Admissibility of Evidence granted by Ma.
granted by Ma. Luisa Veroy to enter the house but only to
EXPRESS WAIVER
G.R. No. L-95630 June 18, 1992
SPOUSES LEOPOLDO and MA. LUISA VEROY, petitioners,
vs.
THE HON. WILLIAM L. LAYAGUE, Presiding Judge, Branch
XIV, Regional Trial Court at Davao City; and BRIG. GEN.
PANTALEON DUMLAO, Commanding General, PC-Criminal
Investigation Service, respondents.
Facts: On April 12, 1990, Capt. Reynaldo Obrero of the Talomo
Patrol Station, PC/INP, acting upon a directive issued by
Metrodiscom Commander Col. Franco Calida, raided the house
of herein petitioners in Davao City on information that the said
residence was being used as a safehouse of rebel soldiers. They
were able to enter the yard with the help of the caretakers but
did not enter the house since the owner was not present and
they did not have a search warrant.The following day, Capt.
Obrero and Major Macasaet conducted the search pursuant to
the authority granted by petitioner Ma. Luisa Veroy. They
recovered a .45 cal. handgun with a magazine, a bag etc. The
spouse Veroy were held liable for Violation of Presidential
Decree No. 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms and
Ammunitions in Furtherance of Rebellion).
Issues: Assuming the validity of Presidential Decree No. 1866
the respondent judge gravely abused his discretion in admitting
in evidence certain articles which were clearly inadmissible for
being violative of the prohibition against unreasonable searches
and seizures.
Held: Yes.The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to
be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures (Article III, Section 2 of the
1987 Constitution). However, the rule that searches and
seizures must be supported by a valid warrant is not an absolute
one. Among the recognized exceptions thereto are: (1) a search
incidental to an arrest; (2) a search of a moving vehicle; and (3)
seizure of evidence in plain view (People v. Lo Ho Wing, G.R.
No. 88017, January 21, 1991 [193 SCRA 122]).None of these
exceptions pertains to the case at bar. The reason for searching
the house of herein petitioners is that it was reportedly being
used as a hideout and recruitment center for rebel soldiers.
While Capt. Obrero was able to enter the compound, he did not
enter the house because he did not have a search warrant and
the owners were not present. This shows that he himself
recognized the need for a search warrant, hence, he did not
persist in entering the house but rather contacted the Veroys to
seek permission to enter the same. Permission was indeed
also escorted all 3 to the Fiscal’s office where they were
ascertain the presence of rebel soldiers. Under the
circumstances it is undeniable that the police officers had
ample time to procure a search warrant but did not.
Undeniably, the offense of illegal possession of firearms is
malumprohibitum but it does not follow that the subject thereof
is necessarily illegal per se. Motive is immaterial in mala
prohibita but the subjects of this kind of offense may not be
summarily seized simply because they are prohibited. A search
warrant is still necessary. Hence, the rule having been violated
and no exception being applicable, the articles seized were
confiscated illegally and are therefore protected by the
exclusionary principle. They cannot be used as evidence
against the petitioners in the criminal action against them for
illegal possession of firearms. (Roan v. Gonzales, 145 SCRA
689-690 [1986]). Besides, assuming that there was indeed a
search warrant, still in mala prohibita, while there is no need of
criminal intent, there must be knowledge that the same existed.
Without the knowledge or voluntariness there is no crime.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petition as granted and the
criminal case against the petitioners for illegal possession of
firearms is DISMISSED.
PEOPLE V. NUEVAS
GR No. 170233
22 February 2007
Tinga, J.
Police officers Fami and Cabling, during a stationary
surveillance and monitoring of illegal drug trafficking in
Olongapo City, came across Jesus Nuevas, who they suspected
to be carrying drugs. Upon inquiry, Nuevas showed them a
plastic bag which contained marijuana leaves and bricks
wrapped in a blue cloth. He then informed the officers of 2
other persons who would be making marijuana deliveries.
The police officers then proceeded to where Nuevas said his
associates, Reynaldo Din and Fernando Inocencio, could be
located. Din was carrying a plastic bag which contained
marijuana packed in newspaper and wrapped therein. When the
police officers introduced themselves, Din voluntarily handed
the plastic bag over to them. After the items were confiscated,
the police officers took the three men to the police office.
Police officer Fami then revealed that when the receipt of the
evidence was prepared, all 3 accused were not represented by
counsel. He likewise disclosed that he was the one who
escorted all the accused during their physical examination. He
1
informed of the charges against them.
The 3 were found guilty by the trial court, and the case was
automatically elevated to the CA for review. However, Nuevas
withdrew his appeal. Thus, the case was considered closed and
terminated as to him. The CA affirmed the trial court.
Issue:
W/N Din and Inocencio waived their right against unreasonable
searches and seizures.
Held:
NO. The search conducted in Nuevas’ case was made with his
consent. However, in Din’s case, there was none. There is
reason to believe that Nuevas indeed willingly submitted the
plastic bag with the incriminating contents to the police
officers. It can be seen that in his desperate attempt to exculpate
himself from any criminal liability, he cooperated with the
police, gave them the plastic bag, and even revealed his
associates, offering himself as an informant. His actuations
were consistent with the lamentable human inclination to find
excuses, blame others, and save oneself even at the cost of
others’ lives. Thus, the Court would have affirmed Nuevas’
conviction had he not withdrawn his appeal. On the other hand,
with respect to the search conducted in the case of Din, the
Court finds that no such consent had actually been given. The
police officers gave inconsistent, dissimilar testimonies
regarding the manner by which they got hold of the plastic bag.
Neither can Din’s silence at the time be construed as an implied
acquiescence to the warrantless search. Thus, the prosecution
failed to clearly show that Din intentionally surrendered his
right against unreasonable searches. On the other hand,
Inocencio’s supposed possession of the dried marijuana leaves
was sought to be shown through his act of looking into the
plastic bag that Din was carrying. The act attributed to
Inocencio is insufficient to establish illegal possession of the
drugs or even conspiracy to illegally possess the same. The
prosecution failed to show by convincing proof that Inocencio
knew of the contents of the bag and that he conspired with Din
to possess the illegal items.
Ratio:
Our Constitution states that a search and seizure must be
carried through or with a judicial warrant; otherwise, such
search and seizure becomes “unreasonable” and any evidence
obtained therefrom is inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding. The exceptions are:
(1) Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest;
(2) Search of evidence in “plain view”;
(3) Search of a moving vehicle;
(4) Consented warrantless search;
(5) Customs search;
(6) Stop and frisk; and
(7) Exigent and emergency circumstances.
Elements of search of evidence in plain view:
(a) Prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless
arrest in which the police are legally present in the
pursuit of their official duties;
(b) Inadvertent discovery of the evidence by the police
who have the right to be where they are;
(c) The evidence must be immediately apparent; and
(d) “Plain view” justified mere seizure of evidence
without further search.
In the instances where a warrant is not necessary to effect a
valid search or seizure, or when the latter cannot be performed
except without a warrant, what constitutes a reasonable or
unreasonable search or seizure is purely a judicial question,
determinable from the uniqueness of the circumstances
involved, including the purpose of the search and seizure, the
presence or absence of probable cause, the manner in which the
search and seizure was made, the place or thing searched and
the character of the articles procured.
A search incidental to a lawful arrest is sanctioned by the Rules
of Court. The arrest, however, must precede the search; the
process cannot be reversed. Nevertheless, a search substantially
contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the arrest if the
police have probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of
the search.
An object is in plain view if it is plainly exposed to sight.
Where the object seized was inside a closed package, the object
itself is not in plain view and therefore cannot be seized
without a warrant. However, if the package proclaims its
contents, whether by its distinctive configuration, its
transparency, or if its contents are obvious to an observer, then
the contents are in plain view and may be seized.
It must be seen that the consent to the search was voluntary in
order to validate an otherwise illegal detention and search—the
consent must be unequivocal, specific, and intelligently given,
uncontaminated by duress or coercion.
The consent to a search is not to be lightly inferred, but must be
shown by clear and convincing evidence. It is the State which
has the burden of proving, by clear and positive testimony, that
the necessary consent was obtained and that it was freely and
voluntarily given.
In case of consented searches or waiver of the constitutional
guarantee against obstrusive searches, it is fundamental that to
constitute a waiver, it must first appear that:
(1) The right exists;
(2) The person involved had knowledge, either actual or
constructive, of the existence of such right; and
(3) The said person had an actual intention to relinquish
such right.
Obiter:
To behold is not to hold.
PEOPLE V DEQUINA
FACTS:
 Accused-appellants Dequina et al were charged
before the RTC-Manila with violations of the offense
of illegal transport of marijuana under the Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972.
