Microsoft v.

Unlicensed software; personal knowledge + probable cause - officer from CIDG personally went to
1
Farajallah the office to verify
Ogayon v.
2 No proof that judge personally examined and asked the complainant during the application of warrant
People
Bureau of Customs did not lose jurisdiction because the duties and taxes havent been paid in full yet.
3 Papa v. Mago Officers dispatched were clothed with authority to enforce searches and seizures of items subject to
forfeiture under the Tarriff and Customs law
People v. Lo Search of a moving vehicle; Officers had probable cause due to close surveillance and intelligence
4
Ho Wing reports
Posadas v. Firearms inside buri bag; stop and frisk; He was acting suspiciously and attempted to flee when
5
CA approached which gave the officers probable cause to search him
People v. De Exigent circumstances; There was rebellion during the time and the courts near the Eurocar sales
6
Gracia office were closed
Aniag Jr. v. Gun ban; apprehended at checkpoint; Firearms were not in plain view and the driver cannot be said
7
COMELEC to have consented to search
(1) No records that Malacat attempted to bomb Plaza Miranda 2 days earlier; (2) No suspicious
actions were exhibited by Malacat - he was merely moving his eyes very fast and it was already
8 Malacat v. CA
630pm so it was impossible for officers to really see them and they were merely standing; (3) No
visible weapon so not in "plain view"
Hit and run - he just committed an offense; In flagrante delicto when he was seen to be carrying
unlicensed firearms - were also in plain view when he raised his hands and when the officers saw the
9 Padilla v. CA
guns in the car; Officers personally saw the dangling plate number and dented hood - personal
knowledge
People v. Marijuana "cash katutak"; not valid since Aruta was merely crossing the street and was not acting
10
Aruta suspicious; Officers would not have apprehended her if it werent for the informant
Asuncion was apprehended in his car for illegally possessing shabu based on a tip; not practicable to
get a search warrant bc moving vehicle; (1) Even though police had already identified him, the time
Asuncion v.
11 he would show up was uncertain; (2) Type of vehicle to be used also uncertain since he always uses
CA
diff cars accdg to reports; (3) There was probable cause on the part of the officers since they already
had a previous encounter with him
Marijuana plantation; not in plain view since the officers had to look around pa before they saw the
People v. plants; No valid search warrant - they had at least a day to obtain one; No valid warrantless arrest
12
Valdez since they first saw the plants before they arrested Aruta (requisite of plain view is that dapat there's
a prior valid intrusion)
People v.
13 Airport frisk; Shabu hidden in genital area bla bla
Canton
Esquillo v.
Stop and frisk; noticed that she placed sachet in a cigarette case so officer went to her and asked her
14
People about it but she attempted to flee so all the more reason to be suspicious lol
Luz was flagged down for violating a municipal ordinance for not wearing a helmet; officer noticed
15 Luz v. People that he acted suspiciously so he searched Luz and found shabu; No valid arrest because flagging
down is not = to arrest
16 Disini v. SOJ AYOKO
Dela Cruz v. Port xray scan - akin to airport security procedures; Dela Cruz voluntarily presented bag for xray
17
People scanning
Lopez v.
18 Manicurist; Officers cant be blamed if they thought that she was really the wife; there was consent
Customs
People v. Immunity from unreasonable searches and seizures is personal and can be waived only by the
19
Damaso person whose rights are affected or one who is expressly authorized to do so
Motion for production and inspection of corporate records; Documents were to be inspected to
Material determine whether Harry Lysons committed forgery; Respondent showed good cause for the
20 Distributors production and inspection - they are material and important to the issues between him and
v. Natividad petitoners; the orders in question pertain to a civil procedure and must not be confused with
unreasonable searches and seizures prohibited by the Constitution
 Housing inspector wanted to check the unit of petitioner since the building he lives in wasn’t allowed
Camara v.
