is essentially a form of entrapment since the peace officer neither instigates nor induces the accused to commit a crime. +ntrapment is the employment of such ways and means for the purpose of trapping or capturing a lawbrea(er from whose mind the criminal intent originated. /ftentimes$ it is the only effective way of apprehending a criminal in the act of the commission of the offense. While it is conceded that in a buy<bust operation$ there is sei&ure of evidence from one6s person without a search warrant$ needless to state a search warrant is not necessary$ the search being incident to a lawful arrest. A peace officer 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. 4t is a matter of 7udicial e.perience that in the arrest of violators of the Dangerous Drugs Act in a buy<bust operation$ the malefactors were invariably caught red<handed. 'here being no violation of the constitutional right against unreasonable search and sei&ure$ the confiscated articles are admissible in evidence.

%eo&#e vs. 8u$tu$ [GR 155031, 26 *e&te(+er 2003] Second Division, Tin*a (J): 3 concur, 1 +iled a se!arate dissentin* o!inion Facts Sometime during the months of uly and August !"""$ the 'oril 2olice Station$ Davao City received a report from a =civilian asset> named ,obong Solier about a certain 5oel 'udtud. Solier related that his neighbors have been complaining about 'udtud$ who was allegedly responsible for the proliferation of mari7uana in their area. 1eacting to the report$ 2/! 1onald Desierto$ 2/! 1amil *loreta and their superior$ S2/! Villalonghan$ all members of the 4ntelligence Section of the 'oril 2olice Station$ conducted surveillance in Solier6s neighborhood in Sapa$ 'oril$ Davao City. *or 9 days$ they gathered information and learned that 'udtud was involved in illegal drugs. According to his neighbors$ 'udtud was engaged in selling mari7uana. /n ! August !"""$ Solier informed the police that 'udtud had headed to Cotabato and would be bac( later that day with new stoc(s of mari7uana. Solier described 'udtud as big<bodied and short$ and usually wore a hat. At around 8E00 p.m. that same day$ a team composed of 2/! Desierto$ 2/! *loreta and S2/! Villalonghan posted themselves at the corner of Saipon and McArthur Bighway to await 'udtud6s arrival. All wore civilian clothes. About #E00 p.m.$ ) men disembar(ed from a bus and helped each other carry a carton mar(ed =Ling *la(es.> Standing some 9 feet away from the men$ 2/! Desierto and 2/! *loreta observed that one of the men fit 'udtud6s description. 'he same man also toted a plastic bag. 2/! *loreta and 2/! Desierto then approached the suspects and identified themselves as police officers. 2/! Desierto informed them that the police had received information that stoc(s of illegal drugs would be arriving that night. 'he man who resembled 'udtud6s description denied that he was carrying any drugs. 2/! Desierto as(ed him if he could see the contents of the bo.. 'udtud obliged$ saying$ =it was alright.> 'udtud opened the bo. himself as his companion loo(ed on. 'he bo. yielded pieces of dried fish$ beneath which were two bundles$ one wrapped in a striped plastic bag and another in newspapers. 2/! Desierto as(ed 'udtud to unwrap the pac(ages. 'hey contained what seemed to the police officers as mari7uana leaves. 'he police thus arrested 'udtud and his companion$ informed them of their rights and brought them to the police station. 'he two did not resist. 'he confiscated items were turned over to the 2hilippine 5ational 2olice ?252A Crime Laboratory for e.amination. *orensic tests on specimens ta(en from the confiscated items confirmed the police officers6 suspicion. 'he plastic bag contained ;$)00 grams of mari7uana leaves while the newspapers contained another #"0 grams. 5oel 'udtud and his companion$ Dindo ,ulong$ were subse-uently charged before the 1egional 'rial Court ?1'CA of Davao City with illegal possession of prohibited drugs. Dpon arraignment$ both accused pleaded not guilty. 'he defense$ however$ reserved their right to -uestion the validity of their arrest and the sei&ure of the evidence against them. 'rial ensued thereafter. 'udtud$ denying the charges against them$ cried frame<up. Swayed by the prosecution6s evidence beyond reasonable doubt$ the 1'C rendered 7udgment convicting both accused as charged and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of 2900$000.00. /n appeal$ 5oel 'udtud and Dindo ,olong assign$ among other errors$ the admission in evidence of the mari7uana leaves$ which they claim were sei&ed in violation of their right against unreasonable searches and sei&ures. !ssue Whether the 'udtud6s implied ac-uiescence ?'udtud6s statement of =it6s all right> when the police officers re-uested that the bo. be openedA be considered a waiver.

"e#$ 'he right against unreasonable searches and sei&ures is secured by Section )$ Article 444 of the Constitution. 'he 1'C 7ustified the warrantless search of appellants6 belongings under the first e.ception$ as a search incident to a lawful arrest. A search incidental to a lawful arrest is sanctioned by the 1ules of Court. 4t is significant to note that the search in -uestion preceded the arrest. 1ecent 7urisprudence holds that the arrest must precede the searchF the process cannot be reversed. 5evertheless$ a search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the arrest if the police have probable cause to ma(e the arrest at the outset of the search. 'he -uestion$ therefore$ is whether the police herein had probable cause to arrest 'udtud$ et. al. 'he long<standing rule in this 7urisdiction$ applied with a great degree of consistency$ is that =reliable information> alone is not sufficient to 7ustify a warrantless arrest under Section 9 ?aA$ 1ule !!;. 'he rule re-uires$ in addition$ that the accused perform some overt act that would indicate that he =has committed$ is actually committing$ or is attempting to commit an offense.> *or the e.ception in Section 9 ?aA$ 1ule !!; to apply$ this Court ruled$ two elements must concurE ?!A the person to be arrested must e.ecute an overt act indicating he has 7ust committed$ is actually committing$ or is attempting to commit a crimeF and ?)A such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. 1eliable information alone is insufficient. 'hus$ herein$ in no sense can the (nowledge of the arresting officers that 'udtud was in possession of mari7uana be described as =personal$> having learned the same only from their informant Solier. Solier$ for his part$ testified that he obtained his information only from his neighbors and the friends of 'udtud. Solier6s information is hearsay. Confronted with such a dubious informant$ the police perhaps felt it necessary to conduct their own =surveillance.> 'his =surveillance$> it turns out$ did not actually consist of sta(ing out 'udtud to catch him in the act of plying his illegal trade$ but of a mere =gathering of information from the assets there.> 'he police officers who conducted such =surveillance> did not identify who these =assets> were or the basis of the latter6s information. Clearly$ such information is also hearsay$ not of personal (nowledge. *inally$ there is an effective waiver of rights against unreasonable searches and sei&ures only if the following re-uisites are presentE ?!A 4t must appear that the rights e.istF ?)A 'he person involved had (nowledge$ actual or constructive$ of the e.istence of such rightF ?;A Said person had an actual intention to relin-uish the right. Bere$ the prosecution failed to establish the second and third re-uisites. 1ecords disclose that when the police officers introduced themselves as such and re-uested 'udtud that they see the contents of the carton bo. supposedly containing the mari7uana$ 'udtud said =it was alright.> Be did not resist and opened the bo. himself. 'udtud6s implied ac-uiescence$ if at all$ could not have been more than mere passive conformity given under coercive or intimidating circumstances and is$ thus$ considered no consent at all within the purview of the constitutional guarantee. Conse-uently$ 'udtud6s lac( of ob7ection to the search and sei&ure is not tantamount to a waiver of his constitutional right or a voluntary submission to the warrantless search and sei&ure. As the search of 'udtud6s bo. does not come under the recogni&ed e.ceptions to a valid warrantless search$ the mari7uana leaves obtained thereby are inadmissible in evidence. And as there is no evidence other than the hearsay testimony of the arresting officers and their informant$ the conviction of 'udtud$ et. al. cannot be sustained. %eo&#e vs. 3s.s [GR 152531, 15 'cto+er 2002] En Banc, Pan*ani,an (J): - concur, . on o++icial leave Facts Danilo Asis y *onperada and Cilbert *ormento y Saricon were charged in an 4nformation dated !# *ebruary !""#F the information stating ='hat on or about *ebruary !0$ !""#$ in the City

of Manila$ 2hilippines$ the said accused$ conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping each other$ did then and there wilfully$ unlawfully and feloniously$ with intent to gain and by means of force and violence upon person$ to witE by then and there stabbing one JD B45C CDA5 K 1/J CB45C with a bladed instrument on the different parts of the body thereafter ta(e$ rob and carry away the following$ to witE Cash money in the amount of 2)0$000.00F one ?!A wristwatch6 one ?!A gold nec(laceF and undetermined itemsF or all in the total amount of 2)0$000.00 more or less$ belonging to said JD B45C CDA5 K 1/J CB45C against his will$ to the damage and pre7udice of the said owner in the aforesaid amount more or less of 2)0$000.00$ 2hilippine Currency$ and as a result thereof$ he sustained mortal stab wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his death.> When arraigned on " uly !""#$ both accused pleaded not guilty. *ound to be deaf<mutes$ they were assisted$ not only by a counsel de oficio$ but also by an interpreter from the Calvary ,aptist Church. 'he prosecution presented " witnesses. Although none of them had actually seen the crime committed$ strong and substantial circumstantial evidence presented by them attempted to lin( both accused to the crime. After due trial$ both accused were found guilty and sentenced to death. 'he 1egional 'rial Court ?1'CA of Manila ?,ranch 98F Criminal Case "#<!@;0"0A$ on # March )000$ held that the =crime charged and proved is robbery with homicide under Article )"8$ 5o. ! of the 1evised 2enal Code$> ruled that =although no witnesses to the actual (illing and robbery were presented$ the circumstantial evidence including the recovery of bloodstained clothing from both accused definitely proved that the two ?)A . . . committed the crime$> and appreciated the aggravating circumstances of abuse of confidence$ superior strength and treachery and thus sentenced both accused to the supreme penalty of death. Bence$ the automatic review before the Supreme Court. ,oth the accused do not -uestion the legality of their arrest$ as they made no ob7ection thereto before the arraignment$ but ob7ect to the introduction of the bloodstained pair of shorts allegedly recovered from the bag of *ormentoF arguing that the search was illegally done$ ma(ing the obtainment of the pair of shorts illegal and taints them as inadmissible. 'he prosecution$ on the other hand$ contends that it was *ormento6s wife who voluntarily surrendered the bag that contained the bloodstained trousers of the victim$ and thus claims that her act constituted a valid consent to the search without a warrant. !ssue Whether *ormento$ a deaf<mute$ has given consent to the recovery of the bloodstained pair of short$ in his possession during the warrantless search. "e#$ 2rimarily$ the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and sei&ures$ being a personal one$ cannot be waived by anyone e.cept the person whose rights are invaded or who is e.pressly authori&ed to do so on his or her behalf. 4n the present case$ the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses show that at the time the bloodstained pair of shorts was recovered$ *ormento$ together with his wife and mother$ was present. ,eing the very sub7ect of the search$ necessarily$ he himself should have given consent. Since he was physically present$ the waiver could not have come from any other person. Lope& vs. Commissioner of Customs does not apply as the accused therein was not present when the search was made. *urther$ to constitute a valid waiver$ it must be shown that first$ the right e.istsF second$ the person involved had (nowledge$ actual or constructive$ of the e.istence of such a rightF and third$ the person had an actual intention to relin-uish the right. Berein$ *ormento could not have consented to a warrantless search when$ in the first place$ he did not understand what was happening at that moment. 'here was no interpreter to assist him N a deaf<mute N during the arrest$ search and sei&ure. 'he point

in the case 2asion vda. de Carcia v. Locsin$ i.e. =as the constitutional guaranty is not dependent upon any affirmative act of the citi&en$ the courts do not place the citi&en in the position of either contesting an officer6s authority by force$ or waiving his constitutional rightsF but instead they hold that a peaceful submission to a search or sei&ure is not a consent or an invitation thereto$ but is merely a demonstration of regard for the supremacy of the law$> becomes even more pronounced in the present case$ in which *ormento is a deaf<mute$ and there was no interpreter to e.plain to him what was happening. Bis seeming ac-uiescence to the search without a warrant may be attributed to plain and simple confusion and ignorance. 'he bloodstained pair of shorts was a piece of evidence sei&ed on the occasion of an unlawful search and sei&ure. 'hus$ it is tainted and should thus be e.cluded for being the proverbial fruit of the poisonous tree. 4n the language of the fundamental law$ it shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding. Lastly$ as to evidence vis<a<is the case in its totality$ circumstantial evidence that merely arouses suspicions or gives room for con7ecture is not sufficient to convict. 4t must do more than 7ust raise the possibility$ or even the probability$ of guilt. 4t must engender moral certainty. /therwise$ the constitutional presumption of innocence prevails$ and the accused deserves ac-uittal. -a+a##es vs. -ourt o/ 3&&ea#s [GR 136292, 15 January 2002] First Division, Puno (J): 4 concur Facts About "E!9 p.m. of )# une !"#"$ Sgt. Victorino 5oce7a and 2at. Ale. de Castro$ while on a routine patrol in ,arangay Sampalucan$ 2agsan7an$ Laguna$ spotted a passenger 7eep unusually covered with =(a(awati> leaves. Suspecting that the 7eep was loaded with smuggled goods$ the two police officers flagged down the vehicle. 'he 7eep was driven by 1udy Caballes y 'aiIo. When as(ed what was loaded on the 7eep$ he did not answer$ but he appeared pale and nervous. With Caballes6 consent$ the police officers chec(ed the cargo and they discovered bundles of ;.0# mm aluminum3galvani&ed conductor wires e.clusively owned by 5ational 2ower Corporation ?5A/C/1A. 'he conductor wires weighed :00 (ilos and valued at 299$)88.89. 5oce7a as(ed Caballes where the wires came from and Caballes answered that they came from Cavinti$ a town appro.imately # (ilometers away from Sampalucan. 'hereafter$ Caballes and the vehicle with the high<voltage wires were brought to the 2agsan7an 2olice Station. Danilo Cabale too( pictures of Caballes and the 7eep loaded with the wires which were turned over to the 2olice Station Commander of 2agsan7an$ Laguna. Caballes was incarcerated for : days in the Municipal 7ail. Caballes was charged with the crime of theft in an information dated !@ /ctober !"#". During the arraignment$ Caballes pleaded not guilty and hence$ trial on the merits ensued. /n ): April !"";$ 1egional 'rial Court of Santa Cru&$ Laguna rendered 7udgment$ finding Caballes$ guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of theft. 4n a resolution dated " 5ovember !""#$ the trial court denied Caballes6 motion for reconsideration. 'he Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court decision on !9 September !""#. Caballes appealed the decision by certiorari. !ssue Whether Caballes6 passive submission to the statement of Sgt. 5oce7a that the latter =will loo( at the contents of his vehicle and he answered in the positive> be considered as waiver on Caballes6 part on warrantless search and sei&ure.

"e#$ +nshrined in our Constitution is the inviolable right of the people to be secure in their persons and properties against unreasonable searches and sei&ures$ as defined under Section )$ Article 444 thereof. 'he e.clusionary rule under Section ;?)A$ Article 444 of the Constitution bars the admission of evidence obtained in violation of such right. 'he constitutional proscription against warrantless searches and sei&ures is not absolute but admits of certain e.ceptions$ namelyE ?!A warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recogni&ed under Section !)$ 1ule !)@ of the 1ules of Court and by prevailing 7urisprudenceF ?)A sei&ure of evidence in plain viewF ?;A search of moving vehiclesF ?8A consented warrantless searchF ?9A customs searchF ?@A stop and fris( situations ?'erry searchAF and ?:A e.igent and emergency circumstances. 4n cases where warrant is necessary$ the steps prescribed by the Constitution and reiterated in the 1ules of Court must be complied with. 4n the e.ceptional events where warrant is not necessary to effect a valid search or sei&ure$ or when the latter cannot be performed e.cept without a warrant$ what constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search or sei&ure is purely a 7udicial -uestion$ determinable from the uni-ueness of the circumstances involved$ including the purpose of the search or sei&ure$ the presence or absence of probable cause$ the manner in which the search and sei&ure was made$ the place or thing searched and the character of the articles procured. 4t is not controverted that the search and sei&ure conducted by the police officers was not authori&ed by a search warrant. 'he mere mobility of these vehicles$ however$ does not give the police officers unlimited discretion to conduct indiscriminate searches without warrants if made within the interior of the territory and in the absence of probable cause. Berein$ the police officers did not merely conduct a visual search or visual inspection of Caballes6 vehicle. 'hey had to reach inside the vehicle$ lift the (a(awati leaves and loo( inside the sac(s before they were able to see the cable wires. 4t thus cannot be considered a simple routine chec(. Also$ Caballes6 vehicle was flagged down because the police officers who were on routine patrol became suspicious when they saw that the bac( of the vehicle was covered with (a(awati leaves which$ according to them$ was unusual and uncommon. 'he fact that the vehicle loo(ed suspicious simply because it is not common for such to be covered with (a(awati leaves does not constitute =probable cause> as would 7ustify the conduct of a search without a warrant. 4n addition$ the police authorities do not claim to have received any confidential report or tipped information that petitioner was carrying stolen cable wires in his vehicle which could otherwise have sustained their suspicion. 2hilippine 7urisprudence is replete with cases where tipped information has become a sufficient probable cause to effect a warrantless search and sei&ure. Dnfortunately$ none e.ists in the present case. *urther$ the evidence is lac(ing that Caballes intentionally surrendered his right against unreasonable searches. 'he manner by which the two police officers allegedly obtained the consent of Caballes for them to conduct the search leaves much to be desired. When Caballes6 vehicle was flagged down$ Sgt. 5oce7a approached Caballes and =told him 4 will loo( at the contents of his vehicle and he answered in the positive.> ,y uttering those words$ it cannot be said the police officers were as(ing or re-uesting for permission that they be allowed to search the vehicle of Caballes. *or all intents and purposes$ they were informing$ nay$ imposing upon Caballes that they will search his vehicle. 'he =consent> given under intimidating or coercive circumstances is no consent within the purview of the constitutional guaranty. 4n addition$ in cases where the Court upheld the validity of consented search$ it will be noted that the police authorities e.pressly as(ed$ in no uncertain terms$ for the consent of the accused to be searched. And the consent of the accused was established by clear and positive proof. 5either can Caballes6 passive submission be construed as an implied ac-uiescence to the warrantless search. Casting aside the cable wires as evidence$ the remaining evidence on record are

insufficient to sustain Caballes6 conviction. Bis guilt can only be established without violating the constitutional right of the accused against unreasonable search and sei&ure. %eo&#e vs. Gat)ar$ [GRs 119112013, 1 Fe+ruary 1991] Second Division, &e*alado (J): 4 concur Facts At about ;E;0 p.m. of ;0 August !""8$ D Aung Win$ a 2assenger of 'C *light @)0 of the 'hai Airways which had 7ust arrived from ,ang(o($ 'hailand$ presented his luggage$ a travelling bag for e.amination to Customs +.aminer ,usran 'awano$ who was assigned at the Arrival Area of the 5inoy A-uino 4nternational Airport ?5A4AA in 2asay City. D Aung Win also handed to 'awano his Customs Declaration !)#8!: stating that he had no articles to declare. When 'awano was about to inspect his luggage$ D Aung Win suddenly left$ proceeding towards the direction of Carousel !$ the conveyor for the pieces of luggage of the passengers of *light @)0$ as if to retrieve another baggage from it. After having inspected the luggages of the other incoming passengers$ 'awano became alarmed by the failure of D Aung Win to return and suspected that the bag of D Aung Win contained illegal articles. 'he Customs +.aminer reported the matter to his superiors. Dpon their instructions$ the bag was turned over to the office of the Customs 2olice in the 5A4A for .<ray e.amination where it was detected that it contained some powdery substance. When opened$ the bag revealed two pac(ages containing the substance neatly hidden in between its partitions. 1epresentative samples of the substance were e.amined by +li&abeth Ayonon$ a chemist of the Crime Laboratory Service of the 2hilippine 5ational 2olice ?252A assigned at the Arrival Area of the 5A4A$ and by 'ita Advincula$ another chemist of the 252 Crime Laboratory Service at Camp Crame$ and found to be positive for heroin. 'he two chemists concluded that the entire substance$ with a total weight of 9$9:".#0 grams$ contained in the two pac(ages found in the bag of D Aung Win$ is heroin. A manhunt was conducted to locate D Aung Win. At about :E89 p.m. of the same date$ 1ey +spinosa$ an employee of the Lufthansa Airlines$ notified the commander of the 5A4A Customs 2olice District Command that a certain ,urmese national by the name of D Aung Win appeared at the chec(<in counter of the airline as a departing passenger. 4mmediately$ a team of law enforcers proceeded to the Departure Area and apprehended the accused after he had been identified through his signatures in his Customs Declaration and in his ,ureau of 4mmigration and Deportation Arrival Card. Customs +.aminer 'awano also positively identified D Aung Win as the person who left his bag with him at the Arrival Area of the 5A4A. During the investigation of D Aung Win$ the agents of the Customs 2olice and the 5arcotics Command ?5A1C/MA gathered the information that D Aung Win had a contact in ,ang(o( and that there were other drug couriers in the 2hilippines. *ollowing the lead$ a team of lawmen$ together with D Aung Win$ was dispatched to the City Carden Botel in Mabini St.$ +rmita$ Manila$ to enable D Aung Win to communicate with his contact in ,ang(o( for further instructions. While the police officers were standing by$ they noticed two persons$ a Caucasian and an oriental$ alight from a car and enter the hotel. D Aung Win whispered to Customs 2olice Special Agent +dgar %uiIones that he recogni&ed the two as drug couriers whom he saw tal(ing with his contact in ,ang(o( named Mau Mau. 'he members of the team were able to establish the identity of the two persons as 5igel 1ichard Catward and one Maw Win 5aing$ a 'hailander$ from the driver of the hotel service car used by the two when they arrived in the hotel. 4t was gathered by the law enforcers that Catward and Maw Win 5aing were scheduled to leave for ,ang(o( on board a LLM flight. /n ;! August !""8$ operatives of the 5A4A Customs 2olice mounted a surveillance operation at the Departure Area for Catward and

