was capricious or oppressive, the State must not

be deprived of reasonable opportunity in

prosecuting the accused.

People v Tee GR No. 140546-47 (January

20, 2003)
"rights of the accused to speedy trial"

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, vs. ESTELA TUAN y BALUDDA,

Accused-Appelant
G.R. No. 176066, August 11, 2010

TOPIC: Requisites
warrant

for

issuing

search

FACTS: Facts:
On January 2000, two
informants namely, Tudlong and Lad-ing arrived
at the office of CIDG (Criminal Investigation and
Detention Group) in Baguio City, and reported to
SPO2 Fernandez, Chief of the Station Drug
Enforcement Unit (SDEU), that a certain "Estela
Tuan" had been selling marijuana at Barangay
Gabriela Silang, Baguio City. SPO2 Fernandez set
out to verify the report of Tudlong and Lad-ing.
On the afternoon of the same day, he gave
Tudlong and Lad-ing P300.00 to buy marijuana,
and accompanied the two informants to the
accused Tuans house. Tudlong and Lad-ing
entered the house, while SPO2 Fernandez waited
at the adjacent house. Later, Tudlong and Lading came out and showed SPO2 Fernandez the
marijuana they bought. Upon returning to the
CIDG office, SPO2 Fernandez requested a
laboratory examination on the specimen and
yielded positive results for marijuana.
SPO2 Fernandez, together with the
informants, filed the Application for a Search
Warrant before Judge Iluminada Cabato-Cortes
(Judge Cortes) of the Municipal Trial Court in
Cities (MTCC), Baguio City on January 25, 2000.
Two hours later, at around three oclock, Judge
Cortes personally examined SPO2 Fernandez,
Tudlong, and Lad-ing, after which, she issued a
Search Warrant, which stated Tuans residence
as the house of the accused Estela Tuan at
Brgy. Gabriela Silang, Baguio City. Even though
accused Tuan was not around, the CIDG team
was allowed entry into the house by Magno
Baludda (Magno), accuseds father, after he was
shown a copy of the Search Warrant. SPO2
Fernandez guarded the surroundings of the
house, while SPO1 Carrera and PO2 Chavez
searched inside. They saw, in the presence of
Magno, a movable cabinet in Tuans room, below
of which they found a brick of marijuana and a
firearm. Later Tuan arrived and thereafter, the
police officers asked Tuan to open a cabinet, in
which they saw more bricks of marijuana. The
defense, on the other hand, disclaimed
ownership of the bricks and alleged that a
Search Warrant was issued for her house
because of a quarrel with her neighbor named
Lourdes Estillore (Estillore). The RTC found

Facts
The case involves an automatic review of
judgment made against Tee who was convicted
for illegal possession of marijuana and
sentenced to death. The defense assailed the
decision of the court for taking admissible as
evidence the marijuana seized from the accused
by virtue of allegedly general search warrant.
They further contend that the accused was
deprived of his right to speedy trial by failure of
the prosecution to produce their witness who
failed to appear during the 20 hearing dates
thereby slowing down the trial procedure.
Issue
Whether or not the substantive right of the
accused for a speedy trial prejudiced during the
hearing of the case.
Held
The court ruled that the substantive right of the
accused for a fair and speedy trial was not
violated. It held that the Speedy Trial Act of 1998
provides that the trial period for the criminal
cases should be in general 180 days. However,
in determining the right of an accused to speedy
trial, courts should do more than a mathematical
computation of the number of postponements of
the scheduled hearings of the case.The right to a
speedy trial is deemed violated only when: (1)
the proceedings are attended by vexatious,
capricious, and oppressive delays; or (2) when
unjustified postponements are asked for and
secured; or (3) when without cause or justifiable
motive a long period of time is allowed to elapse
without the party having his case tried.
It was shown by the records that the prosecution
exerted efforts in obtaining a warrant to compel
the witness to testify. The concept of speedy trial
is necessarily relative where several factors are
weighed such as the length of time of delay, the
reason of such delay, and conduct of prosecution
and the accused and the prejudice and damaged
caused to the accused of such delay. The court
did not find the 20 days of delayed hearing
unreasonable length of time as to constitute
deprivation of the constitutional rights of the
accused for a speedy trial in addition to the fact
that court trial may be always subjected to
postponement for reasonable cause of delay. In
the absence of showing that the reason for delay

