Digest Crm Pro

7/25/2019 Digest Crm Pro

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/digest-crm-pro 1/7

POSADAS vs. COURT OF APPEALS188 SCRA 288 | August 2,1990

FACTS:Two policemen were conducting a surveillance along MagallanesStreet, Davao City when they spotted the petitioner acting suspiciously

while carrying a “buri bag! "nlicensed #rearms and ammunitions were$ound inside the bag o$ the petitioner!%etitioner was $ound guilty o$ illegal possession o$ #rearms and ammunitions! &nappeal,petitioner assailed the validity o$ the warrantless search madeagainst him!

'SS"(:That there being no law$ul arrest or search and sei)ure, theitems which were con#scated $rom the possession o$ the petitioner areinadmissible in evidence against him!

*"+'-:A police o.cer may in appropriate circumstances and in an

appropriate manner approach a person $or the purpose o$ investigatingpossible criminal behaviour even though there is no probable cause toma/e an arrest! 'n such a situation, it is reasonable $or an o.cer ratherthan simply to shrug his shoulder and allow a crime to occur, to stop asuspicious individual brie0y in order to determine his identity ormaintain the status 1uo while obtaining more in$ormation!The searchthereat in the case at bar ! ! ! was e2ected on the basis o$ a probablecause! The probable cause is that when the petitioner actedsuspiciously and attempted to 0ee with the buri bag there was aprobable cause that he was concealing something illegal in the bagand itwas the right and duty o$ the police o.cers to inspect the

same!3etween the inherent right o$ the state to protect its e4istenceand promote public wel$are andan individual5s right against awarrantless search which is however reasonably conducted, the$ormershould prevail!

% v Salanga

Salanga is one o$ the accused $or rape o$ 'melda Talaboc ! The latterwas sent to $etch water and never returned! Some witness testi#edthat Salannga was last seen wal/ing ahead o$ 'melda and tailing herwas +ope) 6co accused7 ! 'melda did not go home that night and a$terhours o$ search ,her corpse were $ound! The two were arrested on the

same night the corpse were $ound ! During bodily searched soldiersrecovered a piece o$ lady5s underwear $rom accused! The accused hasdi2erent version in whch while he was repairing their wall in his/itchen, someone came to ther house and was in$ormed that thecaptain wanted to see him and were then as/ed i$ they wereresponsible $or the death o$ 'melda o$ which they denied vehemently!



*TC convicted the two! Salangga appealed contending the TC erred inconvicting him basing on insu.cient circumstantial evidence!

%eople vs! 3urgos 6-!*! o! +89;<< September =, >;97-!*! o! +89;<< September =, >;9

%(&%+( &F T?( %?'+'%%'(S, plainti28appellee,vs!*"3( 3"*-&S y T'T&, de$endant8appellant!Facts: De$endant is charged with illegal possession o$ #rearm in$urtherance o$ subversion 6tas/s such as recruiting members to the%A and collection o$ contributions $rom its members7 and $ound guiltyby the *TC o$ Digos, Davao del Sur! From the in$ormation #led by thepolice authorities upon the in$ormation given by Cesar Masamlo/,allegedly a man de$endant tried to recruit into the %A, the policeauthorities arrest de$endant and had his house searched!Subse1uently, certain %A8related documents and a #rearm, allegedly

issued and used by one Alias Cmdr! %ol o$ the %A, are con#scated!3urgos denies being involved in any subversive activities and claimsthat he has been tortured in order to accept ownership o$ sub@ect#rearm and that his alleged e4tra@udicial statements have been madeonly under $ear, threat and intimidation on his person and his $amily!?e avers that his arrest is unlaw$ul as it is done without valid warrant,that the trial court erred in holding the search warrant in his house $orthe #rearm law$ul, and that the trial court erred in holding him guiltybeyond reasonable doubt $or violation o$ %D ; in relation to -&s 9and!

'ssue: '$ de$endant5s arrest, the search o$ his home, and thesubse1uent con#scation o$ a #rearm and several %A8relateddocuments are law$ul!

