1

ARREST, SEARCHES AND SEIZURES home, by officers of the law acting under legislative or
judicial sanction, and to give remedy against such
usurpations when attempted. But it does not prohibit the
Purpose and Importance of the Guaranty Government from taking advantage of unlawful searches
made by a private person or under authority of state law.
Alvero vs. Dizon [GR L-342, 4 May 1946] Herein, as the soldiers of the United States Army, that
En Banc, de Joya (J): 4 concur, 4 acting justices concur took and seized certain papers and documents from the
residence of Alvero, were not acting as agents or on
Facts: On 12 February 1945, while the battle for Manila behalf of the Government of the Commonwealth of the
was raging, soldiers of the United States Army, Philippines; and that those papers and documents came
accompanied by men of Filipino Guerrilla Forces, placed into the possession of the authorities of the
Aurelio S. Alvero under arrest, having been suspected of Commonwealth Government, through the Office of the
collaboration with the enemy, and seized and took certain CIC of the United States Army in Manila, the use and
papers from his house in Pasay, Rizal. On or about 4 presentation of said papers and documents, as evidence
October 1945, Alvero was accused of treason, in criminal for the prosecution against Alvero, at the trial of his case
case 3 of the People’s Court; after which, on 1 December for treason, before the People’s Court, cannot now be
1945, he filed a petition, demanding the return of the legally attacked, on the ground of unlawful or
papers allegedly seized and taken from his house. Alvero unreasonable searches and seizures, or on any other
also filed a petition for bail, at the hearing of which the constitutional ground, as declared by the Supreme Court
prosecution presented certain papers and documents, of the United States in similar cases. (See Burdeau vs.
which were admitted as part of its evidence, and said McDowell, 256 U. S., 465; Gambino vs. United States,
petition was denied. At the trial of the case on the merits, 275 U. S., 310.)
the prosecution again presented said papers and
documents, which were admitted as part of its evidence, To whom Directed
and were marked as exhibits. On 26 February 1946, the
judges issued an order denying the petition for the return People vs. Andre Marti [GR 81561, 18 January 1991]
of the documents, and admitted as competent evidence Third Division, Bidin (J): 3 concur
the documents presented by the prosecution. On the
same date that said order was issued, denying the Facts: On 14 August 1987, Andre Marti and his common-
petition for the return of said documents, Alvero asked for law wife, Shirley Reyes, went to the booth of the Manila
the reconsideration of said order, which was also denied. Packing and Export Forwarders in the Pistang Pilipino
Alvero filed a petition for certiorari with injunction with the Complex, Ermita, Manila, carrying with them 4 gift-
Supreme Court. wrapped packages. Anita Reyes (the proprietress and no
relation to Shirley Reyes) attended to them. Marti
Issue: Whether the documents seized by United States informed Anita Reyes that he was sending the packages
Army personnel at Alvero’s home can be used as to a friend in Zurich, Switzerland. Marti filled up the
evidence against the latter. contract necessary for the transaction, writing therein his
name, passport number, the date of shipment and the
Held: The right of officers and men of the United States name and address of the consignee, namely, “WALTER
Army to arrest Alvero, as a collaborationist suspect, and FIERZ, Mattacketr II, 8052 Zurich, Switzerland.” Anita
to seize his personal papers, without any search warrant, Reyes did not inspect the packages as Marti refused, who
in the zone of military operations, is unquestionable, assured the former that the packages simply contained
under the provisions of article 4, Chapter II, Section I, of books, cigars, and gloves and were gifts to his friend in
the Regulations relative to the Laws and Customs of War Zurich. In view of Marti’s representation, the 4 packages
on Land of the Hague Conventions of 1907, authorizing were then placed inside a brown corrugated box, with
the seizure of military papers in the possession of styro-foam placed at the bottom and on top of the
prisoners of war; and also under the proclamation, dated packages, and sealed with masking tape. Before delivery
29 December 1944, issued by Gen. Douglas MacArthur, of Marti’s box to the Bureau of Customs and/or Bureau of
as Commander in Chief of the United States Army, Posts, Mr. Job Reyes (proprietor) and husband of Anita
declaring his purpose to remove certain citizens of the (Reyes), following standard operating procedure, opened
Philippines, who had voluntarily given aid and comfort to the boxes for final inspection, where a peculiar odor
the enemy, in violation of the allegiance due the emitted therefrom. Job pulled out a cellophane wrapper
Governments of the United States and the protruding from the opening of one of the gloves, and
Commonwealth of the Philippines, when apprehended, took several grams of the contents thereof. Job Reyes
from any position of political and economic influence in forthwith prepared a letter reporting the shipment to the
the Philippines and to hold them in restraint for the NBI and requesting a laboratory examination of the
duration of the war. The purpose of the constitutional samples he extracted from the cellophane wrapper. At the
provisions against unlawful searches and seizures is to Narcotics Section of the National Bureau of Investigation
prevent violations of private security in person and (NBI), the box containing Marti’s packages was opened,
property, and unlawful invasions of the sanctity of the yielding dried marijuana leaves, or cake-like (bricks) dried
2

marijuana leaves. The NBI agents made an inventory and Does the prohibition on lawful searches includes Brgy.
took charge of the box and of the contents thereof, after Tanods?
signing a “Receipt” acknowledging custody of the said
effects. Thereupon, the NBI agents tried to locate Marti
RUBEN DEL CASTILLO v. PEOPLE OF THE
but to no avail, inasmuch as the latter’s stated address
PHILIPPINES
was the Manila Central Post Office. Thereafter, an
Information was filed against Marti for violation of RA
6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act. G. R. No. 185128, 30 January 2012, THIRD
After trial, the Special Criminal Court of Manila (Regional DIVISION (Peralta, J.)
Trial Court, Branch XLIX) rendered the decision,
convicting Marti of violation of Section 21 (b), Article IV in Facts: Having been established that the assistance of the
relation to Section 4, Article 11 and Section 2 (e)(i), barangay tanods was sought by the police authorities
Article 1 of Republic Act 6425, as amended, otherwise who effected the searched warrant, the same barangay
known as the Dangerous Drugs Act. Marti appealed. tanods therefore acted as agents of persons in authority.

Issue: Whether an act of a private individual, allegedly in Police Officers headed by SPO3 Bienvenido Masnayon
violation of the accused’s constitutional rights, be invoked went to serve a search warrant from the Regional Trial
against the State. Court (RTC) to Petitioner Ruben Del Castillo in search of
illegal drugs. Upon arrival, somebody shouted “raid”
Held: In the absence of governmental interference, the which prompted the police officers to immediately
liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be disembark from the jeep they were riding and go directly
invoked against the State. The contraband herein, having to Del Castillo’s house and cordoned it off. Police men
come into possession of the Government without the found nothing incriminating in Del Castillo’s residence, but
latter transgressing the accused’s rights against one of the barangay tanods was able to confiscate from
unreasonable search and seizure, the Court sees no the hut several articles including four (4) plastic packs of
cogent reason why the same should not be admitted methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu.
against him in the prosecution of the offense charged.
The mere presence of the NBI agents did not convert the An Information was filed before RTC against Del Castillo,
reasonable search effected by Reyes into a warrantless charging him with violation of Section 16, Article III of R.A.
search and seizure proscribed by the Constitution. Merely 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972). During the
to observe and look at that which is in plain sight is not a arraignment, Del Castillo pleaded not guilty. The RTC
search. Having observed that which is open, where no found Del Castillo guilty beyond reasonable of the charge
trespass has been committed in aid thereof, is not search. against him in the information. The Court of Appeals (CA)
Where the contraband articles are identified without a affirmed the decision.
trespass on the part of the arresting officer, there is not
the search that is prohibited by the constitution. The Del Castillo appealed his case to the CA, insisting that
constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and there was a violation of his constitutional guaranty against
seizures therefore applies as a restraint directed only unreasonable searches and seizure. On the contrary, the
against the government and its agencies tasked with the Office of the Solicitor General argued that the
enforcement of the law. Thus, it could only be invoked constitutional guaranty against unreasonable searches
against the State to whom the restraint against arbitrary and seizure is applicable only against government
and unreasonable exercise of power is imposed. If the authorities. Hence, assuming that the items seized were
search is made upon the request of law enforcers, a found in another place not designated in the search
warrant must generally be first secured if it is to pass the warrant, the same items should still be admissible as
test of constitutionality. However, if the search is made at evidence because the one who discovered them was a
the behest or initiative of the proprietor of a private barangay tanod who is a private individual.
establishment for its own and private purposes, as in the
case at bar, and without the intervention of police ISSUE: Whether or not there was a violation of Del
authorities, the right against unreasonable search and Castillo’s right against unreasonable searches and
seizure cannot be invoked for only the act of private seizure
individual, not the law enforcers, is involved. In sum, the
protection against unreasonable searches and seizures
cannot be extended to acts committed by private HELD: Petition GRANTED. It must be remembered that
individuals so as to bring it within the ambit of alleged the warrant issued must particularly describe the place to
unlawful intrusion by the government. be searched and persons or things to be seized in order
for it to be valid. A designation or description that points
out the place to be searched to the exclusion of all others,
and on inquiry unerringly leads the peace officers to it,
satisfies the constitutional requirement of definiteness.
3

In the present case, the search warrant specifically By virtue of the above provisions, the police officers, as
designates or describes the residence of the petitioner as well as the barangay tanods were acting as agents of a
the place to be searched. Incidentally, the items were person in authority during the conduct of the search.
seized by a barangay tanod in a nipa hut, 20 meters away Thus, the search conducted was unreasonable and the
from the residence of the Del Castillo. The confiscated confiscated items are inadmissible in evidence.
items, having been found in a place other than the one
described in the search warrant, can be considered as Who may Invoke the right?
fruits of an invalid warrantless search, the presentation of
which as an evidence is a violation of Del Castillo’s
constitutional guaranty against unreasonable searches Bache & Co. (Phil.) Inc. vs. Ruiz [GR L-32409, 27
and seizure. February 1971]
En Banc, Villamor (J): 7 concur, 1 filed a separate
concurring opinion to which 1 concurs, 1 concurs in result
The OSG argued that, assuming that the items seized
were found in another place not designated in the search
warrant, the same items should still be admissible as Facts: On 24 February 1970, Misael P. Vera,
evidence because the one who discovered them was a Commissioner of Internal Revenue, wrote a letter
barangay tanod who is a private individual, the addressed to Judge Vivencio M. Ruiz requesting the
constitutional guaranty against unreasonable searches issuance of a search warrant against Bache & Co. (Phil.),
and seizure being applicable only against government Inc. and Frederick E. Seggerman for violation of Section
authorities. The contention is devoid of merit. It was 46(a) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), in
testified to during trial by the police officers who effected relation to all other pertinent provisions thereof,
the search warrant that they asked the assistance of the particularly Sections 53, 72, 73, 208 and 209, and
barangay tanods. Having been established that the authorizing Revenue Examiner Rodolfo de Leon to make
assistance of the barangay tanods was sought by the and file the application for search warrant which was
police authorities who effected the search warrant, the attached to the letter. In the afternoon of the following
same barangay tanods therefore acted as agents of day, De Leon and his witness, Arturo Logronio, went to
persons in authority. Article 152 of the Revised the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal. They brought
with them the following papers: Vera’s letter-request; an
application for search warrant already filled up but still
Penal Code defines persons in authority and agents of unsigned by De Leon; an affidavit of Logronio subscribed
persons in authority as “any person directly vested with before De Leon; a deposition in printed form of Logronio
jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member of already accomplished and signed by him but not yet
some court or governmental corporation, board or subscribed; and a search warrant already accomplished
commission, shall be deemed a person in authority. A but still unsigned by Judge. At that time the Judge was
barangay captain and a barangay chairman shall also be hearing a certain case; so, by means of a note, he
deemed a person in authority. A person who, by direct instructed his Deputy Clerk of Court to take the
provision of law or by election or by appointment by depositions of De Leon and Logronio. After the session
competent authority, is charged with the maintenance of had adjourned, the Judge was informed that the
public order and the protection and security of life and depositions had already been taken. The stenographer,
property, such as barrio councilman, barrio policeman upon request of the Judge, read to him her stenographic
and barangay leader, and any person who comes to the notes; and thereafter, the Judge asked Logronio to take
aid of persons in authority, shall be deemed an agent of a the oath and warned him that if his deposition was found
person in authority.” to be false and without legal basis, he could be charged
for perjury. The Judge signed de Leon’s application for
The Local Government Code also contains a provision search warrant and Logronio’s deposition. Search
which describes the function of a barangay tanod as an Warrant 2-M-70 was then signed by Judge and
agent of persons in authority. Section 388 of the Local accordingly issued. 3 days later (a Saturday), the BIR
Government Code reads: “For purposes of the Revised agents served the search warrant to the corporation and
Penal Code, the punong barangay, sangguniang Seggerman at the offices of the corporation on Ayala
barangay members, and members of the lupong Avenue, Makati, Rizal. The corporation’s lawyers
tagapamayapa in each barangay shall be deemed as protested the search on the ground that no formal
persons in authority in their jurisdictions, while other complaint or transcript of testimony was attached to the
barangay officials and members who may be designated warrant. The agents nevertheless proceeded with their
by law or ordinance and charged with the maintenance of search which yielded 6 boxes of documents. On 3 March
public order, protection and security of life and property, 1970, the corporation and Seggerman filed a petition with
or the maintenance of a desirable and balanced the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal praying that the
environment, and any barangay member who comes to search warrant be quashed, dissolved or recalled, that
the aid of persons in authority, shall be deemed agents of preliminary prohibitory and mandatory writs of injunction
persons in authority. be issued, that the search warrant be declared null and
void, and that Vera, Logronio, de Leon, et. al., be ordered
to pay the corporation and Seggerman, jointly and
4

severally, damages and attorney’s fees. After hearing and income tax returns), which are interrelated. The second is
on 29 July 1970, the court issued an order dismissing the the violation of Section 53 (withholding of income taxes at
petition for dissolution of the search warrant. In the source). The third is the violation of Section 208 (unlawful
meantime, or on 16 April 1970, the Bureau of Internal pursuit of business or occupation); and the fourth is the
Revenue made tax assessments on the corporation in the violation of Section 209 (failure to make a return of
total sum of P2,594,729.97, partly, if not entirely, based receipts, sales, business or gross value of output actually
on the documents thus seized. The corporation and removed or to pay the tax due thereon). Even in their
Seggerman filed an action for certiorari, prohibition, and classification the 6 provisions are embraced in 2 different
mandamus. titles: Sections 46(a), 53, 72 and 73 are under Title II
(Income Tax); while Sections 208 and 209 are under Title
Issue: Whether the corporation has the right to contest V (Privilege Tax on Business and Occupation). Lastly, the
the legality of the seizure of documents from its office. search warrant does not particularly describe the things to
be seized. Search Warrant No. 2-M-70 tends to defeat
the major objective of the Bill of Rights, i.e., the
Held: The legality of a seizure can be contested only by
elimination of general warrants, for the language used
the party whose rights have been impaired thereby, and
therein is so all-embracing as to include all conceivable
that the objection to an unlawful search and seizure is
records of the corporation, which, if seized, could possibly
purely personal and cannot be availed of by third parties.
render its business inoperative. Thus, Search Warrant 2-
In Stonehill, et al. vs. Diokno, et al. (GR L-19550, 19 June
M-70 is null and void.
1967; 20 SCRA 383) the Supreme Court impliedly
recognized the right of a corporation to object against
unreasonable searches and seizures; holding that the Stonehill vs. Diokno [GR L-19550, 19 June 1967]
corporations have their respective personalities, separate En Banc, Concepcion (CJ): 6 concur
and distinct from the personality of the corporate officers,
regardless of the amount of shares of stock or the interest Facts: Upon application of the officers of the government,
of each of them in said corporations, whatever, the offices Special Prosecutors Pedro D. Cenzon, Efren I. Plana and
they hold therein may be; and that the corporate officers Manuel Villareal Jr. and Assistant Fiscal Manases G.
therefore may not validly object to the use in evidence Reyes; Judge Amado Roan (Municipal Court of Manila),
against them of the documents, papers and things seized Judge Roman Cansino (Municipal Court of Manila),
from the offices and premises of the corporations, since Judge Hermogenes Caluag (Court of First Instance of
the right to object to the admission of said papers in Rizal-Quezon City Branch), and Judge Damian Jimenez
evidence belongs exclusively to the corporations, to (Municipal Court of Quezon City) issued, on different
whom the seized effects belong, and may not be invoked dates, a total of 42 search warrants against Harry S.
by the corporate officers in proceedings against them in Stonehill, Robert P. Brooks, HJohn J. Brooks, and Karl
their individual capacity. The distinction between the Beck, and/or the corporations of which they were officers,
Stonehill case and the present case is that: in the former directed to any peace officer, to search the said persons
case, only the officers of the various corporations in and/or the premises of their offices, warehouses and/or
whose offices documents, papers and effects were residences, and to seize and take possession of the
searched and seized were the petitioners; while in the following personal property to wit: “Books of accounts,
latter, the corporation to whom the seized documents financial records, vouchers, correspondence, receipts,
belong, and whose rights have thereby been impaired, is ledgers, journals, portfolios, credit journals, typewriters,
itself a petitioner. On that score, the corporation herein and other documents and/or papers showing all business
stands on a different footing from the corporations in transactions including disbursements receipts, balance
Stonehill. Moreover, herein, the search warrant was void sheets and profit and loss statements and Bobbins
inasmuch as First, there was no personal examination (cigarette wrappers)” as “the subject of the offense; stolen
conducted by the Judge of the complainant (De Leon) or embezzled and proceeds or fruits of the offense,” or
and his witness (Logronio). The Judge did not ask either “used or intended to be used as the means of committing
of the two any question the answer to which could the offense,” which is described in the applications
possibly be the basis for determining whether or not there adverted to above as “violation of Central Bank Laws,
was probable cause against Bache & Co. and Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and
Seggerman. The participation of the Judge in the the Revised Penal Code.” Alleging that the search
proceedings which led to the issuance of Search Warrant warrants are null and void, as contravening the
2-M-70 was thus limited to listening to the stenographer’s Constitution and the Rules of Court, Stonehill, et. al. filed
readings of her notes, to a few words of warning against with the Supreme Court the original action for certiorari,
the commission of perjury, and to administering the oath prohibition, mandamus and injunction. On 22 March
to the complainant and his witness. This cannot be 1962, the Supreme Court issued the writ of preliminary
consider a personal examination. Second, the search injunction prayed for in the petition. However, by
warrant was issued for more than one specific offense. resolution dated 29 June 1962, the writ was partially lifted
The search warrant was issued for at least 4 distinct or dissolved, insofar as the papers, documents and things
offenses under the Tax Code. The first is the violation of seized from the offices of the corporations are concerned;
Section 46(a), Section 72 and Section 73 (the filing of but, the injunction was maintained as regards the papers,
5

documents and things found and seized in the residences Court on the documents, papers and things seized in the
of Stonehill, et. al. residences, in effect, restrained the prosecutors from
using them in evidence against Stonehill, et. al. Thus, the
Issue: Whether Stonehill, et. al. can assail the legality of Court held that the warrants for the search of 3
the contested warrants that allowed seizure of residences are null and void; that the searches and
documents, papers and other effects in the corporate seizures therein made are illegal; that the writ of
offices, and other places besides their residences. preliminary injunction heretofore issued, in connection
with the documents, papers and other effects thus seized
in said residences is made permanent, that the writs
Held: Stonehill, et. al. maintained that the search
prayed for are granted, insofar as the documents, papers
warrants are in the nature of general warrants and that,
and other effects so seized in the residences are
accordingly, the seizures effected upon the authority
concerned; and that the petition herein is dismissed and
thereof are null and void. No warrant shall issue but upon
the writs prayed for denied, as regards the documents,
probable cause, to be determined by the judge in the
papers and other effects seized in the 29 places, offices
manner set forth in said provision; and the warrant shall
and other premises.
particularly describe the things to be seized. None of
these requirements has been complied with in the
contested warrants. The grave violation of the Zurcher vs. Stanford Daily [436 US 547, 31 May 1978]
Constitution made in the application for the contested White (J): 3 concur, 1 filed a separate concurring opinion,
search warrants was compounded by the description 2 filed separate dissenting opinions, to which 1 joined, 1
therein made of the effects to be searched for and seized. took no part.
The warrants authorized the search for and seizure of
records pertaining to all business transactions of Facts: On 9 April 1971, officers of the Palo Alto Police
Stonehill, et. al., regardless of whether the transactions Department and of the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s
were legal or illegal. The warrants sanctioned the seizure Department responded to a call from the director of the
of all records of the corporate officers and the Stanford University Hospital requesting the removal of a
corporations, whatever their nature, thus openly large group of demonstrators who had seized the
contravening the explicit command of our Bill of Rights — hospital’s administrative offices and occupied them since
that the things to be seized be particularly described — the previous afternoon. After several futile efforts to
as well as tending to defeat its major objective: the persuade the demonstrators to leave peacefully, more
elimination of general warrants. However, the documents, drastic measures were employed. The police chose to
papers, and things seized under the alleged authority of force their way in at the west end of the corridor. As they
the warrants in question may be split into (2) major did so, a group of demonstrators emerged through the
groups, namely: (a) those found and seized in the offices doors at the east end and, armed with sticks and clubs,
of the corporations and (b) those found seized in the attacked the group of nine police officers stationed there.
residences of Stonehill, et. al. As regards the first group, All nine were injured. The officers themselves were able
Stonehill, et. al. have no cause of action to assail the to identify only two of their assailants, but one of them did
legality of the contested warrants and of the seizures see at least one person photographing the assault at the
made in pursuance thereof, for the simple reason that east doors. On April 11 (Sunday), a special edition of the
said corporations have their respective personalities, Stanford Daily (Daily), a student newspaper published at
separate and distinct from the personality of Stonehill, et. Stanford University, carried articles and photographs
al., regardless of the amount of shares of stock or of the devoted to the hospital protest and the violent clash
interest of each of them in said corporations, and between demonstrators and police. The photographs
whatever the offices they hold therein may be. Indeed, it carried the byline of a Daily staff member and indicated
is well settled that the legality of a seizure can be that he had been at the east end of the hospital hallway
contested only by the party whose rights have been where he could have photographed the assault on the 9
impaired thereby, and that the objection to an unlawful officers. The next day, the Santa Clara County District
search and seizure is purely personal and cannot be Attorney’s Office secured a warrant from the Municipal
availed of by third parties. Consequently, Stonehill, et. al. Court for an immediate search of the Daily’s offices for
may not validly object to the use in evidence against them negatives, film, and pictures showing the events and
of the documents, papers and things seized from the occurrences at the hospital on the evening of April 9. The
offices and premises of the corporations adverted to warrant issued on a finding of “just, probable and
above, since the right to object to the admission of said reasonable cause for believing that: Negatives and
papers in evidence belongs exclusively to the photographs and films, evidence material and relevant to
corporations, to whom the seized effects belong, and may the identity of the perpetrators of felonies, to wit, Battery
not be invoked by the corporate officers in proceedings on a Peace Officer, and Assault with Deadly Weapon, will
against them in their individual capacity. With respect to be located [on the premises of the Daily].” The warrant
the documents, papers and things seized in the affidavit contained no allegation or indication that
residences of Stonehill, et. al., the 29 June 1962 members of the Daily staff were in any way involved in
Resolution of the Supreme Court, denying the lifting of unlawful acts at the hospital. The search pursuant to the
the writ of preliminary injunction previously issued by the warrant was conducted later that day by 4 police officers
6

and took place in the presence of some members of the Court’s new rule denying search warrants against third
Daily staff. The Daily’s photographic laboratories, filing parties and insisting on subpoenas would undermine law
cabinets, desks, and wastepaper baskets were searched. enforcement efforts since search warrants are often used
Locked drawers and rooms were not opened. The search early in an investigation before all the perpetrators of a
revealed only the photographs that had already been crime have been identified; and the seemingly blameless
published on April 11, and no materials were removed third party may be implicated. The delay in employing a
from the Daily’s office. A month later the Daily and subpoena duces tecum could easily result in
various members of its staff brought a civil action in the disappearance of the evidence. Nor would the cause of
United States District Court for the Northern District of privacy be served since search warrants are more difficult
California seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under to obtain than subpoenas. Lastly, properly administered,
42 U.S.C. 1983 against the police officers who conducted the preconditions for a search warrant (probable cause,
the search, the chief of police, the district attorney and specificity with respect to the place to be searched and
one of his deputies, and the judge who had issued the the things to be seized, and overall reasonableness),
warrant. The complaint alleged that the search of the which must be applied with particular exactitude when
Daily’s office had deprived respondents under color of First Amendment interests would be endangered by the
state law of rights secured to them by the First, Fourth, search, are adequate safeguards against the interference
and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States with the press’ ability to gather, analyze, and disseminate
Constitution. The District Court denied the request for an news that respondents claim would ensue from use of
injunction but, on the newspaper staff’s motion for warrants for third-party searches of newspaper offices.
summary judgment, granted declaratory relief. The court
did not question the existence of probable cause to Wilson vs. Layne [526 US 603, 24 May 1999]
believe that a crime had been committed and to believe Rehnquist (CJ)
that relevant evidence would be found on the Daily’s
premises. It held, however, that the Fourth and Facts: In early 1992, the Attorney General of the United
Fourteenth Amendments forbade the issuance of a States approved “Operation Gunsmoke,” a special
warrant to search for materials in possession of one not national fugitive apprehension program in which United
suspected of crime unless there is probable cause to States Marshals worked with state and local police to
believe, based on facts presented in a sworn affidavit, apprehend dangerous criminals. This effective program
that a subpoena duces tecum would be impracticable. ultimately resulted in over 3,000 arrests in 40
The District Court further held that where the innocent metropolitan areas. One of the dangerous fugitives
object of the search is a newspaper, First Amendment identified as a target of “Operation Gunsmoke” was
interests are also involved and that such a search is Dominic Wilson, the son of Charles and Geraldine
constitutionally permissible “only in the rare circumstance Wilson. Dominic Wilson had violated his probation on
where there is a clear showing that (1) important previous felony charges of robbery, theft, and assault with
materials will be destroyed or removed from the intent to rob, and the police computer listed “caution
jurisdiction; and (2) a restraining order would be futile.” indicators” that he was likely to be armed, to resist arrest,
Since these preconditions to a valid warrant had not been and to “assault police.” The computer also listed his
satisfied, the search of the Daily’s offices was declared to address as 909 North StoneStreet Avenue in Rockville,
have been illegal. The Court of Appeals affirmed per Maryland. Unknown to the police, this was actually the
curiam, adopting the opinion of the District Court. home of Dominic Wilson’s parents. Thus, in April 1992,
Zurcher, et. al. filed a petition for certiorari. the Circuit Court for Montgomery County issued three
arrest warrants for Dominic Wilson, one for each of his
Issue: Whether the Fourth Amendment is to be construed probation violations. The warrants were each addressed
and applied to the “third party” search, the recurring to “any duly authorized peace officer,” and commanded
situation where state authorities have probable cause to such officers to arrest him and bring him “immediately”
believe that fruits, instrumentalities, or other evidence of before the Circuit Court to answer an indictment as to his
crime is located on identified property but do not then probation violation. The warrants made no mention of
have probable cause to believe that the owner or media presence or assistance. In the early morning hours
possessor of the property is himself implicated in the of 16 April 1992, a Gunsmoke team of Deputy United
crime that has occurred or is occurring. States Marshals and Montgomery County Police officers
assembled to execute the Dominic Wilson warrants. The
Held: First, a State is not prevented by the Fourth and team was accompanied by a reporter and a photographer
Fourteenth Amendments from issuing a warrant to search from the Washington Post, who had been invited by the
for evidence simply because the owner or possessor of Marshals to accompany them on their mission as part of a
the place to be searched is not reasonably suspected of Marshal’s Service ride-along policy. At 6:45 a.m., the
criminal involvement. The critical element in a reasonable officers, with media representatives in tow, entered the
search is not that the property owner is suspected of dwelling at 909 North StoneStreet Avenue in the Lincoln
crime but that there is reasonable cause to believe that Park neighborhood of Rockville. Charles and Geraldine
the “things” to be searched for and seized are located on Wilson were still in bed when they heard the officers enter
the property to which entry is sought. Second, the District the home. Charles Wilson, dressed only in a pair of briefs,
7

ran into the living room to investigate. Discovering at least authorized intrusion. Inasmuch as that the reporters did
5 men in street clothes with guns in his living room, he not engage in the execution of the warrant and did not
angrily demanded that they state their business, and assist the police in their task, the reporters were not
repeatedly cursed the officers. Believing him to be an present for any reason related to the justification for
angry Dominic Wilson, the officers quickly subdued him police entry into the home–the apprehension of Dominic
on the floor. Geraldine Wilson next entered the living Wilson. This is not a case in which the presence of the
room to investigate, wearing only a nightgown. She third parties directly aided in the execution of the warrant.
observed her husband being restrained by the armed Where the police enter a home under the authority of a
officers. When their protective sweep was completed, the warrant to search for stolen property, the presence of
officers learned that Dominic Wilson was not in the third parties for the purpose of identifying the stolen
house, and they departed. During the time that the property has long been approved by this Court and our
officers were in the home, the Washington Post common-law tradition. The claim of the officers, that the
photographer took numerous pictures. The print reporter presence of the Washington Post reporters in the
was also apparently in the living room observing the Wilsons’ home nonetheless served a number of legitimate
confrontation between the police and Charles Wilson. At law enforcement purposes ignores, the importance of the
no time, however, were the reporters involved in the right of residential privacy at the core of the Fourth
execution of the arrest warrant. Charles and Geraldine Amendment. It may well be that media ride-alongs further
Wilson sued the law enforcement officials in their the law enforcement objectives of the police in a general
personal capacities for money damages, and contended sense, but that is not the same as furthering the purposes
that the officers’ actions in bringing members of the media of the search. Were such generalized “law enforcement
to observe and record the attempted execution of the objectives” themselves sufficient to trump the Fourth
arrest warrant violated their Fourth Amendment rights. Amendment, the protections guaranteed by that
The District Court denied the police officers’ motion for Amendment’s text would be significantly watered down.
summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. On Although it may be claimed the presence of third parties
interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeals, a divided could serve in some situations to minimize police abuses
panel reversed and held that the officers were entitled to and protect suspects, and also to protect the safety of the
qualified immunity. The case was twice reheard en banc, officers, such a situation is significantly different from the
where a divided Court of Appeals again upheld the media presence in this case, where the Washington Post
defense of qualified immunity. The Court of Appeals reporters in the Wilsons’ home were working on a story
declined to decide whether the actions of the police for their own purposes. Taken in their entirety, the
violated the Fourth Amendment. It concluded instead that reasons advanced by the officers fall short of justifying
because no court had held (at the time of the search) that the presence of media inside a home. Thus, it is a
media presence during a police entry into a residence violation of the Fourth Amendment for police to bring
violated the Fourth Amendment, the right allegedly members of the media or other third parties into a home
violated by petitioners was not “clearly established” and during the execution of a warrant when the presence of
thus qualified immunity was proper. 141 F. 3d 111 (CA4 the third parties in the home was not in aid of the
1998). Five judges dissented, arguing that the officers’ execution of the warrant.
actions did violate the Fourth Amendment, and that the
clearly established protections of the Fourth Amendment
Condition of a Valid Warrant
were violated.

