Professional Documents
Culture Documents
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL The records of the two criminal cases were forwarded
FAITH AND CREDENCE TO THE INCREDIBLE AND to this Court by the RTC, but the Court issued a
CONTRADICTORY TESTIMONIES OF THE POLICE Resolution[21] dated October 13, 2004 transferring said
OFFICERS. records to the Court of Appeals pursuant to People v.
Mateo.[22]
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE On September 21, 2006, the Court of Appeals
ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIMES CHARGED promulgated its Decision.
DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE
HER GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. The Court of Appeals held that the contested search
and consequent seizure of the marijuana bricks were
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING AS done pursuant to the Search Warrant validly issued by
VOID THE SEARCH WARRANT ISSUED AGAINST THE the MTCC. There was no showing of procedural defects
ACCUSED-APPELLANT. or lapses in the issuance of said Search Warrant as the
records support that the issuing judge determined
her house. The Court has previously held that
discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of Given that accused-appellant was already acquitted of
witnesses referring to minor details, and not in the charge of violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866
actuality touching upon the central fact of the crime, on the ground of reasonable doubt in Criminal Case
do not impair their credibility. Testimonies of witnesses No. 17620-R, her instant appeal relates only to her
need only corroborate each other on important and conviction for illegal possession of prohibited or
relevant details concerning the principal occurrence. regulated drugs in Criminal Case No. 17619-R. The
[31]
Court can no longer pass upon the propriety of
accused-appellants acquittal in Criminal Case No.
Inconsistencies as to minor details and collateral 17620-R because of the rule that a judgment
matters do not affect the credibility of the witnesses acquitting the accused is final and immediately
nor the veracity or weight of their testimonies. Such executory upon its promulgation, and that accordingly,
minor inconsistencies may even serve to strengthen the State may not seek its review without placing the
their credibility as they negate any suspicion that the accused in double jeopardy. Such acquittal is final and
testimonies have been rehearsed.[32] unappealable on the ground of double jeopardy
whether it happens at the trial court or on appeal at
Accused-appellant further questions the non- the Court of Appeals.[28]
presentation as witnesses of Lad-ing and Tudlong, the
informants, and Pascual, the neighbor who supposedly In a prosecution for violation of the Dangerous Drugs
witnessed the implementation of the Search Warrant, Law, such as Criminal Case No. 17619-R, a case
during the joint trial of Criminal Case Nos. 17619-R and becomes a contest of credibility of witnesses and their
17620-R before the RTC. This Court though is testimonies. In such a situation, this Court generally
unconvinced that such non-presentation of witnesses relies upon the assessment by the trial court, which
is fatal to Criminal Case No. 17619-R. had the distinct advantage of observing the conduct or
demeanor of the witnesses while they were testifying.
The prosecution has the exclusive prerogative to Hence, its factual findings are accorded respect even
determine whom to present as witnesses. The finality absent any showing that certain facts of weight
prosecution need not present each and every witness and substance bearing on the elements of the crime
but only such as may be needed to meet the quantum have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied.
[29]
of proof necessary to establish the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of the other
witnesses may, therefore, be dispensed with if they The Court finds no reason to deviate from the general
are merely corroborative in nature. The Court has ruled rule in the case at bar.
that the non-presentation of corroborative witnesses
does not constitute suppression of evidence and is not Illegal possession of prohibited or regulated drugs is
fatal to the prosecutions case.[33] committed when the following elements concur: (1)
the accused is in possession of an item or object which
Although Criminal Case No. 17619-R involves illegal is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such
possession of marijuana, the following pronouncement possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the
of this Court in People v. Salazar,[34]relating to the accused freely and consciously possesses the said
illegal sale of the same drug, still rings true: drug.[30]
Neither is her right to confront witnesses against her All the foregoing elements were duly proven to exist in
affected by the prosecution's failure to present the Criminal Case No. 17619-R. The search conducted by
informer who pointed to her as a drug pusher. The SPO1 Carrera and PO2 Chavez in accused-appellants
presentation of an informant in an illegal drugs house yielded nine bricks of marijuana. Marijuana is a
case is not essential for conviction nor is it prohibited drug, thus, accused-appellants possession
indispensable for a successful prosecution thereof could not have been authorized by law in any
because his testimony would be merely way. Accused-appellant evidently possessed the
corroborative and cumulative. In a case involving marijuana freely and consciously, even offering the
the sale of illegal drugs, what should be proven same for sale. The bricks of marijuana were found in
beyond reasonable doubt is the fact of the sale itself. accused-appellants residence over which she had
Hence, like the non-presentation of the marked money complete control. In fact, some of the marijuana were
used in buying the contraband, the non-presentation found in accused-appellants own room.
of the informer on the witness stand would not
necessarily create a hiatus in the prosecutions' Accused-appellant challenges the judgment of the RTC,
evidence. (Emphasis ours.) affirmed by the Court of Appeals, finding her guilty of
illegal possession of marijuana, by pointing out certain
inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution
Lastly, accused-appellant insists that the items witnesses that supposedly manifested their lack of
allegedly seized from her house are inadmissible as credibility, i.e., the date of the test buy and the
evidence because the Search Warrant issued for her manner by which the doors of the rooms of the house
house was invalid for failing to comply with the were opened.
constitutional and statutory requirements. Accused-
appellant specifically pointed out the following defects These alleged inconsistencies and contradictions
which made said Search Warrant void: (1) the pertain to minor details and are so inconsequential
informants, Lad-ing and Tudlong, made that they do not in any way affect the credibility of the
misrepresentation of facts in the Application for Search witnesses nor detract from the established fact of
Warrant filed with the MTCC; (2) Judge Cortes of the illegal possession of marijuana by accused-appellant at
with the first and fourth factors, i.e., existence of MTCC failed to consider the informants admission that
probable cause; and particular description of the place they themselves were selling marijuana; and (3) the
to be searched and things to be seized. Search Warrant failed to particularly describe the place
to be searched because the house was a two-storey
In People v. Aruta,[36] the Court defined probable cause building composed of several rooms.
as follows:
The right of a person against unreasonable searches
Although probable cause eludes exact and concrete and seizure is recognized and protected by no less
definition, it generally signifies a reasonable ground of than the Constitution, particularly, Sections 2 and 3(2)
suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently of Article III which provide:
strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man to
believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense SEC. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their
with which he is charged. It likewise refers to the persons, houses, papers, and effects against
existence of such facts and circumstances which could unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever
lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no
that an offense has been committed and that the search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue
item(s), article(s) or object(s) sought in connection except upon probable cause to be determined
with said offense or subject to seizure and destruction personally by the judge after examination under oath
by law is in the place to be searched. or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he
may produce, and particularly describing the place to
It ought to be emphasized that in determining be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
probable cause, the average man weighs facts and
circumstances without resorting to the calibrations of SEC. 3. x x x
our rules of evidence of which his knowledge is
technically nil. Rather, he relies on the calculus of (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the
common sense which all reasonable men have in preceding section shall be inadmissible for any
abundance. The same quantum of evidence is required purpose in any proceeding. (Emphases ours.)
in determining probable cause relative to search.
Before a search warrant can be issued, it must be
shown by substantial evidence that the items sought Accordingly, Sections 4 and 5, Rule 126 of the Revised
are in fact seizable by virtue of being connected with Rules on Criminal Procedure laid down the following
criminal activity, and that the items will be found in requisites for the issuance of a valid search warrant:
the place to be searched.
