21. People vs. Maspil G. R No.
R No. 85177, August 20,1990 In his defense, the married accused with one child, declared that he was able to
Facts:
By the virtue of the report coming from the informants, that two persons would
be transporting a large quantity of marijuana, Police officers set up a check point
in Benguet to monitor,inspect and scrutinize vehicles bound for Baguio City. After
hours of waiting, a jeepney was flagged down in the checkpoint and the informers
identified the two. When inspected the jeepney,there were sacks and cans inside
it,when opened,the sacks and cans were filled with marijuana leaves. The two
were placed under arrest.
Issue : Was the arrest Valid?
Ruling : Yes
The court again mad a distinction between Maspil and Aminnudin case. In the
latter, the officers were aware of the identity of the accused,his plans and the
vessel that he would be taking. Further, the officers have ample of time to obtain a
warrant but failed to do so. In the former, the officers had no exact description of
the vehicle of the accused and no idea as to what the vehicle would exactly arrive.
The court explained that the jeepney on the road is not the same as the passenger
boat the route and the time of arrival of which are more or less certain and which
ordinarily cannot deviate or alter its course or select another destination.
22. People vs Medel Tangliben
Facts:
On or about the March 2, 1982, in the municipality of San Fernando, Province of
Pampanga, Philippines, accused MEDEL TANGLIBEN y BERNARDINO, knowing fully
well that Marijuana is a prohibited drug; have in his possession, control and
custody one (1) bag of dried marijuana leaves with an approximate weight of one
(1) kilo. He transported to Olongapo City, without authority of law to do so.
meet Nena Ballon at 6:00 o'clock in the evening and he stayed in Nena's house up
to 8:00 o'clock because he had a drinking spree with Nena's son. He failed to catch
the 8:00 o'clock trip to Manila from Olongapo City but was able to take the bus
only by 9:00 o'clock that evening on a Victory Liner Bus, already tipsy, he did not
notice that the bus was only bound for San Fernando, Pampanga.
Upon alighting at the Victory Liner Compound at San Fernando, Pampanga he
crossed the street to wait for a bus going to Manila. While awaiting for a bus, a
man whom he came to know later as Patrolman Punzalan, approached him and
asked him if he has any residence certificate. When he took out his wallet, Pat.
Punzalan got the wallet and took all the money inside the wallet amounting to
P545.00 and told him he'll be taken to the municipal building for verification as he
may be an NPA member. In the police station, Pat. Silverio Quevedo took the
marijuana from him, promised that it shall be returned to him but that it was
never returned to him; thereafter, he was placed under detention and was told to
him that he is being charged with possession of marijuana and if he would like to
be bailed out. When his wife visited him, he told her that Patrolman Silverio
Quevedo took away all his money and not to complain anymore since would be
useless.
Issue: Whether the accused violated Section 4, Article II of the Dangerous Drugs
Act of 1972 as amended?
SC: No.
Limited Defense:
The appellant chose to limit his defense to his own testimony. He could have
availed himself through compulsory court processes of several witnesses to
buttress his defense. Since not one other witness was presented nor was any
justification for the non-appearance given, the inadequacy of his lone and
uncorroborated testimony remains. It cannot prevail vis-a-vis the positive
testimonies given by the prosecution witnesses.
Evidence:
The dried marijuana leaves found in the possession of the accused weighs one (1)
kilo, more or less. The intent to transport the same is clear from the testimony of
Pat. Silverio Quevedo who declared, among other things, that when he confronted
the accused that night, the latter told him that he (accused) is bringing the
marijuana leaves to Olongapo City. Moreover, considering the quantity of the
marijuana leaves found in the possession of the accused and the place he was
arrested which is at San Fernando, Pampanga, a place where the accused is not
residing, it can be said that the intent to transport the marijuana leaves has been
clearly established.
Conviction of a crime with an extremely severe penalty must be based on
evidence which is clearer and more convincing than the inferences in this case.