A magistrates determination of probable

cause for the issuance of a search warrant is
paid great deference by a reviewing court, as
long as there was substantial basis for that
determination. Substantial basis means that the
questions of the examining judge brought out
such facts and circumstances as would lead a
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe
that an offense has been committed, and the
objects in connection with the offense sought to
be seized are in the place sought to be
searched.Such substantial basis exists in this
case. Judge Cortes found probable cause for the
issuance of the Search Warrant for Tuans
residence
after
said
judges
personal
examination of SPO2 Fernandez, the applicant;
and Lad-ing and Tudlong, the informants. SPO2
Fernandez based his Application for Search
Warrant not only on the information relayed to
him by Lad-ing and Tudlong. He also arranged
for a test buy and conducted surveillance of
Tuan.
2. YES. A description of the place to be
searched is sufficient if the officer serving
the warrant can, with reasonable effort,
ascertain and identify the place intended
and distinguish it from other places in the
community. A designation or description
that points out the place to be searched to
the exclusion of all others, and on inquiry
unerringly leads the peace officers to it,
satisfies the constitutional requirement of
definiteness. In the case at bar, the address
and description of the place to be searched in
the Search Warrant was specific enough. There
was only one house located at the stated
address,
which
was
accused-appellants
residence, consisting of a structure with two
floors and composed of several rooms.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision
dated September 21, 2006 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00381, is hereby
AFFIRMED in toto. No costs.
RUBEN DEL CASTILLO v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 185128, 30 January 2012, THIRD
DIVISION (Peralta, J.)
Having been established that the assistance of
the barangay tanods was sought by the police
authorities who effected the searched warrant,
the same barangay tanods therefore acted as
agents of persons in authority.
Police Officers headed by SPO3 Bienvenido
Masnayon went to serve a search warrant from
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to Petitioner Ruben
Del Castillo in search of illegal drugs. Upon
arrival,
somebody
shouted
raid
which
prompted the police officers to immediately

accused guilty as charged. On appeal, the CA

modified by acquitting Tuan of the charge for
illegal possession of firearm but affirming her
conviction for illegal possession of marijuana.
Tuan raised the matter to the Supreme Court
contending, among others, that the warrant
failed to particularly describe the place because
the house was a two-storey building composed
of several rooms.
ISSUES:
1. WON there was probable cause for
the judge to issue a Search Warrant
and whether the search warrant
particularly described the place to
be searched.
2. WON
the
search
warrant
particularly described the place to
be searched.
RULING:
1. YES. The validity of the issuance of a
search warrant rests upon the following
factors:
(1) it must be issued upon probable
cause;
(2) the probable cause must be
determined by the judge himself
and not by the applicant or any
other person;
(3) in the determination of probable
cause, the judge must examine,
under oath or affirmation, the
complainant and such witnesses as
the latter may produce; and
(4)
the
warrant
issued
must
particularly describe the place to be
searched and persons or things to
be seized.
The only issue is compliance with the
first and fourth factors, i.e., existence of
probable cause; and particular description of the
place to be searched and things to be seized.
Probable cause generally 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 is charged.
It likewise refers to the existence of such facts
and circumstances which could lead a
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe
that an offense has been committed and that
the item(s), article(s) or object(s) sought in
connection with said offense or subject to
seizure and destruction by law is in the place to
be searched.
Before a search warrant can be issued, it must
be shown by substantial evidence that the items
sought are in fact seizable by virtue of being
connected with criminal activity, and that the
items will be found in the place to be searched.

because the one who discovered them was a

barangay tanod who is a private individual, the
constitutional guaranty against unreasonable
searches and seizure being applicable only
against government authorities. The contention
is devoid of merit. It was testified to during trial
by the police officers who effected the search
warrant that they asked the assistance of the
barangay tanods. Having been established that
the assistance of the barangay tanods was
sought by the police authorities who effected the
search warrant, the same barangay tanods
therefore acted as agents of persons in
authority. Article 152 of the Revised Penal Code
defines persons in authority and agents of
persons in authority as any person directly
vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual
or as a member of some court or governmental
corporation, board or commission, shall be
deemed a person in authority. A barangay
captain and a barangay chairman shall also be
deemed a person in authority. A person who, by
direct provision of law or by election or by
appointment by competent authority, is charged
with the maintenance of public order and the
protection and security of life and property, such
as barrio councilman, barrio policeman and
barangay leader, and any person who comes to
the aid of persons in authority, shall be deemed
an agent of a person in authority.
The Local Government Code also contains a
provision which describes the function of a
barangay tanod as an agent of persons in
authority. Section 388 of the Local Government
Code reads: For purposes of the Revised Penal
Code, the punong barangay, sangguniang
barangay members, and members of the lupong
tagapamayapa in each barangay shall be
deemed as persons in authority in their
jurisdictions, while other barangay officials and
members who may be designated by law or
ordinance and charged with the maintenance of
public order, protection and security of life and
property, or the maintenance of a desirable and
balanced environment, and any barangay
member who comes to the aid of persons in
authority, shall be deemed agents of persons in
authority.
By virtue of the above provisions, the police
officers, as well as the barangay tanods were
acting as agents of a person in authority during
the conduct of the search. Thus, the search
conducted
was
unreasonable
and
the
confiscated items are inadmissible in evidence.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs ANDRE
MARTI
G.R. No. 81561 January 18, 1991
FACTS:

