RODOLFO ESPANO vs CA
the petitioner, indicating that he was in agreement with the complaint
The said accused have in his possession and under his custody and
control twelve (12) plastic cellophane (bags) containing crushed flowering
tops, marijuana weighing 5.5 grams which is a prohibited drug.
In violation of Article II, Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended,
otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act.
The evidence for the prosecution, based on the testimony of Pat. Romeo posted the required bail to obtain her provisional liberty, it becomes
Pagilagan, shows that he and other police officers of the Western Police futile to assail the validity of the issuance of the warrants of arrest.
District (WPD), Narcotics Division went to Zamora and Pandacan Streets, Posting of a bail bond constitutes waiver of any irregularity attending
Manila to confirm reports of drug pushing in the area.
They saw petitioner selling something to another person. arrest.
After the alleged buyer left, they approached petitioner, identified
themselves as policemen, and frisked him.
The search yielded two plastic cellophane tea bags of marijuana.
When asked if he had more marijuana, he replied that there was more in
his house.
The policemen went to his residence where they found ten more
cellophane tea bags of marijuana.
Petitioner was brought to the police headquarters where he was charged
with possession of prohibited drugs
Petitioner contends that the trial and appellate courts erred in convicting him
on the basis of the following: (a) the pieces of evidence seized were
inadmissible; (b) the superiority of his constitutional right to be presumed
innocent over the doctrine of presumption of regularity; (c) he was denied the
constitutional right of confrontation and to compulsory process; and (d) his
conviction was based on evidence which was irrelevant and not properly
identified.
ISSUE: WON the petitioners arrest was lawful.
HELD: Yes. Petitioners arrest falls squarely under the aforecited rule. He
was caught in flagranti as a result of a buy-bust operation conducted by
police officers on the basis of information received regarding the illegal trade
of drugs within the area of Zamora and Pandacan Streets, Manila. The police
officer saw petitioner handing over something to an alleged buyer. After the
buyer left, they searched him and discovered two cellophanes of marijuana.
His arrest was, therefore, lawful and the two cellophane bags of marijuana
seized were admissible in evidence, being the fruits of the crime.
The 1987 Constitution guarantees freedom against unreasonable searches
and seizures under Article III, Section 2. An exception to the said rule is a
warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest for dangerous weapons
or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an
offense. It may extend beyond the person of the one arrested to include
the premises or surroundings under his immediate control. In this case,
the ten cellophane bags of marijuana seized at petitioners house after his
arrest at Pandacan and Zamora Streets do not fall under the said exceptions.
JOHN W. TERRY VS OHIO
The officer noticed the Petitioner talking with another individual on a street
corner while repeatedly walking up and down the same street.
The men would periodically peer into a store window and then talk some
more. The men also spoke to a third man whom they eventually followed
up the street.
The officer believed that the Petitioner and the other men were casing a
store for a potential robbery.
The officer decided to approach the men for questioning, and given the
nature of the behavior the officer decided to perform a quick search of the
men before questioning.
A quick frisking of the Petitioner produced a concealed weapon (pistol and
revolver) and the Petitioner was charged with carrying a concealed
weapon.
ISSUE: WON a search for weapons without probable cause for arrest is an
unreasonable search under the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
HELD: It was held that it is a reasonable search when an officer
performs a quick seizure and a limited search for weapons on a person
that the officer reasonably believes could be armed. A typical beat officer
would be unduly burdened by being prohibited from searching individuals
that the officer suspects to be armed. The court distinguished between an
investigatory "stop" and an arrest, and between a "frisk" of the outer clothing
for weapons and a full-blown search for evidence of crime.
FAUSTINA CALLANTA vs. HON. FELIPE VILLANUEVA
The denial by respondent Judge Felipe Villanueva grant the motions to
quash the 2 complaints for grave oral defamation against petitioner gave
rise to these suits for certiorari
The validity of the issuance of the warrants of arrest by Judge Villanueva
being contested on the ground that it should have been the City Fiscal
who should have conducted the preliminary examination.