Issue: Whether the police officers were justified to bring -Existence of Probable Cause
along the Washington Post reporters in the execution of
the warrant inside the house of Charles and Geraldine Burgos v. Chief of Staff, AFP [GR 64261, 26 December
Wilson. 1984]
En Banc, Escolin (J): 10 concur, 1 took no part
Held: No. Although the officers undoubtedly were entitled
to enter the Wilson home in order to execute the arrest Facts: On 7 December 1982, Judge Ernani Cruz-Paño,
warrant for Dominic Wilson, they were not entitled to bring Executive Judge of the then CFI Rizal [Quezon City],
a newspaper reporter and a photographer with them. issued 2 search warrants where the premises at 19, Road
While it does not mean that every police action while 3, Project 6, Quezon City, and 784 Units C & D, RMS
inside a home must be explicitly authorized by the text of Building, Quezon Avenue, Quezon City, business
the warrant (Fourth Amendment allows temporary addresses of the “Metropolitan Mail” and “We Forum”
detainer of homeowner while police search the home newspapers, respectively, were searched, and office and
pursuant to warrant), the Fourth Amendment does require printing machines, equipment, paraphernalia, motor
that police actions in execution of a warrant be related to vehicles and other articles used in the printing, publication
the objectives of the authorized intrusion (The purposes and distribution of the said newspapers, as well as
justifying a police search strictly limit the permissible numerous papers, documents, books and other written
extent of the search). Certainly the presence of reporters literature alleged to be in the possession and control of
inside the home was not related to the objectives of the Jose Burgos, Jr. publisher-editor of the “We Forum”
newspaper, were seized. A petition for certiorari,
8

prohibition and mandamus with preliminary mandatory the United States District Court for the Northern District of
and prohibitory injunction was filed after 6 months Georgia. They asserted, inter alia, that the drug tests
following the raid to question the validity of said search required by §21-2-140 violated their rights under the First,
warrants, and to enjoin the Judge Advocate General of Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
the AFP, the city fiscal of Quezon City, et.al. from using Constitution, naming Governor Zell D. Miller and two
the articles seized as evidence in Criminal Case Q- other state officials involved in the administration of §21-
022782 of the RTC Quezon City (People v. Burgos). 2-140, as defendants. Chandler, et .al. requested
declaratory and injunctive relief barring enforcement of
Issue: Whether allegations of possession and printing of the statute. In June 1994, the District Court denied
subversive materials may be the basis of the issuance of Chandlers’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The
search warrants. provision in the statute of the State of Georgia required
candidates for designated state offices to certify that they
have taken a drug test and that the test result was
Held: Section 3 provides that no search warrant or
negative. Chandler, et. al. apparently submitted to the
warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause
drug tests, obtained the certificates required by §21-2-
to be determined by the judge, or such other responsible
140, and appeared on the ballot. After the 1994 election,
officer as may be authorized by law, after examination
the parties jointly moved for the entry of final judgment on
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
stipulated facts. In January 1995, the District Court
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing
entered final judgment for Miller, et. al. A divided Eleventh
the place to be searched and the persons or things to be
Circuit panel, relying on the US Court’s precedents
seized. Probable cause for a search is defined as such
sustaining drug testing programs for student athletes,
facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably
customs employees, and railway employees, the United
discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has
States affirmed and judged the Georgia’s law to be
been committed and that the objects sought in connection
constitutional.
with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.
In mandating that “no warrant shall issue except upon
probable cause to be determined by the judge, after Issue: Whether the suspicionless searches, required in
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant Georgia’s drug testing for candidates for public offices, is
and the witnesses he may produce”; the Constitution reasonable.
requires no less than personal knowledge by the
complainant or his witnesses of the facts upon which the Held: Georgia’s drug testing requirement, imposed by law
issuance of a search warrant may be justified. Herein, a and enforced by state officials, effects a search within the
statement in the effect that Burgos “is in possession or meaning of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
has in his control printing equipment and other (Collection and testing of urine to meet Georgia’s
paraphernalia, news publications and other documents certification statute “constitutes a search subject to the
which were used and are all continuously being used as a demands of the Fourth Amendment”). As explained in
means of committing the offense of subversion Skinner, government ordered “collection and testing of
punishable under PD 885, as amended” is a mere urine intrudes upon expectations of privacy that society
conclusion of law and does not satisfy the requirements has long recognized as reasonable.” (Skinner and Von
of probable cause. Bereft of such particulars as would Raab, 489 U.S., at 617). To be reasonable under the
justify a finding of the existence of probable cause, said Fourth Amendment, a search ordinarily must be based on
allegation cannot serve as basis for the issuance of a individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. But particularized
search warrant. Further, when the search warrant applied exceptions to the main rule are sometimes warranted
for is directed against a newspaper publisher or editor in based on “special needs, beyond the normal need for law
connection with the publication of subversive materials, enforcement.” When such “special needs”–concerns
the application and/or its supporting affidavits must other than crime detection–are alleged in justification of a
contain a specification, stating with particularity the Fourth Amendment intrusion, courts must undertake a
alleged subversive material he has published or is context specific inquiry, examining closely the competing
intending to publish. Mere generalization will not suffice. private and public interests advanced by the parties. In
limited circumstances, where the privacy interests
Chandler vs. Miller [520 US 305, 15 April 1997] implicated by the search are minimal, and where an
Ginsburg (J): 6 concur, 1 filed separate dissenting important governmental interest furthered by the intrusion
opinion. would be placed in jeopardy by a requirement of
individualized suspicion, a search may be reasonable
despite the absence of such suspicion. Our precedents
Facts: The Libertarian Party nominated Walker L.
establish that the proffered special need for drug testing
Chandler for the office of Lieutenant Governor, Sharon T.
must be substantial–important enough to override the
Harris for the office of Commissioner of Agriculture, and
individual’s acknowledged privacy interest, sufficiently
James D. Walker for the office of member of the General
vital to suppress the Fourth Amendment’s normal
Assembly. In May 1994, about one month before the
requirement of individualized suspicion. Miller, et. al.’s
deadline for submission of the certificates required by
defense of the statute rests primarily on the
§21-2-140, Chandler, Harris, and Walker filed an action in
9

incompatibility of unlawful drug use with holding high Tagalog, and later in Ilocano, Cid then requested the man
state office; but notably lacking therein is any indication of to open his bag, but he seemed not to understand. Cid
a concrete danger demanding departure from the Fourth then resorted to “sign language,” motioning with his
Amendment’s main rule, and nothing in the record hints hands for the man to open the bag. The man apparently
that the hazards Miller, et. al., broadly describe (i.e. the understood and acceded to the request. A search of the
use of illegal drugs draws into question an official’s bag yielded several transparent plastic packets containing
judgment and integrity; jeopardizes the discharge of yellowish crystalline substances. As Cid wished to
public functions, including antidrug law enforcement proceed to the police station, he signaled the man to
efforts; and undermines public confidence and trust in follow, but the latter did not comprehend. Hence, Cid
elected officials) are real and not simply hypothetical for placed his arm around the shoulders of the man and
Georgia’s polity. Further, Georgia’s certification escorted the latter to the police headquarters. At the
requirement is not well designed to identify candidates police station, Cid then “recited and informed the man of
who violate antidrug laws; nor is the scheme a credible his constitutional rights” to remain silent, to have the
means to deter illicit drug users from seeking election to assistance of a counsel, etc. Eliciting no response from
state office. What is left, after close review of Georgia’s the man, Cid ordered his men to find a resident of the
scheme, is the image the State seeks to project. By area who spoke Chinese to act as an interpreter. In the
requiring candidates for public office to submit to drug meantime, Badua opened the bag and counted 29 plastic
testing, Georgia displays its commitment to the struggle packets containing yellowish crystalline substances. The
against drug abuse. The need revealed, in short, is interpreter, Mr. Go Ping Guan, finally arrived, through
symbolic, not “special,” as that term draws meaning from whom the man was “apprised of his constitutional rights.”
our case law. Thus, however well meant, the candidate When the policemen asked the man several questions,
drug test Georgia has devised diminishes personal he retreated to his obstinate reticence and merely
privacy for a symbol’s sake. The Fourth Amendment showed his ID with the name Chua Ho San printed
shields society against that state action. In fine, where the thereon. Chua’s bag and its contents were sent to the
risk to public safety is substantial and real, blanket PNP Crime Laboratory at Camp Diego Silang, Carlatan,
suspicionless searches calibrated to the risk may rank as San Fernando, La Union for laboratory examination. In
“reasonable.” But where, as herein, public safety is not the meantime, Chua was detained at the Bacnotan Police
genuinely in jeopardy, the Fourth Amendment precludes Station. Later, Police Chief Inspector and Forensic
the suspicionless search, no matter how conveniently Chemist Theresa Ann Bugayong Cid (wife of Cid),
arranged. conducted a laboratory examination of 29 plastic packets,
adn in her Chemistry Report D-025-95, she stated that
People vs. Chua Ho San [GR 128222, 17 June 1999] her qualitative examination established the contents of
En Banc, Davide Jr. (CJ): 13 concur, 1 on leave the plastic packets, weighing 28.7 kilos, to be positive of
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a regulated
drug. Chua was initially charged with illegal possession of
Facts: In response to reports of rampant smuggling of
methamphetamine hydrochloride before the RTC
firearms and other contraband, Jim Lagasca Cid, as Chief
(Criminal Case 4037). However, pursuant to the
of Police of the Bacnotan Police Station, of La Union
recommendation of the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
began patrolling the Bacnotan coastline with his officers.
of San Fernando, La Union, the information was
While monitoring the coastal area of Barangay Bulala on
subsequently amended to allege that Chua was in
29 March 1995, he intercepted a radio call at around
violation of Section 15, Article III of RA 6425 as amended
12:45 p.m. from Barangay Captain Juan Almoite of
by RA 7659 (illegal transport of a regulated drug). At his
Barangay Tammocalao requesting police assistance
arraignment on 31 July 1995, where the amended
regarding an unfamiliar speedboat the latter had spotted,
complaint was read to him by a Fukien-speaking
which looked different from the boats ordinarily used by
interpreter, Chua entered a plea of not guilty. Trial finally
fisherfolk of the area and was poised to dock at
ensued, with interpreters assigned to Chua (upon the
Tammocalao shores. Cid and 6 of his men led by his
RTC’s direct request to the Taipei Economic and Cultural
Chief Investigator, SPO1 Reynoso Badua, proceeded
Office in the Philippines, after its failure to acquire one
forthwith to Tammocalao beach, conferred with Almoite,
from the Department of Foreign Affairs). Chua provided a
and observed that the speedboat ferried a lone male
completely different story, claiming that the bags belong
passenger. When the speedboat landed, the male
to his employer Cho Chu Rong, who he accompanied in
passenger alighted, and using both hands, carried what
the speedboat; that they decided to dock when they were
appeared a multicolored strawbag, and walked towards
low on fuel and telephone battery; that the police, with
the road. By this time, Almoite, Cid and Badua, the latter
nary any spoken word but only gestures and hand
two conspicuous in their uniform and issued side-arms,
movements, escorted him to the precinct where he was
became suspicious of the man as he suddenly changed
handcuffed and tied to a chair; that the police, led by an
direction and broke into a run upon seeing the
officer, arrived with the motor engine of the speedboat
approaching officers. Badua, prevented the man from
and a bag, which they presented to him; that the police
fleeing by holding on to his right arm. Although Cid
inspected opened the bag, weighed the contents, then
introduced themselves as police officers, the man
proclaimed them as methamphetamine hydrochloride. In
appeared impassive. Speaking in English, then in
a decision promulgated on 10 February 1997, the RTC
10

convicted Chua for transporting 28.7 kilos of suspicious demeanor or behavior and suspicious bulge in
methamphetamine hydrochloride without legal authority to the waist — accepted by the Court as sufficient to justify a
do so. Chua prays for the reversal of the RTC decision warrantless arrest exists in the case. There was no
and his acquittal before the Supreme Court. classified information that a foreigner would disembark at
Tammocalao beach bearing prohibited drug on the date
Issue: Whether persistent reports of rampant smuggling in question. Chua was not identified as a drug courier by
of firearm and other contraband articles, Chua’s a police informer or agent. The fact that the vessel that
watercraft differing in appearance from the usual fishing ferried him to shore bore no resemblance to the fishing
boats that commonly cruise over the Bacnotan seas, boats of the area did not automatically mark him as in the
Chua’s illegal entry into the Philippines, Chua’s process of perpetrating an offense. The search cannot
suspicious behavior, i.e. he attempted to flee when he therefore be denominated as incidental to an arrest. To
saw the police authorities, and the apparent ease by reiterate, the search was not incidental to an arrest. There
which Chua can return to and navigate his speedboat was no warrant of arrest and the warrantless arrest did
with immediate dispatch towards the high seas, constitute not fall under the exemptions allowed by the Rules of
“probable cause.” Court as already shown. From all indications, the search
was nothing but a fishing expedition. Casting aside the
regulated substance as evidence, the same being the fruit
Held: No. Enshrined in the Constitution is the inviolable
of a poisonous tree, the remaining evidence on record are
right to privacy of home and person. It explicitly ordains
insufficient, feeble and ineffectual to sustain Chua’s
that people have the right to be secure in their persons,
conviction.
houses, papers and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
purpose. Inseparable, and not merely corollary or People vs. Molina [GR 133917, 19 February 2001]
incidental to said right and equally hallowed in and by the En Banc, Ynares-Santiago (J): 14 concur
Constitution, is the exclusionary principle which decrees
that any evidence obtained in violation of said right is Facts: Sometime in June 1996, SPO1 Marino
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. The Paguidopon, then a member of the Philippine National
Constitutional proscription against unreasonable Police (PNP) detailed at Precinct No. 3, Matina, Davao
searches and seizures does not, of course, forestall City, received an information regarding the presence of
reasonable searches and seizure. This interdiction an alleged marijuana pusher in Davao City. The first time
against warrantless searches and seizures, however, is he came to see the said marijuana pusher in person was
not absolute and such warrantless searches and seizures during the first week of July 1996. SPO1 Paguidopon was
have long been deemed permissible by jurisprudence. then with his informer when a motorcycle passed by. His
The Rules of Court recognize permissible warrantless informer pointed to the motorcycle driver, Gregorio Mula y
arrests, to wit: (1) arrests in flagrante delicto, (2) arrests Malagura (@”Boboy”), as the pusher. As to Nasario
effected in hot pursuit, and (3) arrests of escaped Molina y Manamat (@ “Bobong”), SPO1 Paguidopon had
prisoners. The prosecution and the defense painted no occasion to see him prior to 8 August 1996. At about
extremely divergent versions of the incident, but the Court 7:30 a.m. of 8 August 1996, SPO1 Paguidopon received
is certain that Chua was arrested and his bag searched an information that the alleged pusher will be passing at
without the benefit of a warrant. There are no facts on NHA, Maa, Davao City any time that morning.
record reasonably suggestive or demonstrative of Chua’s Consequently, at around 8:00 a.m. he called for
participation in an ongoing criminal enterprise that could assistance at the PNP, Precinct 3, Matina, Davao City,
have spurred police officers from conducting the obtrusive which immediately dispatched the team of SPO4 Dionisio
search. The RTC never took the pains of pointing to such Cloribel (team leader), SPO2 Paguidopon (brother of
facts, but predicated mainly its decision on the finding that SPO1 Marino Paguidopon), and SPO1 Pamplona, to
“accused was caught red-handed carrying the bagful of proceed to the house of SPO1 Marino Paguidopon where
shabu when apprehended.” In short, there is no probable they would wait for the alleged pusher to pass by. At
cause. Persistent reports of rampant smuggling of firearm around 9:30 a.m., while the team were positioned in the
and other contraband articles, Chua’s watercraft differing house of SPO1 Paguidopon, a “trisikad” carrying Mula
in appearance from the usual fishing boats that commonly and Molina passed by. At that instance, SPO1
cruise over the Bacnotan seas, Chua’s illegal entry into Paguidopon pointed to Mula and Molina as the pushers.
the Philippines, Chua’s suspicious behavior, i.e. he Thereupon, the team boarded their vehicle and overtook
attempted to flee when he saw the police authorities, and the “trisikad.” SPO1 Paguidopon was left in his house, 30
the apparent ease by which Chua can return to and meters from where Mula and Molina were accosted. The
navigate his speedboat with immediate dispatch towards police officers then ordered the “trisikad” to stop. At that
the high seas, do not constitute “probable cause.” None point, Mula, who was holding a black bag, handed the
of the telltale clues, e.g., bag or package emanating the same to Molina. Subsequently, SPO1 Pamplona
pungent odor of marijuana or other prohibited drug, 20 introduced himself as a police officer and asked Molina to
confidential report and/or positive identification by open the bag. Molina replied, “Boss, if possible we will
informers of courier(s) of prohibited drug and/or the time settle this.” SPO1 Pamplona insisted on opening the bag,
and place where they will transport/deliver the same, which revealed dried marijuana leaves inside. Thereafter,
11

Mula and Molina were handcuffed by the police officers. they were arrested, and such cannot lend a semblance of
On 6 December 1996, the accused Mula and Molina, validity on the arrest effected by the peace officers.
through counsel, jointly filed a Demurrer to Evidence, Withal, the Court holds that the arrest of Mula and Molina
contending that the marijuana allegedly seized from them does not fall under the exceptions allowed by the rules.
is inadmissible as evidence for having been obtained in Hence, the search conducted on their person was
violation of their constitutional right against unreasonable likewise illegal. Consequently, the marijuana seized by
searches and seizures. The demurrer was denied by the the peace officers could not be admitted as evidence
trial court. A motion for reconsideration was filed by the against them.
accused, but this was likewise denied. The accused
waived presentation of evidence and opted to file a joint
Partially Valid Warrant
memorandum. On 25 April 1997, the trial court rendered
the decision, finding the accused guilty of the offense
charged, and sentenced both to suffer the penalty of People vs. Salanguit [GR 133254-55, 19 April 2001]
death by lethal injection. Pursuant to Article 47 of the Second Division, Mendoza (J): 4 concur
Revised Penal Code and Rule 122, Section 10 of the
Rules of Court, the case was elevated to the Supreme Facts: On 26 December 1995, Sr. Insp. Aguilar applied
Court on automatic review. for a warrant in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 90,
Dasmariñias, Cavite, to search the residence of Robert
Issue: Whether Mula and Molina manifested outward Salanguit y Ko on Binhagan St., Novaliches, Quezon City.
indication that would justify their arrest, and the seizure of He presented as his witness SPO1 Edmund Badua, who
prohibited drugs that were in their possession. testified that as a poseur-buyer, he was able to purchase
2.12 grams of shabu from Salanguit. The sale took place
in Salunguit’s room, and Badua saw that the shabu was
Held: The fundamental law of the land mandates that
taken by Salunguit from a cabinet inside his room. The
searches and seizures be carried out in a reasonable
application was granted, and a search warrant was later
fashion, that is, by virtue or on the strength of a search
issued by Presiding Judge Dolores L. Español. At about
warrant predicated upon the existence of a probable
10:30 p.m. of said day, a group of about 10 policemen,
cause. Complementary to the foregoing provision is the
along with one civilian informer, went to the residence of
exclusionary rule enshrined under Article III, Section 3,
Salunguit to serve the warrant. The police operatives
paragraph 2, which bolsters and solidifies the protection
knocked on Salanguit’s door, but nobody opened it. They
against unreasonable searches and seizures. The
heard people inside the house, apparently panicking. The
foregoing constitutional proscription, however, is not
police operatives then forced the door open and entered
without exceptions. Search and seizure may be made
the house. After showing the search warrant to the
without a warrant and the evidence obtained therefrom
occupants of the house, Lt. Cortes and his group started
may be admissible in the following instances: (1) search
searching the house. They found 12 small heat-sealed
incident to a lawful arrest; (2) search of a moving motor
transparent plastic bags containing a white crystalline
vehicle; (3) search in violation of customs laws; (4)
substance, a paper clip box also containing a white
seizure of evidence in plain view; (5) when the accused
crystalline substance, and two bricks of dried leaves
himself waives his right against unreasonable searches
which appeared to be marijuana wrapped in newsprint
and seizures; and (6) stop and frisk situations (Terry
having a total weight of approximately 1,255 grams. A
search). The first exception (search incidental to a lawful
receipt of the items seized was prepared, but Salanguit
arrest) includes a valid warrantless search and seizure
refused to sign it. After the search, the police operatives
pursuant to an equally valid warrantless arrest which
took Salanguit with them to Station 10, EDSA, Kamuning,
must precede the search. Still, the law requires that there
Quezon City, along with the items they had seized. PO3
be first a lawful arrest before a search can be made —
Duazo requested a laboratory examination of the
the process cannot be reversed. Herein, Mula and Molina
confiscated evidence. The white crystalline substance
manifested no outward indication that would justify their
with a total weight of 2.77 grams and those contained in a
arrest. In holding a bag on board a trisikad, they could not
small box with a total weight of 8.37 grams were found to
be said to be committing, attempting to commit or have
be positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. On the
committed a crime. It matters not that Molina responded
other hand, the two bricks of dried leaves, one weighing
“Boss, if possible we will settle this” to the request of
425 grams and the other 850 grams, were found to be
SPO1 Pamplona to open the bag. Such response which
marijuana. Charges against Roberto Salanguit y Ko for
allegedly reinforced the “suspicion” of the arresting
violations of Republic Act (RA) 6425, i.e. for possession
officers that Mula and Molina were committing a crime, is
of shabu and marijuana, (Criminal Cases Q-95-64357
an equivocal statement which standing alone will not
and Q-95-64358, respectively) were filed on 28
constitute probable cause to effect an in flagrante delicto
December 1995. After hearing, the trial court rendered its
arrest. Note that were it not for SPO1 Marino
decision, convicting Salanguit in Criminal Cases Q-95-
Paguidopon, Mula and Molina could not be the subject of
64357 and Q-95-64358 for violation of Section 16 and 8,
any suspicion, reasonable or otherwise. Further, it would
respectively, RA 6425, and sentencing him to suffer an
appear that the names and addresses of Mula and Molina
indeterminate sentence with a minimum of 6 months of
came to the knowledge of SPO1 Paguidopon only after
arresto mayor and a maximum of 4 years and 2 months
12

of prision correccional, and reclusion perpetua and to pay NBI agents conducted on 25 July 1996 a search of
a fine of P700,000.00, respectively. Salanguit appealed; Maxicorps premises and seized property fitting the
contesting his conviction on the grounds that (1) the description stated in the search warrants.
admissibility of the shabu allegedly recovered from his
residence as evidence against him on the ground that the Maxicorp filed a motion to quash the search warrants
warrant used in obtaining it was invalid; (2) the alleging that there was no probable cause for their
admissibility in evidence of the marijuana allegedly seized issuance and that the warrants are in the form of general
from Salanguit to the “plain view” doctrine; and (3) the warrants.
employment of unnecessary force by the police in the
execution of the warrant. RTC denied Maxicorps motion on January 1997. The
RTC also denied Maxicorps MR.
Issue: Whether the warrant was invalid for failure of
providing evidence to support the seizure of “drug RTC found probable cause to issue the search warrants
paraphernalia”, and whether the marijuana may be after examining NBI Agent and his witnesses. They
included as evidence in light of the “plain view doctrine.” testified on what they discovered during their respective
visits to Maxicorp. NBI Agent Samiano also presented
Held: The warrant authorized the seizure of certifications from petitioners that they have not
“undetermined quantity of shabu and drug paraphernalia.” authorized Maxicorp to perform the witnessed activities
Evidence was presented showing probable cause of the using petitioners’ products.
existence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
The fact that there was no probable cause to support the Maxicorp filed a petition for certiorari with CA seeking to
application for the seizure of drug paraphernalia does not set aside the RTCs order. CA reversed the RTCs order
warrant the conclusion that the search warrant is void. denying Maxicorps motion to quash the search warrants.
This fact would be material only if drug paraphernalia was Petitioners moved for reconsideration. CA denied MR
in fact seized by the police. The fact is that none was holding that NBI Agent Samiano failed to present during
taken by virtue of the search warrant issued. If at all, the preliminary examination conclusive evidence that
therefore, the search warrant is void only insofar as it Maxicorp produced or sold the counterfeit products. CA
authorized the seizure of drug paraphernalia, but it is pointed out that the sales receipt NBI Agent Samiano
valid as to the seizure of methamphetamine hydrochloride presented evidencing he bought the products from
as to which evidence was presented showing probable Maxicorp was in the name of a certain Joel Diaz.
cause as to its existence. In sum, with respect to the
seizure of shabu from Salanguit’s residence, Search
Warrant 160 was properly issued, such warrant being ISSUE/S:Whether or not there was probable cause to
founded on probable cause personally determined by the issue the search warrants?
judge under oath or affirmation of the deposing witness
and particularly describing the place to be searched and HELD:YES!
the things to be seized. With respect to, and in light of the
“plain view doctrine,” the police failed to allege the time RATIO: Probable cause for a search warrant requires
when the marijuana was found, i.e., whether prior to, or such facts and circumstances that would lead a
contemporaneous with, the shabu subject of the warrant, reasonably prudent man to believe that an offense has
or whether it was recovered on Salanguit’s person or in been committed and the objects sought in connection
an area within his immediate control. Its recovery, with that offense are in the place to be searched.
therefore, presumably during the search conducted after
the shabu had been recovered from the cabinet, as The judge determining probable cause must do so only
attested to by SPO1 Badua in his deposition, was invalid. after personally examining under oath the complainant
Thus, the Court affirmed the decision as to Criminal Case and his witnesses. The oath required must refer to the
Q-95-64357 only. truth of the facts within the personal knowledge of the
petitioner or his witnesses, because the purpose is to
MICROSOFT CORPORATION and LOTUS convince the committing magistrate, not the individual
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. MAXICORP, INC. making the affidavit and seeking the issuance of the
warrant, of the existence of probable cause. The
FACTS: NBI Agent Samiano filed several applications for applicant must have personal knowledge of the
search warrants in the RTC against Maxicorp for alleged circumstances. Reliable information is insufficient. Mere
violation of Section 29 of PD 49 and Article 189 of the affidavits are not enough, and the judge must depose in
RPC. writing the complainant and his witnesses.

After conducting a preliminary examination of the CA on reversing RTC’s order was based on the fact that
applicant and his witnesses, Judge Bayhon issued during the preliminary examination, the two witnesses
Search Warrants all dated 25 July 1996, against failed to prove conclusively that they bought counterfeit
Maxicorp. software from Maxicorp. CA ruled that this amounted to a
13

failure to prove the existence of a connection between the Sta. Rosa Mining Company vs. Assistant Provincial
offense charged and the place searched. Fiscal Zabala [GR L-44723, 31 August 1987]
En Banc, Bidin (J): 12 concur, 1 took no part
The offense charged against Maxicorp is copyright
infringement under Section 29 of PD 49 and unfair Facts: On 21 March 1974, Sta. Rosa Mining Company
competition under Article 189 of the RPC. To support filed a complaint for attempted theft of materials (scrap
these charges, petitioners presented the testimonies of iron) forming part of the installations on its mining
NBI Agent Samiano, computer technician Pante, and property at Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte against
Sacriz, a civilian. The offenses that petitioners charged Romeo Garrido and Gil Alapan with the Office of the
Maxicorp contemplate several overt acts, one is the sale Provincial Fiscal of Camarines Norte, then headed by
of counterfeit products. Both NBI Agent Samiano and Provincial Fiscal Joaquin Ilustre. The case was assigned
Sacriz related to the RTC how they personally saw to third Assistant Fiscal Esteban P. Panotes for
Maxicorp commit acts of infringement and unfair preliminary investigation who, after conducting said
competition. investigation, issued a resolution dated 26 August 1974
recommending that an information for Attempted Theft be
The testimonies of the two witnesses, coupled with the filed against Garrido and Alapan on a finding of prima
object and documentary evidence they presented, are facie case which resolution was approved by Fiscal
sufficient to establish the existence of probable cause. Ilustre. Garrido and Alapan sought reconsideration of the
From what they have witnessed, there is reason to resolution but the same was denied by Fiscal Ilustre in a
believe that Maxicorp engaged in copyright infringement resolution dated 14 October 1974. On 29 October 1974,
and unfair competition to the prejudice of petitioners. Both Fiscal Ilustre filed with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of
NBI Agent Samiano and Sacriz were clear and insistent Camarines Norte an Information dated 17 October 1987
that the counterfeit software were not only displayed and (Criminal Case 821), charging Garrido aand Alapan with
sold within Maxicorps premises, they were also produced, the crime of Attempted Theft. In a letter dated 22 October
packaged and in some cases, installed there. 1974, Garrido and Alapan requested the Secretary of
Justice for a review of the Resolutions of the Office of the
Provincial Fiscal dated 26 August 1974 and 14 October
Probable cause is determined in the light of conditions
1974. On 6 November 1974, the Chief State Prosecutor
obtaining in a given situation.It was improper for the CA to
ordered the Provincial Fiscal by telegram to “elevate
reverse the RTCs findings simply because the sales
entire records PFO Case 577 against Garrido et al.,
receipt evidencing NBI Agent Samiano’s purchase of
review in five days and defer all proceedings pending
counterfeit goods is not in his name.
review.” On 6 March 1975, the Secretary of Justice, after
reviewing the records, reversed the findings of prima facie
There was a comparison between petitioners genuine case of the Provincial Fiscal and directed said
software and Maxicorps software pre-installed in the prosecuting officer to immediately move for the dismissal
computer unit that NBI Agent Sambiano purchased. Even of the criminal case. The Company sought
if we disregard the sales receipt issued in the name of reconsideration of the directive of the Secretary of Justice
Joel Diaz, which petitioners explained was the alias NBI but the latter denied the same in a letter dated 11 June
Agent Samiano used in the operation, there still remains 1975. A motion to dismiss dated 16 September 1975 was
more than sufficient evidence to establish probable cause then filed by the Provincial Fiscal but the court denied the
for the issuance of the search warrants. motion on the ground that there was a prima facie
evidence against Garrido and Alapan and set the case for
Probable cause is dependent largely on the opinion and trial on 25 February 1976. Garrido and Alapan sought
findings of the judge who conducted the examination and reconsideration of the court’s ruling but in an Order dated
who had the opportunity to question the applicant and his 13 February 1976, the motion filed for said purpose was
witnesses. For this reason, the findings of the judge likewise denied. Trial of the case was reset to 23 April
deserve great weight. The reviewing court should 1976. Thereafter, Fiscal Ilustre was appointed a judge in
overturn such findings only upon proof that the judge the CFI of Albay and Fiscal Zabala became officer-in-
disregarded the facts before him or ignored the clear charge of the Provincial Fiscal’s Office of Camarines
dictates of reason. Nothing in the records of the Norte. On 19 April 1976, Fiscal Zabala filed a Second
preliminary examination proceedings reveal any Motion to Dismiss the case. This second motion to
impropriety on the part of the judge in this case. The dismiss was denied by the trial court in an order dated 23
judge examined thoroughly the applicant and his April 1976. Whereupon, Fiscal Zabala manifested that he
witnesses. To demand a higher degree of proof is would not prosecute the case and disauthorized any
unnecessary and untimely. private prosecutor to appear therein. Hence, the
Company filed a petition for mandamus before the
Other Cases Supreme Court.
14