Maw Win 5aing who might be leaving the country. At about :E89 p.m.$ Special Agent Cino Minguillan of the Customs 2olice made a verification on the passenger manifest of LLM 1oyal Dutch Airlines *light #0@$ bound for Amsterdam via ,ang(o($ which was scheduled to depart at about :E99 p.m. Be found the name =CA'WA1D351M1> listed therein as a passenger for Amsterdam and accordingly informed his teammates who responded immediately Customs 2olice Captain uanito Algenio re-uested Victorio +rece$ manager of the LLM airline at the 5A4A$ to let passenger Catward disembar( from the aircraft and to have his chec(ed<in luggage$ if any$ unloaded. 'he manager acceded to the re-uest to off<load Catward but not to the unloading of his chec(<in bag as the plane was about to depart and to do so would unduly delay the flight. Bowever$ +rece made an assurance that the bag would be returned immediately to the 2hilippines on the first available flight from ,ang(o(. Dpon his disembar(ment. Catward was invited by the police officers for investigation. At about ;E00 p.m. of ! September !""8$ Catward6s luggage$ was brought bac( to the 5A4A from ,ang(o( through the 'hai airways$ pursuant to the re-uest of +rece. Dpon its retrieval$ the law enforcers sub7ected the bag to .<ray e.aminations in the presence of Catward and some Customs officials. 4t was observed to contain some powdery substance. 4nside the bag were two improvised envelopes made of cardboard each containing the powdery substance$ together with many clothes. 'he envelopes were hidden inside the bag$ one at the side in between a double<wall$ the other inside a partition in the middle. Dpon its e.amination by Chemists Ayonon and Advincula pursuant to the re-uest of 2olice Senior 4nspector ohn Campos of the 5A1C/M$ the powdery substance contained in the two cardboard envelopes$ with a net weight of 9$);:.:0 grams$ was found to be heroin. 5igel 1ichard Catward was charged with violating Section 8 of 1epublic Act @8)9$ the Dangerous Drugs Act of !":) ?transportingAF while D Aung Win was charged for transgressing Section ; of the Dangerous Drugs Act of !":) ?importingA. Catward pleaded not guilty of the charge when arraigned$ while D Aung Win pleaded guilty of the crime charged upon his arraignment. /n ; March !""9$ the trial court found both guilty of the crime charged. !ssue Whether Catward6s and D Aung Win6s suitcases may be searched without warrant. "e#$ While no search warrant had been obtained for that purpose$ when Catward chec(ed in his bag as his personal luggage as a passenger of LLM *light #0@ he thereby agreed to the inspection thereof in accordance with customs rules and regulations$ an international practice of strict observance$ and waived any ob7ection to a warrantless search. Bis subse-uent arrest$ although li(ewise without a warrant$ was 7ustified since it was effected upon the discovery and recovery of the heroin in his bag$ or in flagrante delicto. 'he conviction of D Aung Win is li(ewise unassailable. Bis culpability was not based only upon his plea of guilty but also upon the evidence of the prosecution$ the presentation of which was re-uired by the lower court despite said plea. 'he evidence thus presented convincingly proved his having imported into this country the heroin found in his luggage which he presented for customs e.amination upon his arrival at the international airport. 'here was$ of course$ no showing that he was authori&ed by law to import such dangerous drug$ nor did he claim or present any authority to do so. Ro#$an vs. 3rca [GR L025535, 25 Ju#y 1915] First Division, "a asiar (J): 4 concur, 1 too no !art

Facts /n ; April !"@8$ Morabe$ De Cu&man O Company filed with the Court of *irst 4nstance ?C*4A of Manila a civil case ?9@:0!A against *isheries Commissioner Arsenio 5. 1oldan$ r.$ for the recovery of fishing vessel 'ony Le. V4 which had been sei&ed and impounded by the *isheries Commissioner through the 2hilippine 5avy. /n !0 April !"@8$ the company prayed for a writ of preliminary mandatory in7unction with the C*4$ but said prayer was denied. /n )# April !"@8$ the C*4 set aside its order of !0 April !"@8 and granted the company6s motion for reconsideration praying for preliminary mandatory in7unction. 'hus$ the company too( possession of the vessel 'ony Le. V4 from the 2hilippine *isheries Commission adn the 2hilippine 5avy by virtue of the said writ. /n !0 December !"@8$ the C*4 dismissed Civil Case 9@:0! for failure of the company to prosecute as well as for failure of the Commission and the 5avy to appear on the scheduled date of hearing. 'he vessel$ 'ony Le. V4 or Srta. Winnie however$ remained in the possession of the company. /n )0 uly !"@9$ the *isheries Commissioner re-uested the 2hilippine 5avy to apprehend vessels 'ony Le. V4 and 'ony Le. 444$ also respectively called Srta. Winnie and Srta. Agnes$ for alleged violations of some provisions of the *isheries Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. /n August 9 or @$ !"@9$ the two fishing boats were actually sei&ed for illegal fishing with dynamite. *ish caught with dynamite and stic(s of dynamite were then found aboard the two vessels. /n !# August !"@9$ the *isheries Commissioner re-uested the 2alawan 2rovincial *iscal to file criminal charges against the crew members of the fishing vessels. /n ;0 September !"@9$ there were filed in the C*4 of 2alawan a couple of informations$ one against the crew members of 'ony Le. 444$ and another against the crew members of 'ony Le. V4 N both for violations of Act 800;$ as amended by Commonwealth Acts 8@)$ @9" and !0##$ i.e.$ for illegal fishing with the use of dynamite. /n the same day$ the *iscal filed an e. parte motion to hold the boats in custody as instruments and therefore evidence of the crime$ and cabled the *isheries Commissioner to detain the vessels. /n /ctober ) and 8$ li(ewise$ the C*4 of 2alawan ordered the 2hilippine 5avy to ta(e the boats in custody. /n ) /ctober !"@9$ the company filed a complaint with application for preliminary mandatory in7unction ?Civil Case @):""A with the C*4 of Manila against the Commission and the 5avy. Among others$ it was alleged that at the time of the sei&ure of the fishing boats in issue$ the same were engaged in legitimate fishing operations off the coast of 2alawanF that by virtue of the offer of compromise dated !; September !"@9 by the company to the Secretary of Agriculture and 5atural 1esources$ the numerous violations of the *ishery Laws$ if any$ by the crew members of the vessels were settled. /n !# /ctober !"@9$ udge *rancisco Arca issued an order granting the issuance of the writ of preliminary mandatory in7unction and issued the preliminary writ upon the filing by the company of a bond of 29$000.00 for the release of the two vessels. /n !" /ctober !"@9$ the Commission and the 5avy filed a motion for reconsideration of the order issuing the preliminary writ on !# /ctober !"@9 on the ground$ among others$ that on !# /ctober !"@9 the 2hilippine 5avy received from the 2alawan C*4 two orders dated /ctober ) and 8$ !"@9 re-uiring the 2hilippine 5avy to hold the fishing boats in custody and directing that the said vessels should not be released until further orders from the Court$ and that the bond of 29$000.00 is grossly insufficient to cover the Covernment6s losses in case the two vessels$ which are worth 28"9$000.00$ are placed beyond the reach of the Covernment$ thus frustrating their forfeiture as instruments of the crime. /n ); 5ovember !"@9$ udge Arca denied the said motion for reconsideration. 'he Commission and the 5avy filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with

preliminary in7unction to restrain udge Arca from enforcing his order dated !# /ctober !"@9$ and the writ of preliminary mandatory in7unction thereunder issued. !ssue Whether the *isheries Commissioner and the 5avy can validly direct and3or effect the sei&ure of the vessels of the company for illegal fishing by the use of dynamite and without the re-uisite licenses. "e#$ Section 8 of 1epublic Act ;9!) approved on )0 March !"@; empowers the *isheries Commissioner to carry out the provisions of the *isheries Act$ as amended$ and all rules and regulations promulgated thereunder$ to ma(e searches and sei&ures personally or through his duly authori&ed representatives in accordance with the 1ules of Court$ of =e.plosives such as dynamites and the li(eF including fishery products$ fishing e-uipment$ tac(le and other things that are sub7ect to sei&ure under e.isting fishery laws>F and =to effectively implement the enforcement of e.isting fishery laws on illegal fishing.> 2aragraph 9 of Section 8 of the same 1epublic Act ;9!) li(ewise transferred to and vested in the 2hilippine *isheries Commission =all the powers$ functions and duties heretofore e.ercised by the ,ureau of Customs$ 2hilippine 5avy and 2hilippine Constabulary over fishing vessels and fishery matters.> Section !) of the *isheries Act$ otherwise (nown as 1epublic Act 800;$ as amended$ prohibits fishing with dynamites or other e.plosives which is penali&ed by Section :@ thereof =by a fine of not less than 2!$900.00 nor more than 29$000.00$ and by imprisonment for not less than one ?!A year and si. ?@A months nor more than five ?9A years$ aside from the confiscation and forfeiture of all e.plosives$ boats$ tac(les$ apparel$ furniture$ and other apparatus used in fishing in violation of said Section !) of this Act.> Section :# of the same *isheries Law provides that =in case of a second offense$ the vessel$ together with its tac(le$ apparel$ furniture and stores shall be forfeited to the Covernment.> 'he second paragraph of Section !) also provides that =the possession and3or finding$ of dynamite$ blasting caps and other e.plosives in any fishing boat shall constitute a presumption that the said dynamite and3or blasting caps and e.plosives are being used for fishing purposes in violation of this Section$ and that the possession or discover in any fishing boat or fish caught or (illed by the use of dynamite or other e.plosives$ under e.pert testimony$ shall constitute a presumption that the owner$ if present in the fishing boat$ or the fishing crew have been fishing with dynamite or other e.plosives.> Dnder Section :# of the *isheries Act$ as amended$ any person$ association or corporation fishing in deep sea fishery without the corresponding license prescribed in Sections !: to )) Article V of the *isheries Act or any other order or regulation deriving force from its provisions$ =shall be punished for each offense by a fine of not more than 29$000.00$ or imprisonment$ for not more than one year$ or both$ in the discretion of the CourtF 2rovided$ 'hat in case of an association or corporation$ the 2resident or manager shall be directly responsible for the acts of his employees or laborers if it is proven that the latter acted with his (nowledgeF otherwise the responsibility shall e.tend only as far as fine is concernedE 2rovided$ further$ 'hat in the absence of a (nown owner of the vessel$ the master$ patron or person in charge of such vessel shall be responsible for any violation of this ActE and 2rovided$ further$ 'hat in case of a second offense$ the vessel together with its tac(le$ apparel$ furniture and stores shall be forfeited to the Covernment.> Dnder Section !; of +.ecutive /rder ;#" of ); December !"90$ reorgani&ing the Armed *orces of the 2hilippines$ the 2hilippine 5avy has the function$ among others$ =to assist the proper governmental agencies in the enforcement of laws and regulations pertaining to *ishing. Section ))!0 of the 'ariff and Customs Code$ as amended by 2D ;8 of ): /ctober !":)$ authori&ed any official or person

e.ercising police authority under the provisions of the Code$ to search and sei&e any vessel or air craft as well as any trun($ pac(age$ bag or envelope on board and to search any person on board for any breach or violation of the customs and tariff laws. Berein$ when the 2hilippine 5avy$ upon re-uest of the *isheries Commissioner$ apprehended on August 9 or @$ !"@9 the fishing boats 'ony Le. 444 and 'ony Le. V4$ otherwise (nown respectively as Srta. Agnes and Srta. Winnie$ these vessels were found to be without the necessary license in violation of Section "0; of the 'ariff and Customs Code and therefore sub7ect to sei&ure under Section ))!0 of the same Code$ and illegally fishing with e.plosives and without fishing license re-uired by Sections !: and !# of the *isheries Law. Search and sei&ure without search warrant of vessels and air crafts for violations of the customs laws have been the traditional e.ception to the constitutional re-uirement of a search warrant$ because the vessel can be -uic(ly moved out of the locality or 7urisdiction in which the search warrant must be sought before such warrant could be securedF hence it is not practicable to re-uire a search warrant before such search or sei&ure can be constitutionally effected. 'he same e.ception should apply to sei&ures of fishing vessels breaching our fishery lawsE 'hey are usually e-uipped with powerful motors that enable them to elude pursuing ships of the 2hilippine 5avy or Coast Cuard. %eo&#e vs. -o(&ac.on [GR 125552, 20 Ju#y 2001] First Division, /a!unan (J): 4 concur Facts Acting on a confidential tip supplied by a police informant that Armando Compacio y Surposa was growing and cultivating mari7uana plants$ S2/! Cilbert L. Linda and S2/) ,asilio Sarong of the @th 5arcotic 1egional *ield Dnit of the 5arcotics Command ?5A1C/MA of the ,acolod City Detachment conducted a surveillance of the residence of Compacion who was then the barangay captain of barangay ,agonbon$ San Carlos City$ 5egros /ccidental on " uly !""9. During the said surveillance$ they saw ) tall plants in the bac(yard of Compacion which they suspected to be mari7uana plants. S2/! Linda and S2/) Sarong reported the result of their surveillance to S2/8 1anulfo '. Villamor$ r.$ Chief of 5A1C/M$ ,acolod City$ who immediately formed a team composed of the members of the 4ntelligence Division 2rovincial Command$ the Criminal 4nvestigation Command and the Special Action *orce. 'wo members of the media$ one from DJW* 1adio and another from DJ1L 1adio$ were also included in the composite team. /n !) uly !""9$ the team applied for a search warrant with the office of +.ecutive udge ,ernardo 2onferrada in ,acolod City. Bowever$ udge 2onferrada informed them that he did not have territorial 7urisdiction over the matter. 'he team then left ,acolod City for San Carlos City. 'hey arrived there around @E;0 p.m.$ then went to the house of +.ecutive udge 1oberto S. avellana to secure a search warrant. 'hey were not able to do so because it was nighttime and office hours were obviously over. 'hey were told by the 7udge to go bac( in the morning. 5onetheless$ the team proceeded to barangay ,agonbon and arrived at the residence of Compacion in the early morning of !; uly !""9. S2/8 Villamor (noc(ed at the gate and called out for Compacion. What happened thereafter is sub7ect to conflicting accounts. 'he prosecution contends that Compacion opened the gate and permitted them to come in. Be was immediately as(ed by S2/8 Villamor about the suspected mari7uana plants and he admitted that he planted and cultivated the same for the use of his wife who was suffering from migraine. S2/8 Villamor then told him that he would be charged for violation of Section " of 1A @8)9 and informed him of his constitutional rights. 'he operatives then uprooted the suspected mari7uana plants. S2/! Linda conducted an initial field test of the plants by using the 5arcotics

Drug 4dentification Lit. 'he test yielded a positive result. /n !9 uly !""9$ the plants were turned over to the 2hilippine 5ational 2olice ?252A Crime Laboratory$ ,acolod City 2olice Command$ particularly to Senior 4nspector 1eah Abastillas Villavicencio. Senior 4nspector Villavicencio weighed and measured the plants$ one was !)9 inches and weighed :00 grams while the other was !;0 inches and weighed "00 grams. 'hree ?;A -ualitative e.aminations were conducted$ namelyE the microscopic test$ the chemical test$ and the thin layer chromatographic test. All yielded positive results. /n his part$ Compacion maintains that around !E;0 a.m. on !; uly !""9 while he and his family were sleeping$ he heard somebody (noc(ing outside his house. Be went down bringing with him a flashlight. After he opened the gate$ 8 persons who he thought were members of the military$ entered the premises then went inside the house. 4t was dar( so he could not count the others who entered the house as the same was lit only by a (erosene lamp. /ne of the four men told him to sit in the living room. Some of the men went upstairs while the others went around the house. 5one of them as(ed for his permission to search his house and the premises. After about )0 minutes of searching$ the men called him outside and brought him to the bac(yard. /ne of the military men saidE =Captain$ you have a ?sicA mari7uana here at your bac(yard> to which Compacion repliedE =4 do not (now that they were ?sicA mari7uana plants but what 4 (now is that they are medicinal plants for my wife> who was suffering from migraine. After he was informed that the plants in his bac(yard were mari7uana$ the men too( pictures of him and themselves. 'hereafter$ he was brought inside the house where he and the military men spent the night. At around !0E00 a.m.$ they brought him with them to the city hall. Compacion saw that one of the ) service vehicles they brought was fully loaded with plants. Be was later told by the military men that said plants were mari7uana. Dpon arrival at the city hall$ the men met with the mayor and then unloaded the alleged mari7uana plants. A picture of him together with the arresting team was ta(en with the alleged mari7uana as bac( drop. Soon thereafter$ he was ta(en to Bda. Socorro at the SA* Bead-uarters. A criminal complaint for violation of Section " of 1A @8)9$ as amended by 1A :@9" was filed against Compacion. /n ) anuary !""@$ the trial court convicted Compacion of the crime charged$ and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of 2900$000.00. !ssue Whether Compacion6s right against unreasonable search and sei&ure was violated. "e#$ Sections ) and ; G)H$ Article 444 of the !"#: Constitution are safeguards against rec(less$ malicious and unreasonable invasion of privacy and liberty. A search and sei&ure$ therefore$ must be carried out through or with a 7udicial warrantF otherwise$ such search and sei&ure becomes =unreasonable> within the meaning of the constitutional provision. +vidence secured thereby$ i.e.$ the =fruits> of the search and sei&ure$ will be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding.> 'he re-uirement that a warrant must be obtained from the proper 7udicial authority prior to the conduct of a search and sei&ure is$ however$ not absolute. 'here are several instances when the law recogni&es e.ceptions$ such as when the owner of the premises consents or voluntarily submits to a searchF when the owner of the premises waives his right against such incursionF when the search is incidental to a lawful arrestF when it is made on vessels and aircraft for violation of customs lawsF when it is made on automobiles for the purpose of preventing violations of smuggling or immigration lawsF when it involves prohibited articles in plain viewF when it involves a =stop and fris(> situationF when the search is under e.igent and emergency circumstancesF or in cases of inspection of buildings and other premises for the enforcement of fire$ sanitary and building regulations. 4n these instances$ a search may be validly made even

without a warrant. Berein$ the search and sei&ure conducted by the composite team in the house of accused<appellant was not authori&ed by a search warrant$ 4t does not appear either that the situation falls under any of the above mentioned cases. Conse-uently$ Compacion6s right against unreasonable search and sei&ure was clearly violated. As a general rule$ ob7ects in the =plain view> of an officer who has the right to be in the position to have that view are sub7ect to sei&ure without a warrant. 4t is usually applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused$ but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating ob7ect. 'hus$ the following elements must be present before the doctrine may be appliedE ?aA a prior valid intention based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official dutiesF ?bA the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have the right to be where they areF ?cA the evidence must be immediately apparentF and ?dA =plain view> 7ustified were sei&ure of evidence without further search. Bere$ there was no valid warrantless arrest. 'hey forced their way into Compacion6s premises without the latter6s consent. 4t is undisputed that the 5A1C/M agents conducted a surveillance of the residence of Compacion on " uly !""9 on the suspicion that he was growing and cultivating mari7uana when they allegedly came in =plain view> of the mari7uana plants. When the agents entered his premises on !; uly !""9$ their intention was to sei&e the evidence against him. 4n fact$ they initially wanted to secure a search warrant but could not simply wait for one to be issued. 'he 5A1C/M agents$ therefore$ did not come across the mari7uana plants inadvertently when they conducted a surveillance and barged into Compacion6s residence. As held in 2eople v. Musa$ the =plain view> doctrine may not be used to launch unbridled searches and indiscriminate sei&ures nor to e.tend a general e.ploratory search made solely to find evidence of defendant6s guilt. 'he =plain view> doctrine is usually applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused$ but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating ob7ect. Bence$ Compacion is ac-uitted of the crime to which he was charged. %eo&#e vs. Va#$e, [GR 129296, 25 *e&te(+er 2000] En Banc, 0uisu',in* (J): 13 concur, 1 on leave Facts At around !0E!9 a.m. of )8 September !""@$ S2/; Marcelo 'ipay$ a member of the police force of Villaverde$ 5ueva Vi&caya$ received a tip from an unnamed informer about the presence of a mari7uana plantation$ allegedly owned by Abe Valde& y Dela Cru& at Sitio ,ulan$ 4bung$ Villaverde$ 5ueva Vi&caya. 'he prohibited plants were allegedly planted close to Valde&6s hut. 2olice 4nspector Ale7andro 1. 2arungao$ Chief of 2olice of Villaverde$ 5ueva Vi&caya then formed a reaction team from his operatives to verify the report. 'he team was composed of S2/; Marcelo M. 'ipay$ S2/) 5oel V. Libunao$ S2/) 2edro S. Morales$ S2/! 1omulo C. 'obias and 2/) Alfelmer 4. ,alut. 4nspector 2arungao gave them specific instructions to =uproot said mari7uana plants and arrest the cultivator of same.> At appro.imately 9E00 a.m. the following day$ said police team$ accompanied by their informer$ left for the site where the mari7uana plants were allegedly being grown. After a three<hour$ uphill tre( from the nearest barangay road$ the police operatives arrived at the place pinpointed by their informant. 'he police found Valde& alone in his nipa hut. 'hey$ then$ proceeded to loo( around the area where Valde& had his (aingin and saw : five<foot high$ flowering mari7uana plants in two rows$ appro.imately )9 meters from Valde&6s hut. 2/) ,alut as(ed Valde& who owned the prohibited plants and$ according to ,alut$ the latter admitted that they were his. 'he police uprooted the : mari7uana plants$ which weighed ).!"8 (ilograms. 'he police too( photos of Valde& standing

beside the cannabis plants. Valde& was then arrested. /ne of the plants$ weighing !.0"0 (ilograms$ was sent to the 2hilippine 5ational 2olice Crime Laboratory in ,ayombong$ 5ueva Vi&caya for analysis. 4nspector 2revy *abros Luwis$ the Crime Laboratory forensic analyst$ testified that upon microscopic e.amination of said plant$ she found cystolitic hairs containing calcium carbonate$ a positive indication for mari7uana. She ne.t conducted a chemical e.amination$ the results of which confirmed her initial impressions. Valde& alleged otherwise. Be claims that at around !0E00 a.m.$ )9 September !""@$ he was weeding his vegetable farm in Sitio ,ulan when he was called by a person whose identity he does not (now. Be was as(ed to go with the latter to =see something.> 'his un(nown person then brought Valde& to the place where the mari7uana plants were found$ appro.imately !00 meters away from his nipa hut. 9 armed policemen were present and they made him stand in front of the hemp plants. Be was then as(ed if he (new anything about the mari7uana growing there. When he denied any (nowledge thereof$ S2/) Libunao po(ed a fist at him and told him to admit ownership of the plants. Valde& was so nervous and afraid that he admitted owning the mari7uana. 'he police then too( a photo of him standing in front of one of the mari7uana plants. Be was then made to uproot 9 of the cannabis plants$ and bring them to his hut$ where another photo was ta(en of him standing ne.t to a bundle of uprooted mari7uana plants. 'he police team then brought him to the police station at Villaverde. /n the way$ a certain Li(o 2ascua$ a barangay peace officer of ,arangay Sawmill$ accompanied the police officers. 2ascua$ who bore a grudge against him$ because of his refusal to participate in the former6s illegal logging activities$ threatened him to admit owning the mari7uana$ otherwise be would =be put in a bad situation.> At the police head-uarters$ Valde& reiterated that he (new nothing about the mari7uana plants sei&ed by the police. Still$ on )@ September !""@$ Valde& was charged for the cultivation and culture of the : fully grown mari7uana plants. /n !9 5ovember !""@$ Valde& was arraigned and$ with assistance of counsel$ pleaded not guilty to the charge. 'rial on the merits then ensued. /n !# *ebruary !"":$ the 1egional 'rial Court of ,ayombong$ 5ueva Vi&caya$ ,ranch ):$ in Criminal Case ;!09$ found Valde& guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating Section " of the Dangerous Drugs Act of !":) ?1A @8)9$ as amended by 1A :@9"A$ and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death by lethal in7ection. Bence$ the automatic review by the Supreme Court. !ssue Whether the sei&ure of the mari7uana plants was made pursuant to warrantless search and sei&ure$ based on the =plain view> doctrine. "e#$ 'he Constitution lays down the general rule that a search and sei&ure must be carried on the strength of a 7udicial warrant. /therwise$ the search and sei&ure is deemed =unreasonable.> +vidence procured on the occasion of an unreasonable search and sei&ure is deemed tainted for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree and should be e.cluded. Such evidence shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding. Berein$ there was no search warrant issued by a 7udge after personal determination of the e.istence of probable cause. *rom the declarations of the police officers themselves$ it is clear that they had at least ! day to obtain a warrant to search Valde&6s farm. 'heir informant had revealed his name to them. 'he place where the cannabis plants were planted was pinpointed. *rom the information in their possession$ they could have convinced a 7udge that there was probable cause to 7ustify the issuance of a warrant. ,ut they did not. 4nstead$ they uprooted the plants and apprehended the accused on the e.cuse that the trip was a good si. hours and inconvenient to them. We need not underscore that the protection against illegal search and sei&ure is constitutionally mandated and

only under specific instances are searches allowed without warrants. 'he mantle of protection e.tended by the ,ill of 1ights covers both innocent and guilty ali(e against any form of high< handedness of law enforcers$ regardless of the praiseworthiness of their intentions. 'he Court finds no reason to subscribe to Solicitor Ceneral6s contention that it should apply the =plain view> doctrine. *or the doctrine to apply$ the following elements must be presentE ?aA a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official dutiesF ?bA the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have the right to be where they areF and ?cA the evidence must be immediately apparentF and ?dA plain view 7ustified mere sei&ure of evidence without further search. Berein$ the police officers first located the mari7uana plants before Valde& was arrested without a warrant. Bence$ there was no valid warrantless arrest which preceded the search of Valde&6s premises. 'he police team was dispatched to Valde&6s (aingin precisely to search for and uproot the prohibited flora. 'he sei&ure of evidence in =plain view> applies only where the police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused$ but inadvertently comes across an incriminating ob7ect. Clearly$ their discovery of the cannabis plants was not inadvertent. Also$ upon arriving at the area$ they first had to =loo( around the area> before they could spot the illegal plants. 2atently$ the sei&ed mari7uana plants were not =immediately apparent> and a =further search> was needed. 4n sum$ the mari7uana plants in -uestion were not in =plain view> or =open to eye and hand.> 'he =plain view> doctrine$ thus$ cannot be made to apply. %a$.##a vs. -ourt o/ 3&&ea#s [GR 121911, 12 6arc7 1991] Third Division, Francisco (J): 4 concur Facts At about #E00 p.m. of )@ /ctober !"")$ +nri-ue Manarang and his compadre Danny 2ere& were inside the Manu(an sa Bighway 1estaurant in Sto. Lristo$ Angeles City where they too( shelter from the heavy downpour that had interrupted their ride on motorcycles along Mac Arthur Bighway. While inside the restaurant$ Manarang noticed a vehicle$ a Mitsubishi 2a7ero$ running fast down the highway prompting him to remar( that the vehicle might get into an accident considering the inclement weather. 4mmediately after the vehicle had passed the restaurant$ Manarang and 2ere& heard a screeching sound produced by the sudden and hard bra(ing of a vehicle running very fast$ followed by a sic(ening sound of the vehicle hitting something. Manarang and Cru& 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$ being a member of both the Spectrum$ a civic group and the ,arangay Disaster Coordinating Council$ decided to report the incident to the 2hilippine 5ational 2olice ?252A of Angeles City. Be too( out his radio and called the Viper$ the radio controller of the 252 of Angeles City. ,y the time Manarang completed the call$ the vehicle had started to leave the place of the accident ta(ing the general direction to the north. Manarang went to the location of the accident and found out that the vehicle had hit somebody. Manarang as(ed Cru& to loo( after the victim while he went bac( to the restaurant$ rode on his motorcycle and chased the vehicle. During the chase he was able to ma(e out the plate number of the vehicle as 2MA :::. Be called the Viper through the radio once again reporting that a vehicle heading north with plate number 2MA ::: was involved in a hit and run accident. S2/) ,or7a and S2/) Miranda of Mobile ; were able to intercept the vehicle by cutting into the latter6s path forcing it to stop. S2/) Miranda went to the vehicle with plate number 2MA ::: and instructed its driver to alight. 'he driver rolled down the window and put his head out while raising both his hands. 'hey recogni&ed the driver as 1obin C.

