In People v.

Sucro, 195 SCRA 388, it was held that when a police

officer sees the offense, although at a distance, or hears the disturbances created
thereby, and proceeds at once to the scene thereof, he may effect an arrest
without a warrant. The offense is deemed committed in the presence of or within
the view of the officer.
However, in People v. Rodrigueza, 205 SCRA 791, the
police officer, acting as poseur-buyer in a buy-bust operation, instead of arresting
the suspect and taking him into custody after the sale, returned to police
headquarters and filed his report. It was only in the evening of the same day that
the police officer, without a warrant, arrested the suspect at the lattershouse where dried marijuana
leaves were found and confiscated. It was held that
the arrest and the seizure were unlawful.
But to constitute a valid in flagrante arrest, as held in People v.
Molina, G.R. No. 133917, February 19, 2001, reiterated in People v. Sy Chua, G.R.
Nos. 136066-67, February 4, 2003, in People v. Tudtud, G.R. No. 144037,
September 26, 2003, and in the more recent People v. Nuevas, G.R. No. 170233,
February 22, 2007, reliable information alone, absent any overt act indicative of
a felonious enterprise in the presence and within the view of the arresting officers,
is not sufficient to constitute probable cause to justify the arrest. It is necessary
that two requisites concur: [1] the person to be arrested must execute an overt act
indicating that he had just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit a crime; and [2] such overt act is done in the presence or within the view
of the arresting officer.
va) In Molina, the accused while holding a bag on board a tricycle
cannot be said to be committing, attempting to commit or to have committed a
crime. It matters not that the accused responded, Boss, if possible, we will settle
this, as such response is an equivocal statement which, standing alone, will not
constitute probable cause to effect an in flagrante arrest. This is reiterated in
People v. Galvez, G.R. No. 136790, March 26, 2001, and People v. Conde, G.R.
No. 113269, April 10, 2001, although in these cases, for failure of the accused to
assert their constitutional right prior to arraignment, and by entering a plea of not
guilty and participating actively in the trial, they were deemed to have waived their
right to raise the issue of the illegality of the arrest.
vb) In Sy Chua, the apprehending officers had already prior
knowledge from the very same informant (who had been telling them about the
activities of the accused for two years prior to the actual arrest). Considering that
the identity, address and activities of the suspected culprit was already ascertained
two years previous to the actual arrest, there was no reason why the police officers
could not have obtained a judicial warrant before arresting the accused appellant
and searching him.
In People v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 127755, April 14, 1999, it was
held that these requirements were not complied with. The qrrest came a day after
the offense was committed and thus, the offense had not been just committed.
Furthermore, the arresting officers had no personal knowledge of facts indicating
that the person to be arrested had committed the offense, since they were not
present and were not actual eyewitnesses to the crime, and they became aware
of the identity of the driver of the getaway tricycle only during the custodial
investigation.
In Go v. Court of Appeals, 206 SCRA 138, six days after the
shooting, as the petitioner presented himself before the San Juan Police Station
to verify news reports that he was being hunted, the police detained him because
an eyewitness had positively identified him as the gunman who shot Maguan. The

Court held that there was no valid arrest; it cannot be considered as within the
meaning of the offense had just been committed inasmuch as six days had
already elapsed; neither did the policemen have personal knowledge of facts that
Go shot Maguan.
But in People v. Gerente, 219 SCRA 756, where the
policemen saw the victim dead at the hospital and when they inspected the crime
scene, they found the instruments of death and the eyewitnesses reported the
happening and pointed to Gerente as one of the killers, the warrantless arrest of
Gerente only three hours after the killing was held valid, since the policemen had
personal knowledge of the violent death of the victim and of the facts indicating
that Gerente and two others had killed the victim. Further, the search of Gerentes
person and the seizure of the marijuana leaves were valid as an incident to a lawful
arrest.
Thus, in Robin Padilla v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121917, March 12,
1997, the-Court held that there was a valid arrest, as there was neither
supervening event nor a considerable lapse of time between the hit-and-run and
the apprehension. After the policemen had stationed themselves at possible exits,
they saw the fast approaching vehicle, its plate number, and the dented hood and
railings thereof. These formed part of the arresting officers personal knowledge of
the fact that Padillas vehicle was the one involved in the incident.
Likewise, in
People v. Abriol, G.R. No. 123137, October 17, 2001, it was held that the
warrantless arrest was valid, as it was made after the fatal shooting and pursuit of
a fast-moving vehicle seeking to elude pursuing police officers, and a more than
reasonable belief on the part of the police officers that the fleeing suspects aboard
the motor vehicle had just engaged in criminal activity.
Searches of passengers at airports. In People v.
Gatward, 267 SCRA 785, it was held that when the accused checked in his
luggage as a passenger of a plane, he agreed to the inspection of his luggage in
accordance with customs laws and regulations, and thus waived any objection to
a warrantless search.
In People v. Susan Canton, G.R. No. 148825, December
27, 2002, it was held that a search made pursuant to routine airport security
procedure is allowed under R.A. 6235, which provides that every airline ticket shall
contain a condition that hand-carried luggage, etc., shall be subject to search, and
this condition shall form part of the contract betweenthe passenger and the air carrier. To limit the action of the
airport security
personnel to simply refusing the passenger entry into the aircraft and sending her
home (as suggested by the appellant), and thereby depriving the security
personnel of the ability and facility to act accordingly, including to further search
without warrant, in light of such circumstances, would be to sanction impotence
and ineffectiveness in law enforcement, to the detriment of society. Thus, in this
case, the strip search in the ladies room was justified under the circumstances.