 Police Officer III Wilfredo Masanggue testified that
at about 6:00 a.m., of September 29, 1999, he and
SPO1 Anthony Blanco were instructed by their
superior to proceed at the corner of Juan Luna and
Raxabago Sts., Tondo, Manila, where, according to
the report given by the informant, three persons – a
male and two female[s] would be coming from
Baguio City to deliver unknown quantity of
marijuana.
 At around 9:00 a.m., they noticed a taxi cab coming
from Yuseco St. heading towards the direction of the
pier. From it emerged three passengers – a man and
two women – each one of them carrying a black
travelling bag.
 As the trio started walking towards the western
portion of Raxabago St., they drove and trailed them.
As the patrol car got closer behind them, [Dequina]
noticed its presence. She started walking in a more
hurried pace.
 While trying to get away, [Dequina] dropped the bag
she was carrying. As a result, the zipper of the bag
gave way. Bundles of dried leaves wrapped in
transparent plastic bags case into view. Thus, they
arrested the three accused.
2
 During the investigation, it was discovered that each
of the three black travelling bags confiscated from the
three accused contained eleven bricks of marijuana.
 Accused-appellants assail their conviction, asserting
that their arrests were illegal. They were not doing
anything illegal that would have justified their
warrantless arrest, much less a warrantless search of
their persons and belongings. A search made without
a warrant cannot be justified as an incident of arrest
unless the arrest itself was lawful.
ISSUE: W/N the warrantless arrests of the appellants were
lawful.
HELD:YES. Decision affirmed.
 Settled is the rule that no arrest, search or seizure can
be made without a valid warrant issued by a
competent judicial authority. The Constitution
guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures. It further decrees
that any evidence obtained in violation of said right
shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding.
 “Transport” as used under the Dangerous Drugs Act
is defined to mean “to carry or convey from one place
to another.”The evidence in this case shows that at
the time of their arrest, accused-appellants were
caught in flagrante carrying/transporting dried
marijuana leaves in their traveling bags.
 Since a crime was then actually being committed by
the accused-appellants, their warrantless arrest was
legally justified, and the following warrantless search
of their traveling bags was allowable as incidental to
their lawful arrest.
 G.R. No. 178039 January 19, 2011
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ERNESTO
UYBOCO y RAMOS

 FACTS: On 20 December 1993, Nimfa and her
wards, siblings Jeson Kevin and Jeson Kirby
Dichaves were abducted and brought to a house in
Merville Subdivision, Parañaque. Nimfa was able to
recognized one of the kidnappers as appellant,
because she had seen the latter in her employer’s
office. 14 The kidnappers called Jepson and demanded
for ransom of P26 Million. In one of the calls of the
kidnappers, Jepson was able to recognize the voice of
appellant because he had several business
transactions. After, numerous times of negotiation,
the parties finally agreed to a ransom of P1.5 Million,
 some in ash and the balance to be paid in kind, such
as jewelry and a pistol. Appellant asked Jepson to
bring the ransom alone at Pancake House in
Magallanes Commercial Center and ordered him to
put the bag in the trunk, leave the trunk unlocked,
and walk away for ten (10) minutes without turning
back. P/Insp. Escandor and P/Supt. Chan were
assigned to proceed to Magallanes Commercial
Center and brought a camera to take photo and video
coverage of the supposed pay-off. He identified
Macias together with appellant and the latter as the
one who took the ransom. Later, appellant checked
on his trunk and the bag was already gone. Appellant
then apprised him that his sons and helper were
already at the Shell Gasoline Station along South
Luzon Expressway. He immediately went to the place
and found his sons and helper seated at the corner of
the gas station. P/Supt. Cruz and his group was
assigned at Fort Bonifacio then heard on their radio
that the suspect’s vehicle, a red Nissan Sentra was
heading in their direction. A few minutes later, they
saw the red car and tailed it until it reached
Dasmariñas Village in Makati. When said car slowed
down, they blocked it and immediately approached
the vehicle.23 They introduced themselves as police
officers and accosted the suspect, who turned out to
be appellant. Appellant suddenly pulled a .38 caliber
revolver and a scuffle took place. They managed to
subdue appellant and handcuffed him. Appellant was
requested to open the compartment and a gray bag
was found inside. P/Supt. Cruz saw money, jewelry
and a gun inside the bag.
 forfeiture of dutiable goods. The Regional Trial
 ISSUE: Whether or not there was a valid arrest and
search without warrant?
 prohibition or mandamus.
 DOCTRINE: The arrest was validly executed
pursuant to Section 5, paragraph (b) of Rule 113 of
the Rules of Court, which provides: “A peace officer
or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
person: x x x; (b) When an offense has in fact been
committed and he has personal knowledge of facts
indicating that the person to be arrested has
committed it; and, (c) x x x.” A search incident to a
lawful arrest is also valid under Section 13, Rule 126
of the Rules of Court which states: “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.”
 in Cebu City. The warrant was issued on the basis of
 RATIONALE: The instance of lawful warrantless
arrest covered by paragraph (b) cited above
necessitates two stringent requirements before a
warrantless arrest can be effected: (1) an offense has
just been committed; and (2) the person making the
arrest has personal knowledge of facts indicating that
the person to be arrested has committed it. Records
show that both requirements are present in the instant
case. The police officers present in Magallanes
Commercial Center were able to witness the pay-off
which effectively consummates the crime of
kidnapping. Such knowledge was then relayed to the
other police officers stationed in Fort Bonifacio
where appellant was expected to pass by. Personal
knowledge of facts must be based on probable cause,
which means an actual belief or reasonable grounds
of suspicion. Section 5, Rule 113 does not require the
arresting officers to personally witness the
commission of the offense with their own eyes. It is
sufficient for the arresting team that they were
monitoring the pay-off for a number of hours long
enough for them to be informed that it was indeed
appellant, who was the kidnapper. This is equivalent
to personal knowledge based on probable cause.
 
 Likewise, the search conducted inside the car of
appellant was legal because the latter consented to
such. Even assuming that appellant did not give his
consent for the police to search the car, they can still
validly do so by virtue of a search incident to a lawful
arrest under Section 13, Rule 126. In lawful arrests, it
becomes both the duty and the right of the
apprehending officers to conduct a warrantless search
not only on the person of the suspect, but also in the
permissible area within the latter's reach. Therefore, it
is only but expected and legally so for the police to
search his car as he was driving it when he was
arrested.
 WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from are
AFFIRMED.
 BUREAU OF CUSTOMS VS OGARIO
 FACTS:Felipe A. Bartolome, District Collector of
Customs of Cebu, issued a Warrant of Seizure and
Detention of 25,000 bags of rice, bearing the name of
"SNOWMAN, Milled in Palawan" shipped on board
the M/V "Alberto," which was then docked at Pier 6
3
the report of the Economic Intelligence and
Investigation Bureau (EIIB), Region VII that the rice
had been illegally imported.
 Mark Montelibano, the consignee of the sacks of rice,
and his buyer, Nelson Ogario, filed a complaint for
injunction before the RTC of Cebu City. In separate
motions, the Bureau of Customs (BOC), Port of Cebu
and the EIIB, as well as the Philippine Navy and
Coast Guard, sought the dismissal of the complaint
on the ground that the RTC had no jurisdiction, but
their motions were denied.
 ISSUE:Whether the Regional Trial Courts are
competent to pass upon the validity or regularity of
the seizure and forfeiture proceedings conducted by
the Bureau of Customs.
 RULING:In Jao v. Court of Appeals, [10] this Court,
reiterating its ruling in a long line of cases, said:
There is no question that Regional Trial Courts are
devoid of any competence to pass upon the validity
or regularity of seizure and forfeiture proceedings
conducted by the Bureau of Customs and to enjoin or
otherwise interfere with these proceedings. The
Collector of Customs sitting in seizure and forfeiture
proceedings has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and
determine all questions touching on the seizure and
Courts are precluded from assuming cognizance over
such matters even through petitions of certiorari,

 It is likewise well-settled that the provisions of the
Tariff and Customs Code and that of Republic Act
No. 1125, as amended, otherwise known as "An Act
Creating the Court of Tax Appeals," specify the
proper fora and procedure for the ventilation of any
legal objections or issues raised concerning these
proceedings. Thus, actions of the Collector of
Customs are appealable to the Commissioner of
Customs, whose decision, in turn, is subject to the
exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Tax
Appeals and from there to the Court of Appeals.
 The rule that Regional Trial Courts have no review
powers over such proceedings is anchored upon the
policy of placing no unnecessary hindrance on the
 governments drive, not only to prevent smuggling
and other frauds upon Customs, but more
importantly, to render effective and efficient the
collection of import and export duties due the State,
which enables the government to carry out the
functions it has been instituted to perform.