2adilla. S2/) Miranda told 2adilla to alight to which 2adilla complied. 2adilla was wearing a short leather 7ac(et such that when he alighted with both his hands raised$ a gun tuc(ed on the left side of his waist was revealed$ its butt protruding. S2/) ,or7a made the move to confiscate the gun but 2adilla held the former6s hand alleging that the gun was covered by legal papers. S2/) ,or7a disarmed 2adilla and told the latter about the hit and run incident. 2adilla$ however$ arrogantly denied his misdeed and$ instead$ played with the crowd by holding their hands with one hand and pointing to S2/) ,or7a with his right hand saying =iyan$ (inuha ang baril (o.> ,ecause 2adilla6s 7ac(et was short$ his gesture e.posed a long maga&ine of an armalite rifle tuc(ed in his bac( right poc(et. S2/ Mercado saw this and so when 2adilla turned around as he was tal(ing and proceeding to his vehicle$ Mercado confiscated the maga&ine from 2adilla. Suspecting that 2adilla could also be carrying a rifle inside the vehicle since he had a maga&ine$ S2/) Mercado prevented 2adilla from going bac( to his vehicle by opening himself the door of 2adilla6s vehicle. Be saw a baby armalite rifle lying hori&ontally at the front by the driver6s seat. 4t had a long maga&ine filled with live bullets in a semi<automatic mode. Be as(ed 2adilla for the papers covering the rifle and 2adilla answered angrily that they were at his home. S2/ Mercado modified the arrest of 2adilla by including as its ground illegal possession of firearms. S2/ Mercado then read to appellant his constitutional rights. 'he police officers brought 2adilla to the 'raffic Division at a(e Con&ales ,oulevard where 2adilla voluntarily surrendered a third firearm$ a pietro berreta pistol with a single round in its chamber and a maga&ine loaded with : other live bullets. 2adilla also voluntarily surrendered a blac( bag containing two additional long maga&ines and one short maga&ine. 2adilla was correspondingly charged on ; December !"")$ before the 1egional 'rial Court ?1'CA of Angeles City with illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions ?G!H /ne .;9: Caliber revolver$ Smith and Wesson$ S5<;)"!" with @ live ammunitionsF G)H one M<!@ ,aby Armalite rifle$ S5<12 !;!!)0 with 8 long and ! short maga&ine with ammunitionsF G;H one .;#0 2ietro ,eretta$ S5<A ;9:); J with clip and # ammunitionsF and G8H Si. additional live double action ammunitions of .;# caliber revolver.> A under 2D !#@@. 'he lower court then ordered the arrest of 2adilla$ but granted his application for bail. During the arraignment on )0 anuary !"";$ a plea of not guilty was entered for 2adilla after he refused$ upon advice of counsel$ to ma(e any plea. 2adilla waived in writing his right to be present in any and all stages of the case. After trial$ Angeles City 1'C udge David 1osete rendered 7udgment dated )9 April !""8 convicting 2adilla of the crime charged and sentenced him to an =indeterminate penalty from !: years$ 8 months and ! day of reclusion temporal as minimum$ to )! years of reclusion perpetua$ as ma.imum>. 2adilla filed his notice of appeal on )# April !""8. 2ending the appeal in the Court of Appeals$ the Solicitor<Ceneral$ convinced that the conviction shows strong evidence of guilt$ filed on ) December !""8 a motion to cancel 2adilla6s bail bond. 'he resolution of this motion was incorporated in the appellate court6s decision sustaining 2adilla6s conviction. 2adilla received a copy of this decision on )@ uly !""9. /n " August !""9 he filed a =motion for reconsideration ?and to recall the warrant of arrestA> but the same was denied by the appellate court in its )0 September !""9 1esolution. /n )# September !""9$ 2adilla filed the petition for review on certiorari with application for bail followed by two =supplemental petitions> filed by different counsels$ a =second supplemental petition> and an urgent motion for the separate resolution of his application for bail. !ssue Whether the firearms and ammunition confiscated during a warrantless search and sei&ure$ especially the baby armalite$ are admissible as evidence against 1obin 2adilla.

"e#$ 'he 9 well<settled instances when a warrantless search and sei&ure of property is valid$ are as followsE ?!A warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recogni&ed under Section !)$ 1ule !)@ of the 1ules of Court and by prevailing 7urisprudenceF ?)A Sei&ure of evidence in =plain view>$ the elements of which areE ?aA a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official dutiesF ?bA the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they areF ?cA the evidence must be immediately apparent$ and ?dA =plain view> 7ustified mere sei&ure of evidence without further searchF ?;A Search of a moving vehicle. 8" Bighly regulated by the government$ the vehicle6s inherent mobility reduces e.pectation of privacy especially when its transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause that the occupant committed a criminal activityF ?8A consented warrantless searchF and ?9A customs search. 4n conformity with the trial court6s observation$ it indeed appears that the authorities stumbled upon 2adilla6s firearms and ammunitions without even underta(ing any active search which$ as it is commonly understood$ is a prying into hidden places for that which is concealed. 'he sei&ure of the Smith O Wesson revolver and an M<!@ rifle maga&ine was 7ustified for they came within =plain view> of the policemen who inadvertently discovered the revolver and maga&ine tuc(ed in 2adilla6s waist and bac( poc(et respectively$ when he raised his hands after alighting from his 2a7ero. 'he same 7ustification applies to the confiscation of the M<!@ armalite rifle which was immediately apparent to the policemen as they too( a casual glance at the 2a7ero and saw said rifle lying hori&ontally near the driver6s seat. 'hus it has been held that =When in pursuing an illegal action or in the commission of a criminal offense$ the police officers should happen to discover a criminal offense being committed by any person$ they are not precluded from performing their duties as police officers for the apprehension of the guilty person and the ta(ing of the corpus delicti. /b7ects whose possession are prohibited by law inadvertently found in plain view are sub7ect to sei&ure even without a warrant.> With respect to the ,erreta pistol and a blac( bag containing assorted maga&ines$ 2adilla voluntarily surrendered them to the police. 'his latter gesture of 2adilla indicated a waiver of his right against the alleged search and sei&ure$ and that his failure to -uash the information estopped him from assailing any purported defect. +ven assuming that the firearms and ammunitions were products of an active search done by the authorities on the person and vehicle of 2adilla$ their sei&ure without a search warrant nonetheless can still be 7ustified under a search incidental to a lawful arrest ?first instanceA. /nce the lawful arrest was effected$ the police may underta(e a protective search of the passenger compartment and containers in the vehicle which are within 2adilla6s grabbing distance regardless of the nature of the offense. 'his satisfied the two<tiered test of an incidental searchE ?iA the item to be searched ?vehicleA was within the arrestee6s custody or area of immediate control and ?iiA the search was contemporaneous with the arrest. 'he products of that search are admissible evidence not e.cluded by the e.clusionary rule. Another 7ustification is a search of a moving vehicle ?third instanceA. 4n connection therewith$ a warrantless search is constitutionally permissible when$ as in this case$ the officers conducting the search have reasonable or probable cause to believe$ before the search$ that either the motorist is a law<offender ?li(e 2adilla with respect to the hit and runA or the contents or cargo of the vehicle are or have been instruments or the sub7ect matter or the proceeds of some criminal offense. %eo&#e v. 6usa [GR 96111, 21 January 1993] Third Division, &o'ero (J): 4 concur

Facts /n !; December !"#"$ the 5arcotics Command ?5A1C/MA in Mamboanga City conducted surveillance and test buy on a certain Mari Musa of Suterville$ Mamboanga City. 4nformation received from civilian informer was that this Mari Musa was engaged in selling mari7uana in said place. 'he 5arcom agent ?Sgt. AniA was able to buy one newspaper<wrapped dried mari7uana for 2!0.00$ which was turned over to the 5arcom office. 'he ne.t day$ a buy< bust was planned with Sgt. Ani being the poseur<buyer. 5A1C/M teams proceeded to the target site in ) civilian vehicles. Ani gave Musa the 2)0.00 mar(ed money. Musa returned to his house and gave Ani ) newspaper wrappers containing dried mari7uana. 'he signal to apprehend Musa was given. 'he 5A1C/M team rushed to the location of Ani$ and a 5A1C/M officer ?Sgt. ,elargaA fris(ed Musa but did not find the mar(ed money. 'he money was given to Musa6s wife who was able to slip away. Later$ ,elarga found a plastic bag containing dried mari7uana inside it somewhere in the (itchen. Musa was placed under arrest and was brought to the 5A1C/M office. /ne newspaper<wrapper mari7uana and the plastic bag containing more mari7uana was sent to the 2C Crime Laboratory$ the test of which gave positive results for the presence of mari7uana. /n the other hand$ Mari Musa alleged that the 5A1C/M agents$ dressed in civilian clothes$ got inside his house without any search warrant$ neither his permission to enter the house. 'he 5A1C/M agents searched the house and allegedly found a red plastic bag whose contents$ Mari Musa said$ he did not (now. Be also did not (now if the plastic bag belonged to his brother$ *aisal$ who was living with him$ or his father$ who was living in another house about ten arms<length away. Mari Musa was handcuffed and was ta(en to the 5A1C/M office where he was 7oined by his wife. Musa claimed that he was sub7ected to torture when he refused to sign the document containing details of the investigation. 'he ne.t day$ he was ta(en to the fiscalPs office to which he was allegedly made to answer to a single -uestionE that if he owned the mari7uana. Be allegedly was not able to tell the fiscal that he had been maltreated by the 5A1C/M agents because he was afraid he might be maltreated in the fiscal6s office. Mari Musa was brought to the City ail. Still$ an information against Musa was filed on !9 December !"#". Dpon his arraignment on !! anuary !""0$ Musa pleaded not guilty. After trial and on ;! August !""0$ the 1'C Mamboanga City ?,ranch Q44A found him guilty of selling mari7uana in violation of Article 44$ Section 8 of 1A @8)9. Musa appealed to the Supreme Court. !ssue Whether the contents of the red plastic bag found in the (itchen may be admitted as evidence as evidence ac-uired incidental to a lawful arrest. "e#$ Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest authori&es the arresting officer to ma(e a search upon the person of the person arrested. An officer ma(ing an arrest may ta(e from the person arrested and money or property found upon his person which was used in the commission of the crime or was the fruit of the crime or which might furnish the prisoner with the means of committing violence or of escaping$ or which may be used as evidence in the trial of the cause. Bence$ in a buy<bust operation conducted to entrap a drug<pusher$ the law enforcement agents may sei&e the mar(ed money found on the person of the pusher immediately after the arrest even without arrest and search warrants. 'he warrantless search and sei&ure$ as an incident to a suspect6s lawful arrest$ may e.tend beyond the person of the one arrested to include the premises or surroundings under his immediate control. /b7ects in the =plain view> of an officer who has the right to be in the position to have that view are sub7ect to sei&ure and may be presented as evidence. When the discovery of the evidence did not constitute a search$ but where the officer merely saw what was placed before him in full view$ the warrantless sei&ure of the ob7ect was

legal on the basis of the =plain view> doctrine and upheld the admissibility of said evidence. 'he =plain view> doctrine$ however$ may not be used to launch unbridled searches and indiscriminate sei&ures nor to e.tend a general e.ploratory search made solely to find evidence of defendant6s guilt. 'he =plain view> doctrine is usually applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused$ but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating ob7ect. What the Pplain view6 cases have in common is that the police officer in each of them had a prior 7ustification for an intrusion in the course of which he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. 'he doctrine serves to supplement the prior 7ustification N whether it be a warrant for another ob7ect$ hot pursuit$ search incident to lawful arrest$ or some other legitimate reason for being present unconnected with a search directed against the accused N and permits the warrantless sei&ure. /f course$ the e.tension of the original 7ustification is legitimate only where it is immediately apparent to the police that they have evidence before themF the Pplain view6 doctrine may not be used to e.tend a general e.ploratory search from one ob7ect to another until something incriminating at last emerges. 'he =plain view> doctrine neither 7ustify the sei&ure of the ob7ect where the incriminating nature of the ob7ect is not apparent from the =plain view> of the ob7ect. 'hus$ the e.clusion of the plastic bag containing mari7uana does not$ however$ diminish$ in any way$ the damaging effect of the other pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution to prove that the appellant sold mari7uana$ in violation of Article 44$ Section 8 of the Dangerous Drugs Act of !":). ,y virtue of the testimonies of Sgt. Ani and '3Sgt. ,elarga and the two wrappings of mari7uana sold by Musa to Sgt. Ani$ among other pieces of evidence$ the guilt of Musa of the crime charged has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. %eo&#e vs. L.+nao [GR 136860, 20 January 2003] Third Division, Puno (J): 4 concur Facts /n August !""@$ intelligence operatives of the 2hilippine 5ational 2olice ?252A stationed in 'arlac$ 'arlac began conducting surveillance operation on suspected drug dealers in the area. 'hey learned from their asset that a certain woman from 'a7iri$ 'arlac and a companion from ,aguio City were transporting illegal drugs once a month in big bul(s. /n !" /ctober !""@$ at about !0 p.m.$ Chief 4nspector ,en7amin Arceo$ 'arlac 2olice Chief$ held a briefing in connection with a tip which his office received that the two drug pushers$ riding in a tricycle$ would be ma(ing a delivery that night. An hour later$ the 2olice Alert 'eam installed a chec(point in ,arangay Salapungan to apprehend the suspects. Witness S2/! Marlon Camotea$ 2/; *lorante *errer and S2/; 1oberto A-uino were assigned to man the chec(point. At about !E00 a.m. of the following day$ S2/! Camotea and 2/; *errer flagged down a passing tricycle. 4t had two female passengers seated inside$ who were later identified as Agpanga Libnao and 1osita 5unga. 4n front of them was a blac( bag. Suspicious of the blac( bag and the two6s uneasy behavior when as(ed about its ownership and content$ the officers invited them to Labayan Center ) located at the same barangay. 'hey brought with them the blac( bag. Dpon reaching the center$ 2/; *errer fetched ,arangay Captain 1oy 2ascual to witness the opening of the blac( bag. 4n the meantime$ the two women and the bag were turned over to the investigator on duty$ S2/; Arthur Antonio. As soon as the barangay captain arrived$ the blac( bag was opened in the presence of Libnao$ 5unga$ and personnel of the center. *ound inside it were # bric(s of leaves sealed in plastic bags and covered with newspaper. 'he leaves were suspected to be mari7uana. 'o determine who owns the bag and its contents$ S2/; Antonio interrogated the

two. 5unga stated that it was owned by Libnao. 'he latter$ in turn$ disputed this allegation. 'hereafter$ they were made to sign a confiscation receipt without the assistance of any counsel$ as they were not informed of their right to have one. During the course of the investigation$ not even close relatives of theirs were present. 'he sei&ed articles were later brought to the 252 Crime Laboratory in San *ernando$ 2ampanga on ); /ctober !""@. *orensic Chemist Daisy 2. ,abu conducted a laboratory e.amination on them. She concluded that the articles were mari7uana leaves weighing eight (ilos. Libnao and 5unga were charged for violation of Section 8$ Article 44 of 1A @8)9$ otherwise (nown as the Dangerous Drugs Act of !":)$ as amended. /n !" 5ovember !""#$ the 1egional 'rial Court$ ,ranch @9$ 'arlac City$ found Libnao and 5unga guilty. *or their conviction$ each was sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of two million pesos. Libnao appealed. !ssue Whether the warrantless search and sei&ure made upon Libnao and 5unga was reasonable. "e#$ 'he constitutional guarantee ?in Article 444$ Section ) of the !"#: ConstitutionA is not a blan(et prohibition against all searches and sei&ures as it operates only against =unreasonable> searches and sei&ures. Searches and sei&ures are as a rule unreasonable unless authori&ed by a validly issued search warrant or warrant of arrest. 'hus$ the fundamental protection accorded by the search and sei&ure clause is that between persons and police must stand the protective authority of a magistrate clothed with power to issue or refuse to issue search warrants and warrants of arrest. ,e that as it may$ the re-uirement that a 7udicial warrant must be obtained prior to the carrying out of a search and sei&ure is not absolute. 'here are certain familiar e.ceptions to the rule$ one of which relates to search of moving vehicles. Warrantless search and sei&ure of moving vehicles are allowed in recognition of the impracticability of securing a warrant under said circumstances as the vehicle can be -uic(ly moved out of the locality or 7urisdiction in which the warrant may be sought. 2eace officers in such cases$ however$ are limited to routine chec(s where the e.amination of the vehicle is limited to visual inspection. When a vehicle is stopped and sub7ected to an e.tensive search$ such would be constitutionally permissible only if the officers made it upon probable cause$ i.e.$ upon a belief$ reasonably arising out of circumstances (nown to the sei&ing officer$ that an automobile or other vehicle contains as item$ article or ob7ect which by law is sub7ect to sei&ure and destruction. 'he warrantless search herein is not bereft of a probable cause. 'he 'arlac 2olice 4ntelligence Division had been conducting surveillance operation for three months in the area. 'he surveillance yielded the information that once a month$ Libnao and 5unga transport drugs in big bul(s. At !0E00 pm of !" /ctober !""@$ the police received a tip that the two will be transporting drugs that night riding a tricycle. Surely$ the two were intercepted three hours later$ riding a tricycle and carrying a suspicious<loo(ing blac( bag$ which possibly contained the drugs in bul(. When they were as(ed who owned it and what its content was$ both became uneasy. Dnder these circumstances$ the warrantless search and sei&ure of Libnao6s bag was not illegal. 4t is also clear that at the time she was apprehended$ she was committing a criminal offense. She was ma(ing a delivery or transporting prohibited drugs in violation of Article 44$ Section 8 of 1.A. 5o. @8)9. Dnder the 1ules of Court$ one of the instances a police officer is permitted to carry out a warrantless arrest is when the person to be arrested is caught committing a crime in flagrante delicto.