What was therefore proved beyond reasonable doubt is not his intent to transport
the marijuana leaves but his actual session.
23. PEOPLE VS AMINNUDIN
Facts:
The PC (Philippine Constabulary) officer received a tip from one of their
informers that the accused was on board a vessel bound for Iloilo City and was
carrying marijuana. He was identified by name. Acting on this tip, they waited for
him in the evening and approached him as he descended from the gangplank after
the informer pointed at him. They detained him and inspected the bag he was
carrying. It was found to contained three kilos of what were later analyzed as
marijuana leaves by the NBI forensic examiner. On the basis of the finding, the
corresponding charge was then filed against Aminnudin.
Issue:
Whether or not accused constitutional right against unreasonable serach
and seizure is violated
Ruling:
The Supreme Court Held that warrantless arrest allowed under Rule 113 of
the rules of court not justified unless the accused was caught in flagrante or a
crime was about to be committed or had just been committed.
A vessels and aircraft are subject to warrantless searches and seizures for violation
of the customs law because these vehicles may be quickly moved out of the
locality or jurisdiction before the warrant can be secured.
In the present case, from the conflicting declarations of the PC witnesses, it
is clear that they had at least two days within which they could have obtained a
warrant to arrest and search Aminnudin who was coming to Iloilo on the M/V
Wilcon 9. His name was known. The vehicle was identified. The date of his arrival
was certain. And from the information they have received, they could have
persuaded a judge that there was a probable cause, indeed, to justify the issuance
of a warrant. Yet they did nothing. The Bill of Rights was ignored altogether
because the PC lieutenant who was the head of the arresting team had determine
on his own authority that a search warrant was not necessary.
The evidence of probable cause should be determined by a judge and not
law enforcement agents.
ACQUITTED
24. People vs Rodriguez
25. People vs Mengote
Facts:
Police were dispatched to North Bay Boulevard only because of the telephone call
from the informer that there were "suspicious-looking" persons in that vicinity
who were about to commit a robbery. There they saw two men "looking from side
to side," one of whom was holding his abdomen. They approached these persons
and identified themselves as policemen, whereupon the two tried to run away but
were unable to escape because the other lawmen had surrounded them. The
suspects were then searched. One of them, who turned out to be the accused-
appellant, was found with a .38 caliber Smith and Wesson revolver with six live
bullets in the chamber. His companion, later identified as Nicanor Morellos, had a
fan knife secreted in his front right pants pocket.
Accused-appellant Rogelio Mengote was convicted of illegal possession of firearms
on the strength mainly of the stolen pistol found on his person at the moment of
his warrantless arrest. In this appeal, he pleads that the weapon was not
admissible as evidence against him because it had been illegally seized and was
therefore the fruit of the poisonous tree. The Government disagrees. It insists that
the revolver was validly received in evidence by the trial judge because its seizure
was incidental to an arrest that was doubtless lawful even if admittedly without
warrant.

Issue: Whether or not the arrest is valid.
Held: No.
There is no question that evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search or
seizure is inadmissible in any proceeding for any purpose. That is the absolute
prohibition of Article III, Section 3(2), of the Constitution. This is the celebrated
exclusionary rule based on the justification given by Judge Learned Hand that
"only in case the prosecution, which itself controls the seizing officials, knows that
it cannot profit by their wrong will the wrong be repressed." The Solicitor General,
while conceding the rule, maintains that it is not applicable in the case at bar. His
reason is that the arrest and search of Mengote and the seizure of the revolver
from him were lawful under Rule 113, Section 5, of the Rules of Court reading as
follows:
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant when lawful. A peace officer or 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.
In cases failing under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person arrested without a
warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail, and he
shall be proceeded against in accordance with Rule 112, Section 7.
We have carefully examined the wording of this Rule and cannot see how we can
agree with the prosecution.
