TOPIC: CONTINUATION OF VALID WAIVER Courts indulge every reasonable presumption

against waiver of fundamental constitutional

CASE # 139: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs . NOEL
TUDTUD y PAYPA
Toril Police Station, Davao City received a
report from a "civilian asset" named Bobong Solier
about a certain Noel Tudtud. Solier related that his
neighbors have been complaining about Tudtud,
who was allegedly responsible for the proliferation
of marijuana in their area. For five days, they
gathered information and learned that Tudtud
was involved in illegal drugs. According to his
neighbors, Tudtud was engaged in selling
marijuana.
rights; acquiescence in the loss of fundamental
rights is not to be presumed. The fact that a person
failed to object to a search does not amount to
permission thereto. As the constitutional guaranty
is not dependent upon any affirmative act of the
citizen, the courts do not place the citizen in the
position of either contesting an officer's authority
by force, or waiving his constitutional rights; but
instead they hold that a peaceful submission to all
search or seizure is not a consent or an invitation
thereto, but is merely a demonstration of regard for
the supremacy of the law.

They saw Tudtud and a man carrying a carton Thus, even in cases where the accused
marked “King Flakes.” They then asked him if they voluntarily handed her bag or the chairs
could see the contents of the box. Tudtud obliges containing marijuana to the arresting officer, this
saying “it was alright.” The box yielded pieces of Court held there was no valid consent to the
dried fish, beneath which were two bundles, one search. Consequently, appellants' lack of
wrapped in a striped plastic bag and another in objection to the search and seizure is not
newspapers. PO1 Desierto asked Tudtud to tantamount to a waiver of his constitutional right or
unwrap the packages. They contained what a voluntary submission to the warrantless search
seemed to the police officers as marijuana leaves. and seizure.
They then arrested them, informed them of their
As the search of appellants' box does not
rights and brought them to the police station.
come under the recognized exceptions to a valid
ISSUE: Whether or not Tudtud’s statement of “it’s all warrantless search, the marijuana leaves obtained
right” is considered a waiver. thereby are inadmissible in evidence. And as there
is no evidence other than the hearsay testimony of
RULING: There is an effective waiver of rights the arresting officers and their informant, the
against unreasonable searches and seizures if the conviction of appellants cannot be sustained.
following requisites are present:

1. It must appear that the rights exist;

TOPIC: INCIDENT TO LAWFUL ARREST
2. The person involved had knowledge, actual or
constructive, of the existence of such right; CASE # 140: CHIMEL vs. CALIFORNIA

3. Said person had an actual intention to relinquish Police officers, armed with an arrest warrant
the right. but not a search warrant, were admitted to
petitioner's home by his wife, where they awaited
The prosecution failed to establish the second petitioner's arrival. When he entered, he was
and third requisites. Records disclose that when served with the warrant. Although he denied the
the police officers introduced themselves as such officers' request to "look around," they conducted
and requested appellant that they see the a search of the entire house "on the basis of the
contents of the carton box supposedly containing lawful arrest." At petitioner's trial on burglary
the marijuana, appellant Tudtud said "it was charges, items taken from his home were
alright." He did not resist and opened the box admitted over objection that they had been
himself. unconstitutionally seized. His conviction was
affirmed by the California appellate courts, which
held, despite their acceptance of petitioner's
contention that the arrest warrant was invalid,
that, since the arresting officers had procured the
warrant "in good faith," and since, in any event,
they had had sufficient information to constitute
probable cause for the arrest, the arrest was
lawful. The courts also held that the search was
justified as incident to a valid arrest.
one concealed in the clothing of the person
arrested. There is ample justification, therefore, for
a search of the arrestee's person and the area
"within his immediate control" - construing that
phrase to mean the area from within which he
might gain possession of a weapon or destructible
evidence.

