Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

Allowable warrantless searches 1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest 2. plain view 3. moving vehicle 4.

consented warrantless search 5. customs search 6. Exigent and emergency circumstances

POSADAS VS. COURT OF APPEALS [188 SCRA 288; G.R. NO. 89139; 2 AUG 1990]
The circumstances in this case are similar to those obtaining in Posadas v. Court of Appeals 15 where this Court held that "at the time the peace officers identified themselves and apprehended the petitioner as he attempted to flee, they did not know that he had committed, or was actually committing the offense of illegal possession of firearm and ammunitions. They just suspected that he was hiding something in the buri bag. They did not know what its contents were. The said circumstances did not justify an arrest without a warrant."

[ G.R. No. 119220. September 20, 1996 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, NILO SOLAYAO Accused-Appellant. Under the circumstances obtaining in this case, however, accused-appellant's arguments are hardly tenable. He and his companions' drunken actuations aroused the suspicion of SPO3 Nio's group, as well as the fact that he himself was attired in a camouflage uniform or a jungle suit 13 and that upon espying the peace officers, his companions fled. It should be noted that the peace officers were precisely on an intelligence mission to verify reports that armed persons were roaming around the barangays of Caibiran.

G.R. No. 120915: People of the Philippines vs Rosa Aruta y Menguin Aruta alighted from a Victory Liner Bus carrying a travelling bag even as the informant pointed her out to the law enforcement officers; NARCOM officers approached her and introduced themselves as NARCOM agents; When asked by Lt. Abello about the contents of her travelling bag, she gave the same to him; When they opened the same, they found dried marijuana leaves; Aruta was then brought to the NARCOM office for investigation. Consequently, there was no legal basis for the NARCOM agents to effect a warrantless search of Aruta?s bag, there being no probable cause and the accused-appellant not having been lawfully arrested. Stated otherwise, the arrest being incipiently illegal, it logically follows that the subsequent search was similarly illegal, it being not incidental to a lawful arrest. The constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure must perforce operate in favor of accused-appellant. As such, the articles seized could not be used as evidence against accused-appellant for these are "fruits of a poisoned tree" and, therefore, must be rejected, pursuant to Article III, Sec. 3(2) of the Constitution.

G.R. No. 186529

August 3, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. JACK RACHO y RAQUERO, Appellant. As in the above cases, appellant herein was not committing a crime in the presence of the police officers. Neither did the arresting officers have personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested had committed, was committing, or about to commit an offense. At the time of the arrest, appellant had just alighted from the Gemini bus and was waiting for a tricycle. Appellant was not acting in any suspicious manner that would engender a reasonable ground for the police officers to suspect and conclude that he was committing or intending to commit a crime. Were it not for the information given by the informant, appellant would not have been apprehended and no search would have been made, and consequently, the sachet of shabu would not have been confiscated.