Issue: Whether the fiscal can refuse to prosecute the preliminary investigation or reinvestigation in order to
case if the Secretary of Justice reversed the findings of grant the accused all the opportunity to adduce whatever
prima facie case by the fiscal. evidence he has in support of his defense.” In the course
of the preliminary investigation, through a signed affidavit,
Held: If the fiscal is not at all convinced that a prima facie Felizardo Roxas implicated Atty. Paderanga in the
case exists, he simply cannot move for the dismissal of commission of the crime charged. The City Prosecutor of
the case and, when denied, refuse to prosecute the Cagayan de Oro City inhibited himself from further
same. He is obliged by law to proceed and prosecute the conducting the preliminary investigation against
criminal action. He cannot impose his opinion on the trial Paderanga at the instance of the latter’s counsel, per his
court. At least what he can do is to continue appearing for resolution dated 7 July 1989. In his first indorsement to
the prosecution and then turn over the presentation of the Department of Justice, dated 24 July 1989, said city
evidence to another fiscal or a private prosecutor subject prosecutor requested the Department of Justice to
to his direction and control. Where there is no other designate a state prosecutor to continue the preliminary
prosecutor available, he should proceed to discharge his investigation against Paderanga. In a resolution dated 6
duty and present the evidence to the best of his ability September 1989, the State Prosecutor Henrick F.
and let the court decide the merits of the case on the Gingoyon, who was designated to continue with the
basis of the evidence adduced by both parties. The mere conduct of the preliminary investigation against
fact that the Secretary of Justice had, after reviewing the Paderanga, directed the amendment of the previously
records of the case, directed the prosecuting fiscal to amended information to include and implead Paderanga
move for the dismissal of the case and the motion to as one of the accused therein. Paderanga moved for
dismiss filed pursuant to said directive is denied by the reconsideration, contending that the preliminary
trial court, is no justification for the refusal of the fiscal to investigation was not yet completed when said resolution
prosecute the case. Once a complaint or information is was promulgated, and that he was deprived of his right to
filed in Court any disposition of the case as its dismissal present a corresponding counter-affidavit and additional
or the conviction or acquittal of the accused rests in the evidence crucial to the determination of his alleged
sound discretion of the Court. The Court is the best and “linkage” to the crime charged. The motion was, however,
sole judge on what to do with the case before it. The denied by Gingoyon in his order dated 29 January 1990.
determination of the case is within its exclusive From the aforesaid resolution and order, Paderanga filed
jurisdiction and competence. A motion to dismiss the a Petition for Review with the Department of Justice.
case filed by the fiscal should he addressed to the Court Thereafter, he submitted a Supplemental Petition with
who has the option to grant or deny the same. It does not Memorandum, and then a Supplemental Memorandum
matter if this is done before or after the arraignment of the with Additional Exculpatory/Exonerating Evidence
accused or that the motion was filed after a Annexed, attaching thereto an affidavit of Roxas dated 20
reinvestigation or upon instructions of the Secretary of June 1990 and purporting to be a retraction of his affidavit
Justice who reviewed the records of the investigation. of 30 March 1990 wherein he implicated Paderanga. On
10 August 1990, the Department of Justice, through
Undersecretary Silvestre H. Bello III, issued Resolution
Paderanga vs. Drilon [GR 96080, 19 April 1991]
648 dismissing the said petition for review. His motion for
En Banc, Regalado (J): 14 concur
reconsideration having been likewise denied, Paderanga
then filed the petition for mandamus and prohibition
Facts: On 16 October 1986, an information for multiple before the Supreme Court.
murder was filed in the Regional Trial Court, Gingoog
City, against Felipe Galarion, Manuel Sabit, Cesar Sabit,
Issue: Whether there is no prima facie evidence, or
Julito Ampo, Eddie Torion, John Doe, Peter Doe and
probable cause, or sufficient justification to hold
Richard Doe, for the deaths on 1 May 1984 of Renato
Paderangato a tedious and prolonged public trial.
Bucag, his wife Melchora Bucag, and their son Renato
Bucag II. Venue was, however, transferred to Cagayan
de Oro City per Administrative Matter 87-2-244. Only Held: A preliminary investigation is defined as an inquiry
Felipe Galarion was tried and found guilty as charged. or proceeding for the purpose of determining whether
The rest of the accused remained at large. Felipe there is sufficient ground to engender a well founded
Galarion, however, escaped from detention and has not belief that a crime cognizable by the Regional Trial Court
been apprehended since then. In an amended has been committed and that the respondent is probably
information filed on 6 October 1988, Felizardo Roxas, guilty thereof, and should be held for trial. The quantum of
alias “Ely Roxas,” “Fely Roxas” and “Lolong Roxas,” was evidence now required in preliminary investigation is such
included as a co-accused. Roxas retained Atty. Miguel P. evidence sufficient to “engender a well founded belief” as
Paderanga as his counsel. As counsel for Roxas, to the fact of the commission of a crime and the
Paderanga filed, among others, an Omnibus Motion to respondent’s probable guilt thereof. A preliminary
dismiss, to Quash the Warrant of Arrest and to Nullify the investigation is not the occasion for the full and
Arraignment on 14 October 1988. The trial court in an exhaustive display of the parties’ evidence; it is for the
order dated 9 January 1989, denied the omnibus motion presentation of such evidence only as may engender a
but directed the City Prosecutor “to conduct another well grounded belief that an offense has been committed
15

and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. and that the publication is protected by the Constitutional
Preliminary investigation is generally inquisitorial, and it is guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press. On 12
often the only means of discovering the persons who may December 1983, Pita filed an Urgent Motion for issuance
be reasonably charged with a crime, to enable the fiscal of a temporary restraining order against indiscriminate
to prepare his complaint or information. It is not a trial of seizure, confiscation and burning of plaintiffs “Pinoy
the case on the merits and has no purpose except that of Playboy” Magazines, pending hearing on the petition for
determining whether a crime has been committed and preliminary injunction in view of Mayor Bagatsing’s
whether there is probable cause to believe that the pronouncement to continue the Anti-Smut Campaign. The
accused is guilty thereof, and it does not place the person Court granted the temporary restraining order on 14
against whom it is taken in jeopardy. The institution of a December 1983. On 5 January 1984, Pita filed his
criminal action depends upon the sound discretion of the Memorandum in support of the issuance of the writ of
fiscal. He has the quasi-judicial discretion to determine preliminary injunction, raising the issue as to “whether or
whether or not a criminal case should be filed in court. not the defendants, and or their agents can without a
Hence, the general rule is that an injunction will not be court order confiscate or seize plaintiff’s magazine before
granted to restrain a criminal prosecution. The case of any judicial finding is made on whether said magazine is
Brocka, et al. vs. Enrile, et al. cites several exceptions to obscene or not.” The restraining order lapsed on 3
the rule, to wit: (a) To afford adequate protection to the January 1984, Pita filed an urgent motion for issuance of
constitutional rights of the accused; (b) When necessary another restraining order, which was opposed by
for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid Bagatsing on the ground that issuance of a second
oppression or multiplicity of actions; (c) When there is a restraining order would violate the Resolution of the
prejudicial question which is sub-judice; (d) When the Supreme Court dated 11 January 1983, providing for the
acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority; (e) Interim Rules Relative to the Implementation of Batas
Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance Pambansa 129, which provides that a temporary
or regulation; (f) When double jeopardy is clearly restraining order shall be effective only for 20 days from
apparent; (g) Where the court has no jurisdiction over the date of its issuance. On 11 January 1984, the trial court
offense; (h) Where it is a case of persecution rather than issued an Order setting the case for hearing on 16
prosecution; (i) Where the charges are manifestly false January 1984 “for the parties to adduce evidence on the
and motivated by the lust for vengeance; and (j) When question of whether the publication ‘Pinoy Playboy
there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused Magazine’ alleged (sic) seized, confiscated and or burned
and a motion to quash on that ground has been denied. A by the defendants, are obscence per se or not.” On 3
careful analysis of the circumstances obtaining in the February 1984, the trial court promulgated the Order
present case, however, will readily show that the same appealed from denying the motion for a writ of preliminary
does not fall under any of the aforesaid exceptions. injunction, and dismissing the case for lack of merit.
Likewise, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal,
Pita vs. Court of Appeals [GR 80806, 5 October 1989] holding that the freedom of the press is not without
restraint, as the state has the right to protect society from
pornographic literature that is offensive to public morals,
Facts: On December 1 and 3, 1983, pursuing an Anti-
as indeed we have laws punishing the author, publishers
Smut Campaign initiated by the Mayor of the City of
and sellers of obscene publications; and that the right
Manila, Ramon D. Bagatsing, elements of the Special
against unreasonable searches and seizures recognizes
Anti-Narcotics Group, Auxiliary Services Bureau, Western
certain exceptions, as when there is consent to the
Police District, INP of the Metropolitan Police Force of
search or seizure, or search is an incident to an arrest, or
Manila, seized and confiscated from dealers, distributors,
is conducted in a vehicle or movable structure. Pita filed
newsstand owners and peddlers along Manila sidewalks,
the petition for review with the Supreme Court.
magazines, publications and other reading materials
believed to be obscene, pornographic and indecent and
later burned the seized materials in public at the Issue: Whether the Mayor can order the seizure of
University belt along C.M. Recto Avenue, Manila, in the “obscene” materials as a result of an anti-smut campaign.
presence of Mayor Bagatsing and several officers and
members of various student organizations. Among the Held: The Court is not convinced that Bagatsing and
publications seized, and later burned, was “Pinoy Cabrera have shown the required proof to justify a ban
Playboy” magazines published and co-edited by Leo Pita. and to warrant confiscation of the literature for which
On 7 December 1983, Pita filed a case for injunction with mandatory injunction had been sought below. First of all,
prayer for issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction they were not possessed of a lawful court order: (1)
against Mayor Bagatsing and Narcisco Cabrera, as finding the said materials to be pornography, and (2)
superintendent of Western Police District of the City of authorizing them to carry out a search and seizure, by
Manila, seeking to enjoin and or restrain Bagatsing, way of a search warrant. The fact that the former Mayor’s
Cabrera and their agents from confiscating his magazines act was sanctioned by “police power” is no license to
or from otherwise preventing the sale or circulation seize property in disregard of due process. Presidential
thereof claiming that the magazine is a decent, artistic Decrees 960 and 969 are, arguably, police power
and educational magazine which is not per se obscene, measures, but they are not, by themselves, authorities for
16

high-handed acts. They do not exempt our law enforcers, Provincial Prosecutor of Maguindanao, Salick U. Panda,
in carrying out the decree of the twin presidential in a Resolution dated 22 August 1994, dismissed the
issuances, from the commandments of the Constitution, charges of murder against the Abdulas and 5 other
the right to due process of law and the right against respondents on a finding that there was no prima facie
unreasonable searches and seizures, specifically. case for murder against them. Prosecutor Panda,
Significantly, the Decrees themselves lay down however, recommended the filing of an information for
procedures for implementation. It is basic that searches murder against one of the respondents, a certain Kasan
and seizures may be done only through a judicial warrant, Mama. Pursuant to this Resolution, an information for
otherwise, they become unreasonable and subject to murder was thereafter filed against Kasan Mama before
challenge. The Court finds greater reason to reprobate the sala of Judge Japal M. Guiani. In an Order dated 13
the questioned raid, in the complete absence of a September 1994, the Judge ordered that the case
warrant, valid or invalid. The fact that the present case (Criminal Case 2332), be returned to the Provincial
involves an obscenity rap makes it no different from Prosecutor for further investigation. In this Order, the
Burgos vs. Chief of Staff AFP, a political case, because judge noted that although there were 8 respondents in the
speech is speech, whether political or “obscene.” murder case, the information filed with the court “charged
Although the Court is not ruling out warrantless searches, only 1 of the 8 respondents in the name of Kasan Mama
the search must have been an incident to a lawful arrest, without the necessary resolution required under Section
and the arrest must be on account of a crime committed. 4, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Court to show how
Here, no party has been charged, nor are such charges the investigating prosecutor arrived at such a conclusion.”
being readied against any party, under Article 201, as As such, the judge reasons, the trial court cannot issue
amended, of the Revised Penal Code. There is no the warrant of arrest against Kasan Mama. Upon the
“accused” here to speak of, who ought to be “punished”. return of the records of the case to the Office of the
Further, to say that the Mayor could have validly ordered Provincial Prosecutor for Maguindanao, it was assigned
the raid (as a result of an anti-smut campaign) without a to 2nd Assistant Prosecutor Enok T. Dimaraw for further
lawful search warrant because, in his opinion, “violation of investigation. In addition to the evidence presented during
penal laws” has been committed, is to make the Mayor the initial investigation of the murder charge, two new
judge, jury, and executioner rolled into one. Thus, the affidavits of witnesses were submitted to support the
court mae a resume, to wit: (1) The authorities must apply charge of murder against the Abdulas and the other
for the issuance of a search warrant from a judge, if in respondents in the murder complaint. Thus, Prosecutor
their opinion, an obscenity rap is in order; (2) The Dimaraw treated the same as a re-filing of the murder
authorities must convince the court that the materials charge and pursuant to law, issued subpoena to the
sought to be seized are “obscene”, and pose a clear and respondents named therein. On 6 December 1994, the
present danger of an evil substantive enough to warrant Abdulas submitted and filed their joint counter-affidavits.
State interference and action; (3) The judge must After evaluation of the evidence, Prosecutor Dimaraw, in
determine whether or not the same are indeed “obscene:” a Resolution dated 28 December 1994, found a prima
the question is to be resolved on a case-to-case basis facie case for murder against the Abdulas and 3 other
and on His Honor’s sound discretion. (4) If, in the opinion respondents. He thus recommended the filing of charges
of the court, probable cause exists, it may issue the against the Abdulas, as principals by inducement, and
search warrant prayed for; (5) The proper suit is then against the 3 others, as principals by direct participation.
brought in the court under Article 201 of the Revised Likewise in this 28 December 1994 Resolution, Provincial
Penal Code; and (6) Any conviction is subject to appeal. Prosecutor Salick U. Panda, who conducted the earlier
The appellate court may assess whether or not the preliminary investigation of the murder charge, added a
properties seized are indeed “obscene.” The Court states, notation stating that he was inhibiting himself from the
however, that “these do not foreclose, however, defenses case and authorizing the investigating prosecutor to
under the Constitution or applicable statutes, or remedies dispose of the case without his approval. The reasons he
against abuse of official power under the Civil Code or the cited were that the case was previously handled by him
Revised Penal code.” and that the victim was the father-in-law of his son. On 2
January 1995, an information for murder dated 28
Abdula vs. Guiani [GR 118821, 18 February 2000] December 1994 was filed against the Abdulas and Kasan
Third Division, Gonzaga-Reyes (J): 4 concur Mama, Cuenco Usman and Jun Mama before Branch 14
of the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City, then the sala
of Judge Guiani. This information was signed by
Facts: On 24 June 1994, a complaint for murder (IS 94-
investigating prosecutor Enok T. Dimaraw. A notation was
1361) was filed before the Criminal Investigation Service
likewise made on the information by Provincial Prosecutor
Command, ARMM Regional Office XII against Mayor Bai
Panda, which explained the reason for his inhibition. The
Unggie D. Abdula and Odin Abdula and 6 other persons
following day, the judge issued a warrant for the arrest of
in connection with the death of a certain Abdul Dimalen,
the Abdulas. Upon learning of the issuance of the said
the former COMELEC Registrar of Kabuntalan,
warrant, the Abdulas filed on 4 January 1995 an Urgent
Maguindanao. The complaint alleged that the Abdulas
Ex-parte Motion for the setting aside of the warrant of
paid the 6 other persons the total amount of P200,000.00
arrest on 4 January 1995. In this motion, the Abdulas
for the death of Dimalen. Acting on this complaint, the
argued that the enforcement of the warrant of arrest
17

should be held in abeyance considering that the Almeda, accompanied by a captain of the Philippine
information was prematurely filed and that the Abdulas Constabulary, went to the office of Pasion de Garcia in
intended to file a petition for review with the Department Victoria, Tarlac and, after showing the search warrant to
of Justice. A petition for review was filed by the Abdulas the latter’s bookkeeper, Alfredo Salas, and, without
with the Department of Justice on 11 January 1995. Pasion de Garcia’s presence who was ill and confined at
Despite said filing, the judge did not act upon the the time, proceeded with the execution thereof. Two
Abdulas’ pending Motion to Set Aside the Warrant of packages of records and a locked filing cabinet containing
Arrest. The Abdulas filed the Petition for Certiorari and several papers and documents were seized by Almeda
Prohibition with the Supreme Court. and a receipt therefor issued by him to Salas. The papers
and documents seized were kept for a considerable
Issue: Whether the judge may rely upon the findings of length of time by the Anti-Usury Board and thereafter
the prosecutor in determining probable cause in the were turned over by it to the provincial fiscal Felix
issuance of search or arrest warrant. Imperial, who subsequently filed, in the Court of First
Instance (CFI) of Tarlac, 6 separate criminal cases
against Pasion de Garcia for violation of the Anti-Usury
Held: The 1987 Constitution requires the judge to
Law. On several occasions, after seizure, Pasion de
determine probable cause “personally,” a requirement
Garcia, through counsel, demanded from the Anti-Usury
which does not appear in the corresponding provisions of
Board the return of the documents seized. On January 7,
our previous constitutions. This emphasis evinces the
and, by motion, on 4 June 1937, the legality of the search
intent of the framers to place a greater degree of
warrant was challenged by Pasion de Garcia’s counsel in
responsibility upon trial judges than that imposed under
the 6 criminal cases and the devolution of the documents
previous Constitutions. Herein, the Judge admits that he
demanded. By resolution of 5 October 1937, Judge Diego
issued the questioned warrant as there was “no reason
Locsin (CFI) denied Pasion de garcia’s motion of June 4
for (him) to doubt the validity of the certification made by
for the reason that though the search warrant was illegal,
the Assistant Prosecutor that a preliminary investigation
there was a waiver on the latter’s part. A motion for
was conducted and that probable cause was found to
reconsideration was presented but was denied by order
exist as against those charged in the information filed.”
of 3 January 1938. Pasion de Garcia registered her
The statement is an admission that the Judge relied
exception.
solely and completely on the certification made by the
fiscal that probable cause exists as against those charged
in the information and issued the challenged warrant of Issue: Whether the lack of personal examination of
arrest on the sole basis of the prosecutor’s findings and witnesses renders the warrant void.
recommendations. He adopted the judgment of the
prosecutor regarding the existence of probable cause as Held: Freedom from unreasonable searches and
his own. Clearly, the judge, by merely stating that he had seizures is declared a popular right and for a search
no reason to doubt the validity of the certification made by warrant to be valid, (1) it must be issued upon probable
the investigating prosecutor has abdicated his duty under cause; (2) the probable cause must be determined by the
the Constitution to determine on his own the issue of judge himself and not by the applicant or any other
probable cause before issuing a warrant of arrest. person; (3) in the determination of probable cause, the
Consequently, the warrant of arrest should be declared judge must examine, under oath or affirmation, the
null and void. complainant and such witnesses as the latter may
produce; and (4) the warrant issued must particularly
Pasion Vda. de Garcia vs. Locsin [GR 45950, 20 June describe the place to be searched and persons or things
1938] to be seized. These requirements are complemented by
First Division, Laurel (J): 6 concur the Code of Criminal Procedure, particularly with
reference to the duration of the validity of the search
warrant and the obligation of the officer seizing the
Facts: On 10 November 1934, Mariano G. Almeda, an
property to deliver the same to the corresponding court.
agent of the Anti-Usury Board, obtained from the justice
Herein, the existence of probable cause was determined
of the peace of Tarlac, Tarlac, a search warrant
not by the judge himself but by the applicant. All that the
commanding any officer of the law to search the person,
judge did was to accept as true the affidavit made by
house or store of Leona Pasion Vda. de Garcia at
agent Almeda. He did not decide for himself. It does not
Victoria, Tarlac, for “certain books, lists, chits, receipts,
appear that he examined the applicant and his witnesses,
documents and other papers relating to her activities as
if any. Even accepting the description of the properties to
usurer.” The search warrant was issued upon an affidavit
be seized to be sufficient and on the assumption that the
given by the said Almeda “that he has and there is just
receipt issued is sufficiently detailed within the meaning of
and probable cause to believe and he does believe that
the law, the properties seized were not delivered to the
Leona Pasion de Garcia keeps and conceals in her house
court which issued the warrant, as required by law.
and store at Victoria, Tarlac, certain books, lists, chits,
Instead, they were turned over to the provincial fiscal and
receipts, documents, and other papers relating to her
used by him in building up cases against Pasion de
activities as usurer, all of which is contrary to the statute
Garcia. Considering that at the time the warrant was
in such cases made and provided.” On the same date,
18

issued there was no case pending against Pasion de 1939 had been filed in the CFI Occidental Negros,
Garcia, the averment that the warrant was issued charging Yee Fock alias Yee Sue Koy, Y. Tip and A.
primarily for exploration purposes is not without basis. Sing, managers of Sam Sing & Co., with a violation of Act
The search warrant was illegally issued by the justice of 2655. Before the criminal case could be tried, Yee Sue
the peace of Tarlac, Tarlac. In any event, the failure on Koy and Yee Tip filed the petition with the Supreme Court
the part of Pasion de Garcia and her bookkeeper to resist on 6 November 1939. The petition is grounded on the
or object to the execution of the warrant does not propositions (1) that the search warrant issued on 2 May
constitute an implied waiver of constitutional right. It is, as 1938, by the justice of the peace of Sagay and the
Judge Cooley observes, but a submission to the authority seizure accomplished thereunder are illegal, because the
of the law. As the constitutional guaranty is not dependent warrant was issued three days ahead of the application
upon any affirmative act of the citizen, the courts do not therefor and of the affidavit of the Jose Estrada which is
place the citizen in the position of either contesting an insufficient in itself to justify the issuance of a search
officer’s authority by force, or waiving his constitutional warrant, and because the issuance of said warrant
rights; but instead they hold that a peaceful submission to manifestly contravenes the mandatory provisions both of
a search or seizure is not a consent or an invitation section 1, paragraph 3, of Article III of the Constitution
thereto, but is merely a demonstration of regard for the and of section 97 of General Orders 58, and (2) that the
supremacy of the law. seizure of the aforesaid articles by means of a search
warrant for the purpose of using them as evidence in the
Yee Sue Koy vs. Almeda [GR 47021, 15 June 1940] criminal case against the accused, is unconstitutional
Laurel (J): 3 concur, 1 concurs in result because the warrant thereby becomes unreasonable and
amounts to a violation of the constitutional prohibition
against compelling the accused to testify against
Facts: In response to a sworn application of Mariano G.
themselves.
Almeda, chief agent of the Anti-Usury Board, dated 5 May
1938, the justice of the peace of Sagay, Occidental
Negros, after taking the testimony of applicant’s witness, Issue: Whether the application of the search warrant is
Jose Estrada, special agent of the Anti-Usury Board, supported by the personal knowledge of the witness,
issued on the same date a search warrant commanding besides the applicant, for the judge to determine probable
any peace officer to search during day time the store and cause in issuing the warrant.
premises occupied by Sam Sing & Co., situated at Sagay,
Occidental Negros, as well as the person of said Sam Held: Strict observance of the formalities under section 1,
Sing & Co., and to seize the documents, notebooks, lists, paragraph 3, of Article III of the Constitution and of
receipts and promissory notes being used by said Sam section 97 of General Orders 58 was followed. The
Sing & Co. in connection with their activities of lending applicant Mariano G. Almeda, in his application, swore
money at usurious rates of interest in violation of law, or that “he made his own personal investigation and
such as may be found, and to bring them forthwith before ascertained that Sam Sing & Co. is lending money
the aforesaid justice of the peace of Sagay. On the same without license, charging usurious rate of interest and is
date, at 10:30 a. m., search was accordingly made by keeping, utilizing and concealing in the store and
Mariano G. Almeda, Jose Estrada, 2 internal revenue premises occupied by it situated at Sagay, Occidental
agents and 2 members of the Philippine Army, who Negros, documents, notebooks, lists, receipts, promissory
seized certain receipt books, vales or promissory notes, notes, and book of accounts and records, all of which are
chits, notebooks, journal book, and collection list being used by it in connection with its activities of lending
belonging to Sam Sing & Co. and enumerated in the money at usurious rate of interest in violation of the Usury
inventory receipt issued by Mariano G. Almeda to the Law.” In turn, the witness Jose Estrada, in his testimony
owner of the documents, papers and articles seized. before the justice of the peace of Sagay, swore that he
Immediately after the search and seizure thus effected, knew that Sam Sing & Co. was lending money without
Mariano G. Almeda filed a return with the justice of the license and charging usurious rate of interest, because he
peace of Sagay together. With a request that the office of personally investigated the victims who had secured
the Anti-Usury Board be allowed to retain possession of loans from said Sam Sing & Co. and were charged
the articles seized for examination, pursuant to section 4 usurious rate of interest; that he knew that the said Sam
of Act 4109, which request was granted. Under the date Sing & Co. was keeping and using books of accounts and
of 11 March 1939, Godofredo P. Escalona, counsel for records containing its transactions relative its activities as
Sam Sing & Co. filed a motion with the Court of First money lender and the entries of the interest paid by its
Instance (CFI) of Occidental Negros praying that the debtors, because he saw the said Sam Sing & d make
search warrant and the seizure effected thereunder be entries and records of their debts and the interest paid
declared illegal and set aside and that the articles in thereon. As both Mariano G. Almeda and Jose Estrada
question be ordered returned to Sam Sing & Co., which swore that they had personal knowledge, their affidavits
motion was denied in the order dated 24 July 1939. A were sufficient for, thereunder, they could be held liable
similar motion was presented to the justice of the peace for perjury if the facts would turn out to be not as their
of Sagay on 27 October 1939 but was denied the next were stated under oath. That the existence of probable
day. Meanwhile, an information dated 30 September cause had been determined by the justice of the peace of
19

Sagay before issuing the search warrant complained of, said agent be declared guilty of contempt for having
is shown by the following statement in the warrant itself, disobeyed the order of the court. On said date the court
to wit: “After examination under oath of the complainant, issued an order directing Siongco to deposit all the
Mariano G. Almeda, Chief Agent of the Anti-Usury Board, articles seized within 24 hours from the receipt of notice
Department of Justice and Special Agent of the Philippine thereof and giving him a period of 5 days within which to
Army, Manila, and the witness he presented, . . . and this show cause why he should not be punished for contempt
Court, finding that there is just and probable cause to of court. On 10 June, Attorney Arsenio Rodriguez,
believe as it does believe, that the above described representing the Anti-Usury Board, filed a motion praying
articles, relating to the activities of said Sam Sing & Co. of that the order of the 8th of said month be set aside and
lending money at usurious rate of interest, are being that the Anti-Usury Board be authorized to retain the
utilized and kept and concealed at its store and premises articles seized for a period of 30 days for the necessary
occupied by said Sam Sing & Co., all in violation of law.” investigation. On June 25, the court issued an order
requiring agent Siongco forthwith to file the search
Alvarez vs. Court of First Instance of Tayabas warrant and the affidavit in the court, together with the
proceedings taken by him, and to present an inventory
duly verified by oath of all the articles seized. On July 2,
Facts: On 3 June 1936, the chief of the secret service of
the attorney for the petitioner filed a petition alleging that
the Anti-Usury Board, of the Department of Justice,
the search warrant issued was illegal and that it had not
presented to Judge Eduardo Gutierrez David then
yet been returned to date together with the proceedings
presiding over the Court of First Instance of Tayabas, an
taken in connection therewith, and praying that said
affidavit alleging that according to reliable information,
warrant be cancelled, that an order be issued directing
Narciso Alvarez kept in his house in Infanta, Tayabas,
the return of all the articles seized to Alvarez, that the
books, documents, receipts, lists, chits and other papers
agent who seized them be declared guilty of contempt of
used by him in connection with his activities as a
court, and that charges be filed against him for abuse of
moneylender, charging usurious rates of interest in
authority. On September 10, the court issued an order
violation of the law. In his oath at the end of the affidavit,
holding: that the search warrant was obtained and issued
the chief of the secret service stated that his answers to
in accordance with the law, that it had been duly complied
the questions were correct to the best of his knowledge
with and, consequently, should not be cancelled, and that
and belief. He did not swear to the truth of his statements
agent Siongco did not commit any contempt of court and
upon his own knowledge of the facts but upon the
must, therefore, be exonerated, and ordering the chief of
information received by him from a reliable person. Upon
the Anti-Usury Board in Manila to show cause, if any,
the affidavit the judge, on said date, issued the warrant
within the unextendible period of 2 days from the date of
which is the subject matter of the petition, ordering the
notice of said order, why all the articles seized appearing
search of the Alvarez’s house at any time of the day or
in the inventory should not be returned to Alvarez. The
night, the seizure of the books and documents and the
assistant chief of the Anti-Usury Board of the Department
immediate delivery thereof to him to be disposed of in
of Justice filed a motion praying, for the reasons stated
accordance with the law. With said warrant, several
therein, that the articles seized be ordered retained for
agents of the Anti-Usury Board entered Alvarez’s store
the purpose of conducting an investigation of the violation
and residence at 7:00 p.m. of 4 June 1936, and seized
of the Anti-Usury Law committed by Alvarez. On October
and took possession of the following articles: internal
10, said official again filed another motion alleging that he
revenue licenses for the years 1933 to 1936, 1 ledger, 2
needed 60 days to examine the documents and papers
journals, 2 cashbooks, 9 order books, 4 notebooks, 4
seized, which are designated on pages 1 to 4 of the
check stubs, 2 memorandums, 3 bankbooks, 2 contracts,
inventory by Nos. 5, 10, 16, 23, 25-27, 30-31 , 34, 36-43
4 stubs, 48 stubs of purchases of copra, 2 inventories, 2
and 45, and praying that he be granted said period of 60
bundles of bills of lading, 1 bundle of credit receipts, 1
days. In an order of October 16, the court granted him the
bundle of stubs of purchases of copra, 2 packages of
period of 60 days to investigate said 19 documents.
correspondence, 1 receipt book belonging to Luis
Alvarez, herein, asks that the search warrant as well as
Fernandez, 14 bundles of invoices and other papers,
the order authorizing the agents of the Anti-Usury Board
many documents and loan contracts with security and
to retain the articles seized, be declared illegal and set
promissory notes, 504 chits, promissory notes and stubs
aside, and prays that all the articles in question be
of used checks of the Hongkong & Shanghai Banking
returned to him.
Corporation (HSBC). The search for and seizure of said
articles were made with the opposition of Alvarez who
stated his protest below the inventories on the ground Issue: Whether the search warrant issued by the court is
that the agents seized even the originals of the illegal because it has been based upon the affidavit of
documents. As the articles had not been brought agent Almeda in whose oath he declared that he had no
immediately to the judge who issued the search warrant, personal knowledge of the facts which were to serve as a
Alvarez, through his attorney, filed a motion on 8 June basis for the issuance of the warrant but that he had
1936, praying that the agent Emilio L. Siongco, or any knowledge thereof through mere information secured
other agent, be ordered immediately to deposit all the from a person whom he considered reliable, and that it is
seized articles in the office of the clerk of court and that illegal as it was not supported by other affidavits aside
from that made by the applicant.
20

Held: Section 1, paragraph 3, of Article III of the Facts: Soriano Mata was accused under Presidential
Constitution and Section 97 of General Orders 58 require Decree (PD) 810, as amended by PD 1306, the
that there be not only probable cause before the issuance information against him alleging that Soriano Mata
of a search warrant but that the search warrant must be offered, took and arranged bets on the Jai Alai game by
based upon an application supported by oath of the “selling illegal tickets known as ‘Masiao tickets’ without
applicant and the witnesses he may produce. In its any authority from the Philippine Jai Alai & Amusement
broadest sense, an oath includes any form of attestation Corporation or from the government authorities
by which a party signifies that he is bound in conscience concerned.” Mata claimed that during the hearing of the
to perform an act faithfully and truthfully; and it is case, he discovered that nowhere from the records of the
sometimes defined as an outward pledge given by the said case could be found the search warrant and other
person taking it that his attestation or promise is made pertinent papers connected to the issuance of the same,
under an immediate sense of his responsibility to God. so that he had to inquire from the City Fiscal its
The oath required must refer to the truth of the facts whereabouts, and to which inquiry Judge Josephine K.
within the personal knowledge of the petitioner or his Bayona, presiding Jufe of the City Court of Ormoc replied,
witnesses, because the purpose thereof is to convince “it is with the court”. The Judge then handed the records
the committing magistrate, not the individual making the to the Fiscal who attached them to the records. This led
affidavit and seeking the issuance of the warrant, of the Mata to file a motion to quash and annul the search
existence of probable cause. The true test of sufficiency warrant and for the return of the articles seized, citing and
of an affidavit to warrant issuance of a search warrant is invoking, among others, Section 4 of Rule 126 of the
whether it has been drawn in such a manner that perjury Revised Rules of Court. The motion was denied by the
could be charged thereon and affiant be held liable for Judge on 1 March 1979, stating that the court has made a
damages caused. The affidavit, which served as the thorough investigation and examination under oath of
exclusive basis of the search warrant, is insufficient and Bernardo U. Goles and Reynaldo T. Mayote, members of
fatally defective by reason of the manner in which the the Intelligence Section of 352nd PC Co./Police District II
oath was made, and therefore, the search warrant and INP; that in fact the court made a certification to that
the subsequent seizure of the books, documents and effect; and that the fact that documents relating to the
other papers are illegal. Further, it is the practice in this search warrant were not attached immediately to the
jurisdiction to attach the affidavit of at least the applicant record of the criminal case is of no moment, considering
or complainant to the application. It is admitted that the that the rule does not specify when these documents are
judge who issued the search warrant in this case, relied to be attached to the records. Mata’s motion for
exclusively upon the affidavit made by agent Almeda and reconsideration of the aforesaid order having been
that he did not require nor take the deposition of any denied, he came to the Supreme Court, with the petition
other witness. Neither the Constitution nor General for certiorari, praying, among others, that the Court
Orders 58 provides that it is of imperative necessity to declare the search warrant to be invalid for its alleged
take the depositions of the witnesses to be presented by failure to comply with the requisites of the Constitution
the applicant or complainant in addition to the affidavit of and the Rules of Court, and that all the articles
the latter. The purpose of both in requiring the confiscated under such warrant as inadmissible as
presentation of depositions is nothing more than to satisfy evidence in the case, or in any proceedings on the
the committing magistrate of the existence of probable matter.
cause. Therefore, if the affidavit of the applicant or
complainant is sufficient, the judge may dispense with Issue: Whether the judge must before issuing the warrant
that of other witnesses. Inasmuch as the affidavit of the personally examine on oath or affirmation the
agent was insufficient because his knowledge of the facts complainant and any witnesses he may produce and take
was not personal but merely hearsay, it is the duty of the their depositions in writing, and attach them to the record,
judge to require the affidavit of one or more witnesses for in addition to any affidavits presented to him.
the purpose of determining the existence of probable
cause to warrant the issuance of the search warrant. Held: Under the Constitution “no search warrant shall
When the affidavit of the applicant or complainant issue but upon probable cause to be determined by the
contains sufficient facts within his personal and direct Judge or such other responsible officer as may be
knowledge, it is sufficient if the judge is satisfied that authorized by law after examination under oath or
there exists probable cause; when the applicant’s affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
knowledge of the facts is mere hearsay, the affidavit of produce”. More emphatic and detailed is the
one or more witnesses having a personal knowledge of implementing rule of the constitutional injunction, The
the facts is necessary. Thus the warrant issued is likewise Rules provide that the judge must before issuing the
illegal because it was based only on the affidavit of the warrant personally examine on oath or affirmation the
agent who had no personal knowledge of the facts. complainant and any witnesses he may produce and take
their depositions in writing, and attach them to the record,
Examination of Witness in addition to any affidavits presented to him. Mere
affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are thus
Mata vs. Bayona [GR 50720, 26 March 1984] not sufficient. The examining Judge has to take
21

depositions in writing of the complainant and the is not pinpointed, there is no question at all of the specific
witnesses he may produce and to attach them to the offense alleged to have been committed as a basis for the
record. Such written deposition is necessary in order that finding of probable cause. The search warrant also
the Judge may be able to properly determine the satisfies the requirement in the Bill of Rights of the
existence or nonexistence of the probable cause, to hold particularity of the description to be made of the “place to
liable for perjury the person giving it if it will be found later be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
that his declarations are false. We, therefore, hold that
the search warrant is tainted with illegality by the failure of
Particularity of Description
the Judge to conform with the essential requisites of
taking the depositions in writing and attaching them to the
record, rendering the search warrant invalid. Effects if applicant’s witness is not asked by the
examining judge
Olaez vs. People of the Philippines [GR 78347-49, 9
November 1987] Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines vs.
First Division, Cruz (J): 4 concur Asuncion [GR 122092, 19 May 1999]
Third Division, Panganiban (J): 3 concur, 1 took no part
Facts: Adolfo Olaes and Linda M. Cruz were charged for
violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. Olaes and Cruz Facts: On 25 January 1995, Police Chief Inspector
filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with Napoleon B. Pascua applied for a search warrant before
preliminary injunction, challenging the admission by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 104, of Quezon
Judge Alicia L. Santos (in her capacity as Presiding City, stating “(1) that the management of Paper Industries
Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City, Corporation of the Philippines, located at PICOP
Branch 73) of evidence seized by virtue of an allegedly compound, Barangay Tabon, Bislig, Surigao del Sur,
invalid search warrant and of an extrajudicial confession represented by its Sr. Vice President Ricardo G.
taken from them without according them the right to Santiago, is in possession or has in its control high
assistance of counsel; and thus seek to restrain further powered firearms, ammunitions, explosives, which are
proceedings in the criminal case against them and ask the subject of the offense, or used or intended to be used
that they be acquitted with the setting aside of the in committing the offense, and which are being kept and
questioned orders (the facts do not provide the concealed in the premises herein described; (2) that a
disposition of the said orders). Olaes and Cruz claim that Search Warrant should be issued to enable any agent of
the search warrant issued by the judge is unconstitutional the law to take possession and bring to this Honorable
because it does not indicate the specific offense they are Court the following described properties: ‘Seventy (70)
supposed to have committed. There is, therefore, M16 Armalite rifles cal. 5.56, ten (10) M16 US rifles, two
according to them, no valid finding of probable cause as a (2) AK-47 rifle[s], two (2) UZI submachinegun[s], two (2)
justification for the issuance of the said warrant in M203 Grenade Launcher[s] cal 40mm., ten (10) cal. 45
conformity with the Bill of Rights. pistol[s], ten (10) cal. 38 revolver[s], two (2) ammunition
reloading machine[s], assorted ammunitions for said
Issue: Whether the lack of specific section of the calibers of firearms and ten (10) handgrenades.’” The
Dangerous Drugs Act renders the caption vague, and joint Deposition of SPO3 Cicero S. Bacolod and SPO2
negate the claim that the specific offense was committed Cecilio T. Morito, as well as a summary of the information
to serve as basis for the finding of probable cause. and the supplementary statements of Mario Enad and
Felipe Moreno were attached to the application. After
Held: No. The search warrant issued does not come propounding several questions to Bacolod, Judge
under the strictures of the Stonehill doctrine. While in the Maximiano C. Asuncion issued the contested search
case cited, there was a bare reference to the laws in warrant. On 4 February 1995, the police enforced the
general, without any specification of the particular search warrant at the PICOP compound and seized
sections thereof that were alleged to have been violated various firearms and ammunition. Believing that the
out of the hundreds of prohibitions contained in such warrant was invalid and the search unreasonable, Paper
codifications, there is no similar ambiguity herein. While it Industries Corporation of the Philippines, Evaristo M.
is true that the caption of the search warrant states that it Narvaez Jr., Ricardo G. Santiago, Roberto A. Dormendo,
is in connection with “Violation of RA 6425, otherwise Reydande D. Azucena, Niceforo V. Avila, Florentino M.
known as the Dangerous Drugs Acts of 1972,” it is clearly Mula, Felix O. Baito, Harold B. Celestial, Elmedencio C.
recited in the text thereof that “There is probable cause to Calixtro, Carlito S. Legacion, Albino T. Lubang, Jeremias
believe that Adolfo Olaes alias ‘Debie’ and alias ‘Baby’ of I. Abad and Herminio V. Villamil filed a “Motion to Quash”
No. 628 Comia St., Filtration, Sta. Rita, Olongapo City, 16 before the trial court. Subsequently, they also filed a
has in their possession and control and custody of “Supplemental Pleading to the Motion to Quash” and a
marijuana dried stalks/leaves/seeds/cigarettes and other “Motion to Suppress Evidence.” On 23 March 1995, the
regulated/prohibited and exempt narcotics preparations RTC issued the Order which denied PICOP, et. al.’s
which is the subject of the offense stated above.” motions. On 3 August 1995, the trial court rendered its
Although the specific section of the Dangerous Drugs Act
22

