Warrantless Search

7/25/2019 Warrantless Search

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/warrantless-search 1/30

PEOPLE V. OMAWENG [GR 99050, 2 SEPTEMBER 1992]

FACTS:

Accused Conway B.Omaweng, was driving a vehicle, and was stopped atcheckpoint, and when the vehicle was inspected, the soldiers asked permission to

see the contents of the bag. The accused consented, and upon inspection, it wasfound to contain marijuana. Conway B. Omaweng indicted for the iolation of !ec.", Art ## of $epublic Act no. %"&' otherwise known as the (angerous Act of )*+&, asamended in a criminal Complaint led with the -TC of Bontoc, -ountain rovince on!eptember )&, )*//. 0pon his failure to submit counter 1a2davits despite thegranting of an e3tension of time to do so, the court declared that he had waived hisright to a preliminary investigation and, nding probable cause against the accused,ordered the elevation of the case to the proper court. (uring the trial, theprosecution presented " witnesses. Omaweng did not present any evidence otherthan portions of the 4oint Claricatory !worn !tatement, dated &5 (ecember )*//,of prosecution witnesses 4oseph 6ayong and (avid 7omocod. On &) -arch )**), thetrial court promulgated its 4udgment convicting Omaweng of the crime of

transporting prohibited drugs 8!ection ", Article ## of $A %"&', as amended9.Omaweng appealed to the !upreme Court.

DOCTRINE:

CO:!T#T0T#O:A6 6A;< B#66 O7 $#=>T!< $#=>T A=A#:!T 0:$?A!O:AB6? !?A$C> @

!?#0$?< WHEN DEEMED WAIVED. Accused was not subjected to any search

which may be stigmatied as a violation of his Constitutional right against

unreasonable searches and seiures. D!ection &, Article ###, )*/+ Constitution.E #f one

had been made, this Court would be the rst to condemn it Fas the protection of the

citien and the maintenance of his constitutional rights is one of the highest duties

and privileges of the Court.F D$odrigue v. illamiel, %' hil. &5G 8)*5+9.E He!""!#$"% $&'e ()!*) +*#e#- -* -e e&)+ &#/ '*"#-&)!"% &$)ee/ -* &'e !-+*#/+-e/ *# ! 'e!+"e &#/ -)&'e""!#$ &$. Thus, the accused waived his

right against unreasonable searches and seiures As this Court stated in eople v.

-alasuguiH 8%5 %5 hil. &&), &&% D)*5%E. !ee also da. de =arcia v. 6ocsin, %' hil.

%/* D)*5/E< eople v. (onato, )*/ !C$A )5G D)**)E< eople v. $odriguea, &G'

!C$A +*) D)**&E.9.F . ;hen one voluntarily submits to a search or consents to

have it made of 8sic9 his person or premises, he is precluded from later complaining

thereof 8Cooley, Constitutional 6imitations, /th ed., vol. #, page %5).9 The right to be

secure from unreasonable search may, like every right, be waived and such waiver

may be made either e3pressly or impliedly.F !ince in the course of the valid search

fortyIone 8")9 packages of drugs were found, it behooved the o2cers to seie the

same< no warrant was necessary for such seiure. Besides, when said packages

were identied by the prosecution witnesses and later on formally oJered in

evidence, the accused did not raise any objection whatsoever.



PEOPLE V. CORREA, 25 SCRA 349 1996

FACTS:

The verdict of conviction by the trial court rested mainly on the testimony of prosecution witness !O5 4esus 7aller, a police o2cer assigned at olice !tation 5,;estern olice (istrict, City of -anila. >e was among the nineImember police teamof the (rug ?nforcement 0nit I ;estern olice (istrict Command 8(?0I;(C9 whicharrested the three 859 appellants in the early morning of )/ 4une )**". 6eonardo(ulay was placed under surveillance by the olice Operatives from the (rug?nforcement 0nit of the ;estern olice (istrict Command 8(?0I(C9 on account of condential and intelligence reports received in said 0nit about his drug tra2ckingaround Bambang !treet, Tondo, -anila.On )+ 4une )**", operatives were alerted that (ulay would transport and deliver acertain Kuantity of drugs that night on board a ownerItype jeep 87-$*"/9.

Thereafter, the operatives, together with the informer proceeded to A. Bonifacio!treet on board 5 vehicles, and inconspicuously parked along the side of :orthCemetery and waited for the suspect. The police informant spotted (ulayLs vehicleat 5HGG am. 0pon reaching the intersection of Bambang ?3tension and 4ose Abad!antos Avenue, Tondo, -anila, the subject vehicle stopped and parked at a corner. Thereupon, the operatives also stopped and parked their vehicles around thesuspects vehicle and accosted the passengers of the ownerItype jeepney. AppellantAntonio Correa was at the drivers seat with appellant 6eonardo (ulay sitting besidehim in the front seat and appellant $ito =unida at the back seat The team inspecteda cylindrical tin can of ?l Cielo egetable Cooking 6ard about two feet high, loadedin the vehicle of the appellants. The can contained eight bundles of suspected driedmarijuana Mowering tops wrapped in pieces of paper and plastic tapes. The team

seied the suspected contrabands and marked each bundle. The three suspectswere brought to the police headKuarters at (?0I;(C for investigation.

The packages of suspected marijuana were submitted to the :ational Bureau of #nvestigation for laboratory analysis to determine their chemical composition. Thetests conrmed that the conscated stuJ were positive for marijuana and weighed)%.)+/* kilograms. The tests conrmed that the conscated stuJ were positive formarijuana and weighed )%.)+/* kilograms. The appellants, on the other hand, hada diJerent story on their arrest. The trial court, in its decision subject for review, hassummaried the appellants version thusH

The common defense interposed by the three accused is in the nature of alibi.

The core of their contention is that they were arrested without warrant inCamarin (, Caloocan City. They also denied that they were delivering andtransporting dried marijuana Mowering tops when they were apprehended.

On )& 4uly )**", an #nformation was led with the $TC -anila 8Branch 5'9 indictingAntonio Correa y Cayton N FBoyet,F $ito =unida y !esante N F(odong,F and6eonardo (ulay y !antos N FBoy ubaF for having violated !ection ", Article ## of $A%"&', as amended. ;hen arraigned, the 5 accused pleaded not guilty. After trial andon 5 -arch )**', the lower court found the appellants guilty as charged and were



sentenced to death and a ne of )G million.

DOCTRINE:

The appellants are now precluded from assailing the warrantless search and seiurewhen they '*"#-&)!"% 7!--e/ -* !- & *# % -e!) &+-&-!*# /)!#$-e e&)+ &#/ e!8)e. The appellants never protested when !O5 4esus 7aller,after identifying himself as a police o2cer, opened the tin can loaded in theappellants vehicle and found eight 8/9 bundles. And when 7aller opened one of thebundles, it smelled of marijuana. The :B# later conrmed the eight 8/9 bundles to bepositive for marijuana. Again, the appellants did not raise any protest when they,together with their cargo of drugs and their vehicle, were brought to the policestation for investigation and subseKuent prosecution. ;e have ruled in a long line of cases thatH

When one voluntarily submits to a search or consents to haveit made on his person or premises, he is precluded from later complaining thereof (Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, 8thed., vol. I, page 63!. "he right to be secure fromunreasonable search may, li#e every right, be $aived and such $aiver may be made either e%pressly or impliedly.

PEOPLE VS. RAMOS, G.R. 50102, ;<NE , 1990

FACTS:

A team composed of Captain Castillo, !gt. Tahil Ahamad, C#C (anilo !antiagoand Angel !udiacal left with the informer on :ovember &*, )*/& upon reportingthat a cigarette vendor by the name of P-ama $oseQ8 $osalinda $amos9 was sellingmarijuana at the corner of 5rd !t. $ial Avenue in Olongapo City. The informerproceeded to where appellant was selling cigarettes to conduct the ne3t test buywhile the :A$CO- agents waited at the Black and ;hite Open Bar located at +th!treet, $ial Avenue, Olongapo City . The bar was about three 859 blocks away fromthe place where appellant was selling cigarettes. After fortyIve 8"'9 minutes moreor less, the informer arrived at the Black and ;hite Bar and again gave to CaptainCastillo two 8&9 sticks of marijuana. Tests buys were made using marked money. The:arcotics Command 8:A$CO-9 team proceeded to the place where appellant wasselling cigarettes, and arrested the latter for illegal peddling of marijuana. $amoswas reKuested to take out the contents of her wallet. The four marked veIpeso billsused in the test buys were found among her possessions and were conscated afterthe serial numbers were conrmed by Captain Castillo. !earch of $amosL stallyielded &G sticks of marijuana cigarettes in a trash can placed under the small tablewhere $amos displayed the wares she was selling. $amos was thereafter broughtto the station. At the station, $amos e3ecuted a statement confessing to her crimes



which she swore to before Assistant City 7iscal. The marijuana sticks conscatedwere sent to thehilippine Constabulary Crime 6aboratory 8CC69 for analysis, andthereafter were conrmed to be marijuana. The defense contends however that sheassented to the invitation of the :A$CO- operatives for investigation, after searchof her buri bags 8which she stores the fruits that she sells9 were fruitless. !heclaimed that she was forced to a23 her signature on the four 'Ipeso bills by one

!gt. !udiacal, purportedly to be the same money which was used to buy marijuanafrom her, but which she insists was her money being saved for the rentals. !he waslater brought to the 7iscalLs O2ce after investigation, where she signed a document.!he claimed she was not assisted by any counsel during the investigation< neitherduring the timeshe signed the document at the 7iscalLs O2ce. Two information wereled against $amos, one for sale 8Criminal Case '**)9 and the other for possessionof marijuana 8Criminal Case '**G9. The (ecision of the $egional Trial Court )9#mprisonment of si3 8%9 years and one 8)9 day and a ne of %,GGG.GG in CriminalCase :o. '**G< and &9 6ife imprisonment and a ne of &G,GGG.GG in Criminal Case:o. '**).

DOCTRINE:

Court fails to see how, from her being addressed as -ama $ose by the witnessesand appellantRs counsel and the alleged informant poseurIbuyer, the sale of marijuana can be inferred. Circumstantial evidence is insu2cient for conviction 7ornot successfully meeting reKuirements, the enumerated circumstantial evidencecannot be a ground for conviction for the sale of marijuana. ;ith respect to CriminalCase :o., '**G, however, this Court upholds the lower courtRs nding that theappellant is guilty of possession of marijuana. AppellantRs defense falls against thecategorical testimony of the :A$CO- agents that the trash can was found underthe table where her legitimate wares were being sold. This fact was not denied byappellant. Therefore, she was the only person who had access to the trash can. Thesame was under her immediate physical control. !he had complete charge of thecontents of the trash can under the table to the e3clusion of all other persons. I#"&, &+-&" (*e!*# e=!- e# -e -!#$ ! !# -e !77e/!&-e*++(&#+% &#/ +*#-)*" *> -e (&)-%. B- -! ! #*- -* &% -&- -e "&)e?!)e &+-&" (*e!*#. I# +)!7!#&" "&, (*e!*# #e+e&)% >*)+*#'!+-!*# *> -e *@e#e *> (*e!*# *> +*#-)*""e/ -&#+e !-!#-e#- -* /!-)!-e 7&% e +*#-)+-!'e & e"" & &+-&" 8BlackRs 6aw(ictionary, Abridge, 'th ?dition, pp. %G%I%G+9. #t is only necessary that thedefendant must have dominion and control over the contraband. Tee)e?!)e7e#- &)e ()ee#- !# -e !-&-!*# /e+)!e/, e)e -e ()*!!-e//)$ e)e >*#/ !#!/e -e -)& +&# ("&+e/ #/e) -e -&"" *#e/ %&((e""&#-. #n fact, the :A$CO- agents who conducted the search testied thatthey had to ask appellant to stand so that they could look inside the trash can underthe RpapagR of the appellant. >ence the trash can was positioned in such a way thatit was di2cult for another person to use the trash can. The trash can was obviouslynot for use by her customers Therefore, the twenty sticks of marijuana areadmissible in evidence and the trial courtRs nding that $amos is guilty of possession is correct.