ISSUE: Whether or not a warantless search of the

entire home is permissible when the search is
Judge Learned Hand in United States v.
incident to a lawful arrest that takes place in the
Kirschenblatt, remains: "After arresting a man in his
home.
house, to rummage at will among his papers in
RULING: Absent a search warrant, only the area in search of whatever will convict him, appears to us
the possession or control of the arrestee may be to be indistinguishable from what might be done
searched incident to a lawful arrest. It is under a general warrant; indeed, the warrant
reasonable for the police to search an arrestee to would give more protection, for presumably it
ensure officer safety and no evidence is must be issued by a magistrate. True, by hypothesis
destroyed. the power would not exist, if the supposed
offender were not found on the premises; but it is
In Contrast, a search of the area outside of the
small consolation to know that one's papers are
arrestee’s immediate control is not reasonable
safe only so long as one is not at home."
because it is not justifiable to ensure safety or
preservation of evidence. The Fourth Amendment Application of sound Fourth Amendment
requirements of establishing probable cause or principles to the facts of this case produces a clear
producing a warrant were intended to prevent the result. The search here went far beyond the
search of private homes. petitioner's person and the area from within which
he might have obtained either a weapon or
Permitting a warrantless search of a private
something that could have been used as
home would encourage the police to make every
evidence against him. There was no constitutional
arrest in a suspect’s home so they could legally
justification, in the absence of a search warrant,
undertake a search absent probable
for extending the search beyond that area. The
cause. Since the coins found were not in the area
scope of the search was, therefore,
under the immediate control of Chimel, the search
"unreasonable" under the Fourth and Fourteenth
and seizure was unconstitutional.
Amendments, and the petitioner's conviction
When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the cannot stand.
arresting officer to search the person arrested in
CASE #141: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JUAN
order to remove any weapons that the latter
DE LA CRUZ y GONZALES
might seek to use in order to resist arrest or effect
his escape. Otherwise, the officer's safety might Accused was found guilty beyond reasonable
well be endangered, and the arrest itself doubt of the Violation of Section 4, Article II, in
frustrated. In addition, it is entirely reasonable for relation to Section 21, Article IV, both of Republic
the arresting officer to search for and seize any Act No. 6425, otherwise known as Dangerous
evidence on the arrestee's person in order to Drugs Act of 1972, as further amended by
prevent its concealment or destruction. And the Presidential Decree No. 1675.
area into which an arrestee might reach in order
A "buy-bust" operation was conducted by the
to grab a weapon or evidentiary items must, of
13th Narcotics Regional Unit to catch the pusher/s.
course, be governed by a like rule. A gun on a
P/Pfc. Adolfo Arcoy acted as the poseur-buyer
table or in a drawer in front of one who is arrested
with Arnel as his companion to buy marijuana
can be as dangerous to the arresting officer as
worth P10.00 from the two accused, Juan de la
Cruz and Reynaldo Beltran. At the scene, it was against unreasonable search and seizure, the
Juan de la Cruz whom Arcoy first negotiated with confiscated articles are admissible in evidence.
on the purchase, De la Cruz instructed Reynaldo
CASE # 142: PEOPLE vs. KALUBIRAN
Beltran to give one aluminum foil of marijuana
which Beltran got from his pants' pocket and Respondent was arrested in a buy-bust
delivered it to Arcoy. After ascertaining that the operation by the Narcotic Command agents for
foil of suspected marijuana was really marijuana, selling 2 sticks of marijuana, a violation of the
Arcoy gave the prearranged signal to his Dangerous Drugs Act, to one of the team
teammates by scratching his head. They then members who acted as the buyer. One of the
effected the arrest of De la Cruz and Beltran. The agents frisked Kalubiran and found 17 sticks of
P10.00 marked bill used by Arcoy was found in the marijuana. After examining and evaluating the
possession of Juan de la Cruz together with two evidence of the parties, he was found guilty.
aluminum foils and containing marijuana. Kalubiran argued that he could not have sold the
marijuana in public as this would be contrary to
Accused contended that the Buy-Bust
human nature and caution. He even added that
Operation, being done to enforce Republic Act
his right against unreasonable search and seizures
6425, is unconstitutional and any evidence
has been violated and in not according him the
acquired under such method should not be
presumption of innocence.
admissible in court.
ISSUE: Whether or not Kalubiran’s arrest constitutes
ISSUE: Whether or not the seizure of evidence
a violation of his right against warrantless arrest.
without warrant in a Buy-Bust Operation is violative
of the Constitution. RULING: The people he was with at the time were
his own group, friends who were probably aware
RULING: The Solicitor General explains that a buy-
of his unlawful trade and did not care much what
bust operation is the method employed by peace
he did. Moreover, it is to be expected that he did
officers to trap and catch a malefactor in
not sell the marijuana openly or with reckless
flagrante delicto. It is essentially a form of
fanfare but with appropriate furtiveness, as
entrapment since the peace officer neither
befitted him shameful trade.
instigates nor induces the accused to commit a
crime. Entrapment is the employment of such The accused-appellant was arrested in
ways and means for the purpose of trapping or flagrante delicto as a result of the entrapment and
capturing a lawbreaker from whose mind the so came under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of
criminal intent originated. Oftentimes, it is the only Court, authorizing a warrantless arrest of any
effective way of apprehending a criminal in the person actually committing a crime. The search
act of the commission of the offense. was made as an incident of a lawful arrest and so
was also lawful under Section 12 of Rule 116. In
While it is conceded that in a buy-bust
addition to the aforecited Rules, there is abundant
operation, there is seizure of evidence from one's
jurisprudence justifying warrantless searches and
person without a search warrant, needless to state
seizures under the conditions established in this
a search warrant is not necessary, the search
case.
being incident to a lawful arrest. A peace officer
may, without a warrant, arrest a person when, in
his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing or is attempting CASE # 143: PEOPLE VS MALMSTEDT
to commit an offense. It is a matter of judicial FACTS: Captain Alen Vasco, the commanding
experience that in the arrest of violators of the officer of the first regional command (NARCOM)
Dangerous Drugs Act in a buy-bust operation, the stationed at camp Dangwa, ordered his men to
malefactors were invariably caught red-handed. set up a temporary checkpoint for the purpose of
There being no violation of the constitutional right checking all vehicles coming from the Cordillera
Region. The order to establish a checkpoint was
prompted by persistent reports that vehicles a) When, in the presence, the person to be
coming from Sagada were transporting marijuana arrested has committed, is actually committing, or
and other prohibited drugs. And an information is attempting to commit an offense;
also was received about a Caucasian coming
b) When an offense has in fact just been
from Sagada had in his possession prohibited
committed, and he has personal knowledge of
drugs.
facts indicating that the person to be arrested has
In the afternoon the bus where accused committed it; and
was riding stopped. Sgt. Fider and CIC Galutan
c) When the person to be arrested is a
boarded the bus and announced that they were
prisoner who has escaped from a penal
members of the NARCOM and that they would
establishment or place where he is serving final
conduct an inspection. During the inspection CIC
judgment or temporary confined while his case is
Galutan noticed a bulge on accused waist.
pending, or has escaped while being transferred
Suspecting the bulge on accused waist to be a
from one confinement to another”
gun, the officer asked for accused’s passport and
other identification papers. When accused failed Accused was searched and arrested while
to comply, the officer required him to bring out transporting prohibited drugs. A crime was
whatever it was that was bulging o his waist. And actually being committed by the accused and he
it turned out to be a pouched bag and when was caught in flagrante delicto, thus the search