Order denying their Motion for Reconsideration. PICOP, warehouses, 6 POL depots/quick service outlets and
et. al. filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition. some 800 miscellaneous structures, all of which spread
out over some one hundred fifty-five hectares.” Obviously,
Issue: Whether the fact that the warrant identifies only the warrant gives the police officers unbridled and thus
one place, i.e. the “Paper Industries Corporation of the illegal authority to search all the structures found inside
Philippines, located at PICOP Compound, Barangay the PICOP compound. Because the search warrant was
Tabon, Bislig, Surigao del Sur,” satisfies the requirements procured in violation of the Constitution and the Rules of
of the particularity of the place to be search, and thus Court, all the firearms, explosives and other materials
render the warrant valid. seized were “inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding.”
Held: No. The fundamental right against unreasonable
searches and seizures and the basic conditions for the Other Cases
issuance of a search warrant are laid down in Section 2,
Article III of the 1987 Constitution. Consistent with the Prudente vs. Dayrit [GR 82870, 14 December 1989]
foregoing constitutional provision, Sections 3 and 4, Rule En Banc, Padilla (J): 14 concur
126 of the Rules of Court, detail the requisites for the
issuance of a valid search warrant. The requisites of a
Facts: On 31 October 1987, P/Major Alladin Dimagmaliw,
valid search warrant are: (1) probable cause is present;
Chief of the Intelligence Special Action Division (ISAD) of
(2) such presence is determined personally by the judge;
the Western Police District (WPD), filed with the Regional
(3) the complainant and the witnesses he or she may
Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 33, presided over by
produce are personally examined by the judge, in writing
Judge Abelardo Dayrit, now Associate Justice of the
and under oath or affirmation; (4) the applicant and the
Court of Appeals, an application for the issuance of a
witnesses testify on facts personally known to them; and
search warrant (Search Warrant 87-14) for violation of
(5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be
Presidential Decree 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms,
searched and the things to be seized. In view of the
etc.) entitled “People of the Philippines vs. Nemesio E.
manifest objective of the constitutional safeguard against
Prudente.” On the same day, the Judge issued the
unreasonable search, the Constitution and the Rules limit
Search Warrant, commanding Dimagmaliw “to make an
the place to be searched only to those described in the
immediate search at any time in the day or night of the
warrant.
premises of Polytechnic University of the Philippines,
more particularly (a) offices of the Department of Military
Thus, this Court has held that “this constitutional right is Science and Tactics at the ground floor and other rooms
the embodiment of a spiritual concept: the belief that to at the ground floor; (b) office of the President, Dr.
value the privacy of home and person and to afford it Nemesio Prudente at PUP, Second Floor and other
constitutional protection against the long reach of rooms at the second floor, and forthwith seize and take
government no less than to value human dignity, and that possession of the following personal properties, to wit: (a)
his privacy must not be disturbed except in case of M 16 Armalites with ammunition; (b) .38 and .45 Caliber
overriding social need, and then only under stringent handguns and pistols; (c) explosives and hand grenades;
procedural safeguards.” Additionally, the requisite of and (d) assorted weapons with ammunitions.” On 1
particularity is related to the probable cause requirement November 1987, a Sunday and All Saints Day, the search
in that, at least under some circumstances, the lack of a warrant was enforced by some 200 WPD operatives led
more specific description will make it apparent that there by P/Col. Edgar Dula Torre, Deputy Superintendent,
has not been a sufficient showing to the magistrate that WPD, and P/Major Romeo Maganto, Precinct 8
the described items are to be found in a particular place. Commander. In his affidavit, dated 2 November 1987,
Herein, the search warrant is invalid because (1) the trial Ricardo Abando y Yusay, a member of the searching
court failed to examine personally the complainant and team, alleged that he found in the drawer of a cabinet
the other deponents: (2) SPO3 Cicero Bacolod, who inside the wash room of Dr. Prudente’s office a bulging
appeared during the hearing for the issuance of the brown envelope with 3 live fragmentation hand grenades
search warrant, had no personal knowledge that PICOP, separately wrapped with old newspapers. On 6
et. al. were not licensed to possess the subject firearms; November 1987, Prudente moved to quash the search
and (3) the place to be searched was not described with warrant. He claimed that (1) the complainant’s lone
particularity. As to the particularity of the place to be witness, Lt. Florenio C. Angeles, had no personal
searched, the assailed search warrant failed to described knowledge of the facts which formed the basis for the
the place with particularity. It simply authorizes a search issuance of the search warrant; (2) the examination of the
of “the aforementioned premises,” but it did not specify said witness was not in the form of searching questions
such premises. The warrant identifies only one place, and and answers; (3) the search warrant was a general
that is the “Paper Industries Corporation of the warrant, for the reason that it did not particularly describe
Philippines, located at PICOP Compound, Barangay the place to be searched and that it failed to charge one
Tabon, Bislig, Surigao del Sur.” The PICOP compound, specific offense; and (4) the search warrant was issued in
however, is made up of “200 offices/buildings, 15 plants, violation of Circular 19 of the Supreme Court in that the
84 staff houses, 1 airstrip, 3 piers/wharves, 23 complainant failed to allege under oath that the issuance
23

of the search warrant on a Saturday was urgent. On 9 records yield no questions and answers, whether
March 1988, the Judge issued an order, denying searching or not, vis-a-vis the said applicant. Evidently,
Prudente’s motion and supplemental motion to quash. the allegations contained in the application of P/ Major
Prudente’s motion for reconsideration was likewise Alladin Dimagmaliw and the declaration of P/Lt. Florenio
denied in the order dated 20 April 1988. Prudente filed a C. Angeles in his deposition were insufficient basis for the
petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. issuance of a valid search warrant.

Issue: Whether the allegations contained in the Chia vs. Acting Collector of Customs [GR L-43810, 26
application of P/ Major Alladin Dimagmaliw and the September 1989]
declaration of P/Lt. Florenio C. Angeles in his deposition First Division, Grino-Aquino (J): 4 concur
were sufficient basis for the issuance of a valid search
warrant. Facts: Acting on a verified report of a confidential
informant that assorted electronic and electrical
Held: The “probable cause” for a valid search warrant, equipment and other articles illegally imported into the
has been defined “as such facts and circumstances which Philippines by a syndicate engaged in unlawful “shipside”
would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to activities (foreign goods are unloaded from foreign ships
believe that an offense has been committed, and that in transit through Philippine waters into motorized bancas
objects sought in connection with the offense are in the and landed on Philippine soil without passing through the
place sought to be searched.” This probable cause must Bureau of Customs, thereby evading payment of the
be shown to be within the personal knowledge of the corresponding customs duties and taxes thereon) were
complainant or the witnesses he may produce and not found inside “Tom’s Electronics” and “Sony
based on mere hearsay. Thus, for a valid search warrant Merchandising (Philippines)” stores located at 690 and
to issue, there must be probable cause, which is to be 691 Gonzalo Puyat corner Evangelista Street, Quiapo,
determined personally by the judge, after examination Manila, a letter-request dated 23 April 1976 was
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the addressed to the Collector of Customs by the Deputy
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing Director of the Regional Anti-Smuggling Action Center,
the place to be searched and the persons or things to be Manila Bay Area (RASAC-MBA) for the issuance of
seized. The probable cause must be in connection with warrants of seizure and detention. After evaluation, the
one specific offense,and the judge must, before issuing Collector of Customs issued Warrants of Seizure and
the warrant, personally examine in the form of searching Detention 14925 and 14925-A, directing the Anti-
questions and answers, in writing and under oath, the Smuggling Action Center to seize the goods mentioned
complainant and any witness he may produce, on facts therein, i.e. various electronic equipments like cassette
personally known to them and attach to the record their tape recorders, car stereos, phonograph needles
sworn statements together with any affidavits submitted. (diamond), portable TV sets, imported long playing
Herein, in his application for search warrant, P/Major records, spare parts of TVs and radios and other
Alladin Dimagmaliw stated that “he has been informed” electrical appliances. A RASAC team was formed and
that Nemesio Prudente “has in his control and given a mission order to enforce the warrants, which it
possession” the firearms and explosives described implemented with the assistance of: (1) the National
therein, and that he “has verified the report and found it to Customs Police (augmenting the team with 2 members),
be a fact.” On the other hand, in his supporting (2) the Detective Bureau of the Manila Western Police
deposition, P/Lt. Florenio C. Angeles declared that, as a District Headquarters (with 3 detectives), as well as, (3)
result of their continuous surveillance for several days, Precinct 3 of the Manila Western Police District which
they “gathered informations from verified sources” that exercised jurisdictional control over the place to be
the holders of the said firearms and explosives are not raided. The intended raid was entered in the respective
licensed to possess them. In other words, the applicant police blotters of the police detective bureaus. On the
and his witness had no personal knowledge of the facts strength of the warrants of seizure and detention, the raid
and circumstances which became the basis for issuing was conducted in the afternoon of 25 April 1976 at the 2
the questioned search warrant, but acquired knowledge stores of Tomas Chia. ASAC team leader Gener Sula,
thereof only through information from other sources or together with his agents Badron Dobli, Arturo Manuel,
persons. While it is true that in his application for search Rodolfo Molina and Servillano Florentin of Camp
warrant, applicant P/Major Dimagmaliw stated that he Aguinaldo, Quezon City, assisted by two customs
verified the information he had earlier received that policemen, Val Martinez and Renato Sorima, and Manila
petitioner had in his possession and custody the firearms policemen Rogelio Vinas and John Peralta, recovered
and explosives described in the application, and that he from the stores, assorted electronic equipment and other
found it to be a fact, yet there is nothing in the record to articles, the customs duties on which allegedly had not
show or indicate how and when said applicant verified the been paid. They were turned over to the Customs Auction
earlier information acquired by him as to justify his and Cargo Disposal Unit of the Bureau of Customs. On
conclusion that he found such information to be a fact. He 17 May 1976, in the afternoon, the hearing officer of
might have clarified this point if there had been searching Acting Collector of Customs Alfredo Francisco conducted
questions and answers, but there were none. In fact, the a hearing on the confiscation of the goods taken by
24

Gener Sula and his agents. 2 days later, Chia filed the 20th Century Fox Film Corporation vs. Court of
petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus before Appeals [GR L-76649-51, 19 August 1988]
the Supreme Court to enjoin the Collector of Customs Third Division, Gutierrez J. (J): 4 concur
and/or his agents from further proceeding with the
forfeiture hearing and prayed that the search warrants be Facts: In a letter-complaint dated 26 August 1985, 20th
declared null and void, that the latter be ordered to return Century Fox Film Corporation through counsel sought the
the confiscated articles to Chia, and to pay damages. National Bureau of Investigation’s (NBI) assistance in the
conduct of searches and seizures in connection with the
Issue: Whether the warrants issued by the Collector of NBI’s anti-film piracy campaign. Specifically, the letter-
Customs partakes the nature of a general warrants, and complaint alleged that certain videotape outlets all over
thus are invalid. Metro Manila are engaged in the unauthorized sale and
renting out of copyrighted films in videotape form which
Held: Not only may goods be seized without a search constitute a flagrant violation of Presidential Decree 49
and seizure warrant under Section 2536 of the Customs (Decree on the Protection of Intellectual Property). Acting
and Tariff Code, when they (the goods) are openly on the letter-complaint, the NBI conducted surveillance
offered for sale or kept in storage in a store as herein, but and investigation of the outlets pinpointed by the film
the fact is that Chia’s stores — “Tom’s Electronics” and corporation and subsequently filed 3 applications for
“Sony Merchandising (Phil.)” — were searched upon search warrants against the video outlets owned by
warrants of search and detention issued by the Collector Eduardo M. Barreto, Raul Sagullo, and Fortune Ledesma.
of Customs, who, under the 1973 Constitution, was “a The applications were consolidated and heard by the
responsible officer authorized by law” to issue them. Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 132. On 4
Sections 2208 and 2209 of the Tariff and Customs Code September 1985, the lower court issued the desired
provide when a search may be made without a warrant search warrants, describing the articles sought to be
and when a warrant is necessary. Section 2208 provides seized as”(c) Television sets, Video Cassettes Recorders,
that “For the more effective discharge of his official duties, rewinders, tape head cleaners, accessories, equipments
any person exercising the powers herein conferred, may and other machines used or intended to be used in the
at any time enter, pass through or search any land or unlawful reproduction, sale, rental/lease, distribution of
inclosure or any warehouse, store or other building, not the above-mentioned video tapes which she is keeping
being a dwelling house. A warehouse, store or other and concealing in the premises above-described.”. Armed
building or inclosure used for the keeping or storage of with the search warrants, the NBI accompanied by the
articles does not become a dwelling house within the film corporation’s agents, raided the video outlets and
meaning hereof merely by reason of the fact that a seized the items described therein. An inventory of the
person employed as watchman lives in the place, nor will items seized was made and left with Barreto, et. al. Acting
the fact that his family stays there with him alter the on a motion to lift search warrants and release seized
case.” On the other hand, Section 2209 provides that “A properties filed by Barreto, et. al., the lower court issued
dwelling house may be entered and searched only upon an order dated 8 October 1985, lifting the 3 search
warrant issued by a Judge of the court or such other warrants issued earlier against them by the court, due to
responsible officers as may be authorized by law, upon the failure of the NBI to deliver the articles to the Court,
sworn application showing probable cause and and thus ordered the return of the articles to their
particularly describing the place to be searched and the respective owners. The lower court denied a motion for
person or thing to be seized.” The warrants issued by the reconsideration filed by the film corporation in its order
Collector of Customs in this case were not general dated 2 January 1986. The film corporation filed a petition
warrants for they identified the stores to be searched, for certiorari with the Court of Appeals to annul the orders
described the articles to be seized and specified the of the lower court. The petition was dismissed. The 20th
provision of the Tariff and Customs Code violated. Upon Century Fox Film Corporation filed the petition for review
effecting the seizure of the goods, the Bureau of Customs with the Supreme Court.
acquired exclusive jurisdiction not only over the case but
also over the goods seized for the purpose of enforcing Issue: Whether the inclusion of certain articles of
the tariff and customs laws. Further, a party dissatisfied property which are usually connected to legitimate
with the decision of the Collector may appeal to the business, and not involving piracy of intellectual property
Commissioner of Customs, whose decision is appealable or infringement of copyright laws, renders the warrant to
to the Court of Tax Appeals in the manner and within the be unreasonable.
period prescribed by law and regulations. The decision of
the Court of Tax Appeals may be elevated to the Held: Television sets, video cassette recorders,
Supreme Court for review. Since Chia did not exhaust his rewinders and tape cleaners are articles which can be
administrative remedies, his recourse to this Court is found in a video tape store engaged in the legitimate
premature. business of lending or renting out betamax tapes. In
short, these articles and appliances are generally
connected with, or related to a legitimate business not
necessarily involving piracy of intellectual property or
25

infringement of copyright laws. Hence, including these Aguilar-Roque, Nolasco and Tolentino, were charged
articles without specification and/or particularity that they before the Quezon City Fiscal’s Office upon complaint
were really instruments in violating an Anti-Piracy law filed by the CSG against the former for
makes the search warrant too general which could result “Subversion/Rebellion and/or Conspiracy to Commit
in the confiscation of all items found in any video store. In Rebellion/Subversion. On August 13, the City Fiscal filed
fact, this actually happened in the present case. Although an Information for Violation of Presidential Decree (PD)
the applications and warrants themselves covered certain 33 (Illegal Possession of Subversive Documents) against
articles of property usually found in a video store, the Aguilar-Roque, et. al. before Branch 42 of the
Court believes that the search party should have confined Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Judge Antonio P.
themselves to articles that are according to them, Santos, presiding. On August 16, CSG filed a Motion for
evidence constitutive of infringement of copyright laws or Reconsideration with the City Fiscal, praying that Aguilar-
the piracy of intellectual property, but not to other articles Roque and Nolasco be charged with Subversion. The
that are usually connected with, or related to, a legitimate Motion was denied on November 16. On September 10,
business, not involving piracy of intellectual property, or the CSG submitted an Amended Return in the Search
infringement of copyright laws. So that a television set, a Warrant case praying, inter alia, that the CSG be allowed
rewinder, and a whiteboard listing Betamax tapes, video to retain the seized 431 documents and articles, “in
cassette cleaners video cassette recorders as reflected in connection with cases that are presently pending against
the Returns of Search Warrants, are items of legitimate Mila Aguilar Roque before the Quezon City Fiscal’s Office
business engaged in the video tape industry, and which and the court.” On December 13, Judge Paño admitted
could not be the subject of seizure. The applicant and his the Amended Return and ruled that the seized documents
agents therefore exceeded their authority in seizing “shall be subject to disposition of the tribunal trying the
perfectly legitimate personal property usually found in a case against respondent.” A day before that, Aguilar-
video cassette store or business establishment. The Roque, et. al. filed a Motion to Suppress, praying that
search and seizure is unreasonable. such of the 431 items belonging to them be returned to
them. It was claimed that the proceedings under the
Nolasco vs. Cruz Pano [GR L-69803, 8 October 1985] Search Warrant were unlawful. Judge Santos denied the
En Banc, Melencio-Herrera (J): 7 concur, 1 concurs in the Motion on 7 January 1985 on the ground that the validity
result, 1 took no part, 1 reserves his vote of the Search Warrant has to be litigated in the other
case, apparently unaware of the Order issued by Judge
Paño on December 13. Nolasco, Aguilar-Roque, and
Facts: Prior to 6 August 1984, Mila Aguilar-Roque was
Tolentino filed the Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and
one of the accused of Rebellion in Criminal Case SMC-1-
Mandamus to annul and set aside the (1) Search Warrant
1 before Special Military Commission 1, and also one of
issued by RTC Judge Paño; (2) his Order admitting the
the accused of Subversion in Criminal Case MC-25-113
Amended Return and granting the Motion to Retain
of Military Commission 25, both cases being entitled
Seized Items; and (3) Order of MTC Judge Santos
“People of the Philippines vs. Jose Ma. Sison, et al.” She
denying Aguilar-Roque, et. al.’s Motion to Suppress.
was then still at large. At around 9:00 a.m. on August 6,
Lt. Col. Virgilio G. Saldajeno of the CSG, applied for a
Search Warrant from the Hon. Ernani Cruz Paño, Issue: Whether the description of the personalities to be
Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court in Quezon seized in the search warrant is too general to render the
City, to be served at No. 239-B Mayon Street, Quezon warrant void.
City, determined to be the leased residence of Aguilar-
Roque, after almost a month of “round the clock Held: The disputed Search Warrant (80-84) describes the
surveillance” of the premises as a “suspected personalities to be seized as “Documents, papers and
underground house of the CPP/NPA.” Aguilar-Roque has other records of the Communist Party of the
been long wanted by the military for being a high ranking Philippines/New Peoples Army and/or the National
officer of the Communist Party of the Philippines, Democratic Front, such as Minutes of the Party Meetings,
particularly connected with the MV Karagatan/Doña Plans of these groups, Programs, List of possible
Andrea cases. At 11:30 a.m., Aguilar-Roque and Cynthia supporters, subversive books and instructions, manuals
D. Nolasco were arrested by a Constabulary Security not otherwise available to the public, and support money
Group (CSG) at the intersection of Mayon Street and P. from foreign or local sources.” It is at once evident that
Margall Street, Quezon City. The record does not the Search Warrant authorizes the seizure of personal
disclose that a warrant of arrest had previously been properties vaguely described and not particularized. It is
issued against Nolasco. At 12:00 noon on the same day, an all-embracing description which includes everything
elements of the CSG searched the premises at 239-B conceivable regarding the Communist Party of the
Mayon Street, Quezon City. Willie C. Tolentino, a person Philippines and the National Democratic Front. It does not
then in charge of the premises, was arrested by the specify what the subversive books and instructions are;
searching party presumably without a warrant of arrest. what the manuals not otherwise available to the public
The searching party seized 428 documents and written contain to make them subversive or to enable them to be
materials, and additionally a portable typewriter, and 2 used for the crime of rebellion. There is absent a definite
wooden boxes, making 431 items in all. On August 10, guideline to the searching team as to what items might be
26

lawfully seized thus giving the officers of the law detonating cords with blasting caps, ½ and ¼ pound of
discretion regarding what articles they should seize as, in high explosives TNT, 1 timer alarm clock, 2 bags of
fact, taken also were a portable typewriter and 2 wooden suspected gun powder, 2 small plastic bag of suspected
boxes. It is thus in the nature of a general warrant and explosive substance, 1 small box of plastic bag of
infringes on the constitutional mandate requiring suspected dynamites, One weighing scale, and 2
particular description of the things to be seized. Search batteries 9 volts with blasting caps and detonating cord.
warrants of similar description were considered null and The firearms, ammunitions, explosives and other
void for being too general. Notwithstanding the irregular incendiary devices seized at the apartments were
issuance of the Search Warrant and although, ordinarily, acknowledged in the receipt signed by SPO2 Melanio de
the articles seized under an invalid search warrant should la Cruz. Yousef Al Ghoul, Isam Mohammad Abdulhadi,
be returned, they cannot be ordered returned to Aguilar- Wail Rashid Al-Khatib, Nabeel Nasser Al-Riyami, Ashraf
Roque. Some searches may be made without a warrant. Hassam Al-Yazori, and Mohammad Abushendi were
Section 12, Rule 126, Rules of Court, is declaratory in the charged before the Regional Trial Court of Kalookan City,
sense that it is confined to the search, without a search Branch 123, in informations (Criminal Cases C-48666-67)
warrant, of a person who had been arrested. It is also a accusing them with illegal possession of firearms,
general rule that, as an incident of an arrest, the place or ammunitions and explosives, pursuant to Presidential
premises where the arrest was made can also be search Decree 1866. Thereafter, they were arrested and
without a search warrant. In this latter case, “the extent detained. They filed a motion for bail on 24 May 1995, the
and reasonableness of the search must be decided on its resolution of which was held in abeyance by the RTC
own facts and circumstances, and it has been stated that, pending the presentation of evidence from the
in the application of general rules, there is some prosecution to determine whether or not the evidence
confusion in the decisions as to what constitutes the presented is strong. On 7 February 1996, at the hearing
extent of the place or premises which may be searched”. for bail, the RTC “admitted all exhibits being offered for
Considering that Aguilar-Roque has been charged with whatever purpose that they maybe worth” after the
Rebellion, which is a crime against public order; that the prosecution had finished adducing its evidence despite
warrant for her arrest has not been served for a the objection by the petitioners on the admissibility of said
considerable period of time; that she was arrested within evidence. On 19 February 1996, the RTC denied their
the general vicinity of her dwelling; and that the search of motion for bail earlier filed. As their action before
her dwelling was made within a half hour of her arrest, the appellate court also proved futile, with the appellate court
Court was of the opinion that, in her respect, the search dismissing their special civil action for certiorari, they filed
at No. 239-B Mayon Street, Quezon City, did not need a the petition for review before the Supreme Court.
search warrant; this, for possible effective results in the
interest of public order. Such being the case, the Issue: Whether the search and seizure orders are valid,
personalities seized may be retained by CSG, for and the objects seized admissible in evidence.
possible introduction as evidence in the Rebellion Case,
leaving it to Aguilar-Roque to object to their relevance Held: As held in PICOP v. Asuncion, the place to be
and to ask Special Military Commission 1 to return to her searched cannot be changed, enlarged nor amplified by
any all irrelevant documents and articles. the police. Policemen may not be restrained from
pursuing their task with vigor, but in doing so, care must
Yousef Al-Ghoul vs. Court of Appeals [GR 126859, 4 be taken that constitutional and legal safeguards are not
September 2001] disregarded. Exclusion of unlawfully seized evidence is
Second Division, Quisumbing (J): 4 concur the only practical means of enforcing the constitutional
injunction against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Facts: On 31 March 1995, Judge Geronimo S. Mangay, Hence, the search made at Apartment No. 8 is illegal and
presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court, National the .45 caliber pistol taken thereat is inadmissible in
Capital Judicial Region, Branch 125, Kalookan City, evidence against Al-Ghoul, et. al. In contrast, the search
issued search warrants 54-95 and 55-95 for the search conducted at Apartment 2 could not be similarly faulted.
and seizure of certain items in Apartment 2 at 154 The search warrants specifically mentioned Apartment 2.
Obiniana Compound, Deparo Road, Kalookan City. On 1 The search was done in the presence of its occupants, in
April 1995, the police searched Apartment 8, in the same accordance with Section 7 of Rule 126, Revised Rules of
compound and found one (1) .45 caliber pistol. Found in Court. The articles seized during the search of Apartment
Apartment 2 were 2 M-16 rifles with 2 magazines and 20 2 are of the same kind and nature as those items
live M-16 ammunitions, 1 Bar of demolition charge, 1 enumerated in the search warrant. The items seized from
Caliber Pistol with no. 634 and other nos. were placed Apartment 2 were described with specificity in the
with magazine of Caliber .45 and 3 live 45 ammunitions, 1 warrants in question. The nature of the items ordered to
22 Caliber handgun with 5 live ammunitions in its be seized did not require a technical description.
cylinder, 1 Box containing 40 pieces of .25 caliber Moreover, the law does not require that the things to be
ammunitions, 2 pieces of fragmentation grenade, 1 roll of seized must be described in precise and minute details as
detonating cord color yellow, 2 big bags of ammonium to leave no room for doubt on the part of the searching
nitrate suspected to be explosives substance, 22 authorities, otherwise, it would be virtually impossible for
27

the applicants to obtain a search warrant as they would the search was carried out, claiming that the police
not know exactly what kind of things they are looking for. officers just barged into his house without asking
Once described, however, the articles subject of the permission. Furthermore, he claimed that the barangay
search and seizure need not be so invariant as to require officials arrived only after the police already had finished
absolute concordance between those seized and those the search. However, after trial the trial court rendered a
described in the warrant. Substantial similarity of those judgment of conviction which decision was affirmed by
articles described as a class or species would suffice. the Court of Appeals.

PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE ISSUE: Whether or not the seizure of items not
mentioned in the search warrant was illegal.
DEL ROSARIO y NICOLAS vs. PEOPLE, G.R. No.
142295, PARDO, J HELD:

FACTS: The Supreme Court REVERSES the decision of the Court

of Appeals and ACQUITS petitioner Vicente del Rosario y
Nicolas of the charge of violation of P. D. No. 1866.
Accused-appellant Vicente del Rosario was found guilty
of violation of P. D. No. 1866 of the Regional Trial Court
of Malolos. Allegedly, sometime in May 1996, the police Seizure is limited to those items particularly described in
received a report that accused-appellant Vicente del a valid search warrant. Searching officers are without
Rosario was in possession of certain firearms without the discretion regarding what articles they shall
necessary licenses. Acting upon the report, the PNP seize. Evidence seized on the occasion of such an
Criminal Investigation Group inquired from the PNP unreasonable search and seizure is tainted and excluded
Firearms and Explosive Division whether or not the report for being the proverbial "fruit of a poisonous tree." In the
was true. The PNP Firearms and Explosives Division language of the fundamental law, it shall be inadmissible
issued a certification stating that per records in his office, in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding
the appellant is not a licensed/registered firearm holder of
any kind and caliber. Armed with the said certificationthe In this case, the firearm was not found inadvertently and
police applied for a search warrant to enable them to in plain view. It was found as a result of a meticulous
search the house of appellant. search in the kitchen of petitioner's house. This firearm, to
emphasize, was not mentioned in the search warrant.
Upon the issuance of the warrant, a team led by P/Sr. Thus, the seizure is illegal.
Insp. Adique went to Norzagaray to serve the warrant.
Before proceeding to the residence of the appellant, the True that as an exception, the police may seize without
police officers requested Barangay Chairman Rogelio de warrant illegally possessed firearm or any contraband for
Silva and Barangay Councilman Aurelio Panteleon to that matter, inadvertently found in plain view. However,
accompany them in the implementation of the warrant. "[t]he seizure of evidence in 'plain view' applies only
Upon arrival at the house of appellant, the police officers where the police officer is not searching for evidence
introduced themselves to the wife of appellant. When the against the accused, but inadvertently comes across an
appellant came out, P/Sr. Insp. Adique informed him that incriminating object."52 Specifically, seizure of evidence
they had a search warrant and that they were authorized in "plain view" is justified when there is:
to search his house. After appellant gave his permission,
the police officers conducted a search of the house. The (a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless
search yielded the following items: (a) a caliber .45 pistol arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit
with Serial No. 703792 with five magazines of caliber .45 of their official duties;
(Exhibits B and H) found at the master's bedroom; (b) five
magazines of 5.56 M-16 rifle and two radios (Exhibits C to (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the
C-4) found in the room of appellant's daughter; and (c) a police who had the right to be where they are.
caliber .22 revolver with Serial No. 48673 (Exhibit F)
containing 8 pieces of live ammunition (Exhibit M) found
in the kitchen of the house. When asked about his license (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent, and
to possess the firearms, the appellant failed to produce
any. This prompted the police officers to seize the subject (d) "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence without
firearms. further search.

For his defense, appellant contends that he had a license SO ORDERED.

for the caliber .45 pistol recovered in his bedroom and
that the other items seized during the search including the PEOPLE V MUSA
caliber .22 revolver, were merely planted by the police
officers. Appellant likewise assails the manner in which FACTS:
28

On 14 December 1989, the accused sold 2 wrappers 1.   Yes. The testimony given by T/Sgt. Belarga only
containing marijuana leaves to Sgt. Amado Ani in a buy- strengthened the testimony of Sgt. Ani since it was the
bust operation in Zamboanga City. testimony of the latter that served as direct evidence,
being enough to prove the consummation of the sale of
the prohibited drug, and that their testimonies were not
conflicting as well.
The said buy-bust operation was planned since a civilian
informer told that Mari Musa was engaged in selling
marijuana and therefore, a test-buy was conducted the
day prior to the said buy-bust operation. During the buy- 2.     No. Although the warrantless search done falls
bust operation, after Sgt. Ani handed the money to Musa, under Sec. 12 of Rule 126 and that the search may
Musa entered his house to get the wrappings. Upon his include premises or surroundings under the accused’s
return and with the inspection of the wrappings, Musa immediate control, it does not fall under the “Plain View”
was arrested, but the marked money used as payment doctrine. The agents found the plastic bag inside the
cannot be found with him, prompting the NARCOM kitchen, and upon asking about the contents of the bag,
agents to go inside his house. There, they could not find the accused did not answer, making the agents open the
the marked money, but they found more marijuana leaves bag and find marijuana leaves. Even if an object is
hidden in a plastic bag inside the kitchen. observed in "plain view," the "plain view" doctrine will not
justify the seizure of the object where the incriminating
The leaves were confirmed as marijuana by the forensic nature of the object is not apparent from the "plain view"
chemist of the PC crime laboratory, who later on served of the object.
as a witness, along with T/Sgt. Jesus Belarga, the team
leader of the buy-bust operation and Sgt. Ani.

