Miclat vs.

People
656 SCRA 539

Agents of the Station Drug Enforcement Unit were conducting a surveillance operation in a certain area to verify
the reported drug-related activities of several individuals, which included the petitioner. During operation, PO3
Antonio, through petitioner’s window, caught Miclat in the act of arranging the heat-sealed plastic sachets in plain
sight of PO3 Antonio and he voluntarily surrendered them to him upon learning that he is a police officer. Miclat
was charged for Violation of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Petitioner raised no objection to the irregularity
of his arrest before arraignment. The RTC, after finding that the prosecution has established all the elements of the
offense charged, rendered a Decision convicting Miclat of the crime charged. On appeal, the CA rendered a
Decision affirming in toto the decision of the RTC. Miclat posits that being seen in act of arranging several plastic
sachets inside their house by one of the arresting officers who was peeping though a window is not sufficient
reason for the police authorities to enter his house without a valid search warrant and/or warrant of arrest. On the
issue whether the warrantless search and seizure of plastic sachets are admissible as evidence. THE SUPREME
COURT HELD IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. It is well settled that objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right
to be in a position to have that view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant and may be introduced
in evidence. It is clear, therefore, that an object is in plain view if the object itself is plainly exposed to sight.

NOTE:

The "plain view" doctrine applies when the following requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of
the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b)
the discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he
observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.

The right against warrantless searches and seizure, however, is subject to legal and judicial exceptions, namely: (1)
Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest; (2) Search of evidence in "plain view"; (3) Search of a moving
vehicle; (4) Consented warrantless search; (5) Customs search; (6) Stop and Frisk; and (7) Exigent and emergency
circumstances.

People vs. Mariacos

621 SCRA 327

PO2 Pallayoc met with a secret agent of the Barangay Intelligence Network who informed him that a baggage of
marijuana had been loaded on a passenger jeepney that was about to leave for the poblacion. The agent
mentioned three (3) bags and one (1) blue plastic bag. Further, the agent described a backpack bag with an "O.K."
marking. PO2 Pallayoc then boarded the said jeepney and while the vehicle was in motion, he found the black
backpack with an "O.K." marking and peeked inside its contents and found bricks of marijuana wrapped in
newspapers. When the jeepney reached the poblacion, PO2 Pallayoc alighted together with the other passengers
but unfortunately, he did not notice who took the black backpack from atop the jeepney. He only realized a few
moments later that the said bag and three (3) other bags, including a blue plastic bag, were already being carried
away by two (2) women. He caught up with the women and introduced himself as a policeman and he told them
that they were under arrest, but one of the women got away. The one caught was Belen Mariacos. On the issue
whether the warrantless search and seizure is valid. THE SUPREME COURT HELD IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. Search of
a moving vehicle is well recognized exception to the right against warrantless searches and seizure since they
can quickly be moved out of the locality or jurisdiction where the warrant must be sought. It is readily apparent
that the search in this case is valid. Time was of the essence in this case and the searching officer had no time to
obtain a warrant. On the issue whether the search can precede the arrest without violating the rule on search
incident to lawful arrest (Warrantless search PRIOR to a valid arrest and not vice-versa). THE SUPREME COURT
HELD IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. A search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the arrest if the
police has probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of the search. Given that the search was valid,
Mariacos’ arrest based on the search is also valid.

People vs. Tuan

628 SCRA 226

Two informants reported to SPO2 Fernandez that a certain "Estela Tuan" had been selling marijuana at Barangay
Gabriela Silang, Baguio City. SPO2 Fernandez, together with the informants, filed the Application for a Search
Warrant before Municipal Trial Court in Cities. After the Judge personally examined SPO2 Fernandez and the
informants issued a Search Warrant, which stated Tuan’s residence as “the house of the accused Estela Tuan at
Brgy. Gabriela Silang, Baguio City”. On the issue whether the description of the place in the issued warrant
satisfies the constitutional requirement of definiteness. THE SUPREME COURT HELD IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
Designation or description that points out the place to be searched to the exclusion of all others, and on inquiry
unerringly leads the peace officers to it, satisfies the constitutional requirement of definiteness. In the case at
bar, the address and description of the place to be searched in the Search Warrant was specific enough. There was
only one house located at the stated address, which was accused-appellant’s residence, consisting of a structure
with two floors and composed of several rooms.