accused opened the same bag the officer made upon his personal effects falls squarely
noticed four suspicious looking objects wrapped in under paragraph 1 of the foregoing provision of
brown packing tape. It contained hashish, a law, which allows a warrantless search incident to
derivative of marijuana. a lawful arrest.
Thereafter, the accused was invited outside While it is true that the officers were not armed with
the bus for questioning. But before he alighted a search warrant when they searched the
from the bus accused stopped to get two accused’s personal effects, there was sufficient
traveling bags. The officer inspects the bag. It wasprobable cause for said officers to believe that the
only after the officers had opened the bags that accused was committing a crime. The receipt of
the accused finally presented his passport. The information by NARCOM that a Caucasian
two bags contained a stuffed toy each, upon coming from Sagada had prohibited drugs in his
inspection the stuff toy contained also hashish. possession, plus the suspicious failure of the
accused to produce his passport, taken together
as a whole, led the NARCOM officers to
DEFENSE OF THE ACCUSED: Accused raised the
reasonably believe that the accused was trying to
issue of illegal search of his personal effects. He
hide something illegal from the authorities.
also claimed that the hashish was planted by the
NARCOM officers in his pouch bag and that the Probable cause has been defined as such facts
two (2) traveling bags were not owned by him, but and circumstances which could lead a
were merely entrusted to him by an Australian reasonable, discreet and prudent man to believe
couple whom he met in Sagada. that an offense has been committed, and that the
object sought in connection with the offense are
RULING OF THE COURT: The Supreme Court held in the placed sought to be searched.
that under Section 5 Rule 113 of the Rules of Court
provides: When NARCOM received the information that a
Caucasian traveling from Sagada to Baguio City
“Arrest without warrant; when lawful – a peace was carrying with him a prohibited drug, there was
officer or a private person may, without a warrant, no time to obtain a search warrant.
arrest a person:
 CASE # 144: RODOLFO ESPANO vs. COURT OF arrested to include the premises or surroundings
APPEALS under his immediate control. In this case, the ten
cellophane bags of marijuana seized at
FACTS: On July 14, 1991, at about 12:30 a.m., petitioners house after his arrest do not fall under
police officers went to Zamora and Pandacan the said exceptions.
Streets, Manila to confirm reports of drug pushing
in the area. They saw petitioner selling something The articles seized from petitioner during his arrest
to another person. After the alleged buyer left, were valid under the doctrine of search made
they approached petitioner, identified themselves incidental to a lawful arrest. The warrantless search
as policemen, and frisked him. The search yielded made in his house, however, which yielded ten
two plastic cellophane tea bags of marijuana. cellophane bags of marijuana became unlawful
since the police officers were not armed with a
When asked if he had more marijuana, he replied
search warrant at the time. Moreover, it was
that there was more in his house. The policemen beyond the reach and control of petitioner.
went to his residence where they found ten more
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED.
cellophane tea bags of marijuana.
ISSUE: Whether the warrantless search made inside
the accused-petitioner’s house (where 10 more CASE # 145: People vs. Tangliben, 184 SCRA 220
tea bags of marijuana were found) became (1990)
unlawful since the police operatives were not FACTS: Pat. Silverio Quevedo and Romeo
armed with a search warrant. Punzalan were conducting a surveillance mission.
The surveillance was against persons who may
RULING: The prosecution was able to prove that
commit misdemeanors and who are engaged in
petitioner indeed committed the crime charged;
trafficking dangerous drugs. This mission was
consequently, the finding of conviction was
based on information supplied by informers. At
proper.
one point, they noticed a person carrying a
Rule 113 Section 5(a) of the Rules of Court traveling bag who was acting suspiciously.
provides: A peace officer or a private person may, Quevedo and Punzalan confronted the man and
without a warrant, arrest a person: a. when, in his told him to open the bag. They found a kilo of
presence, the person to be arrested has leaves which were later found to be marijuana.
committed, is actually committing, or is They took the person, Medel Tangliben (who was
attempting to commit an offense; Petitioners waiting for a taxi to deliver the marijuana), to
arrest falls squarely under the aforecited rule. He police headquarters for further investigation. The
was caught in flagrante as a result of a buy-bust marijuana was admitted as evidence against
operation. The police officer saw petitioner Tangliben.
handing over something to an alleged buyer.
After the buyer left, they searched him and ISSUE: Is the marijuana seized a product of an
discovered two cellophanes of marijuana. His unlawful warrantless search?
arrest was, therefore, lawful and the two
cellophane bags of marijuana seized were RULING: NO. One exception to the general rule of
admissible in evidence, being the fruits of the requiring a search warrant is a search incident to
crime. lawful arrest. Furthermore, a peace officer may,
without a warrant, arrest a person when, inches
On the other hand, as for the ten cellophane bags presence, the person to be arrested has
of marijuana found at petitioners residence, committed, is actually committing, or is
however, the same are inadmissible in evidence. attempting to commit an offense. The accused
The 1987 Constitution guarantees freedom against was caught in flagrante delicto at the time of his
unreasonable searches and seizures under Article arrest, so his case falls squarely with the above
III, Section 2. An exception to the said rule is a exception.
warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest for
dangerous weapons or anything which may be In an earlier case, officers received a tip
used as proof of the commission of an offense. It that the accused was carrying marijuana. When
may extend beyond the person of the one the accused disembarked the vessel, the police
detained him and inspected the bag, which
contained marijuana. The Court ruled that the
marijuana is inadmissible because it was seized
illegally. The case did not present any urgency to
seize the drugs. The police had at least two days
within which the police could have obtained a
warrant of arrest and search.
In the present case, there is urgency. There
was an informer who pointed to Tangliben as
carrying the drugs. Faced with on-the-spot
information, the officers had to act quickly. There
was not enough time to secure a search warrant.
To require a warrant for such on-the-spot situations
would make the apprehension of drug pushers
much harder if not impossible. Thus, containment
of crime is also made harder or impossible.
CASE # 146: People vs. Che Chun Ting, 328 SCRA
592 (2000)
FACTS: The special Operation Unit, Narcotics
Command apprehended a suspected drug
courier, Mabel Cheung Mei Po, after she delivered
a transparent plastic bag with a white crystalline
substance inside. She chose to cooperate,
revealing the name of the source of the drugs:
Che Chun Ting.
The Narcotics Command deployed a team
for Ting’s entrapment and arrest. Mabel called
Ting asking for a kilogram of shabu. When Ting
notified Mabel the he was ready to deliver, Mabel
relayed the message to NARCOM and the latter
prepared the entrapment. Mabel went to Unit 122
to meet Ting, with NARCOM agents waiting in a
car nearby. The instant the agents saw Ting give
Mabel the shabu, they moved in and arrest Ting.
The agents also conducted a search of Unit 122,
which was later found to be owned by Ting’s
girlfriend. The agent seized more shabu from the
Unit.
ISSUE: Was the seizure of the drugs legal?
RULING: As the the drugs seized in Unit 122, NO.
The requirement of a warrant for search and
seizure is not absolute. One exception is the
searching of a lawfully arrested person for
dangerous weapons or anything which may be
used as proof of the commission of the offense.
Said search may extend beyond the persons of
the one arrested to include the permissible ares or
surroundings within his immediate control.
Unit 122 was not even Ting’s residence; it
was that of his girlfriend. It can hardly be said that
the inner portion of the house constituted a
permissible area within his reach or immediate
control to justify a warrantless search.
The warrantless search justified by a lawful
arrest is limited by the subject, time, and place of
the arrest. As to the subject, the search is
sanctioned only with respect tot he person of the
suspect, and the things that may be seized are