?eld: *ecords disclose that when the police went to de$endant5s houseto arrest him upon the in$ormation given by Masamlo/, they hadneither search nor arrest warrant with themBin wanton violation o$ Art', Sec 6now Art ''', sec E7! As the Court held in illanueva vsuerubin, the state, however power$ul, doesn5t have access to a man5shome, his haven o$ re$uge where his individuality can assert itsel$ in hischoice o$ welcome and in the /ind o$ ob@ects he wants around him! 'n

the traditional $ormulation, a man5s house, however humble, is hiscastle, and thus is outlawed any unwarranted intrusion by thegovernment!

The trial court @usti#ed the warrantless arrest under *ule >> Sec 9 o$ the *oC:



a7 Ghen the person to be arrested has committed, is actuallycommitting, or is about to commit an o2ense in his presenceHb7 Ghen an o2ense has in $act been committed, and he hasreasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested hascommitted itH

c7 Ghen the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped$rom a penal establishment or place where he is serving #nal @udgmentor temporarily con#ned while his case is pending or has escaped whilebeing trans$erred $rom one con#nement to another

and the con#scation o$ the #rearm under *ule >E9, Sec >E:

A person charged with an o2ense may be searched $or dangerousweapons or anything which may be used as proo$ o$ the commission o$ the o2ense!

?owever, the trial court has erred in its conclusion that saidwarrantless arrest is under the ambit o$ a$orementioned *oC! At thetime o$ de$endant5s arrest, he wasn5t in actual possession o$ any#rearm or subversive document, and was not committing any“subversive actBhe was plowing his #eld! 't is not enough that thereis reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested hascommitted a crime in a warrantless arrest! An essential precondition isthat a crime must have beenin $act or actually have been committed#rstH it isn5t enough to suspect a crime may have been committed! Thetest o$ reasonable ground applies only to the identity o$ theperpetrator! The Court also #nds no compelling reason $or the haste

with which the arresting o.cers sought to arrest the accused! Ge $ailto see why they $ailed to #rst go through the process o$ obtaining awarrant o$ arrest, i$ indeed they had reasonable ground to believe thatthe accused had truly committed a crime! There is no showing thatthere was a real apprehension that the accused was on the verge o$ 0ight or escape! +i/ewise, there is no showing that the whereabouts o$ the accused were un/nown!

'n proving the ownership o$ the 1uestioned #rearm and allegedsubversive documents, assuming they were really illegal, thede$endant was never in$ormed o$ his constitutional rights at the time o$

his arrestH thus the admissions obtained are in violation o$ theconstitutional right against sel$8incrimination under Sec EI Art ' 6nowSec >E, Art '''7 and thus inadmissible as evidence!

Furthermore, the de$endant was not accorded his constitutional right tobe assisted by counsel during the custodial interrogation! ?is e4tra8 @udicial con$ession, the #rearm, and the alleged subversive documentsare all inadmissible as evidence! 'n light o$ the a$orementioned,



de$endant is ac1uitted on grounds o$ reasonable doubt o$ the crimewith which he has been charged! Sub@ect #rearm and allegedsubversive documents have been disposed o$ in accordance with law!

The Court also maintains that violations o$ human rights do not help in

overcoming a rebellion! *eiterating Morales vs (nrile, “while thegovernment should continue to repel the communists, the subversives,the rebels, and the lawless with the means at its command, it shouldalways be remembered that whatever action is ta/en must always bewithin the $ramewor/ o$ our Constitution and our laws!

%eople v! Doria

%eople v! Florencio Doria J“ Kun L and ioleta -addao J “eneth LEE Kan >;;; %uno Appeal $rom a %asig *TC decisionSearch and sei)ure N ature, scope and de#nition N Types NGarrantless search and sei)ure N “ %lain view doctrine