Pe*("e '. B&))*, 21 SCRA 554 1996



FACTS:

Bonifacio Barros was charged and convicted violating !ection " of $A :o. %"&'.Barros was coming from Chackchakan, Bontoc, -ountain rovince, to :acagang,!abangan -ountain rovince. On % !eptember )*/+, -S!gt. 7rancis agIas and!S!gt. 4ames Ayan, both members of the .C. -ountain rovince Command, rode the(angwa Bus bearing late ABI&"& bound for !abangan,. 0pon reachingChackchakan, Bontoc, -ountain rovince, the bus stopped and both -S!gt. agIasand !S!gt. Ayan, who were seated at the back, saw Bonifacio Barros carrying acarton, board the bus and seated himself on seat )/ after putting the carton underhis seat. Thereafter, the bus continued and upon reaching !abangan, -S!gt. agIasand !S!gt. Ayan before they alighted, it being their station, called C&C D7ernandoEBongyao to inspect the carton under seat )/. After C&C Bongyao inspected thecarton, he found out that it contained marijuana and he asked the passengers whothe owner of the carton was but nobody answered. Thereafter, C&C Bongyaoalighted with the carton and !S!gt. Ayan and C&C Bongyao invited Barros to thedetachment for Kuestioning as the latter was the suspected owner of the cartoncontaining marijuana. 0pon entering the detachment the carton was opened in thepresence of Barros. ;hen Barros denied ownership of the carton of marijuana, the.C. o2cers called for the bus conductor who pinpointed to Barros as the owner of the carton of marijuana. Barros was charged with violating !ection " of $A %"&', asamended 8(angerous (rugs Act of )*+&9. After trial, the trial court convictedBonifacio Barros of violation of!ection " of $A %"&' as amended and sentenced himto suJer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a ne of &G,GGG.GG. Barrosappealed.

HELD:

Te $e#e)&" )"e ! -&- & e&)+ &#/ e!8)e 7- e +&))!e/ *- -)*$*) !- & /!+!&" &))&#- *-e)!e + e&)+ &#/ e!8)e e+*7e#)e&*#&"e !-!# -e 7e&#!#$ *> Se+-!*# 2, A)-!+"e III *> -e 194C*#-!--!*#. Te e'!/e#+e e+)e/ -e)e% !.e., -e >)!- *> -ee&)+ &#/ e!8)e !"" e !#&/7!!"e !# e'!/e#+e >*) &#% ()(*e !#&#% ()*+ee/!#$. There are certain e3ceptions recognied in our law, one of whichrelates to the search of moving vehicles. &eace o'cers may la$fully conduct searches of moving vehicles automobiles, truc#s, etc. $ithout need of a $arrant, it not being practicable to secure a )udicial $arrant beforesearching a vehicle, since such vehicle can be *uic#ly moved out of thelocality or )urisdiction in $hich the $arrant may be sought . #n carrying out warrantless searches of moving vehicles, however, peace o2cers arelimited to routine checks, that is, the vehicles are neither really searched nor theiroccupants subjected to physical or body searches, the e3amination of the vehiclesbeing limited to visual inspection. The accused is not to be presumed to have waived the unlawful search conductedon the occasion of his warrantless arrestQ simply because he failed to objectQS Topconstitute waiver, it must appear rst that the right e3its< secondly that the personinvolved had knowledge, actual or constructive, of the e3istence of such right< andlastly that said person had an actual intention to relinKuish the right.



VERO V. LAAG<E [GR 9530, 1 ;<NE 1992]

FACTS:

On )& April )**G, Capt. $eynaldo Obrero of the Talomo atrol !tation, CS#:raidederoyLs house in (avao City on information that the said residence was being used

as a safehouse ofrebel soldiers. They were able to enter the yard with the help of the caretakers but did not enter the house since the owner was not present andthey did not have a search warrant. 6eopoldo and -a. 6uisa eroy is husband andwife residing in (avao City. ;hen eroy was promoted to the position of AssistantAdministrator of the !ocial !ecurity !ystem sometime in 4une )*//, heand his family transferred to Uueon City. The care and upkeep of their residence in(avao City was left to &houseboys, 4immy 7avia and ?ric Burgos, who had theirassigned Kuarters at a portion of the premises. The eroys would occasionally sendmoney to ?dna !oKuilon for the salary of the said houseboys and othere3penses forthe upkeep of their house. ;hile the eroys had the keys to the interior of thehouse, only thekey to the kitchen, where the circuit breakers were located, wasentrusted to ?dna !oKuilon to give her accessin case of an emergency. ermission

was reKuested by phone to -a. 6uisa eroy who consented on the condition that thesearch be conducted in the presence of -ajor -acasaet. The following day, Capt.Obrero and -aj. -acasaet met at the eroyLs house to conduct the search pursuantto the authority granted by -a. 6uisa. Capt. Obrero recovered a ."' cal. handgunwith a magaine containing + live bullets in a black clutch bag inside an unlockeddrawer in the childrenLs room. 5 halfIfulljute sacks containing printed materials of $A-I!7 were also found in the childrenRs room. A search of the childrenRsrecreation and study area revealed a big travelling bag containing assorted clothing,a small blackbag containing a book entitled F#slamic $evolution 7uture ath of the:ationF, a road map of the hilippines,a telescope, a plastic bag containing assortedmedicines and religious pamphlets was found in the masterLs bedroom. #nventoryand receipt of seied articles were made. The case was referred for preliminaryinvestigation to the Uueon City Assistant rosecutor, who was designated Actingrovincial rosecutor for(avao City by the (O4 through (epartment Order // 8)%-ay )**G9. #n a resolution dated % August )**G,the 7iscal recommended the lingof an #nformation against the eroys for violation of ( )/%% 8#llegal ossession of 7irearms and Ammunitions in 7urtherance of $ebellion9. >ence, on / August )**G,#nformation for the said oJense was led by the O2ce of the City rosecutor of (avao City before the $TC (avao City9. :o bail was recommended by theprosecution. The scalLs resolution was received by the eroys on )5 August )**G. The latter led a motion for bail on the same day which was denied for beingpremature, as they have not been arrested yet. The eroys voluntarily surrenderedto =en. antaleon (umlao,but who refused to receive them o the ground that hiso2ce has not received copies of their warrants of arrest.#n the meantime, on )'August )**G, the eroys were admitted to the !t. 6ukeRs >ospital for variousailmentsbrought about or aggravated by the stress and an3iety caused by the lingof the criminal complaint. On )+August )**G, =en. (umlao granted their reKuestthat they be allowed to be conned at the hospital andplaced under guard thereat.0pon arraignment on ) October )**G, the eroys pleaded not guilty and ledamotion for hospital connement, which was denied. The court ordered theircommitment at the (avao City $ehabilitation Center pending trial on the merits. Atthe conclusion thereof, the court issued a second order denying their motion for



reconsideration. The eroys were returned to the !t. 6ukeRs >ospital wheretheirphysical condition remained erratic. =en. (umlao informed the eroys that hehad issued a directive for theirtransfer from the !t. 6ukeRs >ospital to Camp Crameon the basis of the & October )**G Order. They wouldproceed with their transferpursuant to the order of the trial court, unless otherwise restrained by the court.Theeroys led the petition for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition.

HELD:

Te C*#-!--!*# $&)&#-ee -e )!$- *> -e (e*("e -* e e+)e !# -e!)(e)*#, *e, (&(e) &#/ e@e+- &$&!#- #)e&*#&"e e&)+e &#/e!8)e A)-!+"e III, Se+-!*# 2 *> -e 194 C*#-!--!*# 9. >owever, the rulethat searches and seiures must be supported by a valid warrant is not an absoluteone. Among the recognied e3ceptions thereto areH 81) a search incidental to anarrest; (2) a search of a moving vehicle; and(3) seizure of evidence in plain view(People v. Lo Ho ing). The permission to enter a house and search for persons andeJects may be Kualied, and the searching o2cer may not act in e3cess of theauthority granted to him. Although the oJense of illegal possession of rearms is a

malum prohibitum, it does not follow that the subjects may be seied simplybecause they are prohibited. A search warrant is still necessary in the conte3t of thiscase.

• The eroys moved to UC and left their house in (avao City to a caretaker whohad keys to the kitchen only. The eroys had the keys to the interior of thehouse.

• Capt. Obrero raided the house based on an information that rebel soldiers areallegedly hiding there.

• ;ith the help of caretakers, they were able to enter only up to the yard sincethe owner was not around and they did not have a search warrant.

• They contacted -rs. eroy, and e3plained that the house was reportedly

being used as a hideout and recruitment center of rebel soldiers. -rs. eroythen gave permission to search the house with the condition that -ajor-acasaet, a longItime family friend, must be there during the search.

• (espite the Kualied consent, the o2cers entered various rooms, includingthe childrenLs room, and conscated a ."' caliber gun and other eJects,which were the basis of the charge of illegal possession of rearms againstthem.

• (espite the fact that the warrants for their arrest have not yet been servedon them, petitioners voluntarily surrendered themselves to Brig. =en.antaleon (umlao, CIC#! Chief, since it was the C#! that initiated thecomplaint. >owever, the latter refused to receive them on the ground that hiso2ce has not yet received copies of their warrants of arrest.

• The !pouses eroy assailed the admissibility of the evidence for beingobtained in violation of their constitutional right against unreasonable searchand seiure.

The Court ruled that the case at bar does not fall on the e3ceptions for awarrantless search.

MANALILI VS CO<RT OF APPEALS



OCTOBER 9, 19946

7ACT!Hat. $omeo ?spiritu and at. Anger 6umabas were patrolling the vicinity of thealookan City Cemetery due to reports of drug addicts roaming the area. Theychanced upon a male 8who turned out to be petitioner Alain -analili y (ion9 whoseemed to be PhighQ on drugs in front of the cemetery. >e was observed to havereddish eyes and to be walking in a swaying manner. ;hen -analili tried to avoidthe policemen, the latter approached him and asked what he was holding in hishands. -analili tried to resist, but the policemen were persistent until he yieldedhis wallet which they e3amined and found to contain crushed marijuana residue.7urther e3amination by the 7orensic Chemistry !ection of the :B# conrmed thendings. Trial court convicted -analili of violation of !ection /, Article ##, of $A %"&'.0pon appeal, the Court of Appeals a2rmed the decision of the trial court. #n hisdefense, -analili claimed that he was not walking< that he was riding a tricycle untilthe three policemen ordered the driver of the tricycle to stop because the driver andpassenger were allegedly under the inMuence of marijuana. >e claimed that he wassearched and his pants were turned insideIout but nothing was found. To somee3tent he implied that the marijuana sample found in his entity was framed up bythe policemen.