limited to “dangerous weapons” or “anything
which may be used as proof of the commission of
the offense.” As to time and place, the search
must be conducted at about the time of arrest or
immediately thereafter and only at the place
where the suspect was arrested or the premises or
surroundings under his immediate control.
The purpose of the exception are only to
protect the arresting officer against physical harm
for the persons being arrested who may be armed.
As the the drugs seized from Ting, YES.
Accused was caught in flagrante delicto.
NARCOM agents saw him hand over a bag of
white crystalline substance to Mabel. His arrest
was lawful and the seized bag of shabu was
admissible in evidence.
CASE # 147: PEOPLE VS. ESTELLA
FACTS: The trial court found appellant guilty of
violating Section 8, Article II of RA 6425, as
amended by RA 7659 for illegal possession of
illegal drugs. The drugs were seized in a hut which
was not proved to be owned by the appellant.
After the conviction, he appealed alleging the
legality of the police search undertaken in the hut
where the subject marijuana was seized.
The OSG contends that the search is
incident to the lawful arrest.
ISSUE: Whether the police search legal as it was
incident to the lawful arrest?
RULING: No. The police authorities cannot claim
that the search was incident to a lawful arrest.
Such a search presupposes a lawful or valid arrest
and can only be invoked through Section 5, Rule
113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, to
wit:
 SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful - otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of
A peace officer or a private person may, without 1972.
a warrant, arrest a person:
The intelligence operatives of PNP began
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be conducting surveillance operation on suspected
arrested has committed, is actually committing, or drug dealers in Tarlac. They conducted a
is attempting to commit an offense; checkpoint upon learning that two drug pushers,
riding in a tricycle, would be making a delivery. On
(b) When an offense has just been the following day, the police officers flagged
committed and he has probable cause to believe down a tricycle. It had two female passengers
based on personal knowledge of facts or
seated inside, who were later identified as the
circumstances that the person to be arrested has appellant Agpanga Libnao and her co-accused
committed it; and
Rosita Nunga with a black bag in front of them.
(c) When the person to be arrested is a The seized articles were later brought to the
prisoner who has escaped from a penal PNP Crime Laboratory and were positively
establishment or place where he is serving final
identified as marijuana. They were both found
judgment or is temporarily confined while his case guilty. Libnao appealed alleging that during her
is pending, or has escaped while being
arrest, she was not committing a crime and that
transferred from one confinement to another. there was no warrant. Her right against illegal and
Paragraphs a and b are not applicable. Neither unwarranted arrest and search was violated by
the appellant falls under paragraph c. It was not the police officers who arrested both accused. In
proven that he was in possession of the subject the same manner, she impugns the search made
prohibited drug during the search. It follows, on her belongings as illegal as it was done without
therefore, that there was no way of knowing if he a valid warrant or under circumstances when
had committed or was actually committing an warrantless search is permissible
offense in the presence of the arresting officers. ISSUE: Whether or not the right of accused against
Without that knowledge, there could have been
illegal and unwarranted arrest and search was
no search incident to a lawful arrest.
violated by the police officers who arrested both
Assuming that appellant was indeed accused?
committing an offense in the presence of the
RULING:
arresting officers, and that the arrest without a
warrant was lawful, it still cannot be said that the No. The requirement that a judicial warrant
search conducted was within the confines of the must be obtained prior to the carrying out of a
law. The scope of the search should be limited to search and seizure is not absolute. There are
the area within which the person to be arrested certain familiar exceptions to the rule, one of
can reach for a weapon or for evidence that he which relates to search of moving vehicles. Peace
or she can destroy. However in this case, the officers in such case, however, are limited to
search was made within the entire hut, which routine checks where the examination of the
cannot be said to have been within appellant’s vehicle is limited to visual inspection. When a
immediate control. Thus, the search exceeded the vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive
bounds of that which may be considered to be search, such would be constitutionally permissible
incident to a lawful arrest. only if the officers made it upon probable cause,
reasonably arising out of circumstances known to
Without sufficient admissible evidence the seizing officer, that an automobile or other
against appellant, the prosecution failed to vehicle contains as item, article or object which by
establish his guilt with moral certainty. ACQUITTED.
law is subject to seizure and destruction.
There was a probable cause in this case.
CASE # 148: PEOPLE VS. LIBNAO The warrantless search and seizure of appellants
bag was not illegal.
FACTS: Appellant Agpanga Libnao and her co-
accused Rosita Nunga were found guilty of It is also clear that at the time she was
violating Article II, Section 4 of R.A. No. 6425, apprehended, she was committing a criminal
offense. She was making a delivery or transporting assuming then, that the NARCOM agents
prohibited drugs in violation of Article II, Section 4 inadvertently came across the plastic bag
of R.A. No. 6425. Under the Rules of Court, one of because it was within their "plain view," what may
the instances a police officer is permitted to carry be said to be the object in their "plain view" was
out a warrantless arrest is when the person to be just the plastic bag and not the marijuana.
arrested is caught committing a crime in flagrante
delicto. We, therefore, hold that under the circumstances
of the case, the "plain view" doctrine does not
apply and the marijuana contained in the plastic
TOPIC: PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE bag was seized illegally and cannot be presented
in evidence pursuant to Article III, Section 3(2) of
CASE # 149: People V Musa
the Constitution.
FACTS: Accused was charged of selling marijuana
during a buy-bust operation. Upon retrieval of the
marked money, the accused said that he gave it CASE # 150: Padilla V CA
to his wife. The officers then searched for the
marked money inside the house and incidentally FACTS: Apprehended as a hit-and-run suspect,
found a plastic bag containing marijuana petitioner Robin Padilla was caught in possession
somewhere in the kitchen. of high-powered firearms with live ammunitions.
Thus, he was charged with illegal possession of
DOTA: The marijuana in the plastic bag should be firearms and ammunitions under P.D. 1866.
inadmissible as a product of illegal search However, he contends that his arrest was illegal
and consequently, the firearms and ammunitions
HELD: Inadmissible.
taken in the course thereof are inadmissible in
Objects in the "plain view" of an officer who has evidence under the exclusionary rule.
the right to be in the position to have that view are
ISSUE: WON the firearms and ammunitions seized
subject to seizure and may be presented as
without warrant are admissible as evidence.
evidence. The "plain view" doctrine may not,
however, be used to launch unbridled searches HELD: YES. One instance when a warrantless
and indiscriminate seizures nor to extend a general search and seizure of property is valid-- Seizure of
exploratory search made solely to find evidence evidence in "plain view", the elements of which
of defendant's guilt. The "plain view" doctrine is are:
usually applied where a police officer is not
searching for evidence against the accused, but (a). a prior valid intrusion based on the valid
nonetheless inadvertently comes across an warrantless arrest in which the police are legally
incriminating object present in the pursuit of their official duties; (b). the
evidence was inadvertently discovered by the
In the instant case, the appellant was arrested and police who had the right to be where they are; (c).
his person searched in the living room. Failing to the evidence must be immediately apparent, and
retrieve the marked money which they hoped to (d). "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence
find, the NARCOM agents searched the whole without further search.
house and found the plastic bag in the kitchen.
The plastic bag was, therefore, not within their The seizure of the Smith & Wesson revolver and an