 Even if the seizure by the Collector of Customs were
illegal, which has yet to be proven, we have said that
such act does not deprive the Bureau of Customs of
jurisdiction thereon.
 Under the law, the question of whether probable
cause exists for the seizure of the subject sacks of rice
is not for the Regional Trial Court to determine. The
customs authorities do not have to prove to the
satisfaction of the court that the articles on board a
vessel were imported from abroad or are intended to
be shipped abroad before they may exercise the
power to effect customs searches, seizures, or arrests
provided by law and continue with the administrative
hearings.[12] As the Court held in Ponce Enrile v.
Vinuya:[13]
 At around 5 minutes before 4:00 oclock that morning,
 The governmental agency concerned, the Bureau of
Customs, is vested with exclusive authority. Even if it
be assumed that in the exercise of such exclusive
competence a taint of illegality may be correctly
imputed, the most that can be said is that under
certain circumstances the grave abuse of discretion
conferred may oust it of such jurisdiction. It does not
mean however that correspondingly a court of first
instance is vested with competence when clearly in
the light of the above decisions the law has not seen
fit to do so. The proceeding before the Collector of
Customs is not final. An appeal lies to the
Commissioner of Customs and thereafter to the Court
of Tax Appeals. It may even reach this Court through
the appropriate petition for review. The proper
ventilation of the legal issues raised is thus indicated.
Certainly a court of first instance is not therein
included. It is devoid of jurisdiction.
 RIETA VS PEOPLE
 FACTS:Col. Panfilo Lacson, the[n] Chief of the
Police Intelligence Branch of the Metrocom
Intelligence and Security Group (MISG for brevity),
received information that certain syndicated groups
were engaged in smuggling activities somewhere in
Port Area, Manila. It was further revealed that the
activities [were being] done at nighttime and the
smuggled goods in a delivery panel and delivery
truck [were] being escorted by some police and
military personnel. He fielded three surveillance
stake-out teams the following night along Roxas
Boulevard and Bonifacio Drive near Del Pan Bridge,
whereby they were to watch out for a cargo truck. At
around 9:00 oclock in the evening, Col. Lacson and
his men returned to the same area, and as per
information given to him, the said cargo truck will
come out from the premises of the 2nd COSAC
Detachment. COSAC stands for Constabulary Off-
Shore Anti-Crime Battalion. The night watch lasted
till the wee hours of the following morning. About
3:00 a.m. an Isuzu panel came out from the place of
the 2nd COSAC Detachment. It returned before 4:00
a.m. of [the] same day.
a green cargo truck with Plate No. T-SY-167 came
out from the 2nd COSAC Detachment followed and
escorted closely by a light brown Toyota Corona car
with Plate No. GR-433 and with 4 men on board. At
that time, Lt. Col. Panfilo Lacson had no information
whatsoever about the car, so he gave an order by
radio to his men to intercept only the cargo truck. The
cargo truck was intercepted. Col. Lacson noticed that
the Toyota car following the cargo truck suddenly
made a sharp U-turn towards the North, unlike the
cargo truck [that] was going south. Almost by
impulse, Col. Lacsons car also made a U-turn and
gave chase to the speeding Toyota car, which was
running between 100 KPH to 120 KPH. Col. Lacson
sounded his siren. The chase lasted for less than 5
minutes until said car made a stop along Bonifacio
Drive, at the foot of Del Pan Bridge. Col. Lacson and
his men searched the car and they found several
firearms, particularly: three (3) .45 cal. Pistols and
one (1) armalite M-16 rifle. He also discovered that
T/Sgt. Ernesto Miaco was the driver of the Toyota
car, and his companions inside the car were Sgt.
Guillermo Ferrer, Sgt. Fidel Balita and Sgt. Robartolo
Alincastre, [all] belonging to the 2nd COSAC
4
Detachment. They were found not to be equipped
with mission orders.
 When the cargo truck with Plate No. T-SY-167 was
searched, 305 cases of blue seal or untaxed cigarettes
were found inside. The cargo truck driver known
only as Boy was able to escape while the other
passengers or riders of said truck were apprehended,
namely: Police Sgt. Arturo Rimorin of Pasay City
Police Force, Pat. Felicisimo Rieta of Kawit Police
Force, and Gonzalo Vargas, a civilian.
 Lacsons men hauled the intercepted vehicles, the
arrested men and confiscated goods to Camp Crame,
Quezon City. All the 371 cases (305 + 66) of blue
seal cigarettes were turned over to the Bureau of
Customs. Sgt. Bienvenido Balaba executed an
Affidavit of Arrest together with Arnel Acuba. The
Booking and Information Sheet of Ernesto de Castro
showed that he was arrested by the MISG after
delivering assorted blue seal cigarettes at 185
Sanciangco St., Tonsuya, Malabon.
 ISSUE:Whether or not the evidence obtained against
the accused is inadmissible in evidence because
petitioner and his co-accused were arrested without a
warrant.
 RULING:The search and seizure of goods, suspected
to have been introduced into the country in violation of
customs laws, is one of the seven doctrinally accepted
exceptions[36] to the constitutional provision. Such
provision mandates that no search or seizure shall be
made except by virtue of a warrant issued by a
judge who has personally determined the existence of
probable cause.[37]

 Under the Tariff and Customs Code, a search, seizure
and arrest may be made even without a warrant for
purposes of enforcing customs and tariff laws.Without
mention of the need to priorly obtain a judicial warrant,
the Code specifically allows police authorities to enter,
pass through or search any land, enclosure, warehouse,
store or building that is not a dwelling house; and also to
inspect, search and examine any vessel or aircraft and
any trunk, package, box or envelope or any person on
board; or to stop and search and examine any vehicle,
beast or person suspected of holding or conveying any
dutiable or prohibited article introduced into the
Philippines contrary to law.[38]
 SALVADOR VS PEOPLE
 FACTS: A Special Mission Group from the PAF
Special Operations Squadronconducted routine
surveillance operations at the Manila Domestic
Airport to check on reports of alleged drug trafficking
and smuggling being facilitated by certain PAL
personnel.
 Major Pagcaliuangan then ordered Sgts. Teves and
Ople to keep close watch on the second airplane
parked inside the Domestic Airport terminal.
 At around 11:30 that same evening, Sgt. Teves
reported over his radio that three (3) persons had
boarded the Airbus 300. The team did not move, but
continued its surveillance.
 At 12:15 a.m. the following day, Sgt. Teves reported
that the three (3) persons who earlier boarded the
Airbus 300 had disembarked with their abdominal
areas bulging. They then boarded an airplane tow
truck with its lights off.
 The PAF surveillance team promptly boarded their
vehicles and followed the aircraft tow truck. At the
Lima Gate of the Domestic Airport, the team blocked
and stopped the tow truck. Sgt. Teves then got off,
identified himself and asked the four (4) persons on
board to alight. They were later identified as Tomas
Salvador, petitioner, Aurelio Mandin, Danilo Santos
and Napoleon Clamor, the driver of the tow truck.
 Sgt. Teves approached Aurelio Mandin. He noticed
that Mandins uniform was partly open, showing a
girdle. While Sgt. Teves was reaching for the girdle, a
package wrapped in brown packaging tape fell.
Suspecting that the package contained smuggled
items, Sgt. Teves yelled to his teammates, Positive!
Thereupon, the rest of the team surrounded petitioner
and his two co-accused who surrendered without a
fight. The team searched their bodies and found that
the three were wearing girdles beneath their
uniforms, all containing packets wrapped in
packaging tape. Mandin yielded five (5) packets,
while petitioner and Santos had four (4) each. The
team confiscated the packets and brought all the
accused to the PAFSECOM Office.
 At around 8:00 oclock the following morning,
Emilen Balatbat, an examiner of the Bureau of
Customs, opened one of the packets and on seeing
that it contained dutiable goods, she proceeded to
weigh the thirteen (13) packets seized from the
accused. She then prepared an inventory of the items
seized and listed the weight of the packets.
[4]
Thereafter, she brought the seized packets to the
In-Board Section, Bureau of Customs, Airport Office
where their contents were identified and appraised.
The Bureau of Customs found 248 pieces of assorted
watches and fourteen karat (14K) gold jewelries.
 Petitioner now contends that the warrantless search
and seizure conducted by the PAF operatives is
illegal, alleging that at the time he and his co-accused
were stopped by the PAF law enforces, they were
unaware that a crime was being committed.
Accordingly, the law enforcers were actually engaged
in a fishing expedition in violation of his
Constitutional right against unlawful search and
seizure. Thus, the seized items should not have been
admitted in evidence against him.
 ISSUE:Whether or not the seized items are
admissible in evidence.