%eo&#e vs. 9stre##a [GR 138539050, 21 January 2003] Third Division, Pan*ani,an (J): 4 concur Facts 2rior to )0 5ovember !""@$ +.ecutive udge 1omulo +strada of the 1egional 'rial Court of Mambales issued a warrant for the conduct of a search and sei&ure in the residence of Antonio C. +stella at 2uro( Ja(al$ ,arangay ,aloganon$ Masinloc$ Mambales. 4n the morning of )0 5ovember !""@$ Senior 2olice /fficer ! ?S2/!A Antonio ,uloron$ then 4ntelligence and 4nvestigation /fficer$ together with S2/! ose Arca and several other members of the 2rovincial Special /peration Croup based in ,urgos$ San Marcelino$ Mambales proceeded to Masinloc. 'hey coordinated with the members of the 2hilippine 5ational 2olice ?252A in Masinloc and sought the assistance of ,arangay Captain 1ey ,arnachea of ,aloganon$ Masinloc for the enforcement of the search warrant. ,arangay Captain ,arnachea accompanied the police officers to 2uro( Ja(al$ ,arangay ,aloganon$ Masinloc$ the place mentioned in the search warrant. /n their way to 2uro( Ja(al$ S2/! ,uloron saw +strella sitting on a roc(ing chair located about ) meters away from a hut owned by 5arding +stella$ the latter6s brother$ and being rented by +strella6s live<in partner$ named +va. 'hey approached +strella and introduced themselves as police officers. 'hey showed +strella the search warrant and e.plained the contents to him. S2/! ,uloron as(ed +strella if indeed he had in his possession prohibited drug and if so$ to surrender the same so he would deserve a lesser penalty. While inside the hut$ +strella surrendered to the team ) cans containing dried mari7uana fruiting tops. /ne can contained )0 bric(s of fruiting tops. 'he team searched the hut in the presence of +strella and his live<in partner. 'hey found a plastic container under the (itchen table$ which contained 8 big bric(s of dried mari7uana leaves and a .;# caliber revolver with four live ammunitions. 'he team sei&ed the prohibited drug$ the revolver and ammunitions. 'he team sei&ed and signed a receipt for the sei&ed items. ,arangay Captain ,arnachea and S2/! +dgar ,ermude& of the Masinloc 2olice Station also signed the receipt as witnesses. S2/! ,uloron and his companions arrested +strella and brought him to San Marcelino$ Mambales. 'he defense$ however$ alleged otherwise and claimed that on )0 5ovember !""@ between !0E;0 and !!E00 a.m.$ while +strella was tal(ing with his friends 1ael 'apado and Victor de Leon at a vacant lot 7ust outside the house of Camillo 'orres and about :0 meters away from his house$ a group of men approached them. 'he group introduced themselves as policemen and told them that they were loo(ing for Antonio +stella because they have a search warrant issued against him. +strella identified himself to them. 'he policemen in-uired from +strella as to where his house is located and +strella told them that his house is located across the road. 'he police did not believe him and insisted that +strella6s house is that house located about 9R# meters away from them. +strella told the policemen to in-uire from the ,arangay Captain ,arnachea as to where his house is and heard the latter telling the policemen that his house is located near the Abo(abar 7un( shop. After about half an hour$ the policemen went inside the house nearby and when they came out$ they had with them a bul( of plastic and had it shown to +strella. 'hey photographed +strella and brought him to their office at San Marcelino$ Mambales. +stella was investigated at San Marcelino$ Mambales where he informed the police officers of the fact that the house they searched was occupied by Spouses Vicente and *ely ,a(dangan. Still$ +strella was charged for possession of prohibited drugs and unlicensed firearms. 'he 1egional 'rial Court ?1'CA of 4ba$ Mambales ?,ranch @"A$ in Criminal Case 1'C )!8;<4 and on )9 August !""#$ found +strella guilty of violating Section #$ Article 44 of 1A @8)9$ as amended by 1A :@9"$ and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. 'he #.;)0 (ilograms of dried mari7uana was ordered confiscated in favor of the government$ and the Sheriff

was directed to deliver the sub7ect mari7uana to the Dangerous Drugs ,oard for its proper disposition. /n the other hand$ +strella was ac-uitted from the charge of violation of 2D !#@@ 'he .;# caliber revolver without serial number and 8 live ammunitions$ sub7ect of the offense$ were however ordered delivered to any authori&ed representative of the 2hilippine 5ational 2olice$ *irearms and +.plosives Division$ Camp Crame$ %ue&on City. +strella appealed said decision. !ssue Whether the search underta(en inside the hut N during which the incriminating evidence was allegedly recovered N was legal. "e#$ 'here is no convincing proof that +strella indeed surrendered the prohibited drug$ whether voluntarily or otherwise. 4n fact$ the testimony of 2rosecution Witness ,arnachea clouds rather than clarifies the prosecution6s story. Civen this bac(drop$ the police authorities cannot claim that the search was incident to a lawful arrest. Such a search presupposes a lawful or valid arrest and can only be invo(ed through Section 9 ?Arrest without warrantF when lawfulA$ 1ule !!; of the 1evised 1ules on Criminal 2rocedure$ which provides that =A peace officer or a private person may$ without a warrant$ arrest a personE ?aA when$ in his presence$ the person to be arrested has committed$ is actually committing$ or is attempting to commit an offenseF ?bA When an offense has 7ust been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal (nowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed itF and ?cA When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final 7udgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending$ or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. 4n cases falling under paragraphs ?aA and ?bA above$ the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or 7ail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with Section : 1ule !!).> 5ever was it proven that +strella$ who was the person to be arrested$ was in possession of the sub7ect prohibited drug during the search. 4t follows$ therefore$ that there was no way of (nowing if he had committed or was actually committing an offense in the presence of the arresting officers. Without that (nowledge$ there could have been no search incident to a lawful arrest. Assuming arguendo that appellant was indeed committing an offense in the presence of the arresting officers$ and that the arrest without a warrant was lawful$ it still cannot be said that the search conducted was within the confines of the law. Searches and sei&ures incident to lawful arrests are governed by Section !) ?Search incident to lawful arrestA$ 1ule !)@ of the 1evised 1ules of Criminal 2rocedure$ which provides that =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.> Bowever$ the scope of the search should be limited to the area within which the person to be arrested can reach for a weapon or for evidence that he or she can destroy. 'he prevailing rule is that the arresting officer may ta(e from the arrested individual any money or property found upon the latter6s person N that which was used in the commission of the crime or was the fruit of the crime$ or which may provide the prisoner with the means of committing violence or escaping$ or which may be used in evidence in the trial of the case. 'he purpose of the e.ception in Chimel v. California is to protect the arresting officer from being harmed by the person being arrested$ who might be armed with a concealed weapon$ and to prevent the latter from destroying evidence within reach. 'he e.ception$ therefore$ should not be strained beyond what is needed to serve its purpose. Berein$ searched was the entire hut$ which cannot be said to have been within +strela6s

immediate control. 'hus$ the search e.ceeded the bounds of that which may be considered to be incident to a lawful arrest. 6a#acat vs. -ourt o/ 3&&ea#s [GR 123595, 12 2ece(+er 1991] En Banc, Davide Jr% (J): 11 concur Facts /n ): August !""0$ at about @E;0 p.m.$ allegedly in response to bomb threats reported seven days earlier$ 1odolfo Ju of the Western 2olice District$ Metropolitan 2olice *orce of the 4ntegrated 5ational 2olice$ 2olice Station 5o. ;$ %uiapo$ Manila$ was on foot patrol with three other police officers ?all of them in uniformA along %ue&on ,oulevard$ %uiapo$ Manila$ near the Mercury Drug store at 2la&a Miranda. 'hey chanced upon two groups of Muslim<loo(ing men$ with each group$ comprised of three to four men$ posted at opposite sides of the corner of %ue&on ,oulevard near the Mercury Drug Store. 'hese men were acting suspiciously with =their eyes moving very fast.> Ju and his companions positioned themselves at strategic points and observed both groups for about ;0 minutes. 'he police officers then approached one group of men$ who then fled in different directions. As the policemen gave chase$ Ju caught up with and apprehended Sammy Malacat y Mandar ?who Ju recogni&ed$ inasmuch as allegedly the previous Saturday$ )9 August !""0$ li(ewise at 2la&a Miranda$ Ju saw Malacat and ) others attempt to detonate a grenadeA. Dpon searching Malacat$ Ju found a fragmentation grenade tuc(ed inside the latter6s =front waist line.> Ju6s companion$ police officer 1ogelio Malibiran$ apprehended Abdul Casan from whom a .;# caliber revolver was recovered. Malacat and Casan were then brought to 2olice Station ; where Ju placed an =Q> mar( at the bottom of the grenade and thereafter gave it to his commander. Ju did not issue any receipt for the grenade he allegedly recovered from Malacat. /n ;0 August !""0$ Malacat was charged with violating Section ; of 2residential Decree !#@@. At arraignment on " /ctober !""0$ petitioner$ assisted by counsel de officio$ entered a plea of not guilty. Malacat denied the charges and e.plained that he only recently arrived in Manila. Bowever$ several other police officers mauled him$ hitting him with benches and guns. 2etitioner was once again searched$ but nothing was found on him. Be saw the grenade only in court when it was presented. 4n its decision dated !0 *ebruary !""8 but promulgated on !9 *ebruary !""8$ the trial court ruled that the warrantless search and sei&ure of Malacat was a(in to a =stop and fris($> where a =warrant and sei&ure can be effected without necessarily being preceded by an arrest> and =whose ob7ect is either to maintain the status -uo momentarily while the police officer see(s to obtain more information>F and that the sei&ure of the grenade from Malacat was incidental to a lawful arrest. 'he trial court thus found Malacat guilty of the crime of illegal possession of e.plosives under Section ; of 2D !#@@$ and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of not less than !: years$ 8 months and ! day of 1eclusion 'emporal$ as minimum$ and not more than ;0 years of 1eclusion 2erpetua$ as ma.imum. /n !# *ebruary !""8$ Malacat filed a notice of appeal indicating that he was appealing to the Supreme Court. Bowever$ the record of the case was forwarded to the Court of Appeals ?CA<C1 C1 !9"##A. 4n its decision of )8 anuary !""@$ the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. Manalili filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court. !ssue Whether the search made on Malacat is valid$ pursuant to the e.ception of =stop and fris(.>

"e#$ 'he general rule as regards arrests$ searches and sei&ures is that a warrant is needed in order to validly effect the same. 'he Constitutional prohibition against unreasonable arrests$ searches and sei&ures refers to those effected without a validly issued warrant$ sub7ect to certain e.ceptions. As regards valid warrantless arrests$ these are found in Section 9$ 1ule !!; of the 1ules of Court. A warrantless arrest under the circumstances contemplated under Section 9?aA has been denominated as one =in flagrante delicto$> while that under Section 9?bA has been described as a =hot pursuit> arrest. 'urning to valid warrantless searches$ they are limited to the followingE ?!A customs searchesF ?)A search of moving vehiclesF ?;A sei&ure of evidence in plain viewF ?8A consent searchesF ?9A a search incidental to a lawful arrestF and ?@A a =stop and fris(.> 'he concepts of a =stop<and<fris(> and of a search incidental to a lawful arrest must not be confused. 'hese two types of warrantless searches differ in terms of the re-uisite -uantum of proof before they may be validly effected and in their allowable scope. 4n a search incidental to a lawful arrest$ as the precedent arrest determines the validity of the incidental search. Bere$ there could have been no valid in flagrante delicto or hot pursuit arrest preceding the search in light of the lac( of personal (nowledge on the part of Ju$ the arresting officer$ or an overt physical act$ on the part of Malacat$ indicating that a crime had 7ust been committed$ was being committed or was going to be committed. 2lainly$ the search conducted on Malacat could not have been one incidental to a lawful arrest. /n the other hand$ while probable cause is not re-uired to conduct a =stop and fris($> it nevertheless holds that mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a =stop and fris(.> A genuine reason must e.ist$ in light of the police officer6s e.perience and surrounding conditions$ to warrant the belief that the person detained has weapons concealed about him. *inally$ a =stop<and<fris(> serves a two<fold interestE ?!A the general interest of effective crime prevention and detection$ which underlies the recognition that a police officer may$ under appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner$ approach a person for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior even without probable causeF and ?)A the more pressing interest of safety and self<preservation which permit the police officer to ta(e steps to assure himself that the person with whom he deals is not armed with a deadly weapon that could une.pectedly and fatally be used against the police officer. Bere$ there are at least three ?;A reasons why the =stop<and<fris(> was invalidE *irst$ there is grave doubts as to Ju6s claim that Malacat was a member of the group which attempted to bomb 2la&a Miranda ) days earlier. 'his claim is neither supported by any police report or record nor corroborated by any other police officer who allegedly chased that group. Second$ there was nothing in Malacat6s behavior or conduct which could have reasonably elicited even mere suspicion other than that his eyes were =moving very fast> N an observation which leaves us incredulous since Ju and his teammates were nowhere near Malacat and it was already @E;0 p.m.$ thus presumably dus(. Malacat and his companions were merely standing at the corner and were not creating any commotion or trouble. 'hird$ there was at all no ground$ probable or otherwise$ to believe that Malacat was armed with a deadly weapon. 5one was visible to Ju$ for as he admitted$ the alleged grenade was =discovered> =inside the front waistline> of Malacat$ and from all indications as to the distance between Ju and Malacat$ any telltale bulge$ assuming that Malacat was indeed hiding a grenade$ could not have been visible to Ju. What is une-uivocal then are blatant violations of Malacat6s rights solemnly guaranteed in Sections ) and !)?!A of Article 444 of the Constitution. 8erry vs. '7.o [392 ;* 1, 10 June 1968] 1arren (J)

Facts Martin Mc*adden$ a Cleveland police detective$ on a downtown beat which he had been patrolling for many years$ observed two strangers ?'erry and 1ichard ChiltonA on a street corner. Be saw them proceed alternately bac( and forth along an identical route$ strolling down Buron 1oad$ pausing to stare in the same store window$ which they did for a total of about )8 times. +ach completion of the route was followed by a conference between the two on a corner$ at one of which they were 7oined by a third man ?Lat&A who left swiftly. Suspecting the two men of =casing a 7ob$ a stic(<up$> the officer followed them and saw them re7oin the third man a couple of bloc(s away in front of a store. 'he officer approached the three$ identified himself as a policeman$ and as(ed their names. 'he men =mumbled something$> whereupon Mc*adden spun 'erry around$ patted down his outside clothing$ and found in his overcoat poc(et$ but was unable to remove$ a pistol. 'he officer ordered the three into the store. Be removed 'erry6s overcoat$ too( out a revolver$ and ordered the three to face the wall with their hands raised. Be patted down the outer clothing of Chilton and Lat& and sei&ed a revolver from Chilton6s outside overcoat poc(et. Be did not put his hands under the outer garments of Lat& ?since he discovered nothing in his pat<down which might have been a weaponA$ or under 'erry6s or Chilton6s outer garments until he felt the guns. 'he three were ta(en to the police station. 'erry and Chilton were charged with carrying concealed weapons. 'he defense moved to suppress the weapons. 'hough the trial court re7ected the prosecution theory that the guns had been sei&ed during a search incident to a lawful arrest$ the court denied the motion to suppress and admitted the weapons into evidence on the ground that the officer had cause to believe that 'erry and Chilton were acting suspiciously$ that their interrogation was warranted$ and that the officer for his own protection had the right to pat down their outer clothing having reasonable cause to believe that they might be armed. 'he court distinguished between an investigatory =stop> and an arrest$ and between a =fris(> of the outer clothing for weapons and a full<blown search for evidence of crime. 'erry and Chilton were found guilty$ an intermediate appellate court affirmed$ and the State Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that =no substantial constitutional -uestion> was involved. !ssue Whether it is always unreasonable for a policeman to sei&e a person and sub7ect him to a limited search for weapons unless there is probable cause for an arrest. "e#$ 'he *ourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and sei&ures$ made applicable to the States by the *ourteenth Amendment$ =protects people$ not places$> and therefore applies as much to the citi&en on the streets as well as at home or elsewhere. 'he issue in this case is not the abstract propriety of the police conduct but the admissibility against petitioner of the evidence uncovered by the search and sei&ure. 'he e.clusionary rule cannot properly be invo(ed to e.clude the products of legitimate and restrained police investigative techni-uesF and this Court6s approval of such techni-ues should not discourage remedies other than the e.clusionary rule to curtail police abuses for which that is not an effective sanction. 'he *ourth Amendment applies to =stop and fris(> procedures such as those followed here. Whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to wal( away$ he has =sei&ed> that person within the meaning of the *ourth Amendment. A careful e.ploration of the outer surfaces of a person6s clothing in an attempt to find weapons is a =search> under that Amendment. Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered$ he may ma(e a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest

that individual for crime or the absolute certainty that the individual is armed. 'hough the police must whenever practicable secure a warrant to ma(e a search and sei&ure$ that procedure cannot be followed where swift action based upon on<the<spot observations of the officer on the beat is re-uired. 'he reasonableness of any particular search and sei&ure must be assessed in light of the particular circumstances against the standard of whether a man of reasonable caution is warranted in believing that the action ta(en was appropriate. 'he officer here was performing a legitimate function of investigating suspicious conduct when he decided to approach 'erry and his companions. An officer 7ustified in believing that an individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed may$ to neutrali&e the threat of physical harm$ ta(e necessary measures to determine whether that person is carrying a weapon. A search for weapons in the absence of probable cause to arrest must be strictly circumscribed by the e.igencies of the situation. An officer may ma(e an intrusion short of arrest where he has reasonable apprehension of danger before being possessed of information 7ustifying arrest. 'he officer6s protective sei&ure of 'erry and his companions and the limited search which he made were reasonable$ both at their inception and as conducted. 'he actions of 'erry and his companions were consistent with the officer6s hypothesis that they were contemplating a daylight robbery and were armed. 'he officer6s search was confined to what was minimally necessary to determine whether the men were armed$ and the intrusion$ which was made for the sole purpose of protecting himself and others nearby$ was confined to ascertaining the presence of weapons. Berein$ /fficer Mc*adden patted down the outer clothing of 'erry and his two companions. Be did not place his hands in their poc(ets or under the outer surface of their garments until he had felt weapons$ and then he merely reached for and removed the guns. Be did not conduct a general e.ploratory search for whatever evidence of criminal activity he might find. 'hus$ the revolver sei&ed from 'erry was properly admitted in evidence against him. At the time Mc*adden sei&ed 'erry and searched him for weapons$ /fficer Mc*adden had reasonable grounds to believe that 'erry was armed and dangerous$ and it was necessary for the protection of himself and others to ta(e swift measures to discover the true facts and neutrali&e the threat of harm if it materiali&ed. 'he policeman carefully restricted his search to what was appropriate to the discovery of the particular items which he sought. +ach case of this sort will$ of course$ have to be decided on its own facts. Where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his e.perience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous$ where in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and ma(es reasonable in-uiries$ and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others6 safety$ he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him. Such a search is a reasonable search under the *ourth Amendment$ and any weapons sei&ed may properly be introduced in evidence against the person from whom they were ta(en. 6ana#.#. v. -3 [GR 113551, 9 'cto+er 1991] Third Division, Pan*ani,an (J): 4 concur Facts At about )E!0 p.m. of !! April !"##$ policemen from the Anti<5arcotics Dnit of the Laloo(an City 2olice Station were conducting a surveillance along A. Mabini street$ Laloo(an City$ in front of the Laloo(an City Cemetery. 'he policemen were 2at. 1omeo +spiritu and 2at.

Anger Lumabas and a driver named Arnold +nri-ue& was driving a 'amaraw vehicle which was the official car of the 2olice Station of Laloo(an City. 'he surveillance was being made because of information that drug addicts were roaming the area in front of the Laloo(an City Cemetery. Dpon reaching the Laloo(an City Cemetery$ the policemen alighted from their vehicle. 'hey then chanced upon a male person in front of the cemetery who appeared high on drugs. 'he male person was observed to have reddish eyes and to be wal(ing in a swaying manner. When this male person tried to avoid the policemen$ the latter approached him and introduced themselves as police officers. 'he policemen then as(ed the male person what he was holding in his hands. 'he male person tried to resist. 2at. 1omeo +spiritu as(ed the male person if he could see what said male person had in his hands. 'he latter showed the wallet and allowed 2at. 1omeo +spiritu to e.amine the same. 2at. +spiritu too( the wallet and e.amined it. Be found suspected crushed mari7uana residue inside. Be (ept the wallet and its mari7uana contents. 'he male person was then brought to the Anti<5arcotics Dnit of the Laloo(an City 2olice Bead-uarters and was turned over to Cpl. Wilfredo 'amondong for investigation. 2at. +spiritu also turned over to Cpl. 'amondong the confiscated wallet and its suspected mari7uana contents. 'he man turned out to be Alain Manalili y Di&on. /n !! April !"##$ Manalili was charged by Assistant Caloocan City *iscal +. uan 1. ,autista with violation of Section #$ Article 44 of 1epublic Act @8)9. Dpon his arraignment on )! April !"##$ Manalili pleaded =not guilty> to the charge. With the agreement of the public prosecutor$ Manalili was released after filing a 2!0$000.00 bail bond. After trial in due course$ the 1egional 'rial Court of Caloocan City$ ,ranch !)8$ acting as a Special Criminal Court$ rendered on !" May !"#" a decision convicting appellant of illegal possession of mari7uana residue. Manalili remained on provisional liberty. Atty. ,en7amin 1a&on$ counsel for the defense$ filed a 5otice of Appeal dated ;! May !"#". /n !" April !"";$ the Court of Appeals denied the appeal and affirmed the trial court. 'he appellate court denied reconsideration via its 1esolution dated )0 anuary !""8. Manalili filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court. !ssue Whether a search and sei&ure could be effected without necessarily being preceded by an arrest. "e#$ 4n the landmar( case of 'erry vs. /hio$ a stop<and<fris( was defined as the vernacular designation of the right of a police officer to stop a citi&en on the street$ interrogate him$ and pat him for weapon?sA. 4n allowing such a search$ the interest of effective crime prevention and detection allows a police officer to approach a person$ in appropriate circumstances and manner$ for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior even though there is insufficient probable cause to ma(e an actual arrest. What 7ustified the limited search was the more immediate interest of the police officer in ta(ing steps to assure himself that the person with whom he was dealing was not armed with a weapon that could une.pectedly and fatally be used against him. 4t did not$ however$ abandon the rule that the police must$ whenever practicable$ obtain advance 7udicial approval of searches and sei&ures through the warrant procedure$ e.cused only by e.igent circumstances. 4n 2hilippine 7urisprudence$ the general rule is that a search and sei&ure must be validated by a previously secured 7udicial warrantF otherwise$ such search and sei&ure is unconstitutional and sub7ect to challenge. Section )$ Article 444 of the !"#: Constitution$ gives this guarantee. 'his right$ however$ is not absolute. 'he recent case of 2eople vs. Lacerna enumerated five recogni&ed e.ceptions to the rule against warrantless search and sei&ure$ vi&.E =?!A search incidental to a lawful arrest$ ?)A search of moving vehicles$ ?;A sei&ure

in plain view$ ?8A customs search$ and ?9A waiver by the accused themselves of their right against unreasonable search and sei&ure.> 4n 2eople vs. +ncinada$ the Court further e.plained that in these cases$ the search and sei&ure may be made only with probable cause as the essential re-uirement. Stop<and<fris( has already been adopted as another e.ception to the general rule against a search without a warrant. 4n 2osadas vs. Court of Appeals$ the Court held that there were many instances where a search and sei&ure could be effected without necessarily being preceded by an arrest$ one of which was stop<and<fris(. 'o re-uire the police officers to search the bag only after they had obtained a search warrant might prove to be useless$ futile and much too late under the circumstances. 4n such a situation$ it was reasonable for a police officer to stop a suspicious individual briefly in order to determine his identity or to maintain the status -uo while obtaining more information$ rather than to simply shrug his shoulders and allow a crime to occur. Berein$ 2atrolman +spiritu and his companions observed during their surveillance that Manalili had red eyes and was wobbling li(e a drun( along the Caloocan City Cemetery$ which according to police information was a popular hangout of drug addicts. *rom his e.perience as a member of the Anti<5arcotics Dnit of the Caloocan City 2olice$ such suspicious behavior was characteristic of drug addicts who were =high.> 'he policemen therefore had sufficient reason to stop Manalili to investigate if he was actually high on drugs. During such investigation$ they found mari7uana in his possession. 'he search was valid$ being a(in to a stop<and<fris(. %eo&#e vs. *u,u<. [GR 120610, 23 'cto+er 2003] En Banc, Sandoval2#utierre$ (J): 13 concur Facts Sometime in 5ovember !"";$ the 252 5arcotics Command issued a directive to all Chiefs of 5arcotics 1egional *ield Dnits to cover all domestic airport terminals within their respective areas of responsibility$ following reports that drug traffic(ing is prevalent in domestic airportsF and to coordinate with local airport authorities and the 2ASC/M. 4n the morning of !) April !""8$ Bedishi Su&u(i and 'a(eshi Lo(etsu$ both apanese nationals$ entered the pre< departure area of the ,acolod Airport 'erminal. Su&u(i was bound for Manila via flight !;) of the 2hilippine Airlines and was carrying a small traveling bag and a bo. mar(ed =,ongbong6s piaya.> At the pre<departure area$ upon the advice of Cora&on Sinosa$ a civilian personnel of the 2ASC/M$ Su&u(i proceeded to the =wal(<through metal detector$> a machine which produces a red light and an alarm once it detects the presence of metallic substance or ob7ect. 'hereupon$ the red light switched on and the alarm sounded$ signifying the presence of metallic substance either in his person or in the bo. he was carrying. 'his prompted 2/; 1hodelin 2oyugao of the 2olice Aviation Security Command ?2ASC/MA to fris( him bodily. *inding no metallic ob7ect in his body$ 2/; 2oyugao pic(ed up the bo. of piaya and passed it through the machine. Again$ the machine was activated. 2/; 2oyugao then ordered Su&u(i to go to the hand<carried luggage inspection counter where several 2ASC/M and 5A1C/M personnel were present. S2/! Arturo Casugod$ Sr. re-uested Su&u(i to open the bo.. Be appeared tense and reluctant and started to leave$ but S2/! Casugod called him. +ventually he consented$ saying in faltering +nglish$ =open$ open.> S2/! Casugod opened the bo. and found therein !# small pac(s$ !: of which were wrapped in aluminum foil. S2/! Casugod opened one pac(. 4nside were dried fruiting tops which loo(ed li(e mari7uana. Dpon seeing this$ Su&u(i ran outside the pre<departure area but he was chased by 2/; 2oyugao$ S2/! Cilbert Linda of the 5arcotics Command ?5A1C/MA and Donato ,arne&o of the 2ASC/M. 'hey apprehended Su&u(i near the entrance of the terminal and brought him to the 2ASC/M office. 'hey also brought 'a(eshi and his wife$