"plain view" when they arrested the appellant as M-16 rifle magazine was justified for they came
to justify its seizure. The NARCOM agents had to within "plain view" of the policemen who
move from one portion of the house to another inadvertently discovered the revolver and
before they sighted the plastic bag. magazine tucked in petitioner's waist and back
pocket respectively, when he raised his hands
The NARCOM agents in this case could not have after alighting from his Pajero. The same
discovered the inculpatory nature of the contents justification applies to the confiscation of the M-16
of the bag had they not forcibly opened it. Even armalite rifle which was immediately apparent to
the policemen as they took a casual glance at the (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by
Pajero and saw said rifle lying horizontally near the the police who have the right to be where they
driver's seat. Thus it has been held that:
"(W)hen in pursuing an illegal action or in the
commission of a criminal offense, the . . . police
officers should happen to discover a criminal
offense being committed by any person, they are
not precluded from performing their duties as
police officers for the apprehension of the guilty
person and the taking of the corpus delicti."
"Objects whose possession are prohibited by law
inadvertently found in plain view are subject to
seizure even without a warrant."
CASE # 151: People V Valdez
FACTS: Appellant Abe Valdez y Dela Cruz was
found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for
violating Section 9 of the Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972 (R.A. No. 6425), as amended by R.A. No.
7659.
Police team, accompanied by their informer, left
for the site where the marijuana plants were
allegedly being grown. The police found
appellant alone in his nipa hut. They, then,
proceeded to look around the area where
appellant had his kaingin and saw seven (7) five-
foot high, flowering marijuana plants.
DOTA: That there was unlawful search. First, the
records show that the law enforcers had more
than ample time to secure a search warrant.
Second, that the marijuana plants were found in
an unfenced lot does not remove appellant from
the mantle of protection against unreasonable
searches and seizures.
COTS: Warrantless lawful search under the "plain
view" doctrine
HELD: We find no reason to subscribe to Solicitor
General's contention that we apply the "plain
view" doctrine. For the doctrine to apply, the
following elements must be present:
(a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid DOTA: That the policeman's obtaining the serial
warrantless arrest in which the police are legally numbers violated the Fourth Amendment
present in the pursuit of their official duties;
are; and
(c) the evidence must be immediately apparent;
and
(d) plain view justified mere seizure of evidence
without further search.
In the instant case, recall that PO2 Balut
testified that they first located the marijuana plants
before appellant was arrested without a warrant.
Hence, there was no valid warrantless arrest which
preceded the search of appellant's premises.
Note further that the police team was dispatched
to appellant's kaingin precisely to search for and
uproot the prohibited flora. The seizure of
evidence in "plain view" applies only where the
police officer is not searching for evidence against
the accused, but inadvertently comes across an
incriminating object. Clearly, their discovery of the
cannabis plants was not inadvertent. We also note
the testimony of SPO2 Tipay that upon arriving at
the area, they first had to "look around the area"
before they could spot the illegal plants. Patently,
the seized marijuana plants were not "immediately
apparent" and a "further search" was needed. In
sum, the marijuana plants in question were not in
"plain view" or "open to eye and hand." The "plain
view" doctrine, thus, cannot be made to apply.
CASE # 152: Arizona V. Hicks
FACTS: A bullet fired through the floor of
respondent's apartment injured a man on the floor
below. Police entered the apartment to search for
the shooter, for other victims, and for weapons.
While there, one of the policemen noticed two
sets of expensive stereo components and,
suspecting that they were stolen, read and
recorded their serial numbers -- moving some of
them, including a turntable, to do so -- and
phoned in the numbers to headquarters. Upon
learning that the turntable had been taken in an
armed robbery, he seized it immediately.
because it was unrelated to the shooting, the
exigent circumstance that justified the initial entry
and search.
COTP: That the policeman's actions were justified RULING: Yes. Sec 2 and 3 (2) Article III of the 1987
under the "plain view" doctrine. Constitution are safeguards against reckless,
malicious, and unreasonable invasion of privacy
HELD: The policeman's actions come within the
and liberty. A judicial warrant makes the search
purview of the Fourth Amendment. The mere
and seizure reasonable but with some exceptions.
recording of the serial numbers did not constitute
Consequently, Compacion's right against
a "seizure," since it did not meaningfully interfere
unreasonable search and seizure was clearly
with respondent's possessory interest in either the
violated. As a general rule, objects in the "plain
numbers or the stereo equipment. However, the
view" of an officer who has the right to be in the
moving of the equipment was a "search" separate
position to have that view are subject to seizure
and apart from the search that was the lawful
without a warrant. It is usually applied where a
objective of entering the apartment. The fact that
police officer is not searching for evidence against
the search uncovered nothing of great personal
the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently
value to respondent is irrelevant.
comes across an incriminating object. Thus, the
The search was invalid because, as the State following elements must be present before the
concedes, the policeman had only a "reasonable doctrine may be applied: (a) a prior valid intention
suspicion" -- i.e., less than probable cause to based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the
believe -- that the stereo equipment was stolen. police are legally present in the pursuit of their
Probable cause is required to invoke the "plain official duties; (b) the evidence was inadvertently
view" doctrine as it applies to seizures. It would be discovered by the police who have the right to be
illogical to hold that an object is seizable on lesser where they are; (c) the evidence must be
grounds, during an unrelated search and seizure, immediately apparent; and (d) "plain view"
than would have been needed to obtain a justified were seizure of evidence without further
warrant for it if it had been known to be on the search.
premises.
Here, there was no valid warrantless arrest.
CASE # 153: People vs Compacion They forced their way into Compacion's premises
without the latter's consent. It is undisputed that
GR No. 124442, 20 July 2001 the NARCOM agents conducted a surveillance of
FACTS: Acting on a confidential tip supplied by a the residence of Compacion on 9 July 1995 on the
police informant that Armando Compacion was suspicion that he was growing and cultivating
growing and cultivating marijuana plants, SPO1 marijuana when they allegedly came in "plain
Gilbert Linda and SPO2 Basilio Sarong conducted view" of the marijuana plants. When the agents
surveillance at the residence of Compacion. entered his premises on 13 July 1995, their intention
During the surveillance SPO1 Linda and SPO2 was to seize the evidence against him. In fact,
Basilio saw 2 tall plants in Compacion’s backyard, they initially wanted to secure a search warrant
suspected to be marijuana plants. The NARCOM but could not simply wait for one to be issued. The
team of Bacolod applied for a search warrant, but NARCOM agents, therefore, did not come across
failed to acquire one because it was already late the marijuana plants inadvertently when they
at night and it is way beyond office house. Even conducted a surveillance and barged into
without the warrant, the police officers went to Compacion's residence. As held in People v.
Compacion’s residence to search and seize the Musa, the "plain view" doctrine may not be used
suspected marijuana. The plants were uprooted to launch unbridled searches and indiscriminate
and yielded positive results for marijuana testing. seizures nor to extend a general exploratory
search made solely to find evidence of
ISSUE: Whether Compacion’s right against defendant's guilt. The "plain view" doctrine is
unreasonable searches and seizures was violated. usually applied where a police officer is not
searching for evidence against the accused, but
nonetheless inadvertently comes across an
incriminating object. Hence, Compacion is ISSUE: Whether or not the appellants were properly
acquitted of the crime to which he was charged. arrested.