 RULING:As a rule, the Bill of Rights prohibits
intrusions by the law enforcers to a persons body,
personal effects or residence, unless the same are
conducted pursuant to a valid search warrant issued
in compliance with the procedure mandated by the
Constitution and the Rules of Court. Thus, Sections 2
and 3(2), Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution provide:
 SEC. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects against
5
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.
 SEC. 3.
 xxx
 (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the
preceding section shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding.
 x x x.
 The above Constitutional provisions do not prohibit
searches and seizures, but only such as
are unreasonable. Our jurisprudence provides for
privileged areas where searches and seizures may
lawfully be effected sans a search warrant. These
recognized exceptions include: (1) search of moving
vehicles; (2) search in plain view; (3) customs
searches; (4) waiver or consented searches; (5) stop-
and-frisk situations; and (6) search incidental to a
lawful arrest.[10]
 Here, it should be noted that during the incident in
question, the special mission of the PAF operatives
was to conduct a surveillance operation to verify
reports of drug trafficking and smuggling by certain
PAL personnel in the vicinity of the airport. In other
words, the search made by the PAF team on
petitioner and his co-accused was in the nature of
a customs search. As such, the team properly
effected the search and seizure without a search
warrant since it exercised police authority under the
customs law.
 In Papa vs. Mago[12] involving a customs search, we
held that law enforcers who are tasked to effect the
enforcement of the customs and tariff laws are
authorized to search and seize, without a search
warrant, any article, cargo or other movable property
when there is reasonable cause to suspect that the
said items have been introduced into the Philippines
 in violation of the tariff and customs law. They may
likewise conduct a warrantless search of any vehicle
or person suspected of holding or conveying the said
articles, as in the case at bar.
 Also, at the time of the search, petitioner and his co-
accused were on board a moving PAL aircraft tow
truck. As stated earlier, the search of a moving
vehicle is recognized in this jurisdiction as a valid
exception to the requirement for a search warrant.
Such exception is easy to understand. A search
warrant may readily be obtained when the search is
made in a store, dwelling house or
other immobile structure. But it is impracticable to
obtain a warrant when the search is conducted in
a mobile ship, aircraft or other motor vehicle since
they can quickly be moved out of the locality or
jurisdiction where the warrant must be sought.
 The Court then concluded that the articles involved in
the instant controversy were validly seized by the
authorities even without a search warrant, hence,
admissible in evidence against petitioner and his co-
accused.
 PEOPLE VS DE GRACIA
 FACTS:Maj. Efren Soria of the Intelligence
Division, National Capital Region Defense
Command, was on board a brown Toyota car
conducting a surveillance of the Eurocar Sales Office
located at Epifanio de los Santos Avenue in Quezon
City, together with his team. The surveillance was
conducted pursuant to an intelligence report received
by the division that said establishment was being
occupied by elements of the RAM-SFP as a
communication command post.
 Sgt. Crispin Sagario, the driver of the car, parked the
vehicle around ten to fifteen meters away from the
Eurocar building near P. Tuazon Street. A crowd was
then gathered near the Eurocar office watching the
on-going bombardment near Camp Aguinaldo. After
a while, a group of five men disengaged themselves
from the crowd and walked towards the car of the
surveillance team. At that moment, Maj. Soria, who
was then seated in front, saw the approaching group
and immediately ordered Sgt. Sagario to start the car
and leave the area. As they passed by the group, then
only six meters away, the latter pointed to them, drew
their guns and fired at the team, which attack resulted
in the wounding of Sgt. Sagario on the right thigh.
Nobody in the surveillance team was able to retaliate
because they sought cover inside the car and they
were afraid that civilians or bystanders might be
caught in the cross-fire.
 As a consequence, a searching team raided the
Eurocar Sales Office. They were able to find and
confiscate six cartons of M-16 ammunition, five
bundles of C-4 dynamites, M-shells of different
calibers, and "molotov" bombs inside one of the
rooms belonging to a certain Col. Matillano which is
located at the right portion of the building. Sgt. Oscar
Obenia, the first one to enter the Eurocar building,
saw appellant De Gracia inside the office of Col.
Matillano, holding a C-4 and suspiciously peeping
through a door. De Gracia was the only person then
present inside the room. A uniform with the nametag
of Col. Matillano was also found. As a result of the
raid, the team arrested appellant, as well as Soprieso
Verbo and Roberto Jimena who were janitors at the
Eurocar building. They were then made to sign an
inventory, written in Tagalog, of the explosives and
ammunition confiscated by the raiding team. No
search warrant was secured by the raiding team
because, according to them, at that time there was so
much disorder considering that the nearby Camp
Aguinaldo was being mopped up by the rebel forces
and there was simultaneous firing within the vicinity
of the Eurocar office, aside from the fact that the
courts were consequently closed. The group was able
to confirm later that the owner of Eurocar office is a
certain Mr. Gutierrez and that appellant is supposedly
a "boy" therein.
 ISSUE:Whether or not there was a valid search and
seizure in this case.
 RULING:It is admitted that the military operatives
who raided the Eurocar Sales Office were not armed
with a search warrant at that time. 15 The raid was
actually precipitated by intelligence reports that said
office was being used as headquarters by the
RAM. 16 Prior to the raid, there was a surveillance
conducted on the premises wherein the surveillance
6
team was fired at by a group of men coming from the
Eurocar building. When the military operatives
raided the place, the occupants thereof refused to
open the door despite requests for them to do so,
thereby compelling the former to break into the
office. 17 The Eurocar Sales Office is obviously not a
gun store and it is definitely not an armory or arsenal
which are the usual depositories for explosives and
ammunition. It is primarily and solely engaged in the
sale of automobiles. The presence of an unusual
quantity of high-powered firearms and explosives
could not be justifiably or even colorably explained.
In addition, there was general chaos and disorder at
that time because of simultaneous and intense firing
within the vicinity of the office and in the nearby
Camp Aguinaldo which was under attack by rebel
forces. 18 The courts in the surrounding areas were
obviously closed and, for that matter, the building
and houses therein were deserted.
 Under the foregoing circumstances, it is our
considered opinion that the instant case falls under
one of the exceptions to the prohibition against a
warrantless search. In the first place, the military
operatives, taking into account the facts obtaining in
this case, had reasonable ground to believe that a
crime was being committed. There was consequently
more than sufficient probable cause to warrant their
action. Furthermore, under the situation then
prevailing, the raiding team had no opportunity to
apply for and secure a search warrant from the courts.
The trial judge himself manifested that on December
5, 1989 when the raid was conducted, his court was
closed. 19 Under such urgency and exigency of the
moment, a search warrant could lawfully be
dispensed with.
 In Umil, et al., vs. Ramos, et al., the Court held:
 The 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 quell the rebellion,
than for the purpose of immediately prosecuting them
in court for a statutory offense. The arrest, therefore,
need not follow the usual procedure in the
prosecution of offenses which requires the
determination by a judge of the existence of probable
cause before the issuance of a judicial warrant of
 arrest and the granting of bail if the offense is
bailable. Obviously the absence of a judicial warrant
is no legal impediment to arresting or capturing
persons committing overt acts of violence against
government forces, or any other milder acts but really
in pursuance of the rebellious movement. The arrest
or capture is thus impelled by the exigencies of the
situation that involves the very survival of society
and its government and duly constituted authorities.
If killing and other acts of violence against the rebels
find justification in the exigencies of armed hostilities
which (are) of the essence of waging a rebellion or
insurrection, most assuredly so in case of invasion,
merely seizing their persons and detaining them
while any of these contingencies continues cannot be
less justified.
 PEOPLE VS MARTI
 FACTS:Andre Marti and his common-law wife,
Shirley Reyes, went to the booth of the Manila
Packing and Export Forwarders in the Pistang
Pilipino Complex, Ermita, Manila, carrying with
them 4 gift-wrapped packages. Anita Reyes (the
proprietress and no relation to Shirley Reyes)
attended to them. Marti informed Anita Reyes that he
was sending the packages to a friend in Zurich,
Switzerland. Marti filled up the contract necessary for
the transaction, writing therein his name, passport
number, the date of shipment and the name and
address of the consignee, namely, "WALTER FIERZ,
Mattacketr II, 8052 Zurich, Switzerland."
 Anita Reyes did not inspect the packages as Marti
refused, who assured the former that the packages
simply contained books, cigars, and gloves and were
gifts to his friend in Zurich. In view of Marti's
representation, the 4 packages were then placed
inside a brown corrugated box, with styro-foam
placed at the bottom and on top of the packages, and
sealed with masking tape. Before delivery of Marti's
box to the Bureau of Customs and/or Bureau of
Posts, Mr. Job Reyes (proprietor) and husband of
Anita (Reyes), following standard operating
procedure, opened the boxes for final inspection,
where a peculiar odor emitted therefrom. Job pulled
out a cellophane wrapper protruding from the
opening of one of the gloves, and took several grams
of the contents thereof. Job Reyes forthwith prepared
a letter reporting the shipment to the NBI and
requesting a laboratory examination of the samples
he extracted from the cellophane wrapper. At the
Narcotics Section of the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI), the box containing Marti's
packages was opened, yielding dried marijuana
leaves, or cake-like (bricks) dried marijuana leaves.