SEC. 4. Requisites for issuing search warrant. A search
warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause in
A magistrates determination of probable cause for the connection with one specific offense to be determined
issuance of a search warrant is paid great deference personally by the judge after examination under oath
by a reviewing court, as long as there was substantial or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he
basis for that determination. Substantial basis means may produce, and particularly describing the place to
that the questions of the examining judge brought out be searched and the things to be seized which may be
such facts and circumstances as would lead a anywhere in the Philippines.
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that
an offense has been committed, and the objects in SEC. 5. Examination of complainant; record. The judge
connection with the offense sought to be seized are in must, before issuing the warrant, personally examine
the place sought to be searched.[37] Such substantial in the form of searching questions and answers, in
basis exists in this case. writing and under oath, the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce on facts personally known
Judge Cortes found probable cause for the issuance of to them and attach to the record their sworn
the Search Warrant for accused-appellants residence statements, together with the affidavits submitted.
after said judges personal examination of SPO2
Fernandez, the applicant; and Lad-ing and Tudlong, the
informants. Therefore, the validity of the issuance of a search
warrant rests upon the following factors: (1) it must be
SPO2 Fernandez based his Application for Search issued upon probable cause; (2) the probable cause
Warrant not only on the information relayed to him by must be determined by the judge himself and not by
Lad-ing and Tudlong. He also arranged for a test buy the applicant or any other person; (3) in the
and conducted surveillance of accused-appellant. He determination of probable cause, the judge must
testified before Judge Cortes: examine, under oath or affirmation, the complainant
and such witnesses as the latter may produce; and (4)
COURT: the warrant issued must particularly describe the place
to be searched and persons or things to be seized.[35]
Q. You are applying for a Search Warrant and you
alleged in your application that Estela Tuan of Brgy. There is no dispute herein that the second and third
Gabriela Silang, Baguio City, is in possession of dried factors for a validly issued search warrant were
marijuana leaves and marijuana hashish, how did you complied with, i.e., personal determination of probable
come to know about this matter? cause by Judge Cortes; and examination, under oath or
A. Through the two male persons by the name of Frank affirmation, of SPO2 Fernandez and the two
Lad-ing and Jerry Tudlong, Your Honor. informants, Lad-ing and Tudlong, by Judge Cortes.
What is left for the Court to determine is compliance
accused-appellant was keeping and selling marijuana Q. When did these two male persons report to your
at her house, and that they took part in the test buy. office?
A. January 22, Your Honor.
Q: Did you come to know of this person Estela Tuan? Q. What else?
A: Yes, Your Honor, because there was an incident A. She is not only selling marijuana but also selling
wherein we were conducting our line of business when vegetables at the Trading Post in La Trinidad, Your
they came and joined us and we became partners, Honor.
Your Honor.
Q. They just told you, she is selling marijuana and
Q: You said, they, how many of you? selling vegetables, that is already sufficient proof or
A: A certain Jerry Tudlong, Estela Tuan and myself, Your sufficient probable cause she is in possession of
Honor. marijuana, what else did they report?
A. That they are also selling marijuana in large volume
Q: In other words, Estela Tuan went with you and later at their house.
on she became your partner in that business?
A: Yes, Your Honor. Q. What did you do when you asked them regarding
that matter?
Q: And so what happened when she became a partner A. They had a test buy and they were able to buy
of your business? some commodities yesterday, Your honor.
A: When we were about to divide our profit, we then
went at their residence at Gabriela Silang, Baguio City, Q. Who bought?
Your Honor. A. Tudlong and Lad-ing, Your Honor.
Q: With that size, where did she show you the box of Q: And that was January 22. Why did you not apply
this cellophane? immediately for search warrant?
A: At the place where we were sitted at the receiving A: Because we still have to look at the area and see to
room, Your Honor. it that there are really some buyers or people who
would go and leave the place, Your Honor.
Q: In other words, she went to get it and then
presented or showed it to you? Q: What did you observe?
A: Yes, Your Honor. A: Well, there are persons who would go inside and
after going inside, they would come out bringing along
Q: Where did she go, if you know? with them something else.
A: Because at the sala, there is a certain room located
at the side that is the place where she got the same, Q: Did you not interview these people?
Your Honor. A: No, Your Honor. We did not bother.[38]
Q: What happened when you were asked to be sitted? Q: Where is the marijuana now?
A: During that time, Frank and the female person were A: It is in the possession of PO Fernandez, Your Honor.
the ones conferring, Your Honor.
Q: Where is the marijuana placed?
Q: Did you hear what they were talking about? A: In a newspaper, Your Honor.
A: That Frank was purchasing marijuana, Your Honor.
Q: What happened next?
Q: What did the woman tell you? A: We handed to her the amount of P300.00, your
A: After we handed the money, a plastic which was Honor.
transparent, was then handed to Frank, it was a plastic
and there was a newspaper inside, Your Honor. Q: And she gave you that marijuana?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
xxxx
xxxx
Q: So, you did not actually see what is in the
newspaper? Q: How many rooms are there in the first floor of the
A: No, Your Honor, however, I know that that is house of Estela Tuan?
marijuana. A: Three rooms, Your Honor, it has a dining room and
beside the place is the receiving room where we sitted
Q: Why? ourselves, Your Honor.
A: Because that was our purpose, to buy marijuana,
Your Honor. Q: When you already bought marijuana from her, what
did she tell you, if any?
Q: And you have not gotten marijuana without Estela A; Well, if we would be interested to buy more, I still
Tuan informing you? have stocks here, Your Honor.[39]
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Will you tell us what kind of materials were used in Tudlong recounted in more detail what happened
the house of Estela Tuan? during the test buy:
A: Two storey, the walls are made of GI sheets, Your
Honor.\
8. In the case of other dangerous drugs, the Equally without merit is accused-appellants assertion
quantity of which is far beyond therapeutic that the Search Warrant did not describe with
requirements, as determined and promulgated by the particularity the place to be searched.
Dangerous Drugs Board, after public
consultations/hearings conducted for the purpose. A description of the place to be searched is sufficient if
(Emphasis supplied.) the officer serving the warrant can, with reasonable
effort, ascertain and identify the place intended and
distinguish it from other places in the community. A
Pursuant to Article II, Section 8 of Republic Act No. designation or description that points out the place to
6425, as amended, illegal possession of 750 grams or be searched to the exclusion of all others, and on
more of the prohibited drug marijuana is punishable by inquiry unerringly leads the peace officers to it,
reclusion perpetua to death. Accused-appellant had in satisfies the constitutional requirement of definiteness.
[41]
her possession a total of 19,050 grams of marijuana, In the case at bar, the address and description of
for which she was properly sentenced to reclusion the place to be searched in the Search Warrant was
perpetua by the RTC, affirmed by the Court of specific enough. There was only one house located at
Appeals. the stated address, which was accused-appellants
residence, consisting of a structure with two floors and
In the same vein, the fine of P500,000.00 imposed composed of several rooms.
upon accused-appellant by the RTC, affirmed by the
Court of Appeals, is also correct, as the same is still In view of the foregoing, the Court upholds the validity
within the range of fines imposable on any person who of the Search Warrant for accused-appellants house
possessed prohibited drugs without any authority, issued by MTCC Judge Cortes, and any items seized as
under Article II, Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6425, as a result of the search conducted by virtue thereof, may
amended. be presented as evidence against the accused-
appellant.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision
dated September 21, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in Since it is beyond any cavil of doubt that the accused-
CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00381, is hereby AFFIRMED in appellant is, indeed, guilty of violation of Article II,
toto. No costs. Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, the
Court shall now consider the appropriate penalty to be
SO ORDERED. imposed upon her.