NOTE: Exceptions in acquiring a judicial RULING: In the case of Huang Zhen, he was
warrant: acquitted by the Court on ground that the
prosecution failed to sufficiently prove the
a) when the premises consents or voluntarily
quantum of evidence against him that it was not
submits to a search;
sufficiently proven of his knowledge of the shabu
b) when the owner of the premises waives his nor his possession of any regulated drug. The Court
right against such incursion; however upheld the conviction of Lee. She failed
to prove that there is irregularity in the process of
c) when the search is incidental to a lawful arrest prosecution proved that the officers
arrest; complied with the rules in making themselves
known and their purpose in entering the unit. They
d) when it is made on automobiles for the also brought a Cantonese interpreter for Lee as
purpose of preventing violations of smuggling she cannot understand English. Generally, officers
or immigration laws; implementing a search warrant must announce
their presence, identify themselves to the accused
e) when it involves prohibited articles in plain
and to the persons who rightfully have possession
view; of the premises to be searched, and show to them
f) when it involves a “stop and frisk” situation; the search warrant to be implemented by them
and explain to them said warrant in a language or
g) when the search is under exigent and dialect known to and understood by them but
emergency circumstances; or there can be exceptions.

h) in cases of inspection of buildings and Lee also failed to prove that the drugs were
other premises for the enforcement of fire, planted as if her contention is true, she could have
sanitary, and building regulations. informed her counsel immediately for him to make
a defense for her or even charged the officers
CASE # 154: GR No 139301 September 29, 2004 who planted the evidence before the information
was set against her. The testimony of Pangan was
People vs Huang Zhen Hua & Jogy Lee. also overlooked as it was admitted that he was not
actually in the unit when the search was ongoing.
FACTS: Two search warrants were issued by the Also the taking by the officers of some items
Executive Judge of the RTC Manila where one was belonging to the appellants is justified as it was in
issued to the appellants in their condominium unit their plain view and may connection to the
executed by PARAC operative, Anciro Jr. PARAC offense. The items taken such as passports, cards,
operatives knocked on the unit where Lee passbook and other papers are may be necessary
opened for them. They searched the master’s to establish corroborating evidence to further
bedroom where Huang Zhen was sleeping and prove the charge against the accused.
allegedly found kilos of shabu in violation of RA
6425. Appellants denied their knowledge on the NOTE: Unannounced intrusion into the premises is
confiscated drugs contending that they are just permissible when:
tourists and just came in the country. They contend
that the arrest was illegal as the evidence was only (a) a party whose premises or is entitled to the
planted to incriminate them. Pangan, a security possession thereof refuses, upon demand, to open
officer of the building testified that the police it;
came in barging and kicked the door in the
entrance and that he saw no shabu that was (b) when such person in the premises already
taken out and that he only came to know that knew of the identity of the officers and of their
shabu was seized when he wasthed the news. authority and persons;
(c) when the officers are justified in the honest ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners can validly direct
belief that there is an imminent peril to life or limb; and/or effect the seizure of the vessels of private
and respondent for illegal fishing by the use of
dynamite and without the requisite licenses.
(d) when those in the premises, aware of the
presence of someone outside (because, for RULING: Yes. When the Philippine Navy, upon
example, there has been a knock at the door), are request of the Fisheries Commissioner,
then engaged in activity which justifies the officers
apprehended on August 5 or 6, 1965 the fishing
to believe that an escape or the destruction of
evidence is being attempted. boats Tony Lex III and Tony Lex VI, otherwise known
respectively as Srta. Agnes and Srta. Winnie, these
TOPIC: ENFORCEMENT OF FISHING, CUSTOMS AND vessels were found to be without the necessary
IMMIGRATION LAWS license in violation of Section 903 of the Tariff and
Customs Code and therefore subject to seizure
CASE # 155: Roldan vs. Arca under Section 2210 of the same Code, and
FACTS: Petitioner Fisheries Commissioner (Roldan) illegally fishing with explosives and without fishing
requested the Philippine Navy to apprehend license required by Sections 17 and 18 of the
vessels Tony Lex VI and Tony Lex III, also Fisheries Law. Moreover, the two fishing boats
respectively called Srta. Winnie and Srta. Agnes, were subject to previous violations of Sections 12,
for alleged violations of some provisions of the 17 and 18 of the Fisheries Act from March 28, 1963
Fisheries Act and the rules and regulations until August 5 or 6, 1965. This rendered the said
promulgated thereunder. The two fishing boats vessels subject to forfeiture under Sections 76 and
were actually seized for illegal fishing with 78 of the Fisheries Act, as amended.
dynamite. Fish caught with dynamite and sticks of Search and seizure without search warrant
dynamite were then found aboard the two of vessels and air crafts for violations of the
vessels. Criminal charges were filed against the customs laws have been the traditional exception
crew members of the fishing vessels for violations to the constitutional requirement of a search
of Act No. 4003, as amended by Commonwealth warrant, because the vessel can be quickly
Acts Nos. 462, 659 and 1088, i.e., for illegal fishing moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which
with the use of dynamite. On the same day, the the search warrant must be sought before such
Fiscal filed an ex parte motion to hold the boats in warrant could be secured; hence it is not
custody as instruments and therefore evidence of practicable to require a search warrant before
the crime, and cabled the Fisheries Commissioner such search or seizure can be constitutionally
to detain the vessels. Likewise, the Court of First effected. The same exception should apply to
Instance of Palawan ordered the Philippine Navy seizures of fishing vessels breaching our fishery
to take the boats in custody. Respondent laws. They are usually equipped with powerful
company filed a complaint with application for motors that enable them to elude pursuing ships of
preliminary mandatory injunction with the Court of the Philippine Navy or Coast Guard.
First Instance of Manila against herein petitioners.
On October 18, 1965, the respondent Judge Another exception to the constitutional
issued the challenged order granting the issuance requirement of a search warrant for a valid search
of the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction and and seizure, is a search or seizure as an incident to
issued the preliminary writ upon the filing by private a lawful arrest. In the case at bar, the members of
respondent of a bond of P5,000.00 for the release the crew of the two vessels were caught in
of the two vessels. flagrante illegally fishing with dynamite and
without the requisite license. Thus their
apprehension without a warrant of arrest while
committing a crime is lawful. Consequently, the
seizure of the vessel, its equipment and dynamites CASE # 157: People vs. Johnson
therein was equally valid as an incident to a lawful
arrest. FACTS: Leila johnson was arrested at the airport
after she was found to have in her possession more
CASE # 156: People v Gatward than 500 grams of shabu when she was initially
FACTS: U aung win, after being caught for violating frisked by a security personnel at a gate in the
the dangerous drug act by importing heroin into airport. After a thorough search on respondent,
the philippines, provided information that helped packets of shabu were seized from her. Accused
the authorities catch gatward, a drug courier from (respondent) was subsequently convicted and
bangkok who is connected with u aung win’s sentenced to reclusion perpetua. In the present
contact in thailand. U aung win pleaded guilty appeal, respondent contended that the search
and was sentenced to 25 years or reclusion made upon her was not valid and that her
perpetua, while gatward was sentenced to 35 constitutional rights were infringed when such
years of reclusion perpetua. Gatward filed an search was conducted.
appeal, only to withdraw it afterwards.
ISSUE: Whether or not a valid search was made.
ISSUE: Whether or not gatward’s and u ang win’s
suitcases may be searched without warrant HELD: The constitutional right of the accused was
HELD: While no search warrant had been obtained not violated as she was never placed under
for that purpose, when appellant checked in his custodial investigation but was validly arrested
bag as his personal luggage as a passenger of klm without warrant pursuant to the provisions of
flight no. 806 he thereby agreed to the inspection section 5, rule 113 of the 1985 rules of criminal
thereof in accordance with customs rules and procedure which provides:
regulations, an international practice of strict Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A
observance, and waived any objection to a peace officer or a private person may, without a
warrantless search. His subsequent arrest, warrant, arrest a person: (a) when in his presence,
although likewise without a warrant, was justified the person to be arrested has committed, is
since it was effected upon the discovery and actually committing, or is attempting to commit
recovery of the heroin in his bag, or in flagrante an offense; (b) when an offense has in fact just
delicto. The conviction of accused u aung win in been committed, and he has personal knowledge
criminal case no. 94-6269 is likewise unassailable. of facts indicating that the person to be arrested
His culpability was not based only upon his plea of has committed it. The circumstances surrounding
guilty but also upon the evidence of the the arrest of the accused above falls in either
prosecution, the presentation of which was paragraph a or b of the rule above cited, hence
required by the lower court despite said plea. The the allegation that she has been subjected to
evidence thus presented convincingly proved his custodial investigation is far from being accurate.
having imported into this country the heroin found The shabu seized from her during the
in his luggage which he presented for customs routine frisk at the airport was acquired
examination upon his arrival at the international legitimately pursuant to airport security
airport. There was, of course, no showing that he procedures. Persons may lose the protection of the
was authorized by law to import such dangerous search and seizure clause by exposure of their
drug, nor did he claim or present any authority to persons or property to the public in a manner
do so. 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 baggages 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 packs of methamphetamine
hydrochloride having thus been obtained through
a valid warrantless search, they are admissible in
evidence against the accused-appellant herein.
Her subsequent arrest, although likewise without
warrant, was justified since it was effected upon
the discovery and recovery of “shabu” in her
person in flagrante delicto.
CASE # 158: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINESvs. HEDISHI
SUZUKI
G.R. No. 120670. October 23, 2003
FACTS: Suzuki, appellant, of illegal possession of
marijuana (1.9kg), defined and penalized under
Section 8, Article II of R.A. No. 6525. Items, inside pocket. The officer ordered the three into the
the box of piaya, were detected by metal
detector at the airport.
Suzuki contends that he did not know it
was a marijuana as the box was only given as a
pasalubong by the woman he had sexual
relations with.
ISSUE: WON the agents had legal authority and
probable cause to search and open the box in
question.
HELD: YES, based upon the Memorandum of
Understanding, pursuant to President LOI 399, in
relation to R.A. 6235.
Passengers are allowed one hand-carried
bag or attach case with the following limitation:
c. It can be readily opened for
inspection (PAFM 3-9, page 2-4).
Under DOC 8973/3, Security Manual for
Safeguarding Civil Aviation against Acts of
Unlawful Interference, particularly paragraph
3.6.4 when x-ray inspection is not possible or
when the x-ray image of a bag gives rise to
suspicion, x x x, a manual search must be carried
out…
Appellant gave his consent when PO1
Casugod asked him to open the box was
confirmed by SPO1 Linda and PO3 Poyugao. As
succinctly found by the trial court, appellant
cannot deny that he consented by feigning
ignorance of the English language
To sustain the stand of the accused
exclusively limiting the authority to open and
search suspicious luggages would result to
absurdity. It would deprive law enforcers of their
authority to perform their duty of maintaining
order, preserving peace, protecting life and
property and other police works such as crime
detection, while within the airport premises.
Search conducted pursuant to routine
airport security procedure as an exception to the
proscription against warrantless searches.
TOPIC: “STOP AND FRISK”
CASE # 159: Terry vs. Ohio
FACTS: Acting suspiciously, the petitioner and
another man was approached by a Cleveland
detective McFadden. When McFadden spun
petitioner around, patted down his outside
clothing, he found a pistol in petitioner’s overcoat
store. He removed petitioner's overcoat, took out
a revolver, and ordered the three to face the wall
with their hands raised. He patted down the outer
clothing of Chilton and Katz and seized a revolver
from Chilton's outside overcoat pocket. He did not
put his hands under the outer garments of Katz
(since he discovered nothing in his pat-down
which might have been a weapon), or under
petitioner's or Chilton's outer garments until he felt
the guns. Petitioner and Chilton were charged allowed to "stop" a person and detain him briefly
with carrying concealed weapons. for questioning upon suspicion that he may be
connected with criminal activity. Upon suspicion
ISSUE: WON the search and seizure (stopping and
that the person may be armed, the police should
frisking) is valid.
have the power to "frisk" him for weapons. If the
HELD: Where a reasonably prudent officer is "stop" and the "frisk" give rise to probable cause to
warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believe that the suspect has committed a crime,
believing that his safety or that of others is then the police should be empowered to make a
endangered, he may make a reasonable search formal "arrest," and a full incident "search" of the
for weapons of the person believed by him to be person. This scheme is justified in part upon the
armed and dangerous regardless of whether he notion that a "stop" and a "frisk" amount to a mere
has probable cause to arrest that individual for "minor inconvenience and petty indignity," which
crime or the absolute certainty that the individual can properly be imposed upon the citizen in the
is armed. interest of effective law enforcement on the basis
of a police officer's suspicion.
(a) Though the police must, whenever
practicable, secure a warrant to make a search
and seizure, that procedure cannot be followed
CASE # 160: PEOPLE vs. SOLAYAO
where swift action based upon on-the-spot FACTS: An investigation was conducted to act on
observations of the officer on the beat is required. reports on the presence of armed men roaming