 The NBI agents made an inventory and took charge
of the box and of the contents thereof, after signing a
"Receipt" acknowledging custody of the said effects.
Thereupon, the NBI agents tried to locate Marti but
to no avail, inasmuch as the latter's stated address
was the Manila Central Post Office. Thereafter, an
Information was filed against Marti for violation of
RA 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs
Act. After trial, the Special Criminal Court of Manila
(Regional Trial Court, Branch XLIX) rendered the
decision, convicting Marti of violation of Section 21
(b), Article IV in relation to Section 4, Article 11 and
Section 2 (e)(i), Article 1 of Republic Act 6425, as
amended, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs
Act.
 ISSUE:Whether an act of a private individual,
allegedly in violation of the accused's constitutional
rights, be invoked against the State.
 RULING:In the absence of governmental
interference, the liberties guaranteed by the
Constitution cannot be invoked against the State.
 As this Court held in Villanueva v. Querubin (48
SCRA 345 [1972]:
 1. This constitutional right (against unreasonable
search and seizure) refers to the immunity of one's
person, whether citizen or alien, from interference by
government, included in which is his residence, his
papers, and other possessions. . . .
 . . . There the state, however powerful, does not as
such have the access except under the circumstances
7
above noted, for in the traditional formulation, his
house, however humble, is his castle. Thus is
outlawed any unwarranted intrusion by government,
which is called upon to refrain from any invasion of
his dwelling and to respect the privacies of his
life. . . . (Cf. Schermerber v. California, 384 US 757
[1966] and Boyd v. United States, 116 US 616
[1886]; Emphasis supplied).
 The contraband in the case at bar having come into
possession of the Government without the latter
transgressing appellant's rights against unreasonable
search and seizure, the Court sees no cogent reason
why the same should not be admitted against him in
the prosecution of the offense charged.
 The factual considerations of the case at bar readily
foreclose the proposition that NBI agents conducted
an illegal search and seizure of the prohibited
merchandise. Records of the case clearly indicate that
it was Mr. Job Reyes, the proprietor of the forwarding
agency, who made search/inspection of the packages.
Said inspection was reasonable and a standard
operating procedure on the part of Mr. Reyes as a
precautionary measure before delivery of packages to
the Bureau of Customs or the Bureau of Posts. The
mere presence of the NBI agents did not convert the
reasonable search effected by Reyes into a
warrantless search and seizure proscribed by the
Constitution. Merely to observe and look at that
which is in plain sight is not a search. Having
observed that which is open, where no trespass has
been committed in aid thereof, is not search. Where
the contraband articles are identified without a
trespass on the part of the arresting officer, there is
not the search that is prohibited by the constitution.
 The constitutional proscription against unlawful
searches and seizures therefore applies as a restraint
directed only against the government and its agencies
tasked with the enforcement of the law. Thus, it could
only be invoked against the State to whom the
restraint against arbitrary and unreasonable exercise
of power is imposed.
 If the search is made upon the request of law
enforcers, a warrant must generally be first secured if
it is to pass the test of constitutionality. However, if
the search is made at the behest or initiative of the
proprietor of a private establishment for its own and
private purposes, as in the case at bar, and without the
intervention of police authorities, the right against
unreasonable search and seizure cannot be invoked
for only the act of private individual, not the law
enforcers, is involved. In sum, the protection against
unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be
extended to acts committed by private individuals so
as to bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful
intrusion by the government.
 The constitution, in laying down the principles of the
government and fundamental liberties of the people,
does not govern relationships between individuals.
 Alleged violations against unreasonable search and
seizure may only be invoked against the State by an
individual unjustly traduced by the exercise of
sovereign authority. To agree with appellant that an
act of a private individual in violation of the Bill of
Rights should also be construed as an act of the State
would result in serious legal complications and an
absurd interpretation of the constitution.
 WATEROUS DRUG CORP VS NLRC
 talagang ganyan, bukas. It appears that the amount in
 FACTS:Catolico was hired as a pharmacist by
petitioner Waterous Drug Corporation (hereafter
WATEROUS) on 15 August 1988.
 On 31 July 1989, Catolico received a
memorandum[6] from WATEROUS Vice President-
General Manager Emma R. Co warning her not to
dispense medicine to employees chargeable to the
latters accounts because the same was a prohibited
practice. On the same date, Co issued another
memorandum[7] to Catolico warning her not to
negotiate with suppliers of medicine without
consulting the Purchasing Department, as this would
impair the companys control of purchases and,
besides she was not authorized to deal directly with
the suppliers.
 As regards the first memorandum, Catolico did not
deny her responsibility but explained that her act was
due to negligence, since fellow employee Irene
Soliven obtained the medicines in bad faith and
through misrepresentation when she claimed that she
was given a charge slip by the Admitting
Dept. Catolico then asked the company to look into
the fraudulent activities of Soliven.[8]
 In a memorandum[9] dated 21 November 1989,
WATEROUS Supervisor Luzviminda E. Bautro
warned Catolico against the rush delivery of
medicines without the proper documents.
 On 29 January 1990, WATEROUS Control Clerk
Eugenio Valdez informed Co that he noticed an
irregularity involving Catolico and Yung Shin
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and that there was a
discrepancy between several purchase orders and it
was found that the cost per bottle was indeed
overpriced.
 The undersigned talked to Ms. Catolico regarding the
check but she denied having received it and that she
is unaware of the overprice. However, upon
conversation with Ms. Saldana, EDRC Espana
Pharmacy Clerk, she confirmed that the check
amounting to P640.00 was actually received by Ms.
Catolico. As a matter of fact, Ms. Catolico even
asked Ms. Saldana if she opened the envelope
containing the check but Ms. Saldana answered her
question (P640.00) had been pocketed by Ms.
Catolico.[10]
 Petitioners evidence consisted only of the check
of P640.00 drawn by YSP in favor of complainant,
which her co-employee saw when the latter opened
the envelope. But, it the NLRC declared that the
check was inadmissible in evidence pursuant to
Sections 2 and 3(1 and 2) of Article III of the
Constitution.
 ISSUE:Whether or not there was a valid search and
seizure in the present case.
 RULING:It was never shown that petitioners paid
for the Voren tablets. While Valdez informed Co,
8
through the formers memorandum[28] of 29 January
1990, that WATEROUS paid YSP P3,840.00 thru
MBTC Check No. 222832, the said check was never
presented in evidence, nor was any receipt from YSP
offered by petitioners.
 Moreover, the two purchase orders for Voren tablets
presented by petitioners do not indicate an
overcharge. The purchase order dated 16 August
1989[29] stated that the Voren tablets cost P320.00 per
box, while the purchase order dated 5 October
1989[30] priced the Voren tablets at P384.00 per
bottle. The difference in price may then be attributed
to the different packaging used in each purchase
order.
 Assuming that there was an overcharge, the two
purchase orders for the Voren tablets were
recommended by Director-MMG Mario R. Panuncio,
verified by AVP-MNG Noli M. Lopez and approved
by Vice President-General Manager Emma R.
Co. The purchase orders were silent as to Catolicos
participation in the purchase. If the price increase was
objectionable to petitioners, they or their officers
should have disapproved the
transaction. Consequently, petitioners had no one to
blame for their predicament but themselves. This set
of facts emphasizes the exceedingly incredible
situation proposed by petitioners. Despite the
memorandum warning Catolico not to negotiate with
suppliers of medicine, there was no proof that she
ever transacted, or that she had the opportunity to
transact, with the said suppliers. Again, as the
purchase orders indicate, Catolico was not at all
involved in the sale of the Voren tablets. There was
no occasion for Catolico to initiate, much less benefit
from, what Valdez called an under the table deal with
YSP.
 Catolicos dismissal then was obviously grounded on
mere suspicion, which in no case can justify an
employees dismissal. Suspicion is not among the
valid causes provided by the Labor Code for the
termination of employment;[31] and even the dismissal
of an employee for loss of trust and confidence must
rest on substantial grounds and not on the employers
 arbitrariness, whims, caprices, or suspicion.
[32]
Besides, Catolico was not shown to be a
managerial employee, to which class of employees
the term trust and confidence is restricted. [33]
 As regards the constitutional violation upon which
the NLRC anchored its decision, we find no reason to
revise the doctrine laid down in People vs.
Marti[34] that the Bill of Rights does not protect
citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures
perpetrated by private individuals. It is not true, as
counsel for Catolico claims, that the citizens have no
recourse against such assaults. On the contrary, and
as said counsel admits, such an invasion gives rise to
both criminal and civil liabilities.