The defense gave a different version of what happened People vs. Huang Zhen Hua (GR 139301)
on 14 December 1989 wherein he and his wife, Ahara
Musa, served as witnesses. They said that the NARCOM Unannounced intrusion into the premises is permissible
agents, dressed in civilian clothes, got inside their house when;
since the door was open, and upon entering, declared
that they were NARCOM agents and searched the house, (a) a party whose premises or is entitled to the
despite demands of the couple for a search warrant. The possession thereof refuses, upon demand, to open it;
agents found a red bag whose contents were unknown to
the Musas.
(b) when such person in the premises already knew of the
identity of the officers and of their authority and persons;
Musa was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by the
trial court.
(c) when the officers are justified in the honest belief that
there is an imminent peril to life or limb; and
On appeal, Musa contests that his guilt was not proven
beyond reasonable doubt. He also questioned the
credibility of the witnesses, as well as the admissibility of (d) when those in the premises, aware of the presence of
the seized plastic bag as evidence since it violates his someone outside (because, for example, there has been
constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and a knock at the door), are then engaged in activity which
seizures provided in Art. III, Sec. 2. justifies the officers to believe that an escape or the
destruction of evidence is being attempted. Suspects
have no constitutional right to destroy evidence or
dispose of evidence. However, the exceptions above are
not exclusive or conclusive. At times, without the benefit
ISSUES: of hindsight and ordinarily on the spur of the moment, the
officer must decide whether or not to make an
1.     WON Musa is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt unannounced intrusion into the premises.

2.     WON the seized plastic bag containing marijuana is Although a search and seizure of a dwelling might be
admissible as evidence. constitutionally defective, if the police officers entry was
without prior announcement, law enforcement interest
may also establish the reasonableness of an
unannounced entry.
HELD/RATIO:
Unilab vs. Isip G.R. No. 163858, June 28, 2005
29

and the documents used in recording, manufacture

and/or importation, distribution and/or sale, or the offering
Facts: NBI, filed an application, in the RTC for the for sale, sale and/or distribution of the said vitamins.” The
issuance of a search warrant concerning the first and implementing officers failed to find any counterfeit
second floors of the Shalimar Building occupied and/or Revicon multivitamins, and instead seized sealed boxes
used by Shalimar Philippines, owned/operated by Ernesto which, when opened at the place where they were found,
Isip; and for the seizure of the following for violation of turned out to contain Inoflox and Disudrin. A search
Section 4(a), in relation to Section 8, of Republic Act warrant, to be valid, must particularly describe the place
(R.A.) No. 8203: a. Finished or unfinished products of to be searched and the things to be seized. The officers
UNITED LABORATORIES (UNILAB), particularly of the law are to seize only those things particularly
REVICON multivitamins; b. Sundry items such as tags, described in the search warrant. A search warrant is not a
labels, boxes, packages, wrappers, receptacles, sweeping authority empowering a raiding party to
advertisements and other paraphernalia used in the undertake a fishing expedition to seize and confiscate any
offering for sale, sale and/or distribution of counterfeit and all kinds of evidence or articles relating to a crime.
REVICON multivitamins; c. Sales invoices, delivery The search is limited in scope so as not to be general or
receipts, official receipts, ledgers, journals, purchase explanatory. Nothing is left to the discretion of the officer
orders and all other books of accounts and documents executing the warrant.Objects, articles or papers not
used in recording the manufacture and/or importation, described in the warrant but on plain view of the
distribution and/or sales of counterfeit REVICON executing officer may be seized by him. However, the
multivitamins. The search warrant was implemented by seizure by the officer of objects/articles/papers not
NBI, in coordination with UNILAB employees. No fake described in the warrant cannot be presumed as plain
Revicon multivitamins were found; instead, there were view. The State must adduce evidence, testimonial or
sealed boxes at the first and second floors of the documentary, to prove the confluence of the essential
Shalimar Building which, when opened by the NBI agents requirements for the doctrine to apply, namely: (a) the
in the presence of respondent Isip, contained the executing law enforcement officer has a prior justification
following: 792 Bottles of Disudrin 60 ml. and 30 Boxes of for an initial intrusion or otherwise properly in a position
Inoflox 200 mg. NBI submitted an inventory of the things from which he can view a particular order; (b) the officer
seized in which he declared that the search of the first must discover incriminating evidence inadvertently; and
and second floors of the Shalimar Building at No. 1571, (c) it must be immediately apparent to the police that the
Aragon Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila, the premises described items they observe may be evidence of a crime,
in the warrant, was done in an orderly and peaceful contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure.
manner. He also filed a Return of Search Warrant,
alleging that no other articles/items other than those [ GR No. 125754, Dec 22, 1999 ]
mentioned in the warrant and inventory sheet were
seized. The agent prayed that of the items seized, ten PEOPLE v. ZENAIDA BOLASA Y NAKOBOAN
boxes of Disudrin 60 ml., and at least one box of Inoflox
be turned over to the custody of the Bureau of Food and An anonymous caller tipped off PO3 Dante Salonga and
Drugs (BFAD) for examination. The court issued an order PO3 Albert Carizon in the early evening of 11 September
granting the motion, on the condition that the turnover be 1995 that a man and a woman were repacking prohibited
made before the court, in the presence of a drugs at a certain house in Sta. Brigida St., Karuhatan,
representative from the respondents and the court. The Valenzuela, Metro Manila. PO3 Salonga and PO3
respondents filed an “Urgent Motion to Quash the Search Carizon together with SPO1 Fernando Arenas
Warrant or to Suppress Evidence.” The trial court issued immediately proceeded to the house of the suspects and
an Order granting the motion of the respondents, on the parked their car some three hundred (300) meters away.
ground that the things seized, namely, Disudrin and They walked towards their quarry's lair accompanied this
Inoflox, were not those described in the search warrant. time by their unnamed informer. When they reached the
On March 16, 2004, the trial court issued an advisory that house they "peeped (inside) through a small window and
the seized articles could no longer be admitted in x x x saw one man and a woman repacking suspected
evidence against the respondents in any proceedings, as marijuana."[1] They entered the house and introduced
the search warrant had already been quashed. themselves as police officers to the occupants and
thereupon confiscated the tea bags and some drug
Issue: Whether objects not included in the search warrant paraphernalia. They arrested the two (2) who turned out
but within the place to be searched can be used as to be the accused Zenaida Bolasa y Nakoboan and
evidence to incriminate the accused. Roberto delos Reyes. Subsequent examination of the tea
bags by NBI Forensic Chemist Rubie Calalo confirmed
Held: No, Disudrin and/or Inoflox were not listed in the the suspicion that the tea bags contained marijuana.
search warrant issued by the court a quo as among the
properties to be seized by the NBI agents. The warrant Zenaida Bolasa and Roberto delos Reyes were thus
specifically authorized the officers only to seize charged with violation of Sec. 8, Art. II, of RA 6425
“counterfeit Revicon multivitamins, finished or unfinished, otherwise known as The Dangerous Drugs Act of
30

1972. Both however denied on the witness stand arresting officers the version of the prosecution cannot
ownership over the confiscated tea bags and drug stand on its own.
implements.
Bolasa likewise impugns the identity of the items
confiscated from her person vis-a-vis those which were
submitted for laboratory examination and charges that the
According to Roberto delos Reyes, he and his wife were failure of the prosecution to satisfactorily establish the
merely tenants in the house of Zenaida Bolasa and at the chain of custody over the specimen is damaging to its
time he was arrested he had just arrived from work. Upon case.
learning that Zenaida was repacking marijuana inside
their room, he immediately ordered her to leave. We sustain the appeal. This case clearly illustrates how
Unfortunately however it was at that precise moment that constitutional guarantees against illegal arrests and
police authorities entered and announced their presence. seizures can be violated by overzealous police officers in
He and Zenaida were then brought to the Valenzuela the arrest of suspected drug offenders. Thus, after a
Police Station for questioning and subsequently detained. meticulous evaluation of the evidence at hand, this Court
finds itself with no other recourse but to strike down the
On the part of Zenaida Bolasa, she narrated that at 7:30 process adopted by the prosecution and acquit accused-
in the evening of 11 September 1995 she was on her way appellants for insufficiency of evidence and reasonable
to 9th Avenue, Caloocan City, where she was working as doubt.
a waitress. As she was about to leave the house she met
a certain "Rico" and conversed with him for some time. Section 2, Art. III, of the 1987 Constitution provides -
She denied knowing PO3 Carizon and the fact that the
latter saw her repacking marijuana inside her house. The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable
The trial court upon finding the version of the prosecution searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
to be more plausible convicted both accused Zenaida purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or
Bolasa and Roberto delos Reyes of the crime charged warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause
and sentenced each of them not only to reclusion to be determined personally by the judge after
perpetua but also to pay a fine of P500,000.00.[2] examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant
and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
Both accused appealed, although separately, each one describing the place to be searched and the persons or
represented by a separate counsel. things to be seized.

Maintaining his innocence in this appeal, accused- The State cannot in a cavalier fashion intrude into the
appellant Roberto delos Reyes insists he had just arrived persons of its citizens as well as into their houses, papers
from work and had, in fact, just entered his room when he and effects. The constitutional provision sheathes the
was arrested. Assuming he was indeed repacking private individual with an impenetrable armor against
marijuana when the police officers arrived, he claims it unreasonable searches and seizures. It protects the
would have been inconceivable for them to know what he privacy and sanctity of the person himself against
was doing inside his room considering the height of his unlawful arrests and other forms of restraint,[3] and
window. Significantly, the police officers had to lean first prevents him from being irreversibly "cut off from that
on the window in order to observe the activities inside the domestic security which renders the lives of the most
room. unhappy in some measure agreeable."[4]

For sure, this constitutional guarantee is not a blanket

prohibition against all searches and seizures as it
obviously operates only against searches and seizures
Accused-appellant Zenaida Bolasa meanwhile asserts
that are "unreasonable."[5] Thus, arrests and seizures in
that the search in her residence was likewise illegal as
the following instances are not deemed "unreasonable"
her arrest preceding it was illegal. Consequently, the
and are thus allowed even in the absence of a warrant -
marijuana seized from her could not be properly used as
evidence against her. She insists that the trial court
should not have given credence to the testimony of PO3 1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest (Sec.
Albert Carizon as the same was hearsay. According to 12, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court and prevailing
her and her co-accused delos Reyes, PO3 Carizon was jurisprudence);
not among the arresting officers. As such, PO3 Carizon
had no personal knowledge regarding the conduct of the 2. Search of evidence in "plain view." The elements are:
arrest and search thus making his testimony hearsay. (a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless
Since the prosecution did not present the two (2) arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit
of their official duties; (b) the evidence was inadvertently
31

discovered by the police who have the right to be where under exigent and emergency circumstances, for the
they are; (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; evidence at hand is bereft of any such showing.
and, (d) "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence
without further search. On the contrary, it indicates that the apprehending
officers should have conducted first a surveillance
3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the considering that the identities and address of the
government, the vehicle's inherent mobility reduces suspected culprits were already ascertained. After
expectation of privacy especially when its transit in public conducting the surveillance and determining the
thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion existence of probable cause for arresting accused-
amounting to probable cause that the occupant appellants, they should have secured a search warrant
committed a criminal activity; prior to effecting a valid arrest and seizure. The arrest
being illegal ab initio, the accompanying search was
4. Consented warrantless search; likewise illegal. Every evidence thus obtained during the
illegal search cannot be used against accused-appellants;
[9] hence, their acquittal must follow in faithful obeisance
5. Customs search;
to the fundamental law.
6. Stop and Frisk; and
WHEREFORE, the 12 July 1996 Decision of the Regional
Trial Court finding accused-appellants Zenaida Bolasa y
7. Exigent and emergency circumstances.[6] Nakoboan and Roberto delos Reyes guilty of violating
Sec. 8, Art. II, of RA 6425 is REVERSED and SET
An arrest is lawful even in the absence of a warrant: (a) ASIDE for insufficiency of evidence and on reasonable
when the person to be arrested has committed, is actually doubt; consequently, both are ACQUITTED and
committing, or is about to commit an offense in his ordered RELEASED immediately from confinement
presence; (b) when an offense has in fact been unless held for another lawful cause.
committed and he has reasonable ground to believe that
the person to be arrested has committed it; and, (c) when
the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped Effects of non Observance
from a penal establishment or place where he is serving
final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is G.R. No. 198694 : February 13, 2013
pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another.[7] A person charged with an Ramon Martinez y Goco/Ramon Goco y Martinez,
offense may be searched for dangerous weapons or Petitioner, v. People of the Philippines, Respondent.
anything which may be used as proof of the commission
of the offense.[8] FACTS: On December 29, 2007, while PO2 Roberto
Soque, et. al, conducting a routine foot patrol along
The manner by which accused-appellants were Balingkit Street, Malate, Manila, they heard a man
apprehended does not fall under any of the above- shouting Putanginamo! Limangdaannabaito?. For
enumerated categories. Perforce, their arrest is purportedly violating Section 844 of the Revised
illegal. First, the arresting officers had no personal Ordinance of the City of Manila which punishes breaches
knowledge that at the time of their arrest, accused- of the peace, the man, later identified as Ramon, was
appellants had just committed, were committing, or were apprehended and asked to empty his pockets. In the
about to commit a crime. Second, the arresting officers course thereof, the police officers were able to recover
had no personal knowledge that a crime was committed from him a small transparent plastic sachet containing
nor did they have any reasonable ground to believe that white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu.
accused-appellants committed it. Third, accused- Consequently, Ramon was charged with possession of
appellants were not prisoners who have escaped from a dangerous drugs under Section 11(3), Article II of RA
penal establishment. 9165.

Neither can it be said that the objects were seized in plain In defense, Ramon denied the charge and contented that
view. First, there was no valid intrusion. As already hile walking along Balingkit Street to borrow a welding
discussed, accused-appellants were illegally machine, a man in civilian clothing approached and asked
arrested. Second, the evidence, i.e., the tea bags later on him if he is Ramon Goco. Upon affirming his identity, he
found to contain marijuana, was not inadvertently was immediately handcuffed by the man who eventually
discovered. The police officers intentionally peeped first introduced himself as a police officer. Together, they
through the window before they saw and ascertained the boarded a tricycle (sidecar) wherethe said officer asked
activities of accused-appellants inside the room. In like him if he was carrying illegal drugs. Despite his denial, he
manner, the search cannot be categorized as a search of was still brought to a precinct to be detained. Thereafter,
a moving vehicle, a consented warrantless search, a PO2 Soque for P20, 000.00 in exchange for his release,
customs search, or a stop and frisk; it cannot even fall
32

unable to give the money asked for, Ramon was brought such facts and circumstances which would lead a
to the Manila City Hall for inquest proceedings. reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an
offense has been committed by the person sought to be
arrested.

The RTC convicted Ramon of the crime of possession of Based on the records in the case at bar, PO2 Soque
dangerous drugs; finding all its elements to have been arrested Ramon for allegedly violating Section 844
established through the testimonies of the prosecutions (breaches of peace) of the Manila City Ordinance.
disinterested witnesses. It also upheld the legality of Evidently, the gravamen of these offenses is the
Ramons warrantless arrest, observing that Ramon was disruption of communal tranquillity. Thus, to justify a
disturbing the peace in violation of the Manila City warrantless arrest based on the same, it must be
Ordinance during the time of his apprehension. established that the apprehension was effected after a
reasonable assessment by the police officer that a public
disturbance is being committed. However, PO2 Soques
On appeal, the CA affirmed the factual findings of RTC
testimony surrounding circumstances leading to Ramons
and likewise sustained the validity of the body search
warrantless warrant clearly negates the presence of
made on Ramon as an incident of a lawful warrantless
probable cause when the police officers conducted their
arrest for breach of the peace which he committed in the
warrantless arrest of Ramon.
presence of the police officers, notwithstanding its (the
case for breach of the peace) subsequent dismissal for
failure to prosecute.

To elucidate, it cannot be said that the act of shouting in a

thickly populated place, with many people conversing with
each other on the street, would constitute any of the acts
punishable under Section 844 of the said ordinance. The
words he allegedly shouted "Putangina mo! Limang daan
ISSUE: Whether or not the warrantless arrest was valid? na ba ito?" are not slanderous, threatening or abusive,
and thus, could not have tended to disturb the peace or
HELD: The petition is meritorious. excite a riot considering that at the time of the incident,
Balingkit Street was still teeming with people and alive
POLITICAL LAW: exclusionary rule with activity. Further, no one present at the place of arrest
ever complained that Ramons shouting disturbed the
Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution public. On the contrary, a disinterested member of the
enshrines a persons right against unwarranted intrusions community (a certain Rosemarie Escobal) even testified
by the government. Accordingly, so as to ensure that the that Ramon was merely standing in front of the store of a
same sacrosanct right remains revered, effects secured certain Mang Romy when a man in civilian clothes, later
by government authorities in contravention of the said identified as PO2 Soque, approached Ramon,
provision rendered inadmissible in evidence for any immediately handcuffed and took him away.
purpose, in any proceeding in relation to Section 3(2),
Article III of the Constitution. In its totality, the facts and circumstances could not have
engendered a well-founded belief that any breach of the
Commonly known as the exclusionary rule, the above- peace had been committed by Ramon at the time that his
cited proscription is not, however, an absolute and rigid warrantless arrest was effected. Thus, no probable cause
one. As found in jurisprudence, one of the traditional existed to justify Ramons warrantless arrest.
exceptions, among others, is searches incidental to a
lawful arrest which is of particular significance to this case POLITICAL LAW: inadmissible evidence
and thus, necessitates further disquisition.
Consequently, since it cannot be said that Ramon was
REMEDIAL LAW: valid warrantless arrest validly arrested, the warrantless search that resulted from
it was also illegal. Thus, the subject shabu purportedly
A valid warrantless arrest which justifies a subsequent seized from Ramon is inadmissible evidence.
search is one that is carried out under the parameters of
Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court14which The decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals is
requires that the apprehending officer must have been reversed and set aside.
spurred by probable cause to arrest a person caught in
flagrante delicto. The term probable cause, specifically
with respect to arrests has been understood to mean
33

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. FRANCISCO shabu from him. Manlangit asked Serrano how much
MANLANGIT Y TRESBALLES (G.R. NO. 189806, 12 shabu he wanted, to which Serrano replied that he
JANUARY 2011 wanted two hundred pesos (PhP 200) worth of shabu.
Manlangit went inside his house and later reappeared
The Facts with a plastic sachet containing a white crystalline
substance. Manlangit handed over the plastic sachet to
Serrano who, in turn, gave Manlangit the marked money.
On November 25, 2003, an information was filed
Then Serrano gave the pre-arranged signal of lighting a
charging Manlangit with violating Section 5, Article II of
cigarette to indicate to the rest of the team that the buy-
RA 9165, as follows:
bust operation had been consummated. Thus, the rest of
the team approached Manlangit and proceeded to arrest
That on or about the 24th day of November 2003, in the him while informing him of constitutional rights and the
City of Makati, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of reason for his arrest. The marked money was recovered
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not from Manlangit’s pocket. The plastic sachet was then
being lawfully authorized by law, did then and there marked with the initials “FTM” and sent to the Philippine
willfully and feloniously sell, give away, distribute and National Police (PNP) crime laboratory in Camp Crame,
deliver zero point zero four (0.04) gram of Quezon City for analysis. The PNP crime laboratory
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), which is a identified the white crystalline substance as
dangerous drug. Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride in Chemistry Report
No. D-1190-03. Manlangit was also brought to the PNP
On December 11, 2003, another information was filed crime laboratory for a drug test, which yielded a positive
against Manlangit for breach of Sec. 15, Art. II of RA result for use of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride.[13]
9165, to wit: [5]

That sometime on or before or about the 24th day of Manlangit denied that such buy-bust operation was
November 2003, in the City of Makati, Philippines, and conducted and claimed that the recovered shabu was not
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- from him. He claimed that he was pointed out by a certain
named accused, not being authorized by law to use Eli Ballesteros to Serrano and Bayona. Thereafter, he
dangerous drugs, and having been arrested and found was allegedly detained at the Barangay Hall of Brgy.
positive for use of Methylamphetamine, after a Pitogo. There, he was allegedly interrogated by Serrano
confirmatory test, did then and there willfully, unlawfully as to the location of the shabu and its proceeds, as well
and feloniously use Methylamphetamine, a dangerous as the identity of the drug pushers in the area. He also
drug in violation of the said law. claimed that whenever he answered that he did not know
what Serrano was talking about, he was boxed in the
During the arraignment for both cases, Manlangit pleaded chest. Later on, he said that he was brought to Camp
not guilty. Afterwards, the cases were tried jointly. Crame for drug testing.[14][6]

At the trial of the case, the prosecution adduced evidence On July 12, 2007, the RTC rendered a Decision, the
as follows: dispositive portion of which reads:

On November 24, 2003, the Makati Anti-Drug Abuse WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby
Council (MADAC) Cluster 4 office received information rendered as follows:
from an informant that a certain “Negro” was selling
prohibited drugs alongCol. Santos Streetat Brgy. South 1) In Criminal Case No. 03-4735, finding accused
Cembo,MakatiCity. The MADAC thereafter coordinated Francisco Manlangit y Tresballes GUILTY BEYOND
with the Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Force REASONABLE DOUBT of Violation of Section 5, Art II,
(AIDSTOF) and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency RA 9165 (drug-sale) and sentencing him to suffer the
to conduct a joint MADAC-police buy-bust operation. A penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the
team was assembled composed of several members of amount of P500,000.00. Said accused shall be given
the different offices, among which Police Officer 2 Virginio credit for the period of his preventive detention.
Costa was designated as the team leader, with MADAC
operative Wilfredo Serrano as the poseur-buyer and 2) In Criminal Case No. 03-4735,[15][7] finding
Roberto Bayona as his back-up. The team prepared buy- accused Francisco Manlangit y Tresballes GUILTY
bust money for the operation, marking two (2) one BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of Violation of Section
hundred peso (PhP 100) bills with the initials “AAM. 15, Art II, RA 9165 (drug-use), and sentencing him to
undergo rehabilitation for at least six (6) months in a
Upon arrival on Col. Santos Street, Brgy. Cembo, government rehabilitation Center under the auspices of
MakatiCity, the team spotted Manlangit standing in front the Bureau of Correction subject to the provisions of
of his house. The informant approached Manlangit and Article VIII, RA 9165.
convinced the latter that Serrano wanted to purchase
34

It is further ordered that the plastic sachet containing 2. The Court a quo gravely erred in finding that the
shabu, subject of Criminal Case No. 03-4735, be procedure for the custody and control of prohibited drugs
transmitted to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency was complied with.[18][10]
(PDEA) for the latter’s appropriate action.
The Ruling of the Court
From such Decision, Manlangit interposed an appeal with
the CA. First Issue:

In his Brief, accused-appellant Manlangit claimed that the Accused-appellant’s guilt was proved beyond reasonable
prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt
doubt. To support such contention, accused-appellant
claimed that there was no buy-bust operation conducted. The first paragraph of Sec. 5 of RA 9165 punishes
He pointed out that he was not in the list of suspected the act of selling dangerous drugs. It provides:
drug pushers of MADAC or of the AIDSTOF. He further
emphasized that the buy-bust operation was conducted
without first conducting a surveillance or test buy to Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation,
determine the veracity of the report made by the Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous
informant. He assailed the fact that despite knowledge of Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential
his identity and location, the buy-bust team failed to Chemicals.¾The penalty of life imprisonment to death
secure even a search warrant. and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00)
shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless
Accused-appellant also raised the issue that the buy-bust authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense,
team failed to comply with the procedure for the custody deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in
and control of seized prohibited drugs under Sec. 21 of transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and
RA 9165. He argued that the presumption of regularity in all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and
the performance of official function was overturned by the purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such
officers’ failure to follow the required procedure in the transactions. (Emphasis supplied.)
conduct of a buy-bust operation, as well as the procedure
in the proper disposition, custody, and control of the
subject specimen. While Sec. 15, RA 9165 states:

On August 28, 2009, the CA rendered the decision which Section 15. Use of Dangerous Drugs.¾A person
affirmed the RTC’s Decision dated July 12, 2007. It ruled apprehended or arrested, who is found to be positive for
that contrary to accused-appellant’s contention, prior use of any dangerous drug, after a confirmatory test, shall
surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of a buy- be imposed a penalty of a minimum of six (6) months
bust operation. The case was a valid example of a rehabilitation in a government center for the first offense,
warrantless arrest, accused-appellant having been caught subject to the provisions of Article VIII of this Act. If
in flagrante delicto. The CA further stated that accused- apprehended using any dangerous drug for the second
appellant’s unsubstantiated allegations are insufficient to time, he/she shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment
show that the witnesses for the prosecution were ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12)
actuated by improper motive, in this case the members of years and a fine ranging from Fifty thousand pesos
the buy-bust team; thus, their testimonies are entitled to (P50,000.00) to Two hundred thousand pesos
full faith and credit. After examining the testimonies of the (P200,000.00): Provided, That this Section shall not be
witnesses, the CA found them credible and found no applicable where the person tested is also found to have
reason to disturb the RTC’s findings. Finally, the CA in his/her possession such quantity of any dangerous
found that chain of evidence was not broken. drug provided for under Section 11 of this Act, in which
case the provisions stated therein shall apply. (Emphasis
supplied.)
Hence, the instant appeal.
People v. Macatingag[19][11] prescribed the
In a Manifestation (In lieu of Supplemental Brief) dated requirements for the successful prosecution of the crime
February 22, 2010, accused-appellant expressed his of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, as follows.
desire not to file a supplemental brief and reiterated the
same arguments already presented before the trial and
appellate courts. The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal
sale of drugs are (1) the identity of the buyer and the
seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery
ISSUES: 1. The Court a quo gravely erred in of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is
convicting the accused-appellant despite the material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous
prosecution’s failure to prove his built beyond reasonable drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took
doubt.[17][9]
35

place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence means to apprehend drug dealers. A prior surveillance,
of corpus delicti. much less a lengthy one, is not necessary, especially
where the police operatives are accompanied by their
The pieces of evidence found in the records amply informant during the entrapment. Flexibility is a trait of
demonstrate that all the elements of the crimes charged good police work. We have held that when time is of the
were satisfied. The lower courts gave credence to the essence, the police may dispense with the need for prior
prosecution witnesses’ testimonies, which established the surveillance. In the instant case, having been
guilt of accused-appellant for the crimes charged beyond accompanied by the informant to the person who was
reasonable doubt. The testimonies––particularly those of peddling the dangerous drugs, the policemen need not
the police officers involved, which both the RTC and the have conducted any prior surveillance before they
CA found credible––are now beyond question. As the undertook the buy-bust operation.[22][14] (Emphasis
Court ruled in Aparis v. People:[20][12] supplied.)

As to the question of credibility of the police officers who Furthermore, accused-appellant’s contention that the buy-
served as principal witnesses for the prosecution, settled bust team should have procured a search warrant for the
is the rule that prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend validity of the buy-bust operation is misplaced. The Court
largely on the credibility of the police officers who had the occasion to address this issue in People v. Doria:
conducted the buy-bust operation. It is a fundamental rule [23][15]
that findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature
and which involve credibility are accorded respect when We also hold that the warrantless arrest of accused-
no glaring errors; gross misapprehension of facts; or appellant Doria is not unlawful. Warrantless arrests are
speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can allowed in three instances as provided by Section 5 of
be gathered from such findings. The reason for this is that Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, to wit:
the trial court is in a better position to decide the
credibility of witnesses, having heard their testimonies “Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.¾A peace
and observed their deportment and manner of testifying officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
during the trial. The rule finds an even more stringent person:
application where said findings are sustained by the Court
of Appeals, as in the present case. (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
Moreover, accused-appellant’s defense of denial, commit an offense;
without substantial evidence to support it, cannot
overcome the presumption of regularity of the police (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and
officers’ performance of official functions. Thus, the Court he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the
ruled in People v. Llamado:[21][13] person to be arrested has committed it; and

In cases involving violations of Dangerous Drugs Act, (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who
credence should be given to the narration of the incident escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is
by the prosecution witnesses especially when they are serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his
police officers who are presumed to have performed their case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred
duties in a regular manner, unless there be evidence to from one confinement to another.”
the contrary. Moreover, in the absence of proof of motive
to falsely impute such a serious crime against the
appellant, the presumption of regularity in the Under Section 5 (a), as above-quoted, a person may be
performance of official duty, as well as the findings of the arrested without a warrant if he “has committed, is
trial court on the credibility of witnesses, shall prevail over actually committing, or is attempting to commit an
appellant’s self-serving and uncorroborated denial. offense.” Appellant Doria was caught in the act of
(Emphasis supplied.) committing an offense. When an accused is apprehended
in flagrante delicto as a result of a buy-bust operation, the
police are not only authorized but duty-bound to arrest
Contrary to accused-appellant’s challenge to the validity him even without a warrant.
of the buy-bust operation, the Court categorically stated in
Quinicot v. People that a prior surveillance or test buy is
not required for a valid buy-bust operation, as long as the The Court reiterated such ruling in People v. Agulay:
operatives are accompanied by their informant, thus: [24][16]

Settled is the rule that the absence of a prior Accused-appellant contends his arrest was illegal, making
surveillance or test buy does not affect the legality of the the sachets of shabu allegedly recovered from him
buy-bust operation. There is no textbook method of inadmissible in evidence. Accused-appellant’s claim is
conducting buy-bust operations. The Court has left to the devoid of merit for it is a well-established rule that an
discretion of police authorities the selection of effective arrest made after an entrapment operation does not
36

require a warrant inasmuch as it is considered a valid accused, media, any elected local official, or the DOJ
“warrantless arrest,” in line with the provisions of Rule representatives, in clear violation of Section 21, R.A. No.
113, Section 5(a) of the Revised Rules of Court, to wit: 9165.[25][17]

Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.¾A peace Based on such alleged failure of the buy-bust team
officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a to comply with the procedural requirements of Sec. 21,
person: RA 9165, accused-appellant posits that he should,
therefore, be acquitted. Such reasoning is flawed.
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to In People v. Rosialda,[26][18] the Court addressed
commit an offense. the issue of chain of custody of dangerous drugs, citing
People v. Rivera, as follows:
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which in
recent years has been accepted as a valid and effective Anent the second element, Rosialda raises the issue that
mode of apprehending drug pushers. In a buy-bust there is a violation of Sec. 21, Art. II of RA 9165,
operation, the idea to commit a crime originates from the particularly the requirement that the alleged dangerous
offender, without anybody inducing or prodding him to drugs seized by the apprehending officers be
commit the offense. If carried out with due regard for photographed “in the presence of the accused or the
constitutional and legal safeguards, a buy-bust operation person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or
deserves judicial sanction. seized, or his/her representative or counsel.” Rosialda
argues that such failure to comply with the provision of
Second Issue: the law is fatal to his conviction.

The chain of custody of the seized drug was unbroken This contention is untenable.