disembark from the jeep they were riding and go

directly to Del Castillos house and cordoned it
off. Police men found nothing incriminating in
Del Castillos residence, but one of the barangay
tanods was able to confiscate from the hut
several articles including four (4) plastic packs of
methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu.
An Information was filed before RTC against Del
Castillo, charging him with violation of Section
16, Article III of R.A. 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs
Act of 1972). During the arraignment, Del
Castillo pleaded not guilty. The RTC found Del
Castillo guilty beyond reasonable of the charge
against him in the information. The Court of
Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision.
Del Castillo appealed his case to the CA,
insisting that there was a violation of his
constitutional guaranty against unreasonable
searches and seizure. On the contrary, the Office
of the Solicitor General argued that the
constitutional guaranty against unreasonable
searches and seizure is applicable only against
government authorities. Hence, assuming that
the items seized were found in another place not
designated in the search warrant, the same
items should still be admissible as evidence
because the one who discovered them was a
barangay tanod who is a private individual.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there was a violation of Del
Castillos right against unreasonable searches
and seizure
HELD:
Petition GRANTED.
It must be remembered that the warrant issued
must particularly describe the place to be
searched and persons or things to be seized in
order for it to be valid. A designation or
description that points out the place to be
searched to the exclusion of all others, and on
inquiry unerringly leads the peace officers to it,
satisfies the constitutional requirement of
definiteness.
In the present case, the search warrant
specifically
designates
or
describes
the
residence of the petitioner as the place to be
searched. Incidentally, the items were seized by
a barangay tanod in a nipa hut, 20 meters away
from the residence of the Del Castillo. The
confiscated items, having been found in a place
other than the one described in the search
warrant, can be considered as fruits of an invalid
UST Law Review, Vol. LVII No. 1, November 2012
warrantless search, the presentation of which as
an evidence is a violation of Del Castillos
constitutional guaranty against unreasonable
searches and seizure.
The OSG argued that, assuming that the items
seized were found in another place not
designated in the search warrant, the same
items should still be admissible as evidence

FACTUAL
CONSIDERATIONS

Readily
foreclose the proportion that NBI agents
conducted an illegal search and seizure of the
prohibited merchandise, clearly that the NBI
agents made no search and seizure much less
an illegal one, contrary to the postulate of
accused / appellant.
CHADWICK vs STATE, having observed that
which is open, where no trespass has been
committed in aid thereof
BILL OF RIGHTS
The protection of fundamental liberties in the
essence of constitutional democracy, protection
against whom, protection against the STATE.

August 14, 1957, the appellant and his commonlaw wife, Sherly Reyes, went to the booth of the
Manila Packing and Export Forwarders carrying
Four (4) wrapped packages. The appellant
informed Anita Reyes that he was sending the
packages to a friend in Zurich, Switzerland. Anita
Reyes asked if she could examine and inspect
the packages. She refused and assures her that
the packages simply contained books, cigars,
and gloves.
Before the delivery of appellants box to the
Bureau of Customs and Bureau of Posts, Mr. Job
Reyes (Proprietor), following the standard
operating procedure, opened the boxes for final
inspection. A peculiar odor emitted from the box
and that the gloves contain dried leaves. He
prepared a letter and reported to the NBI and
requesting a laboratory examinations. The dried
marijuana leaves were found to have contained
inside the cellophane wrappers.

PEOPLE VS MARTI
People of the Philippines vs. Andre Marti
G.R. No. 81561, January 18 1991
Facts:
The appellant and his common law wife, Shirley
Reyes, went to the booth of the Manila Packing
and Export Forwarders in the Pistang Filipino
Complex Ermita, Manila carrying with them four
gift wrapped packages to be sent in Zurich
Switzerland. The proprietress, Anita Reyes (not
related to Shirley Reyes) then asked the
appellant if he could examine and expect the
packages however appellant refused, assuring
her that the packages simply contained books,
cigars, and gloves and were just gifts to a friend.
Anita no longer insisted. Before delivery of
appellants box to the bureau of Customs and or
bureau of Post, Mr. Job Reyes, proprietor and
husband of Anita, following standard procedure
opened the boxes for final inspection. When he
opened a peculiar odor emitted therefrom. He
squeezed one of the bundles allegedly
containing gloves and felt dried leaves inside.
Job prepared a letter reporting the shipment to
the NBI and requesting laboratory examination
sample he extracted from the cellophane.
Therefore, job and three NBI agents and a
photographer went to the Reyes office at
Ermita. Job brought out the box in which
appellants packages were places and in the
presence of the NBI agents, open the top flaps,
removed the Styrofoam and took out the
cellophane wrappers from inside the gloves.
Dried marijuana leaves are found inside the
cellophane.
Issue:

The accused appellant assigns the following

errors: The lower court erred in admitting in
evidence the illegality of search and seized
objects contained in the four (4) parcels.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the seizing of illegal objects is
legal?
HELD:
Yes, appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
RATIONALE:
Article III, Sections
Constitution

and

3,

1987

Mapp vs Ohio, exclusionary rule

Stonehill vs Diokno, declared as inadmissible
any evidence obtained by virtue of a defective
search warrant, abandoning in the process the
ruling earlier adopted in Mercado vs Peoples
Court.
The case at the bar assumes a peculiar
character since the evidence sought to be
excluded was primarily discovered and obtained
by a private person, acting in a private capacity
and without the intervention and participation of
state authorities. Under the circumstances, can
accused / appellant validly claim that his
constitutional right against unreasonable search
and seizure.
The contraband in this case at bar having come
into possession of the government without the
latter transgressing appellants rights against
unreasonable search and seizure, the Court sees
no cogent reason whty the same should not be
admitted.

decided to approach the men for questioning,

and given the nature of the behavior the officer
decided to perform a quick search of the men
before questioning. A quick frisking of the
Petitioner produced a concealed weapon and the
Petitioner was charged with carrying a concealed
weapon.
Issue. Whether a search for weapons without
probable cause for arrest is an unreasonable
search under the Fourth Amendment to the
United States Constitution (Constitution)?
Held. The Supreme Court of the United States
(Supreme Court) held that it is a reasonable
search when an officer performs a quick seizure
and a limited search for weapons on a person
that the officer reasonably believes could be
armed. A typical beat officer would be unduly
burdened by being prohibited from searching
individuals that the officer suspects to be armed.
Dissent. Justice William Douglas (J. Douglas)
dissented, reasoning that the majoritys holding
would grant powers to officers to authorize a
search and seizure that even a magistrate would
not possess.
Concurrence.
Justice John Harlan (J. Harlan) agreed with the
majority, but he emphasized an additional
necessity of the reasonableness of the stop to
investigate the crime.
Justice Byron White (J. White) agreed with the
majority, but he emphasized that the particular
facts of the case, that there was suspicion of a
violent act, merit the forcible stop and frisk.
Discussion. The facts of the case are important
to understand the Supreme Courts willingness
to allow the search. The suspicious activity was
a violent crime, armed robbery, and if the
officers suspicions were correct then he would
be in a dangerous position to approach the men
for questioning without searching them. The
officer also did not detain the men for a long
period of time to constitute an arrest without
probable cause.
PEOPLE VS. SY CHUA [396 SCRA 657; G.R.
No.136066-67; 4 Feb 2003]
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Coffeeholic Writes
Labels: Case Digests, Political Law

Posted

by

Facts: Accused-appellant Binad Sy Chua was

charged with violation of Section 16, Article III of
R.A. 6425, as amended by R.A. 7659, and for
Illegal Possession of Ammunitions and Illegal

Whether or not there is violation of appellants

constitutional right against unreasonable search
and seizure.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court held that it is not the NBI
who made the search. Records of the case
clearly indicate that it was Mr. Job who made
search and inspection of the said packages. Said
inspection was reasonable and a standard
operating procedure on the part of Mr. Job as a
precautionary measure before delivery of
packages to the Bureau of Custom or Post. If the
search is made upon the request of law
enforces, a warrant must generally must be
secured first if it to pass the test of
constitutionality. However, if the search is made
in the behest or initiative of the proprietor of a
private establishment for its own and private
purpose, as in the case at bar, and without the
intervention of the police authorities, the right
against unreasonable search and seizure cannot
be invoked for only the act of private individual,
not the law enforcer, is involved.
In sum, the protection against unreasonable
search and seizure cannot be extended to acts
committed by private individual as to bring it
within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by
the government.
The alleged violation against unreasonable
search and seizure may only invoked against the
State by an individual unjustly traduced by the
exercise by the sovereign authority.
Citation. 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d
889 (1968)
END CITATION
Brief Fact Summary. The Petitioner, John W.
Terry (the Petitioner), was stopped and
searched by an officer after the officer observed
the Petitioner seemingly casing a store for a
potential robbery. The officer approached the
Petitioner for questioning and decided to search
him first.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. An officer may
perform a search for weapons without a warrant,
even without probable cause, when the officer
reasonably believes that the person may be
armed and dangerous.
Facts. The officer noticed the Petitioner talking
with another individual on a street corner while
repeatedly walking up and down the same
street. The men would periodically peer into a
store window and then talk some more. The men
also spoke to a third man whom they eventually
followed up the street. The officer believed that
the Petitioner and the other men were casing
a store for a potential robbery. The officer

him away from his car in a nearby bank, while

the others searched his car.