Lourdes Linsangan$ to the office$ being suspects as conspirators with Su&u(i in drug traffic(ing. Lourdes as(ed permission to call Atty. Silvestre 'ayson. When he arrived$ the police apprised Su&u(i of his constitutional rights. Meanwhile$ S2/! Casugod weighed the contents of the bo. and inventoried the same. 'he total weight of the suspected mari7uana fruiting tops was !." (ilograms or !$"00 grams. Be then drafted a =confiscation receipt> which Su&u(i$ upon the advice of Atty. 'ayson$ refused to ac(nowledge. S2/! Casugod turned over Su&u(i to S2/! Linda for investigation. Subse-uently$ Su&u(i and his companions were brought to the prosecutor6s office for in-uest and placed under the custody of C34nspector +rnesto Alcantara at the 5A1C/M office. 'he bo. with its contents was brought to the 252 Crime Laboratory. 234nspector 1ea Abastillas Villavicencio$ the forensic chemist of the 2hilippine 5ational 2olice ?252A Crime Laboratory$ conducted three tests on the specimen samples which proved positive for mari7uana. Su&u(i was charged with unlawful possession of mari7uana$ a prohibited drug$ in violation of the Dangerous Drug Act. Su&u(i entered a plea of not guilty$ and trial followed thereafter. 'he 1egional 'rial Court$ ,ranch 89$ ,acolod City in Criminal Case "8<!@!00 convicted Bedishi Su&u(i of illegal possession of mari7uana$ defined and penali&ed under Section #$ Article 44 of 1A @9)9$ as amended$ and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death and to pay a fine of 2!0$000$000.00. Bence$ the automatic review. !ssue Whether the 2ASC/M has the authority to inspect luggages or hand<carried bags. "e#$ 'he 2olice Aviation Security Command ?2ASC/MA is the implementing arm of the 5ational Action Committee on Anti<Bi7ac(ing ?5ACABA$ which is a creation of 2residential Letter of 4nstruction ?L/4A ;""$ dated )# April !":@. /n !# *ebruary !":#$ a Memorandum of Dnderstanding among the Secretary of 5ational Defense$ the Secretary of 2ublic Wor(s$ 'ransportation and Communication$ the Secretary of ustice$ the Director Ceneral$ 5ational 4ntelligence and Security Authority and the Secretary of *inance was signed. Dnder the said Memorandum of Dnderstanding the then AVS+C/M ?now 2ASC/MA shall have the following functions and responsibilitiesE ?!A Secure all airports against offensive and terroristic acts that threaten civil aviationF ?)A Dnderta(e aircraft anti<hi7ac(ing operationsF ?;A +.ercise operational control and supervision over all agencies involved in airport security operationsF ?8A 'a(e all necessary preventive measures to maintain peace and order$ and provide other pertinent public safety services within the airportsF .... ,ased upon the Memorandum of Dnderstanding$ pursuant to 2resident L/4 ;""$ in relation to 1A @);9$ the 2ASC/M had the legal authority to be at the ,acolod Airport$ ,acolod City and to inspect luggages or hand<carried bags. 'his is not the first time that the Court recogni&e a search conducted pursuant to routine airport security procedure as an e.ception to the proscription against warrantless searches. 4n 2eople vs. Canton$ and 2eople vs. ohnson$ the Court validated the search conducted on the departing passengers and the conse-uent sei&ure of the shabu found in their persons. Clearly$ the 2ASC/M agents have the right under the law to conduct search of prohibited materials or substances. 'o simply refuse passengers carrying suspected illegal items to enter the pre<departure area is to deprive the authorities of their duty to conduct search$ thus sanctioning impotence and ineffectivity of the law enforcers$ to the detriment of society. 4t should be stressed$ however$ that whenever the right against unreasonable search and sei&ure is challenged$ an individual may choose between invo(ing the constitutional protection or waiving his right by giving consent to the search or sei&ure. Bere$ Su&u(i voluntarily gave his consent to the search conducted by the 2ASC/M agents.

%eo&#e vs. Jo7nson [GR 138881, 18 2ece(+er 2000] Second Division, "endo$a (J): 4 concur Facts Leila 1eyes ohnson was$ at the time of the incident$ 9# years old$ a widow$ and a resident of /cean Side$ California$ D.S.A. She is a former *ilipino citi&en who was naturali&ed as an American on !@ une !"@# and had since been wor(ing as a registered nurse$ ta(ing care of geriatric patients and those with Al&heimer6s disease$ in convalescent homes in the Dnited States. /n !@ une !""#$ she arrived in the 2hilippines to visit her son6s family in Calamba$ Laguna. She was due to fly bac( to the Dnited States on uly )@. /n uly )9$ she chec(ed in at the 2hilippine Village Botel to avoid the traffic on the way to the 5inoy A-uino 4nternational Airport ?5A4AA and chec(ed out at 9E;0 p.m. the ne.t day$ )@ une !""#. At around :E;0 p.m. of that day$ /livia 1amire& was on duty as a lady fris(er at Cate !@ of the 5A4A departure area. Ber duty was to fris( departing passengers$ employees$ and crew and chec( for weapons$ bombs$ prohibited drugs$ contraband goods$ and e.plosives. When she fris(ed ohnson$ a departing passenger bound for the Dnited States via Continental Airlines CS<"!)$ she felt something hard on the latter6s abdominal area. Dpon in-uiry$ Mrs. ohnson e.plained she needed to wear two panty girdles as she had 7ust undergone an operation as a result of an ectopic pregnancy. 5ot satisfied with the e.planation$ 1amire& reported the matter to her superior$ S2/8 1eynaldo +mbile$ saying =Sir$ hindi po a(o naniniwalang panty lang po iyon.> She was directed to ta(e ohnson to the nearest women6s room for inspection. 1amire& too( ohnson to the rest room$ accompanied by S2/! 1i&alina ,ernal. +mbile stayed outside. 4nside the women6s room$ ohnson was as(ed again by 1amire& what the hard ob7ect on her stomach was and ohnson gave the same answer she had previously given. 1amire& then as(ed her =to bring out the thing under her girdle.> ohnson brought out three plastic pac(s$ which 1amire& then turned over to +mbile$ outside the women6s room. 'he confiscated pac(s contained a total of 9#0.) grams of a substance which was fount by 5,4 Chemist Ceorge de Lara to be methamphetamine hydrochloride or =shabu.> +mbile too( ohnson and the plastic pac(s to the !st 1egional Aviation and Security /ffice ?!st 1AS/A at the arrival area of the 5A4A$ where ohnson6s passport and tic(et were ta(en and her luggage opened. 2ictures were ta(en and her personal belongings were itemi&ed. ohnson was charged for the possession of ; plastic bages of methamphetamine hydrochloride$ a regulated drug$ weighing a total of 9#0.) gramsF a violation of S!@ of 1A @8)9 ?Dangerous Drugs ActA$ as amended by 1A :@9". /n !8 May !"""$ the 1egional 'rial Court$ ,ranch !!0$ 2asay City$ found ohnson guilty and sentenced her to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of 2900$000.00 and the costs of the suit. ohnson appealed. !ssue Whether the e.tensive search made on ohnson at the airport violates her right against unreasonable search and sei&ure. "e#$ 'he constitutional right of the accused was not violated as she was never placed under custodial investigation but was validly arrested without warrant pursuant to the provisions of Section 9$ 1ule !!; of tie !"#9 1ules of Criminal 2rocedure which provides that =A peace officer or a private person may$ without a warrant$ arrest a personE ?aA when in his presence$ the person to be arrested has committed$ is actually committing$ or is attempting to commit an offenseF ?bA when an offense has in fact 7ust been committed and person to be arrested has committed itF and ....> 'he circumstances surrounding the arrest of the accused falls in either

paragraph ?aA or ?bA of the 1ule above cited$ hence the allegation that she has been sub7ected to custodial investigation is far from being accurate. 'he methamphetamine hydrochloride sei&ed from her during the routine fris( at the airport was ac-uired legitimately pursuant to airport security procedures. 2ersons may lose the protection of the search and sei&ure clause by e.posure of their persons or property to the public in a manner reflecting a lac( of sub7ective e.pectation of privacy$ which e.pectation society is prepared to recogni&e as reasonable. Such recognition is implicit in airport security procedures. With increased concern over airplane hi7ac(ing and terrorism has come increased security at the nation6s airports. 2assengers attempting to board an aircraft routinely pass through metal detectorsF their carry<on baggage as well as chec(ed luggage are routinely sub7ected to .<ray scans. Should these procedures suggest the presence of suspicious ob7ects$ physical searches are conducted to determine what the ob7ects are. 'here is little -uestion that such searches are reasonable$ given their minimal intrusiveness$ the gravity of the safety interests involved$ and the reduced privacy e.pectations associated with airline travel. 4ndeed$ travelers are often notified through airport public address systems$ signs$ and notices in their airline tic(ets that they are sub7ect to search and$ if any prohibited materials or substances are found$ such would be sub7ect to sei&ure. 'hese announcements place passengers on notice that ordinary constitutional protections against warrantless searches and sei&ures do not apply to routine airport procedures. 'he pac(s of methamphetamine hydrochloride having thus been obtained through a valid warrantless search$ they are admissible in evidence against ohnson. Corollarily$ her subse-uent arrest$ although li(ewise without warrant$ was 7ustified since it was effected upon the discovery and recovery of =shabu> in her person in flagrante delicto. !n R9 ;(.#, ;(.# vs. Ra(os [GR 81561, 9 Ju#y 1990]= a#so Ro>ue vs. $e V.##a [GR 855810 82], !n R9 3nonuevo. 3nonuevo vs. Ra(os [GR 85583085], !n R9 'caya. 'caya vs. 3gu.rre [GR 83162], !n R9 9s&.r.tu. 9s&.r.tu vs. L.( [GR 85121], an$ !n R9 ?a,areno. ?a,areno vs. *tat.on -o((an$er o/ 6unt.n#u&a %o#.ce *tat.on [GR 86332] En Banc, Per )uria': 11 concur Facts GC1 #!9@:H /n ! *ebruary !"##$ the 1egional 4ntelligence /perations Dnit of the Capital Command ?14/D<CA2C/MA received confidential information about a member of the 52A Sparrow Dnit ?li-uidation s-uadA being treated for a gunshot wound at the St. Agnes Bospital in 1oosevelt Avenue$ %ue&on City. Dpon verification$ it was found that the wounded person$ who was listed in the hospital records as 1onnie avelon$ is actually 1olando Dural$ a member of the 52A li-uidation s-uad$ responsible for the (illing of ) CA2C/M soldiers the day before$ or on ;! anuary !"##$ in Macanining Street$ ,agong ,arrio$ Caloocan City. 4n view of this verification$ Dural was transferred to the 1egional Medical Services of the CA2C/M$ for security reasons. While confined thereat$ or on 8 *ebruary !"##$ Dural was positively identified by eyewitnesses as the gunman who went on top of the hood of the CA2C/M mobile patrol car$ and fired at the ) CA2C/M soldiers seated inside the car identified as '3Sgt. Carlos 2abon and C4C 1enato Manligot. As a conse-uence of this positive identification$ Dural was referred to the Caloocan City *iscal who conducted an in-uest and thereafter filed with the 1egional 'rial Court of Caloocan City an information charging 1olando Dural alias 1onnie avelon with the crime of =Double Murder with Assault Dpon Agents of 2ersons in Authority.> ?Criminal Case C<;0!!)F no bail recommendedA. /n !9 *ebruary !"##$ the information was amended to include$ as defendant$ ,ernardo 4tucal$ r. who$ at the filing of the original information$ was still

unidentified. Meanwhile$ on @ *ebruary !"##$ a petition for habeas corpus was filed with the Supreme Court on behalf of 1oberto Dmil$ 1olando Dural$ and 1enato Villanueva. 'he Court issued the writ of habeas corpus on " *ebruary !"## and *idel V. 1amos$ Ma7. Cen. 1enato de Villa$ ,rig. Cen. 1amon Montano$ and ,rig. Cen. Ale.ander Aguirre filed a 1eturn of the Writ on !) *ebruary !"##. 'hereafter$ the parties were heard on !9 *ebruary !"##. /n )@ *ebruary !"##$ however$ Dmil and Villanueva posted bail before the 1egional 'rial Court of 2asay City where charges for violation of the Anti<Subversion Act had been filed against them$ and they were accordingly released. !ssue Whether Dural can be validly arrested without any warrant of arrest for the crime of rebellion. "e#$ Dural$ it clearly appears that he was not arrested while in the act of shooting the ) CA2C/M soldiers nor was he arrested 7ust after the commission of the said offense for his arrest came a day after the said shooting incident. Seemingly$ his arrest without warrant is un7ustified. Bowever$ Dural was arrested for being a member of the 5ew 2eoples Army ?52AA$ an outlawed subversive organi&ation. Subversion being a continuing offense$ the arrest of 1olando Dural without warrant is 7ustified as it can be said that he was committing an offense when arrested. 'he crimes of rebellion$ subversion$ conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes$ and crimes or offenses committed in furtherance thereof or in connection therewith constitute direct assaults against the State and are in the nature of continuing crimes. 'he arrest of persons involved in the rebellion whether as its fighting armed elements$ or for committing non<violent acts but in furtherance of the rebellion$ is more an act of capturing them in the course of an armed conflict$ to -uell the rebellion$ than for the purpose of immediately prosecuting them in court for a statutory offense. 'he arrest$ therefore$ need not follow the usual procedure in the prosecution of offenses which re-uires the determination by a 7udge of the e.istence of probable cause before the issuance of a 7udicial warrant of arrest and the granting of bail if the offense is bailable. /bviously$ the absence of a 7udicial warrant is no legal impediment to arresting or capturing persons committing overt acts of violence against government forces$ or any other milder acts but e-ually in pursuance of the rebellious movement. 'he arrest or capture is thus impelled by the e.igencies of the situation that involves the very survival of society and its government and duly constituted authorities. 3n.ag vs. -o((.ss.on on 9#ect.ons [GR 105961, 1 'cto+er 1995] En Banc, Bellosillo (J): . concur, 3 on leave Facts 4n preparation for the synchroni&ed national and local elections scheduled on !! May !"")$ the Commission on +lections ?C/M+L+CA issued on !! December !""! 1esolution );); ?>Cun ,an>A$ promulgating rules and regulations on bearing$ carrying and transporting of firearms or other deadly weapons$ on security personnel or bodyguards$ on bearing arms by members of security agencies or police organi&ations$ and organi&ation or maintenance of reaction forces during the election period. Subse-uently$ on )@ December !""! C/M+L+C issued 1esolution );): providing for the summary dis-ualification of candidates engaged in gunrunning$ using and transporting of firearms$ organi&ing special stri(e forces$ and establishing spot chec(points. /n !0 anuary !"")$ pursuant to the =Cun ,an$> Mr. Serapio 2. 'accad$ Sergeant<at<Arms$ Bouse of 1epresentatives$ wrote Congressman *rancisc ,. Aniag r.$ who

was then Congressman of the !st District of ,ulacan re-uesting the return of the ) firearms issued to him by the Bouse of 1epresentatives. Dpon being advised of the re-uest on !; anuary !"") by his staff$ Aniag immediately instructed his driver$ +rnesto Arellano$ to pic( up the firearms from his house at Valle Verde and return them to Congress. Meanwhile$ at about 9E00 p$.m. of the same day$ the 2hilippine 5ational 2olice ?252A headed by Senior Superintendent Danilo Cordero set up a chec(point outside the ,atasan Comple. some )0 meters away from its entrance. About ;0 minutes later$ the policemen manning the outpost flagged down the car driven by Arellano as it approached the chec(point. 'hey searched the car and found the firearms neatly pac(ed in their gun cases and placed in a bag in the trun( of the car. Arellano was then apprehended and detained. Be e.plained that he was ordered by Aniag to get the firearms from the house and return them to Sergeant<at Arms 'accad of the Bouse of 1epresentatives. 'hereafter$ the police referred Arellano6s case to the /ffice of the City 2rosecutor for in-uest. 'he referral did not include Aniag as among those charged with an election offense. /n !9 anuary !"")$ the City 2rosecutor ordered the release of Arellano after finding the latter6s sworn e.planation meritorious. /n )# anuary !"")$ the City 2rosecutor invited Aniag to shed light on the circumstances mentioned in Arellano6s sworn e.planation. Aniag not only appeared at the preliminary investigation to confirm Arellano6s statement but also wrote the City 2rosecutor urging him to e.onerate Arellano. Be e.plained that Arellano did not violate the firearms ban as he in fact was complying with it when apprehended by returning the firearms to CongressF and$ that he was Aniag6s driver$ not a security officer nor a bodyguard. /n @ March !"")$ the /ffice of the City 2rosecutor issued a resolution which$ among other matters$ recommended that the case against Arellano be dismissed and that the =unofficial> charge against Aniag be also dismissed. 5evertheless$ on @ April !"")$ upon recommendation of its Law Department$ C/M+L+C issued 1esolution ")<0#)" directing the filing of information against Aniag and Arellano for violation of Sec. )@!$ par. ?-A$ of ,2 ##! otherwise (nown as the /mnibus +lection Code$ in relation to Sec. ;) of 1A :!@@F and Aniag to show cause why he should not be dis-ualified from running for an elective position$ pursuant to C/M+L+C 1esolution );):$ in relation to Secs. ;)$ ;; and ;9 of 1A :!@@$ and Sec. 9)$ par. ?cA$ of ,2 ##!. /n !; April !"")$ Aniag moved for reconsideration and to hold in abeyance the administrative proceedings as well as the filing of the information in court. /n ); April !"")$ the C/M+L+C denied Aniag6s motion for reconsideration. Aniag filed a petition for declaratory relief$ certiorari and prohibition against the C/M+L+C. !ssue Whether the search of Aniag6s car that yielded the firarms which were to be returned to the Bouse of 1epresentatives within the purview of the e.ception as to the search of moving vehicles. "e#$ As a rule$ a valid search must be authori&ed by a search warrant duly issued by an appropriate authority. Bowever$ this is not absolute. Aside from a search incident to a lawful arrest$ a warrantless search had been upheld in cases of moving vehicles and the sei&ure of evidence in plain view$ as well as the search conducted at police or military chec(points which we declared are not illegal per se$ and stressed that the warrantless search is not violative of the Constitution for as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants sub7ected to a body search$ and the inspection of the vehicle is merely limited to a visual search. As there was no evidence to show that the policemen were impelled to do so because of a confidential report leading them to reasonably believe that certain motorists matching the description furnished by

their informant were engaged in gunrunning$ transporting firearms or in organi&ing special stri(e forces. 5or was there any indication from the pac(age or behavior of Arellano that could have triggered the suspicion of the policemen. Absent such 7ustifying circumstances specifically pointing to the culpability of Aniag and Arellano$ the search could not be valid. 'he action then of the policemen unreasonably intruded into Aniag6s privacy and the security of his property$ in violation of Sec. )$ Art. 444$ of the Constitution. Conse-uently$ the firearms obtained in violation of Aniag6s right against warrantless search cannot be admitted for any purpose in any proceeding. %eo&#e vs. -F! R.,a#, 4ranc7 !@, Aue,on -.ty [GR L051686, 11 ?ove(+er 1980] First Division, #uerrero (J): 4 concur Facts /ne wee( before " *ebruary !":8$ the 1egional Anti<Smuggling Action Center ?1ASACA was informed by an undisclosed 4nformer that a shipment of highly dutiable goods would be transported to Manila from Angeles City on a blue Dodge car. Spurred by such lead$ 1ASAC Agents Arthur Manuel and Macario Sabado$ on said date and upon order of the Chief of 4ntelligence and /perations ,ranch$ 1ASAC<M,A$ Col. Antonio Abad$ r.$ stationed themselves in the vicinity of the toll gate of the 5orth Diversion 1oad at ,alintawa($ %ue&on City. At about @E89 a.m. of the same day$ a light blue Dodge car with 2late )!<#:<:;$ driven by Sgt. essie Bope who was accompanied by Monina Medina approached the e.it gate and after giving the toll receipt sped away towards Manila. 'he 1ASAC agents gave a chase and overtoo( Sgt. Bope6s car. Agent Sabado blew his whistle and signaled Sgt. Bope to stop but the latter instead of heeding$ made a D<turn bac( to the 5orth Diversion 1oad$ but he could not go through because of the buses in front of his car. At this point$ the agents succeeded in bloc(ing Sgt. Bope6s car and the latter stopped. Manuel and Sabado who were in civilian clothes showed their identification cards to Bope and Medina and introduced themselves as 1ASAC agents. 'he Agents saw 8 bo.es on the bac( seat of the Dodge and upon in-uiry as to what those bo.es were$ Sgt. Bope answered =4 do not (now.> *urther$ Bope and Medina were as(ed where they were bringing the bo.es$ to which Medina replied that they were bringing them ?bo.esA to the 'ropical But at +pifanio de los Santos. Agent Sabado boarded the Dodge car with Bope and Medina while Agent Manuel too( their own car and both cars drove towards 'ropical But ma(ing a brief stop at the ,onan&a where Agent Manuel called up Col. Abad by telephone. Arriving at the 'ropical But$ the party$ together with Col. Abad who had 7oined them waited for the man who according to Monina Medina was supposed to receive the bo.es. As the man did not appear$ Col. Abad =called off the mission> and brought respondents and their car to Camp Aguinaldo arriving there at about "E00 a.m. An inspection of Sgt. Bope6s car at Camp Aguinaldo yielded !! sealed bo.es$ 8 on the rear seat and : more in the baggage compartment which was opened on orders of Col. Abad. /n the same order of the intelligence officer$ the bo.es were opened before the presence of Bope and Medina$ representatives of the ,ureau of 4nternal 1evenue$ ,ureau of Customs$ 2.C.$ C/SAC and photographers of the Department of 5ational Defense. 'he contents of the bo&es revealed some =8$88! more or less wrist watches of assorted brandsF !$0:9 more or less watch bracelets of assorted brands$> supposedly unta.ed. As conse-uence$ thereof$ ASAC Chairman Ceneral 2elagio Cru& re-uested the ,ureau of Customs to issue a Warrant of Sei&ure and Detention against the articles including the Dodge car. 'he Collector of Customs did issue the same on !) *ebruary !":8. 4t was admitted$ however$ that when the apprehending agents arrested respondents and brought them together with the sei&ed articles to the ASAC /ffice in