FACTSMembers o$ the %% arcotics Command received in$ormation that one“ Kun JDoriaL was engaged in illegal drug activities, so they decided toentrap and arrest him in a buy8bust operation! ?e was arrested! They$ris/ed him but did not #nd the mar/ed bills on him, and upon in1uiry,he revealed that he le$t it at the house o$ his associate “ eneth J-addaoL, so he led the police team to her house! The team $ound the door open and a woman inside the house! “ Kun identi#ed her as “eneth, and she was as/ed by S%&> 3aduaabout the mar/ed money as %& Manlangit loo/ed over her house Jhe

was still outside the houseL! Standing by the door, %& Manlangitnoticed a carton bo4 under the dining table! &ne o$ the bo45 s 0aps wasopen, and inside it was something wrapped in plastic, and it appearedsimilar to the mari@uana earlier sold to him by “ Kun! ?is suspicionaroused, so he entered the house and too/ hold o$ the bo4! ?e pee/edinside the bo4 and saw >I bric/s o$ what appeared to be driedmari@uana leaves! S%&> 3adua recovered the mar/ed bills $rom “eneth and they arrested her! The bric/s were e4amined and theywere $ound to be dried mari@uana leaves! Florencio Doria and ioleta -addao were charged with violationo$ *A 9=E< JDangerous Drugs Act o$ >;EL, Section = JSale,

Administration, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation o$ %rohibitedDrugsL in relation to Section E> JAttempt and ConspiracyL! *TCconvicted them!

'SS"( AD ?&+D'-G& *TC correctly $ound that the bo4 o$ mari@uana was in plain view,ma/ing its warrantless sei)ure valid! &



*AT'&*e: warrantless arrest-addao 5s warrantless arrest was illegal because she was arrestedsolely on the basis o$ the alleged identi#cation made by Doria! Doriadid not point to her as his associate in the drug business, but as the

person with whom he le$t the mar/ed bills! This identi#cation does notnecessarily mean that -addao conspired with Doria in pushing drugs! '$ there is no showing that the person who e2ected the warrantless arresthad /nowledge o$ $acts implicating the person arrested to theperpetration o$ the criminal o2ense, the arrest is legally ob@ectionable! Since the warrantless arrest o$ -addao was illegal, the searcho$ her person and home and the subse1uent sei)ure o$ the mar/ed billsand mari@uana cannot be deemed legal as an incident to her arrest!

“ %lain view issue&b@ects $alling in plain view o$ an o.cer who has a right to be in the

position to have that view are sub@ect to sei)ure even without a searchwarrant and may be introduced in evidence!

*e1uisites The law en$orcement o.cer in search o$ the evidence has a prior @usti#cation $or an intrusion or is in a position $rom which he can view aparticular area The discovery o$ the evidence in plain view is inadvertent't is immediately apparent to the o.cer that the item he observes maybe evidence o$ a crime, contraband or otherwise sub@ect to sei)ure

An ob@ect is in plain view i$ the ob@ect itsel$ is plainly e4posed to sight! The di.culty arises when the ob@ect is inside a closed container!Ghere the ob@ect sei)ed was inside a closed pac/age, the ob@ect itsel$ is not in plain view and there$ore cannot be sei)ed without a warrant!'$ the pac/age is such that an e4perienced observer could in$er $rom itsappearance that it contains the prohibited article, then the article isdeemed in plain view! 't must be immediately apparent to the policethat the items that they observe may be evidence o$ a crime,contraband or otherwise sub@ect to sei)ure!'n his direct e4amination, %& Manlangit said that he was sure that thecontents o$ the bo4 were mari@uana because he himsel$ chec/ed and

mar/ed the said contents! &n cross8e4amination, however, he admittedthat he merely presumed the contents to be mari@uana because it hadthe same plastic wrapping as the Obuy8bust mari@uana!O (ach o$ theten bric/s o$ mari@uana in the bo4 was individually wrapped in oldnewspaper and placed inside plastic bags88 white, pin/ or blue in color!%& Manlangit himsel$ admitted on cross8e4amination that thecontents o$ the bo4 could be items other than mari@uana! ?e did not/now e4actly what the bo4 contained that he had to as/ appellant



-addao about its contents! 't was not immediately apparent to %&Manlangit that the content o$ the bo4 was mari@uanaH hence, it was notin plain view and its sei)ure without the re1uisite search warrant was inviolation o$ the law and the Constitution! 't was $ruit o$ the poisonoustree and should have been e4cluded and never considered by the trial

court! The $act that the bo4 containing about 9 /ilos o$ mari@uana was $oundin -addao 5s house -addao does not @usti$y a #nding that she hersel$ isguilty o$ the crime charged!