(b) The reasonableness of any particular
search and seizure must be assessed in light of the
particular circumstances against the standard of
whether a man of reasonable caution is
warranted in believing that the action taken was
appropriate.
(c) The officer here was performing a
legitimate function of investigating suspicious
conduct when he decided to approach
petitioner and his companions.
(d) An officer justified in believing that an
individual whose suspicious behavior he is
investigating at close range is armed may, to
neutralize the threat of physical harm, take
necessary measures to determine whether that
person is carrying a weapon.
around barangays of Caibiran Biliran. The agents
came across the group of Solayao and became
suspicious of them because the accused-
appellant himself is drunk and wearing a
camouflage uniform or a jungle suit. They became
more suspicious over the group when they fled
upon noticing of the approaching of the officers,
leaving Solayao alone.
A 49-inch long homemade firearm locally
known as "latong."(shotgun), was found in his
possession. When he asked accused-appellant
who issued him a license to carry said firearm or
whether he was connected with the military or any
intelligence group, the latter answered that he
had no permission to possess the same. Solayao
was charged with the crime of illegal possession of
firearm and ammunition defined and penalized
under PD No. 1866.

(e) A search for weapons in the absence of ISSUE: WON the firearm is inadmissible evidence as
it was the product of an unlawful warrantless
probable cause to arrest must be strictly
search and constitutes a violation of constitutional
circumscribed by the exigencies of the situation.
guarantee against unreasonable searches and
(f) An officer may make an intrusion short of seizures.
arrest where he has reasonable apprehension of
danger before being possessed of information HELD: NO. The firearm is an admissible evidence
and the act is not a violation of the constitutional
justifying arrest.
guarantee against unreasonable searches and
NOTE: Distinctions between a "stop" and an "arrest" seizures.
(or a "seizure" of a person), and between a "frisk" The court referred to the Posadas case where
and a "search." It is argued, the police should be the Supreme Court said that "at the time the
peace officers identified themselves and done after receiving information that drug addicts
apprehended the petitioner as he attempted to were roaming around said area. The policemen
flee, they did not know that he had committed, or chanced upon a male person, the petitioner, in
was actually committing the offense of illegal front of the cemetery who appeared high on
possession of firearm and ammunitions. They just drugs. The petitioner had reddish eyes and was
suspected that he was hiding something in the buri walking in a swaying manner.
bag. They did not know what its contents
were. The said circumstances did not justify an Officers were able to introduce themselves
arrest without a warrant." and policeman Espiritu asked him if he could see
what the petitioner had in his hands. The petitioner
Supreme Court, nevertheless, ruled that the
showed his wallet and allowed the officer to
search and seizure in the Posadas case brought
examine it, a suspected crushed marijuana
about by the suspicious conduct of Posadas
residue was found.
himself can be likened to a "stop and frisk"
situation. There was a probable cause to conduct
Petitioner protests the admission of the
a search even before an arrest could be made.
marijuana leaves found in his possession,
In the present case, after the officer told contending that they were products of an illegal
Solayao not to run away, the former identified search.
himself as a government agent. The peace
officers did not know that he had committed, or Respondent, counters that the
was actually committing, the offense of illegal inadmissibility of the marijuana leaves was waived
possession of firearm (that he has in his possession because petitioner never raised this issue in the
“latong”), but since they were in the task verifying proceedings below nor did he object to their
the report that there were armed men roaming admissibility in evidence. He adds that the search
around in the barangays surrounding Caibiran, was legal because it was incidental to a
their attention was understandably drawn to the warrantless arrest under Section 5 (a), Rule 113 of
suspicious acts of Solayao’s group. the Rules of Court.
As with Posadas, the case at bar constitutes
ISSUE: Whether or not the search and seizure of the
an instance where a search and seizure may be suspected marijuana is unreasonable, and hence
effected without first making an arrest. There was
inadmissible as evidence.
justifiable cause to "stop and frisk" accused-
appellant when his companions fled upon seeing RULING: The Supreme Court held that the search
the government agents. Under the circumstances, was valid being akin to a stop-and-frisk. The
the government agents could not possibly have general rule is a search and seizure must be
procured a search warrant first. validated by a previously secured judicial warrant;
Thus, there was no violation of the otherwise, such a search and seizure is
constitutional guarantee against unreasonable unconstitutional and subject to challenge. Any
searches and seizures. Nor was there error on the evidence obtained in violation of this
part of the trial court when it admitted the constitutionally guaranteed right is legally
homemade firearm as evidence. inadmissible in any proceeding. Stop-and-frisk has
already been adopted as another exception to
***he was still acquitted because the prosecution the general rule against a search without a
failed to produce evidence that the Solayao has warrant. (Terry vs. Ohio)
no license to carry the firearm.
In the case at hand, Patrolman Espiritu and
CASE # 161: Manalili vs. CA his companions observed during their surveillance
that appellant had red eyes and was wobbling
(G.R. no. 113447, October 9, 1997) like a drunk along the Caloocan City Cemetery,
which according to police information was a
FACTS: Police Anti-Narcotics Unit of Kalookan City popular hangout of drug addicts. From his
conducted surveillance along A. Mabini Street, in experience as a member of the Anti-Narcotics Unit
front of the Kalookan City Cemetery. This was of the Caloocan City Police, such suspicious
behavior was characteristic of drug addicts who
were high. The policemen therefore had sufficient
reason to stop petitioner to investigate if he was
actually high on drugs. During such investigation,
they found marijuana in petitioner’s possession.
CASE # 162: MALACAT vs. CA
FACTS: Petitioner was arrested for having in his
possession a hand grenade after he was searched
by a group of policemen when he was said to be
acting suspiciously when he was hanging around
Plaza Miranda with his eyes moving fast together
with other Muslim-looking men. When the
policemen approached the group of men, they
scattered in all directions which prompted the
police to give chase and petitioner was then
apprehended and a search was made on his
person.
He was then convicted under PD 1866 in the lower
court. Hence, the present petition wherein
petitioner contended that the lower court erred in
holding that the search made on him and the
seizure of the hand grenade from him was an
appropriate incident to his arrest and that it erred
in admitting the hand grenade as evidence since
it was admissible because it was a product of an
unreasonable and illegal search.
ISSUE: WON the search and seizure conducted by
the police was valid.
RULING: Trial court confused the concepts of a
"stop-and-frisk" and of a search incidental to a
lawful arrest. These two types of warrantless
searches differ in terms of the requisite quantum of
proof before they may be validly effected and in
their allowable scope.
In a search incidental to a lawful arrest, as the
precedent arrest determines the validity of the
incidental search, the legality of the arrest is
questioned in a large majority of these cases, e.g.,
whether an arrest was merely used as a pretext for
conducting a search. 36 In this instance, the law
requires that there first be a lawful arrest before a
search can be made — the process cannot be
reversed. 37 At bottom, assuming a valid arrest,
the arresting officer may search the person of the
arrestee and the area within which the latter may
reach for a weapon or for evidence to destroy,
and seize any money or property found which was
used in the commission of the crime, or the fruit of
the crime, or that which may be used as evidence,
or which might furnish the arrestee with the means
of escaping or committing violence.
While probable cause is not required to conduct a
"stop and frisk," it nevertheless holds that mere
suspicion or a hunch will not validate a "stop and
frisk." A genuine reason must exist, in light of the
police officer's experience and surrounding
conditions, to warrant the belief that the person
detained has weapons concealed about him.
Finally, a "stop-and-frisk" serves a two-fold interest:
(1) the general interest of effective crime
prevention and detection, which underlies the
recognition that a police officer may, under
appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate
manner, approach a person for purposes of
investigating possible criminal behavior even
without probable cause; and (2) the more pressing
interest of safety and self-preservation which
permit the police officer to take steps to assure
himself that the person with whom he deals is not
armed with a deadly weapon that could
unexpectedly and fatally be used against the
police officer.
CASE # 163: FLORIDA v. J. L. No. 98-1993 (2000)
FACTS: After an anonymous caller reported to the
Miami-Dade Police that a young black male
standing at a particular bus stop and wearing a
plaid shirt was carrying a gun, officers went to the
bus stop and saw three black males, one of whom,
respondent J. L., was wearing a plaid shirt. Apart
from the tip, the officers had no reason to suspect
any of the three of illegal conduct. The officers did
not see a firearm or observe any unusual
movements. One of the officers frisked J. L. and
seized a gun from his pocket. J. L., who was then
almost 16, was charged under state law with
carrying a concealed firearm without a license
and possessing a firearm while under the age of
18. The trial court granted his motion to suppress
the gun as the fruit of an unlawful search. The
intermediate appellate court reversed, but the
Supreme Court of Florida quashed that decision
and held the search invalid under the Fourth
Amendment.