Possession
of
Informations.

Thereafter, he was brought to a police station

and was held inside a bathroom for about fifteen
minutes until Col. Guttierez arrived, who ordered
his men to call the media. In the presence of
reporters, Col. Guttierez opened the box and
accused-appellant was made to hold the box
while pictures were being taken.

SPO2 Nulud and PO2 Nunag received a report

from their confidential informant that accusedappellant was about to deliver drugs that night
at the Thunder Inn Hotel in Balibago, Angeles
City. So, the PNP Chief formed a team of
operatives. The group positioned themselves
across McArthur Highway near Bali Hai
Restaurant, fronting the hotel. The other group
acted as their back up.

The lower court acquitted Sy Chua for the Illegal

Possession of Ammunitions, yet convicted him
for Illegal Possession of 1,955.815 grams of
shabu. Hence, this appeal to the Court.
Issues:
(1) Whether or Not the arrest of accusedappellant was lawful; and
(2) WON the search of his person and the
subsequent confiscation of shabu allegedly
found on him were conducted in a lawful and
valid manner.
Held: The lower court believed that since the
police received information that the accused will
distribute illegal drugs that evening at the
Thunder Inn Hotel and its vicinities. The police
officer had to act quickly and there was no more
time to secure a search warrant. The search is
valid being akin to a stop and frisk.
The trial court confused the concepts of a stopand-frisk and of a search incidental to a lawful
arrest. These two types of warrantless searches
differ in terms of the requisite quantum of proof
before they may be validly effected and in their
allowable scope.
In a search incidental to a lawful arrest, as the
precedent arrest determines the validity of the
incidental search, the legality of the arrest is
questioned, e.g., whether an arrest was merely
used as a pretext for conducting a search. In this
instance, the law requires that there first be
arrest before a search can be madethe process
cannot be reversed. Accordingly, for this
exception to apply, two elements must concur:
(1) the person to be arrested must execute an
overt act indicating that he has just committed,
is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done
in the presence or within the view of the
arresting officer.
We find the two aforementioned elements
lacking in the case at bar. Accused-appellant did
not act in a suspicious manner. For all intents
and purposes, there was no overt manifestation

Drugs

in

two

separate

Afterwards, their informer pointed to a car driven

by accused-appellant which just arrived and
parked near the entrance of the hotel. After
accused-appellant alighted from the car carrying
a sealed Zest-O juice box, SPO2 Nulud and PO2
Nunag hurriedly accosted him and introduced
themselves as police officers. As accusedappellant pulled out his wallet, a small
transparent plastic bag with a crystalline
substance protruded from his right back pocket.
Forthwith, SPO2 Nulud subjected him to a body
search which yielded twenty (20) pieces of live .
22 caliber firearm bullets from his left back
pocket. When SPO2 Nunag peeked into the
contents of the Zest-O box, he saw that it
contained a crystalline substance. SPO2 Nulud
instantly confiscated the small transparent
plastic bag, the Zest-O juice box, the twenty (20)
pieces of .22 caliber firearm bullets and the car
used by accused-appellant. SPO2 Nulud and the
other police operatives who arrived at the scene
brought the confiscated items to the office of
Col. Guttierez at the PNP Headquarters in Camp
Pepito, Angeles City.
Accused-appellant
vehemently
denied
the
accusation against him and narrated a different
version of the incident.
Accused-appellant alleged that he was driving
the car of his wife to follow her and his son to
Manila. He felt sleepy, so he decided to take the
old route along McArthur Highway. He stopped in
front of a small store near Thunder Inn Hotel to
buy cigarettes and candies. While at the store,
he noticed a man approaches and examines the
inside of his car. When he called the attention of
the onlooker, the man immediately pulled out a .
45 caliber gun and made him face his car with
raised hands. The man later on identified himself
as a policeman. During the course of the arrest,
the policeman took out his wallet and instructed
him to open his car. He refused, so the
policeman took his car keys and proceeded to
search his car. At this time, the police officers
companions arrived at the scene in two cars.
PO2 Nulud, who just arrived at the scene, pulled

