People of the Philippines vs Rosa Aruta y Menguin 5.

Customs search;
 Law enforcement officers was tipped by a guy
named “Benjie”
 Tip said that Aling Rosa would leave for Baguio
carrying 8 kgs and 500 grams of Marijuana
 NARCOM officers inspected and confiscated the
drugs
 Issue: Illegal search and seizure of the drugs
 The SC could neither sanction nor tolerate as it is a
clear violation of the constitutional guarantee
against unreasonable search and seizure
 No legal basis for the warrantless search  no
probable cause  accused appellant not lawfully
arrested
 With the arrest being illegal, it logically follows that
the search was also illegal, it being not incidental
to a lawful arrest
 Evidence cannot be used as evidence because
these are “fruits of a poisoned tree” and therefore
must be rejected
NOTES:
When is a warrantless search allowed?
6. Stop and Frisk; and
7. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances.
People of The Philippines vs Ruben Montilla y Gatdula
 Police officers were informed that a drug courier
would be arriving from Baguio to Dasmarinas
carrying marijuana
 Montilla was caught in position of a bag and carton
worth 28 kilos of marijuana
 He was sentenced to death
 He said that if the informant has given the cops the
information about his arrival as early as the day
before his apprehension, the cops should have
ample time to secure a search warrant
 Issue: Whether or not the arrest conducted is legal
 SC rules that the warrantless arrest and search was
legal
 The information given to the police was too
sketchy and the informant did not know the name
of the courier

(From Sec 2 Art 3 of the Philippine Constitution)

NOTES:
1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest
A legitimate warrantless arrest, as above
recognized under Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules
contemplated, necessarily cloaks the arresting police
of Court 8 and by prevailing jurisprudence;
officer with authority to validly search and seize from
2. Seizure of evidence in “plain view,” the elements of the offender
which are:
(1) dangerous weapons, and
a. a prior valid intrusion based on the valid
(2) those that may be used as proof of the
warrantless arrest in which the police are
commission of an offense.
legally present in the pursuit of their official
duties;

b. the evidence was inadvertently discovered

by the police who had 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;

3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by

the government, the vehicle’s inherent mobility
People of The Philippines vs Andre Marti
reduces expectation of privacy especially when its
transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly  Package of Marijuana to be sent abroad
reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause
 Before sending the packages they wished to
that the occupant committed a criminal activity;
send to Switzerland, the Bureau of Posts
4. Consented warrantless search; followed SOP and suspected a weird smell
 Upon opening, they found the dried Marijuana
leaves

 The accused-appellant said that the lower court

erred in admitting in evidence the illegality of
search and seized objects contained in the four
parcels

 Issue: Whether or not the seizing of illegal

objects is legal

 Held: Appellant guilty beyond reasonable

doubt

 Rationale: Article III, Sec 2 &3 of the 1987

Constitution