There was then, in the opinion of petitioner's counsel, a jurisdictional
infirmity.
From the very petition itself, however, it was shown that after such
issuance of the warrants of arrest with the bail fixed in the amount of
P600.00, petitioner posted such required bail bonds, thus obtaining her
provisional liberty.
If the Fiscal did not agree with the Judge in the latter's investigation of the
case, he would have asked for a further reinvestigation of the cases. But
the City Fiscal did not.
On the other hand the Fiscal appeared at the proceedings to prosecute
already filed." There was no denial thereof by petitioner.
ISSUE: WON the issuance of arrest warrant valid.
HELD: Yes. With the express admission by petitioner that she had
the arrest of a person, stop him from discussing the validity of his
JOSE S. BAGCAL vs. HON. ROLANDO R. VILLARAZA
Petitioner was arrested by the Philippine Constabulary.
The arrest was without warrant.
He has been detained at Camp Alagar, Cagayan de Oro City, since his
arrest to the present.
The City Fiscal of Cagayan de Oro filed an information for murder
against petitioner.
The information was accompanied by the affidavits of several persons.
They were not subscribed before Judge Villaraza who did not ask the
affiants to ratify their oaths nor did he ask them searching questions.
The information has no certification by the City Fiscal that he had
conducted a preliminary investigation.
It is obvious that the information was filed with Judge Villaraza so that he
would conduct a preliminary examination and thereafter issue a warrant
of arrest.
The circumstances attending the issuance of the warrant of arrest have
been invoked in the petition for habeas corpus.
And it is the warrant of arrest that has been invoked in the return of the
writ to justify petitioner's detention and it is also the basis for the decision
of Judge Rosete on denying the petition.
Petitioner claims, and Judge Rosete agrees, that respondent Judge
Villaraza should not have issued a warrant of arrest without a
preliminary examination of the witnesses for the prosecution.
ISSUE: WON the arrest was valid.
HELD: Although the warrant of arrest was irregularly issued, any infirmity
attached to it was cured when petitioner submitted himself to the
jurisdiction of the court by applying for bail, submitting a
memorandum in support thereof, and filing a motion for
reconsideration when his application was denied.
HON. RICARDO G. PAPA, as Chief of Police of Manila vs REMEDIOS
MAGO and HILARION U. JARENCIO, as Presiding Judge of Branch 23
The head of the counter-intelligence unit of the Manila Police Department,
acting upon a reliable information to the effect that a certain shipment of
personal effects, allegedly misdeclared and undervalued, would be
released from the customs zone of the port of Manila and loaded on two
trucks,
Upon orders of petitioner Ricardo Papa, Chief of Police of Manila and a
duly deputized agent of the Bureau of Customs, conducted surveillance
The load of the two trucks consisting of nine bales of goods, and the two
trucks, were seized without warrant on instructions of the Chief of Police.
Upon investigation, a person claimed ownership of the goods and showed
to the policemen a "Statement and Receipts of Duties Collected in
Informal Entry No. 147-5501", issued by the Bureau of Customs in the
name of a certain Bienvenido Naguit.