Intelligence Network who informed him that a

baggage of marijuana had been loaded in a
passenger jeepney that was about to leave for
the poblacion. The agent mentioned 3 bags and
1 plastic bag. Further, the agent described a
backpack bag with O.K. marking. PO2 Pallayoc
boarded the said jeepney and positioned himself
on top thereof. He found bricks of marijuana
wrapped in newspapers. He them asked the
other passengers about the owner of the bag,
but no one know.
When the jeepney reached the poblacion, PO2
Pallayoc
alighted
together
with
other
passengers. Unfortunately, he did not noticed
who took the black backpack from atop the
jeepney. He only realized a few moments later
that the said bag and 3 other bags were already
being carried away by two (2) women. He
caught up with the women and introduced
himself as a policeman. He told them that they
were under arrest, but on the women got away.
DOCTRINES:
ARTICLE III, SECTION 2 OF THE PHILIPPINE
CONSTITUTION PROVIDES: The right of the
People to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures of whatever nature and
for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no
search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue
except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the Judge after examination 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 seized.
Purpose: MOVING VEHICLE (WARRANTLESS
SEARCH)
1
This has been justified on the ground
that the mobility of motor vehicles
makes it possible for the vehicle to be
searched to move out of the locality or
jurisdiction in which the warrant must be
sought.
2
This is no way, however, gives the police
officers unlimited discretion to conduct
warrantless searches of automobiles in
the absence of probable cause when a
vehicle is stopped and subjected to an
extension search, such a warrantless
search has been held to be valid only as
long as officers conducting the search
have reasonable or probable cause to
believe before the search that they will
find the instrumentality or evidence
pertaining to a crime, in the vehicle to
be searched.

that accused-appellant has just committed, is

actually committing, or is attempting to commit
a crime. Reliable information alone, absent
any overt act indicative of a felonious enterprise
in the presence and within the view of the
arresting officers, is not sufficient to constitute
probable cause that would justify an in flagrante
delicto arrest.
With regard to the concept of stop-and frisk:
mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a
stop-and-frisk. A genuine reason must exist, in
light of the police officers experience and
surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that
the person detained has weapons concealed
about him. Finally, a stop-and-frisk serves a
two-fold interest: (1) the general interest of
effective crime prevention and detection for
purposes of investigating possible criminal
behavior even without probable cause; and (2)
the interest of safety and self-preservation which
permit the police officer to take steps to assure
himself that the person with whom he deals is
not armed with a deadly weapon that could
unexpectedly and fatally be used against the
police officer.
A stop-and-frisk was defined as the act of a
police officer to stop a citizen on the street,
interrogate him, and pat him for weapon(s) or
contraband. It should also be emphasized that a
search and seizure should precede the arrest for
this
principle
to
apply.
The
foregoing
circumstances do not obtain in the case at bar.
To reiterate, accused-appellant was first arrested
before the search and seizure of the alleged
illegal items found in his possession. The
apprehending police operative failed to make
any initial inquiry into accused-appellants
business in the vicinity or the contents of the
Zest-O juice box he was carrying. The
apprehending police officers only introduced
themselves when they already had custody of
accused-appellant.
In the case at bar, neither the in flagrante
delicto nor the stop and frisk principles is
applicable to justify the warrantless arrest and
consequent search and seizure made by the
police operatives on accused-appellant.
Wherefore, accused-appellant Binad Sy Chua is
hereby Acquitted.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs BELEN
MARIACOS
GR NO. 188611 June 16 2010
FACTS:
October 27, 2005 in Brgy Balbalayang, PO2
Pallayoc met with secret agent of the Barangay

the jeepney reached the poblacion, PO2 Pallayoc

alighted together with the other passengers.
Unfortunately, he did not notice who took the
black backpack from atop the jeepney. He only
realized a few moments later that the said bag
and three (3) other bags, including a blue plastic
bag, were already being carried away by two (2)
women. He caught up with the women and

MALUM PROHIBITUM
When an accused is charged with illegal
possession or transportation of prohibited drugs,
the
ownership
thereof
is
immaterial.
Consequently, proof of ownership of the
confiscated marijuana is not necessary.
Appellants alleged lack of knowledge does not
constitute a valid defence. Lack of criminal
intent and good faith are not exempting
circumstances where the crime charge is malum
prohibitum

introduced himself as a policeman. He told them

PEOPLE VS. MARIACOS G.R. NO. 188611, 16 JUNE

that they were under arrest, but one of the

2010

women got away. PO2 Pallayoc brought the

woman, who was later identified as accusedappellant Belen Mariacos, and the bags to the
police station.