Accused-appellant contends that the arresting officers did The Court made the following enlightening disquisition on
not comply with the requirements for the handling of this matter in People v. Rivera:
seized dangerous drugs as provided for under Sec. 21(1)
of RA 9165: The procedure to be followed in the custody and handling
of seized dangerous drugs is outlined in Section 21,
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, paragraph 1, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 which
Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant stipulates:
Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and
Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or (1) The apprehending team having initial custody and
Laboratory Equipment.¾The PDEA shall take charge and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from
chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or
laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from
surrendered, for proper disposition in the following the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any
manner: elected public official who shall be required to sign the
copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and
control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and The same is implemented by Section 21(a), Article II of
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act
same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from No. 9165, viz.:
whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or
his/her representative or counsel, a representative from (a) The apprehending team having initial custody and
the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
elected public official who shall be required to sign the confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the
copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from
(Emphasis supplied.) whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or
his/her representative or counsel, a representative from
In particular, accused-appellant argues that: the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any
elected public official who shall be required to sign the
While the marking of the specimen was done in the place copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof:
of incident by MADAC operative Soriano, the inventory of Provided, further, that non-compliance with these
the item was done at Cluster 4. There was no photograph requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the
made of the plastic sachet in the presence of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are
37

properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, And as aptly ruled by the CA, the chain of custody in
shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and the instant case was not broken as established by the
custody over said items. facts proved during trial, thus:

The failure of the prosecution to show that the police Lastly, the contention of appellant, that the police
officers conducted the required physical inventory and officers failed to comply with the provisions of paragraph
photograph of the evidence confiscated pursuant to said 1, Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 for the proper procedure in
guidelines, is not fatal and does not automatically render the custody and disposition of the seized drugs, is
accused-appellant’s arrest illegal or the items untenable. Record shows that Serrano marked the
seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. Indeed, the confiscated sachet of shabu in the presence of appellant
implementing rules offer some flexibility when a proviso at the place of incident and was turned over properly to
added that ‘non-compliance with these requirements the investigating officer together with the marked buy-bust
under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the money. Afterwards, the confiscated plastic sachet
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly suspected to be containing “shabu” was brought to the
preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not forensic chemist for examination. Likewise, the members
render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over of the buy-bust team executed their “Pinagsanib na
said items.’ The same provision clearly states as well, Salaysay sa Pag-aresto” immediately after the arrest and
that it must still be shown that there exists justifiable at the trial, Serrano positively identified the seized drugs.
grounds and proof that the integrity and evidentiary value Indeed, the prosecution evidence had established the
of the evidence have been preserved. unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs from the
buy-bust team, to the investigating officer and to the
This Court can no longer find out what justifiable reasons forensic chemist. Thus, there is no doubt that the
existed, if any, since the defense did not raise this issue prohibited drug presented before the court a quo was the
during trial. Be that as it may, this Court has explained in one seized from appellant and that indeed, he committed
People v. Del Monte that what is of utmost importance is the crimes imputed against him.
the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the Enforcement of Fishing, Customs and Immigration
determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
The existence of the dangerous drug is a condition sine
Laws
qua non for conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous
drugs. The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very PEOPLE VS. LEILA JOHNSON
corpus delicti of the crime and the fact of its existence is
vital to a judgment of conviction. Thus, it is essential that Facts:
the identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond
doubt. The chain of custody requirement performs the Leila Johnson was arrested at the airport after she was
function of ensuring that the integrity and evidentiary found to have in her possession more than 500 grams of
value of the seized items are preserved, so much so that shabu when she was initially frisked by a security
unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence are personnel at a gate in the airport. The security personnel
removed. felt something hard in respondent’s abdominal area and
when asked she said that she had to wear 2 girdles
To be admissible, the prosecution must show by records because of an operation. Unconvinced, the security
or testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at personnel went to her supervisor. Subsequently, after a
least between the time it came into possession of the thorough search on respondent, packets of shabu were
police officers and until it was tested in the laboratory to seized from her.
determine its composition up to the time it was offered in
evidence. (Emphasis supplied.) Accused (respondent) was subsequently convicted and
sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
Here, accused-appellant does not question the
unbroken chain of evidence. His only contention is that In the present appeal, respondent contended that the
the buy-bust team did not inventory and photograph the search made upon her was not valid and that her
specimen on site and in the presence of accused- constitutional rights were infringed when such search was
appellant or his counsel, a representative from the media conducted.
and the Department of Justice, and any elected public
official. However, as ruled by the Court in Rosialda, as Issue: WON a valid search was made.
long as the chain of custody remains unbroken, even
though the procedural requirements provided for in Sec.
21 of RA 9165 was not faithfully observed, the guilt of the Held: The constitutional right of the accused was not
accused will not be affected. violated as she was never placed under custodial
investigation but was validly arrested without warrant
38

pursuant to the provisions of Section 5, Rule 113 of the PEOPLE VS. SUZUKI
1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure which provides:
Facts: Appellant was found guilty of illeal possession of
Sec. 5.  Arrest without warrant; when lawful.  A peace prohibited drugs and was sentenced to death. Hence, the
officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a instant review.
person:
The facts of the case are:
(a)               when in his presence, the person to be
arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is Appellant was in the airport for his flight to Manila.
attempting to commit an offense; PASCOM and NARCOM agents were in the airport to
follow on reports on drug trafficking.
(b)               when an offense has in fact just been
committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts When he walked through the metal detector, the alarm
indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; sounded. He was bodily frisked and nothing was found on
and… his person so they proceeded to check his luggage but
appellant refused then consented eventually and opened
The circumstances surrounding the arrest of the accused it. There they found packs of aluminum foil and when
above falls in either paragraph (a) or (b) of the Rule opened, it was found to be marijuana.
above cited, hence the allegation that she has been
subjected to custodial investigation is far from being Issue: WON the PASCOM agents were authorized to
accurate.[18] conduct the search. WON accused consented to the
search. WON the search was conducted was incidental to
The methamphetamine hydrochloride seized from a lawful arrest. WON the confiscated items were in plain
her during the routine frisk at the airport was acquired view.
legitimately pursuant to airport security procedures.
Held:
Persons may lose the protection of the search and
seizure clause by exposure of their persons or property to In PPvs.Canton and PPvs.Johnson we validated the
the public in a manner reflecting a lack of subjective search conducted on the departing passengers and the
expectation of privacy, which expectation society is consequent seizure of the shabu found in their persons,
prepared to recognize as reasonable. Such recognition is thus:
implicit in airport security procedures.  With increased
concern over airplane hijacking and terrorism has come "Persons may lose the protection of the search and
increased security at the nation’s airports.  Passengers seizure clause by exposure of their persons or property to
attempting to board an aircraft routinely pass through the public in a manner reflecting a lack of subjective
metal detectors; their carry-on baggages as well as expectation of privacy, which expectation society is
checked luggage are routinely subjected to x-ray prepared to recognize as reasonable.xxx"
scans.  Should these procedures suggest the presence of
suspicious objects, physical searches are conducted to
determine what the objects are.  There is little question It should be stressed, however, that whenever the right
that such searches are reasonable, given their minimal against unreasonable search and seizure is challenged,
intrusiveness, the gravity of the safety interests involved, an individual may choose between invoking the
and the reduced privacy expectations associated with constitutional protection or waiving his right by giving
airline travel. Indeed, travelers are often notified through consent to the search or seizure.9
airport public address systems, signs, and notices in their
airline tickets that they are subject to search and, if any Here, appellant voluntarily gave his consent to the search
prohibited materials or substances are found, such would conducted by the PASCOM agents.
be subject to seizure.  These announcements place
passengers on notice that ordinary constitutional It is axiomatic that a reasonable search is not to be
protections against warrantless searches and seizures do determined by any fixed formula but is to be resolved
not apply to routine airport procedures. according to the facts of each case.12 Given the
circumstances obtaining here, we find the search
The packs of methamphetamine hydrochloride having conducted by the airport authorities reasonable and,
thus been obtained through a valid warrantless search, therefore, not violative of his constitutional rights. Hence,
they are admissible in evidence against the accused- when the search of the box of piaya revealed several
appellant herein.  Corollarily, her subsequent arrest, marijuana fruiting tops, appellant is deemed to have been
although likewise without warrant, was justified since it caught in flagrante delicto, justifying his arrest even
was effected upon the discovery and recovery of “shabu” without a warrant under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the
in her person in flagrante delicto. Rules of Criminal Procedure.13 The packs of marijuana
39

obtained in the course of such valid search are thus Whether or not the warrantless search and subsequent
admissible as evidence against appellant.14 seizure of the regulated drugs, as well as the arrest of
Susan were violative of her constitutional rights.
Nonetheless, we find the trial court’s reliance on the plain
view doctrine misplaced. Such doctrine finds application RULING:
only when the incriminating nature of the object is in the
"plain view" of the police officer.15 Here, it is beyond cavil No, the search was made pursuant to routine airport
that the marijuana seized from appellant is contained in security procedure, which is allowed under Section 9 of
the box of piaya, wrapped in aluminum foil and not Republic Act No. 6235, “ Every ticket issued to a
immediately apparent to the airport authorities. passenger by the airline or air carrier concerned shall
contain among others the following condition printed
thereon: “Holder hereof and his hand-carried luggage(s)
are subject to search for , and seizure of, prohibited
Neither was the search incidental to a lawful arrest since materials or substances.  Holder refusing to be searched
appellant was not yet arrested at the time of the search. shall not be allowed to board the aircraft,” which shall
To be considered a search incidental to a lawful arrest, constitute a part of the contract between the passenger
the law requires that there must be a lawful arrest before and the air carrier
the search can be made.
STOPS AND FRISKS
HOW ABOUT INSPECTION AT AIRPORTS?
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d
People vs Canton 889 (1968)

G.R. No. 148825       December 27, 2002 Facts. The officer noticed the Petitioner talking with
another individual on a street corner while repeatedly
walking up and down the same street. The men would
FACTS: Appellant Susan Canton was charged before the
periodically peer into a store window and then talk some
Regional Trial Court of Pasay City with the violation of
more. The men also spoke to a third man whom they
Section 16 of Article III of the Dangerous Drugs Act of
eventually followed up the street. The officer believed that
1972 (Republic Act No. 6425), as amended, under an
the Petitioner and the other men were “casing” a store for
Information whose accusatory portion reads as follows:
a potential robbery. The officer decided to approach the
men for questioning, and given the nature of the behavior
That on February 12, 1998 at the Ninoy Aquino the officer decided to perform a quick search of the men
International Airport, and within the jurisdiction of this before questioning. A quick frisking of the Petitioner
Honorable Court, the above named accused did then and produced a concealed weapon and the Petitioner was
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously has in her charged with carrying a concealed weapon.
possession NINE HUNDRED NINETY EIGHT POINT
TWO EIGHT HUNDRED ZERO NINE (998.2809)
GRAMS of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated
drug, without the corresponding prescription or license.
Issue. Whether a search for weapons without probable
cause for arrest is an unreasonable search under the
Unsatisfied with the decision of the trial court, SUSAN
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
imputing to the trial court the following errors: (1) in
(“Constitution”)?
justifying the warrantless search against her based on the
alleged existence of probable cause; (2) in holding that
she was caught flagrante delicto and that the warrantless Held. The Supreme Court of the United States (“Supreme
search was incidental to a lawful arrest; (3) in not ruling Court”) held that it is a reasonable search when an officer
that the frisker went beyond the limits of the “Terry performs a quick seizure and a limited search for
search” doctrine; (4) in not ruling that SUSAN was under weapons on a person that the officer reasonably believes
custodial investigation without counsel; (5) in admitting to could be armed. A typical beat officer would be unduly
the records of the case the report of Dr. Ma. Bernadette burdened by being prohibited from searching individuals
Arcena, which was not testified on or offered in evidence, that the officer suspects to be armed.
and using the same in determining her guilt; (6) in
justifying under the rule on judicial notice its cognizance
of the medical report that has not been offered in
evidence; and (7) in applying the ruling in People v. Dissent. Justice William Douglas (“J. Douglas”) dissented,
Johnson. reasoning that the majority’s holding would grant powers
to officers to authorize a search and seizure that even a
ISSUE: magistrate would not possess.
40

Concurrence. could be made. In the present case, after SPO3 Niño told
accused-appellant not to run away, the former identified
Justice John Harlan (“J. Harlan”) agreed with the majority, himself as a government agents. The peace officers did
but he emphasized an additional necessity of the not know that he had committed, or was actually
reasonableness of the stop to investigate the crime. committing, the offense of illegal possession of firearm.
Tasked with verifying the report that there were armed
men roaming in the barangays surrounding Caibiran, their
Justice Byron White (“J. White”) agreed with the majority,
attention was understandably drawn to the group that had
but he emphasized that the particular facts of the case,
aroused their suspicion. They could not have known that
that there was suspicion of a violent act, merit the forcible
the object wrapped in coconut leaves which accused-
stop and frisk.
appellant was carrying hid a firearm. The case at bar
constitutes an instance where a search and seizure may
Discussion. The facts of the case are important to be effected without first making an arrest. There was
understand the Supreme Court’s willingness to allow the justifiable cause to “stop and frisk” accused-appellant
search. The suspicious activity was a violent crime, when his companions filed upon seeing the government
armed robbery, and if the officer’s suspicions were correct agents. Under the circumstances, the government agents
then he would be in a dangerous position to approach the could not possibly have procured a search warrant first.
men for questioning without searching them. The officer Thus, there was no violation of the constitutional
also did not detain the men for a long period of time to guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures.
constitute an arrest without probable cause. Nor was there error on the part of the trial court when it
admitted the homemade firearm as evidence.
People v. Solayao G.R. No. 119220 September 20,
1996 262 SCRA 255 (1996) MALACAT V. CA G.R. No. 123595. December 12, 1997

Facts: SPO3 Jose Niño, narrated that at about 9:00 FACTS: Police officer Rodolfu Yu, in response to bomb
o’clock in the evening of July 9, 1992, with CAFGU threats reported seven days earlier, was on foot patrol
members, they were to conduct an intelligence patrol as with three other police officers (all of them in uniform)
required of them by their intelligence officer to verify along Quezon Boulevard, Quiapo, Manila, near the
reports on the presence of armed persons roaming Mercury Drug store at Plaza Miranda.
around the barangays. The team of Police Officer Niño
proceeded to Barangay Onion where they met the group
l They chanced upon two groups of Muslim-looking men,
of accused-appellant Nilo Solayao numbering five. The
with each group, comprised of three to four men, posted
former became suspicious when they observed that the
on opposite sides of the corner of Quezon Boulevard near
latter were drunk and that accused-appellant himself was
the Mercury Drug Store. These men were acting
wearing a camouflage uniform or a jungle suit. Accused-
suspiciously with [t]heir eyes moving very fast.
appellant’s companions, upon seeing the government
agents, fled. Police Officer Niño told accused-appellant
not to run away and introduced himself as “PC,” after l Yu and his companions positioned themselves at
which he seized the dried coconut leaves which the latter strategic points and observed both groups for about thirty
was carrying and found wrapped in it a 49-inch long minutes.
homemade firearm locally know as “latong.” When he
asked accused-appellant who issued him a license to l The police officers then approached one group of men,
carry said firearm or whether he was connected with the who then fled in different directions.
military or any intelligence group, the latter answered that
he had no permission to possess the same. Thereupon, l As the policemen gave chase, Yu caught up with and
SPO3 Niño confiscated the firearm and turned him over apprehended petitioner.
to the custody of the policemen of Caibiran who
subsequently investigated him and charged him with l Upon searching petitioner, Yu found a fragmentation
illegal possession of firearm. The trial court found grenade tucked inside petitioners front waistline.
accused-appellant guilty of illegal possession of firearm.
Hence the Appeal.
l Yu’s companion, police officer Rogelio Malibiran,
apprehended Abdul Casan from whom a .38 caliber
Issue: Whether the court erred in admitting the revolver was recovered.
confiscated firearm as evidence against the accused with
no valid search and arrest warrant
l Petitioner and Casan were then brought to Police
Station No. 3 where Yu placed an X mark at the bottom of
Held: The court ruled that the search and seizure brought the grenade and thereafter gave it to his commander.
about by the suspicious conduct of the accused himself
can be likened to a “stop and frisk” situation. There was
probable cause to conduct a search even before an arrest l On cross-examination, Yu declared that:
41

1. they conducted the foot patrol due to a report that a l The trial court then ruled that the seizure of the grenade
group of Muslims was going to explode a grenade from petitioner was incidental to a lawful arrest, and since
somewhere in the vicinity of Plaza Miranda. petitioner [l]ater voluntarily admitted such fact to the
police investigator for the purpose of bombing the
2. Yu recognized petitioner as the previous Saturday, 25 Mercury Drug Store, concluded that sufficient evidence
August 1990, likewise, at Plaza Miranda, Yu saw existed to establish petitioners guilt beyond reasonable
petitioner and 2 others attempt to detonate a grenade. doubt.

3. The attempt was aborted when Yu and other l CA affirmed lower court’s decision.
policemen chased petitioner and his companions;
however, the former was unable to catch any of the latter. ISSUE: WON the warrantless arrest was valid

4. Yu further admitted that petitioner and Casan were HELD: NO. The warrantless arrest is illegal.
merely standing on the corner of Quezon Boulevard when
Yu saw them on 27 August 1990. According to the SC, the prosecution failed to establish
petitioners guilt with moral certainty.
5. Although they were not creating a commotion, since
they were supposedly acting suspiciously, Yu and his The general rule as regards arrests, searches and
companions approached them. seizures are that a warrant is needed in order to validly
effect the same. The Constitutional prohibition against
6. Yu did not issue any receipt for the grenade he unreasonable arrests, searches and seizures refer to
allegedly recovered from petitioner. those effected without a validly issued warrant, subject to
certain exceptions. As regards valid warrantless arrests,
7. Also, officer Serapio, took petitioner’s confession these are found in Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of
without a counsel during the inquest. Court, which reads, in part:

l Petitioner as the lone witness denied all the allegations Sec. 5. -- Arrest, without warrant; when lawful -- A peace
against him and asserted that he was just strolling in officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
Plaza Miranda to catch a breath of fresh air and that he person:
was surprisingly apprehended by the police with the
allegation that he shoots him and he saw the grenade (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
only in court when it was presented. committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense;
l The trial court ruled that the warrantless search and
seizure of petitioner was akin to a stop and frisk, where a (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and
warrant and seizure can be effected without necessarily he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the
being preceded by an arrest and whose object is either to person to be arrested has committed it; and
maintain the status quo momentarily while the police
officer seeks to obtain more information. (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has
escaped ***
l Probable cause was not required as it was not certain
that a crime had been committed, however, the situation A warrantless arrest under the circumstances
called for an investigation, hence to require probable contemplated under Section 5(a) has been denominated
cause would have been premature. as one "in flagrante delicto," while that under Section 5(b)
has been described as a "hot pursuit" arrest.
l The RTC emphasized that Yu and his companions were
[c]onfronted with an emergency, in which the delay Turning to valid warrantless searches, they are limited to
necessary to obtain a warrant, threatens the destruction the following:
of evidence and the officers [h]ad to act in haste, as
petitioner and his companions were acting suspiciously, (1) customs searches;
considering the time, place and reported cases of
bombing. Further, petitioners group suddenly ran away in
different directions as they saw the arresting officers (2) the search of moving vehicles;
approach, thus [i]t is reasonable for an officer to conduct
a limited search, the purpose of which is not necessarily (3) seizure of evidence in plain view;
to discover evidence of a crime but to allow the officer to
pursue his investigation without fear of violence. (4) consent searches;
42

(5) a search incidental to a lawful arrest; and petitioner. If only to further tarnish the credibility of Yu's
testimony, contrary to his claim that petitioner and his
(6) (6) a "stop and frisk." companions had to be chased before being apprehended,
the affidavit of arrest (Exh. "A") expressly declares
otherwise, i.e., upon arrival of five (5) other police officers,
In the instant petition, the trial court validated the
petitioner, and his companions were "immediately
warrantless search as a stop and frisk with the seizure of
collared."
the grenade from the accused as an appropriate incident
to his arrest, hence necessitating a brief discussion on
the nature of these exceptions to the warrant Second, there was nothing in petitioners behavior or
requirement. conduct which could have reasonably elicited even mere
suspicion other than that his eyes were moving very fast
an observation which leaves us incredulous since Yu and
his teammates were nowhere near petitioner and it was
already 6:30 p.m., thus presumably dusk. Petitioner and
At the outset, we note that the trial court confused the his companions were merely standing at the corner and
concepts of a "stop-and-frisk" and of a search incidental were not creating any commotion or trouble.
to a lawful arrest. These two types of warrantless
searches differ in terms of the requisite quantum of proof
Third, there was at all no ground, probable or otherwise,
before they may be validly effected and in their allowable
to believe that petitioner was armed with a deadly
scope.
weapon. None was visible to Yu, for as he admitted, the
alleged grenade was discovered inside the front waistline
In a search incidental to a lawful arrest, as the precedent of the petitioner, and from all indications as to the
arrest determines the validity of the incidental search, the distance between Yu and petitioner, any telltale bulge,
legality of the arrest is questioned in a large majority of assuming that petitioner was indeed hiding a grenade,
these cases, e.g., whether an arrest was merely used as could not have been visible to Yu.
a pretext for conducting a search. In this instance, the law
requires that there first be a lawful arrest before a search
Hence, petitioner is acquitted of the crime under Section
can be made -- the process cannot be reversed. At
3 of Presidential Decree No. 1866 (IPF)
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 PEOPLE VS. DORIA
to destroy, and seize any money or property found which
was used in the commission of the crime, or the fruit of FACTS: A buy-bust operation was conducted by the
the crime, or that which may be used as evidence, or police which caught accused Doria red-handed of selling
which might furnish the arrestee with the means of prohibited drugs and during the operation the police
escaping or committing violence. officers searched for the marked bills that they used in
buying said drugs which happened to be in the house of
Here, there could have been no valid in flagrante delicto Gaddao, according to Doria. When they reached her
or hot pursuit arrest preceding the search in light of the house, the police officers came upon a box. He saw that
lack of personal knowledge on the part of Yu, the one of the box's flaps was open and inside the box was
arresting officer, or an overt physical act, on the part of something wrapped in plastic. The plastic wrapper and its
petitioner, indicating that a crime had just been contents appeared similar to the marijuana earlier "sold"
committed, was being committed or was going to be to him by "Jun." His suspicion aroused, PO3 Manlangit
committed. entered "Neneth's" house and took hold of the box. He
peeked inside the box and found that it contained ten (10)
bricks of what appeared to be dried marijuana leaves.
Having thus shown the invalidity of the warrantless arrest
in this case, plainly, the search conducted on petitioner
could not have been one incidental to a lawful arrest. Both accused were convicted of the crime chared. Hence,
this present petition.
In the case at bar, at least three (3) reasons why the stop-
and-frisk was invalid: ISSUE: WON the warrantless arrest of Gaddao, the
search of her person and house, and the admissibility of
the pieces of evidence obtained therefrom was valid.
First, we harbor grave doubts as to Yus claim that
petitioner was a member of the group which attempted to
bomb Plaza Miranda two days earlier. This claim is HELD: We hold that the warrantless arrest of accused-
neither supported by any police report or record nor appellant Doria is not unlawful. Warrantless arrests are
corroborated by any other police officer who allegedly allowed in three instances as provided by Section 5 of
chased that group. Aside from impairing Yu's credibility as Rule 113. Under Section 5 (a), a person may be arrested
a witness, this likewise diminishes the probability that a without a warrant if he "has committed, is actually
genuine reason existed so as to arrest and search committing, or is attempting to commit an offense."
43

Appellant Doria was caught in the act of committing an it contains the prohibited article, then the article is
offense. When an accused is apprehended in flagrante deemed in plain view.  It must be immediately apparent to
delicto as a result of a buy-bust operation, the police are the police that the items that they observe may be
not only authorized but duty-bound to arrest him even evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to
without a warrant. seizure. The marijuana was not in plain view and its
seizure without the requisite search warrant was in
The warrantless arrest of appellant Gaddao, the search of violation of the law and the Constitution. 135 It was fruit of
her person and residence, and the seizure of the box of the poisonous tree and should have been excluded and
marijuana and marked bills are different matters. never considered by the trial court.

Our Constitution proscribes search and seizure without a PEOPLE V. MENGOTE     G.R. No. 87059  June 22,
judicial warrant and any evidence obtained without such 1992
warrant is inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding. 105 The rule is, however, not FACTS: l Western Police District received a telephone
absolute. Search and seizure may be made without a call from an informer that there were three suspicious-
warrant and the evidence obtained there from may be looking persons at the corner of Juan Luna and North Bay
admissible in the following instances:  (1) search incident Boulevard in Tondo, Manila.
to a lawful arrest; 2) search of a moving motor
vehicle;  (3) search in violation of customs laws;  (4) l A surveillance team of plainclothesmen was forthwith
seizure of evidence in plain view; (5) when the accused dispatched to the place.
himself waives his right against unreasonable searches
and seizures.  Accused-appellant Gaddao was not caught l Patrolmen Rolando Mercado and Alberto Juan narrated
red-handed during the buy-bust operation to give ground that they saw two men "looking from side to side," one of
for her arrest under Section 5 (a) of Rule 113. She was whom was holding his abdomen. They approached these
not committing any crime. Contrary to the finding of the persons and identified themselves as policemen,
trial court, there was no occasion at all for appellant whereupon the two tried to run away but were unable to
Gaddao to flee from the policemen to justify her arrest in escape because the other lawmen had surrounded them.
"hot pursuit."114 In fact, she was going about her daily
chores when the policemen pounced on her.
l The suspects were then searched. One of them, who
turned out to be the accused-appellant, was found with a .
This brings us to the question of whether the trial court 38 caliber Smith and Wesson revolver with six live bullets
correctly found that the box of marijuana was in plain in the chamber.
view, making its warrantless seizure valid.
l His companion, later identified as Nicanor Morellos, had
The "plain view" doctrine applies when the following a fan knife secreted in his front right pants pocket. The
requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement officer in weapons were taken from them.
search of the evidence has a prior justification for an
intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a
particular area; (b) the discovery of the evidence in plain l Mengote and Morellos were then turned over to police
view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately apparent to the headquarters for investigation by the Intelligence Division.
officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a
crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. The l One other witness presented by the prosecution was
law enforcement officer must lawfully make an initial Rigoberto Danganan, who identified the subject weapon
intrusion or properly be in a position from which he can as among the articles stolen from him during the robbery
particularly view the area. In the course of such lawful in his house in Malabon on June 13, 1987. He pointed to
intrusion, he came inadvertently across a piece of Mengote as one of the robbers.
evidence incriminating the accused. The object must be
open to eye and hand and its discovery inadvertent.  l He had duly reported the robbery to the police, indicating
the articles stolen from him, including the revolver.
It is clear that an object is in plain view if the object itself
is plainly exposed to sight. The difficulty arises when the l Mengote made no effort to prove that he owned the
object is inside a closed container. Where the object firearm or that he was licensed to possess it and claimed
seized was inside a closed package, the object itself is instead that the weapon had been "Planted" on him at the
not in plain view and therefore cannot be seized without a time of his arrest.
warrant. However, if the package proclaims its contents,
whether by its distinctive configuration, its l It is submitted in the Appellant's Brief that the revolver
transparency, or if its contents are obvious to an should not have been admitted in evidence because of its
observer, then the contents are in plain view and may be illegal seizure. no warrant therefor having been previously
seized.  In other words, if the package is such that an obtained. Neither could it have been seized as an incident
experienced observer could infer from its appearance that
44

of a lawful arrest because the arrest of Mengote was itself headquarters, that they learned of the robbery in his
unlawful, having been also effected without a warrant. house and of Mengote's supposed involvement therein.

l The defense also contends that the testimony regarding As for the illegal possession of the firearm found on
the alleged robbery in Danganan's house was irrelevant Mengote's person, the policemen discovered this only
and should also have been disregarded by the trial court. after he had been searched and the investigation
conducted later revealed that he was not its owners nor
ISSUE: WON the arrest was lawful was he licensed to possess it.

HELD: Before these events, the Peace officers had no

knowledge even of Mengote' identity, let alone the fact (or
suspicion) that he was unlawfully carrying a firearm or
NO. The Supreme court held that par(a) section 5 Rule
that he was involved in the robbery of Danganan's house.
113 of rules of court requires that a person be arrested
after he has committed or while he is actually committing
or is at least attempting to commit an offense in the Hence, accused-appellant is acquitted.
presence of the arresting officer.

These requirements have not been established in the

case at bar. At the time of the arrest in question, the SEARCH OF MOVING VEHICLE
accused was merely “looking from side to side” and
“holding his abdomen”. There was apparently no offense
Papa vs. Mago G.R. No. L-27360, February 28, 1968 22
that has just been committed or was being actually
SCRA 857 (1968)
committed or at least being attempted by Mengote in their
presence.
Facts: Petitioner Martin Alagao, head of the counter-
intelligence unit of the Manila Police Department, acting
The Court takes note that there was nothing to support
upon a reliable information received on November 3,
the arresting officers' suspicion other than Mengote's
1966 to the effect that a certain shipment of personal
darting eyes and his hand on his abdomen. By no stretch
effects, allegedly misdeclared and undervalued, would be
of the imagination could it have been inferred from these
released the following day from the customs zone of the
acts that an offense had just been committed, or was
port of Manila and loaded on two trucks, and upon orders
actually being committed, or was at least being attempted
of petitioner Ricardo Papa, Chief of Police of Manila and
in their presence.
a duly deputized agent of the Bureau of Customs,
conducted surveillance at gate No. 1 of the customs
This case is similar to People v. Aminnudin, where the zone. When the trucks left gate No. 1 at about 4:30 in the
Court held that the warrantless arrest of the accused was afternoon of November 4, 1966, elements of the counter-
unconstitutional. This was effected while be was coming intelligence unit went after the trucks and intercepted
down a vessel, to all appearances no less innocent than them at the Agrifina Circle, Ermita, Manila. The load of
the other disembarking passengers. He had not the two trucks consisting of nine bales of goods, and the
committed nor was be actually committing or attempting two trucks, were seized on instructions of the Chief of
to commit an offense in the presence of the arresting Police. Upon investigation, a person claimed ownership of
officers. He was not even acting suspiciously. In short, the goods and showed to the policemen a “Statement and
there was no probable cause that, as the prosecution Receipts of Duties Collected in Informal Entry No. 147-
incorrectly suggested, dispensed with the constitutional 5501”, issued by the Bureau of Customs in the name of a
requirement of a warrant. certain Bienvenido Naguit. Claiming to have been
prejudiced by the seizure and detention of the two trucks
Par. (b) is no less applicable because its no less stringent and their cargo, Private Respondents filed with the Court
requirements have also not been satisfied. The of First Instance of Manila a petition “for mandamus with
prosecution has not shown that at the time of Mengote's restraining order. That the goods were seized by
arrest an offense had in fact just been committed and that members of the Manila Police Department without search
the arresting officers had personal knowledge of facts warrant issued by a competent court; Respondent Judge
indicating that Mengote had committed it. All they had Hilarion Jarencio issued an order ex parte restraining the
was hearsay information from the telephone caller, and petitioners from opening the nine bales in question, and
about a crime that had yet to be committed. at the same time set the hearing of the petition for
preliminary injunction on November 16, 1966. However,
The truth is that they did not know then what offense if at when the restraining order was received by herein
all, had been committed and neither were they aware of petitioners, some bales had already been opened by the
the participation therein of the accused-appellant. It was examiners of the Bureau of Customs in the presence of
only later after Danganan had appeared at the Police officials of the Manila Police Department, an assistant city
45

fiscal and a representative of herein respondent Petitioners were convicted. Hence, the present petition.
Remedios Mago.
Issue: WON the seized items are admissible in evidence.
Issue: Whether a warrant issued by a competent court is
required to search and seize a moving cargo or vehicle. Held: Here, it should be noted that during the incident in
question, the special mission of the PAF operatives was
Held: No, The Tariff and Customs Code does not require to conduct a surveillance operation to verify reports of
said warrant in the instant case. The Code authorizes drug trafficking and smuggling by certain PAL personnel
persons having police authority under Section 2203 of the in the vicinity of the airport. In other words, the search
Tariff and Customs Code to enter, pass through or search made by the PAF team on petitioner and his co-accused
any land, enclosure, warehouse, store or building, not was in the nature of a customs search. As such, the team
being a dwelling house; and also to inspect, search and properly effected the search and seizure without a search
examine any vessel or aircraft and any trunk, package, or warrant since it exercised police authority under the
envelope or any person on board, or to stop and search customs law.
and examine any vehicle, beast or person suspected of
holding or conveying any dutiable or prohibited article In Papa vs. Mago, involving a customs search, we held
introduced into the Philippines contrary to law, without that law enforcers who are tasked to effect the
mentioning the need of a search warrant in said cases. enforcement of the customs and tariff laws are authorized
But in the search of a dwelling house, the Code provides to search and seize, without a search warrant, any article,
that said “dwelling house may be entered and searched cargo or other movable property when there is
only upon warrant issued by a judge or justice of the reasonable cause to suspect that the said items have
peace. The court view, therefor, that except in the case of been introduced into the Philippines in violation of the
the search of a dwelling house, persons exercising police tariff and customs law. They may likewise conduct a
authority under the customs law may effect search and warrantless search of any vehicle or person suspected of
seizure without a search warrant in the enforcement of holding or conveying the said articles, as in the case at
customs laws. the court defined  the difference made as bar.
to the necessity for a search warrant between goods
subject to forfeiture, when concealed in a dwelling house In short, Mago clearly recognizes the power of the State
of similar place, and like goods in course of transportation to foil any fraudulent schemes resorted to by importers
and concealed in a movable vessel, where readily they who evade payment of customs duties. The
could be put out of reach of a search warrant. In the Government’s policy to combat the serious malady of
instant case, we note that petitioner Martin Alagao and smuggling cannot be reduced to futility and impotence on
his companion policemen did not have to make any the ground that dutiable articles on which the duty has not
search before they seized the two trucks and their cargo. been paid are entitled to the same Constitutional
In their original petition, and amended petition, in the protection as an individual’s private papers and effects.
court below Remedios Mago and Valentin Lanopa did not Here, we see no reason not to apply this State policy
even allege that there was a search. But even if there which we have continued to affirm.
was a search, there is still authority to the effect that no
search warrant would be needed under the
circumstances obtaining in the instant case. he guaranty DIFFERENTIATE WITH PEOPLE VS ARUTA
of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures is
construed as recognizing a necessary difference between PEOPLE VS. ARUTA, G.R. NO. 120915 (1998)
a search of a dwelling house or other structure in respect
of which a search warrant may readily be obtained and a FACTS: P/Lt. Abello was tipped off by his informant
search of a ship, motorboat, wagon, or automobile for named Benjie, that a certain “Aling Rosa” would be
contraband goods, where it is not practicable to secure a arriving from Baguio City the following day, with a large
warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of volume of marijuana.  Acting on said tip, Abello
the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be assembled a team. Said team proceeded to West Bajac-
sought. Bajac, Olongapo City at around 4:00 in the afternoon
1988 and deployed themselves near the Philippine
SALVADOR VS. PEOPLE National Bank building along Rizal Avenue and the Caltex
gasoline station.
Facts: Petitioners, PAL ground crew employees were
allegedly caught with dutiable goods (branded watches, While thus positioned, a Victory Liner Bus stopped in front
etc) after PAF officers were observing their conduct and of the PNB building at around 6:30 in the evening of the
found it to be suspicious during a special mission given to same day from where two females and a male got off.
them to make a routine surveillance to check on reports
of alleged trafficking and smuggling being facilitated by It was at this stage that the informant pointed out to the
PAL employees. team “Aling Rosa” who was then carrying a travelling bag.
Having ascertained that accused-appellant was “Aling
46