DOCTRINE:Te $e#e)&" )"e ! -&- & e&)+ &#/ e!8)e 7- e '&"!/&-e/ % &()e'!*"% e+)e/ /!+!&" &))&#-. H*e'e), -! ! #*- &*"-e &#/e=+e(-!*# &'e ee# +*#-e7("&-e/ % -e "&: 1.6 Se&)+ !#+!/e#-&" -* &"&>" &))e-, 2.6 Se&)+ *> 7*'!#$ 'e!+"e, .6 Se!8)e !# ("&!# '!e ,.6C-*7 e&)+ &#/ 5.6 W&!'e) % -e &++e/ -e7e"'e *> -e!) )!$-&$&!#- #)e&*#&"e e&)+ &#/ e!8)e. #n the cited cases, the search andseiure may be made only with probable cause as essential reKuirement. robablecause 8in relation to search and seiure9H ?3istence of such facts and circumstanceswhich could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an oJensehas been committed and that the item, article, or object sought in connection withsaid oJense or subject to seiure and destruction by law is in the place to besearched. A PstopIandIfriskQ operation is another e3ception to the general rule. #nthis case, probable cause was established with -analiliLs suspicious behaviour.

PEOPLE V. MASLMSTEDT 19 SCRA 01V;here the !earch and seiure is an incident to a 6awful ArrestQ

FACTS:

On -almstedtLs way from !agada to Angeles City, the police boarded the bus wherehe was riding. A bulge was spotted on -almstedtLs waist and, when opened, "suspiciousIlooking objects wrapped in brown packing tape were found. ;hen saidobjects were opened, the wrapped objects turned out to be hashish, a derivative of marijuana. -oreover, in each of his bags, teddy bears contained hashish.a derivative of marijuana. -oreover, in each of his bags, teddy bears contained

hashish On -ay )), )*/*, the Commanding O2cer 8Capt. Alen asco9 of the 7irst

$egional Command 8:A$CO-9 ordered his men to set up a temporary checkpoint at

ilometer )", Acop, Tublay, -ountain rovince. !aid checkpoint was for the purpose



of checking all vehicles coming from the Cordillera $egion and was prompted by

persistent reports that vehicles coming from !agada were transporting marijuana

and other prohibited drugs. -oreover, the Commanding O2cer received an

information that a Caucasian 8-ikael -almstedt9 coming from !agada had in his

possession prohibited drugs. #n the afternoon of same day, the bus where

-almstedt was riding was stopped. -almstedt was on his way to Angeles City andwould then proceed to -anila to catch his Might out of the country two days later. #n

the bus, & :A$CO- o2cers 8!gt. 7ider and C#C =alutan9 boarded the bus and

announced that they were members of the :A$CO- and that they would conduct

an inspection. !aid o2cers started their inspection from the front going towards the

rear of the bus where the accused was seated. =alutan noticed a bulge on

-almstedtLs waist. >e suspected that said bulge was a gun, thus he asked for the

latterLs passport and other identication papers to which he 8-almstedt9 failed to

comply. 7or failure to comply with presenting passport and identication papers,

=alutan reKuired -almstedt to bring out whatever it was that was bulging on his

waist. #t turned out that the bulging object was a pouch bag and when -almstedt

opened the said bag as ordered, the o2cer noticed " suspiciousIlooking objects

wrapped in brown packing tape. ;hen opened, the wrapped objects turned out to

contain hashish, a derivative of marijuana. -almstedt was invited for Kuestioning

outside. But before leaving the bus, he stopped to get & travelling bags. The

o2cers, upon -almstedtLs alighting from the bus, got the bags and opened them. A

teddy bear, having bulges, was found in each bag. After the bags were opened, it

was then that -almstedt presented his passport. -almstedt was brought to the

headKuarters of :A$CO- at Camp (angwas, 6a Trinidad, Benguet for further

investigation. At the investigation room, the o2cers opened the teddy bears and

found to contain hashish. An information was led against -almstedt for violation of

the (angerous (rugs Act of )*+&. -almstedt raised the issue of illegal search of hispersonal eJects.

DOCTRINE:

Te)e &)e e=+e(-!*# e)e & e&)+ 7&% e 7&/e ()&#- -* & "&>"&))e- !+ #ee/ #*- -* *-&!# & e&)+ &))&#-. Tee +!)+7-&#+e!#+"/e: &6 e# -e (e)*# -* e &))e-e/ & +*77!--e/, ! &+-&""%+*77!--!#$ *) ! &--e7(-!#$ -* +*77!- &# *@e#e, !# -e ()ee#+e *> &(e&+e *+e) *) & ()!'&-e (e)*# 6 e# -e *@e#e & +*77!--e/ &#/-e (e&+e *+e)()!'&-e (e)*# & (e)*#&" J#*"e/$e *> >&+-

!#/!+&-!#$ -&- -e (e)*# -* e &))e-e/ & +*77!--e/ !- &#/ +6 e#-e (e)*# -* e &))e-e/ ! & ()!*#e) * & e+&(e/ >)*7 & (e#&"!#-!--!*#("&+e e)e e ! e)'!#$ K#&" /$7e#- *) -e7(*)&)!"%+*#K#e/ !"e ! +&e ! (e#/!#$, *) & e+&(e/ !"e e!#$ -)&#>e))e/>)*7 *#e +*#K#e7e#- -* &#*-e). #n the case at bar, accused was searchedand arrested while transporting prohibited drugs. A crime was actually beingcommitted by the accused and he was caught in Magrante delicto. Thus, the searchmade upon his personal eJects falls sKuarely under the rst circumstance providedby the law which allow a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest.



The acts of the :A$CO- o2cers in reKuiring the accused to open his pouch bag andin opening one of the wrapped objects inside said bag as well as the two travel bagscontaining & teddy bears with hashish stuJed inside them, were prompted by-almstedtLs own attempt to hide his identity by refusing to present his passport,and by the information received by the :A$CO- that a Caucasian coming from!agada had prohibited drugs in his possession. To deprive the :A$CO- agents of

the ability and facility to act accordingly, including, to search even without warrant,in the light of such circumstance, would be to sanction impotence andineJectiveness in law enforcement, to the detriment of society.

PLACER V. VILLAN<EVAG.R. NO. L30932 DECEMBER 29, 19

FACTS:

The Congressman of the municipality of -asbate, -asbate 8-oises ?spinos, !r.9 and

his security escorts 8rovincial =uards Antonio Cortes, =aspar Amaro and Artemio7uentes9 were attacked and killed by a lone assassin. One security escort 8(ante!iblante9 survived the assassination plot but suJered a gunshot wound. After aninvestigation of the incident, the designated investigator 8>arry Tantiado of the CCriminal #nvestigation !ervice at Camp Bagong #balon, 6egapi City9 led anamended complaint accusing icente 6im, !r., -ayor !usana 6im of -asbate, 4olly T.7ernande, 7lorencio T. 7ernande, 4r., :onilon A. Bagalihog, -ayor :estor C. 6imand -ayor Antonio ho of the crime of multiple murder and frustrated murder. The-unicipal Trial Court of -asbate, upon weighing the a2davits and answers given bythe witnesses for the prosecution during the preliminary investigation in searchingKuestions and answers, concluded that a probable cause had been established forthe issuance of a warrant of arrest against the 6im, et.al. The recommended

amount for bail of each of the accused was hp &GG,GGG.GG. ?3cept for Cabarles, allof the accused posted bail. The 7iscal 8Antonio Alfane9, a month after the entirerecords of the case 8&%) pages9 were transmitted, issued a resolution whicha2rmed the nding of a prima facie case against 6im, et.al. but diJered in thedesignation of the crime. >e ruled that all of the accused should not only becharged with -ultiple -urder with 7rustrated -urder, but for a case of murder foreach of the killing of the four victims and a physical injuries case for inMictinggunshot wound on the buttocks of !iblante. !aid 7iscal led with the $TC of -asbate four separate informations of murder against the )& accused with arecommendation of no bail. The hearing of the case, due to the veried petition ledby 6im with the !C, was transferred to the $TC of -akati, Branch '% 8under 4udge:emesio 7eli39. The 6ims led with the said court motions and manifestations,

which include, among others, issue an order for transmission of the initial records of the preliminary investigation conducted in -asbate. These were denied by therespondent court for lack of merit. 7eli3 said that there e3ists probable cause thatthe PoJense of multiple murder was committedW a2rmed upon review by therovincial rosecutor... Considering that both the two competent o2cers to whomsuch duty was entrusted by law have declared the e3istence of probable cause,each information is complete in form and substance, and there is no visible defecton its faceWQ



R<LING:

Te !&#+e *> & &))&#- ! #*- & 7e)e 7!#!-e)!&" >#+-!*# !- +&"" >*) -ee=e)+!e *> /!+!&" /!+)e-!*# *# -e (&)- *> -e !!#$ 7&$!-)&-e >)*7Se+-!*# 3, R"e 112 *> -e R"e *> C*)-6. <#/e) -! e+-!*#, -e /$e7- &-!>% !7e"> *> -e e=!-e#+e *> ()*&"e +&e e>*)e !!#$ &

&))&#- *) *)/e) *> &))e-. #f on the face of the information the judge nds noprobable cause, he may disregard the scalLs certication and reKuire thesubmission of the a2davits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as tothe e3istence of a probable cause. The )*// Amendments to the )*/' $ules onCriminal rocedure 8eJective on October ), )*//9 did not restore the authority of conducting preliminary investigations to 4udges of $TC< said amendments did not infact deal at all with the o2cers or courts having authority to conduct preliminaryinvestigations. This does not mean, however, that $TC judges also lost the power tomake a preliminary e3amination for the purpose of determining whether probablecause e3ists to justify the issuance of a warrant of arrest or search warrant. !uchpower, is as much a duty as it is a power, has been and remains vested in every judge by the provision of the Bill of $ights securing the people against unreasonable

searches and seiures, thereby placing it beyond the competence of mere Court$ule or !tatute to revoke. The distinction must be made clearH while an $TC judgemay no longer conduct preliminary investigations to ascertain whether there issu2cient ground for the ling of a criminal complaint or information, he retains theauthority, when such a pleading is led with his court, to determine whether there isprobable cause justifying the issuance of a warrant of arrest. #t might be added thatthis distinction accords, rather than conMicts, with the rationale of salta, becauseboth law and rule, in restricting judges the authority to order arrest, recognie thefunction to be judicial in nature. reliminary investigation should be distinguishedas to whether it is an investigation for the determination of a su2cient ground forthe ling of the information or it is an investigation for the determination of aprobable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. The rst kind of preliminary

investigation is e3ecutive in nature, and part of the prosecutionLs job. The secondkind of preliminary investigation, which is more properly called preliminarye3amination, is judicial in nature and is lodged with the judge.

ROAN V. GONALES, 15 SCRA 34FACTS:

A search warrant was issued by respondent judge 8=onales9 on -ay )G, )*/".Application for the said search warrant was personally led by C Capt. -auroUuillosa. Together with Uuillosa were two witnesses 8?smael -orada and 4esus Tohilida9, who presented to respondent judge their respective a2davits. Theapplication was not yet subscribed and sworn to, as such respondent 4udge

proceeded to e3amine Uuillosa on the contents of the application to ascertain if heknew and understood the same. Afterwards, Uuillosa subscribed and swore the saidapplication before respondent. etitionerLs 84oseno $oan9 house was searched twodays after the issuance of the search warrant. The said search was performed bymilitary authorities. (espite none of the articles listed in the warrant wasdiscovered, the o2cers who conducted the search found one Colt -agnum revolverand )/ live bullets which they conscated. The said items served as bases for thecharge of illegal possession of rearms against the petitioner.