Camp Aguinaldo$ the former were not armed with a warrant of arrest and sei&ure. 4n con7unction with the Warrant of Sei&ure and Detention issued by the Collector of Customs$ sei&ure proceedings were instituted and doc(eted as Sei&ure 4dentification !8)#! against the wrist watches and watch bracelets pursuant to Section )9;0 ?mA N ! of the 'ariff and Customs Code$ and Sei&ure 4dentification 5o. !8)#!<A against the Dodge car pursuant to Section )9;0?(A of the same Code. /n the other hand$ Bope and Medina disclaimed ownership of the sei&ed articles. /wnership was instead claimed by one Antonio del 1osario who intervened in the proceedings. Bope claimed that at the time of apprehension$ he had no (nowledge of the contents of the bo.es$ and granting that he had such (nowledge$ he never (new that these are unta.ed commoditiesF that he consented to transport said bo.es from Angeles City to Manila in his car upon re-uest of his girl friend Monina as a personal favorF that he was not present when the bo.es were loaded in his car nor was he ever told of their contents on the way. /n the part of Monina Medina$ she testified that what she did was only in compliance with the agreement with Mr. Del 1osario to transport the bo.es and deliver them to a certain Mr. 2eter at the 'ropical But who will in turn give her the contracted priceF that Mr. Del 1osario did not reveal the contents of the bo.es which she came to (now of only when the bo.es were opened at Camp Aguinaldo. As there was not enough evidence to controvert the testimonies of respondents and the narration of claimant Antonio del 1osario$ the Collector of Customs issued his decision in the sei&ure cases on ! April !":9 declaring that the sei&ed articles including the car are not sub7ect of forfeiture. Meanwhile$ on !8 March !":8$ after the re-uisite preliminary investigation$ the City *iscal of %ue&on City$ finding the e.istence of a prima facie case against Bope and Medina$ filed Criminal Case %<;:#! in the Court of *irst 4nstance of 1i&al ?%ue&on CityA. Dpon arraignment on ); April !":8$ respondents pleaded not guilty. 'rial commenced on )# anuary !":9 and while the prosecution through its first witness$ Agent Macario Sabado$ was adducing as evidence the pictures of the !! bo.es containing the assorted watches and watch bracelets$ the defense counsel ob7ected to the presentation of the pictures and the sub7ect articles on the ground that they were sei&ed without the benefit of warrant$ and therefore inadmissible in evidence under Section 8?)A$ Article 4V of the 5ew Constitution. After the parties have argued their grounds in their respective memoranda$ the trial court issued the order of )0 August !":9 declaring that the alleged smuggled articles and the pictures ta(en of said items as inadmissible in evidence. 'he prosecution6s motion for reconsideration was denied on ;0 September !":9. 'he prosecution filed a petition for certiorari which was treated as a special civil action in the Supreme Court6s 1esolution of 9 May !":@. !ssue Whether the search and sei&ure made on the bo.es in the blue Dodge car was valid$ even after the Collector of Customs declared the sei&ed articles not sub7ect to forfeiture. "e#$ 4t is not accurate to say that the Collector of Customs made no findings that the articles were smuggled. 4n fact$ what the Collector stated was that the prosecution failed to present the -uantum of evidence sufficient to warrant the forfeiture of the sub7ect articles. 4n a general sense$ this does not necessarily e.clude the possibility of smuggling. 'he decision of the Collector of Customs$ as in other sei&ure proceedings$ concerns the res rather than the persona. 'he proceeding is a probe on contraband or illegally imported goods. 'he importer or possessor is treated differently. 'he fact that the administrative penalty befalls on him is an inconse-uential incidence to criminal liability. ,y the same to(en$ the probable guilt cannot be negated simply because he was not held administratively liable. 'he Collector6s final declaration that the articles

are not sub7ect to forfeiture does not detract his findings that unta.ed goods were transported in Bope and Medina6s car and sei&ed from their possession by agents of the law. Whether criminal liability lur(s on the strength of the provision of the 'ariff and Customs Code adduced in the information can only be determined in a separate criminal action. Bope and Medina6s e.oneration in the administrative cases cannot deprive the State of its right to prosecute. ,ut under our penal laws$ criminal responsibility$ if any$ must be proven not by preponderance of evidence but by proof beyond reasonable doubt. As enunciated in the leading case of 2apa vs. Mago$ in the e.ercise of the specific functions$ the Code does not mention the need of a search warrant unli(e Section ))0" which e.plicitly provides that a =dwelling house may be entered and searched only upon warrant issued by a 7udge ?or 7ustice of the peaceA$ upon sworn application showing probable cause and particularly describing the place to be searched and person or thing to be sei&ed.> Aware of this delineation$ the Court in that case e.pressed the considered view that =e.cept in the case of the search of a dwelling house$ persons e.ercising police authority under the customs law may effect search and sei&ure without a search warrant in the enforcement of customs laws.> 'he rationale of the Mago ruling was nurtured by the traditional doctrine in Carroll v. Dnited States @ wherein an imprimatur against$ constitutional infirmity was stamped in favor of a warrantless search and sei&ure of such nature as herein. /n this stable foundation$ the warrantless sei&ure did not violate Article 4V$ Section ; of the !":; Constitution$ which finds origin in the *ourth Amendment of the American Constitution. %a&a vs. 6ago [GR L021360, 28 Fe+ruary 1968] En Banc, 3aldivar (J): 4 concur Facts Martin Alagao$ head of the counter<intelligence unit of the Manila 2olice Department$ acting upon a reliable information received on ; 5ovember !"@@ to the effect that a certain shipment of personal effects$ allegedly misdeclared and undervalued$ would be released the following day from the customs &one of the port of Manila and loaded on two truc(s$ and upon orders of 1icardo 2apa$ Chief of 2olice of Manila and a duly deputi&ed agent of the ,ureau of Customs$ conducted surveillance at gate ! of the customs &one. When the truc(s left gate ! at about 8E;0 p.m. of 8 5ovember !"@@$ elements of the counter<intelligence unit went after the truc(s and intercepted them at the Agrifina Circle$ +rmita$ Manila. 'he load of the two truc(s$ consisting of nine bales of goods$ and the two truc(s$ were sei&ed on instructions of the Chief of 2olice. Dpon investigation$ a person claimed ownership of the goods and showed to the policemen a =Statement and 1eceipts of Duties Collected on 4nformal +ntry 5o. !8:<990!T$ issued by the ,ureau of Customs in the name of a certain ,ienvenido 5aguit. Claiming to have been pre7udiced by the sei&ure and detention of the two truc(s and their cargo$ 1emedios Mago and Valentin ,. Lanopa filed with the Court of *irst 4nstance ?C*4A of Manila a petition =for mandamus with restraining order or preliminary in7unction ?Civil Case @:8"@A$ praying for the issuance of a restraining order$ e. parte$ en7oining the police and customs authorities$ or their agents$ from opening the bales and e.amining the goods$ and a writ of mandamus for the return of the goods and the truc(s$ as well as a 7udgment for actual$ moral and e.emplary damages in their favor. /n !0 5ovember !"@@$ udge Bilarion arencio issued an order e. parte restraining 1icardo 2apa ?as Chief of 2olice of ManilaA and uan 2once +nrile ?as Commissioner of CustomsA in Civil Case @:8"@. Bowever$ when the restraining order was received by 2apa. et. al.$ some bales had already been opened by the e.aminers of the ,ureau of Customs in the presence of officials of the Manila 2olice Department$ an assistant city fiscal and a representative

of 1emedios Mago. Dnder date of !9 5ovember !"@@$ Mago filed an amended petition$ including as party defendants Collector of Customs 2edro 2acis of the 2ort of Manila and Lt. Martin Alagao of the Manila 2olice Department. At the hearing on " December !"@@$ the lower court$ with the conformity of the parties$ ordered that an inventory of the goods be made by its cler( of court in the presence of the representatives of the claimant of the goods$ the ,ureau of Customs$ and the Anti< Smuggling Center of the Manila 2olice Department. /n ); December !"@@$ Mago filed an e. parte motion to release the goods$ alleging that since the inventory of the goods sei&ed did not show any article of prohibited importation$ the same should be released as per agreement of the parties upon her posting of the appropriate bond that may be determined by the court. /n : March !"@:$ the udge issued an order releasing the goods to Mago upon her filing of a bond in the amount of 280$000.00. /n !; March !"@:$ 2apa$ on his own behalf$ filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of the court releasing the goods under bond$ upon the ground that the Manila 2olice Department had been directed by the Collector of Customs of the 2ort of Manila to hold the goods pending termination of the sei&ure proceedings. Without waiting for the court6s action on the motion for reconsideration$ and alleging that they had no plain$ speedy and ade-uate remedy in the ordinary course of law$ 2apa$ et. al. filed the action for prohibition and certiorari with preliminary in7unction before the Supreme Court. "e#$ 'he Chief of the Manila 2olice Department$ 1icardo C. 2apa$ having been deputi&ed in writing by the Commissioner of Customs$ could$ for the purposes of the enforcement of the customs and tariff laws$ effect searches$ sei&ures$ and arrests$ and it was his duty to ma(e sei&ure$ among others$ of any cargo$ articles or other movable property when the same may be sub7ect to forfeiture or liable for any fine imposed under customs and tariff laws. Be could lawfully open and e.amine any bo.$ trun($ envelope or other container wherever found when he had reasonable cause to suspect the presence therein of dutiable articles introduced into the 2hilippines contrary to lawF and li(ewise to stop$ search and e.amine any vehicle$ beast or person reasonably suspected of holding or conveying such article as aforesaid. 4t cannot be doubted$ therefore$ that 2apa$ Chief of 2olice of Manila$ could lawfully effect the search and sei&ure of the goods in -uestion. 'he 'ariff and Customs Code authori&es him to demand assistance of any police officer to effect said search and sei&ure$ and the latter has the legal duty to render said assistance. 'his was what happened precisely in the case of Lt. Martin Alagao who$ with his unit$ made the search and sei&ure of the two truc(s loaded with the nine bales of goods in -uestion at the Agrifina Circle. Be was given authority by the Chief of 2olice to ma(e the interception of the cargo. Martin Alagao and his companion policemen had authority to effect the sei&ure without any search warrant issued by a competent court. 'he 'ariff and Customs Code does not re-uire said warrant herein. 'he Code authori&es persons having police authority under Section ))0; of the 'ariff and Customs Code to enter$ pass through or search any land$ inclosure$ warehouse$ store or building$ not being a dwelling houseF and also to inspect$ search and e.amine any vessel or aircraft and any trun($ pac(age$ bo. or envelope or any person on board$ or stop and search and e.amine any vehicle$ beast or person suspected of holding or conveying any dutiable or prohibited article introduced into the 2hilippines contrary to law$ without mentioning the need of a search warrant in said cases. ,ut in the search of a dwelling house$ the Code provides that said =dwelling house may be entered and searched only upon warrant issued by a 7udge or 7ustice of the peace.> +.cept in the case of the search of a dwelling house$ persons e.ercising police authority under the customs law may effect search and sei&ure without a search warrant in the enforcement of customs laws. Berein$ Martin Alagao and his

companion policemen did not have to ma(e any search before they sei&ed the two truc(s and their cargo. ,ut even if there was a search$ there is still authority to the effect that no search warrant would be needed under the circumstances obtaining herein. 'he guaranty of freedom from unreasonable searches and sei&ures is construed as recogni&ing a necessary difference between a search of a dwelling house or other structure in respect of which a search warrant may readily be obtained and a search of a ship$ motorboat$ wagon$ or automobile for contraband goods$ where it is not practicable to secure a warrant$ because the vehicle can be -uic(ly moved out of the locality or 7urisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. Baving declared that the sei&ure by the members of the Manila 2olice Department of the goods in -uestion was in accordance with law and by that sei&ure the ,ureau of Customs had ac-uired 7urisdiction over the goods for the purposes of the enforcement of the customs and tariff laws$ to the e.clusion of the Court of *irst 4nstance of Manila. Go vs. -ourt o/ 3&&ea#s [GR 101831, 11 Fe+ruary 1992] En Banc, Feliciano (J): 5 concur Facts /n ) uly !""!$ +ldon Maguan was driving his car along Wilson St.$ San uan$ Metro Manila$ heading towards 2. Cuevarra St. 1olito Co y 'ambunting entered Wilson St.$ where it is a one<way street and started traveling in the opposite or =wrong> direction. At the corner of Wilson and . Abad Santos Sts.$ Co6s and Maguan6s cars nearly bumped each other. Co alighted from his car$ wal(ed over and shot Maguan inside his car. Co then boarded his car and left the scene. A security guard at a nearby restaurant was able to ta(e down Co6s car plate number. 'he police arrived shortly thereafter at the scene of the shooting and there retrieved an empty shell and one round of live ammunition for a "mm caliber pistol. Verification at the Land 'ransportation /ffice showed that the car was registered to one +lsa Ang Co. 'he following day$ the police returned to the scene of the shooting to find out where the suspect had come fromF they were informed that Co had dined at Cravings ,a(e Shop shortly before the shooting. 'he police obtained a facsimile or impression of the credit card used by Co from the cashier of the ba(e shop. 'he security guard of the ba(e shop was shown a picture of Co and he positively identified him as the same person who had shot Maguan. Baving established that the assailant was probably Co$ the police launched a manhunt for Co. /n # uly !""!$ Co presented himself before the San uan 2olice Station to verify news reports that he was being hunted by the policeF he was accompanied by two ?)A lawyers. 'he police forthwith detained him. An eyewitness to the shooting$ who was at the police station at that time$ positively identified Co as the gunman. 'hat same day$ the police promptly filed a complaint for frustrated homicide against Co with the /ffice of the 2rovincial 2rosecutor of 1i&al. *irst Assistant 2rovincial 2rosecutor Dennis Villa 4gnacio ?>2rosecutor>A informed Co$ in the 2resence 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 !)9 of the 1evised 2enal Code. Co refused to e.ecute any such waiver. /n " uly !""!$ while the complaint was still with the 2rosecutor$ and before an information could be filed in court$ the victim$ +ldon Maguan$ died of his gunshot wound?sA. Accordingly$ on !! uly !""!$ the 2rosecutor$ instead of filing an information for frustrated homicide$ filed an information for murder before the 1egional 'rial Court. 5o bail was recommended. At the bottom of the information$ the 2rosecutor certified that no preliminary investigation had been conducted because the accused did not e.ecute and sign a waiver of the provisions of Article !)9 of the 1evised 2enal Code. 4n the afternoon of !! uly !""!$ Co6s counsel filed with the prosecutor an

omnibus motion for immediate release and proper preliminary investigation$ alleging that the warrantless arrest of Co was unlawful and that no preliminary investigation had been conducted before the information was filed. /n !) uly !""!$ Co filed an urgent e.<parte motion for special raffle in order to e.pedite action on the 2rosecutor6s bail recommendation. 'he case was raffled to the sala of udge ,en7amin V. 2elayo ?,ranch !@#$ 1'C of 2asig CityA$ who$ on the same date$ approved the cash bond posted by Co and ordered his release. Co was in fact released that same day. /n !@ uly !""!$ the 2rosecutor filed with the 1egional 'rial Court a motion for leave to conduct preliminary investigation and prayed that in the meantime all proceedings in the court be suspended. /n the said date$ the trial court issued an /rder " granting leave to conduct preliminary investigation and cancelling the arraignment set for !9 August !""! until after the prosecution shall have concluded its preliminary investigation. /n !: uly !""!$ however$ the udge motu proprio issued an /rder$ ?!A recalling the !) uly !""! /rder which granted bailE petitioner was given 8# hours from receipt of the /rder to surrender himselfE ?)A recalling and cancelling the !@ uly !""! /rder which granted leave to the 2rosecutor to conduct preliminary investigationE ?;A treating Co6s omnibus motion for immediate release and preliminary investigation dated !! uly !""! as a petition for bail and set for hearing on ); uly !""!. /n !" uly !""!$ Co filed a petition for certiorari$ prohibition and mandamus before the Supreme Court assailing the !: uly !""! /rder. Co also moved for suspension of all proceedings in the case pending resolution by the Supreme Court of his petitionE this motion was$ however$ denied by udge 2elayo. /n ); uly !""!$ Co surrendered to the police. ,y a 1esolution dated )8 uly !""!$ the Supreme Court remanded the petition for certiorari$ prohibition and mandamus to the Court of Appeals. /n !@ August !""!$ udge 2elayo issued an order in open court setting Co6s arraignment on ); August !""!. /n !" August !""!$ Co filed with the Court of Appeals a motion to restrain his arraignment. /n ); August !""!$ udge 2elayo issued a Commitment /rder directing the 2rovincial Warden of 1i&al to admit Co into his custody at the 1i&al 2rovincial ail. /n the same date$ Co was arraigned. 4n view$ however$ of his refusal to enter a plea$ the trial court entered for him a plea of not guilty. 'he trial court then set the criminal case for continuous hearings on !"$ )8 and )@ SeptemberF on )$ ;$ !! and !: /ctoberF and on :$ #$ !8$ !9$ )! and )) 5ovember !""!. /n ): August !""!. Co filed a petition for habeas corpus in the Court of Appeals. /n ;0 August !""!$ the Court of Appeals issued the writ of habeas corpus. 'he petition for certiorari$ prohibition and mandamus$ on the one hand$ and the petition for habeas corpus$ upon the other$ were subse-uently consolidated in the Court of Appeals. 'he Court of Appeals$ on ) September !""!$ issued a resolution denying Co6s motion to restrain his arraignment on the ground that motion had become moot and academic. /n !" September !""!$ trial of the criminal case commenced. /n ); September !""!$ the Court of Appeals rendered a consolidated decision dismissing the ) petitions on the grounds that Co6s warrantless arrest was valid and Co6s act of posting bail constituted waiver of any irregularity attending his arrest$ among others. /n ; /ctober !""!$ the prosecution presented three ?;A more witnesses at the trial. Co6s Counsel also filed a =Withdrawal of Appearance> with the trial court$ with Co6s conformity. /n 8 /ctober !""!$ Co filed the present petition for 1eview on Certiorari. /n !8 /ctober !""!$ the Court issued a 1esolution directing udge 2elayo to held in abeyance the hearing of the criminal case below until further orders from the Supreme Court. !ssue Whether Co was arrested legally without warrant for the (illing of Maguan$ and is thus not entitled to be released pending the conduct of a preliminary investigation.

"e#$ Co6s warrantless =arrest> or detention does not fall within the terms of Section 9 of 1ule !!; of the !"#9 1ules on Criminal 2rocedure which provides that =A peace officer or a private person may$ without a warrant$ arrest a personE ?aA When$ in his presence$ the person to be created has committed$ is actually committing$ or is attempting to commit an offenseF ?bA When an offense has in fact 7ust been committed$ and he has personal (nowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed itF and ?cA When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final 7udgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. 4n cases falling under paragraphs ?aA and ?bA hereof$ the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or 7ail$ and he shall be proceeded against in accordance with 1ule !!)$ Section :.> Co6s =arrest> too( place @ days after the shooting of Maguan. 'he =arresting> officers obviously were not present$ within the meaning of Section 9?aA$ at the time Co had allegedly shot Maguan. 5either could the =arrest> effected @ days after the shooting be reasonably regarded as effected =when Gthe shooting hadH in fact 7ust been committed> within the meaning of Section 9 ?bA. Moreover$ none of the =arresting> officers had any =personal (nowledge> of facts indicating that Co was the gunman who had shot Maguan. 'he information upon which the police acted had been derived from statements made by alleged eyewitnesses to the shooting N one stated that Co was the gunman another was able to ta(e down the alleged gunman6s car6s plate number which turned out to be registered in Co6s wife6s name. 'hat information did not$ however$ constitute =personal (nowledge.> 4t is thus clear to the Court that there was no lawful warrantless arrest of Co within the meaning of Section 9 of 1ule !!;. 4t is clear too that Section : of 1ule !!) is also not applicable. 4ndeed$ Co was not arrested at all. When he wal(ed into the San uan 2olice Station$ accompanied by two ?)A lawyers$ he in fact placed himself at the disposal of the police authorities. Be did not state that he was =surrendering> himself$ in all probability to avoid the implication he was admitting that he had slain +ldon Maguan or that he was otherwise guilty of a crime. When the police filed a complaint for frustrated homicide with the 2rosecutor$ the latter should have immediately scheduled a preliminary investigation to determine whether there was probable cause for charging Co in court for the (illing of +ldon Maguan. 4nstead$ as noted earlier$ the 2rosecutor proceeded under the erroneous supposition that Section : of 1ule !!) was applicable and re-uired Co to waive the provisions of Article !)9 of the 1evised 2enal Code as a condition for carrying out a preliminary investigation. 'his was substantive error$ for Co was entitled to a preliminary investigation and that right should have been accorded him without any conditions. Moreover$ since Co had not been arrestedF with or without a warrant$ he was also entitled to be released forthwith sub7ect only to his appearing at the preliminary investigation. %eo&#e vs. Ro$r.gue,a [GR 95902, 5 Fe+ruary 1992] Second Division, &e*alado (J): 4 concur Facts G2rosecutionH At around 9E00 p.m. of ! uly !"#:$ C4C Ciriaco 'aduran was in their head-uarters at the /ffice of the 5arcotics 1egional Dnit at Camp ,agong 4balon$ Legaspi City$ together with S3Sgt. +lpidio Molinawe$ C4C Leonardo ,. Calutan and their commanding officer$ Ma7or Crisostomo M. Meidem$ when a confidential informer arrived and told them that there was an ongoing illegal traffic of prohibited drugs in 'agas$ Daraga$ Albay. Ma7or Meidem formed a team to conduct a buybust operation$ which team was given 2)00.00 in different denominations to buy mari7uana. 'hese bills were treated with ultraviolet powder at the 2hilippine Constabulary