To prove the earlier mentioned incident, the Pursuant to a confidential information that petitioner
prosecution presented the testimonies of SPO3 was engaged in selling shabu, police officers headed
Bienvenido Masnayon, PO2 Milo Arriola, and Forensic by SPO3 Bienvenido Masnayon, after conducting
Analyst, Police Inspector Mutchit Salinas. surveillance and test-buy operation at the house of
petitioner, secured a search warrant from the RTC and
The defense, on the other hand, presented the around 3 o'clock in the afternoon of September 13,
testimonies of petitioner, Jesusa del Castillo, Dalisay 1997, the same police operatives went to Gil Tudtud
del Castillo and Herbert Aclan, which can be St., Mabolo, Cebu City to serve the search warrant to
summarized as follows: petitioner.
Upon arrival, somebody shouted raid, which prompted
On September 13, 1997, around 3 o'clock in the them to immediately disembark from the jeep they
afternoon, petitioner was installing the electrical were riding and went directly to petitioner's house and
wirings and airconditioning units of the Four Seasons cordoned it. The structure of the petitioner's residence
Canteen and Beauty Parlor at Wacky Bldg., is a two-storey house and the petitioner was staying in
Cabancalan, Cebu. He was able to finish his job around the second floor. When they went upstairs, they met
6 o'clock in the evening, but he was engaged by the petitioner's wife and informed her that they will
owner of the establishment in a conversation. He was implement the search warrant. But before they can
able to go home around 8:30-9 o'clock in the evening. search the area, SPO3 Masnayon claimed that he saw
It was then that he learned from his wife that police petitioner run towards a small structure, a nipa hut, in
operatives searched his house and found nothing. front of his house. Masnayon chased him but to no
According to him, the small structure, 20 meters away avail, because he and his men were not familiar with
from his house where they found the confiscated the entrances and exits of the place.
items, was owned by his older brother and was used
as a storage place by his father. They all went back to the residence of the petitioner
and closely guarded the place where the subject ran
After trial, the RTC found petitioner guilty beyond for cover. SPO3 Masnayon requested his men to get a
reasonable of the charge against him in the barangay tanod and a few minutes thereafter, his men
Information. The dispositive portion of the Decision returned with two barangay tanods.
reads:
I WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds the
SEARCH WARRANT No. 570-9-11-97-24 issued by accused Ruben del Castillo alyas Boy Castillo, GUILTY
Executive Judge Priscilla S. Agana of Branch 24, of violating Section 16, Article III, Republic Act No.
Regional Trial Court of Cebu City is valid. 6425, as amended. There being no mitigating nor
aggravating circumstances proven before this Court,
II and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is
The four (4) packs of shabu seized inside the shop of sentenced to suffer the penalty of Six (6) Months and
petitioner are admissible in evidence against him. One (1) Day as Minimum and Four (4) Years and Two
(2) Months as Maximum of Prision Correccional.
III
The Court of Appeals did not err in finding him guilty of The four (4) small plastic packets of white crystalline
illegal possession of prohibited drugs.[11] substance having a total weight of 0.31 gram, positive
for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride,
are ordered confiscated and shall be destroyed in
Petitioner insists that there was no probable cause to accordance with the law.
issue the search warrant, considering that SPO1
Reynaldo Matillano, the police officer who applied for SO ORDERED.[8]
it, had no personal knowledge of the alleged illegal
sale of drugs during a test-buy operation conducted
prior to the application of the same search warrant. Aggrieved, petitioner appealed his case with the CA,
The OSG, however, maintains that the petitioner, aside but the latter affirmed the decision of the RTC, thus:
from failing to file the necessary motion to quash the
search warrant pursuant to Section 14, Rule 127 of the WHEREFORE, the challenged Decision is AFFIRMED in
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, did not introduce toto and the appeal is DISMISSED, with costs against
clear and convincing evidence to show that Masnayon accused-appellant.
was conscious of the falsity of his assertion or
representation. SO ORDERED.[9]
Q Among the three policemen, who were with you in Q What is the name of the wife of Ruben del Castillo?
conducting the search at the residence of the A I cannot recall her name, but if I see her I can recall
accused? [her] face.
A I, Bienvenido Masnayon.
Q What about Ruben del Castillo, was she around when
Q And what transpired after you searched the house of [you] conducted the search?
Ruben del Castillo? A No. Ruben was not in the house. But our team
A Negative, no shabu. leader, team mate Bienvenido Masnayon saw that
Ruben ran away from his adjacent electronic shop near
Q And what happened afterwards, if any? his house, in front of his house.
A We went downstairs and proceeded to the small
house. Q Did you find anything during the search in the house
of Ruben del Castillo?
Q Can you please describe to this Honorable Court, A After our search in the house, we did not see
what was that small house which you proceeded to? anything. The house was clean.
A It is a nipa hut.
Q What did you do afterwards, if any?
Q And more or less, how far or near was it from the A We left (sic) out of the house and proceeded to his
house of Ruben del Castillo? electronic shop.
A 5 to 10 meters.
Q Do you know the reason why you proceeded to his
Q And could you tell Mr. Witness, what was that nipa electronic shop?
hut supposed to be? A Yes. Because our team leader Bienvenido Masnayon
A That was the electronic shop of Ruben del Castillo. saw that (sic) Ruben run from that store and
furthermore the door was open.
Q And what happened when your team Q How far is the electronic shop from the house of
proceeded to the nipa hut? Ruben del Castillo?
A I was just outside the nipa hut. A More or less, 5 to 6 meters in front of his house.
Having been established that the assistance of the A The one who first entered the electronic shop is our
barangay tanods was sought by the police authorities team leader Bienvenido Masnayon.
who effected the searched warrant, the same
barangay tanods therefore acted as agents of persons Q You mentioned that Masnayon entered first. Do you
in authority. Article 152 of the Revised Penal Code mean to say that there were other persons or other
defines persons in authority and agents of persons in person that followed after Masnayon?
authority as: A Then we followed suit.
x x x any person directly vested with jurisdiction, Q All of your police officers and the barangay tanod
whether as an individual or as a member of some followed suit?
court or governmental corporation, board or A I led Otadoy and the barangay tanod.
commission, shall be deemed a person in authority. A
barangay captain and a barangay chairman shall also Q What about you?
be deemed a person in authority. A I also followed suit.