DOCTRINE:

T* e '&"!/, & e&)+ &))&#- 7- e ((*)-e/ % ()*&"e +&e -* e/e-e)7!#e/ % -e /$e *) *7e &-*)!8e/ *+e) &>-e) e=&7!#!#$ -e+*7("&!#&#- &#/ -e !-#ee e 7&% ()*/+e. Te)e 7- e & (e+!K+/e+)!(-!*# *> -e ("&+e -* e e&)+e/ &#/ -e -!#$ -* e e!8e/, -*

()e'e#- &)!-)&)% &#/ !#/!+)!7!#&-e e *> -e &))&#-. robable cause, asdescribed by 4udge ?scolin in Burgos v. Chief of !taJ, refers to Psuch facts andcircumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believethat an oJense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection withthe oJense are in the place sought to be searched.Q The probable cause must referto only one specic oJense.The applicant 8Capt. Uuillosa9 was asking for theissuance of the search warrant on the basis of mere hearsay and not of informationpersonally known to him as reKuired by settled jurisprudence. #t is a3iomatic thatthe magistrate must be probing and e3haustive, not merely routinary or proIforma,if the claimed probable cause is to be established. The e3amining magistrate mustnot simply rehash the contents of the a2davit but must make his own inKuiry onthe intent and justication of the application.rohibited articles may be seied but

only as long as the search is valid. #n this case, it was not becauseH 8a9 there was novalid search warrant< and 8b9 absent such a warrant, the right thereto was notvalidly waived by the petitioner. #n short, the military o2cers who entered thepetitionerLs premises had no right to be there and therefore had no right to seiethe pistol and bullets.

PEOPLE V. BOLASA NAOBOANG.R. NO. 12545. DECEMBER 22, 1999]

FACTS:

O5 (ante !alonga and O5 Albert Carion were informed by an anonymous caller

that a man and woman were repacking prohibited drugs at a certain house in !ta.Brigida !t., aruhatan, alenuela. Together with !O) 7ernando Arenas, theyproceeded immediately to the house of the suspects. As they walked toward theirKuarryLs 8prey9 lair, the three were accompanied by their unnamed informer.;henthey reached the house, they Ppeeped through a small window and saw one manand a woman repacking suspected marijuana.Q They entered the house andintroduced themselves as police o2cers to the occupants and thereuponconscated the tea bags and some paraphernalia. ?3amination of the tea bags by:B# 7orensic Chemist conrmed the suspicion that the tea bags containedmarijuana. As such, enaida Bolasa and $oberto delos $eyes were charged withviolation of !ec. /, Art. ## of $A %"&' 8(angerous (rugs Act of )*+&9. Both denied onthe witness stand ownership over the conscated tea bags and drug implements.

(elos $eyes claimed that he and his wife were merely tenants in BolasaLs house andat the time he was arrested he had just arrived from work. >e added that when helearned that Bolasa was repacking marijuana inside their room, he immediatelyordered her to leave. As for Bolasa, she claimed that she was about to leave thehouse when she met a certain P$icoQ and conversed with him for some time.Thetrial court, upon nding the version of the prosecution to be plausible, convictedboth accused Bolasa and delos $eyes.On appeal, Bolasa asserted that the search inher residence was illegal as her arrest preceding it was illegal. !he argued that themarijuana seied from her could not be properly used as evidence against her.



Together with delos $eyes, Bolasa said that O5 Carion was not among thearresting o2cers, as such Carion had no personal knowledge regarding theconduct of the arrest and the search thus making his testimony hearsay.

$06#:=H

A# &))e- ! "&>" e'e# !# -e &e#+e *> & &))&#-: &6 e# -e (e)*#-* e &))e-e/ & +*77!--e/, ! &+-&""% +*77!--!#$, *) ! &*- -*+*77!- &# *@e#e !# ! ()ee#+e 6 e# &# *@e#e & !# >&+- ee#+*77!--e/ &#/ e & )e&*#&"e $)*#/ -* e"!e'e -&- -e (e)*# -* e&))e-e/ & +*77!--e/ !- &#/, +6 e# -e (e)*# -* e &))e-e/ ! &()!*#e) * & e+&(e/ >)*7 & (e#&" e-&"!7e#- *) ("&+e e)e e !e)'!#$ K#&" /$7e#- *) -e7(*)&)!"% +*#K#e/ !"e ! +&e ! (e#/!#$,*) & e+&(e/ !"e e!#$ -)&#>e))e/ >)*7 *#e +*#K#e7e#- -* &#*-e). The manner by which accused were apprehended does not fall under any of theaboveIenumerated categories. 7rom the above, the arrest is illegal.#t cannot be said

that the objects were seied in plain view. 7irst, there was no valid intrusion. Asalready discussed, accused were illegally arrested. !econd, the evidence later onfound to contain marijuana was not inadvertently discovered. The police o2cersintentionally peeped rst through the window before they saw and ascertained theactivities of accusedIappellants inside the room. #n like manner, the search cannotbe recognied as a search of a moving vehicle, a consented warrantless search, acustoms search or a stop and frisk< it cannot even fall under e3igent and emergencycircumstances, for evidence at hand is deprived of any such showing.#t indicatesthat the apprehending o2cers should have conducted rst a surveillanceconsidering that the entities and address of the suspected culprits were alreadyascertained. After conducting the surveillance and determining the e3istence of probable cause for arresting accused, they 8the police9 should have secured a

search warrant prior to eJecting a valid arrest and seiure. The arrest being illegalab initio, the accompanying search was likewise illegal. ?very evidence obtainedduring the illegal search cannot be used against accused< hence, they wereacKuitted.

PR<DENTE V DARITG.R. NO. 240 DECEMBER 1, 199

7ACT!H

etitioner 8:emesio rudente9 was implicated for having violated ( )/%% 8#llegal

ossession of 7irearms9. As alleged by S-ajor Alladin (imagmaliw when he appliedfor a search warrant in the sala of 4udge Abelardo (ayrit of the $TC -anila, rudentemay be found at the olytechnic 0niversity of the hilippines where he was keepingand concealing rearms, e3plosive, handgrenades and ammunition, specically atthe 8a9 O2ces of the (epartment for -ilitary !cience and Tactics at the ground Moorand other rooms at the ground Moor and 8b9 O2ce of the resident , (r. :emesiorudente at 0, &nd Moor and other rooms at the &nd Moor. (imagmaliw believes thata search warrant should be issued to enable him or any agent of the law to takepossession and bring to the court the following propertiesH 8a9 -)% armalites with



ammunitions, 8b9 .5/ and ."' caliber handguns and pistols, 8c9 e3plosives andhandgrenades, and 8d9 assorted weapons with ammunition. On the same day8October 5), )*/+9, the respondent 4udge 8(ayrit9 issued search warrant. Thefollowing day 8!unday9, with some &GG ;est olice (epartment operatives, thesearch warrant was enforced. -eanwhile, a member of the searching team 8$icardoAbando9 alleged in his a2davit that he found in the drawer of a cabinet inside the

washroom of (r. rudenteLs o2ce a bulging brown envelope with 5 livefragmentation hand grenades separately wrapped with old newspapers. etitionerhowever moved to Kuash the search warrant on grounds that 8a9 the complainantLslone witness 86t. 7lorenio Angeles9 had no personal knowledge of the facts whichformed the basis for the issuance of the search warrant, 8b9 e3amination of the saidwitness was not in the form of searching Kuestions and answers, 8c9 the searchwarrant was a general warrant for the reason that it did not particularly describe theplace to be searched and that it failed to charge one specic oJense, and 8d9 thesearch warrant was issued in violation of Circular :o. )* of the !C in that thecomplainant failed to allege under oath that the issuance of the search warrant on a!aturday was urgent.

R<LING:

F*) & '&"!/ e&)+ &))&#- -* !e, -e)e 7- e ()*&"e +&e !+ !-* e /e-e)7!#e/ (e)*#&""% % -e /$e &>-e) e=&7!#&-!*# #/e) *&- *)&)7&-!*# *> -e +*7("&!#&#- &#/ -e !-#ee e 7&% ()*/+e, &#/(&)-!+"&)"% /e+)!!#$ -e ("&+e -* e e&)+e/ &#/ -e (e)*# *) -!#$-* e e!8e/. The probable cause must be in connection with one specic oJenseand the judge must, before issuing the warrant, personally e3amine in the form of searching Kuestions and answers, in writing and under oath, the complainant andany witness he may produce, on facts personally known to them and attach to therecord their sworn statements together with any a2davits submitted. As held inAlvare v. C7#, -e -)e -e- *> +!e#+% *> & /e(*!-!*# *) &/&'!- -*

&))&#- !&#+e *> & e&)+ &))&#- ! e-e) !- & ee# /)&# !# &7&##e) -&- (e))% +*"/ e +&)$e/ -e)e*# &#/ -e &&#- e e"/"!&"e >*) /&7&$e +&e/. The oath reKuired must refer to the truth of the factswithin the personal knowledge of the applicant for search warrant, andSor hiswitnesses, not of the facts merely reported by a person whom one considersreliable. Tested by the above standard, the allegations of the witness do not comeup to the level of facts of his personal knowledge so much so that he cannot be heldliable for perjury for such allegations in causing the issuance of the Kuestionedsearch warrant. The rule is, that a description of a place to be searched is su2cientif the o2cer with the warrant can, with reasonable eJort, ascertain and identify theplace intended. #n the case at bar, the application for search warrant and thesearch warrant itself described the place to be searched as the premises of 0,

and had specied the o2ces of the said university. The designation of the place tobe searched su2ciently complied with the constitutional injunction that a searchwarrant must be particularly describe the place to be searched, even if there wereseveral rooms at the ground Moor and second Moor of 0. ApplicantLs failure tostate under oath the urgent need for the issuance of the search warrant, hisapplication having been led on a !aturday, rendered the Kuestioned warrantinvalid for being violative of !C Circular )* which provides thatH applications ledafter o2ce hours, during !aturdays, !undays and holidays shall likewise be takencogniance of and acted upon by any judge of the court having jurisdiction of the



place to be searched, but in such cases, the applicant shall certify and state thefacts under oath to the satisfaction of the judge that the issuance is urgent.

G<ANON V. DE VILLAG.R. NO. 050 ;AN<AR 0, 1990

FACTS:

The petitioners, who are of legal age, bona de residents of -etro -anila, andta3payers and leaders in their respective communities, sought to prohibit themilitary and police o2cers from conducting PAreal Target oningsQ or PsaturationdrivesQ in -etro -anila. etitioners claim that on various dates from -arch ', )*/+till :ovember 5 of the same year, various saturation drives were conducted by therespondents. Added by the petitioners, that these Psaturation drivesQ are in criticalareas pinpointed by the military and police as places where the subversives arehiding. The arrests ranged from + persons 84uly &G, Bankusay, Tondo9 to ),'GG8:ovember 5, 6ower -aricaban, asay City9 and that same followed a commonpattern of human rights abuses like police and military units, without any search

warrant or warrant of arrest, cordon an area of more than one residence andsometimes whole barangay or areas of barangay in -etro -anila, from the dead of the night or early morning hours and residents are herded as cows with menordered to strip down to their briefs and e3amined for tattoo marks and otherimagined marks.

R<LING:

There appears to have been no impediment to securing search warrants or warrantsof arrest before any houses were searched or individuals roused from sleep werearrested. Te)e ! #* -)*#$ *!#$ -&- -e *e+-!'e *$- -* e&--&!#e/ % -e &)e&" 8*#!#$ +*"/ #*- e &+!e'e/ & -e )!$- *> -e?&--e) &#/ "* !#+*7e >&7!"!e &)e >""% ()*-e+-e/

. ;here a violation of human rights specically guaranteed by the Constitution is involved, it is the duty of the court to stop the transgression and state where even the awesome power of thestate may not encroach upon the rights of the individual. ;here there is large scalemutiny or actual rebellion, the police or military may go in force to the combatareas, enter aJected residences or buildings, round up suspected rebels andotherwise Kuell the mutiny or rebellion without having to secure search warrantsand without violating the Bill of $ights. A show of force is sometimes necessary aslong as the rights of the people are protected and not violated. A blanketprohibition such as that sought by the petitioners would limit all police power to oneon one confrontation where search warrants and warrants of arrest against specicindividuals are easily procured.