ISSUE: WON the search was valid
HELD: Yes. The Chief of the Manila Police Department, Ricardo G. Papa,
having been deputized in writing by the Commissioner of Customs, could,
for the purposes of the enforcement of the customs and tariff laws, effect
searches, seizures, and arrests, and it was his duty to make seizure, among
others, of any cargo, articles or other movable property when the same may
be subject to forfeiture or liable for any fine imposed under customs and tariff
laws. The Tariff and Customs Code authorizes him to demand assistance of
any police officer to effect said search and seizure, and the latter has the
legal duty to render said assistance. The Tariff and Customs Code does
not require said warrant herein. The Code authorizes persons having
police authority under Section 2203 of the Tariff and Customs Code to
enter, pass through or search any land, inclosure, warehouse, store or
building, not being a dwelling house; and also to inspect, search and
examine any vessel or aircraft and any trunk, package, box or envelope
or any person on board, or stop and search and examine any vehicle,
beast or person suspected of holding or conveying any dutiable or
prohibited article introduced into the Philippines contrary to law,
without mentioning the need of a search warrant in said cases. The
guaranty of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures is construed
as recognizing a necessary difference between a search of a dwelling house
or other structure in respect of which a search warrant may readily be
obtained and a search of a ship, motorboat, wagon, or automobile for
contraband goods, where it is not practicable to secure a warrant, because
the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which
the warrant must be sought. Having declared that the seizure by the
members of the Manila Police Department of the goods in question was in
accordance with law and by that seizure the Bureau of Customs had
acquired jurisdiction overthe goods for the purposes of the enforcement of
the customs and tariff laws, to the exclusion of the Court of First Instance of
Manila.
PEOPLE vs. CFI of RIZAL
The Regional Anti-Smuggling Action Center (RASAC) was informed by
an undisclosed Informer that a shipment of highly dutiable goods would
be transported to Manila from Angeles City on a blue Dodge car.
Upon order of the Chief of Intelligence and Operations Branch, RASAC-
MBA, Col. Antonio Abad, Jr., the RASAC agents stopped the blue Dodge
car and saw boxes therein (resp. do not know the contents).
Respondents (Jessie Hope & Monina Medina) were asked where they
were bringing the boxes, to which respondent Medina replied that they
were bringing them (boxes) to the Tropical Hut at Epifanio de los Santos.
The agents together with the respondents went to Tropical Hut
They waited for the man who according to Monina Medina was supposed
to receive the boxes.
As the man did not appear, Col. Abad "called off the mission" and brought
respondents and their car to Camp Aguinaldo
The boxes were opened upon the orders of Col. Abad and there revealed
several branded watches that are believed to be untaxed.
Thereafter they requested the Bureau of Customs for the issuance of a
warrant for the seizure of the articles and the blue Dodge car.
Collector of Customs issued the warrant pursuant to Sec. 2530 of the
Tariff and Customs Code.
ISSUE: WON the seizure of the merchandise in a moving vehicle to enforce
customs law without warrant of seizure valid.
HELD: Yes. Persons exercising police authority under the customs law
may effect search and seizure without a search warrant in the
enforcement of customs laws (Section 2203 of the Tariff and Customs
Code). The State holds on the proposition that the rules governing search
and seizure had been liberalized when a moving vehicle is the object of the
search and the necessity of a prior warrant has been relaxed on the ground
of practicality, considering that before a warrant could be obtained, the
place, things and persons to be searched must be described to the
satisfaction of the issuing judge a requirement which borders on
impossibility in the case of smuggling effected by the use of a moving vehicle
that can transport contraband from one place to another with impunity.
PEOPLE vs WILSON B. QUE
SPO1 Dexter Corpuz, a member of the Provincial Task Force on Illegal
Logging, received an information that a ten-wheeler truck loaded with
illegally cut lumber will pass through Ilocos Norte.
When they apprehended the said truck, they checked the cargo and found
that it contained coconut slabs.
When interviewed, accused-appellant told SPO1 Corpuz that there were
sawn lumber inserted in between the coconut slabs.
Accused-appellant Wilson Que failed to present supporting documents for
the Cargos, specifically: (1) certificate of lumber origin, (2) certificate of
transport agreement, (3) auxiliary invoice, (4) receipt from the DENR, and
(5) certification from the forest ranger regarding the origin of the coconut
slabs.
All he could show was a certification from the Community Environment
and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) that he legally acquired the
coconut slabs.
Wilson Que was charged with violation of Section 68 of P.D. 705 as
amended by E.O. 277.
ISSUE: WON the warrantless search and seizure valid.