A person who, by direct provision of law or by election
or by appointment by competent authority, is charged Q And did anything happen inside the shop of
with the maintenance of public order and the Ruben del Castillo?
protection and security of life and property,
physical possession or control of the accused. On the such as barrio councilman, barrio policeman and
other hand, constructive possession exists when the barangay leader, and any person who comes to
drug is under the dominion and control of the accused the aid of persons in authority, shall be deemed
or when he has the right to exercise dominion and an agent of a person in authority.
control over the place where it is found. Exclusive
possession or control is not necessary. The accused
cannot avoid conviction if his right to exercise control The Local Government Code also contains a provision
and dominion over the place where the contraband is which describes the function of a barangay tanod as
located, is shared with another. [28] an agent of persons in authority. Section 388 of the
Local Government Code reads:
While it is not necessary that the property to be SEC. 388. Persons in Authority. - For purposes of the
searched or seized should be owned by the person Revised Penal Code, the punong barangay,
against whom the search warrant is issued, there must sangguniang barangay members, and members of the
be sufficient showing that the property is under lupong tagapamayapa in each barangay shall be
appellants control or possession.[29] The CA, in its deemed as persons in authority in their jurisdictions,
Decision, referred to the possession of regulated drugs while other barangay officials and members who
by the petitioner as a constructive one. Constructive may be designated by law or ordinance and
possession exists when the drug is under the dominion charged with the maintenance of public order,
and control of the accused or when he has the right to protection and security of life and property, or
exercise dominion and control over the place where it the maintenance of a desirable and balanced
is found.[30] The records are void of any evidence to environment, and any barangay member who
show that petitioner owns the nipa hut in question nor comes to the aid of persons in authority, shall be
was it established that he used the said structure as a deemed agents of persons in authority.
shop. The RTC, as well as the CA, merely presumed
that petitioner used the said structure due to the
presence of electrical materials, the petitioner being
an electrician by profession. The CA, in its Decision, By virtue of the above provisions, the police officers,
noted a resolution by the investigating prosecutor, as well as the barangay tanods were acting as agents
thus: of a person in authority during the conduct of the
search. Thus, the search conducted was unreasonable
x x x As admitted by respondent's wife, her husband is and the confiscated items are inadmissible in
an electrician by occupation. As such, conclusion could evidence. Assuming ex gratia argumenti that the
be arrived at that the structure, which housed the barangay tanod who found the confiscated items is
electrical equipments is actually used by the considered a private individual, thus, making the same
respondent. Being the case, he has control of the items admissible in evidence, petitioner's third
things found in said structure.[31] argument that the prosecution failed to establish
constructive possession of the regulated drugs seized,
would still be meritorious.
In addition, the testimonies of the witnesses for the
prosecution do not also provide proof as to the Appellate courts will generally not disturb the factual
ownership of the structure where the seized articles findings of the trial court since the latter has the
were found. During their direct testimonies, they just unique opportunity to weigh conflicting testimonies,
said, without stating their basis, that the same having heard the witnesses themselves and observed
structure was the shop of petitioner. [32] During the their deportment and manner of testifying, [24] unless
direct testimony of SPO1 Pogoso, he even outrightly attended with arbitrariness or plain disregard of
concluded that the electrical shop/nipa hut was owned pertinent facts or circumstances, the factual findings
by petitioner, thus: are accorded the highest degree of respect on
appeal[25] as in the present case.
FISCAL CENTINO:
It must be put into emphasis that this present case is
Q Can you please describe to this Honorable Court, about the violation of Section 16 of R.A. 6425. In every
what was that small house which you proceeded to? prosecution for the illegal possession of shabu, the
A It is a nipa hut. following essential elements must be established: (a)
the accused is found in possession of a regulated drug;
Q And more or less, how far or near was it from the (b) the person is not authorized by law or by duly
house of Ruben del Castillo? constituted authorities; and (c) the accused has
A 5 to 10 meters. knowledge that the said drug is a regulated drug.[26]
Q And could you tell Mr. Witness, what was that In People v. Tira,[27] this Court explained the concept of
nipa hut supposed to be? possession of regulated drugs, to wit:
A That was the electronic shop of Ruben del
Castillo. This crime is mala prohibita, and, as such, criminal
intent is not an essential element. However, the
Q And what happened when your team proceeded to prosecution must prove that the accused had the
the nipa hut? intent to possess (animus posidendi) the drugs.
A I was just outside the nipa hut.[33] Possession, under the law, includes not only actual
possession, but also constructive possession. Actual
possession exists when the drug is in the immediate
On August 14, 1987, between 10:00 and 11:00 a.m., However, during cross-examination, SPO3 Masnayon
the appellant and his common-law wife, Shirley Reyes, admitted that there was an electrical shop but denied
went to the booth of the "Manila Packing and Export what he said in his earlier testimony that it was owned
Forwarders" in the Pistang Pilipino Complex, Ermita, by petitioner, thus:
Manila, carrying with them four (4) gift wrapped
packages. Anita Reyes (the proprietress and no ATTY. DAYANDAYAN:
relation to Shirley Reyes) attended to them. The Q You testified that Ruben del Castillo has an
appellant informed Anita Reyes that he was sending electrical shop, is that correct?
the packages to a friend in Zurich, Switzerland. A He came out of an electrical shop. I did not say
Appellant filled up the contract necessary for the that he owns the shop.
transaction, writing therein his name, passport
number, the date of shipment and the name and Q Now, this shop is within a structure?
address of the consignee, namely, "WALTER FIERZ, A Yes.
Mattacketr II, 8052 Zurich, Switzerland" (Decision, p.
6) Q How big is the structure?
Anita Reyes then asked the appellant if she could A It is quite a big structure, because at the other side
examine and inspect the packages. Appellant, is a mahjong den and at the other side is a structure
however, refused, assuring her that the packages rented by a couple.[34]
simply contained books, cigars, and gloves and were
gifts to his friend in Zurich. In view of appellant's
representation, Anita Reyes no longer insisted on The prosecution must prove that the petitioner had
inspecting the packages. The four (4) packages were knowledge of the existence and presence of the drugs
then placed inside a brown corrugated box one by two in the place under his control and dominion and the
feet in size (1' x 2'). Styro-foam was placed at the character of the drugs.[35] With the prosecution's failure
bottom and on top of the packages before the box was to prove that the nipa hut was under petitioner's
sealed with masking tape, thus making the box ready control and dominion, there casts a reasonable doubt
for shipment (Decision, p. 8). as to his guilt. In considering a criminal case, it is
Before delivery of appellant's box to the Bureau of critical to start with the law's own starting perspective
Customs and/or Bureau of Posts, Mr. Job Reyes on the status of the accused - in all criminal
(proprietor) and husband of Anita (Reyes), following prosecutions, he is presumed innocent of the charge
standard operating procedure, opened the boxes for laid unless the contrary is proven beyond reasonable
final inspection. When he opened appellant's box, a doubt.[36] Proof beyond reasonable doubt, or that
peculiar odor emitted therefrom. His curiousity quantum of proof sufficient to produce a moral
aroused, he squeezed one of the bundles allegedly certainty that would convince and satisfy the
containing gloves and felt dried leaves inside. Opening conscience of those who act in judgment, is
one of the bundles, he pulled out a cellophane wrapper indispensable to overcome the constitutional
protruding from the opening of one of the gloves. He presumption of innocence.[37]
made an opening on one of the cellophane wrappers
and took several grams of the contents thereof (tsn, WHEREFORE, the Decision dated July 31, 2006 of the
pp. 29-30, October 6, 1987; Emphasis supplied). Court of Appeals in CA-G. R. No. 27819, which affirmed
Job Reyes forthwith prepared a letter reporting the the Decision dated March 14, 2003 of the Regional
shipment to the NBI and requesting a laboratory Trial Court, Branch 12, Cebu, in Criminal Case No. CBU-
examination of the samples he extracted from the 46291 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
cellophane wrapper (tsn, pp. 5-6, October 6, 1987). Petitioner Ruben del Castillo is ACQUITTED on
He brought the letter and a sample of appellant's reasonable doubt.
shipment to the Narcotics Section of the National
Bureau of Investigation (NBI), at about 1:30 o'clock in SO ORDERED.
the afternoon of that date, i.e., August 14, 1987. He -----
was interviewed by the Chief of Narcotics Section. Job
Reyes informed the NBI that the rest of the shipment G.R. No. 81561 January 18, 1991
was still in his office. Therefore, Job Reyes and three PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee
(3) NBI agents, and a photographer, went to the Reyes' vs.
office at Ermita, Manila (tsn, p. 30, October 6, 1987). ANDRE MARTI, accused-appellant.