 PEOPLE VS MENDOZA
 FACTS:Accused-appellant, his wife Cecilia
Mendoza, and their then 10-year-old daughter
attended the birthday party of a relative of accused-
appellant held at McDonald's in Harrison Plaza.
While the party was going on, accused-appellant left
and proceeded to KFC where he had some beer.
When it was time for Cecilia and Charmaine to go
home, they could not find accused-appellant, hence,
they decided to just leave. Cecilia and Charmaine
arrived home at around 7 o'clock in the evening but
accused-appellant was not yet there. After a while,
mother and daughter left for the house of Cecilia's
parents in Bacoor, Cavite to bring some perfume for
Cecilia's brother.
 Upon getting home, accused-appellant who was
drunk instructed Charmaine to get cold water and to
douse him. She willingly obliged, after which she
was told to go to her room. She changed her clothes
and readied herself for bed. While in her room,
Charmaine heard her parents quarrelling over the
issue of Cecilia and Charmaine having left accused-
appellant at the party. Thereafter, Charmaine
suddenly heard three gunshots. Running out of her
room, Charmaine saw her mother Cecilia down on
the floor of their living room, bleeding profusely.
Charmaine saw accused-appellant hiding a gun under
the bed in her parents' room.
 Accused-appellant subsequently called his brother-in-
law, Sgt. Antonio Gabac, and told him that Cecilia
had been shot and is already dead. Gabac, on the
other line, told accused-appellant not to touch
anything and that he would be arriving shortly. When
Gabac finally arrived, he and accused-appellant
carried the lifeless body of Cecilia into accused-
appellant's car and brought her to the Perpetual Help
Hospital but Cecilia was pronounced dead on arrival.
 Upon receiving information about the shooting
incident, Chief Investigator Cpl. Leopoldo Africa,
together with his team, proceeded to the hospital to
investigate the incident, but accused-appellant
refused to give any statement or comment.
Thereafter, the policemen invited Antonio Gabac to
accompany them to the crime scene. While they were
inspecting the premises, Cpl. Africa noticed
something tucked inside Gabac's waist. He promptly
told Gabac "Pare, pakisurrender mo nga iyang baril."
Gabac immediately handed Cpl. Africa a .38 caliber
revolver with two empty shells and two live rounds.
Gabac informed Africa that the gun was handed to
him by accused-appellant when Gabac arrived at the
crime scene to respond to the call of accused-
appellant for assistance.
 Cecilia's father, Alipio Eusebio, having been
informed of his daughter's death, and that valuables
were being taken out of his daughter's house, decided
to remove, together with his sons, the remaining
pieces of property therein, including accused-
appellant's personal effects. From the aforestated
personal effects of accused-appellant, Alipio found
Mission Order No. 86-580-893 issued to accused-
appellant by Col. Eladio Gonzales, which authorized
accused-appellant to carry a Colt Revolver, 38
Caliber with Serial No. 41001 from November 15,
1986 to December 15, 1986.
 Accused-appellant now claims that these documents
were illegally procured in grave violation of his
constitutional right to privacy of communication and
papers, and/or his right against unreasonable search
and seizure.
 ISSUE:Whether or not there was a valid search and
seizure that transpired.
9
 RULING:Such right applies as a restraint directed
only against the government and its agencies. The
case in piont is People vs. Marti (193 SCRA 57
[1991]) where this Court had the occasion to rule that
the constitutional protection against unreasonable
searches and seizures refers to the immunity of one's
person from interference by government and it cannot
be extended to acts committed by private individuals
so as to bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful
intrusion.
 In the instant case, the memorandum receipt and
mission order were discovered by accused-appellant's
father-in-law Alipio Eusebio, a private citizen.
Certainly, a search warrant is dispensable.
 PEOPLE VS BONGCARAWAN
 FACTS:An interisland passenger ship, M/V Super
Ferry 5, sailed from Manila to Iligan City. The vessel
was about to dock at the port of Iligan City when its
security officer, Mark Diesmo, received a complaint
from passenger Lorena Canoy about her missing
jewelry. Canoy suspected one of her co-passengers at
cabin no. 106 as the culprit. Diesmo and four (4)
other members of the vessel security force
accompanied Canoy to search for the suspect whom
they later found at the economy section. [4] The
suspect was identified as the accused, Basher
Bongcarawan. The accused was informed of the
complaint and was invited to go back to cabin no.
106. With his consent, he was bodily searched, but no
jewelry was found. He was then escorted by two (2)
security agents back to the economy section to get his
baggage. The accused took a Samsonite suitcase and
brought this back to the cabin. When requested by the
security, the accused opened the suitcase, revealing a
brown bag and small plastic packs containing white
crystalline substance. Suspecting the substance to be
shabu, the security personnel immediately reported
the matter to the ship captain and took pictures of the
accused beside the suitcase and its contents. They
also called the Philippine Coast Guard for assistance.
[5]
Members of the Philippine Coast Guard arrived
and took custody of the accused and the seized
items--the Samsonite suitcase, a brown bag [6] and
 eight (8) small plastic packs of white crystalline
substance.[7] When asked about the contraband
articles, the accused explained that he was just
requested by a certain Alican Alex Macapudi to bring
the suitcase to the latters brother in Iligan City. [8] The
accused and the seized items were later turned over
by the coast guard to the Presidential Anti-Organized
Crime Task Force (PAOCTF) and it was later
confirmed that the substance was indeed shabu.
 Accused-appellant now contends that the Samsonite
suitcase containing the methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu was forcibly opened and
searched without his consent, and hence, in violation
of his constitutional right against unreasonable search
and seizure. Any evidence acquired pursuant to such
unlawful search and seizure, he claims, is
inadmissible in evidence against him. He also
contends that People v. Marti[15] is not applicable in
this case because a vessel security personnel is
deemed to perform the duties of a policeman.
 ISSUE:Whether or not a valid search and seizure was
effected.
 RULING:The right against unreasonable search and
seizure is a fundamental right protected by the
Constitution.[16] Evidence acquired in violation of this
right shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding.[17] Whenever this right is challenged, an
individual may choose between invoking the
constitutional protection or waiving his right by
giving consent to the search and seizure. It should be
stressed, however, that protection is against
transgression committed by the government or its
agent. As held by this Court in the case of People v.
Marti,[18] [i]n the absence of governmental
interference, liberties guaranteed by the Constitution
cannot be invoked against the State. [19] The
constitutional proscription against unlawful searches
and seizures applies as a restraint directed only
against the government and its agencies tasked with
the enforcement of the law. Thus, it could only be
invoked against the State to whom the restraint
against arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power
is imposed.[20]
 In the case before us, the baggage of the accused-
appellant was searched by the vessel security
personnel. It was only after they found shabu inside
the suitcase that they called the Philippine Coast
Guard for assistance. The search and seizure of the
suitcase and the contraband items was therefore
carried out without government intervention, and
hence, the constitutional protection against
unreasonable search and seizure does not apply.
 There is no merit in the contention of the accused-
appellant that the search and seizure performed by the
vessel security personnel should be considered as one
conducted by the police authorities for like the latter,
the former are armed and tasked to maintain peace
and order. The vessel security officer in the case at
bar is a private employee and does not discharge any
governmental function. In contrast, police officers are
agents of the state tasked with the sovereign function
of enforcement of the law. Historically and until now,
it is against them and other agents of the state that the
protection against unreasonable searches and seizures
may be invoked.
 SALES VS PEOPLE
 FACTS:Petitioner was scheduled to board a Cebu
Pacific plane bound for Kalibo, Aklan at its 9:45 a.m.
flight. As part of the routine security check at the
predeparture area, petitioner passed through the
Walk-Thru Metal Detector Machine and immediately
thereafter was subjected to a body search by a male
frisker on duty, Daniel M. Soriano, a non-uniformed
personnel (NUP) of the Philippine National Police
(PNP) Aviation Security Group (ASG)..
 While frisking petitioner, Soriano felt something
slightly bulging inside the right pocket of his short
pants. When Soriano asked petitioner to bring the
item out, petitioner obliged but refused to open his
hands. Soriano struggled with petitioner as the latter
was nervous and reluctant to show what he brought
out from his pocket. Soriano then called the attention
of his supervisor, PO1 Cherry Trota-Bartolome who
was nearby. PO1 Trota-Bartolome approached
petitioner and asked him to open his hands. Petitioner
finally opened his right hand revealing two rolled
paper sticks with dried marijuana leaves/fruiting tops.
 Petitioner now assails the conduct of Soriano and
PO1 Trota-Bartolome in singling him out by making
10
him stretch out his arms and empty his pockets.
