MANALILI V.

COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS:

This is a petition for certiorari seeking the reversal of CA’s decision in affirming Trial Court’s decision on convicting Manalili of
illegal possession of prohibited drug violating RA 6425.

On April 11, 1988, Police Anti-Narcotics Unit of Kaloocan City conducted surveillance along the front of Kaloocan Cemetery
based on the information that drug addicts were roaming around in the area. Upon reaching the place, the officers saw a
man who appeared to be on drugs. The man had reddish eyes and was walking in a swaying manner.

The man was trying to avoid the policemen, but the officers approached him and were able to introduce themselves. They
asked what the man was holding; the man held out his wallet and allowed Pat. Espiritu to examine it, who found what he
suspected to be crushed Marijuana leaves. The man was brought to the Anti-Narcotics Unit and turned out to be Alain
Manalili.

The substance found on Manalili’s wallet was sent to NBI and was confirmed as Marijuana upon examination.

Manalili’s version of the story was early in the afternoon, he was riding in a tricycle when 3 policemen stopped the tricycle
and informed them of the story of the suspected Marijuana. The policemen bodily searched both Manalili and the driver
and upon finding nothing illegal on the persons, they let the driver go and brought Manalili along to the police station.

Manalili on the way to the station saw a neighbor whom he signaled to follow them and when he was again searched in
the station, he was asked to strip his pants where they found nothing illegal. Said neighbor then asked the policemen to let
Manalili go seeing as they found nothing illegal but Manalili was put on a cell. He was brought to a fiscal later that day and
was told not to say anything despite his saying that the policemen had not found MJ on his person. Said tricycle driver and
neighbor testified in court as to how the 2 searches yielded nothing illegal on Manalili’s person.

ISSUE:

Is the evidence seized during a stop-and -frisk admissible?

RULING:

The Supreme Court held that search was valid. In the landmark case of Terry vs. Ohio, stop-and-frisk was defined as the
vernacular designation of the right of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street, interrogate him and pat for weapon(s).

W)here a police officer observes an unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience
that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently
dangerous, where in the course of investigating this behavior he identified himself as a policeman and makes reasonable
inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or
others' safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search
of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him. Such a
search is a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment, and any weapon seized may properly be introduced in
evidence against the person from whom they were taken.

The general rule is that a search and seizure must be validated by a previously secured judicial warrant; otherwise, such
search and seizure is unconstitutional and subject to challenge.
This right, however, is not absolute. The recent case of People vs. Lacerna enumerated five recognized exceptions to the
rule against warrantless search and seizure, viz.:”
(1) search incidental to a lawful arrest,
(2) search of moving vehicles,
(3) seizure in plain view,
(4) customs search, and
(5) waiver by the accused themselves of their right against unreasonable search and seizure.
Stop-and-frisk has already been adopted as another exception to the general rule against a search without a warrant.
In Posadas vs. Court of Appeals, the Court held that there were many instances where a search and seizure could be
effected without necessarily being preceded by an arrest, one of which was stop-and-frisk.
In the case at hand, Patrolman Espiritu and his companions observed during their surveillance that appellant had red eyes
and was wobbling like a drunk along the Cemetery, which according to police information was a popular hangout of drug
addicts. From his experience as a member of the Anti-Narcotics Unit 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.
In the present case, petitioner effectively waived the inadmissibility of the evidence illegally obtained when he failed to
raise the issue or object thereto during the trial.

The Supreme Court affirmed with modifications the assailed Decision and Resolution of the respondent court.