PITA V. CO<RT OF APPEALSG.R. N*. 003 O+-*e) 5, 199

FACTS:ursuing an AntiI!mut Campaign initiated by the -ayor of -anila 8$amonBagatsing9 on (ecember ) and 5, )*/5, members of the -etropolitan olice 7orce of -anila seied and conscated from dealers, distributors, newsstand owners and



peddlers along -anila sidewalks magaines, publications and other readingmaterials believed to be obscene, pornographic and indecent. The said materialsincluded Pinoy layboyQ whose coIeditor and publisher is the petitioner 86eo ita9. The said materials were burned in public along the 0niversity Belt along C- $ectoAvenue, in the presence of -ayor Bagatsing and several o2cers and members of various student organiations. etitioner, on (ecember +, )*/5, prayed for issuance

of the writ of preliminary injunction against -ayor Bagatsing and thesuperintendent of the ;estern olice (istrict of -anila 8:arciso Cabrera9, restrainingthem and their agents from conscating inoy layboy magaines or frompreventing the sale of the said magaine for it, according to ita, is a decent,artistic, and educational magaine. 7ive days laters, petitioner led an urgentmotion for issuance of a T$O against indiscriminate seiure, conscation andburning of the said magaine pending hearing on the petition for preliminaryinjunction. #n opposing petitionerLs application for a writ of preliminary injunction,-ayor Bagatsing pointed that during the antiIsmut campaign, the materialsconscated belonged to the magaine stand owners and peddlers, who voluntarilysurrendered their reading materials and that petitionerLs establishment was notraided. The trial court denied the motion for a writ of preliminary injunction and

dismissed the case for lack of merit. On appeal to the CA, $TCLs decision wasa2rmed.

R<LING:

I- ! &!+ -&- e&)+e &#/ e!8)e 7&% e /*#e *#"% -)*$ & /!+!&"&))&#-, *-e)!e, -e% e+*7e #)e&*#&"e &#/ e+- -* +&""e#$e .ertinent provisions state that the search must have been incident to a lawfulsearch, and the arrest must be on account of a crime committed. #n the case at bar,no party has been charged, nor are such charges being readied against any party. The Court rejected the argument that Pthere is no constitutional nor legal provisionwhich would free the accused of all criminal responsibility because there had been

no warrantQ and that Pviolation of penal law must be punished.Q 7or starters, thereis no accused here to speak of, who out to be punished. !econd, to say that therespondent -ayor could have validly ordered the raid 8as a result of an antiIsmutcampaign9, without a lawful search warrant because, in his opinion, Pviolation of penal lawsQ has been committed, is to make the respondent -ayor judge, jury ande3ecutioner rolled into one.

VALMONTE V. DE VILLAG.R. NO. 9 SEPTEMBER 29, 199

FACTS:

Activated through 6O# G&S/+ of the hilippine =eneral >eadKuarters, A7, the :C$(istrict Command sought to conduct security operations within its area of responsibility and peripheral areas for the purpose of establishing an eJectiveterritorial defense, maintaining peace and order, and providing an atmosphereconducive to the social, economic and political development of the :C$. As part of its duty to maintain peace and order, the :C$(C installed checkpoints in variousparts of alenuela, -etro -anila. etitioner 8$icardo almonte9, together with the0nion of 6awyers and Advocates for eopleLs $ights, contended that saidcheckpoints caused worries among the residents of alenuela, including the



possibility of getting harassed. Aside from the possibility of getting harassed,residents worry of their safety due to the arbitrary, capricious and whimsicaldisposition of the military manning the checkpoints, considering that their cars andvehicles are being subjected to regular searches and checkIups, especially at nightor at dawn, without the benet of a search warrant andSor court order. On 4uly *,)*//, a supply o2cer of the -unicipality of alenuela, Bulacan 8Benjamin arpon9

was gunned down 8not killed9 allegedly by members of the :C$(C manning thecheckpoint for ignoring andSor refusing to submit himself to the checkpoint and forcontinuing to speed oJ in spite of warning shots red in the air. etitioners8almonte and 06A9 contended that the said checkpoints give the respondents 8(eilla9 a blanket authority to make searches andSor seiures without search warrantor court order in violation of the Constitution. almonte has claimed that he hadgone thru said checkpoints where he was stopped and his car subjected tosearchScheckIup without a court order or search warrant.

R<LING:

:o proof has been presented before the Court to show that, in the course of their

routine checks, the military indeed committed specic violations of petitionersL rightagainst unlawful searches and seiures, or other rights. etitionerLs generalallegation that he had been stopped and searched without a search warrant by themilitary manning the checkpoints, without stating the details of the incidents whichamount to a violation of his right against unlawful search and seiure, is notsu2cient to enable the Court to determine whether there was a violation of almonteLs right against unlawful search and seiure. Te +*#-!--!*#&" )!$-&$&!#- #)e&*#&"e e&)+e &#/ e!8)e ! & (e)*#&" )!$-, &#/ +*"/e !#'*Je/ *#"% % -*e *e )!$- &'e ee# !#>)!#$e/ *) -)e&-e#e/-* e !#>)!#$e/. ;hat constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search andseiure in any particular case is purely a judicial Kuestion, determinable from aconsideration of the circumstances involved. :ot all searches and seiures are

prohibited. Those which are reasonable are not forbidden. A reasonable search isnot to be determined by any 3ed formula but is to be resolved according to thefacts of each case. ;hen the o2cer merely draws aside the curtain of a vacantvehicle which is parked on the public fair grounds or simply looks into a vehicle orMashes a light therein, these do not constitute unreasonable search. Between theinherent right of the !tate to protect its e3istence and promote public welfare andan individualLs right against a warrantless search, which is reasonably conducted,the former shall prevail.

PEOPLE V. LO HO WING ALIAS PETER LO6, LIM CHENG H<AT ALIASANTONIO LIM6 AND RENALDO TIA

G.R. NO. 014 ;AN<AR 21, 1991

FACTS:

The !pecial Operations =roup received a tip from one of its informers about anorganied group engaged in the importation of illegal drugs, smuggling of contraband goods and gunrunning. As part of the operations, the recruitment of condential men and Pdeep penetration agentsQ was carried out to inltrate thecrime syndicate. One of those recruited was $eynaldo Tia. Tia was introduced to6im Cheng >uat 8Antonio 6im9 where the latter e3pressed a desire to hire a male



travel companion for his business trips abroad. Tia oJered his services and washire. Together with 6im, Tia, in one of the meetings in China, was introduced to 6o>o ;ing 8eter 6o9 whom tia found out to be the person he was to accompany toChina in lieu of 6im. As Pdeep penetration agent,Q Tia regularly submitted reports of his undercover activities on the suspected criminal syndicate to Capt. 6uisitoalmera, head of Oplan !haron //+ 1 the group created in order to bus the

suspected syndicate. Tia informed almera of their return to the hilippines afterthey 86o and Tia9 left for >ong ong. 0pon arrival in the hilippines, they were metby 6im. After 6im and 6o nished their conversation, 6o hailed a ta3icab. 6o and Tiaboarded the ta3icab while 6im followed in another ta3i cab. -eanwhile, theoperatives of the :A$CO- 8:arcotics Command9, having been notied by almera,stationed themselves in strategic places around the arrival area. 0pon seeing 6oand Tia leave the airport, the operatives followed them. Along #melda Avenue, thecar of the operatives overtook the ta3icab ridden by 6o and Tia and cut into its pathwhich forced the ta3i driver to stop. The other ta3 cab carrying 6im, however, spedaway but was later caught on $etiro !treet, Uueon City. =oing back to 6o and Tia,the operatives approached the ta3icab and asked the driver to open the baggagecompartment. Three pieces of luggage were retrieved from the back compartment

of the vehicle. The operatives reKuested from 6o and Tia permission to search theirluggage. A tin can of tea was taken out of the red travel bag owned by 6o. Acertain !gt. Cayabyab, one of the operatives, pried the lid open, pulled out a papertea bag from the can and pressed it in the middle to feel its contents. !omecrystalline white powder resembling crushed aluminium came out of the bag. Thesergeant then opened the tea bag and e3amined its content more closely. >e hadthe three travel bags opened for inspection. 7rom the red travel bag, % tin canswere found, including the one previously opened and nothing else was recoveredfrom the other bags.

). The tea bag contained metamphetamine after e3amination by the CI#:Crime 6aboratory. One of metamphetamineLs derivatives is metamphetamine

hydrochloride 8shabuSpoor manLs cocaine9.&. The three were charged with violation of (angerous (rugs Act of )*+&.5. 6o contends that the search and seiure was illegal. >e contends that the

o2cers concerned could very well have procured a search warrant since theyhad been informed of the date and time of arrival of the accused at the :A#Awell ahead of time. -oreover, as claimed by 6o, the fact that the search andseiure in Kuestion were made on a moving vehicle does not automaticallymake the warrantless search fall within the coverage of e3ceptions of thenecessity of a valid warrant to eJect search.

$06#:=H

Te e&)+ &#/ e!8)e ((*)-e/ % & '&"!/ &))&#- ! #*- &# &*"-e)"e. As set forth in -anipon, 4r. v. !andiganbayan, there are at least 5 wellIrecognied e3ceptions, namelyH 8a9 a search incidental to an arrest, 8b9 a search of amoving vehicle, and 8c9 seiure of evidence in plain view. #n the case at bar, there isa clear showing that the search in Kuestion, having been made in a moving vehicle,does not need a valid warrant to eJect search. A warrantless search of a movingvehicle is justied on the ground that it is not practicable to secure a warrantbecause the vehicle can be Kuickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in whichthe warrant must be sought.



EE S<E < V. ALMEDAG.R. NO. 4021 ;<NE 25, 190

FACTS:

$espondent 8-ariano Almeda9, chief agent of the AntiI0sury Board, applied for a

search warrant to command any peace o2cer to search during day time the storeand premises occupied by !am !ing @ Co., situated at !agay, Occidental :egros aswell as the person of the said company, and to seie the documents, notebooks,lists, receipts and promissory notes. !aid search warrant was issued by the justiceof peace of !agay, Occidental :egros on the same day, -ay ', )*5/, after takingthe testimony of 4ose ?strada, a special agent of the AntiI0sury Board. The saidsearch warrant was to eJect search and seiure of articles in connection with !am!ing @ Co.Ls activities of lending money at usurious rates of interest, in violation of law. The search warrant was enforced on the same day, at )GH5G a.m. by Almeda,?strada, two internal revenue agents and two members of the hilippine Army.#mmediately after the search and seiure, Almeda led a return with the justice of peace of !agay with a reKuest that the o2ce of the AntiI0sury Board be allowed to

retain possession of the articles seied for e3amination, pursuant to !ection ", Act")G*. etitioner contended that the search warrant is illegal because the warrantwas issued 5 days ahead of the application and ?stradaLs a2davit is insu2cient,and that seiure of the articles by means of a search warrant for the purpose of using them as evidence in the criminal case against the petitioners, isunconstitutional because the warrant becomes unreasonable and amounts to aviolation of the constitutional prohibition against compelling the accused to testifyagainst himself.