Petitioner believes such meticulous search was
unnecessary because, as Soriano himself testified,
there was no beep sound when petitioner walked past
through the metal detector and hence nothing
suspicious was indicated by that initial security
check. He likewise mentioned the fact that he was
carrying a bundle of money at that time, which he
said was not accounted for.
 ISSUE:Whether or not the frisking done to petitioner
was valid.
 RULING:Persons may lose the protection of the
search and seizure clause by exposure of their
persons or property to the public in a manner
reflecting a lack of subjective expectation of privacy,
which expectation society is prepared to recognize as
reasonable. Such recognition is implicit in airport
security procedures. With increased concern over
airplane hijacking and terrorism has come increased
security at the nation’s airports. Passengers
attempting to board an aircraft routinely pass through
metal detectors; their carry-on baggage as well as
checked luggage are routinely subjected to x-ray
scans. Should these procedures suggest the presence
of suspicious objects, physical searches are
conducted to determine what the objects are. There is
little question that such searches are reasonable,
given their minimal intrusiveness, the gravity of the
safety interests involved, and the reduced privacy
expectations associated with airline travel. Indeed,
travelers are often notified through airport public
address systems, signs, and notices in their airline
tickets that they are subject to search and, if any
prohibited materials or substances are found, such
would be subject to seizure. These announcements
place passengers on notice that ordinary
constitutional protections against warrantless
searches and seizures do not apply to routine airport
procedures.
 The search of the contents of petitioner’s short pants
pockets being a valid search pursuant to routine
airport security procedure, the illegal substance
 (marijuana) seized from him was therefore admissible
in evidence. Petitioner’s reluctance to show the
contents of his short pants pocket after the frisker’s
hand felt the rolled papers containing marijuana, and
his nervous demeanor aroused the suspicion of the
arresting officers that he was indeed carrying an item
or material subject to confiscation by the said
authorities.
 searches are conducted to determine what the objects
 PEOPLE VS CADIDIA
 FACTS: While performing her duty as a female
frisker assigned at the Manila Domestic Airport
Terminal I (domestic airport), Marilyn Trayvilla
frisked the accused Cadidia upon her entry at the
departure areaand she noticed something unusual and
thick in the area of Cadidia’s buttocks. Upon inquiry,
Cadidia answered that it was only her sanitary napkin
which caused the unusual thickness. Not convinced
with Cadidia’s explanation, Trayvilla and her female
co-employee Leilani M. Bagsican brought the
accused to the comfort room inside the domestic
airport to check. When she and Bagsican asked
Cadidia to remove her underwear, they discovered
that inside were two sachets of shabu.
 ISSUE:Whether or not the frisking done on the
accused was valid.
 RULING:Airport frisking is an authorized form of
search and seizure.1âwphi1 As held in similar cases
of People v Johnson73 and People v Canton,74 this
Court affirmed the conviction or the accused Leila
Reyes Johnson and Susan Canton for violation of
drugs law when they were found to be in hiding in
their body illegal drugs upon airport frisking. The
Court in both cases explained the rationale for the
validity of airport frisking thus:
 Persons may lose the protection of the search and
seizure clause by exposure or their persons or
property to the public in a manner reflecting a lack or
subjective expectation of privacy, which expectation
society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. Such
recognition is implicit in airport security procedures.
With increased concern over airplane hijacking and
terrorism has come increased security at the nation’s
airports. Passengers attempting to hoard an aircraft
routinely pass through metal detectors: their carry-on
baggage as well as checked luggage arc routinely
subjected to x-ray scans. Should these procedures
suggest the presence of suspicious objects. physical
are. There is little question that such searches arc
reasonable, given their minimal intrusiveness, the
gravity or the safety interests involved, and the
reduced privacy expectations associated with airline
travel. Indeed. travellers are often notified through
airport public address systems, signs, and notices in
their airline tickets that the are subject to search and.
if any prohibited materials or substances are found,
such would he subject to seizure. These
announcements place passengers on notice that
ordinary constitutional protections against
warrantless searches and seizures do not apply to
routine airport procedures.
 arrested and informed of his violation of a crime
 DELA CRUZ VS. PEOPLE GR No. 209387
 Date: January 11, 2016
 Ponente: LEONEN, J
 ERWIN LIBO-ON DELA CRUZ, Petitioner
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
 FACTS
 Dela Cruz was an on-the-job trainee of an inter-island
vessel. He frequently traveled, "coming back and
forth taking a vessel." At around 12:00 noon of May
11, 2007, Dela Cruz was at a pier of the Cebu
Domestic Port to go home to Iloilo. While buying a
ticket, he allegedly left his bag on the floor with a
porter. It took him around 15 minutes to purchase a
11
ticket. Dela Cruz then proceeded to the entrance of
the terminal and placed his bag on the x-ray scanning
machine for inspection. The operator of the x-ray
machine saw firearms inside Dela Cruz's bag.
 Flores, the x-ray machine operator-on-duty, saw the
impression of what appeared to be three (3) firearms
inside Dela Cruz's bag. Upon seeing the suspected
firearms, she called the attention of port personnel
Igot who was the baggage inspector then. Igot asked
Dela Cruz whether he was the owner of the bag. Dela
Cruz answered Igot in the affirmative and consented
to Igot's manual inspection of the bag.
 Port Police Officer Abregana was called by Igot and
was told that there were firearms in a bag owned by
Dela Cruz. Dela Cruz admitted that he was owner of
the bag. The bag was then inspected and the
following items were found inside: three (3)
revolvers; NBI clearance; seaman's book; other
personal items; and four (4) live ammunitions placed
inside the cylinder. When asked whether he had the
proper documents for the firearms, Dela Cruz
answered in the negative. Dela Cruz was then
punishable by law. He was also informed of his
constitutional rights.
 In the Information, Dela Cruz was charged with
violation of Republic Act No. 8294 for illegal
possession of firearms. Subsequently, another
Information was filed charging him with the violation
of Commission on Elections Resolution No. 7764, in
relation to Section 261 of Batas PambansaBlg. 881.
 Dela Cruz entered a plea of not guilty to both charges
during arraignment.
 After trial, RTCDela Cruz guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of violating the Gun Ban under Commission on
Elections Resolution No. 7764, in relation to Section
261 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881.The trial court
alsofinds the search conducted by the port authorities
reasonable and, therefore, not violative of the
accused's constitutional rights. Hence, when the
 search of the bag of the accused revealed the firearms
and ammunitions, accused is deemed to have been
caught in flagrante delicto, justifying his arrest even
without a warrant under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the
Rules of Criminal Procedure. The firearms and
ammunitions obtained in the course of such valid
search are thus admissible as evidence against [the]
accused.
 On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial
court's Judgment.
 Petitioner’s Contention:
 1. Dela Cruz argues that there was no
voluntary waiver against warrantless search. In
petitioner's case, it may well be said that, with the
circumstances attending the search of his luggage, he
had no actual intention to relinquish his right against
warrantless searches. He knew in all honest belief
that when his luggage would pass through the routine
x-ray examination, nothing incriminating would be
recovered. It was out of that innocent confidence that
he allowed the examination of his luggage. He
believed that no incriminating evidence would be
found. He knew he did not place those items. But
what is strikingly unique about his situation is that a
considerable time interval lapsed, creating an
opportunity for someone else to place inside his
luggage those incriminating items.
 Respondent’s Argument:
 1. Respondent argues that there was a valid
waiver of Dela Cruz's right to unreasonable search
and seizure, thus warranting his conviction. Dela
Cruz was caught in flagrante delicto. The firearms
were seized during a routine baggage x-ray at the port
of Cebu, a common seaport security
procedure.According to respondent, this case is
similar to valid warrantless searches and seizures
conducted by airport personnel pursuant to routine
airport security procedures.Records are also clear that
Dela Cruz voluntarily waived his right to
unreasonable searches and seizure.
 ISSUE/S
 I. Whether or not petitioner waived his right
against unreasonable searches and seizures- YES
 II. Whether or not there was a valid search and
seizure in this case- YES
 RATIO
 For a full understanding of the nature of the
constitutional rights involved, the court examined
three (3) points of alleged intrusion into the right to
privacy of petitioner: first, when petitioner gave his
bag for x-ray scanning to port authorities; second,
when the baggage inspector opened petitioner's bag
and called the Port Authority Police; and third, when
the police officer opened the bag to search, retrieve,
and seize the firearms and ammunition.
 The first point of intrusion occurred when petitioner
presented his bag for inspection to port personnel—
the x-ray machine operator and baggage inspector
manning the x-ray machine station.The court held
that the search WAS NOT rendered unreasonable at
the first point of intrusion.