Job Reyes brought out the box in which appellant's The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
packages were placed and, in the presence of the NBI Reynaldo B. Tatoy and Abelardo E. Rogacion for
agents, opened the top flaps, removed the styro-foam accused-appellant.
and took out the cellophane wrappers from inside the
gloves. Dried marijuana leaves were found to have
been contained inside the cellophane wrappers (tsn, p. BIDIN, J.:
38, October 6, 1987; Emphasis supplied). This is an appeal from a decision * rendered by the
The package which allegedly contained books was Special Criminal Court of Manila (Regional Trial Court,
likewise opened by Job Reyes. He discovered that the Branch XLIX) convicting accused-appellant of violation
package contained bricks or cake-like dried marijuana of Section 21 (b), Article IV in relation to Section 4,
leaves. The package which allegedly contained Article 11 and Section 2 (e) (i), Article 1 of Republic Act
tabacalera cigars was also opened. It turned out that 6425, as amended, otherwise known as the Dangerous
dried marijuana leaves were neatly stocked Drugs Act.
underneath the cigars (tsn, p. 39, October 6, 1987). The facts as summarized in the brief of the prosecution
The NBI agents made an inventory and took charge of are as follows:
the box and of the contents thereof, after signing a
be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "Receipt" acknowledging custody of the said effects
(Sec. 1 [3], Article III) (tsn, pp. 2-3, October 7, 1987).
was in turn derived almost verbatim from the Fourth Thereupon, the NBI agents tried to locate appellant but
Amendment ** to the United States Constitution. As to no avail. Appellant's stated address in his passport
such, the Court may turn to the pronouncements of being the Manila Central Post Office, the agents
the United States Federal Supreme Court and State requested assistance from the latter's Chief Security.
Appellate Courts which are considered doctrinal in this On August 27, 1987, appellant, while claiming his mail
jurisdiction. at the Central Post Office, was invited by the NBI to
Thus, following the exclusionary rule laid down in Mapp shed light on the attempted shipment of the seized
v. Ohio by the US Federal Supreme Court (367 US 643, dried leaves. On the same day the Narcotics Section of
81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed. 1081 [1961]), this Court, in the NBI submitted the dried leaves to the Forensic
Stonehill v. Diokno (20 SCRA 383 [1967]), declared as Chemistry Section for laboratory examination. It
inadmissible any evidence obtained by virtue of a turned out that the dried leaves were marijuana
defective search and seizure warrant, abandoning in flowering tops as certified by the forensic chemist.
the process the ruling earlier adopted in Moncado v. (Appellee's Brief, pp. 9-11, Rollo, pp. 132-134).
People's Court (80 Phil. 1 [1948]) wherein the Thereafter, an Information was filed against appellant
admissibility of evidence was not affected by the for violation of RA 6425, otherwise known as the
illegality of its seizure. The 1973 Charter (Sec. 4 [2], Dangerous Drugs Act.
Art. IV) constitutionalized the Stonehill ruling and is After trial, the court a quo rendered the assailed
carried over up to the present with the advent of the decision.
1987 Constitution. In this appeal, accused/appellant assigns the following
In a number of cases, the Court strictly adhered to the errors, to wit:
exclusionary rule and has struck down the THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING IN EVIDENCE
admissibility of evidence obtained in violation of the THE ILLEGALLY SEARCHED AND SEIZED OBJECTS
constitutional safeguard against unreasonable CONTAINED IN THE FOUR PARCELS.
searches and seizures. (Bache & Co., (Phil.), Inc., v. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING APPELLANT
Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823 [1971]; Lim v. Ponce de Leon, 66 DESPITE THE UNDISPUTED FACT THAT HIS RIGHTS
SCRA 299 [1975]; People v. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1 UNDER THE CONSTITUTION WHILE UNDER CUSTODIAL
[1986]; Roan v. Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687 [1987]; See PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT OBSERVED.
also Salazar v. Hon. Achacoso, et al., GR No. 81510, THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING CREDENCE
March 14, 1990). TO THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT ON HOW
It must be noted, however, that in all those cases THE FOUR PARCELS CAME INTO HIS POSSESSION
adverted to, the evidence so obtained were invariably (Appellant's Brief, p. 1; Rollo, p. 55)
procured by the State acting through the medium of its 1. Appellant contends that the evidence subject of the
law enforcers or other authorized government imputed offense had been obtained in violation of his
agencies. constitutional rights against unreasonable search and
On the other hand, the case at bar assumes a peculiar seizure and privacy of communication (Sec. 2 and 3,
character since the evidence sought to be excluded Art. III, Constitution) and therefore argues that the
was primarily discovered and obtained by a private same should be held inadmissible in evidence (Sec. 3
person, acting in a private capacity and without the (2), Art. III).
intervention and participation of State authorities. Sections 2 and 3, Article III of the Constitution provide:
Under the circumstances, can accused/appellant Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their
validly claim that his constitutional right against persons, houses, papers and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizure has been violated? unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever
Stated otherwise, may an act of a private individual, nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no
allegedly in violation of appellant's constitutional search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except
rights, be invoked against the State? upon probable cause to be determined personally by
We hold in the negative. In the absence of the judge after examination under oath or affirmation
governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed by of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce,
the Constitution cannot be invoked against the State. and particularly describing the place to be searched
As this Court held in Villanueva v. Querubin (48 SCRA and the persons or things to be seized.
345 [1972]: Sec. 3. (1) The privacy of communication and
1. This constitutional right (against unreasonable correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful
search and seizure) refers to the immunity of one's order of the court, or when public safety or order
person, whether citizen or alien, from interference by requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
government, included in which is his residence, his (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the
papers, and other possessions. . . . preceding section shall be inadmissible for any
. . . There the state, however powerful, does not as purpose in any proceeding.
such have the access except under the circumstances Our present constitutional provision on the guarantee
above noted, for in the traditional formulation, his against unreasonable search and seizure had its origin
house, however humble, is his castle. Thus is outlawed in the 1935 Charter which, worded as follows:
any unwarranted intrusion by government, which is The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
called upon to refrain from any invasion of his dwelling houses, papers and effects against unreasonable
and to respect the privacies of his life. . . . (Cf. searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no
Schermerber v. California, 384 US 757 [1966] and warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, to be
Boyd v. United States, 116 US 616 [1886]; Emphasis determined by the judge after examination under oath
supplied). or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he
In Burdeau v. McDowell (256 US 465 (1921), 41 S Ct. may produce, and particularly describing the place to
547; 65 L.Ed. 1048), the Court there in construing the
It will be recalled that after Reyes opened the box right against unreasonable searches and seizures
containing the illicit cargo, he took samples of the declared that:
same to the NBI and later summoned the agents to his (t)he Fourth Amendment gives protection against
place of business. Thereafter, he opened the parcel unlawful searches and seizures, and as shown in
containing the rest of the shipment and entrusted the previous cases, its protection applies to governmental
care and custody thereof to the NBI agents. Clearly, action. Its origin and history clearly show that it was
the NBI agents made no search and seizure, much less intended as a restraint upon the activities of sovereign
an illegal one, contrary to the postulate of authority, and was not intended to be a limitation upon
accused/appellant. other than governmental agencies; as against such
Second, the mere presence of the NBI agents did not authority it was the purpose of the Fourth Amendment
convert the reasonable search effected by Reyes into a to secure the citizen in the right of unmolested
warrantless search and seizure proscribed by the occupation of his dwelling and the possession of his
Constitution. Merely to observe and look at that which property, subject to the right of seizure by process
is in plain sight is not a search. Having observed that duly served.
