Umil, et al. v. Ramos, et al.

(en banc)
G.R. No. 81567, 9 July 1990 (Decision)
187 SCRA 311

FACTS:
A confidential information about a member of the NPA Sparrow Unit being treated for a gunshot wound in
St. Agnes Hospital was received by the authority.it was found that the wounded person who was listed in the hospital
records as Ronnie Javelon is actually petitioner Rolando Dural, a member of the NPA liquidation squad responsible
for the killing of two CAPCOM soldiers the day before. he was positively identified by eyewitnesses as the gunman
.hence, Rolando Dural alias Ronnie Javelon was charged with the crime of "Double Murder with Assault Upon Agents
of Persons in Authority." No bail was recommended.
As to Rolando Dural, it clearly appears that he was not arrested while in the act of shooting the two (2)
CAPCOM soldiers aforementioned. Nor was he arrested just after the commission of the said offense for his arrest
came a day after the said shooting incident. Seemingly, his arrest without warrant is unjustified..

ISSUE/S:
Whether or not Rolando Dural was lawfully arrested.

RULING/S:
Yes, Rolando Dural was lawfully arrested.
Under the law, the crimes of rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and
crimes or offenses committed in furtherance thereof or in connection therewith constitute direct assaults against
the State and are in the nature of continuing crimes.
In the case at bar, Rolando Dural was arrested for being a member of the New People’s Army (NPA), an
outlawed subversive organization. Subversion being a continuing offense, the arrest of Rolando Dural without
warrant is justified as it can be said that he was committing an offense when arrested.

Roldan, Jr., et al. v. Arca, et al.

G.R. No. L-25434, 25 July 1975 (Decision)
Makasiar, J.:

FACTS:
respondent company filed a civil case against petitioner Fisheries Commissioner Arsenio N. Roldan, Jr., for
the recovery of fishing vessel Tony Lex VI (one of two fishing boats in question) which had been seized and
impounded by petitioner Fisheries Commissioner through the Philippine Navy. The CFI Manila granted it, thus
respondent company took to possession of the vessel Tony Lex VI. Petitioner requested the Philippine Navy to
apprehended vessels Tony Lex VI and Tony Lex III, also respectively called Srta. Winnie and Srta. Agnes, for alleged
violations of some provisions of the Fisheries Act. On August 5, or 6, 1965, the two fishing boats were actually seized
for illegal fishing with dynamite.
The Fiscal filed an ex parte motion to hold the boats in custody as instruments and therefore evidence of
the crime, and cabled the Fisheries Commissioner to detain the vessels.

ISSUE/S:
Whether or not the seizure of the vessel, its equipment and dynamites therein is valid.

RULING/S:
Yes, it is valid.
 In the case of Papa v. Mago, 22 SCRA 857, search and seizure without search warrant of vessels and air
crafts for violations of the customs laws have been the traditional exception to the constitutional requirement of a
search warrant, because the vessel can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the search
warrant must be sought before such warrant could be secured; hence it is not practicable to require a search warrant
before such search or seizure can be constitutionally effected. The same exception should apply to seizures of fishing
vessels breaching our fishery laws.

People v. Aminnudin
G.R. No. 74869, 6 July 1988 (Decision)
Cruz, J.:

FACTS:
Idel Aminnudin was arrested on June 25, 1984, shortly after disembarking from the M/V Wilcon 9 in Iloilo
City. The PC (Philippine Constabulary) officers who were in fact waiting for him --- after they received a tip from one
of their informers that the accused was on board a vessel bound for Iloilo City and was carrying marijuana --- simply
accosted him, detained him, inspected his bag and finding three kilos of what were later analyzed as marijuana
leaves by the forensic examiner. On the basis of the finding, an information for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act
was filed against Aminnudin.

ISSUE/S:
Whether or not the accused Aminnudin’s constitutional right against unreasonable search and arrest was
violated.

RULING/S:
Yes, there was no warrant of arrest or search warrant issued by a judge after personal determination by
him of the existence of probable cause, even though the present case presented no such urgency.the accused-
appellant was not caught in flagrante nor was a crime about to be committed or had just been committed to justify
the warrantless arrest.
Hence, to all appearances, Amminudin was like any of the other passengers innocently disembarking from
the vessel. The said marijuana therefore could not be appreciated as evidence against the defendant, and
furthermore he is acquitted of the crime as charged.

Alih, et al. v. Castro, et al. (en banc)

G.R. No. L-69401, 23 June 1987 (Decision)
Cruz, J.:

FACTS:
a contingent of more than two hundred soldiers, who were members of the Philippine marines and defense
forces, implemented a “zona” --- a rounding up of the people in a locality and arresting the persons fingered by a
hooded informer --- raided the compound occupied by petitioners Rizal Alih and others in Zamboanga City in search
of loose firearms, ammunition and explosives. A shoot-out ensued after petitioners resisted the intrusion by the
respondents, killing a number of men. The following morning, the petitioners were arrested and subjected to finger-
printing, paraffin-testing and photographing despite their objection. Several kinds of rifle, grenades and
ammunitions were also confiscated.

ISSUE/S:
Whether the seizing of the items is violative of the Bill of Rights and are inadmissible as evidence against
them.

RULING/S:
Yes.
 when the respondents could have easily obtained a search warrant from any of the TEN civil courts then
open and functioning in Zamboanga City, they instead simply barged into the beleaguered premises on the verbal
order of their superior officers. It follows that as the search of the petitioners' premises was violative of the
Constitution, all the firearms and ammunition taken from the raided compound are inadmissible in evidence in any
of the proceedings against the petitioners. These articles are "fruits of the poisonous tree.

Guazon, et al. v. De Villa, et al. (en banc)

G.R. No. 80508, 30 January 1990 (Decision)
Gutierrez, Jr., J.:

FACTS:
It was alleged that the "saturation drive" or "aerial target zoning" that were conducted in their place were
unconstitutional. They alleged that there is no specific target house to be search and that there is no search warrant
or warrant of arrest served. Most of the policemen are in their civilian clothes and without nameplates or
identification cards. The residents were rudely rouse from their sleep by banging on the walls and windows of their
houses. Men were ordered to strip down to their briefs for the police to examine their tattoo marks. Those who
were detained also suffered mental and physical torture to extract confessions and tactical information.

ISSUE/S:
Whether or not there is impediment to securing search warrants or warrants of arrest.

RULING/S:
No.
In the case at bar, where there is large scale mutiny or actual rebellion, the police or military may go in force
to the combat areas, enter affected residences or buildings, round up suspected rebels and otherwise quell the
mutiny or rebellion without having to secure search warrants and without violating the Bill of Rights.
The areal target zonings in this petition were intended to flush out subversives and criminal elements
particularly because of the blatant assassinations of public officers and police officials by elements supposedly
coddled by the communities where the "drives" were conducted.