Facts:
On October 2005 the San Gabriel Police Station
of La Union, conducted a checkpoint, composed
of The Chief of Police, PO2 Pallayoc, and other

The RTC promulgated a decision finding Mariacos

policemen,

guilty as charged. She appealed her conviction

poblacion

to the CA arguing that the search conducted on

transportation

the bag, assuming it was hers, without a search

Balbalayang, La Union. When the checkpoint did

warrant and with no permission from her,

not yield any suspect or marijuana, the Chief of

violates

against

Police instructed PO2 Pallayoc to proceed to

dismissed

Barangay Balbalayang to conduct surveillance

appellants appeal and affirmed the RTC decision

operation. There PO2 Pallayoc met with a secret

in toto ruling that Mariacos was caught in

agent of the Barangay Intelligence Network who

flagrante delicto of "carrying and conveying" the

informed him that a baggage of marijuana had

bag that contained the illegal drugs, and thus

been loaded on a passenger jeepney that was

held that appellants warrantless arrest was

about to leave for the poblacion. The agent

valid.

mentioned three (3) bags and one (1) blue

heer

warrantless

constitutional
search.

The

rights
CA

near
to

the

police

intercept
of

marijuana

station
a
from

at

the

suspected
Barangay

plastic bag. Further, the agent described a

Issue:

backpack bag with an "O.K." marking. PO2

Whether the warrantless search conducted on

Pallayoc then boarded the said jeepney and

the bag of a moving vehicle was valid

positioned himself on top thereof. While the

vehicle was in motion, he found the black

Held:
YES. Mariacos main argument centered on the
inadmissibility of the evidence used against her.
Among the instances when a warrantless search
is valid, is search of a moving vehicle. According
to jurisprudence, this had been justified on the

backpack with an "O.K." marking and peeked

inside its contents and found bricks of marijuana
wrapped in newspapers. He then asked the
other passengers on top of the jeepney about
the owner of the bag, but no one knew. When

In this case,

the

vehicle

that carried

the

ground that the mobility of motor vehicles

contraband or prohibited drugs was about to

makes it possible for the vehicle to be searched

leave. PO2 Pallayoc had to make a quick

to move out of the locality or jurisdiction in

decision and act fast. It would be unreasonable

which the warrant must be sought. However,

to require him to procure a warrant before

such a warrantless search has been held to be

conducting the search under the circumstances.

valid only as long as the officers conducting the

Time was of the essence in this case. The

search have reasonable or probable cause to

searching officer had no time to obtain a

believe before the search that they will find the

warrant. Indeed, he only had enough time to

instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a

board the vehicle before the same left for its

crime, in the vehicle to be searched. The

destination.

essential requisite of probable cause must be

satisfied before a warrantless search and seizure

It is well to remember that on October 26, 2005,

can be lawfully conducted.

the night before appellants arrest, the police

received information that marijuana was to be

Probable cause is defined as a reasonable

transported from Barangay Balbalayang, and

ground of suspicion supported by circumstances

had set up a checkpoint around the area to

sufficiently strong in themselves to induce a

intercept the suspects. At dawn of October 27,

cautious man to believe that the person accused

2005, PO2 Pallayoc met the secret agent from

is guilty of the offense charged. It refers to the

the

who

existence of such facts and circumstances that

informed him that a baggage of marijuana was

can lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man

loaded on a passenger jeepney about to leave

to believe that an offense has been committed,

for the poblacion. Thus, PO2 Pallayoc had

and that the items, articles or objects sought in

probable cause to search the packages allegedly

connection with said offense or subject to

containing illegal drugs.

seizure and destruction by law are in the place

Barangay

Intelligence

Network,

to be searched.
WHEREFORE,
considered,

the
the

foregoing

appeal

is

premises

DISMISSED.

The

The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when,

Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-

in the absence of actual belief of the arresting

HC No. 02718 is AFFIRMED.

officers, the suspicion that the person to be

PEOPLE VS. TUAN G.R. NO. 176066, 11 AUGUST

2010

January

offense is based on actual facts, i.e., supported

by

circumstances

sufficiently

strong

in

themselves to create the probable cause of guilt

Facts:
On

arrested is probably guilty of committing the

2000,

two

informants

namely,

of the person to be arrested. A reasonable

Tudlong and Lad-ing arrived at the office of CIDG

suspicion

therefore

must

be

founded

on

(Criminal Investigation and Detention Group) in

probable cause, coupled with good faith on the

Baguio City, and reported to SPO2 Fernandez,

part of the peace officers making the arrest.

firearm. Later Tuan arrived and thereafter, the

Chief of the Station Drug Enforcement Unit

police officers asked Tuan to open a cabinet, in

(SDEU), that a certain "Estela Tuan" had been

which they saw more bricks of marijuana. The

selling marijuana at Barangay Gabriela Silang,

defense,

disclaimed

Baguio City. SPO2 Fernandez set out to verify the

ownership of the bricks and alleged that a

report of Tudlong and Lad-ing. On the afternoon

Search

house

of the same day, he gave Tudlong and Lad-ing

because of a quarrel with her neighbor named

P300.00 to buy marijuana, and accompanied the

Lourdes

found

two informants to the accused Tuans house.