 With regard to searches and seizures, the standard
imposed on private persons is different from that
imposed on state agents or authorized government
authorities.In People v. Marti,This court held that
there was no unreasonable search or seizure. The
evidence obtained against the accused was not
procured by the state acting through its police officers
or authorized government agencies. The Bill of
Rights does not govern relationships between
individuals; it cannot be invoked against the acts of
private individual.If the search is made upon the
request of law enforcers, a warrant must generally be
first secured if it is to pass the test of
constitutionality. However, if the search is made at
the behest or initiative of the proprietor of a private
establishment for its own and private purposes, as in
the case at bar, and without the intervention of police
authorities, the right against unreasonable search and
12
seizure cannot be invoked for only the act of private
individual, not the law enforcers, is involved. In sum,
the protection against unreasonable searches and
seizures cannot be extended to acts committed by
private individuals so as to bring it within the ambit
of alleged unlawful intrusion by the government.
 Hence, by virtue of Marti, items seized pursuant to a
reasonable search conducted by private persons are
not covered by the exclusionary rule.To determine
whether the intrusion by the port personnel in this
case was committed by private or public persons, we
revisit the history and organizational structure of the
Philippine Ports Authority.
 The Cebu Port Authority is clothed with authority by
the state to oversee the security of persons and
vehicles within its ports. While there is a distinction
between port personnel and port police officers in this
case, considering that port personnel are not
necessarily law enforcers, both should be considered
agents of government under Article III of the
Constitution. The actions of port personnel during
routine security checks at ports have the color of a
state-related function.
 Thus, with port security personnel's functions having
the color of state-related functions and deemed agents
of government, Marti is inapplicable in the present
case. Nevertheless, searches pursuant to port security
measures are not unreasonable per se. The security
measures of x-ray scanning and inspection in
domestic ports are akin to routine security procedures
in airports.
 In People v. Suzuki,the accused "entered the pre-
departure area of the Bacolod Airport Terminal."He
was "bound for Manila via flight No. 132 of the
Philippine Airlines and was carrying a small traveling
bag and a box marked 'Bongbong'spiaya." The
accused "proceeded to the 'walk¬ through metal
detector,' a machine which produces a red light and
an alarm once it detects the presence of metallic
substance or object." "Thereupon, the red light
switched on and the alarm sounded, signifying the
 presence of metallic substance either in his person or
in the box he was carrying."When the accused was
asked to open the content of the box, he answered
"open, open." Several packs of dried marijuana
fruiting tops were then found inside the box. Suzuki
argued that the box was only given to him as
"pasalubong" by a certain Pinky, whom he had sexual
relations with the night before.He did not know the
contents of the box.This court in Suzuki found that
the search conducted on the accused was a valid
exception to the prohibition against warrantless
searches as it was pursuant to a routine airport
security procedure.
 It is axiomatic that a reasonable search is not to be
determined by any fixed formula but is to be resolved
according to the facts of each case. Given the
circumstances obtaining here, we find the search
conducted by the airport authorities reasonable and,
therefore, not violative of his constitutional rights.
Hence, when the search of the box of piaya revealed
several marijuana fruiting tops, appellant is deemed
to have been caught in flagrante delicto, justifying his
arrest even without a warrant under Section 5(a),
Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. The
packs of marijuana obtained in the course of such
valid search are thus admissible as evidence against
appellant.
 
 The reason behind it is that there is a reasonable
reduced expectation of privacy when coming into
airports or ports of travelPersons may lose the
protection of the search and seizure clause by
exposure of their persons or property to the public in
a manner reflecting a lack of subjective expectation
of privacy, which expectation society is prepared to
recognize as reasonable. Such recognition is implicit
in airport security procedures. With increased
concern over airplane hijacking and terrorism has
come increased security at the nation's airports.
Passengers attempting to board an aircraft routinely
pass through metal detectors; their carry-on baggage
as well as checked luggage are routinely subjected to
x-ray scans.Should these procedures suggest the
presence of suspicious objects, physical searches are
conducted to determine what the objects are. There is
little question that such searches are reasonable,
given their minimal intrusiveness, the gravity of the
safety interests involved, and the reduced privacy
expectations associated with airline travel.Indeed,
travelers are often notified through airport public
address systems, signs and notices in their airline
tickets that they are subject to search and, if any
prohibited materials or substances are found, such
would be subject to seizure. These announcements
place passengers on notice that ordinary
constitutional protections against warrantless
searches and seizures do not apply to routine airport
procedures.
 This rationale was reiterated more recently in Sales v.
People where the court upheld the validity of the
search conducted as part of the routine security check
at the old Manila Domestic Airport. Port authorities
were acting within their duties and functions when it
used x-ray scanning machines for inspection of
passengers' bags.When the results of the x-ray scan
revealed the existence of firearms in the bag, the port
authorities had probable cause to conduct a search of
petitioner's bag. Notably, petitioner did not contest
the results of the x-ray scan.
 The second point of intrusion was when the baggage
inspector opened petitioner's bag and called the
attention of the port police officer. The court also
held that the search WAS NOT rendered
unreasonable at the second point of intrusion,
 The port personnel's actions proceed from the
authority and policy to ensure the safety of travelers
and vehicles within the port. At this point, petitioner
already submitted himself and his belongings to
inspection by placing his bag in the x-ray scanning
machine.The presentation of petitioner's bag for x-ray
scanning was voluntary. Petitioner had the choice of
whether to present the bag or not. He had the option
13
not to travel if he did not want his bag scanned or
inspected. X-ray machine scanning and actual
inspection upon showing of probable cause that a
crime is being or has been committed are part of
reasonable security regulations to safeguard the
passengers passing through ports or terminals.
Probable cause isreasonable ground of suspicion
supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in
themselves to induce a cautious man to believe that
the person accused is guilty of the offense charged. It
refers to the existence of such facts and
circumstances that can lead a reasonably discreet and
prudent man to believe that an offense has been
committed, and that the items, articles or objects
sought in connection with said offense or subject to
seizure and destruction by law are in the place to be
searched.
 A third point of intrusion to petitioner's right to
privacy occurred during petitioner's submission to
port security measures. This court should determine
whether the requirements for a valid waiver against
unreasonable searches and seizures were met.
 The Constitution safeguards a person's right against
unreasonable searches and seizures.A warrantless
search is presumed to be unreasonable. However, this
court lays down the exceptions where warrantless
searches are deemed legitimate: (1) warrantless
search incidental to a lawful arrest; (2) seizure in
"plain view"; (3) search of a moving vehicle; (4)
consented warrantless search; (5) customs search; (6)
stop and frisk; and (7) exigent and emergency
circumstances.
 In case of consented searches or waiver of the
constitutional guarantee against obtrusive searches, it
is fundamental that to constitute a waiver, it must first
appear that (1) the right exists; (2) that the person
involved had knowledge, either actual or
constructive, of the existence of such right; and (3)
the said person had an actual intention to relinquish
the right.
 Petitioner anchors his case on the claim that he did  Routine baggage inspections conducted by port
not validly consent to the search conducted by the authorities, although done without search warrants,
port authorities. He argues that he did not have an are not unreasonable searches per se. Constitutional
actual intention to relinquish his right against a provisions protecting privacy should not be so
warrantless search.In cases involving the waiver of literally understood so as to deny reasonable
the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, safeguards to ensure the safety of the traveling
events must be weighed in its entirety. The trial public.
court's findings show that petitioner presented his bag
for scanning in the x-ray machine. When his bag  RULING
went through the x-ray machine and the firearms
were detected, he voluntarily submitted his bag for  WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Court
inspection to the port authorities. It was after the port of Appeals Decision dated September 8, 2012 and the
personnel's inspection that Officer Abregana's Resolution dated August 23, 2013 in CA-GR CEB
attention was called and the bag was inspected anew CR No. 01606 are AFFIRMED with
with petitioner's consent. MODIFICATIONS.

 Similar to the accused in People v. KaguiMalasugui

and People v. Omaweng who permitted authorities to
search their persons and premises without a warrant,
petitioner is now precluded from claiming an invalid
warrantless search when he voluntarily submitted to
the search on his person. In addition, petitioner's
consent to the search at the domestic port was not
given under intimidating or coercive circumstances.

 We also cannot subscribe to petitioner's argument that

there was no valid consent to the search because his
consent was premised on his belief that there were no
prohibited items in his bag. The defendant's belief
that no incriminating evidence would be found does
not automatically negate valid consent to the search
when incriminating items are found. His or her belief
must be measured against the totality of the
circumstances. Again, petitioner voluntarily
submitted himself to port security measures and, as
he claimed during trial, he was familiar with the
security measures since he had been traveling back
and forth through the sea port.

 Consequently, we find respondent's argument that the

present petition falls under a valid consented search
and during routine port security procedures
meritorious. The search conducted on petitioner's bag
is valid.

14