Rosa,” the team approached her and introduced

themselves as NARCOM agents.  When  Abello asked
“Aling Rosa” about the contents of her bag, the latter Consequently, there was no legal basis for the NARCOM
handed it to the former. Upon inspection, the bag was agents to effect a warrantless search of accused-
found to contain dried marijuana leaves packed in a appellant’s bag, there being no probable cause and the
plastic bag marked “Cash Katutak.”  accused-appellant not having been lawfully arrested. 
Stated otherwise, the arrest being incipiently illegal, it
The team confiscated the bag together with the Victory logically follows that the subsequent search was similarly
Liner bus ticket to which Lt. Domingo affixed his illegal, it being not incidental to a lawful arrest. The
signature.  Accused-appellant was then brought to the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search
NARCOM office for investigation where a Receipt of and seizure must perforce operate in favor of accused-
Property Seized was prepared for the confiscated appellant.  As such, the articles seized could not be used
marijuana leaves. Instead of presenting its evidence, the as evidence against accused-appellant for these are
defense filed a “Demurrer to Evidence” alleging the “fruits of a poisoned tree” and, therefore, must be
illegality of the search and seizure of the items thereby rejected, pursuant to Article III, Sec. 3(2) of the
violating accused-appellant’s constitutional right against Constitution.
unreasonable search and seizure as well as their 
inadmissibility in evidence. RTC convicted accused-
appellant of transporting eight (8) kilos and five hundred
(500) grams of marijuana from Baguio City to Olongapo
City in violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES

ISSUE/S: WON the warrantless search resulting to the People vs. De Gracia G. R. Nos. 102009-10 July 6,
arrest of accused-appellant violated the latter’s 1994 233 SCRA 716 (1994)
constitutional rights.
Facts: The records show that in the early morning of
HELD/RATIO:Yes. In the instant case, the NARCOM December 1, 1989, Maj. Efren Soria of the Intelligence
agents were admittedly not armed with a warrant of Division, National Capital Region Defense Command,
arrest.  To legitimize the warrantless search and seizure was on board a brown Toyota car conducting a
of accused-appellant’s bag, accused-appellant must have surveillance of the Eurocar Sales Office located at EDSA,
been validly arrested under Section 5 of Rule 113 which together with his team and was conducted pursuant to an
provides that: intelligence report received by the division that said
establishment was being occupied by elements of the
RAM-SFP as a communication command post.  After a
Sec. 5: Arrest without warrant; when lawful.- A peace
while, a group of five men disengaged themselves from
officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
the crowd and walked towards the car of the surveillance
person: (a) When in his presence, the person to be
team drew their guns and fired at the team, which attack
arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
resulted in the wounding of Sgt. Sagario on the right
attempting to commit an offense;
thigh. Nobody in the surveillance team was able to
retaliate because they sought cover inside the car and
Accused-appellant Aruta cannot be said to be committing they were afraid that civilians or bystanders might be
a crime.  Neither was she about to commit one nor had caught in the cross-fire. As a consequence, at around
she just committed a crime.  Accused-appellant was 6:30 A.M. of December 5, 1989, a searching team raided
merely crossing the street and was not acting in any the Eurocar Sales Office. They were able to find and
manner that would engender a reasonable ground for the confiscate contrabands inside one of the rooms belonging
NARCOM agents to suspect and conclude that she was to a certain Col. Matillano which is located at the right
committing a crime.  It was only when the informant portion of the building.  On February 22, 1991, the trial
pointed to accused-appellant and identified her to the court rendered judgment found him guilty beyond
agents as the carrier of the marijuana that she was reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal possession of
singled out as the suspect. The NARCOM agents would firearms in furtherance of rebellion and sentenced him to
not have apprehended accused-appellant were it not for serve the penalty of reclusion perpetua. That judgment of
the furtive finger of the informant because, as clearly conviction is now challenged before us in this appeal.
illustrated by the evidence on record,  there was no
reason whatsoever for them to suspect that accused-
Issue: Whether in a state of emergency circumstances
appellant was committing a crime, except for the pointing
exist, the arrest of the accused involved in rebellious act
finger of the informant. This the Court could neither
is valid without securing a arrest and search warrant.
sanction nor tolerate as it is a clear violation of the
constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search
and seizure.  Neither was there any semblance of any Held: Yes, Under the foregoing circumstances, it is our
compliance with the rigid requirements of probable cause considered opinion that the instant case falls under one of
and warrantless arrests. the exceptions to the prohibition against a warrantless
47

search. In the first place, the military operatives, taking Routine checkpoint stops do not intrude similarly on the
into account the facts obtaining in this case, had motoring public. First, the potential interference with
reasonable ground to believe that a crime was being legitimate traffic is minimal. Motorists using these
committed. There was consequently more than sufficient highways are not taken by surprise as they know, or may
probable cause to warrant their action. Furthermore, obtain knowledge of, the location of the checkpoints and
under the situation then prevailing, the raiding team had will not be stopped elsewhere. Second, checkpoint
no opportunity to apply for and secure a search warrant operations both appear to and actually involve less
from the courts. The trial judge himself manifested that on discretionary enforcement activity. The regularized
December 5, 1989 when the raid was conducted, his manner in which established checkpoints are operated is
court was closed. Under such urgency and exigency of visible evidence, reassuring to law-abiding motorists, that
the moment, a search warrant could lawfully be the stops are duly authorized and believed to serve the
dispensed with. While it is true that the officers were not public interest. The location of a fixed checkpoint is not
armed with a search warrant when the search was made chosen by officers in the field, but by officials responsible
over the personal effects of accused, however, under the for making overall decisions as to the most effective
circumstances of the case, there was sufficient probable allocation of limited enforcement resources. We may
cause for said officers to believe that accused was then assume that such officials will be unlikely to locate a
and there committing a crime. Probable cause has been checkpoint where it bears arbitrarily or oppressively on
defined as such facts and circumstances which would motorists as a class, and since field officers may stop
lead a reasonable, discreet and prudent man to believe only those cars passing the checkpoint, there is less room
that an offense has been committed, and that the objects for abusive or harassing stops of individuals than there
sought in connection with the offense are in the place was in the case of roving-patrol stops. Moreover, a claim
sought to be searched. The required probable cause that that a particular exercise of discretion in locating or
will justify a warrantless search and seizure is not operating a checkpoint is unreasonable is subject to post-
determined by any fixed formula but is resolved according stop judicial review.
to the facts of each case.
ANIAG V. COMELEC, G.R. No. 104961 October 7, 1994
CHECKPOINTS
FACTS:
Valmonte vs. Gen. De Villa G.R. No. 83988, May
24, 1990 The COMELEC issued two resolutions in preparation for
the synchronized 1992 national and local elections.
Facts: In the Court’s decision dated 29 September 1989,
petitioners’ petition for prohibition seeking the declaration The first resolution is Resolution No. 2323 otherwise
of the checkpoints as unconstitutional and their referred to as the "Gun Ban.
dismantling and/or banning, was dismissed. Petitioners
have filed the instant motion and supplemental motion for The second resolution Resolution No. 2327 providing for
reconsideration of said decision. Before submission of the the summary disqualification of candidates engaged in
incident for resolution, the Solicitor General, for the gunrunning, using and transporting of firearms, organizing
respondents, filed his comment, to which petitioners filed special strike forces, and establishing spot checkpoints.
a reply. The checkpoints are nonetheless attacked by the
movants as a warrantless search and seizure and, Pursuant to the "Gun Ban," Mr. Serapio P. Taccad,
therefore, violative of the Constitution. Sergeant-at-Arms, House of Representatives, wrote
petitioner who was then a Congressman of the 1st District
Issue: Whether installment and operation of checkpoints of Bulacan requesting the return of the two (2) firearms3
is unconstitutional and constitutes warrantless search. issued to him by the House of Representatives.

Held: No, it is the basic right of the State to defend itself Upon being advised of the request on 13 January 1992
from its enemies and, while in power, to pursue its by his staff, petitioner immediately instructed his driver,
program of government intended for public welfare; and in Ernesto Arellano, to pick up the firearms from petitioner's
the pursuit of those objectives, the government has the house at Valle Verde and return them to Congress.
equal right, under its police power, to select the
reasonable means and methods for best achieving them. About thirty minutes later, the policemen manning the
The checkpoint is evidently one of such means it has outpost flagged down the car driven by Arellano as it
selected. it the basic right to defend itself from its approached the checkpoint. They searched the car and
enemies and, while in power, to pursue its program of found the firearms neatly packed in their gun cases and
government intended for public welfare; and in the pursuit placed in a bag in the trunk of the car. Arellano was then
of those objectives, the government has the equal right, apprehended and detained. He explained that he was
under its police power, to select the reasonable means ordered by petitioner to get the firearms from the house
and methods for best achieving them. The checkpoint is
evidently one of such means it has selected.
48

and return them to Sergeant-at-Arms Taccad of the behavior of Arellano that could have triggered the
House of Representatives. suspicion of the policemen. Absent such justifying
circumstances specifically pointing to the culpability of
l The police referred Arellano's case to the Office of the petitioner and Arellano, the search could not be valid.
City Prosecutor for an inquest.
It may be argued that the seeming acquiescence of
l The City Prosecutor ordered the release of Arellano after Arellano to the search constitutes an implied waiver of
finding the latter's sworn explanation meritorious. petitioner's right to question the reasonableness of the
search of the vehicle and the seizure of the firearms.
l The City Prosecutor invited petitioner to shed light on the
circumstances mentioned in Arellano's sworn explanation. While Resolution No. 2327 authorized the setting up of
Petitioner not only appeared at the preliminary checkpoints, it however stressed that "guidelines shall be
investigation to confirm Arellano's statement but also made to ensure that no infringement of civil and political
wrote the City Prosecutor urging him to exonerate rights results from the implementation of this authority,"
Arellano. He explained that Arellano did not violate the and that "the places and manner of setting up of
firearms ban as he, in fact, was complying with it when checkpoints shall be determined in consultation with the
apprehended by returning the firearms to Congress; and, Committee on Firearms Ban and Security Personnel
that he was petitioner's driver, not a security officer nor a created under Sec. 5, Resolution No. 2323."  
bodyguard.
The facts show that PNP installed the checkpoint at about
l The Office of the City Prosecutor issued a resolution five o'clock in the afternoon of 13 January 1992. The
which, among other matters, recommended that the case search was made soon thereafter, or thirty minutes later.
against Arellano be dismissed and that the "unofficial" It was not shown that news of impending checkpoints
charge against petitioner be also dismissed. without necessarily giving their locations, and the reason
for the same have been announced in the media to
forewarn the citizens. Nor did the informal checkpoint that
l However, COMELEC issued Resolution No. 92-0829
afternoon carry signs informing the public of the purpose
directing the filing of an information against petitioner and
of its operation. As a result, motorists passing that place
Arellano for violation of Sec. 261, par. (q), of B.P. Blg.
did not have any inkling whatsoever about the reason
881 otherwise known as the Omnibus Election Code, in
behind the instant exercise. With the authorities in control
relation to Sec. 32 of R.A. No. 7166;7 and petitioner to
to stop and search passing vehicles, the motorists did not
show cause why he should not be disqualified from
have any choice but to submit to the PNP's scrutiny.
running for an elective position
Otherwise, any attempt to turnabout albeit innocent would
raise suspicion and provide probable cause for the police
l Petitioner’s MR was denied by COMELEC. to arrest the motorist and to conduct an extensive search
of his vehicle.
l Hence, petitioner questions the constitutionality of
Resolution No. 2327 but the SC upheld its validity. In the case of the petitioner, only his driver was in the car
at that time it was stopped for inspection. As conceded by
l The other issue of this case is…. COMELEC, driver Arellano did not know the purpose of
the checkpoint. In the face of fourteen (14) armed
ISSUE: WON the warrantless search is valid policemen conducting the operation, driver Arellano being
alone and a mere employee of the petitioner could not
HELD: NO. It was an invalid warrantless search have marshaled the strength and the courage to protest
conducted by the PNP. against the extensive search conducted in the vehicle. In
such scenario, the "implied acquiescence," if there was
any, could not be more than a mere passive conformity
In the case at bench, we find that the checkpoint was set
on Arellano's part to the search, and "consent" given
up twenty (20) meters from the entrance to the Batasan
under intimidating or coercive circumstances is no
Complex to enforce Resolution No. 2327.
consent within the purview of the constitutional guaranty.

Hence, the action then of the policemen unreasonably

intruded into petitioner's privacy and the security of his
There was no evidence to show that the policemen were property, in violation of Sec. 2, Art. III, of the Constitution.
impelled to do so because of a confidential report leading Consequently, the firearms obtained in violation of
them to reasonably believe that certain motorists petitioner's right against warrantless search cannot be
matching the description furnished by their informant admitted for any purpose in any proceeding.
were engaged in gunrunning, transporting firearms or in
organizing special strike forces. Nor, as adverted to
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VICTOR DIAZ
earlier, was there any indication from the package or
VINECARIO, et al. 420 SCRA 280 (2004)
49

On the night of April 10, 1995, as about fifteen police BUY-BUST VS ENTRAPMENT

officers were manning a checkpoint at Ulas, Davao City
pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 2735, otherwise
PEOPLE VS DELA CRUZ GR NO. 82360 APRIL 18,
known as the COMELEC gun ban, a motorcycle with
1990
three men on board namely appellant Victor Vinecario
(Vinecario), Arnold Roble (Roble) Gerlyn Wates (Wates)
sped past of the police officers. When they were ordered Facts:
to return to the checkpoint, a police officer asked what the
backpack contains which the appellants answered that it After receiving a confidential report from their informant, a
was only a mat. The police officers suspected that it was buy-bust operation was conducted by a team from the
a bomb and when appellant opened the bag it turns out 13th Narcotics Regional Unit to catch the pusher/s. At the
that its contents were marijuana. The three were then scene, it was the accused –appellant who first negotiated
brought to the police station and later to Camp Catitipan with the poseur-buyer. Appellant instructed his co-
and there they were investigated by police officials accused to give one aluminum foil of marijuana which the
without the assistance of counsel, following which they latter got from his pants’ pocket and delivered it to the
were made to sign some documents which they were not buyer. After ascertaining that the authenticity of the
allowed to read. The Regional Trial Court rendered them marijuana, the agent gave signal. The two accused were
guilty for transporting, possessing and delivering arrested.
prohibited drugs under Article IV of Republic Act No. 6425
(Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended by Republic Issue(s): Whether or not the arrest was valid.
Act No. 7659), and imposing upon them the penalty of
reclusion perpetua. Held:

ISSUE: YES. While it is conceded that in a buy-bust operation,

there is seizure of evidence from one’s person without a
Whether or not the search upon the appellants and the search warrant, needless to state a search warrant is not
seizure of the alleged 1,700 grams of marijuana violated necessary, the search being incident to a lawful arrest. A
there constitutional right against unreasonable search peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person
and seizure. when, in his presence, the person to be arrested was
committed, is actually committing or is attempting to
HELD: commit an offense. It is a matter of judicial experience
that in the arrest of violators of the Dangerous Drugs Act
Although the general rule is that motorists and their in a buy-bust operation, the malefactors were invariably
vehicles as well as pedestrians passing caught red-handed.
through checkpoints may only be subjected to a
routine inspection, vehicles may be stopped and INSPECTION OF BUILDINGS
extensively searched when there is probable cause which
justifies a reasonable belief of the men at Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S. Ct.
the checkpoints that either the motorist is a law offender 1727 (1967)
or the contents of the vehicle are or have been
instruments of some offense. Warrantless search of the
personal effects of an accused has been declared by the FACTS: On November 6, 1963, a Housing inspector
Court as valid, because of existence of probable cause, (Health Department) entered an apartment building for a
where the smell of marijuana emanated from a plastic routine annual inspection. The building manager told him
bag owned by the accused, or where the accused was that Camara, who leased the ground floor, was living in
acting suspiciously, and attempted to flee. In light then of part of the space, which was not authorized for residential
Vinecario et al.‘s speeding away after noticing usage. The inspector confronted Camara and was
the checkpoint and even after having been flagged down refused entry to the space. Two days later, the inspector
by police officers, their suspicious and nervous gestures returned, and was again denied entry. A citation was
when interrogated on the contents of the backpack which mailed to Camara, and he failed to appear at the district
they passed to one another, and the reply of Vinecario, attorney’s office, as ordered. Two weeks later, two more
when asked why he and his co-appellants sped away inspectors again visited Camara and informed him that he
from the checkpoint, that he was a member of the was in violation of the law.
Philippine Army, apparently in an attempt to dissuade the
policemen from proceeding with their inspection, there Camara was charged with violating a California law
existed probable cause to justify a reasonable belief on requiring him to permit warrantless inspections of his
the part of the law enforcers that appellants were residence by housing inspectors. He was arrested and
offenders of the law or that the contents of the backpack filed a writ of prohibition on the charge. The lower courts,
were instruments of some offense. basing their opinion on earlier Supreme Court rulings,
upheld the charge against Camara.
50

ISSUE: May the law require warrantless inspections of Party or New People's Army member is a valid ground for
property? his arrest without warrant.

HOLDING: No ISSUE: WON the warrantless arrest is valid

DISCUSSION: While the Court held that allowing such HELD: YES. The arrest without warrant is justified
warrantless inspections to be a violation of the Fourth because it is within the contemplation of Section 5 Rule
Amendment, the Court agreed that the needs of the 113, Dural was committing an offense, when arrested
community for safety might outweigh the blanket because he was arrested for being a member of the New
prohibition on such searches. The Court agreed that People's Army, an outlawed organization, where
“area inspections” might be appropriate, and defined that membership penalized and for subversion which, like
search as designating an area in need of inspection rebellion is, under the doctrine of Garcia vs. Enrile, a
services and requesting a blanket warrant for that area. continuing offense.
The appropriate standard may be based upon the
passage of time, the nature of the building or the Given the ideological content of membership in the
condition of the entire area. The Court stated that: CPP/NPA which includes armed struggle for the
overthrow of organized government, Dural did not cease
“The warrant procedure is designed to guarantee that a to be or became less of a subversive, FOR PURPOSES
decision to search private property is justified by a OF ARREST, simply because he was, at the time of
reasonable governmental interest. But reasonableness is arrest, confined in the St. Agnes Hospital.
still the ultimate standard. If a valid public interest justifies
the intrusion contemplated, then there is probable cause Dural was identified as one of several persons who the
to issue a suitably restricted search warrant. Such an day before his arrest, without a warrant, at the St. Agnes
approach neither endangers time-honored doctrines Hospital, had shot two (2) CAPCOM policemen in their
applicable to criminal investigations nor makes a nullity of patrol car. That Dural had shot the two (2) policemen in
the probable cause requirement in this area. It merely Caloocan City as part of his mission as a "sparrow" (NPA
gives full recognition to the competing public and private member) did not end there and then.
interests here at stake and, in so doing, best fulfills the
historic purposes behind the consituational right to be free Dural, given another opportunity, would have shot or
from unreasonable government invasions of privacy.” would shoot other policemen anywhere as agents or
representatives of the organized government. It is in this
sense that subversion like rebellion (or insurrection) is
perceived here as a continuing offense. Unlike other so-
called "common" offenses, i.e. adultery, murder, arson,
WARRANTLESS ARREST etc., which generally end upon their commission,
subversion and rebellion are anchored on an ideological
UMIL V. RAMOS      G.R. No. 81567 October 3, 1991 base which compels the repetition of the same acts of
lawlessness and violence until the overriding objective of
FACTS:  Military agents received confidential information overthrowing an organized government is attained.
that a certain man, Ronnie Javellon, believed to be one of
the five NPA sparrows who recently murdered two Nor can it be said that Dural's arrest was grounded on
Capcom mobile patrols was being treated in St. Agnes mere suspicion by the arresting officers of his
Hospital, for having gunshot wounds. membership in the CPP/NPA. His arrest was based on
"probable cause," as supported by actual facts mentioned
Later on, it was found out that Ronnie Javellon is a in this case.
fictitious name and that his real name is Rolando Dural
(verified as one of the sparrows of the NPA). With all these facts and circumstances existing before,
during and after the arrest of the afore-named persons
Rolando Dural was transferred to the Regional Medical (Dural, Buenaobra, Roque, Anonuevo, Casiple, and
Services of the CAPCOM, for security reasons. Ocaya), no prudent man can say that it would have been
better for the military agents not to have acted at all and
l Meanwhile, he was positively identified by the made any arrest. That would have been an unpardonable
eyewitnesses as the one who murdered the 2 CAPCOM neglect of official duty and a cause for disciplinary action
mobile patrols. against the peace officers involved.

l In this 8 consolidated cases, it assails the validity of the For, one of the duties of law enforcers is to arrest
arrests and searches made by the military on the lawbreakers in order to place them in the hands of
petitioners; that a mere suspicion that one is Communist executive and judicial authorities upon whom devolves
the duty to investigate the acts constituting the alleged
51

violation of the law and to prosecute and secure the surveillance and test-buy operation at the house of
punishment therefor. 21 An arrest is therefore in the petitioner, secured a search warrant from the RTC and
nature of an administrative measure. The power to arrest around 3 o'clock in the afternoon of September 13, 1997,
without warrant is without limitation as long as the the same police operatives went to Gil Tudtud St.,
requirements of Section 5, Rule 113 are met. This rule is Mabolo, Cebu City to serve the search warrant to
founded on an overwhelming public interest in peace and petitioner.
order in our communities.
Upon arrival, somebody shouted "raid," which prompted
In ascertaining whether the arrest without warrant is them to immediately disembark from the jeep they were
conducted in accordance with the conditions set forth in riding and went directly to petitioner's house and
Section 5, Rule 113, this Court determines not whether cordoned it. The structure of the petitioner's residence is
the persons arrested are indeed guilty of committing the a two-storey house and the petitioner was staying in the
crime for which they were arrested. Not evidence of guilt, second floor. When they went upstairs, they met
but "probable cause" is the reason that can validly compel petitioner's wife and informed her that they will implement
the peace officers, in the performance of their duties and the search warrant. But before they can search the area,
in the interest of public order, to conduct an arrest without SPO3 Masnayon claimed that he saw petitioner run
warrant. towards a small structure, a nipa hut, in front of his house.
Masnayon chased him but to no avail, because he and
The courts should not expect of law-enforcers more than his men were not familiar with the entrances and exits of
what the law requires of them. Under the conditions set the place.
forth in Section 5, Rule 113, particularly paragraph (b)
thereof, even if the arrested persons are later found to be In the presence of the barangay tanod, Nelson
innocent and acquitted, the arresting officers are not Gonzalado, and the elder sister of petitioner named Dolly
liable. But if they do not strictly comply with the said del Castillo, searched the house of petitioner including the
conditions, the arresting officers can be held liable for the nipa hut where the petitioner allegedly ran for cover. His
crime of arbitrary detention, for damages under Article 32 men who searched the residence of the petitioner found
of the Civil Code 26 and/or for other administrative nothing, but one of the barangay tanods was able to
sanctions. confiscate from the nipa hut several articles, including
four (4) plastic packs containing white crystalline
In ascertaining whether the arrest without warrant is substance. Consequently, the articles that were
conducted in accordance with the conditions set forth in confiscated were sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory for
Section 5, Rule 113, this Court determines not whether examination. The contents of the four (4) heat sealed
the persons arrested are indeed guilty of committing the transparent plastic packs were subjected to laboratory
crime for which they were arrested. Not evidence of guilt, examination, the result of which proved positive for the
but "probable cause" is the reason that can validly compel presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu.
the peace officers, in the performance of their duties and
in the interest of public order, to conduct an arrest without After trial, the RTC found petitioner guilty beyond
warrant. reasonable of the charge against him in the Information.
After the motion for reconsideration of petitioner was
The courts should not expect of law-enforcers more than denied by the CA, petitioner filed with this Court the
what the law requires of them. Under the conditions set present petition for certiorari under Rule 45.
forth in Section 5, Rule 113, particularly paragraph (b)
thereof, even if the arrested persons are later found to be Petitioner asserts that the nipa hut located about 20
innocent and acquitted, the arresting officers are not meters away from his house is no longer within the
liable. But if they do not strictly comply with the said "permissible area" that may be searched by the police
conditions, the arresting officers can be held liable for the officers.
crime of arbitrary detention, for damages under Article 32
of the Civil Code 26 and/or for other administrative ISSUE: Did the CA err in affirming the RTC Decision?
sanctions.
HELD: It must be remembered that the warrant issued
COMMITTED IN THE PRESENT OF POLICE OFFICERS must particularly describe the place to be searched and
persons or things to be seized in order for it to be valid. A
RUBEN DEL CASTILLO , Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF designation or description that points out the place to be
THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. (G.R. No. 185128; searched to the exclusion of all others, and on inquiry
January 30, 2012). unerringly leads the peace officers to it, satisfies the
constitutional requirement of definiteness.
FACTS: Pursuant to a confidential information that
petitioner was engaged in selling shabu, police officers In the present case, Search Warrant No. 570-9-1197-24
headed by SPO3 Bienvenido Masnayon, after conducting specifically designates or describes the residence of the
52

petitioner as the place to be searched. Incidentally, the instructed Pat. Fulgencio to continue monitoring
items were seized by a barangay tanod in a nipa hut, 20 developments. At about 6:30 P.M., Pat. Fulgencio again
meters away from the residence of the petitioner. The called up Seraspi to report that a third buyer later
confiscated items, having been found in a place other Identified as Ronnie Macabante, was transacting with
than the one described in the search warrant, can be appellant. At that point, the team of P/Lt. Seraspi
considered as fruits of an invalid warrantless search, the proceeded to the area and while the police officers were
presentation of which as an evidence is a violation of at the Youth Hostel at Maagma St., Pat. Fulgencio told
petitioner's constitutional guaranty against unreasonable P/Lt. Seraspi to intercept Macabante and appellant. P/Lt.
searches and seizure. Seraspi and his team caught up with Macabante at the
crossing of Mabini and Maagma Sts. in front of the Aklan
The OSG argues that, assuming that the items seized Medical Center. Upon seeing the police, Macabante
were found in another place not designated in the search threw something to the ground which turned out to be a
warrant, the same items should still be admissible as tea bag of marijuana. When confronted, Macabante
evidence because the one who discovered them was a readily admitted that he bought the same from appellant
barangay tanod who is a private individual, the (Edison Sucro) in front of the chapel. The police team
constitutional guaranty against unreasonable searches was able to overtake and arrest appellant at the corner of
and seizure being applicable only against government C. Quimpo and Veterans Sts. The police recovered 19
authorities. The contention is devoid of merit. sticks and 4 teabags of marijuana from the cart inside the
chapel and another teabag from Macabante, The teabags
of marijuana were sent to the PC-INP Crime Laboratory
It was testified to during trial by the police officers who
Service, at Camp Delgado, Iloilo City for analysis. The
effected the search warrant that they asked
specimens were all found positive of marijuana.
the assistance of the barangay tanods. Having been
established that the assistance of the barangay tanods
was sought by the police authorities who effected the Issue: Whether the police officer can arrest the accused
searched warrant, the same barangay tanods therefore without any arrest and search warrant when the latter
acted as agents of persons in authority. The police committed the crime in front of the former.
officers, as well as the barangay tanods were acting as
agents of a person in authority during the conduct of the Held:  Yes, Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal
search. Thus, the search conducted was unreasonable Procedure provides for the instances where arrest without
and the confiscated items are inadmissible in evidence. warrant is considered lawful. The rule states that arrest
without warrant, when lawful. Is when a peace officer or
Assuming ex gratia argumenti that the barangay tanod private person may, without warrant, arrest a person
who found the confiscated items is considered a private (a)When in his presence, the person to be arrested has
individual, thus, making the same items admissible in committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
evidence, petitioner's third argument that the prosecution commit an offense; (b) When an offense has in fact just
failed to establish constructive possession of the been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts
regulated drugs seized, would still be indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it;
meritorious. ACCUSED WAS ACQUITTED. When an offense is committed in the presence or within
the view of an officer, within the meaning of the rule
authorizing an arrest without a warrant, when the officer
People v. Sucro G.R. No. 93239 March 18, 1991 195
sees the offense, although at a distance, or hears the
SCRA 388 (1991)
disturbances created thereby and proceeds at once to the
scene thereof.
Facts: On March 21, 1989, Pat. Roy Fulgencio, a member
of the INP, Kalibo, Aklan, was instructed by P/Lt. Vicente
The records show that Fulgencio went to Arlie Regalado’s
Seraspi, Jr. (Station Commander of the INP Kalibo,
house at C. Quimpo Street to monitor the activities of the
Aklan) to monitor the activities of appellant Edison Sucro,
accused who was earlier reported to be selling marijuana
because of information gathered by Seraspi that Sucro
at a chapel two (2) meters away from Regalado’s house.
was selling marijuana. As planned, at about 5:00 P.M. on
Fulgencio, within a distance of two meters saw Sucro
said date, Pat. Fulgencio Positioned himself under the
conduct his nefarious activity. He saw Sucro talk to some
house of a certain Arlie Regalado at C. Quimpo Street.
persons, go inside the chapel, and return to them and
Adjacent to the house of Regalado, about 2 meters away,
exchange some things. These, Sucro did three times
was a chapel. Thereafter, Pat. Fulgencio saw appellant
during the time that he was being monitored. Fulgencio
enter the chapel, taking something which turned out later
would then relay the on-going transaction to P/Lt.
to be marijuana from the compartment of a cart found
Seraspi.
inside the chapel, and then return to the street where he
handed the same to a buyer, Aldie Borromeo. After a
while appellant went back to the chapel and again came Personal Knowledge of the Offence
out with marijuana which he gave to a group of persons. It
was at this instance that Pat. Fulgencio radioed P/Lt. People vs. Baula, GR No. 132671, November 15, 2012
Seraspi and reported the activity going on. P/Lt. Seraspi
53

Facts: After the gruesome killing of Patronicia Caburao, presumption, by itself, cannot prevail against the
the investigating police went to the residence of the constitutionally protected rights of an individual, and zeal
accused-appellant, Baula et al. in the pursuit of criminals cannot ennoble the use of
arbitrary methods that the Constitution itself abhors.
In the process of questioning the appellants, the police
saw bloodstained bolo, short pants, polo shirts and was Thus, the bloodstained polo, bolo and shorts are
subsequently confiscated without search warrant and inadmissible as evidence.
directed to the NBI for forensic exams. The exam resulted
that the bloods found in the confiscated articles bears the
Time of Arrest
same blood type “O” as that of the victim.
People vs. Calimlim, GR No. 123980, August 30, 2001
Thus, the accused were arrested, charged and was
convicted in the crime of murder by the RTC Lingayen
and sentenced to suffer RP. Hence this appeal for review
on the decision of the lower court in the ground that the
articles sought (bloodstained bolo, shirt and short pants)
cannot be admitted as evidence against the accused
since it was seized without a valid search and seizure Facts: Lanie S. Limin was 14 years old and had been
warrant. living with the family of Kagawad Manny Ferrer and
Cresencia Ferrer for the past 3 years.
Issue: Whether or not the warrantless search conducted
was valid under a consented search On the night of 2 April 1995, she was left alone in one of
the two houses of the Ferrers since her usual
Held: NO companions, the sons of Manny and Cresencia, were out
for the night (disco).
The articles are unlawfully searched and seized.
The Ferrers were in the other house about 15 meters
A search incidental to a valid arrest is one of the away. At around 11:30 P.M., she was awakened when
statutory exceptions to the constitutional mandate that no she heard somebody, later identified as Manuel Calimlim
search and seizure shall be effected without a valid y Muyano, enter her room. Calimlim immediately poked a
warrant. In this instance, the arrest should be lawful knife at the left side of her neck and said "Accompany me
before search and seizure by the arresting officer would because I killed my wife." She was then dragged to the
be conducted. A warrantless arrest may be effected by pig pen, about 8-9 meters away from the place where she
the arresting officer when in his presence the person slept. Afterwards, she was again forcibly taken back to
arrested is have committed, committing or attempting to her room, then to her cousin's room and to the kitchen. In
commit the crime. It cannot be reversed; otherwise, it each of these places, Calimlim forcibly had sexual
would unlawful and unconstitutional and the seized article intercourse with her while he poked a knife against her
would be inadmissible evidence. neck. According to Limin, she first recognized Calimlim
while they were in the kitchen when she was able to
remove the cloth covering his face. She stated that she
In the case at bar, Accused-appellants were not being
knew Calimlim because she had seen him always
arrested at the time that the subject articles were
following her whenever she went to school. Limin claimed
allegedly taken from them but were just being questioned
that she did not struggle nor shout nor resist because she
by the police officers conducting the investigation about
was afraid that appellant might kill her. After the fourth
the death of Patrocinia Caburao. The investigating
intercourse, Calimlim threatened that he would kill her if
officers had no personal knowledge of facts indicating
she reported the incidents. Despite the threat, she told
that the accused had committed the crime. Being in no
her cousin, Manicris Ferrer, who then reported the matter
position to effect a warrantless arrest, the police officers
to Dr. Nancy Quinto who lived nearby.
were thus likewise barred from effecting a warrantless
search and seizure.
The rapes were reported to the station of SPO1 Mario
Suratos by Kagawad Ferrer. Dr. Ricardo Ferrer
An illegal search cannot be undertaken and then an
conducted the physical examination on Lanie, and found
arrest effected on the strength of the evidence yielded by
that there was minimal vaginal bleeding and there were
that search.
lacerations in the hymen, the positions of which were at
9:00 o'clock, 6:00 o'clock and 3:00 o'clock, all fresh,
The Court finds it less than credible the stance of the indicating that there were insertions within the past 24
prosecution that the polo shirt and short pants have been hours. There was also a whitish vaginal discharge which
voluntarily given. An alleged consent to a warrantless was found positive for spermatozoa. Manuel Calimlim
search and seizure cannot be based merely on the denied the accusations. Calimlim was charged in 4
presumption of regularity in the performance of duty. This
54

informations for rape in Criminal Cases U-8525, 8638 to of Dangerous Drug. The RTC acquitted accused-
8640. appellant of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition
but convicted him of possession of dangerous drugs.
On 17 November 1995, the Regional Trial Court, First On December 7, 2005, accused-appellant filed a Notice
Judicial Region, Branch 46, Urdaneta, Pangasinan found of Appeal of the RTC Decision claiming that: (1) the
Calimlim guilty of 4 counts of rape and sentenced him to version of the prosecution should not have been given full
suffer the penalty of death, to pay the offended party the credence; (2) the prosecution failed to prove beyond
amount of P50,000.00 as damages, and to pay the costs, reasonable doubt that he was guilty of possession of an
in each of the cases. Hence, the automatic review. illegal drug; (3) his arrest was patently illegal; and (4) the
prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the
illegal drug allegedly in his possession.
Issue: WON Calimlim may raise the illegality of the
warrantless arrest conducted against him, especially as
the arrest was made a day after the crime was The CA sustained accused-appellant’s conviction. It
committed. pointed out that accused-appellant was positively
identified by prosecution witnesses, rendering his
uncorroborated denial and allegation of frame-up weak.
As to accused-appellant’s alleged illegal arrest, the CA
held that he is deemed to have waived his objection when
he entered his plea, applied for bail, and actively
participated in the trial without questioning such arrest.  
Held: No.