accused guilty as charged. On appeal, the CA

Tudlong and Lad-ing entered the house, while

modified by acquitting Tuan of the charge for

SPO2 Fernandez waited at the adjacent house.

illegal possession of firearm but affirming her

Later,

conviction for illegal possession of marijuana.

showed SPO2 Fernandez the marijuana they

Tuan raised the matter to the Supreme Court

bought. Upon returning to the CIDG office, SPO2

contending, among others, that the warrant

Fernandez requested a laboratory examination

failed to particularly describe the place because

on the specimen and yielded positive results for

the house was a two-storey building composed

marijuana.

on

the

Warrant

other

was

Estillore

hand,

issued

(Estillore).

for

The

her

RTC

Tudlong

and

Lad-ing

came

out

and

of several rooms.
SPO2 Fernandez, together with the informants,
95

filed the Application for a Search Warrant before

Judge Iluminada Cabato-Cortes (Judge Cortes) of

Issue: Whether there was probable cause for the

judge to issue a Search Warrant and whether the
search warrant particularly described the place
to be searched.

around three oclock, Judge Cortes personally

ing, after which, she issued a Search Warrant,

Whether there was probable cause for the judge

issue

Search

Warrant

YES. The validity of the issuance of a search

warrant rests upon the following factors: (1) it
must be issued upon probable cause; (2) the
probable cause must be determined by the
judge himself and not by the applicant or any
other

City on January 25, 2000. Two hours later, at

examined SPO2 Fernandez, Tudlong, and Lad-

Held:

to

the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Baguio

person;

(3)

in

the

determination

of

probable cause, the judge must examine, under

oath or affirmation, the complainant and such
witnesses as the latter may produce; and (4) the
warrant issued must particularly describe the

which stated Tuans residence as the house of

the accused Estela Tuan at Brgy. Gabriela Silang,
Baguio City
Even though accused Tuan was not around, the
CIDG team was allowed entry into the house by
Magno Baludda (Magno), accuseds father, after
he was shown a copy of the Search Warrant.
SPO2 Fernandez guarded the surroundings of the
house, while SPO1 Carrera and PO2 Chavez
searched inside. They saw, in the presence of
Magno, a movable cabinet in Tuans room, below
of which they found a brick of marijuana and a

substantial basis exists in this case. Judge Cortes

place to be searched and persons or things to be

found probable cause for the issuance of the

seized.

Search Warrant for Tuans residence after said

judges

personal

Fernandez,

the

examination

applicant;

and

of

SPO2

Lad-ing

and

Tudlong, the informants. SPO2 Fernandez based

his Application for Search Warrant not only on
the information relayed to him by Lad-ing and
Tudlong. He also arranged for a test buy and

The only issue is compliance with the first and

fourth factors, i.e., existence of probable cause;
and particular description of the place to be
searched

and

things

to

be

seized.

Probable cause generally signifies a reasonable

ground of suspicion supported by circumstances
sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a

conducted surveillance of Tuan

cautious man to believe that the person accused

Issue:
Whether

is guilty of the offense with which he is charged.

the

search

warrant

particularly

described the place to be searched.

It likewise refers to the existence of such facts

and

circumstances

which

could

lead

reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe

Held:

that an offense has been committed and that

YES. A description of the place to be searched is

sufficient if the officer serving the warrant can,
with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the
place intended and distinguish it from other

the item(s), article(s) or object(s) sought in

connection with said offense or subject to
seizure and destruction by law is in the place to
be searched.

places in the community. A designation or

description that points out the place to be

Before a search warrant can be issued, it must

searched to the exclusion of all others, and on

be shown by substantial evidence that the items

inquiry unerringly leads the peace officers to it,

sought are in fact seizable by virtue of being

satisfies

connected with criminal activity, and that the

the

constitutional

requirement

of

definiteness. In the case at bar, the address and

items will be found in the place to be searched.

description of the place to be searched in the

Search Warrant was specific enough. There was
only one house located at the stated address,
which

was

accused-appellants

residence,

consisting of a structure with two floors and

composed of several rooms.

A magistrates determination of probable cause

for the issuance of a search warrant is paid great
deference by a reviewing court, as long as there
was substantial basis for that determination.
Substantial basis means that the questions of
the examining judge brought out such facts and

96

circumstances

as

would

lead

reasonably

discreet and prudent man to believe that an

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision
dated September 21, 2006 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00381, is hereby
AFFIRMED in toto. No costs.

offense has been committed, and the objects in

connection with the offense sought to be seized
are in the place sought to be searched.Such