to be used for residential purposes but petitioner did not allow him to enter due to absence of search
Municipal
21 warrant - happened 3 times; Court ruled administrative searches are significant intrustions upon the
Court (US
interests protected by the 4th amendment; as a practical matter, warrants should be sought for only
Case)
after entry is refused
Petitioners are aliens suspected of being pedophiles and were apprehended after 2 months of close
Harvey v.
surveillance. Arrests were based on probable cause due to surveillance and because young boys
22 Defensor
were found in their rooms during the apprehension = reasobnable ground to believe that they were
Santiago
committing pedophilia; requirement of probable cause does not extend to deportation proceedings
Officers apprehended respondent when he disembarked from a ship - based on a tip that he was
carrying marijuana; No valid arrest because he was not committing a crime when he was arrested -
People v.
23 he was innocently alighting the ship; police had at least 2 days to obtain a warrant since his name
Aminnudin
was known, ship, date and time of arrival also known so they could've convinced a judge to issue a
warrant but they did not!!!
Burgos was apprehended after information from informant that ht was a member of the NPA; At the
People v.
24 time of his arrest, Burgos was merely plowing his field and was not commiting a crime nor was he in
Burgos
possession of a firearm
Umil v.
25 AYOKO RIN PLS READ DIGEST TOO LONG HAHAHA
Ramos
Go allegedly shot a person during a traffic altercation; search was conducted and after 6 days, Go
26 Go v. CA went to the police station where he was arrested; No valid arrest because he did not go to the station
to surrender but only to verify the manhunt against his person
Phone call informing police that 3 persons were acting suspiciously "looking from side to side" and
People v. "holding abdomen"; Surveillance team approached them but they tried to run away but failed lol and
27
Mengote then officers found firearms; No valid arrest bc no probable cause - respondents were merely looking
side to side and holding abdomen so THIS IS NOT A CRIMINAL ACT
Stop and frisk; based on reports that people were hanging out in the cemetery to do drugs, police
conducted a surveillance. They saw Manalili walking with red eyes and was swaying (PROBABLE
28 Manalili v. CA
CAUSE SINCE USUAL BEHAVIOR NG MGA SABOG) so they approached him but he tried to flee
but he later on showed them his wallet where they saw marijuana residue
Jayson was a bouncer. Officers received a radio message that there was a shooting incident where
Jayson worked so they went there and found an unlicensed gun in his possession; This falls under
People v.
29 Sec 5(b) since a crime has just been committed and the officers had personal knowledge of this
Jayson
because they immediately went to the scene of the crime where they saw the victim and the
eyewitnesses positively identified Jayson as the perpetrator
Surveillance team was formed due to reports of drug activities in the area where Miclat lived. He was
Miclat v.
30 caught arranging pieces of sachet (for shabu) so they arrested him; He was caught in flagrante
People
delicto so warrantless arrest VALID
Generoso was mauled by petitioners and he called the police dept to ask for help and then officers
Pestillos v. were dispatched to help him. They saw the Generoso badly beaten and he pointed to the petitioners
31
Generoso so they were invited to the station; The officers had personal knowledge of the crime since they
personally saw the victim in the scene of the crime within an hour from the occurence of the mauling
Officers were patroling the area when they spotted petitioner standing and showing improper
movements - passing sachets to one another (officers suspected sachets contained shabu) so they
Commerciant approached them and confiscated them. Not valid bc the officers were driving the motorcycle at a
32
e v. People speed of 30km/h so impossible na nakita talaga nila yung shabu bc ang liit ng shabu duh; Petitioner's
acts of standing w a friend is not a crime so there was no genuine reason for officers to do a stop and
frisk search
Ongcoma Petitioner was caught violating an ordinance on jaywalking and when the officers apprehended him ,
33 Hadji v. he dropped a knife which led the officers to search him so they found shabu. No arrest because
People when they caught him jaywalking, there was no intent to arrest him!!!