Calimlim avers that his arrest violated Section 5 of Rule

113, 40 since his arrest was made one day after the Accused-appellant claims that the presence of all the
crime was committed, but without any judicial warrant, elements of the offense of possession of dangerous drug
although the police had ample time to get one. This he was not proved beyond reasonable doubt since both
claims is also in violation of Article III, Sec. 2 of the actual and constructive possessions were not proved. He
Constitution. But here it will be noted that Calimlim asserts that the shabu was not found in his actual
entered a plea of not guilty to each of the informations possession, for which reason the prosecution was
charging him of rape. Thus, he had effectively waived his required to establish that he had constructive possession
right to question any irregularity which might have over the shabu. He maintains that as he had no control
accompanied his arrest and the unlawful restraint of his and dominion over the drug or over the place where it
liberty. This is clear from a reading of Section 9 of Rule was found, the prosecution likewise failed to prove
117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which constructive possession.
provides that "the failure of the accused to assert any
ground of a motion to quash before he pleads to the
complaint or information, either because he did not file a
motion to quash or failed to allege the same in said
motion, shall be deemed a waiver of any objections Issue: Whether or not the court a quo gravely erred in
except those based on the grounds provided for in finding the accused-appellant guilty of violation of section
paragraphs (a), (b), (g) and (i) of section 3 of this Rule." 11, Article II, RA 9165 despite the failure of the
Given the circumstances of his case, the exceptions do prosecution to prove the commission of the offense
not apply here and the Court is constrained to rule that charged beyond reasonable doubt?
Calimlim is estopped from raising the issue of the legality
of his arrest. Moreover, the illegal arrest of an accused is Ruling: The SC acquitted accused-appellant of violation
not sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment of sec. 11(2) of RA 9165. The prosecution in this case
rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free from clearly failed to show all the elements of the crime absent
error. The defense's claim of warrantless arrest which is a showing of either actual or constructive possession by
illegal cannot render void all other proceedings including the accused-appellant.
those leading to the conviction of Calimlim, nor can the
state be deprived of its right to convict the guilty when all The elements in illegal possession of dangerous drug are:
the facts on record point to his culpability. (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object
which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such
People vs Dela Cruz 571 SCRA 469 possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused
freely and consciously possessed the said drug. On the
Facts: third element, the court have held that the possession
must be with knowledge of the accused or that animus
possidendi existed with the possession or control of said
On November 15, 2002, charges against accused-
articles.
appellant were made before the RTC for Illegal
Possession of Firearm and Ammunition and Possession
55

In the instant case, there is no question that accused- the police officers, who he said simply barged into his
appellant was not the owner of the nipa hut that was house without a warrant and arrested him. He stoutly
subject of the buy-bust operation. He did not have denied any knowledge of the marijuana. He claimed that
dominion or control over the nipa hut. Neither was at the time of the alleged incident, he was attending, as a
accused-appellant a tenant or occupant of the nipa hut, a dental technician, to a patient whom he was fitting for
fact not disputed by the prosecution. The target of the dentures. The supposed patient, Alicia Tiempo,
operation was Boy Bicol. Accused-appellant was merely a corroborated him. Enrile admitted that he had earlier been
guest of Boy Bicol.   convicted of selling marijuana and that he had a pending
application for probation. He suggested that this could be
Since accused-appellant was not in possession of the the reason the policemen sought to implicate him in the
illegal drugs in Boy Bicol’s nipa hut, his subsequent arrest new charge and thus weaken his application.
was also invalid. The warrantless arrest of accused-
appellant was effected under Sec. 5(a), Rule 113 of the Issue: Whether the possession the Marked Money is
Rules on Criminal Procedure, arrest of a suspect in enough evidence to prove the guilt of the accused
flagrante delicto.  For this type of warrantless arrest to be
valid, two requisites must concur: (1) the person to be Held: No, The discovery of the marked money on him did
arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has not mean he was caught in the act of selling marijuana.
just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to The marked money was not prohibited per se. Even if it
commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the were, that fact alone would not retroactively validate the
presence or within the view of the arresting officer. The warrantless search and seizure. What the policemen
prosecution was not able to adequately prove that should have done was secure a search warrant on the
accused-appellant was committing an offense. Although basis of the information supplied by Abugatal, and then,
accused-appellant merely denied possessing the firearm, with such authority, proceeded to search and, if the
the prosecution’s charge was weak absent the search was fruitful, arrest Enrile. They had no right to
presentation of the alleged firearm. His arrest, simply force themselves into his house on the bare (and
independent of the buy-bust operation targeting Boy subsequently disallowed) allegations of Abugatal and
Bicol, was therefore not lawful as he was not proved to be bundle Enrile off to the police station as if he had been
committing any offense. caught in flagrante delicto.The principle has been
honored through the ages in all liberty-loving regimes that
MARKED MONEY a man’s house is his castle that not even the mighty
monarch, with all its forces, may violate. There were
measures available under the law to enable the
People vs. Enrile G.R. No. 74189, May 26, 1993 222
authorities to search Enrile’s house and to arrest him if he
SCRA 586 (1993)
was found in possession of prohibited articles. The police
did not employ these measures. In the light of the proven
Facts: In the evening of October 25, 1985, a buy-bust circumstances of this case, the Court is not convinced
team composed of Pat. Jaime Flores and Pat. Wilson that there is enough evidence to establish Enrile’s guilt
Rances of the Quezon City Police Anti-Narcotics Unit was beyond the shadow of doubt. The paucity of such
dispatched to entrap Rogelio Abugatal at Roosevelt evidence only strengthens the suspicion that the marked
Avenue in San Francisco Del Monte, Quezon City. The money was really “planted” on Enrile by the police officers
plan was made on the strength of a tip given by Renato who were probably worried that their earlier efforts in
Polines, a police informer, who was himself to pose as securing Enrile’s conviction as a drug pusher would be
the buyer. In their separate testimonies, both policemen thwarted by his application for probation. Law-
said that on the occasion they saw Polines hand over to enforcement authorities are admonished that mere
Abugatal the marked money representing payment for the enthusiasm in the discharge of their duties is not enough
mock transaction. Abugatal left with the money and to build a case against a person charged with a crime.
returned ten minutes later with a wrapped object which he They should build it with painstaking care, stone by stone
gave Polines. The two policemen then approached of provable fact, and with constant regard for the rights of
Abugatal and placed him under arrest, at the same time the accused, before they can hope to secure a conviction
confiscating the wrapped object. The prosecution also that can be sustained in a court of justice.
showed that, upon providing Abugatal led the policemen
to a house where he called out for Antonio Enrile. Enrile
came out and met them at the gate. Abugatal pointed to  LACK OF URGENCY
Enrile as the source of the marijuana, whereupon the
policemen immediately arrested and frisked him. They People v. Pasudag G.R. No. 128822, May 4, 2001
found in the right front pocket of his trousers the marked
money earlier delivered to Abugatal. At the police Facts: Around 1:30 in the afternoon, SPO2 Pepito Calip
headquarters, Abugatal signed a sworn confession urinated at a bushy bamboo fence behind the public
affirming the above narration. Enrile refused to make any school. About five (5) meters away, he saw a garden of
statement pending consultation with a lawyer. Enrile about 70 square meters. There were marijuana plants in
testified that the marked money was “planted” on him by between corn plants and camote tops. He inquired from a
56

storekeeper nearby as to who owned the house with the enforcers, regardless of the praise worthiness of their
garden. The storeowner told him that Alberto Pasudag intentions.” With the illegal seizure of the marijuana plants
owned it. He went to the Police Station and reported to subject of this case, the seized plants are inadmissible in
Chief of Police. The latter dispatched team to conduct an evidence against accused-appellant.
investigation. At around 2:30 in that same afternoon, the
team arrived and went straight to the house of accused People vs. Aminnudin G.R.No. 74869 July 6, 1988 163
Pasudag. SPO3 Fajarito looked for accused Pasudag and SCRA 402 (1988)
asked him to bring the team to his backyard garden which
was about five 5 meters away. Upon seeing the Facts: Accused was arrested shortly after disembarking
marijuana plants, the policemen called for a from the M/V Wilcon 9 The PC officers who were in fact
photographer, who took pictures of accused Pasudag waiting for him simply accosted him, inspected his bag
standing besides one of the marijuana plants. They and finding what looked liked marijuana leaves took him
uprooted 7 marijuana plants. The team brought accused to their headquarters for investigation. The two bundles of
Pasudag and the marijuana plants to the police station. At suspect articles were confiscated from him and later
the police station, accused Pasudag admitted, in the taken to the NBI laboratory for examination. When they
presence of Chief of Police that he owned the marijuana were verified as marijuana leaves, an information for
plants.  On March 18, 1997, the trial court rendered a violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act was filed against
decision finding the accused guilty as charged and, taking him. However, and it is Aminnudin’s claim that he was
into consideration his educational attainment (he reached arrested and searched without warrant, making the
only grade IV), Hence, this appeal. In his brief, accused- marijuana allegedly found in his possession inadmissible
appellant contended that the trial court erred in finding in evidence against him under the Bill of Rights.
that the marijuana plant submitted for laboratory
examination was one of the seven (7) marijuana plants
confiscated from his garden; that the trial court erred in Issue: Whether the accused was caught in flagrante
concluding that the confiscation report was not an delicto hence justifies the warrantless arrest
extrajudicial admission which required the intervention of
his counsel; and in convicting him on the basis of Held: No, the accused-appellant was not caught in
inference that he planted, cultivated and cultured the flagrante nor was a crime about to be committed or had
seven (7) plants, owned the same or that he permitted just been committed to justify the warrantless arrest
others to cultivat e the same. The Solicitor allowed under the Rules of Court. The present case
General contended that accused-appellant admitted presented no such urgency. It is clear that they had at
before the lower court that tile specimen was one of the least two days within which they could have obtained a
plants confiscated in his backyard; that appellant was not warrant to arrest and search Aminnudin who was coming
under custodial investigation when he signed the to Iloilo on the M/V Wilcon 9. His name was known. The
confiscation report; and that the inferences deduced by vehicle was Identified. The date of its arrival was certain.
the lower court strengthened the conviction of accused- And from the information they had received, they could
appellant. have persuaded a judge that there was probable cause,
indeed, to justify the issuance of a warrant. Yet they did
Issue: Whether the arrest of the accused requires nothing. No effort was made to comply with the law. The
urgency or necessity for the warrantless search Bill of Rights was ignored altogether because the PC
lieutenant who was the head of the arresting team, had
determined on his own authority that a “search warrant
Held: No, the Court ruled that search and seizure was not necessary.” In the case at bar, the accused-
conducted without the requisite judicial warrant is illegal appellant was not, at the moment of his arrest, committing
and void ab initio. The prosecution’s evidence clearly a crime nor was it shown that he was about to do so or
established that the police conducted a search of that he had just done so. What he was doing was
accused’s backyard garden without a warrant; they had descending the gangplank of the M/V Wilcon 9 and there
sufficient time to obtain a search warrant; they failed to was no outward indication that called for his arrest. To all
secure one. There was no showing of urgency or appearances, he was like any of the other passengers
necessity for the warrantless search, or the immediate innocently disembarking from the vessel. It was only
seizure of the marijuana plants. The Court is not when the informer pointed to him as the carrier of the
unmindful of the difficulties of law enforcement agencies marijuana that he suddenly became suspect and so
in suppressing the illegal traffic of dangerous drugs. subject to apprehension. It was the furtive finger that
However, quick solutions of crimes and apprehension of triggered his arrest. The Identification by the informer was
malefactors do not justify a callous disregard of the Bill of the probable cause as determined by the officers (and not
Rights.”We need not underscore that the protection a judge) that authorized them to pounce upon Aminnudin
against illegal search and seizure is constitutionally and immediately arrest him. While this is not to say that
mandated and only under specific instances are searches the accused-appellant is innocent, for indeed his very
allowed without warrants.” “The mantle of protection own words suggest that he is lying, that fact alone does
extended by the Bill of Rights covers both innocent and not justify a finding that he is guilty. The constitutional
guilty alike against any form of high handedness of law presumption is that he is innocent, and he will be so
57

declared even if his defense is weak as long as the People v. Conde G.R. No. 113269, April 10, 2001
prosecution is not strong enough to convict him.
Fact: Apollo Romero, was home sitting by the window
EFFECT OF ENTRY OF PLEA and drinking coffee when he saw four men block the path
of two decease Indian nationals (bombay) on a
motorcycle. One of the men, later identified as Oscar
People v. Plana G.R. No. 128285, November 27, 2001
Conde, poked a gun at the two Indians while his three
companions approached and stabbed the Indians. After
Fact: At around 10:30 in the morning, Felix Lagud was the stabbing, the four men fled. Romero was about 25 to
walking on Feeder road. He just came from his farm and 35 meters away from the place where the crime was
was on his way home. A movement at about fifty meters committed. PO3 Rodencio Sevillano, testified that he was
to his left side caught his attention. He saw the accused assigned with the Intelligence and Investigation Division
who seemed to be wrestling. He came nearer so he (IID) of the PNP, he was told to investigate the abovecited
would be able to see them more clearly. From about a incident. The police arrested the three accused. Police
distance of twenty (20) meters, he saw the three men recovered the weapons used in the robbery, when
holding a girl while another man was on top of her. The Felicidad Macabare, Conde’s wife, went to the police
girl was being raped and she was later stabbed. station to talk to the accused. These weapons were
Frightened that the assailants would see him, Lagud ran discovered inside her bag after a routine inspection.
away. At about 11:00, certain members of the RSAF Sevillano admitted, however, that they did not have a
came to the house of accused-appellant Plana. Accused- warrant of arrest when they apprehended the accused.
appellant Perayra was still there because he slept over at Nor did they have a search warrant when they inspected
said house. The RSAF questioned them if they saw a girl Felicidad’s bag and when they searched the house of a
named Helen Perote. They answered no. Accused- certain Jimmy where they found the stolen items.
appellants Plana and Perayra then accompanied the law
enforcers to see a certain “Lando.” The authorities
Issue: Whether the conviction of the accused is valid
inquired from Lando if there was a woman who boarded
even if their arrest was conducted in violation for their
his “bering” transportation. Lando answered in the
right against warrantless arrest.
negative. Accused-appellants Plana and Perayra were
then instructed by the police to go to the police
detachment. Since it was already late, accused- Held: Yes, the arrest was a clear violation of their
appellants Plana and Perayra asked if they could just go constitutional right; unfortunately, appellants did not
there in the morning of the following day. The following assert their constitutional rights prior to their
day, in the morning, accused-appellant Perayra reported arraignment. This is fatal to their case. An accused is
to the police detachment after he learned that the estopped from assailing the legality of his arrest if he
authorities wanted to ask him questions. At the failed to move for the quashing of the Information against
detachment, he was surprised to learn that he was one of him before his arraignment. When the appellants entered
the suspects in the rape-slaying of Helen. Accused- their pleas on arraignment without invoking their rights to
appellants were all brought to the municipal hall in question any irregularity, which might have accompanied
Dumarao, Capiz where they were detained. their arrests, they voluntarily submitted themselves to the
jurisdiction of the court and the judicial process. Any
objection, defect, or irregularity attending their arrests
Issue: Whether trial court erred in not censuring the
should had been made before they entered their pleas. It
actuation of the police authorities in detaining appellants
is much too late for appellants to raise the question of
without benefit of Court filed neither information nor
their warrantless arrests. Their pleas to the information
judicial order of detention as well as the violation of their
upon arraignment constitute clear waivers of their rights
constitutional rights of the accused during their so-called
against unlawful restraint of liberty. Furthermore, the
custodial invitation and interrogation.
illegal arrest of an accused is not sufficient cause for
setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient
Held: No, it is a fact that the accused were detained complaint after trial free from error. The warrantless
without judicial order and prior to the filing of the arrest, even if illegal, cannot render void all other
information, suffice it to say, that they already waived proceedings including those leading to the conviction of
their right to question the irregularity, if any, in their arrest. the appellants and his co-accused, nor can the state be
Accused-appellants respectively entered a plea of “not deprived of its right to convict the guilty when all the facts
guilty” at their arraignment. By so pleading, they on record point to their culpability.
submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court, thereby
curing any defect in their arrest, for the legality of an
arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over their EXCLUSIONARY RULE
persons.
DEMAISIP VS CA, 193 SCRA 373
VALIDITY OF CONVICTION
Facts:
58

Petitioner was tried for and convicted of illegal possession We, therefore, hold that the search warrant is tainted with
of marijuana. The Court of Appeals admitted in evidence illegality by the failure of the Judge to conform with the
the marijuana seized from him and affirmed his essential requisites of taking the depositions in writing
conviction. and attaching them to the record, rendering the search
warrant invalid. (See Rule 126, Sec 4)
Issue(s):
The respondent judge also declared that he "saw no need
Whether or not petitioner may object to the admissibility to have applicant Quillosa's deposition taken considering
of the evidence against him during this appeal. that he was applying for a search warrant on the basis of
the information provided by the witnesses whose
depositions had already been taken by the undersigned.
Held:

In other words, the applicant was asking for the issuance

NO. Objections to the legality of the search warrant and
of the search warrant on the basis of mere hearsay and
to the admissibility of the evidence obtained thereby were
not of information personally known to him, as required by
deemed waived when no objection to the legality of the
settled jurisprudence.
search warrant was raised during the trial of the case nor
to the admissibility of the evidence obtained through said
warrant. PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION & CORRESPONDENCE

Denied appealed from is AFFIRMED. IS ANTI-CYBER LAW AN INTRUSION OF PRIVACY?

Disini vs Secretary of Justice, GR No. 203335 11

February 2014
Roan v. Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687 (1986)
Facts:
FACTS: The challenged search warrant was issued by
the respondent judge on May 10, 1984.  The petitioner's These consolidated petitions seek to declare several
house was searched two days later but none of the provisions of Republic Act (RA) 10175, the Cybercrime
articles listed in the warrant was discovered. However, Prevention Act of 2012, unconstitutional and void.
the officers conducting the search found in the premises
one Colt Magnum revolver and eighteen live bullets which
The cybercrime law aims to regulate access to and use of
they confiscated. They are now the bases of the charge
the cyberspace. The cyberspace is a boon to the need of
against the petitioner.
a current generation for greater information and facility of
communication. But all is not well with the system since it
Respondent Judge said that when PC Capt. Mauro P. could not filter out a number of persons of ill will who
Quinosa personally filed his application for a search would want to use cyberspace technology for mischiefs
warrant on May 10, 1984, he appeared before him in the and crimes. One of them can, for instance, avail himself
company of his two (2) witnesses, Esmael Morada and of the system to unjustly ruin the reputation of another or
Jesus Tohilida, both of whom likewise presented to him bully the latter by posting defamatory statements against
their respective affidavits taken by Pat. Josue V. Lining, a him that people can read.
police investigator. As the application was not yet
subscribed and sworn to, he proceeded to examine
And because linking with the internet opens up a user to
Captain Quillosa on the contents thereof to ascertain,
communication from others, the ill-motivated can use the
among others, if he knew and understood the same.
cyberspace for committing theft by hacking into or
Afterwards, he subscribed and swore to the same before
surreptitiously accessing his bank account or credit card
him.
or defrauding him through false representations.
ISSUE: Whether the Respondent Judge failed to comply
The wicked can use the cyberspace, too, for illicit
with the proper procedure in issuing the Search Warrant.
trafficking in sex or for exposing to pornography guileless
children who have access to the internet.
HELD: Yes, mere affidavits of the complainant and his
witnesses are thus not sufficient. The examining Judge
For these reasons, the government has a legitimate right
has to take depositions in writing of the complainant and
to regulate the use of cyberspace and contain and punish
the witnesses he may produce and attach them to the
wrongdoings. The government certainly has the duty and
record. Such written deposition is necessary in order that
the right to prevent these tomfooleries from happening
the Judge may be able to properly determine the
and punish their perpetrators, hence the Cybercrime
existence or non-existence of the probable cause, to hold
Prevention Act.
liable for perjury the person giving it if it will be found later
that his declarations are false.
59

But petitioners claim that the means adopted by the prompted petitioner to appeal. The IAC affirmed with
cybercrime law for regulating undesirable cyberspace modification hence the present petition for certiorari.
activities violate certain of their constitutional rights.
Issue:
Pending hearing and adjudication of the issues presented
in these cases, on February 5, 2013, the Court extended W/N an extension telephone is covered by the term
the original 120-day temporary restraining order (TRO) “device or arrangement” under Rep. Act No. 4200
that it earlier issued on October 9, 2012, enjoining
respondent government agencies from implementing the Held:
cybercrime law until further orders.
No. The law refers to a “tap” of a wire or cable or the use
GANAAN V IAC, G.R. No. L-69809 | October 16, 1986 | of a “device or arrangement” for the purpose of secretly
J. Gutierrez Jr. overhearing, intercepting, or recording the
communication. There must be either a physical
Facts: interruption through a wiretap or the deliberate installation
of a device or arrangement in order to overhear, intercept,
Complainant Atty. Tito Pintor and his client Manuel or record the spoken words.
Montebon were in the living room of complainant’s
residence discussing the terms for the withdrawal of the An extension telephone cannot be placed in the same
complaint for direct assault which they filed with the Office category as a dictaphone, dictagraph or the other devices
of the City Fiscal of Cebu against Leonardo Laconico. enumerated in Section 1 of RA No. 4200 as the use
After they had decided on the proposed conditions, thereof cannot be considered as “tapping” the wire or
complainant made a telephone call to Laconico. That cable of a telephone line. The telephone extension in this
same morning, Laconico telephoned appellant, who is a case was not installed for that purpose. It just happened
lawyer, to come to his office and advise him on the to be there for ordinary office use.
settlement of the direct assault case because his regular
lawyer, Atty. Leon Gonzaga, went on a business trip. Ramirez v. CA, G.R. No. 93833, 248 SCRA 590,
September 28, 1995
When complainant called, Laconico requested appellant
to secretly listen to the telephone conversation through a “Recording of conversation through a tape recorder”The
telephone extension so as to hear personally the language of the Anti-Wire Tapping Law is clear and
proposed conditions for the settlement. Twenty minutes unambiguous.
later, complainant called again to ask Laconico if he was
agreeable to the conditions. Laconico answered ‘Yes’.
Complainant then told Laconico to wait for instructions on The provision clearly makes it illegal for ANY person,
where to deliver the money. NOT AUTHORIZED BY ALL PARTIES to any private
communication to secretly record such communication by
means of a tape recorder.
Complainant called again and instructed Laconico to give
the money to his wife at the office of the then Department
of Public Highways. Laconico who earlier alerted his A civil case was filed by petitioner Ramirez alleging that
friend Colonel Zulueta of the Criminal Investigation the private respondent, Garcia, allegedly insulted and
Service of the Philippine Constabulary, insisted that humiliated her during a confrontation in the office, in an
complainant himself should receive the money. When he offensive manner contrary to morals, good customs and
received the money at the Igloo Restaurant, complainant public policy.
was arrested by agents of the Philippine Constabulary.
To support her claim, petitioner produced a verbatim
Appellant executed on the following day an affidavit transcript of the event and sought moral damages.
stating that he heard complainant demand P8,000.00 for
the withdrawal of the case for direct assault. Laconico In response, private respondent filed a criminal case
attached the affidavit of appellant to the complainant for alleging violation of ANTI-WIRE TAPPING LAW for
robbery/extortion which he filed against complainant. secretly taping the confrontation.
Since appellant listened to the telephone conversation
without complainant’s consent, complainant charged Whether the act of recording through a tape constitutes
appellant and Laconico with violation of the Anti- an offense? YES.
Wiretapping Act.
The Court ruled that the language of the law is clear and
The lower court found both Gaanan and Laconico guilty unambiguous. The provision clearly makes it illegal for
of violating Section 1 of Republic Act No. 4200, which ANY person, NOT AUTHORIZED BY ALL PARTIES to
60

any private communication to secretly record such Alejano v. Cabuay, GR 160792, August 25, 2005
communication by means of a tape recorder.

The law makes no distinction as to whether the party

sought to be penalized by the statute ought to be a party FACTS: A directive was issued to all Major Service
other than or different from those involved in the private Commanders to take into custody the military personnel
communication. The statute's intent to penalize all under their command who took part in the Oakwood
persons unauthorized to make such recording is incident. Petitioners filed a petition for habeas corpus with
underscored by the use of the qualifier "any". SC. The SC issued a resolution, which required
respondents to make a return of the writ and to appear
The nature of the conversations is immaterial to a and produce the persons of the detainees before the CA.
violation of the statute. The substance of the same need CA dismissed the petition because the detainees are
not be specifically alleged in the information. The mere already charged of coup d’etat. Habeas corpus is
allegation that an individual made a secret recording of a unavailing in this case as the detainees’ confinement is
private communication by means of a tape recorder under a valid indictment.
would suffice to constitute an offense under Section 1 of
R.A. 4200. ISSUE: What is the objective of the writ of habeas
corpus?
Petitioner's contention that the phrase "private
communication" in Section 1 of R.A. 4200 does not HELD: The duty to hear the petition for habeas corpus
include "private conversations" narrows the ordinary necessarily includes the determination of the propriety of
meaning of the word "communication" to a point of the remedy. The remedy of habeas corpus has one
absurdity. In its ordinary signification, communication objective: to inquire into the cause of detention of a
connotes the act of sharing or imparting signification, person. The purpose of the writ is to determine whether a
communication connotes the act of sharing or imparting, person is being illegally deprived of his liberty. If the
as in a conversation, or signifies the "process by which inquiry reveals that the detention is illegal, the court
meanings or thoughts are shared between individuals orders the release of the person. If, however, the
through a common system of symbols (as language signs detention is proven lawful, then the habeas corpus
or gestures)." proceedings terminate. The use of habeas corpus is thus
very limited. It is not a writ of error. Neither can it
These definitions are broad enough to include verbal or substitute for an appeal.
non-verbal, written or expressive communications of
"meanings or thoughts" which are likely to include the
PRIVILIEGED COMMUNICATION
emotionally-charged exchange between petitioner and
private respondent, in the privacy of the latter's office.
People vs. Albofera, 152 SCRA 123 (1987)
In Gaanan v. Intermediate Appellate Court, a case which
dealt with the issue of telephone wiretapping, we held that FACTS: Sometime in June or July 1980, accused
the use of a telephone extension for the purpose of Albofera and 3 others killed Teodoro Carancio a forester.
overhearing a private conversation without authorization Rodrigo Esma was at the house of one of the accused
did not violate R.A. 4200 because a telephone extension but did not participate in the killing.
devise was neither among those "device(s) or
arrangement(s)" enumerated, following the principle that The matter was later brought to the attention of the
"penal statutes must be construed strictly in favor of the authorities by a certain Sisneros and accused Albofera
accused." was arrested. The accused Lawi-an was subsequently
arrested.
In this case, the use of tape recorder falls under the
devices enumerated in the law (Dictaphone, Albofera executed an extra-judicial confession before the
Dictagraph, Detectaphone, Walkie-talkie, and Tape Municipal Circuit Judge. He stated therein that he was
recorder).Therefore, the act of recording through the tape forced to join the NPA movement for fear of his life; that
constitutes an offense. said group had ordered the “arrest” of the victim,
Carancio, and that the group “sentenced him (the victim)
The instant case turns on a different note, because the to die by stabbing.”
applicable facts and circumstances pointing to a violation
of R.A. 4200 suffer from no ambiguity, and the statute Esma testified against the accused during the trial. While
itself explicitly mentions the unauthorized "recording" of in prison, accused Albofera sent a letter to Esma. Said
private communications with the use of tape-recorders as letter was thereafter introduced as evidence by
among the acts punishable. prosecution. In his letter, accused Albofera was asking
61

Esma to change his declaration in his Affidavit  and testify evidence in court regarding marital separation and
in his favor instead. disqualification from medical practice. 

Later the accused were convicted of murder. Ruling/Held:

ISSUE: Whether the Albofera’s letter to Esma should be The documents and papers are inadmissible in evidence.
excluded as evidence in light of alleged unwarranted The constitutional injunction declaring “the privacy of
intrusion or invasion of the accused’s privacy? communication and correspondence to be inviolable is no
less applicable simply because it is the wife who thinks
HELD: No. The production of that letter by the herself aggrieved by her husband’s infidelity, who is the
prosecution was not the result of an unlawful search and party against whom the constitutional provision is to be
seizure nor was it through unwarranted intrusion or enforced. 
invasion into Albofera’s privacy. Albofera admitted having
sent the letter and it was its recipient, Rodrigo Esma The only exception to the prohibition in the Constitution is
himself, who produced and identified the same in the if there is a lawful order from a court or when public safety
course of his testimony in Court. Besides, there is nothing or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law. Any
really self-incriminatory in the letter. Albofera mainly violation of this provision renders the evidence obtained
pleaded that Esma change his declaration in his Affidavit inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. The
and testify in his (Albofera’s) favor. Furthermore, nothing intimacies between husband and wife do not justify any
Alboferas tated in his letter is being taken against him in one of them in breaking the drawers and cabinets of the
arriving at a determination of his culpability other and in ransacking them for any telltale evidence of
marital infidelity. A person, by contracting marriage, does
Cecilia Zulueta vs Court of Appeals and Alfredo not shed his/her integrity or his right to privacy as an
Martin  (253 SCRA 699)  GR no. 107383 February 20, individual and the constitutional protection is ever
1996 available to him or to her. The law insures absolute
freedom of communication between the spouses by
making it privileged. Neither husband nor wife may testify
Facts: 
for or against the other without the consent of the affected
spouse while the marriage subsists. Neither may be
Cecilia Zulueta is the Petitioner who offset the private examined without the consent of the other as to any
papers of his husband Dr. Alfredo Martin. Dr. Martin is a communication received in confidence by one from the
doctor of medicine while he is not in his house His wife other during the marriage, save for specified exceptions.
took the 157 documents consisting of diaries, cancelled But one thing is freedom of communication; quite another
check, greeting cards, passport and photograph, private is a compulsion for each one to share what one knows
respondents between her Wife and his alleged with the other. And this has nothing to do with the duty of
paramours, by means of forcibly opened the drawers and fidelity that each owes to the other.
cabinet. Cecilia Zulueta filed the papers for the evidence
of her case of legal separation and for disqualification
Waterouse Drug Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No.
from the practice of medicine against her husband.
113271. October 16, 1997
Dr. Martin brought the action for recovery of the
Facts: Antonia Melodia Catolico was hired as a
documents and papers and for damages against Zulueta,
pharmacist by Waterous Drug Corp.
with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch X. the trial
court rendered judgment for Martin, declaring him the
capital/exclusive owner of the properties described in YSP Inc., a supplier of medicine, sold to Waterous, thru
paragraph 3 of Martin’s Complaint or those further Catolico, 10 bottles of Voren Tablets at P384 per unit.
described in the Motion to Return and Suppress and However, previews P.O.s issued to YSP, Inc. showed that
ordering Zulueta and any person acting in her behalf to a the price per bottle is P320.00. Verification was made to
immediately return the properties to Dr. Martin and to pay YSP, Inc. to determine the discrepancy and it was found
him P5,000.00, as nominal damages; P5,000.00, as that the cost per bottle was indeed overpriced.
moral damages and attorney’s fees; and to pay the costs
of the suit. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the YSP, Inc. Accounting Department (Ms. Estelita Reyes)
decision of the Regional Trial Court. Zulueta filed the confirmed that the difference represents refund of jack-up
petition for review with the Supreme Court. price of ten bottles of Voren tablets per sales invoice,
which was paid to Ms. Catolico. Said check was sent in
Issue: an envelope addressed to Catolico.

The papers and other materials obtained from forcible Catolico denied receiving the same. However, Saldana,
entrusion and from unlawful means are admissible as the clerk of Waterous Drug Corp. confirmed that she saw
62

an open envelope with a check amounting P640 payable

to Catolico.

Waterous Drug Corp. ordered the termination of Catolico

for acts of dishonesty.

NLRC: Dismissed the Petition. Evidence of respondents

(check from YSP) being rendered inadmissible, by virtue
of the constitutional right invoked by complainants.

Petitioners: In the light of the decision in the People v.

Marti,  the constitutional protection against unreasonable
searches and seizures refers to the immunity of one’s
person from interference by government and cannot be
extended to acts committed by private individuals so as to
bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by
the government.

Issue: W/N the check is admissible as evidence

Held:  Yes.

Ratio: (People vs. Marti) Marti ruling: The Bill of Rights

does not protect citizens from unreasonable searches
and seizures perpetrated by private individuals.

It is not true, as counsel for Catolico claims, that the

citizens have no recourse against such assaults. On the
contrary, and as said counsel admits, such an invasion
gives rise to both criminal and civil liabilities. Despite this,
the SC ruled that there was insufficient evidence of cause
for the dismissal of Catolico from employment Suspicion
is not among the valid causes provided by the Labor
Code for the termination of Employment.