which is open, where no trespass has been committed The above ruling was reiterated in State v. Bryan (457
in aid thereof, is not search (Chadwick v. State, 429 P.2d 661 [1968]) where a parking attendant who
SW2d 135). Where the contraband articles are searched the automobile to ascertain the owner
identified without a trespass on the part of the thereof found marijuana instead, without the
arresting officer, there is not the search that is knowledge and participation of police authorities, was
prohibited by the constitution (US v. Lee 274 US 559, declared admissible in prosecution for illegal
71 L.Ed. 1202 [1927]; Ker v. State of California 374 US possession of narcotics.
23, 10 L.Ed.2d. 726 [1963]; Moore v. State, 429 SW2d And again in the 1969 case of Walker v. State (429
122 [1968]). S.W.2d 121), it was held that the search and seizure
In Gandy v. Watkins (237 F. Supp. 266 [1964]), it was clauses are restraints upon the government and its
likewise held that where the property was taken into agents, not upon private individuals (citing People v.
custody of the police at the specific request of the Potter, 240 Cal. App.2d 621, 49 Cap. Rptr, 892 (1966);
manager and where the search was initially made by State v. Brown, Mo., 391 S.W.2d 903 (1965); State v.
the owner there is no unreasonable search and seizure Olsen, Or., 317 P.2d 938 (1957).
within the constitutional meaning of the term. Likewise appropos is the case of Bernas v. US (373 F.2d
That the Bill of Rights embodied in the Constitution is 517 (1967). The Court there said:
not meant to be invoked against acts of private The search of which appellant complains, however,
individuals finds support in the deliberations of the was made by a private citizen — the owner of a motel
Constitutional Commission. True, the liberties in which appellant stayed overnight and in which he
guaranteed by the fundamental law of the land must left behind a travel case containing the
always be subject to protection. But protection against evidence***complained of. The search was made on the
whom? Commissioner Bernas in his sponsorship motel owner's own initiative. Because of it, he became
speech in the Bill of Rights answers the query which he suspicious, called the local police, informed them of
himself posed, as follows: the bag's contents, and made it available to the
First, the general reflections. The protection of authorities.
fundamental liberties in the essence of constitutional The fourth amendment and the case law applying it do
democracy. Protection against whom? Protection not require exclusion of evidence obtained through a
against the state. The Bill of Rights governs the search by a private citizen. Rather, the amendment
relationship between the individual and the state. Its only proscribes governmental action."
concern is not the relation between individuals, The contraband in the case at bar having come into
between a private individual and other individuals. possession of the Government without the latter
What the Bill of Rights does is to declare some transgressing appellant's rights against unreasonable
forbidden zones in the private sphere inaccessible to search and seizure, the Court sees no cogent reason
any power holder. (Sponsorship Speech of why the same should not be admitted against him in
Commissioner Bernas , Record of the Constitutional the prosecution of the offense charged.
Commission, Vol. 1, p. 674; July 17, 1986; Emphasis Appellant, however, would like this court to believe
supplied) that NBI agents made an illegal search and seizure of
The constitutional proscription against unlawful the evidence later on used in prosecuting the case
searches and seizures therefore applies as a restraint which resulted in his conviction.
directed only against the government and its agencies The postulate advanced by accused/appellant needs to
tasked with the enforcement of the law. Thus, it could be clarified in two days. In both instances, the
only be invoked against the State to whom the argument stands to fall on its own weight, or the lack
restraint against arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of it.
of power is imposed. First, the factual considerations of the case at bar
If the search is made upon the request of law readily foreclose the proposition that NBI agents
enforcers, a warrant must generally be first secured if conducted an illegal search and seizure of the
it is to pass the test of constitutionality. However, if the prohibited merchandise. Records of the case clearly
search is made at the behest or initiative of the indicate that it was Mr. Job Reyes, the proprietor of the
proprietor of a private establishment for its own and forwarding agency, who made search/inspection of the
private purposes, as in the case at bar, and without packages. Said inspection was reasonable and a
the intervention of police authorities, the right against standard operating procedure on the part of Mr. Reyes
unreasonable search and seizure cannot be invoked for as a precautionary measure before delivery of
only the act of private individual, not the law packages to the Bureau of Customs or the Bureau of
enforcers, is involved. In sum, the protection against Posts (TSN, October 6 & 7, 1987, pp. 15-18; pp. 7-8;
unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be Original Records, pp. 119-122; 167-168).
right not to give any written statement, sir. (TSN, extended to acts committed by private individuals so
October 8, 1987, p. 62; Original Records, p. 240) as to bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful
The above testimony of the witness for the prosecution intrusion by the government.
was not contradicted by the defense on cross- Appellant argues, however, that since the provisions of
examination. As borne out by the records, neither was the 1935 Constitution has been modified by the
there any proof by the defense that appellant gave present phraseology found in the 1987 Charter,
uncounselled confession while being investigated. expressly declaring as inadmissible any evidence
What is more, we have examined the assailed obtained in violation of the constitutional prohibition
judgment of the trial court and nowhere is there any against illegal search and seizure, it matters not
reference made to the testimony of appellant while whether the evidence was procured by police
under custodial investigation which was utilized in the authorities or private individuals (Appellant's Brief, p.
finding of conviction. Appellant's second assignment of 8, Rollo, p. 62).
error is therefore misplaced. The argument is untenable. For one thing, the
3. Coming now to appellant's third assignment of error, constitution, in laying down the principles of the
appellant would like us to believe that he was not the government and fundamental liberties of the people,
owner of the packages which contained prohibited does not govern relationships between individuals.
drugs but rather a certain Michael, a German national, Moreover, it must be emphasized that the
whom appellant met in a pub along Ermita, Manila: modifications introduced in the 1987 Constitution (re:
that in the course of their 30-minute conversation, Sec. 2, Art. III) relate to the issuance of either a search
Michael requested him to ship the packages and gave warrant or warrant of arrest vis-a-vis the responsibility
him P2,000.00 for the cost of the shipment since the of the judge in the issuance thereof (SeeSoliven v.
German national was about to leave the country the Makasiar, 167 SCRA 393 [1988]; Circular No. 13
next day (October 15, 1987, TSN, pp. 2-10). [October 1, 1985] and Circular No. 12 [June 30, 1987].
Rather than give the appearance of veracity, we find The modifications introduced deviate in no manner as
appellant's disclaimer as incredulous, self-serving and to whom the restriction or inhibition against
contrary to human experience. It can easily be unreasonable search and seizure is directed against.
fabricated. An acquaintance with a complete stranger The restraint stayed with the State and did not shift to
struck in half an hour could not have pushed a man to anyone else.
entrust the shipment of four (4) parcels and shell out Corolarilly, alleged violations against unreasonable
P2,000.00 for the purpose and for appellant to readily search and seizure may only be invoked against the
accede to comply with the undertaking without first State by an individual unjustly traduced by the
ascertaining its contents. As stated by the trial court, exercise of sovereign authority. To agree with appellant
"(a) person would not simply entrust contraband and that an act of a private individual in violation of the Bill
of considerable value at that as the marijuana of Rights should also be construed as an act of the
flowering tops, and the cash amount of P2,000.00 to a State would result in serious legal complications and
complete stranger like the Accused. The Accused, on an absurd interpretation of the constitution.
the other hand, would not simply accept such Similarly, the admissibility of the evidence procured by
undertaking to take custody of the packages and ship an individual effected through private seizure equally
the same from a complete stranger on his mere say- applies, in pari passu, to the alleged violation, non-
so" (Decision, p. 19, Rollo, p. 91). As to why he readily governmental as it is, of appellant's constitutional
agreed to do the errand, appellant failed to explain. rights to privacy and communication.