HELD: Yes. A warrantless search had been upheld in cases of moving
vehicles, and the seizure of evidence in plain view. The mobility of motor
vehicles makes it possible for the vehicle to be searched to move out of the
locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. When a vehicle
is stopped and subjected to an extensive search, such a warrantless
search has been held to be valid as long as the officers conducting the
search have reasonable or probable cause to believe before search
that they will find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime,
in the vehicle to be searched.
TOMAS SALVADOR vs PEOPLE
A Special Mission Group from the PAF Special Operations Squadron,
conducted routine surveillance operations at the Manila Domestic Airport
to check on reports of alleged drug trafficking and smuggling being
facilitated by certain PAL personnel. (Aurelio Mandin, Danilo Santos and
petitioner Tomas Salvador)
Later, they reported that the 3 persons who earlier boarded the Airbus 300
had disembarked with their abdominal areas bulging.
The team searched their bodies and found that the three were wearing
girdles beneath their uniforms, all containing packets wrapped in
packaging tape.
Mandin yielded five (5) packets, while petitioner and Santos had four (4)
each. The team confiscated the packets and brought all the accused to
the PAFSECOM Office. (13 packets containing assorted smuggled
watches and jewelries valued at more than half a million pesos).
They were with violation of Section 3601 of the Tariff and Customs Code.
They conspire in the concealment and unlawful importation of the
smuggled watches and jewelries.
ISSUE: WON there was probable cause for the arrest and search of the
persons of the accused.
HELD: Yes. There was sufficient probable cause for the PAF
surveillance team to stop and search petitioner and his companions.
They boarded the parked Air Bus 300 PAL plane at the time when there were
no other PAL personnel working therein. They stayed inside the plane for
sometime and surprisingly, came out with bulging waists. They then stopped
and looked around and made apparent signals. All these acts were
sufficient to engender a reasonable suspicion that petitioner and his
colleagues were up to something illegal. Moreover, the search and
seizure was conducted in connection with the enforcement of customs
law when the petitioner and his co-accused were riding a motor
vehicle. In addition, the search was conducted at the vicinity of Lima Gate
of the Manila Domestic Airport which, like every gate in the airport perimeter,
has a checkpoint. Finally, the petitioner and his companions agreed to the
search after one of them was caught with a suspicious-looking packet. Under
these circumstances, the search and seizure is legal and the seized items
are admissible in evidence.
PEOPLE vs MIKAEL MALMSTEDT
Commanding Officer of the First Regional Command (NARCOM), ordered
his men to set up a temporary checkpoint for the purpose of checking all
vehicles coming from the Cordillera Region as prompted by persistent
reports that vehicles coming from Sagada were transporting marijuana
and other prohibited drugs.
The information was received that a Caucasian coming from Sagada had
in his possession prohibited drugs.
Mikael Malmstedt, a Swedish national, entered the Philippines for the third
time in December 1988 as a tourist.
Accused left for Baguio City and the following day, he took a bus to
Sagada and stayed in that place for 2 days.
The bus where accused was riding was stopped
Upon inspection, they noticed a bulge on accused's waist.
The bulging object turned out to contain hashish, a derivative of
marijuana.
Thereafter, accused was invited outside the bus for questioning. But
before he alighted from the bus, accused stopped to get two (2) travelling
bags from the luggage carrier. Teddy bears with hashish
Accused was charged of violation of Section 4, Art. II of Republic Act
6425, as amended, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972, as amended.
ISSUE: WON search of his personal effects was illegal because it was made
without a search warrant.
HELD: No. The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure
in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches
and seizures. However, where the search is made pursuant to a lawful
arrest, there is no need to obtain a search warrant.
A lawful arrest without a warrant may be made by a peace officer or a private person
under the following circumstances:
Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private person may, without
a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal
knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while
his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to
another.
Accused was searched and arrested while transporting prohibited drugs
(hashish). A crime was actually being committed by the accused and he
was caught in flagrante delicto. Thus, the search made upon his
personal effects falls squarely under paragraph (1) of the foregoing
provisions of law, which allow a warrantless search incident to a lawful
arrest.