R<LING:

On the rst contention, that is, issuance of search warrant 5 days prior to

application, is not supported. The criticism of petitioners that the search warrant inKuestion was not issued in accordance with the formalities prescribed by !ection ),aragraph 5 of Article ### of the Constitution and of section *+, =eneral Order '/ isunfounded. As a matter of fact, the strict observance of such formalities wasfollowed. The applicant Almeda, in his application, swore that Phe made his ownpersonal investigation and ascertained that !am !ing @ Co. is lending moneywithout license, charging usurious rate of interest and is keeping, utiliing andconcealing in the store and premises, occupied by it documents, notebooks, lists,receipts, promissory notes and book of accounts and records. -oreover, witness?strada, in his testimony before the judge, swore that he knew !am !ing @ Co. andits activities because he personally investigated the victims who secured loans from!am !ing @ Co. Te /e+)!(-!*# *> -e &)-!+"e e!8e/, & $!'e# !# -e e&)+

&))&#-, ! "!Je!e +!e#-. We)e, % -e #&-)e *> -e $**/ e!8e/,-e!) /e+)!(-!*# 7- e )&-e) $e#e)&", !- ! #*- )e?!)e/ -&- & -e+#!+&"/e+)!(-!*# e $!'e#, & -! *"/ 7e&# -&- #* &))&#- +*"/ !e .:either can there be objection to the fact that the objects seied from petitionerswere retained by the agents of the AntiI0sury Board, instead of being turned over tothe justice of the peace of !agay, for the reason that the custody of said agents isthe custody of the issuing o2cerScourt, the retention having been approved by thelatter.



PASION VDA. DE GARCIA V. LOCSING.R. NO. L5950 ;<NE 20, 19

FACTS:

An agent of the AntiI0sury Board 8-ariano Almeda9 obtained from the justice of

peace of Tarlac a search warrant commanding any o2cer of the law to search theperson, house or store of petitioner at ictoria, Tarlac for Pcertain books, lists, chits,receipts, documents and other papers relating to her activities as usurer.Q

On the same date 8:ovember )G, )*5"9, Almeda, together with the captain of thehilippine Constabulary, went to petitionerLs o2ce in ictoria, Tarlac. After showingthe search warrant to petitionerLs bookkeeper 8Alfredo !alas9, and without thepresence of petitioner who was ill and conned at the time, Almeda proceeded withthe warrantLs e3ecution. Two packages of records and a locked ling cabinetcontaining several papers and documents were seied. !aid papers and documentswere kept for a considerable length of time by the AntiI0sury Board and wereturned over by it 8the Board9 to the scal who led % separate criminal cases

against petitioner for violation of the AntiI0sury 6aw.

After the seiure, petitioner demanded the return of the documents seied.-oreover, the legality of the search warrant was challenged by the petitioner twice84anuary + and 4une ", )*5+9.

$06#:=H

F)ee/*7 >)*7 #)e&*#&"e e&)+e &#/ e!8)e ! /e+"&)e/ & (*("&))!$- &#/ >*) & e&)+ &))&#- -* e '&"!/, &6 !- 7- e !e/ (*#()*&"e +&e 6 -e ()*&"e +&e 7- e /e-e)7!#e/ % -e /$e!7e"> &#/ #*- % -e &(("!+&#- *) &#% *-e) (e)*# +6 !# -e/e-e)7!#&-!*# *> ()*&"e +&e, -e /$e 7- e=&7!#e, #/e) *&- *)&)7&-!*#, -e +*7("&!#&#- &#/ + !-#ee & -e &(("!+&#- 7&%()*/+e &#/ /6 -e &))&#- !e/ 7- (&)-!+"&)"% /e+)!e -e ("&+e-* e e&)+e/ &#/ (e)*# *) -!#$ -* e e!8e/. #n the case at bar, thee3istence of probable cause was determined not be the judge himself but by theapplicant.

The constitutional immunity against unreasonable searches and seiures is apersonal right which may be waived. The waiver may be either e3press or implied.#t is wellIsettled that to constitute a waiver of constitutional right, it must appearthatH 8a9 right e3ists, 8b9 persons involved had knowledge, either actual orconstructive, of the e3istence of such right, and 8c9 said person had an actualintention to relinKuish said right. The constitutional immunity from unreasonable

searches and seiures, being a personal one, cannot be waived by anyone e3ceptthe person whose rights are invaded or one who is e3pressly authoried to do so inhisSher behalf. #n the case at bar, she could not have objected because she was sickand was not present when the warrant was served upon. -oreover, upon knowingof the seiure of some of her documents and papers, she had sent her lawyers tothe o2ce of the AntiI0sury Board to demand the return of the documents seied. The failure on the part of the petitioner and her bookkeeper to resist or object to the



e3ecution of the warrant does not constitute an implied waiver of constitutionalright, rather it is merely a demonstration of regard for the supremacy of the law.

B<RGOS V. CHIEF OF STAFFG.R. NO. L3231 DECEMBER 23, 19

FACTS:

4ose Burgos, 4r. is publisherIeditor of the P;e 7orumQ newspaper. Together with theP-etropolitan -ailQ o2ce, P;e 7orumQ newspaper o2ce was seied searched, ando2ce and printing machines, eKuipment, paraphernalia, motor vehicles and otherarticles used in the printing, publication and distribution of said newspapers as wellas numerous papers, documents, books and other written literature. !aid articleswere to be alleged to be in the possession and control of Burgos.The search warrantwas issued by 4udge ?rnani CruIano, issued last (ecember +, )*/&. Theapplication for the warrant was done by Col. $olando Abadilla, #ntelligence O2cer of the C -etrocom. !aid application was accompanied by the 4oint A2davit bymembers of the -etrocom #ntelligence and !ecurity =roup 8Alejandro =utierre,

edro Tango9, both of whom were under Col. Abadilla and conducted a surveillanceof the premises prior to the ling of the application for the warrant. The search wastelevised in Channel + and widely publicied in all metropolitan dailies thusgenerating public interest. As a conseKuence of the search and seiure, saidpremises were padlocked and sealed, with the further result that the printing andpublication of said newspapers were discontinued.

R<LING:

;hen the search warrant applied for is directed against a newspaper publisher oreditor in connection with the publication of subversive materials, as in the case atbar, the application andSor its supporting a2davits must contain a specication,

stating with particularity the alleged subversive material he has published or isintending to publish. -ere generaliation would not su2ce. Thus, the broadstatement in AbadillaLs application that petitioner Pis in possession or has in hiscontrol printing eKuipment and other paraphernalia, news publication, committingthe oJense of subversion punishable under ( //' as amendedQ is a mereconclusion of law and does not satisfy the reKuirements of probable cause. Be)e>-*> + (&)-!+"&) & *"/ -!>% & K#/!#$ *> -e e=!-e#+e *> ()*&"e+&e, &!/ &""e$&-!*# +&##*- e)'e & &! >*) -e !&#+e *> & e&)+&))&#-. !ection 2" #ule 12$ of the #ules of %ourt enumerates the personal

properties that ma& 'e seized under a search warrant" namel& (a) propert& su'ect of the o*ense" (') propert& stolen or em'ezzled and other proceeds+fruits of theo*ense" and (c) propert& used or intended to 'e used as the means of committing

an o*ense. !aid rule does not re,uire that the propert& to 'e seized should 'eowned '& the person against whom the search warrant is directed. #t may or maynot be owned by him for under subsection 8b9, one of the properties that may beseied is stolen property. !tolen property must be owned by one other than theperson in whose possession it may be at the time of the search and seiure.Ownership, therefore, is of no conseKuence and it is su2cient that the personagainst whom the warrant is directed has control or possession of the propertysought to be seied, as petitioner was alleged to have in relation to the articles andproperty seied under the warrants.



CORRO V. LISINGG.R. NO. L3999 ;<L 15, 195

FACTS:

etitioner 8$ommel Corro9 is publisher and editor of the hilippine Times.0pon

application led by 6t. Col. Berlin Castillo of the CICriminal #nvestigation !ervice,respondent 8$TC 4udge ?steban 6ising9 issued a search warrant on !eptember &*,)*/5, authoriing the search and seiure ofH 8a9 printed copies of hilippine Times,8b9 manuscriptsSdrafts of articles for publication in the hilippine Times, 8c9newspaper dummies of the hilippine Times, 8d9 subversive documents, articles,printed matters, handbills, leaMets, banners, and 8e9 typewriters, duplicatingmachines, mimeographing and tape recording machines, video machines and tapes.!aid itemsSarticles were used and being used as instrument and means of committing the crime of inciting to sedition 8Article )"&9. On :ovember %, )*/",petitioner led an urgent motion to recall warrant and to return documentsSpersonalproperties alleging, among others that said seied properties were not in any wayconnected with the oJense of inciting to sedition and that the documentsSpapers

seied has been rendered moot and academic due to the ndings of the AgravaBoard 1 having e3clusive jurisdiction to determine the facts and circumstancesbehind the killing of :inoy AKuino 1 that a military conspiracy was responsible for:inoy AKuinoLs slaying. !aid motion was denied by respondent.

R<LING:

robable cause, as dened in Burton v. !t. aul, -@-. $y. Co., is constituted byPsuch reasons, supported by facts and circumstances, as will warrant a cautiousman in the belief that his actions, and the means taken in prosecuting it, are legally just and proper.Q T, &# &(("!+&-!*# >*) e&)+ &))&#- 7- -&-e !-(&)-!+"&)!-% -e &""e$e/ 'e)!'e 7&-e)!&" ("!e/ *) !#-e#/e/ -* e

("!e/ % -e (e-!-!*#e). A e&)+ &))&#- *"/ (&)-!+"&)"% /e+)!e-e ("&+e -* e e&)+e/ &#/ -e -!#$ -* e e!8e/. The evident purposeand intent of this reKuirement is to limit the things to be seied to those, and onlythose, particularly described in the search warrant 1 to leave the o2cers of the lawwith no discretion regarding what articles should they should seie, to the end thatunreasonable searches and seiures may not be committed. The statement of Col.Castillo in his a2davit state that they have Pfound that the said publication in factfoments distrust and hatred against the government of the hilippines and its dulyconstituted authorities,Q together with 6t. #gnacioLs statement that said periodicalPcontains articles tending to incite distrust and hatred for the hilippine=overnment,Q is a mere conclusion of law and would not satisfy the reKuirements of probable cause.

OLAES V. PEOPLEG.R. NOS. 449 NOVEMBER 9, 194

FACTS:

Adolfo Olaes was believed to have in his possession marijuana driedstalksSleavesSseedsScigarettes and other regulatedSprohibited and e3empt narcoticspreparations< thus, indicting petitioners of violation of $A %"&' 8(angerous (rugs



Acts of )*+&9 despite failure to pinpoint specic section of same. etitionerschallenged the admission of evidence seied by virtue of an allegedly invalidwarrant issued on -arch. -ore so, petitioners claimed that the search warrantissued by the judge is unconstitutional because it did not indicate the specicoJense the petitioners have supposedly committed< thus, making no valid nding of probable cause as a justication for the issuance of the said warrant in conformity

with the Bill of $ights.

R<LING:

Although the specic section of the (angerous (rugs Act is not pinpointed, there isno Kuestion at all of the specic oJense alleged to have been committed as a basisfor the nding of probable cause. Te e&)+ &))&#- &"* &-!Ke -e)e?!)e7e#- !# -e B!"" *> R!$- *> -e (&)-!+"&)!-% *> -e /e+)!(-!*# -*e 7&/e *> -e ("&+e -* e e&)+e/ &#/ -e (e)*# *) -!#$ -* ee!8e/. T, -e &)-!+"e e!8e/ #/e) -e +&""e#$e/ e&)+ &))&#-e)e &/7!--e/ & e'!/e#+e.