Denials, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing 2. In his second assignment of error, appellant
evidence, are negative self-serving evidence which contends that the lower court erred in convicting him
deserve no weight in law and cannot be given greater despite the undisputed fact that his rights under the
evidentiary weight than the testimony of credible constitution while under custodial investigation were
witnesses who testify on affirmative matters (People v. not observed.
Esquillo, 171 SCRA 571 [1989]; People vs. Sariol, 174 Again, the contention is without merit, We have
SCRA 237 [1989]). carefully examined the records of the case and found
Appellant's bare denial is even made more suspect nothing to indicate, as an "undisputed fact", that
considering that, as per records of the Interpol, he was appellant was not informed of his constitutional rights
previously convicted of possession of hashish by the or that he gave statements without the assistance of
Kleve Court in the Federal Republic of Germany on counsel. The law enforcers testified that
January 1, 1982 and that the consignee of the accused/appellant was informed of his constitutional
frustrated shipment, Walter Fierz, also a Swiss rights. It is presumed that they have regularly
national, was likewise convicted for drug abuse and is performed their duties (See. 5(m), Rule 131) and their
just about an hour's drive from appellant's residence in testimonies should be given full faith and credence,
Zurich, Switzerland (TSN, October 8, 1987, p. 66; there being no evidence to the contrary. What is clear
Original Records, p. 244; Decision, p. 21; Rollo, p. 93). from the records, on the other hand, is that appellant
Evidence to be believed, must not only proceed from refused to give any written statement while under
the mouth of a credible witness, but it must be investigation as testified by Atty. Lastimoso of the NBI,
credible in itself such as the common experience and Thus:
observation of mankind can approve as probable Fiscal Formoso:
under the circumstances (People v. Alto, 26 SCRA 342 You said that you investigated Mr. and Mrs. Job Reyes.
[1968], citing Daggers v. Van Dyke, 37 N.J. Eg. 130; What about the accused here, did you investigate the
see also People v. Sarda, 172 SCRA 651 [1989]; People accused together with the girl?
v. Sunga, 123 SCRA 327 [1983]); Castañares v. CA, 92 WITNESS:
SCRA 567 [1979]). As records further show, appellant Yes, we have interviewed the accused together with
did not even bother to ask Michael's full name, his the girl but the accused availed of his constitutional
complete address or passport number. Furthermore, if
Petitioner, Elenita Fajardo, and one Zaldy Valerio indeed, the German national was the owner of the
(Valerio) were charged with violation of P.D. No. 1866, merchandise, appellant should have so indicated in the
as amended, before the RTC, Branch 5, Kalibo, Aklan, contract of shipment (Exh. "B", Original Records, p.
committed as follows: 40). On the contrary, appellant signed the contract as
the owner and shipper thereof giving more weight to
That on or about the 28 th day of August, 2002, in the the presumption that things which a person possesses,
morning, in Barangay Andagao, Municipality of Kalibo, or exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him
Province of Aklan, Republic of the Philippines, and (Sec. 5 [j], Rule 131). At this point, appellant is
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the therefore estopped to claim otherwise.
above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and Premises considered, we see no error committed by
mutually helping one another, without authority of law, the trial court in rendering the assailed judgment.
permit or license, did then and there, knowingly, WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction finding
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in their appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
possession, custody and control two (2) receivers of charged is hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.
caliber .45 pistol, [M]odel [No.] M1911A1 US SO ORDERED.
with SN 763025 and Model [No.] M1911A1 US ----
with defaced serial number, two (2) pieces short
magazine of M16 Armalite rifle, thirty-five (35) ELENITA C. FAJARDO,
pieces live M16 ammunition 5.56 caliber and Petitioner,
fourteen (14) pieces live caliber .45 ammunition,
which items were confiscated and recovered from their
possession during a search conducted by members of
the Provincial Intelligence Special Operation Group,
Aklan Police Provincial Office, Kalibo, Aklan, by virtue - versus -
of Search Warrant No. 01 (9) 03 issued by OIC
Executive Judge Dean Telan of the Regional Trial Court
of Aklan.[3]
1. The search warrant subject of this case exists; G.R. No. 190889
As culled from the similar factual findings of the RTC At bar is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule
and the CA,[6] these are the chain of events that led to 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking the reversal of the
the filing of the information: February 10, 2009 Decision [1] of the Court of Appeals
(CA), which affirmed with modification the August 29,
In the evening of August 27, 2002, members of the 2006 decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Provincial Intelligence Special Operations Group Branch 5, Kalibo, Aklan, finding petitioner guilty of
(PISOG) were instructed by Provincial Director Police violating Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1866, as
Superintendent Edgardo Mendoza (P/Supt. Mendoza) amended.
to respond to the complaint of concerned citizens
residing on Ilang-Ilang and Sampaguita Roads, Park
Homes III Subdivision, Barangay Andagao, Kalibo,
Aklan, that armed men drinking liquor at the residence The facts:
of petitioner were indiscriminately firing guns.
That this application was founded on confidential
information received by the Provincial Director, Police Along with the members of the Aklan Police Provincial
Supt. Edgardo Mendoza.[7] Office, the elements of the PISOG proceeded to the
area. Upon arrival thereat, they noticed that several
They further asserted that the execution of the search persons scampered and ran in different directions. The
warrant was infirm since petitioner, who was inside the responding team saw Valerio holding two .45 caliber
house at the time of the search, was not asked to pistols. He fired shots at the policemen before entering
accompany the policemen as they explored the place, the house of petitioner.
but was instead ordered to remain in the living room
(sala). Petitioner was seen tucking a .45 caliber handgun
between her waist and the waistband of her shorts,
Petitioner disowned the confiscated items. She refused after which, she entered the house and locked the
to sign the inventory/receipt prepared by the raiding main door.
team, because the items allegedly belonged to her To prevent any violent commotion, the policemen
brother, Benito Fajardo, a staff sergeant of the desisted from entering petitioners house but, in order
Philippine Army. to deter Valerio from evading apprehension, they
Petitioner denied that she had a .45 caliber pistol cordoned the perimeter of the house as they waited
tucked in her waistband when the raiding team for further instructions from P/Supt. Mendoza. A few
arrived. She averred that such situation was minutes later, petitioner went out of the house and
implausible because she was wearing garterized shorts negotiated for the pull-out of the police troops. No
and a spaghetti-strapped hanging blouse.[8] agreement materialized.
Accordingly, petitioner and Valerio were convicted of The judicial admission of the accused that they do not
illegal possession of a part of a firearm, punishable have permit or license on the two (2) receivers of
under paragraph 1, Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866, as caliber .45 pistol, model M1911A1 US with SN 763025
amended. They were sentenced to an indeterminate and model M1911A1 of M16 Armalite rifle, thirty-five
penalty of three (3) years, six (6) months, and twenty- (35) pieces live M16 ammunition, 5.56 caliber and
one (21) days to five (5) years, four (4) months, and fourteen (14) pieces live caliber .45 ammunition
twenty (20) days of prision correccional, and ordered confiscated and recovered from their possession
to pay a P20,000.00 fine. during the search conducted by members of the
PISOG, Aklan Police Provincial Office by virtue of
Petitioner moved for reconsideration,[11] but the motion Search Warrant No. 01 (9) 03 fall under Section 4 of
was denied in the CA Resolution dated December 3, Rule 129 of the Revised Rules of Court.[9]
2009.[12] Hence, the present recourse.