PEOPLE vs CHUA HO SAN @ TSAY HO SAN
In response to reports of rampant smuggling of firearms and other
contraband, Chief of Police Jim Lagasca Cid of Bacnotan Police Station,
LaUnion began patrolling the Bacnotan coastline with his officers.
While monitoring the coastal area of Barangay Bulala, he intercepted a
radio call at around 12:45 p.m. from Barangay Captain Juan Almoite of
Barangay Tammocalao requesting for police assistance regarding an
unfamiliar speedboat the latter had spotted.
According to Almoite, the vessel looked different from the boats ordinarily
used by fisher folk of the area and was poised to dock at Tammocalao
shores.
Cid and six of his men led by SPO1 Reynoso Badua, proceeded
immediately to Tammocalao beach and there conferred with Almoite.
Cid then observed that the speedboat ferried a lone male passenger, who
was later identified as Chua Ho San.
When the speedboat landed, the male passenger alighted, carrying a
multicolored strawbag, and walked towards the road.
Upon seeing the police officers, the man changed direction.
Badua held Chuas right arm to prevent him from fleeing.
They then introduced themselves as police officers; however, Chua did
not understand what theyre saying.
And by resorting of sign language, Cid motioned with his hands for the
man to open his bag. The man acceded to the request.
The said bag was found to contain several transparent plastics containing
yellowish crystalline substances, which was later identified to
bemethamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
Chua was then brought to Bacnotan Police Station, where he was
provided with an interpreter to inform him of his constitutional rights.
ISSUE: WON there was probable cause to conduct warrantless arrest,
search and seizure.
HELD: No. SC found no probable cause. True, CHUA entered Philippine
territory without a visa. This was not obvious to the police. But gossamer to
the officers sense perception and view were CHUA disembarking from a
speedboat, CHUA walking casually towards the road, and CHUA
carrying a multicolored strawbag these acts did not convey any
impression that he illegally entered Philippine shores. The search was
not incidental to an arrest. There was no warrant of arrest and the
warrantless arrest did not fall under the exemptions allowed by the Rules of
Court as already shown. From all indications, the search was nothing but
a fishing expedition.
 The Constitution bars State intrusions to a person's body, personal
effects or residence except if conducted by virtue of a valid search warrant
issued in compliance with the procedure outlined in the Constitution and
reiterated in the Rules of Court; otherwise such search and seizure become
unreasonable within the meaning of the aforementioned constitutional
provision.
This interdiction against warrantless searches and seizures, however,
is not absolute and such warrantless searches and seizures have long
been deemed permissible by jurisprudence in instances of:
(1) search of moving vehicles,
(2) seizure in plain view,
(3) customs searches,
(4) waiver or consent searches,
(5) stop and frisk situations (Terry search), and
(6) search incidental to a lawful arrest.
The last includes a valid warrantless search and seizure pursuant to an
equally valid warrantless arrest, for, while as a rule, an arrest is considered
legitimate if effected with a valid warrant of arrest, the Rules of Court
recognize permissible warrantless arrests, to wit:
(1) arrests in flagrante delicto,
(2) arrests effected in hot pursuit, and
(3) arrests of escaped prisoners.[13]
In cases of in flagrante delicto arrests, a peace officer or a private
person may without a warrant, arrest a person, when, in his presence, the
person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting
to commit an offense.
The arresting officer, therefore, must have personal knowledge of such
fact or as recent case law adverts to, personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances convincingly indicative or constitutive of probable cause.
The State then attempted to persuade this Court that there was a
consented search, a legitimate waiver of the constitutional guarantee against
obtrusive searches. It is fundamental, however, that to constitute a waiver,:
(1) it must first appear that the right exists;
(2) secondly, that the person involved had knowledge, actual or
constructive, of the existence of such a right;
(3) and lastly, that said person had an actual intention to relinquish the
right.