Par. (c) of Section 5 is obviously inapplicable as Mengote was not an escapee from
a penal institution when he was arrested. We therefore confine ourselves to
determining the lawfulness of his arrest under either Par. (a) or Par. (b) of this
section.
Par. (a) requires that the person be arrested (1) after he has committed or while he
is actually committing or is at least attempting to commit an offense, (2) in the
presence of the arresting officer.
These requirements have not been established in the case at bar. At the time of
the arrest in question, the accused-appellant was merely "looking from side to
side" and "holding his abdomen," according to the arresting officers themselves.
There was apparently no offense that had just been committed or was being
actually committed or at least being attempted by Mengote in their presence.
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The accused-
appellant is ACQUITTED and ordered released immediately unless he is validly
detained for other offenses. No costs.
26. Espano vs CA
Facts:
Pat. Pagilagan together with other police officers went to Zamora and
Pandacan Streets, Manila to confirm reports of drug pushing in the area. They saw
petitioner selling something to another person. 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 of
possession of prohibited drugs.
Issue:
Whether or not the pieces of evidence were inadmissible
Ruling:
The Supreme Court held that Section 5 Rule 113 of the Rules of Court
provides:
Arrest without warrant; when lawful a peace officer or a private person may,
without a warrant, arrest a person:
When, in the presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense . . .
Petitioners arrest falls squarely under the aforecited rule. He was caught in
flagrante 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.
The police officer saw petitioner handling over something to an alleged buyer.
After the buyer left, they searched him and discovered two cellophane of
marijuana. His arrest was, therefore, lawful and the two cellophane bag of
marijuana seized were admissible in evidence, being fruits of the crime.
27. People vs Figueroa
28. Guanzon vs De Villa
The military and police officers conducted Areal Target Zonings or saturation
drives in Metro Manila, specifically on places where the subversives, as
pinpointed by said authorities, were hiding. During these saturation drives, police
and military units cordon an area of more than one residence and sometimes the
whole barangay or areas of barangays, without any search warrant or warrant of
arrest. Petitioners claimed that said saturation drives followed a common pattern
of human rights abuses, as such, sought for its stoppage.
arrest, cordon an area of more than one residence and sometimes whole barangay
or areas of barangay in Metro Manila, from the dead of the night or early morning
hours and residents are herded as cows with men ordered to strip down to their
briefs and examined for tattoo marks and other imagined marks.
Ruling:
There appears to have been no impediment to securing search warrants or
warrants of arrest before any houses were searched or individuals roused from
sleep were arrested. There is no strong showing that the objectives sought to be
attained by the areal zoning could not be achieved as the rights of the squatter
and low income families are fully protected. Where a violation of human rights
specifically 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 the state may
not encroach upon the rights of the individual.
Where there is large scale mutiny or actual rebellion, the police or military may go
in force to the combat areas, enter affected residences or buildings, round up
suspected rebels and otherwise quell the mutiny or rebellion without having to
secure search warrants and without violating the Bill of Rights.
A show of force is sometimes necessary as long as the rights of the people are
protected and not violated. A blanket prohibition such as that sought by the
petitioners would limit all police power to one on one confrontation where search
warrants and warrants of arrest against specific individuals are easily procured.

Facts:

The petitioners, who are of legal age, bona fide residents of Metro Manila, and
taxpayers and leaders in their respective communities, sought to prohibit the
military and police officers from conducting Areal Target Zonings or saturation
drives in Metro Manila.

Petitioners claim that on various dates from March 5, 1987 till November 3 of the
same year, various saturation drives were conducted by the respondents. Added
by the petitioners, that these saturation drives are in critical areas pinpointed by
the military and police as places where the subversives are hiding. The arrests
ranged from 7 persons (July 20, Bankusay, Tondo) to 1,500 (November 3, Lower
Maricaban, Pasay City) and that same followed a common pattern of human rights
abuses like police and military units, without any search warrant or warrant of