'n a prosecution $or illegal sale o$ dangerous drugs, what is material isthe submission o$ proo$ that the sale too/ place between the poseur8buyer and the seller and the presentation o$ the drug as evidence incourt!%rosecution established the $act that in consideration o$ the %>,9II!IIhe received, Doria sold and delivered ;I grams o$ mari@uana to %&

Manlangit, the poseur8buyer%rosecution $ailed to prove that -addao conspired with accused8appellant Doria in the sale o$ said drug

D&*'A S(T(C(D T& S"FF(* *(C+"S'& %(*%(T"A P <IIQ F'(-ADDA& AC"'TT(D

Gerente Case

The case is all about /illing o$ certain person Clarito 3lace by theappellant that was arrested by the police$orce!%atrolman Kaime "rrutiao$ the alen)uela %olice Station received a report $rom the %alo %olice

Detachment about a mauling incident! ?e went to the alen)uelaDistrict ?ospital where the victim was brought! ?e was in$ormed by thehospital o.cials that the victim died on arrival! The cause o$ death wasmassive $racture o$ the s/ull caused by a hard and heavy ob@ect! *ightaway, %atrolman "rrutia, together with %olice Corporal *omeo+ima and%atrolman Ale4 "mali, proceeded to %aseo de 3las where the maulingincident too/ place! There they$ound a piece o$ wood with blood stains,a hollow bloc/ and two roaches o$ mari@uana! They were in$ormedbythe prosecution witness, (dna (dwina *eyes, that she saw the /illingand she pointed to -abriel -erente as oneo$ the three men who /illedClarito!The policemen proceeded to the house o$ the appellant who

was then sleeping! They told him to come out o$ thehouse and theyintroduced themselves as policemen! %atrolman "rrutia $ris/edappellant and $ound a coin pursein his poc/et which contained driedleaves wrapped in cigarette $oil! The dried leaves were sent to theational3ureau o$ 'nvestigation $or e4amination!'s the arrestvalidRS(CT'& <! Arrest without warrantH when law$ul! B A peaceo.cer or a private person may, without awarrant, arrest a person:O6a7



Ghen, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, isactually committing, or isattempting to commit an o2enseHOO6b7Ghen an o2ense has in $act @ust been committed, and he has personal/nowledge o$ $acts indicatingthat the person to be arrested has

committed itHThepolicemen arrested -erente only some three 67 hours a$ter -erenteand his companions had /illed3lace! They saw 3lace dead in the hospital and when they inspected thescene o$ the crime, they $ound theinstruments o$ death: a piece o$ wood and a concrete hollow bloc/ which the /illers had used tobludgeonhim to death! The eye8witness, (dna (dwina *eyes, reportedthe happening to the policemen andpinpointed her neighbor, -erente,as one o$ the /illers! "nder those circumstances, since the

policemenhad personal /nowledge o$ the violent death o$ 3lace and o$ $acts indicating that -erente and two othershad /illed him, they couldlaw$ully arrest -erente without a warrant

PEOPLE S. !O"T#LLA

-! *! o! >EEKan! I, >;;*egalado, K!:

Facts: *uben Montilla, alias “Koy was charged $or violating Section =,Article E o$ theDangerous Drugs Act o$ >;E, *! A! o! 9=E<, asamended by *! A! o! 9<; in an in$ormationwhich alleges: “That on or

about EIth day o$ Kune >;;=, at 3rgy! Salitran, Dasmarinas, Cavite,444the above8named accused, not being authori)ed by law, did then andthere wil$ully,unlaw$ully and $eloniously, administer, transport anddeliver E /ilos o$ dried mari@uana leaveswhich are consideredprohibited drugs!

'ssue: Ghether the warrantless search conducted on appellantinvalidates the evidence obtained$rom himR

*uling:A legitimate warrantless arrest necessarily cloa/s the arrestingo.cer with authority tovalidly search and sei)e $rom the o2ender 6>7

dangerous weaponsH and 6E7 those that may beused as proo$ o$ thecommission o$ an o2ense! &n the de$ense argument that thewarrantlesssearch conducted on appellant invalidates the evidenceobtained $rom him, still the search on his belongings and theconse1uent con#scation o$ the illegal drugs as a result thereo$ was @usti#ed asa search incidental to a law$ul arrest under Section < 6a7*ule >> o$ the *ules o$ Court!

Documents

Digest Crm Pro