Esquillo vs. People

629 SCRA 370

PO1 Cruzin and PO2 Aguas were sent to conduct surveillance on the activities of an alleged notorious snatcher
operating in the Pasay area known only as “Ryan.” As PO1 Cruzin alighted from the private vehicle that brought
him and PO2 Aguas to the target area, he glanced in the direction of petitioner who was standing three meters
away and seen placing inside a yellow cigarette case what appeared to be a small heat-sealed transparent plastic
sachet containing white substance. While PO1 Cruz was not sure what the plastic sachet contained, he became
suspicious when petitioner started acting strangely as he began to approach her. He then introduced himself as a
police officer to petitioner and inquired about the plastic sachet she was placing inside her cigarette case. Instead
of replying, however, petitioner attempted to flee to her house nearby but was timely restrained by PO1 Cruzin
who then requested her to take out the transparent plastic sachet from the cigarette case. Thereafter, PO1 Cruzin
confiscated the plastic sachet and brought the petitioner to the nearest station for investigation. On the issue
whether there is a valid warrantless search and seizure. THE SUPREME COURT HELD IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. In a
“stop-and-frisk,” it is essential is that a genuine reason must exist, in light of the police officer’s experience and
surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person who manifests unusual suspicious conduct has
weapons or contraband concealed about him. When PO1 Cruzin saw petitioner placing a plastic sachet containing
white crystalline substance into her cigarette case, given his training as a law enforcement officer, it was instinctive
on his part to be drawn to curiosity and to approach her. That petitioner reacted by attempting to flee after he
introduced himself as a police officer and inquired about the contents of the plastic sachet all the more pricked his
curiosity. The circumstances under which petitioner was arrested indeed engender the belief that a search on her
person was warranted.
NOTE:

“Stop-and-frisk” practice serves a dual purpose: (1) the general interest of effective crime prevention and
detection, which underlies the recognition that a police officer may, under appropriate circumstances and in an
appropriate manner, approach a person for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior even without
probable cause; and (2) the more pressing interest of safety and self-preservation which permit the police officer
to take steps to assure himself that the person with whom he deals is not armed with a deadly weapon that could
unexpectedly and fatally be used against the police officer.

Marimla vs. People

604 SCRA 57

The NBI Anti Organized Crime Division filed two (2) applications for search warrant with the RTC of Manila seeking
permission to search: (1) petitioners’ house located on RD Reyes St., Brgy. Sta. Trinidad, Angeles City and (2) the
premises on Maria Aquino St., Purok V, Brgy. Sta. Cruz, Porac, Pampanga, both for Violation of Section 16, Article III
of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6425, as amended. Executive Judge issued a search warrant which the NBI were able to
seize cash and the paraphernalia as well as the suspected shabu and marijuana. Petitioners however filed a
Motion to Quash the Search Warrant for suppressed evidence and illegally seized items on the ground that the
application for search warrant was filed outside the territorial jurisdiction and judicial region of the court where
the alleged crime was committed. On the issue whether the application for search warrant was erroneously filed
as it is outside the territorial jurisdiction and judicial region of the court of Pampanga. THE SUPREME COURT
HELD IN THE NEGATIVE. A.M. No. 991009 SC authorizes the Executive Judge and Vice Executive Judges of the
RTCs of Manila and Quezon City to act on all applications for search warrants involving heinous crimes, illegal
gambling, dangerous drugs and illegal possession of firearms on application filed by the PNP, NBI, PAOCTF, and
REACTTF. Hence, there was no error on the filing of the application for search warrant in this case.

NOTE:

As a rule, search warrants should be filed with the court within whose territorial jurisdiction the crime was
committed (Sec. 2 (a), Rule 126, Rules of Court). The exceptions to the general rule are:

(a) for compelling reasons, it can be filed with the court within whose judicial region the offense was committed or
where the warrant is to be served;

(b) but if the criminal action has already been filed, the application for a search warrant can only be made in the
court where the criminal action is pending; and

(c) in case of search warrants involving heinous crimes, illegal gambling, illegal possession of firearms and
ammunitions as well as violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, the Intellectual Property
Code, the Anti- Money Laundering Act of 2001, the Tariff and Customs Code, the Executive Judges and, whenever
they are on official leave of absence or are not physically present in the station, the Vice-Executive Judges of the
RTC of Manila and Quezon City shall have authority to act on applications filed by the NBI, PNP and the Anti-Crime
Task Force (ACTAF), Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOC-TF), and the Reaction Against Crime Task
Force (REACT-TF).