Crime Laboratory ?2CCLA. Sgt. Molinawe gave the money to 'aduran who acted as the poseur buyer. Be was told to loo( for a certain Don$ the alleged seller of prohibited drugs. 'aduran went to 'agas alone and$ while along the road$ he met Samuel Segovia. Be as(ed Segovia where he could find Don and where he could buy mari7uana. Segovia left for a while and when he returned$ he was accompanied by a man who was later on introduced to him as Don 1odrigue&a. After agreeing on the price of 2)00.00 for !00 grams of mari7uana$ Don halted a passing tricycle driven by Antonio Lonceras. Be boarded it and left 'aduran and Segovia. When he came bac($ Don gave 'aduran =a certain ob7ect wrapped in a plastic> which was later identified as mari7uana$ and received payment therefor. 'hereafter$ 'aduran returned to the head-uarters and made a report regarding his said purchase of mari7uana. ,ased on that information$ Ma7or Meidem ordered a team to conduct an operation to apprehend the suspects. 4n the evening of the same date$ C4C Calutan and S3Sgt. Molinawe proceeded to 1egidor Street$ Daraga$ Albay and arrested 1odrigue&a$ Antonio Lonceras and Samuel Segovia. 'he constables were not$ however$ armed with a warrant of arrest when they apprehended the three accused. 'he arrests were brought to the head-uarters for investigation. 'hereafter$ agents of the 5arcotics Command ?5A1C/MA conducted a raid in the house of ovencio 1odrigue&a$ Don6s father. 'aduran did not go with them. During the raid$ they were able to confiscate dried mari7uana leaves and a plastic syringe$ among others. 'he search$ however$ was not authori&ed by any search warrant. 'he ne.t day$ ovencio 1odrigue&a was released from detention but Don 1odrigue&a was detained. GDefenseH Don 1odrigue&a$ on the other hand$ claimed that on said date he was in the house of his aunt in San 1o-ue$ Legaspi City. Be stayed there overnight and did not leave the place until the ne.t day when his brother arrived and told him that their father was ta(en by some military men the preceding night. 1odrigue&a went to Camp ,agong 4balon and arrived there at around #E00 a.m. of ) uly !"#:. When he arrived$ he was as(ed if he (new anything about the mari7uana incident$ to which -uestion he answered in the negative. Li(e Segovia$ he was made to hold a 2!0.00 bill and was brought to the crime laboratory for e.amination. *rom that time on$ he was not allowed to go home and was detained inside the camp. Be was also tortured in order to ma(e him admit his complicity in the alleged sale of mari7uana. /n !0 uly !"#:$ Don 1odrigue&a$ Samuel Segovia and Antonio Lonceras$ for possession of !00 grams of mari7uana leaves and for selling$ in a buy<bust operation$ said !00 grams of dried mari7uana leaves for a consideration of 2)00.00. During the arraignment$ all the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge against them. 'he 1egional 'rial Court of Legaspi City$ ,ranch !0$ found Don 1odrigue&a guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 8$ Article 44 of the Dangerous Drugs Act of !":) ?1epublic Act @8)9$ as amendedA and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of 2)0$000.00 and costs. 'he court$ however$ ac-uitted Segovia and Lonceres. 1odrigue&a appealed. !ssue Whether the time of Don 1odrigue&a6s arrest is material in determining his culpability in the crime charged. "e#$ As provided in the present Constitution$ a search$ to be valid$ must generally be authori&ed by a search warrant duly issued by the proper government authority. 'rue$ in some instances$ the Court has allowed government authorities to conduct searches and sei&ures even without a search warrant. 'hus$ when the owner of the premises waives his right against such incursionF when the search is incidental to a lawful arrestF when it is made on vessels and aircraft for violation of

customs lawsF when it is made on automobiles for the purpose of preventing violations of smuggling or immigration lawsF when it involves prohibited articles in plain viewF or in cases of inspection of buildings and other premises for the enforcement of fire$ sanitary and building regulations$ a search may be validly made even without a search warrant. Berein$ however$ the raid conducted by the 5A1C/M agents in the house of ovencio 1odrigue&a was not authori&ed by any search warrant. 4t does not appear$ either$ that the situation falls under any of the aforementioned cases. Bence$ 1odrigue&a6s right against unreasonable search and sei&ure was clearly violated. 'he 5A1C/M agents could not have 7ustified their act by invo(ing the urgency and necessity of the situation because the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses reveal that the place had already been put under surveillance for -uite some time. Bad it been their intention to conduct the raid$ then they should$ because they easily could$ have first secured a search warrant during that time. *urther$ the inconsistencies made by prosecution witnesses give more credibility to the testimony of Don 1odrigue&a. While it is true that 1odrigue&a6s defense amounts to an alibi$ and as such is the wea(est defense in a criminal prosecution$ there are$ nonetheless$ some evidentiary aspects pointing to the truth in his testimony. *irstly$ the oint Affidavit of Arrest corroborates his testimony that he was not among those who were arrested on the night of ! uly !"#:. Bis co<accused Segovia also testified that 1odrigue&a was not with them when they were apprehended by the 5A1C/M agents. Bence$ 1odrigue&a is ac-uitted of the crime charged$ due to the failure of the prosecution to establish its cause. %eo&#e vs. -u+cu+.n [GR 136261, 10 Ju#y 2001] En Banc, "endo$a (J): 12 concur, 1 on o++icial ,usiness, 1 on leave Facts At about ;E;0 a.m. of )@ August !"":$ Sgt. 1ogel$ des( officer of the Cavite City police station$ received a telephone call that a person had been shot near the cemetery along ulian *elipe ,oulevard in San Antonio$ Cavite City. *or this reason$ a police team$ composed of S2/! Malinao$ r.$ 2/; 1osal$ 2/; +stoy$ r.$ 2/; Manicio$ and S2/; Manalo$ responded to the call and found Benry 2. 2iamonte slumped dead on his tricycle which was then par(ed on the road. 2olice photographer *red Agana too( pictures of the crime scene showing the victim slumped on the handle of the tricycle. 2/; 1osal testified that a tricycle driver$ who refused to divulge his name$ told him that *idel Abrenica Cubcubin r. and the victim were last seen together coming out of the Sting Cafe$ located in San Antonio near the gate of Sangley 2oint$ Cavite City$ about a (ilometer and a half away from the crime scene. *orthwith$ 2/; 1osal and S2/! Malinao$ r. went to the cafe and tal(ed to Danet Carcellano$ a food server3waitress in Sting Cafe. Carcellano described Cubcubin as a lean$ dar(<comple.ioned$ and mustachioed man who had on a white t< shirt and brown short pants. Armando 2lata$ another tricycle driver$ told 2/; 1osal and S2/! Malinao$ r. that Carcellano6s description fitted a person (nown as alias = un Dulce.> Armando 2lata$ who (new where Cubcubin lived$ led 2/; 1osal$ S2/! Malinao$ r.$ and 2rosecutor Lu to Cubucubin6s house in Carcia +.tension$ Cavite City. 'he policemen (noc(ed on the door for about ; minutes before it was opened by a man who answered the description given by Danet Carcellano and who turned out to be Cubcubin. 'he police operatives identified themselves and informed him that he was being sought in connection with the shooting near the cemetery. Cubcubin denied involvement in the incident. 2/; 1osal and S2/! Malinao$ r. then as(ed permission to enter and loo( around the house. S2/! Malinao$ r. said that upon entering the house$ he noticed a white t<shirt$ bearing the brand name =Banes> and the name =Dhenvher> written in the inner portion of the shirt6s hemline$ placed over a divider near the (itchen. Dpon

close e.amination$ he said that he found it to be =bloodied.> When he pic(ed up the t<shirt$ two spent .;# caliber shells fell from it. 2/; 1osal stayed with Cubcubin while he conducted a search. 'hey then too( the t<shirt and the two bullet shells. S2/! Malinao$ r. then as(ed Cubcubin to go with them to Sting Cafe for purposes of identification. 'here$ Cubcubin was positively identified by Danet Carcellano as the victim6s companion. 'he police investigators as(ed Cubcubin where the fatal gun was. S2/! Malinao$ r. said Cubcubin refused to tell him where he hid the gun so he sought the latter6s permission to go bac( to his house to conduct a further search. 'hereupon$ S2/! Malinao$ r.$ accompanied by 2rosecutor Lu$ 2/; +stoy$ r.$ 2/; Manicio$ S2/; Manalo$ and 2/; 1osal$ proceeded thereto. 4nside the house$ they saw Cubcubin6s !!<year old son humar. 2/; +stoy$ r. found on top of a plastic water container ?drumA outside the bathroom a homemade Smith and Wesson caliber .;# revolver ?si. shooterA$ without a serial number. Be found the gun loaded with five live bullets. 2/; +stoy$ r. said that he inscribed his initials =1D+> ?for 1aymundo D. +stoyA on the cylinder of the gun with the use of a sharp ob7ect. While 2/; +stoy$ r. was conducting the search$ S2/! Malinao$ r. and 2/; 1osal stayed with Cubcubin in the sala. 'he .;# caliber gun$ the white =Banes> t<shirt$ and the two spent .;# caliber shells were all photographed. Cubcubin was then ta(en to the police station$ where he was photographed along with the things sei&ed from him. Cubcubin was charged for the crime of murder. /n 9 /ctober !""#$ the 1egional 'rial Court$ ,ranch ##$ Cavite City$ found Cubcubin guilty of murder and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death. Bence$ the automatic review. !ssue Whether there was =probable cause> for 2/; 1osal and S2/! Malinao$ r.$ the arresting officers$ to believe that Cubcubin committed the crime$ to allow them to conduct the latter6s warrantless arrest. "e#$ 1ule !!;$ S9 of the !"#9 1ules on Criminal 2rocedure$ as amended$ provides that =A peace officer or a private person may$ without a warrant$ arrest a personE ?aA When$ in his presence$ the person to be arrested has committed$ is actually committing$ or is attempting to commit an offenseF ?bA When an offense has in fact 7ust been committed$ and he has personal (nowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed itF ?cA When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final 7udgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending$ or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.> Dnder S9?bA$ two conditions must concur for a warrantless arrest to be validE first$ the offender has 7ust committed an offense and$ second$ the arresting peace officer or private person has personal (nowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. 4t has been held that =personal (nowledge of facts6 in arrests without a warrant must be based upon probable cause$ which means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion.> Berein$ the arrest of Cubcubin was effected shortly after the victim was (illed. 'here was no =probable cause$ however$ for 2/; 1osal and S2/! Malinao$ r.$ the arresting officers$ to believe that Cubcubin committed the crime. 'he two did not have =personal (nowledge of facts> indicating that Cubcubin had committed the crime. 'heir (nowledge of the circumstances from which they allegedly inferred that Cubcubin was probably guilty was based entirely on what they had been told by others$ to witE by someone who called the 252 station in San Antonio$ Cavite City at about ;E;0 a.m. of )@ August !"": and reported that a man had been (illed along ulian *elipe ,oulevard of the said cityF by an alleged witness who saw Cubcubin and the victim coming out of the Sting CafeF by Danet Carcellano$ waitress

at the Sting Cafe$ who said that the man last seen with the victim was lean$ mustachioed$ dar(< comple.ioned and was wearing a white t<shirt and a pair of brown short pantsF by a tricycle driver named Armando 2lata who told them that the physical description given by Carcellano fitted Cubcubin$ alias = un Dulce> and who said he (new where Cubcubin lived and accompanied them to Cubcubin6s house. 'hus$ 2/; 1osal and S2/! Malinao$ r. merely relied on information given to them by others. ,e that as it may$ Cubcubin cannot now -uestion the validity of his arrest without a warrant. 'he records show that he pleaded not guilty to the charge when arraigned on !! 5ovember !"":. Cubcubin did not ob7ect to the arraignment$ and thus has waived the right to ob7ect to the legality of his arrest. /n the other hand$ the search of Cubcubin6s house was illegal and$ conse-uently$ the things obtained as a result of the illegal search$ i.e.$ the white =Banes> t<shirt$ two spent shells$ and the .;# caliber gun$ are inadmissible in evidence against him. 4t cannot be said that the .;# caliber gun was discovered through inadvertence. After bringing Cubcubin to the Sting Cafe where he was positively identified by a waitress named Danet Carcellano as the victim6s companion$ the arresting officers allegedly as(ed Cubcubin where he hid the gun used in (illing the victim. According to S2/! Malinao$ r.$ when Cubcubin refused to answer$ he sought Cubcubin6s permission to go bac( to his house and there found the .;# caliber revolver on top of a plastic water container outside the bathroom. 'hus$ the gun was purposely sought by the police officers and they did not merely stumble upon it. 5or were the police officers 7ustified in sei&ing the white =Banes> t<shirt placed on top of the divider =in plain view> as such is not contraband nor is it incriminating in nature which would lead S2/! Malinao$ r. to conclude that it would constitute evidence of a crime. Contrary to what S2/! Malinao$ r. said$ the t<shirt was not =bloodied> which could have directed his attention to ta(e a closer loo( at it. *rom the photograph of the t<shirt$ it is not visible that there were bloodstains. 'he actual t<shirt merely had some small spec(s of blood at its lower portion. *urthermore$ there is no evidence to lin( Cubcubin directly to the crime. %eo&#e vs. 4au#a [GR 132611, 15 ?ove(+er 2000] Third Division, 6itu* (J): 3 concur Facts /n !; December !""9$ at around #E00 p.m.$ upiter Caburao$ allegedly decided to follow his mother$ 2atrocinia Caburao$ who had earlier left their house at ,arangay Siwasiw West$ Sual$ 2angasinan$ to settle her due obligations at a store$ about ! !3) (ilometers away$ owned by a certain ,rigida 'umamang. While traversing the road towards the store$ upiter allegedly noticed a commotion near the cree( about !0 meters away from him. Be allegedly focused his flashlight towards the direction where he heard the commotion and saw Crisanto ,aula and Danilo Dacucos in the act of hac(ing a person who was lying on the ground$ while 1obert ,aula and 1uben ,aula stood as loo(outs. 'he assault allegedly lasted for about 8minutes. 'he ,aulas and Dacucos allegedly fled but not before they had threatened upiter with death if he were to divulge the incident to anyone. upiter went near the lifeless body of the victim who turned out to be his own mother. Ber head and face sustained four hac(ing wounds$ two of which damaged her brain tissues. upiter rushed home and brought his niece and nephew to the house of a neighbor for their safety. *or fear of reprisal from the ,aulas$ et. al. and believing that the police would be able to solve the gory (illing on their own$ upiter did not reveal the damage to either his relatives or the police. About )E00 a.m. of !8 December !""9$ the police authorities$ led by S2/8 *ermin Mirande$ went to the locus criminis$ and too( pictures of the body of the victim. 'he investigation revealed that before the victim was (illed$ she had been to ,rigida

'umamang6s storeF that the ,aulas$ et. al. were also at the store having a drin(ing spreeF that the victim left the store between :E00 p.m. and #E00 p.m.$ and that$ !9 minutes later$ the ,aulas$ et. al. also left. S2/8 Mirande$ with several policemen$ repaired to the respective houses of accused<appellants. 'he policemen as(ed 1uben ,aula and Crisanto ,aula for the clothing they wore on the night of the murder. 1uben ,aula gave his bloodstained pair of short pants$ and Crisanto ,aula turned over his bloodstained polo shirt. 'he policemen ne.t went to the hut of Danilo Dacucos. 4nside the hut$ the group found hanging on the wall a bloodstained bolo. 'he bloodstained pair of short pants$ polo shirt and bolo$ together with the victim6s dried blood samples$ were sent on the same day to the 5ational ,ureau of 4nvestigation$ Dagupan City ,ranch /ffice$ for forensic e.amination. 'he results of the e.amination disclosed that the bloodstains found in the bolo$ the bloodstains on the polo shirt and the bloodstains on the pair of short pants had the same type =/> blood as that of the victim. /n : August !""@$ Crisanto ,aula$ 1uben ,aula$ 1obert ,aula and Danilo Dacucos were charged with murder before the 1egional 'rial Court$ ,ranch ;#$ of Lingayen$ 2angasinan. When arraigned$ the accused all entered a plea of not guilty to the offense charged. 'rial shortly thereafter ensued. 'he ,aulas$ et. al. denied their involvement in 2atrocinia6s (illing. 'he trial court rendered its 7udgment on !: 5ovember !"":$ convicting ,aula$ et. al. of the crime charged$ and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of 1eclusion 2erpetua and to pay$ 7ointly and severally$ the heirs of 2atrocinia Caburao ?aA 90$000.00 for the death of 2atrocinia CaburaoF ?bA 2!9$000.00 for funeral e.pensesF ?cA moral damages of 2:9$000.00F and ?dA to pay proportionally the costs. ,aula$ et. al. appealed. !ssue Whether the ,aulas can be arrested without warrant for the (illing of 2etrocinia Caburao$ and whether sei&ures can be effected pursuant to such arrests. "e#$ 'he proscription against unreasonable searches and sei&ures is not absolute$ and the Court has had occasions to rule that a warrantless search and sei&ure of property is valid under certain circumstances. 'here can$ for instance$ be a lawful warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recogni&ed under Section !)$ 1ules !)@ of the 1ules of Court and by prevailing 7urisprudenceF or sei&ure of evidence in =plain view$> its elements being e.tantF or search of a moving vehicleF or consented searchF or customs search. 'he situation here in -uestion$ however$ can hardly come within the purview of any of the established e.ceptions. 4n a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest$ the arrest itself must have to be effected under the circumstances enumerated by law. /ne such case is when an offense has in fact 7ust been committed$ and the peace officer has personal (nowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. Danilo Dacucos$ Crisanto ,aula and 1uben ,aula were not being arrested at the time that the bloodstained bolo$ polo shirt and short pants were allegedly ta(en from them but were 7ust being -uestioned by the police officers conducting the investigation about the death of 2atrocinia Caburao. 'he investigating officers had no personal (nowledge of facts indicating that the accused had committed the crime. ,eing in no position to effect a warrantless arrest$ the police officers were thus li(ewise barred from effecting a warrantless search and sei&ure. 'he police officers acted on a mere suspicion that ,aula$ et. al. could be responsible for the commission of the crime and only because of their being at the store where the victim was last seen. Mere suspicion cannot satisfy the re-uirement of probable cause which signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he can be charged. An illegal search cannot be underta(en and then an arrest effected on the

strength of the evidence yielded by that search. 'he Court finds it less than credible the stance of the prosecution that the polo shirt and short pants have been voluntarily given. An alleged consent to a warrantless search and sei&ure cannot be based merely on the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty. 'his presumption by itself$ cannot prevail against the constitutionally protected rights of an individual$ and &eal in the pursuit of criminals cannot ennoble the use of arbitrary methods that the Constitution itself abhors. %eo&#e vs. *.noc [GR 113511012, 1 Ju#y 1991] Third Division, 7arvasa ()J): 4 concur Facts /n )0 September !""!$ at about @E00 a.m.$ 4sidoro Viacrusis$ manager of 'aganito Mining Corporation$ was motoring from the company compound ?at 'aganito$ Claver$ Surigao del 5orteA to Surigao City. Be was riding on a company vehicle$ a Mitsubishi 2a7ero ?D*Q<;":A$ driven by 'arcisio Cui7apon. As Viacrusis and Cui7apon were approaching the public cemetery of Claver$ they were stopped by several armed men. 'he latter$ identifying themselves as members of the 5ew 2eople6s Army ?52AA$ boarded the 2a7ero and ordered Cui7apon to proceed. When they reached ,arobo$ Surigao del 5orte$ the armed men ordered Viacrusis and Cui7apon to alight$ led them$ their hands bound behind their bac( to a coconut grove some @ meters from the road$ and after ma(ing them lie face down on the ground$ shot them several times. Viacrusis miraculously survived. 'he driver$ Cui7apon$ was not as luc(yF he died on the spot. At about : a.m. the following day$ a secret informant ?(nown as a =civilian asset>A named ,oyet reported to the police Station at Mon(ayo$ Davao del 5orte that the stolen ?>carnapped>A =2a7ero> was par(ed behind the apartment of a certain 2aulino /vera at the ,liss Bousing 2ro7ect at 2oblacion$ Mon(ayo. /n instructions of the Station Commander$ a police team went to the place. 'hey saw the =2a7ero> and$ their initial in-uiries having yielded the information that the man who had brought it there would return that morning$ posted themselves in such a manner as to (eep it in view. Some ; hours later$ at about !0E;0 a.m.$ they saw a man approach the =2a7ero> who$ on seeing them$ tried to run away. 'hey stopped him. 'hey found out that the man$ identified as Danilo Sinoc of Surigao del 5orte$ had the (ey of the =2a7ero$> and was acting under instructions of certain companions who were waiting for him at the Star Lodge at 'agum$ Davao del 5orte. 1iding on the recovered =2a7ero$> the police officers brought Sinoc to the Star Lodge only to discover that his companions were no longer there. 'hey later turned over Sinoc to the 89"th Mobile *orce$ together with the =2a7ero.> Sinoc$ Vicente Salon K =Dodong$> ,en7amin +spinosa K =,en7i$> aime ornales K = ames$> Victorino Delegencia K un<Cren$> and one 1oger Doe K =1am> ?at largeA were charged on ); anuary !""). /nly Sinoc and Vicente Salon were arraigned$ on !8 uly !"")$ the other accused being then at large. Assisted by their respective counsel$ both Sinoc and Salon entered pleas of not guilty and were thereafter 7ointly tried. /n : /ctober !"";$ the 1egional 'rial Court of Surigao City$ ,ranch ;0$ found Sinoc guilty beyond reasonable doubt in two cases 7ointly triedE one$ of the special comple. crime of (idnapping with murder ?under Article )@: in relation to Articles )8# ) and 8# ; of the 1evised 2enal CodeA N in Criminal Case ;9@8F and the other$ of the comple. crime of (idnapping with frustrated murder ?under Articles )@:$ )8#$ @ 8 and 8# of the same CodeA N in Criminal Case ;9@9. 4n each case$ the penalty of reclusion perpetua was imposed on him. Salon$ on the other hand was ac-uitted inasmuch as conspiracy was not proven. Sinoc appealed.

!ssue Whether the police officer had personal (nowledge of the crime Sinoc committed to allow them to arrest the latter without a warrant of arrest. "e#$ 'he law provides that an arrest without warrant may be licitly effected by a peace officer$ inter alia. =When an offense has in fact 7ust been committed$ and he has personal (nowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it.> 'here is no -uestion that the police officers in this case were aware that an offense had 7ust been committedF i.e.$ that some !) hours earlier$ a =2a7ero> belonging to a private company had been stolen ?>carnapped>A and its driver and passenger shot$ the former having died and the latter being on the verge of death. 5or is there any doubt that an informer ?>asset>A had reported that the stolen =2a7ero> was at the ,liss Bousing 2ro7ect at Mon(ayo. 4t was precisely to recover the =2a7ero> that a team composed of S2/! Michael Aringo and =7oint elements of 89" 252 M*C and Moncayo 2olice Station led by 4nsptr +den '. Dgale$> went to that place and$ on ta(ing custody of the =2a7ero$> forthwith dispatched a radio message to =Bigher Bead-uarters> advising of that fact. 'here is no -uestion either that when S2/! Aringo and his companions reached the place where the =2a7ero> was par(ed$ they were told by 2aulino /vera$ owner of the apartment behind which the vehicle was par(ed$ that the man who had brought the =2a7ero> would be bac( by !)E00 noonF that the person thus described did in fact show up at about !0E00 A.M.$ and was immediately identified by /vera as =the one who rode on that car P2a7eroF6> 7ust as there is no -uestion that when the police officers accosted him$ Sinoc had the (ey to the stolen =2a7ero> and was in the act of moving toward it admittedly to ta(e possession of it ?after having arrived by bus from 'agum together with another suspect$ =1am>A. Sinoc6s lin( to the stolen vehicle ?and hence to the (idnapping and (illing accompanying its asportationA was thus palpable. 'he foregoing circumstances left the police officers no alternative save to arrest Sinoc and ta(e possession of the =2a7ero.> Bis arrest without warrant was 7ustifiedF indeed$ it was in the premises the officers6 clear duty to apprehend himF their omission to do so would have been ine.cusable. %eo&#e vs. Gerente [GR 95851058, 10 6arc7 1993] First Division, #rino289uino (J): 3 concur Facts At about :E00 a.m. of ;0 April !""0$ Cabriel Cerente$ together with *redo +chigoren and 'otoy +chigoren$ allegedly started drin(ing li-uor and smo(ing mari7uana in Cerente6s house which is about @ meters away from the house of +dna +dwina 1eyes who was in her house on that day. She overheard the three men tal(ing about their intention to (ill Clarito ,lace. She testified that she heard *redo +chigoren saying$ =Cabriel$ papatayin natin si Clarito ,lace.> *redo and 'otoy +chigoren and Cerente carried out their plan to (ill Clarito ,lace at about )E00 p.m. of the same day. 1eyes allegedly witnessed the (illing. *redo +chigoren struc( the first blow against Clarito ,lace$ followed by 'otoy +chigoren and Cabriel Cerente who hit him twice with a piece of wood in the head and when he fell$ 'otoy +chigoren dropped a hollow bloc( on the victim6s head. 'hereafter$ the three men dragged ,lace to a place behind the house of Cerente. At about 8E00 p.m. of the same day$ 2atrolman aime Drrutia of the Valen&uela 2olice Station received a report from the 2alo 2olice Detachment about a mauling incident. Be went to the Valen&uela District Bospital where the victim was brought. Be was informed by the hospital officials that the victim died on arrival. 'he cause of death was massive fracture of the s(ull caused by a hard and heavy ob7ect. 1ight away$ 2atrolman Drrutia$ together with 2olice Corporal 1omeo Lima and 2atrolman Ale. Dmali$ proceeded to 2aseo de ,las where the mauling incident

too( place. 'here they found a piece of wood with blood stains$ a hollow bloc( and two roaches of mari7uana. 'hey were informed by 1eyes that she saw the (illing and she pointed to Cabriel Cerente as one of the three men who (illed Clarito. 'he policemen proceeded to the house of Cerente$ who was then sleeping. 'hey told him to come out of the house and they introduced themselves as policemen. 2atrolman Drrutia fris(ed Cerente and found a coin purse in his poc(et which contained dried leaves wrapped in cigarette foil. 'he dried leaves were sent to the 5ational ,ureau of 4nvestigation for e.amination. 'he *orensic Chemist found them to be mari7uana. /nly Cerente was apprehended by the police. 'he other suspects$ *redo and 'otoy +chigoren$ are still at large. /n ) May !""0$ two separate informations were filed by Assistant 2rovincial 2rosecutor ,en7amin Caraig against him for Violation of Section #$ Art. 44$ of 1A @8)9$ and for Murder. When arraigned on !@ May !""0$ Cerente pleaded not guilty to both charges. A 7oint trial of the two cases was held. /n )8 September !""0$ the 1egional 'rial Court of Valen&uela$ Metro Manila$ ,ranch !:)$ found Cerente guilty of Violation of Section # of 1epublic Act @8)9 and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a term of !) years and ! day$ as minimum$ to )0 years$ as ma.imumF and also found him guilty of Murder for which crime he was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. . Cerente appealed. !ssue Whether the police officers have the personal (nowledge of the (illing of ,lace to allow them to arrest$ and the subse-uent searchly Cerente6s person$ without the necessary warrant. "e#$ 'he search of Cerente6s person and the sei&ure of the mari7uana leaves in his possession were valid because they were incident to a lawful warrantless arrest. 2aragraphs ?aA and ?bA$ Section 9$ 1ule !!; of the 1evised 1ules of Court provide that =A peace officer or a private person may$ without a warrant$ arrest a personE ?aA When$ in his presence$ the person to be arrested has committed$ is actually committing$ or is attempting to commit an offenseF ?bA When an offense has in fact 7ust been committed$ and he has personal (nowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed itF> 'he policemen arrested Cerente only some ; hours after Cerente and his companions had (illed ,lace. 'hey saw ,lace dead in the hospital and when they inspected the scene of the crime$ they found the instruments of deathE a piece of wood and a concrete hollow bloc( which the (illers had used to bludgeon him to death. 'he eye< witness$ +dna +dwina 1eyes$ reported the happening to the policemen and pinpointed her neighbor$ Cerente$ as one of the (illers. Dnder those circumstances$ since the policemen had personal (nowledge of the violent death of ,lace and of facts indicating that Cerente and two others had (illed him$ they could lawfully arrest Cerente without a warrant. 4f they had postponed his arrest until they could obtain a warrant$ he would have fled the law as his two companions did. 'he search conducted on Cerente6s person was li(ewise lawful because it was made as an incident to a valid arrest. 'his is in accordance with Section !)$ 1ule !)@ of the 1evised 1ules of Court which provides that =A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense$ without a search warrant.> 'he fris( and search of Cerente6s person upon his arrest was a permissible precautionary measure of arresting officers to protect themselves$ for the person who is about to be arrested may be armed and might attac( them unless he is first disarmed. %eo&#e vs. *ucro [GR 93239, 18 6arc7 1991] Third Division, #utierre$ Jr% (J): 4 concur