ISSUE: Whether an anonymous tip that a person is

carrying a gun is, without more, sufficient to justify
a police officer's stop and frisk of that person.

RULING: We hold that it is not. An anonymous tip

that a person is carrying a gun is not, without more,
sufficient to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of
that person. An officer, for the protection of himself
and others, may conduct a carefully limited
search for weapons in the outer clothing of
persons engaged in unusual conduct where, inter
alia, the officer reasonably concludes in light of his
experience that criminal activity may be afoot
and that the persons in question may be armed
and presently dangerous. Here, the officers'
suspicion that J. L. was carrying a weapon arose
not from their own observations but solely from a
call made from an unknown location by an
unknown caller. The tip lacked sufficient indicia of
reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to make
a Terry stop: It provided no predictive information
and therefore left the police without means to test
the informant's knowledge or credibility. The
contentions of Florida and the United States
as amicus that the tip was reliable because it
accurately described J. L.'s visible attributes
misapprehend the reliability needed for a tip to
justify a Terry stop. The reasonable suspicion here
at issue requires that a tip be reliable in its assertion
of illegality, not just in its tendency to identify a
determinate person. This Court also declines to
adopt the argument that the
standard Terry analysis should be modified to
license a "firearm exception," under which a tip
alleging an illegal gun would justify a stop and frisk
even if the accusation would fail standard pre-
search reliability testing. The facts of this case do
not require the Court to speculate about the
circumstances under which the danger alleged in
an anonymous tip might be so great-- e.g., a
report of a person carrying a bomb--as to justify a
search even without a showing of reliability.