PRESIDENTIAL ANTIDOLLAR SALTING TAS FORCE V. CAG.R. NO. 54 MARCH 13, 199

FACTS:

The A(! Task 7orce through !tate rosecutor 4ose $osales issued % search warrantsagainst araml #mportI?3port Co, #nc., @B ?nterprise Co., #nc., hilippine eteransCorporation, hilippine eterans (evelopment Corporation, hilippine Construction(evelopment Corporation, hilippine 6auan #ndustries Corporation, #nterITrade(evelopment, Amelili 0. -alaKuiok ?nterprises and 4aime . 6ucman ?nterprises.!aid search warrants were issued upon application by Atty. :apoleon =atmaytan of the Bureau of Customs and a deputied member of the A(! Task 7orce, together

with the a2davit of 4osen -. Castro, an operative and investigator of the A(! Task 7orce. $espondents Kuestioned whether the A(! Task 7orce is Psuch otherresponsible o2cerQ allowedScountenanced by the )*+5 Constitution to issuewarrants of search and seiures. The $TC, therefore, declared the said searchwarrants as null and void, and eventually denied reconsideration. #n disposing of the petition, the said court found the material issues to includeH 8a9 competency of $TC to act on petition led by the petitioners, 8b9 validity of the search warrantsissued by the respondent !tate rosecutor, and 8c9 whether the petition has becomemoot and academic because all the search warrants sought to be Kuashed hadalready been implemented and e3ecuted. On appeal, A(! was upheld. The CAdeclared that the A(! Task 7orce is a KuasiIjudicial body, making it coIeKual withthe $TC. >owever, on motion for reconsideration by araml, the CA reversed itself.

$ulingH

The A(!, as stated in the task forceLs organic act ( )*5% as amended by (&GG&, was not meant to e3ercise KuasiIjudicial functions to try and decide claimsand e3ecute its judgment. #t is the residentLs arm called upon to combat the vie of Pdollar saltingQ or the blackmarketing and salting of foreign e3change. #t is rathertasked by the ( to handle the prosecution of such activities but nothing more. Thus, not being a KuasiIjudicial body, it cannot be considered coIeKual or coordinate



with $TC. <#/e) -e 14 C*#-!--!*#, -e (*e) *> &))e- &#/ e&)+ &)ee=+"!'e (*# /$e. Te !#+!/e#-, !+ &((e#e/ /)!#$ -ee@e+-!'!-% *> -e 194 C*#-!--!*#, &/ e+*7e 7**- &#/ &+&/e7!+.We# -e 194 C*#-!--!*# (*Je *> )e(*#!"e *+e) -* *7 -e&-*)!-% -* !e &))e- &#/ e&)+ &))&#- 7&% e /e"e$&-e/ %"e$!"&-!*#, !- /!/ #*- >)#! -e "e$!"&-*) !- -e "!+e#e -* $!'e -&-

&-*)!-% -* *7*e'e) !- ("e&e/. #t is to be noted that the Charter Kualiedthat the o2cer himself must be Presponsible.Q The Court takes Presponsibility,Q asused by the Constitution, to mean not only skill and competence but moresignicantly, neutrality and independence comparable to the impartiality presumedof a judicial o2cer. Thus, a prosecutor falls short to be considered havingpossessed the latter Kualities. The implied e3clusion of prosecutors under the )*+5Constitution was founded on the reKuirements of due process, specically theassurance to the respondent of an unbiased inKuiry of the charges against him priorto the arrest of his person or seiure of his property. The Court agreed that the A(! Task 7orce is meant to e3ercise prosecutorial powers, and on that ground, it cannotbe said to be a neutral and detached PjudgeQ to determine the e3istence of probable cause for purposes of arrest or search.

SALAAR V. ACHACOSOG.R. NO. 1510 MARCH 1, 1990

FACTS:

etitioner 8>ortencia P>ortyQ !alaar9 was charged by a $osalie Tesoro wth thehilippine Overseas ?mployment Administration. According to Tesoro, after shesurrendered her ?CC Card to petitioner, she promised her of PbookingQ in 4apan.>owever, after * months, Tesoro was still in the hilippines and was never able totravel to 4apan, and that her ?CC card was not released by !alaar. ublicrespondent Atty. 7erdinand -arKue sent a telegram to petitioner. $espondent

reKuested the petitioner before him being a part of O?A AntiI#llegal $ecruitment0nit. On the same day, having ascertained that the petitioner had no license tooperate a recruitment agency, administrator Tomas Achacoso issued a closure andseiure order, numbered )&G'. The (irector of O?A 6icensing and $egulation 8Atty.?stelita ?spiritu9 issued an order designation Atty. -arKue, Atty. Abara and Atty.istro as members of the team tasked to implement the Closure and !eiure Orderrendered by Achacoso. After proceeding to petitionerLs residence, the team,assisted by -andaluyong policemen and mediamen, went to >annalie (ance!tudio, which petitioner operated. Before entering >annalie (ance !tudio, the teamserved said order on a certain -rs. 7lora !alaar who voluntarily allowed them entryinto the premises. ;hen reKuired to show credentials, !alaar was unable toproduce any. The team conscated assorted costumes when they chanced upon )&

talent performers practicing a dance number. The conscation was duly receiptedfor by -rs. Asuncion -aguelan and witnessed by !alaar. etitioner, through a letterto O?A, reKuested that the personal properties seied at her residence bereturned.

$06#:=H

<#/e) -e ()ee#- C*#-!--!*#, !- ! *#"% & /$e * 7&% !e &))&#-*> e&)+ &#/ &))e-. I- & /e+"&)e/ -&- 7&%*) 7&% #*- e=e)+!e -!



(*e), #e!-e) % & 7e)e ()*e+-!#$ */%. Te e=+e(-!*# ! !# +&e *> /e(*)-&-!*# *> !""e$&" &#/ #/e!)&"e &"!e#, *7 -e P)e!/e#- *) -eC*77!!*#e) *> I77!$)&-!*# 7&% *)/e) &))e-e/, >*""*!#$ & K#&" *)/e)*> /e(*)-&-!*#, >*) ()(*e *> /e(*)-&-!*#. !ection 5/8c9, as amended by ()*&G and &G)/, bestowed to the -inister of 6abor the power to recommend thearrest and detention of any person engaged in illegal recruitment. -ore so, (

)*&G gave the -inister of 6abor arrest and closure power. That, the -inister of 6abor and ?mployment has the power to cause the arrest and detention of suchnonIlicensee or nonholder of authority if after proper investigation it is determinedthat his activities constitute a danger to national security and public order or willlead to further e3ploitation of jobIseekers. -eanwhile, ( &G)/ bestowed upon the-inister of 6abor search and seiure powers. >owever, the decrees in Kuestionstood as dying vestiges of authoritarian rule in its twilight moments. Thuss, the!ecretary of 6abor, not being a judge, may no longer issue search or arrestwarrants. Article 5/8c9 of the 6abor Code is declared unconstitutional and of noforce and eJect.

PAPA V. MAGO

G.R. NO. L2430 FEBR<AR 2, 193

FACTS:etitioner -artin Alagao 8head of the counterIintelligence unit of the -(9, havingreceived a reliable information that a certain shipment of personal eJects wereallegedly misdeclared and undervalued and were to be released from the customsone of the port of -anila, conducted surveillance of said one. ;ith him werepetitioner $icardo apa, the Chief of olice of -anila and a duly deputied memberof the BOC, and other elements of the counterIintelligence unit. The informationwhich reached Alagao specied that said misdeclared and undervalued items wereloaded on two trucks. The trucks left the gate where AlagaoLs group conductedsurveillance. >owever, such trucks were later intercepted. The load of the twotrucks consisted of * bales of goods. The cargo was owned by $emedios -ago whilethe truck was owned by alentin 6anopa. #n their petition in the C7# of -anila, theyclaimed that the -( seied the goods without search warrant issued by acompetent court, and that apa denied the reKuest of -agoLs counsel that the balesbe not opened and the goods not e3amined. The respondent judge issued an orderrestraining petitioners from opening the nine bales in Kuestion. >owever, somebales were already opened by e3aminers of the BOC when the restraining order wasreceived. $espondent contended that, since the inventory of the goods seied didnot show any article of prohibited importation, such articles should be releasedupon her posting of the bond to be determined by court. etitioners contended

however that most of the goods, as shown in the inventory, were not declared andwere thus subject to forfeiture. $espondent judge issued an order releasing thegood upon the ling of the bond in the amount of hp "G,GGG.GG to which therespondent complied with.

R<LING:

Te B)e& *> C-*7 &+?!)e e=+"!'e )!/!+-!*# *'e) !7(*)-e/$**/, >*) -e ()(*e *> e#>*)+e7e#- *> -e +-*7 "&, >)*7 -e



7*7e#- -e $**/ &)e &+-&""% !# (*e!*# *) +*#-)*", e'e# !> #*&))&#- *> e!8)e *) /e-e#-!*# &/ ()e'!*"% ee# !e/ % -eC*""e+-*) *> C-*7 !# +*##e+-!*# !- e!8)e &#/ >*)>e!-)e()*+ee/!#$. #n the case at bar, the moment the BOC actually seied the goods inKuestion, the BOC acKuired jurisdiction over the goods for the purposes of enforcement of the tariJ and customs laws, to the e3clusion of the regular courts.

etitioner Alagao and his companion policemen had authority to eJect the seiurewithout any search warrant issued by a competent court. Te T&)!@ &#/ C-*7C*/e /*e #*- )e?!)e &!/ &))&#- !# -e !#-&#- +&e . The Code authoriespersons having police authority under !ection &&G5 to enter, pass through or searchany land, inclosure, warehouse, store or building, not being a dwelling house< andalso to inspect, search and e3amine any vessel or aircraft and any trunk, package orenvelope or any person on board, or to stop and search and e3amine any vehicle,beast or person suspected of holding or conveying any dutiable or prohibitedarticles.

NOLASCO V. CR<PAOG.R. NO. L390 OCTOBER , 195

FACTS:

One of the petitioners 8AguilarI$oKue9 was accused of the $ebellion of -ilitaryCommission :o. &'. !he was arrested on August %, )*/", ))H5G A- by aConstabulary !ecurity =roup 8C!=9. Arrested with $oKue was :olasco. 5G minuteslater, elements of the C!= searched the premises at &5*IB -ayon !t., Uueon City.(uring the said search, one of the petitioners Tolentino, who was the person inIcharge of the premises, was arrested. "&/ documents and written materials wereseied, together with a portable typewriter and & wooden bo3es. Three hours priorto the search, 6t. Col. irgilio =. !aldajeno of the C!= applied for a search warrantfrom 4udge aXo to be served on &5*IB -ayon !t., Uueon City. !aid place was

determined to be the leased residence of AguilarI$oKue after almost a month of Pround the clock surveillance.Q !aid warrant was issued in proceedings entiled Pv. -ila AguilarI$oKue, Accused, !earch ;arrant :o. /GI/" for rebellion.Q This isknown to be the !earch ;arrant Case. :olasco, AguilarI$oKue and Tolentino wrecharged for subversionSrebellion andSor conspiracy to commit rebellionSsubversion.etitioners, on (ecember )&, prayed in a -otion to !uppress led with -TC 4udge!antos that the items 8total of "5)9 be returned to them. !uch motion was deniedby 4udge !antos on the ground that the validity of the !earch ;arrant had to belitigated in the !earch ;arrant Case. etitioners assert that the search warrant isvoid because it is a general warrant since it did not su2ciently describe withparticularity the things subject of the search and seiure and that probable causehad not been properly established for lack of searching Kuestions.