Facts /n )! March !"#"$ 2at. 1oy *ulgencio$ a member of the 452$ Lalibo$ A(lan$ was instructed by 23Lt. Vicente Seraspi$ r. ?Station Commander of the 452 Lalibo$ A(lanA to monitor the activities of +dison Sucro$ because of information gathered by Seraspi that Sucro was selling mari7uana. As planned$ at about 9E00 2.M. on said date$ 2at. *ulgencio positioned himself under the house of a certain Arlie 1egalado at C. %uimpo Street. Ad7acent to the house of 1egalado$ about ) meters away$ was a chapel. 'hereafter$ 2at. *ulgencio saw Sucro enter the chapel$ ta(ing something which turned out later to be mari7uana from the compartment of a cart found inside the chapel$ and then return to the street where he handed the same to a buyer$ Aldie ,orromeo. After a while Sucro went bac( to the chapel and again came out with mari7uana which he gave to a group of persons. 4t was at this instance that 2at. *ulgencio radioed 23Lt. Seraspi and reported the activity going on 23Lt. Seraspi instructed 2at. *ulgencio to continue monitoring developments. At about @E;0 2.M.$ 2at. *ulgencio again called up Seraspi to report that a third buyer later identified as 1onnie Macabante$ was transacting with Sucro. At that point$ the team of 23Lt Seraspi proceeded to the area and while the police officers were at the Jouth Bostel at Maagma St.$ 2at. *ulgencio told 23Lt. Seraspi to intercept Macabante and Sucro. 23 Lt. Seraspi and his team caught up with Macabante at the crossing of Mabini and Maagma Sts. in front of the A(lan Medical Center. Dpon seeing the police$ Macabante threw something to the ground which turned out to be a tea bag of mari7uana. When confronted$ Macabante readily admitted that he bought the same from Sucro in front of the chapel. 'he police team was able to overta(e and arrest Sucro at the corner of C. %uimpo and Veterans Sts. 'he police recovered !" stic(s and 8 teabags of mari7uana from the cart inside the chapel and another teabag from Macabante. 'he teabags of mari7uana were sent to the 2C<452 Crime Laboratory Service$ at Camp Delgado$ 4loilo City for analysis. 'he specimens were all found positive of mari7uana. Sucro was charged with violation of Section 8$ Article 44 of the Dangerous Drugs Act. Dpon arraignment$ Sucro$ assisted by counsel$ entered a plea of =not guilty> to the offense charged. 'rial ensued and a 7udgment of conviction was rendered$ finding Sucro guilty of the sale of prohibited drug and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment$ and pay a fine of 2)0$000$ and costs. Sucro appealed. !ssue Whether the arrest without warrant of the accused is lawful and conse-uently$ whether the evidence resulting from such arrest is admissible. "e#$ Section 9$ 1ule !!; of the 1ules on Criminal 2rocedure provides for the instances where arrest without warrant is considered lawful. 'he rule states that =A peace officer or private person may$ without warrant$ arrest a personE ?aA When in his presence$ the person to be arrested has committed$ is actually committing$ or is attempting to commit an offenseF ?bA When an offense has in fact 7ust been committed$ and he has personal (nowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed itF> An offense is committed in the presence or within the view of an officer$ within the meaning of the rule authori&ing an arrest without a warrant$ when the officer sees the offense$ although at a distance$ or hears the disturbances created thereby and proceeds at once to the scene thereof. 'he failure of the police officers to secure a warrant stems from the fact that their (nowledge ac-uired from the surveillance was insufficient to fulfill the re-uirements for the issuance of a search warrant. What is paramount is that probable cause e.isted. Still$ that searches and sei&ures must be supported by a valid warrant is not an absolute rule. Among the e.ceptions granted by law is a search incidental to a lawful arrest under Sec. !)$ 1ule !)@ of the 1ules on Criminal 2rocedure$ which provides that a person

lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense$ without a search warrant. Berein$ police officers have personal (nowledge of the actual commission of the crime when it had earlier conducted surveillance activities of the accused. Dnder the circumstances ?monitoring of transactionsA there e.isted probable cause for the arresting officers$ to arrest Sucro who was in fact selling mari7uana and to sei&e the contraband. 'hus$ as there is nothing unlawful about the arrest considering its compliance with the re-uirements of a warrantless arrestF ergo$ the fruits obtained from such lawful arrest are admissible in evidence. %eo&#e vs. 3(.nnu$.n [GR L015860, 6 Ju#y 1988] First Division, )ru$ (J): 3 concur Facts 4del Aminnudin y Ahni was arrested on )9 une !"#8$ shortly after disembar(ing from the M3V Wilcon " at about #E;0 p.m.$ in 4loilo City. 'he 2C officers who were in fact waiting for him simply accosted him$ inspected his bag and finding what loo(ed li(ed mari7uana leaves too( him to their head-uarters for investigation. 'he two bundles of suspect articles were confiscated from him and later ta(en to the 5,4 laboratory for e.amination. When they were verified as mari7uana leaves$ an information for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act was filed against him. Later$ the information was amended to include *arida Ali y Bassen$ who had also been arrested with him that same evening and li(ewise investigated. ,oth were arraigned and pleaded not guilty. Subse-uently$ 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.> 'he motion was granted$ and trial proceeded only against Aminnudin$ who was eventually convicted$ and sentenced to life imprisonment plus a fine of 2)0$000.00. !ssue Whether there was ample opportunity to obtain a warrant of arrest against Aminnudin$ for alleged possession and transport of illegal drugs. "e#$ 4t is not disputed$ and in fact it is admitted by the 2C officers who testified for the prosecution$ that they had no warrant when they arrested Aminnudin and sei&ed the bag he was carrying. 'heir only 7ustification was the tip they had earlier received from a reliable and regular informer who reported to them that Aminnudin was arriving in 4loilo by boat with mari7uana. 'heir testimony varies as to the time they received the tip$ one saying it was two days before the arrest ?this was the declaration of the chief of the arresting team$ Lt. Cipriano %uerol$ r.A$ another two wee(s and a third =wee(s before une )9.> 'here was no warrant of arrest or search warrant issued by a 7udge after personal determination by him of the e.istence of probable cause. Contrary to the averments of the government$ Aminnudin was not caught in flagrante nor was a crime about to be committed or had 7ust been committed to 7ustify the warrantless arrest allowed under 1ule !!; of the 1ules of Court. +ven e.pediency could not be invo(ed to dispense with the obtention of the warrant. 'he present case presented no urgency. *rom the conflicting declarations of the 2C witnesses$ it is clear that they had at least two days within which they could have obtained a warrant to arrest and search Aminnudin who was coming 4loilo on the M3V Wilcon ". Bis name was (nown. 'he vehicle was identified. 'he date of its arrival was certain. And from the information they had received$ they could have persuaded a 7udge that there was probable cause$ indeed$ to 7ustify the issuance of a warrant. Jet they did nothing. 5o effort was made to comply with the law. 'he ,ill of 1ights was ignored altogether because the

2C lieutenant who was the head of the arresting team$ had determined on his own authority that =search warrant was not necessary.> %eo&#e vs. %asu$ag [GR 128822, 5 6ay 2001] First Division, Pardo (J): 4 concur Facts /n )@ September !""9$ at around !E;0 p.m.$ S2/) 2epito Calip of the 252 Sison$ 2angasinan$ went to ,rgy. Artacho to conduct anti<7ueteng operations. Be urinated at a bushy bamboo fence behind the public school. About 9 meters away$ he saw a garden of about :0 s-uare meters. 'here were mari7uana plants in between corn plants and camote tops. Be in-uired from a store(eeper nearby as to who owned the house with the garden. 'he storeowner told him that Alberto 2asudag y ,o(ang owned it. S2/) Calip went to the 2olice Station and reported to Chief of 2olice 1omeo C. Astrero. 'he latter dispatched a team ?composed of S2/) Calip$ S2/; *a7arito$ S2/; Alcantara and 2/; 1ascaA to conduct an investigation. At around )E;0 p.m.$ the team arrived at ,rgy. Artacho and went straight to the house of 2asudag. S2/; *a7arito loo(ed for 2asudag and as(ed him to bring the team to his bac(yard garden which was about 9 meters away. Dpon seeing the mari7uana plants$ the policemen called for a photographer$ who too( pictures of 2asudag standing beside one of the mari7uana plants. 'hey uprooted : mari7uana plants. 'he team brought 2asudag and the mari7uana plants to the police station. /n !: December !""@$ 8th Assistant 2rovincial 2rosecutor of 2angasinan +miliano M. Matro filed with the 1egional 'rial Court$ 2angasinan$ Drdaneta an 4nformation charging 2asudag with violation of 1A @8)9$ Sec. ". /n !0 *ebruary !"":$ the trial court arraigned the accused. Be pleaded not guilty. 'rial ensued. 'he 1egional 'rial Court$ 2angasinan$ ,ranch 8@$ Drdaneta found 2asudag guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal cultivation of mari7uana and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of 2900$000.00$ without subsidiary penalty and other accessories of the law. 2asudag appealed. !ssue Whether time was of the essence to uproot and confiscate the mari7uana plants. "e#$ As a general rule$ the procurement of a search warrant is re-uired before a law enforcer may validly search or sei&e the person$ house$ papers or effects of any individual. 'he Constitution provides that =the right of the people to be secure in their persons$ houses$ papers and effects against unreasonable searches and sei&ures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable.> Any evidence obtained in violation of this provision is inadmissible. Berein$ the police authorities had ample opportunity to secure from the court a search warrant. S2/) 2epito Calip in-uired as to who owned the house. Be was ac-uainted with mari7uana plants and immediately recogni&ed that some plants in the bac(yard of the house were mari7uana plants. 'ime was not of the essence to uproot and confiscate the plants. 'hey were three months old and there was no sufficient reason to believe that they would be uprooted on that same day. With the illegal sei&ure of the mari7uana plants$ the sei&ed plants are inadmissible in evidence against 2asudag. %eo&#e vs. 9nr.#e [GR 15189, 26 6ay 1993] First Division, )ru$ (J): 3 concur

Facts At about @E;0 p.m. of )9 /ctober !"#9$ a buy<bust team composed of 2at. aime *lores and 2at. Wilson 1ances of the %ue&on City 2olice Anti<5arcotics Dnit was dispatched to entrap 1ogelio Abugatal at 1oosevelt Avenue in San *rancisco del Monte$ %ue&on City. 'he plan was made on the strength of a tip given by 1enato 2olines$ a police informer$ who was himself to pose as the buyer. /n that occasion the policemen saw 2olines hand over to Abugatal the mar(ed money representing payment for the moc( transaction. Abugatal left with the money and returned !0 minutes later with a wrapped ob7ect which he gave 2olines. 'he two policemen then approached Abugatal and placed him under arrest$ at the same time confiscating the wrapped ob7ect. Subse-uent laboratory e.amination revealed this to be mari7uana with flowering tops weighing )) grams. Dpon prodding$ Abugatal led the policemen to a house at )0 De Vera Street$ also in San *rancisco del Monte$ %ue&on City$ where he called out for Antonio +nrile. +nrile came out and met them at the gate. Abugatal pointed to +nrile as the source of the mari7uana$ whereupon the policemen immediately arrested and fris(ed him. 'hey found in the right front poc(et of his trousers the mar(ed money earlier delivered to Abugatal. At the police head-uarters$ Abugatal signed a sworn confession. +nrile refused to ma(e any statement pending consultation with a lawyer. Antonio +nrile y Villaroman and 1ogelio Abugatal y Mar-ue& were charged for violation of the Dangerous Drug Act by the 1egional 'rial Court of %ue&on City. 'he 1'C$ after trial and on !8 *ebruary !"#@$ found +nrile and Abugatal guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced them to life imprisonment and a fine of 2;0$000.00. ,oth appealed. Abugatal$ however$ was (illed in an attempted 7ailbrea( and thus the appeal is dismissed as to him. !ssue Whether the mar( money found in +nrile6s possession$ pursuant to a warrantless arrest$ search and sei&ure$ provide for his criminal culpability. "e#$ 4t was Abugatal who was allegedly caught red<handed by the policemen as he sold the mari7uana to 2olines. +nrile was not even at the scene of the entrapment at that time. Abugatal said he did lead the policemen to +nrile6s house where he pointed to +nrile as the source of the mari7uana. +ven assuming this to be true$ that circumstance alone did not 7ustify +nrile6s warrantless arrest and search. Dnder 1ule !!;$ Section 9$ of the 1ules of Court$ a peace officer or a private person may ma(e a warrantless arrest only under any of the following circumstancesE ?aA When$ in his presence$ the person to be arrested has committed$ is actually committing$ or is attempting to commit an offenseF ?bA When an offense has in fact 7ust been committed$ and he has personal (nowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed itF and ?cA When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final 7udgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending$ or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. 2aragraphs ?aA and ?bA are clearly inapplicable. 2aragraph ?bA is also not in point because the policemen who later arrested +nrile at his house had no personal (nowledge that he was the source of the mari7uana. According to the policemen themselves$ what happened was that they as(ed Abugatal who gave him the mari7uana and were told it was +nrile. 4t was for this reason that they proceeded to +nrile6s house and immediately arrested him. What the policemen should have done was secure a search warrant on the basis of the information supplied by Abugatal and then$ with such authority$ proceeded to search and$ if the search was fruitful$ arrest +nrile. 'hey had no right to simply force themselves into his house on the bare ?and subse-uently disallowedA allegations of Abugatal and bundle +nrile off to the police station as if he had been caught in flagrante delicto.

'he discovery of the mar(ed money on him did not mean he was caught in the act of selling mari7uana. 'he mar(ed money was not prohibited per se. +ven if it were$ that fact alone would not retroactively validate the warrantless search and sei&ure. %eo&#e vs. -a#.(#.( [GR 123980, 30 3ugust 2001] En Banc, 0uisu',in* (J): 14 concur Facts Lanie S. Limin was !8 years old and had been living with the family of Lagawad Manny *errer and Cresencia *errer for the past ; years. /n the night of ) April !""9$ she was left alone in one of the two houses of the *errers since her usual companions$ the sons of Manny and Cresencia$ were out for the night ?discoA. 'he *errers were in the other house about !9 meters away. At around !!E;0 2.M.$ she was awa(ened when she heard somebody$ later identified as Manuel Calimlim y Muyano$ enter her room. Calimlim immediately po(ed a (nife at the left side of her nec( and said =Accompany me because 4 (illed my wife.> She was then dragged to the pig pen$ about #<" meters away from the place where she slept. Afterwards$ she was again forcibly ta(en bac( to her room$ then to her cousin6s room and to the (itchen. 4n each of these places$ Calimlim forcibly had se.ual intercourse with her while he po(ed a (nife against her nec(. According to Limin$ she first recogni&ed Calimlim while they were in the (itchen when she was able to remove the cloth covering his face. She stated that she (new Calimlim because she had seen him always following her whenever she went to school. Limin claimed that she did not struggle nor shout nor resist because she was afraid that appellant might (ill her. After the fourth intercourse$ Calimlim threatened that he would (ill her if she reported the incidents. Despite the threat$ she told her cousin$ Manicris *errer$ who then reported the matter to Dr. 5ancy %uinto who lived nearby. 'he rapes were reported to the station of S2/! Mario Suratos by Lagawad *errer. Dr. 1icardo *errer conducted the physical e.amination on Lanie$ and found that there was minimal vaginal bleeding and there were lacerations in the hymen$ the positions of which were at "E00 o6cloc($ @E00 o6cloc( and ;E00 o6cloc($ all fresh$ indicating that there were insertions within the past )8 hours. 'here was also a whitish vaginal discharge which was found positive for spermato&oa. Manuel Calimlim denied the accusations. Calimlim was charged in 8 informations for rape in Criminal Cases D<#9)9$ #@;# to #@80. /n !: 5ovember !""9$ the 1egional 'rial Court$ *irst udicial 1egion$ ,ranch 8@$ Drdaneta$ 2angasinan found Calimlim guilty of 8 counts of rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death$ to pay the offended party the amount of 290$000.00 as damages$ and to pay the costs$ in each of the cases. Bence$ the automatic review. !ssue Whether Calimlim may raise the illegality of the warrantless arrest conducted against him$ especially as the arrest was made a day after the crime was committed. "e#$ Calimlim avers that his arrest violated Section 9 of 1ule !!;$ 80 since his arrest was made one day after the crime was committed$ but without any 7udicial warrant$ although the police had ample time to get one. 'his he claims is also in violation of Article 444$ Sec. ) of the Constitution. ,ut here it will be noted that Calimlim entered a plea of not guilty to each of the informations charging him of rape. 'hus$ he had effectively waived his right to -uestion any irregularity which might have accompanied his arrest and the unlawful restraint of his liberty. 'his is clear from a reading of Section " of 1ule !!: of the 1evised 1ules of Criminal 2rocedure$ which provides that =the failure of the accused to assert any ground of a motion to -uash before he

pleads to the complaint or information$ either because he did not file a motion to -uash or failed to allege the same in said motion$ shall be deemed a waiver of any ob7ections e.cept those based on the grounds provided for in paragraphs ?aA$ ?bA$ ?gA and ?iA of section ; of this 1ule.> Civen the circumstances of his case$ the e.ceptions do not apply here and the Court is constrained to rule that Calimlim is estopped from raising the issue of the legality of his arrest. Moreover$ the illegal arrest of an accused is not sufficient cause for setting aside a valid 7udgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free from error. 'he defense6s claim of warrantless arrest which is illegal cannot render void all other proceedings including those leading to the conviction of Calimlim$ nor can the state be deprived of its right to convict the guilty when all the facts on record point to his culpability. %eo&#e v. *o#ayao [GR 119220, 20 *e&te(+er 1996] Second Division, &o'ero (J): 4 concur Facts /n " une !"")$ CA*CD members$ headed by S2/; 5ino$ were conducting an intelligence patrol to verify reports on the presence of armed persons roaming around the barangays of Caibiran. 4n ,aragay /nion$ they met the 9<man group of accused 5ilo Solayao$ who was also wearing a camouflage uniform. Bis companions$ upon seeing the government agents$ fled. S2/; 5iIo told Salayao not to run away and introduced himself as =2C$> after which he sei&ed the dried coconut leaves which the latter was carrying and found wrapped in it a 8"<inch long homemade firearm locally (nown as =latong.> When he as(ed Salayao who issued him a license to carry said firearm or whether he was connected with the military or any intelligence group$ the latter answered that he had no permission to possess the same. 'hereupon$ S2/; 5iIo confiscated the firearm and turned him over to the custody of the policemen of Caibiran who subse-uently investigated him and charged him with illegal possession of firearm. Salayao did not contest the confiscation of the shotgun but averred that this was only given to him by one of his companions$ Bermogenes Cenining$ when it was still wrapped in coconut leaves$ which they were using the coconut leaves as a torch. Salayao6s claim was corroborated by one 2edro ,alano. /n !9 August !""8$ the 1'C of 5aval ,iliran ?,ranch !@A found Salayao guilty of illegal possession of firearm under Section ! of 2D !#@@ and imposed upon him the penalty of imprisonment ranging from reclusion temporal ma.imum to reclusion perpetua. 'he trial court$ having found no mitigating but one aggravating circumstance of nighttime$ sentenced accused<appellant to suffer the prison term of reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties provided by law. Salayao appealed to the Supreme Court. !ssue Whether the search upon Solayao$ yielding the firearm wrapped in coconut leaves$ is valid. "e#$ 5ilo Solayao and his companions6 drun(en actuations aroused the suspicion of S2/; 5iIo6s group$ as well as the fact that he himself was attired in a camouflage uniform or a 7ungle suit and that upon espying the peace officers$ his companions fled. 4t should be noted that the peace officers were precisely on an intelligence mission to verify reports that armed persons were roaming around the barangays of Caibiran. 'he circumstances are similar to those obtaining in 2osadas v. Court of Appeals where this Court held that =at the time the peace officers identified themselves and apprehended the petitioner as he attempted to flee$ they did not (now that he had committed$ or was actually committing the offense of illegal possession of firearm

and ammunitions. 'hey 7ust suspected that he was hiding something in the buri bag. 'hey did not (now what its contents were. 'he said circumstances did not 7ustify an arrest without a warrant.> As with 2osadas$ the case herein constitutes an instance where a search and sei&ure may be effected without first ma(ing an arrest. 'here was 7ustifiable cause to =stop and fris(> Solayao when his companions fled upon seeing the government agents. Dnder the circumstances$ the government agents could not possibly have procured a search warrant first. 'hus$ there was no violation of the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and sei&ures. 5or was there error on the part of the trial court when it admitted the homemade firearm as evidence.