Waiver must be given by the person whose right is violated. In

People v. Damaso, 212 SCRA 457, PC officers sent to verify the presence of CPP/NPA
members in Dagupan City, reached a house suspected to be rented by a rebel. Outside
the house, they saw one Luz Tanciangco (who turned out to be a helper of the accused).
The PC officers told Luz that they already knew that she was a member of the NPA,
and requested that they be allowed to look around. Luz consented. Inside the house,
the team found subversive materials and firearms, which Luz identified as belonging to
the accused. The Court held that the constitutional right against unreasonable searches
and seizures, being a personal one, cannot be waived by anyone except the person
whose t rights are invaded, or one who is authorized to do so in his behalf. Here, there
was no evidence that Luz was authorized to open the house of the accused in his
absence. Accordingly, the search, as well as the seizure, was declared illegal.
But in Lopez v. Commissioner of Customs, 68 SCRA 320,
there was deemed a valid waiver where, upon a warrantless search of a hotel
room, consent and voluntary surrender of papers belonging to the registered but
absent occupant was given by a woman identified as the wife of the occupant
although it turned out later that she was, in fact, a mere manicurist.
This ruling
was not applied in People v. Asis, G.R. No. 142531, October 15, 2002, because
at the time the bloodstained pair of shorts was recovered, appellant Formento,
together with his wife and mother, was present. Being the subject of the search,
he himself should have given consent. Added to this is the fact that the appellant
is a deaf-mute who could not understand what was happening at the moment,
there being no interpreter to assist him. His seeming acquiescence to the search
without a warrant may be attributed to plain and simple confusion and ignorance.
Requisite stop and frisk. In People v. Sy Chua, G.R. Nos. 136066-67, February
4, 2003, the Supreme Court said that for a stop-and-frisk situation, the police
officer should properly introduce himself and make initial inquiries, approach and
restrain a person who manifests unusual and suspicious conduct, in order to check
the latters outer clothing for possibly concealed weapons. The apprehending
police officer must have a genuine reason, in accordance with the police officers
experience and the surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person to
be held has weapons or contraband concealed about him. It should, therefore, be
emphasized that a search and seizure should precede the arrest for the principle
to apply.
In
People v. de Gracia, 233 SCRA 716, the raid of, and the consequent seizure of
firearms and ammunition in, the Eurocar Sales Office at the height of the
December 1989 coup detat was held valid, considering the exigent and
emergency situation obtaining. The military operatives had reasonable ground to
believe that a crime was being committed, and they had no opportunity to apply
for a search warrant from the courts because the latter were closed. Under such
urgency and exigency, a search warrant could be validly dispensed with.
In Guanzon v. de Villa. 181 SCRA 623. the Supreme Court
uphefd. as a valid exercise of the military powers of the President, the conduct of
areal target zoning or saturation drive/s. [NOTE: In this case, the validity of the
search was not directly questioned; raised in issue were the alleged abuses
committed by the military personnel who conducted the saturation drives. In the
absence of complainants and complaints against specific actors, no prohibition
could be issued. However, the Court temporarily restrained the alleged banging of
walls, kicking of doors, herding of half-naked men for examination of tattoo marks,
the violation of residences, even if these are humble shanties of squatters, and the
other alleged acts which are shocking to the conscience. The Supreme Court

remanded the case to the trial court for reception of evidence on the alleged
abuses.]
Exclusionary Rule: Evidence obtained in violation of Sec. 2, Art. Ill, shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding [Sec. 3 (2), Art. Ill], , because it is
the fruit of the poisoned tree.Objections to the legality of the search warrant and to the
admissibility of the evidence obtained thereby are deemed waived when not raised
during the trial [Demaisip v. Court of Appeals, 193 SCRA 373].
In People v. Diaz,
G.R. No. 110829, April 18, 1997, because of the failure of the accused to object
to the admissibility of evidence obtained through an unlawful arrest and search, it
was held that the accused were deemed to have waived their right, and the trial
court did not err in admitting the evidence presented.
In Ramirez v. Court of Appeals, 248 SCRA 590, it was held that R.A.
4200 clearly and unequivocally makes it illegal for any person, not authorized by
all the parties to any private communication, to secretly record such
communications by means of a tape recorder. The law does not make any
distinction. In Gaanan v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 145 SCRA 112, it was held
that a telephone extension was not among the devices covered by this law.
The right may be invoked against the wife who went to the clinic of
her husband and there took documents consisting of private communications
between her husband and his alleged paramour [Zulueta v. Court of Appeals 253
SCRA 699].
However, in Waterous Drug Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No. 113271,
October 16, 1997, the Supreme Court said that the Bill of Rights does not protect
citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures made by private individuals. In
this case, an officer of the petitioner corporation opened an envelope addressed
to the private respondent and found therein a check evidencing an overprice in the
purchase of medicine. Despite the lack of consent on the part of the private
respondent, the check was deemed admissible in evidence. 5