R<LING:

The items enumerated in the search warrant were vaguely described and notparticularied. There is absent a denite guideline to the searching team as to whatitems might be lawfully seied this giving the o2cers of the law discretion regardingwhat articles they should seie. Therefore, it is in the nature of a general warrantand thus infringes the constitutional mandate reKuiring particular description of thethings to be seied. N*-!--&#/!#$ -e !))e$"&) !&#+e *> -e e&)+



&))&#- &#/ &"-*$, *)/!#&)!"%, -e &)-!+"e e!8e/ #/e) &# !#'&"!/e&)+ *"/ e )e-)#e/, -e% +&##*- e *)/e)e/ )e-)#e/ !# -e +&e &-&), >*) *7e e&)+e 7&% e 7&/e !-*- &))&#-. As declared in !ection)&, $ule )&% of the $ules of Court, a person charged with an oJense may besearched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of thecommission of the crime. S&!/ ()*'!!*# ! +*#K#e/ -* e&)+, !-*- &

e&)+ &))&#- *> & (e)*# * &/ ee# &))e-e/. #t is also a general rulethat, as an incident of an arrest, the place or premises where the arrest was madecan also be searched without a search warrant. #n the latter case, Pthe e3tent andreasonableness of the search must be decided on its own facts and circumstances,and it has been stated that, in the application of general rules, there is someconfusion in the decisions as to what constitutes the e3tent of the place or premiseswhich may be searched. ;hat must be considered is the balancing of theindividualLs right to privacy and the publicLs interest in the prevention of crime andthe apprehension of criminals.Q $oKue 1charged with rebellion which is a crimeagainst public order, a warrant for her arrest had not been served for a considerableperiod of time, arrested within the general vicinity of her dwelling, and search of herdwelling was made within a half hour of her arrest 1 did not need a search warrant

for the possible eJective results in the interest of public order.

POSADAS V. CAG.R. NO. 919 A<G<ST 2, 1990

FACTS:

etitioner was caught during the surveillance of members of the #ntegrated :ationalolice 80rsicio 0ngab and 0mbra 0mpar9 on October )%, )*/% at about )G in themorning. >e was caught in -agallanes !t., (avao Citym within the premises of $ial -emorial Colleges. etitioner was carrying a buri bag and Pwas actingsuspiciously,Q as described by the two members of the #:. ;hen they approached

petitioner, they identied themselves as members of the #:. etitioner attemptedto Mee but was thwarted. The two o2cers checked the buri bag and foundH ) caliber.5/ !mith @ ;esson revolver with serial no. ++G)*%, & rounds of live ammunition fora .5/ caliber gun, a smoke grenade, and & live ammunitions for a .&& caliber gun.etitioner was brought to the headKuarters and was asked to show the necessarylicense or authority to possess rearms and ammunitions found in his possession,but correspondingly failed to do so. >e was convicted for illegal possession of rearms and ammunitions. etitioner contends however that, there being no lawfularrest or search or seiure, the items which were conscated from his possessionwere inadmissible as evidence against him.

R<LING:

!ection ', $ule ))5 of the )*/' $ules on Criminal rocedure provides that, amongothers, an arrest is lawful even without a warrant should a person has committed, isactually committing, or is attempting to commit an oJense in the presence of apeace o2cer or a private person. #n the case at bar, the o2cers did not know whatthe petitioner had committed or was actually committing< thus, it does not justify anarrest without a warrant. H*e'e), -e e&)+ -e)e&- !# -e +&e &- &) !7*)e )e&*#&"e -&# &))&#-"e e&)+ &#/ e!8)e +*#/+-e/ &-7!"!-&)% *) (*"!+e +e+J(*!#-. Te e&)+ /*#e % -e *+e) &



e@e+-e/ *# -e &! *> & ()*&"e +&e. Te ()*&"e +&e ! -&-e# -e (e-!-!*#e) &+-e/ (!+!*"% &#/ &--e7(-e/ -* ee !- -e )!&$. Te)e & & ()*&"e +&e -&- e & +*#+e&"!#$ *7e-!#$ !""e$&"!# -e &$ &#/ !- & -e )!$- &#/ /-% *> -e (*"!+e *+e) -* !#(e+--e &7e. #t is too much to reKuire police o2cers to search bags in the possessionof the petitioner only after they shall have obtained a search warrant for the

purpose. !uch an e3ercise may prove to be useless, futile and much too late.

PEOPLE V. DE LARA[G.R. NO. 1240. ;<NE 24, 2000]

FACTS:

On 4anuary *, )*/+, after surveillance of the vicinity of =arrido and amora !ts. At!ta. Ana, -anila last (ecember )' and )+ of )*/%, and 4anuary /, )*/+, a si3Imanteam was formed in order to e3ecute a buyIbust operation against de 6ara and hisgroup. A certain fc. -artin Orolfo, 4r. acted as the poseurIbuyer. Orolfo and thecondential informant proceeded to the house of de 6ara where he was seen

standing outside. The informant introduced Orolfo as an interested buyer of marijuana, to which de 6ara asked how much he 8Orolfo9 would buy. $esponding tothe Kuestion, Orolfo answered two foils handing at the same time the marked hp&G bill. de 6ara placed the money in the right pocket in his pants,, went inside andminutes later came back with the two foils. ;hen de 6ara handed the two foils, hesensed the presence of the police< thus, he tried to retrieve the two foils from Orolfoto which the latter prevented him from doing so. >e ran inside the house, withOrolfo in pursuit. ;hen he was subdued, de 6ara admitted that he kept prohibiteddrugs in his house and even showed the arresting o2cers a blue plastic bag withwhite lining containing prohibited drugs. Orolfo made a receipt of the articlesseied. (e 6ara was convicted of violation of !ec. ", Article ## of $A %"&' 8(angerous(rugs Act of )*+&9. #n his appeal, he Kuestioned the legality of his arrest and

seiure of prohibited drugs found in his house.

R<LING:

!ection ', $ule ))5 of the )*/' $ules on Criminal rocedures enumerates situationswhen an arrest may be lawful even without a warrant. Two of said situationsapplicable to the case areH 8a9 that when the person to be arrested has committed,is actually committing or is attempting to commit an oJense in the presence of apeace o2cerSprivate person, and 8b9 that when an oJense has in fact just beencommitted and the peace o2cerSprivate person has personal knowledge of factsindicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. #n the case at bar, de6ara was caught redIhanded in delivering two tin foils of marijuana to Orolfo.>aving caught the appellant in Magrante as a result of the buyIbust operation, thepolicemen were not only authoried but were also under obligation to apprehendthe drug pusher even without a warrant of arrest. 7urthermore, surveillance on theillegal activities of de 6ara was already conducted by the police as early as(ecember )' and )+, )*/%. Te (*"!+e7e#Q e#-)% !#-* -e *e *> &((e""&#- !-*- & e&)+ &))&#- & !# *-()!- *> & (e)*# +&$-+*77!--!#$ &# *@e#e !# &$)&#-e. Te &))e- -&- >*""*e/ -e *-



()!- & '&"!/. M*)e*'e), -e e!8)e ! '&"!/. Te e!8)e *> -e ("&-!+&$ +*#-&!#!#$ ()*!!-e/ /)$ & -e )e"- *> &((e""&#-Q &))e- !#!/e! *e. A contemporaneous search may be conducted upon the person of thearrestee and the immediate vicinity where the arrest was made.

PEOPLE V. DE GRACIAG. R. NOS. 10200910 ;<L 3, 199

FACTS:

7rom :ovember 5G to (ecember *, )*/*, there was a coup dL etat staged byelements of the $eform the Armed 7orces -ovement 1 !oldiers of the 7ilipino eople8$A-I!79. arious government establishments and military camps in -etro -anilawere bombarded by the $A-I!7 with their PtoraItoraQ planes. On the night of :ovember 5G, )*/* until the early morning of the ne3t day, -ajor ?fren !oria of the

#ntellience (ivision conducted a surveillance of the ?urocar !ales O2ces at ?(!A,together with his team. They were informed that said establishment were beingoccupied by elements of the $A-I!7 as a communication command post. Onemember of !oriaLs team 8!S!gt. >enry AKuino9 conducted a surveillance on footwhen the crowd gathered near the ?urocar O2ce watching the onIgoingbombardment near Camp Aguinaldo and from said crowd, a group of ve menwalked towards the car of the surveillance team. ;hen the vehicle sped away, thegroup of ve men red at the team which resulted in the wounding of a teammember 8!gt. !agario9. On (ecember ', )*/*, a searching team led by 7S6t. irgilioBabao, together with the elements of the )%th #nfantry Battalion led by Col. (elos!antos, raided the ?urocar !ales O2ce and found ammunitions and e3plosives. Amember of the team, !gt. Obenia, who was the rst one to enter the building, saw

de =racia holding a CI" and suspiciously peeping through a door. de =racia wasarrested, together with the janitors of the building. They were made to sign aninventory, written in Tagalog, of the e3plosives and ammunition conscated by theraiding team. :o search warrant was secured by the raiding team because,according to them, there was so much disorder considering that Camp Aguinaldowas being mopped up by the rebel forces and there was simultaneous ring withinthe vicinity of the ?urocar O2ce, aside from the fact that courts were conseKuentlyclosed. $olando de =racia was charged with two separate informations for illegalpossession of ammunition and e3plosive in furtherance of rebellion and forattempted homicide. 7ound in their possession were ' bundles of dynamites, %cartons of -)% ammunition at &G per carton and )GG bottles of -O6OTO bombs.de =racia was convicted for the rst crime 8furtherance of rebellion9 but was

acKuitted of the second 8of attempted homicide9.

R<LING:

#t is admitted that the military operatives who raided the ?urocar !ales O2ce werenot armed with a search warrant at that time. !aid search was prompted byintelligence reports that said o2ce was being used as headKuarters by the $A-YI!7. rior to the raid, there was a surveillance conducted on the premises whereinthe surveillance team was red at by a group of men coming from the ?urocar



O2ce. ;hen the military operatives raided the place, the occupants refused toopen the door despite reKuests for them to do so, thereby compelling the military tobreak into the o2ce. The ?urocar !ales O2ce is neither a gun store nor an armoryor arsenal< instead, it was primarily and solely engaged in the sale of automobiles. The presence of an unusual Kuantity of highIpowered rearms and e3plosives couldnot be justiably or colorably e3plained. #n addition, there was general chaos and

disorder at that time. The courts in the surrounding areas wre obviously closed withthe building and houses deserted. <#/e) &!/ +!)+7-&#+e, -e +&e &- &)>&"" #/e) *#e *> -e e=+e(-!*# -* -e ()*!!-!*# &$&!#- & &))&#-"ee&)+. I# -e K)- ("&+e, -e 7!"!-&)% *(e)&-!'e &/ )e&*#&"e $)*#/-* e"!e'e -&- & +)!7e & e!#$ +*77!--e/ &>-e) -&J!#$ !#-* &++*#- -e>&+-. M*)e *, -e)e ! 7*)e -&# +!e#- ()*&"e +&e &))&#- -e!)&+-!*#. <#/e) -e !-&-!*# -e# ()e'&!"!#$, -e )&!/!#$ -e&7 &/ #**((*)-#!-% -* &(("% >*) &#/ e+)e & e&)+ &))&#- >)*7 -e +*)-. Te /$e !7e"> 7&#!>e-e/ -&- e# -e )&!/ & +*#/+-e/ ! +*)- &+"*e/. 0nder such urgency and e3igency of the moment, a search warrant couldlawfully be dispensed with.As enunciated in 0mil, et.al v. $amos, PDtEhe arrest of persons involved in the rebellionW is more an act of capturing them in the course of

an armed conMict, to Kuell the rebellion than for the purpose of immediatelyprosecuting them in court for a statutory oJense. The arrest, therefore, need notfollow the usual procedure in the prosecution of oJenses which reKuires thedetermination by a judge of the e3istence of probable cause before the issuance of a judicial warrant of arrestW Obviously, the absence of a judicial warrant is no legalimpediment to arresting or capturing persons committing overt acts of violenceagainst government forces or any other milder acts but really in pursuance of therebellious movement. The arrest or capture is thus impelled by the e3igencies of the situation that involves the very survival of society and its government and dulyconstituted authorities.Q

Documents

Warrantless Search