Consequently, petitioner and Valerio were convicted of
At the onset, it must be emphasized that the illegal possession of firearms and explosives,
information filed against petitioner and Valerio charged punishable under paragraph 2, Section 1 of P.D. No.
duplicitous offenses contrary to Section 13 of Rule 110 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294, which provides:
of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, viz.:
The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period
Sec. 13. Duplicity of offense. A complaint or and a fine of Thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00) shall
information must charge but one offense, except only be imposed if the firearm is classified as high powered
in those cases in which existing laws prescribe a single firearm which includes those with bores bigger in
punishment for various offenses. diameter than .38 caliber and 9 millimeter such as
caliber .40, .41, .44, .45 and also lesser calibered
A reading of the information clearly shows that firearms but considered powerful such as caliber .357
possession of the enumerated articles confiscated and caliber .22 center-fire magnum and other firearms
from Valerio and petitioner are punishable under with firing capability of full automatic and by burst of
separate provisions of Section 1, P.D. No. 1866, as two or three: Provided, however, That no other crime
amended by R.A. No. 8294.[13] Illegal possession of two was committed by the person arrested.
(2) pieces of short magazine of M16 Armalite rifle,
thirty-five (35) pieces of live M16 ammunition 5.56 Both were sentenced to suffer the penalty of
caliber, and fourteen (14) pieces of live caliber .45 imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day to
ammunition is punishable under paragraph 2 of the twelve (12) years of prision mayor, and to pay a fine of
said section, viz.: P30,000.00.
on the caliber of the weapon. To do so would result in The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period
duplicitous charges. and a fine of Thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00) shall
be imposed if the firearm is classified as high
Ordinarily, an information that charges multiple powered firearm which includes those with
offenses merits a quashal, but petitioner and Valerio bores bigger in diameter than .38 caliber and 9
failed to raise this issue during arraignment. Their millimeter such as caliber .40, 41, .44, .45 and
failure constitutes a waiver, and they could be also lesser calibered firearms but considered powerful
convicted of as many offenses as there were charged such as caliber .357 and caliber .22 center-fire
in the information.[17] This accords propriety to the magnum and other firearms with firing capability of full
diverse convictions handed down by the courts a quo. automatic and by burst of two or three: Provided,
Further, the charge of illegal possession of firearms however, That no other crime was committed by the
and ammunition under paragraph 2, Section 1 of P.D. person arrested.[14]
No. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294, including the
validity of the search warrant that led to their On the other hand, illegal possession of the two (2)
confiscation, is now beyond the province of our review receivers of a .45 caliber pistol, model no. M1911A1
since, by virtue of the CAs Decision, petitioner and US, with SN 763025, and Model M1911A1 US, with a
Valerio have been effectively acquitted from the said defaced serial number, is penalized under paragraph
charges. The present review is consequently only with 1, which states:
regard to the conviction for illegal possession of a part
of a firearm. Sec. 1. Unlawful manufacture, sale, acquisition,
disposition or possession of firearms or ammunition or
The Issues instruments used or intended to be used in the
manufacture of firearms or ammunition. The penalty of
Petitioner insists on an acquittal and avers that the prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine
discovery of the two (2) receivers does not come of not less than Fifteen thousand pesos (P15,000.00)
within the purview of the plain view doctrine. She shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully
argues that no valid intrusion was attendant and that manufacture, deal in, acquire, dispose, or possess any
no evidence was adduced to prove that she was with low powered firearm, such as rimfire handgun, .380
Valerio when he threw the receivers. Likewise absent is or .32 and other firearm of similar firepower, part of
a positive showing that any of the two receivers firearm, ammunition, or machinery, tool or instrument
recovered by the policemen matched the .45 caliber used or intended to be used in the manufacture of any
pistol allegedly seen tucked in the waistband of her firearm or ammunition: Provided, That no other crime
shorts when the police elements arrived. Neither is was committed.[15]
there any proof that petitioner had knowledge of or
consented to the alleged throwing of the receivers.
This is the necessary consequence of the amendment
Our Ruling introduced by R.A. No. 8294, which categorized the
kinds of firearms proscribed from being possessed
We find merit in the petition. without a license, according to their firing power and
caliber. R.A. No. 8294 likewise mandated different
First, we rule on the admissibility of the receivers. We penalties for illegal possession of firearm according to
hold that the receivers were seized in plain view, the above classification, unlike in the old P.D. No. 1866
hence, admissible. which set a standard penalty for the illegal possession
of any kind of firearm. Section 1 of the old law reads:
No less than our Constitution recognizes the right of
the people to be secure in their persons, houses, Section 1. Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition,
papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and Disposition or Possession of Firearms or Ammunition or
seizures. This right is encapsulated in Article III, Instruments Used or Intended to be Used in the
Section 2, of the Constitution, which states: Manufacture of Firearms of Ammunition. The penalty of
reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion
Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who shall
persons, houses, papers, and effects against unlawfully manufacture, deal in, acquire dispose, or
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever possess any firearms, part of firearm, ammunition, or
nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no machinery, tool or instrument used or intended to be
search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except used in the manufacture of any firearm or ammunition.
upon probable cause to be determined personally by (Emphasis ours.)
the judge after examination under oath or affirmation
of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, By virtue of such changes, an information for illegal
and particularly describing the place to be searched possession of firearm should now particularly refer to
and the persons or things to be seized. the paragraph of Section 1 under which the seized
firearm is classified, and should there be numerous
Complementing this provision is the exclusionary rule guns confiscated, each must be sorted and then
embodied in Section 3(2) of the same article grouped according to the categories stated in Section
1 of R.A. No. 8294, amending P.D. No. 1866. It will no
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the longer suffice to lump all of the seized firearms in one
preceding section shall be inadmissible for any information, and state Section 1, P.D. No. 1866 as the
purpose in any proceeding. violated provision, as in the instant case, [16] because
different penalties are imposed by the law, depending
A Deluso told me that a person ran inside the house There are, however, several well-recognized
carrying with him a gun. exceptions to the foregoing rule. Thus, evidence
obtained through a warrantless search and seizure
Q And this house you are referring to is the house may be admissible under any of the following
which you mentioned is the police officers were circumstances: (1) search incident to a lawful arrest;
surrounding? (2) search of a moving motor vehicle; (3) search in
A Yes, sir. violation of custom laws; (4) seizure of evidence in
plain view; and (5) when the accused himself waives
Q Now, how long did you stay in that place, Mr. his right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
[18]
Witness?
A I stayed there when I arrived at past 10:00 oclock up Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling in the
to 12:00 oclock the following day. plain view of an officer, who has a right to be in the
position to have that view, are subject to seizure and
Q At about 2:00 oclock in the early morning of August may be presented as evidence.[19] It applies when the
28, 2002, can you recall where were you? following requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement
A Yes, sir. officer in search of the evidence has a prior
justification for an intrusion or is in a position from
Q Where were you? which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery
A I was at the back of the house that is being cordoned of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and (c) it
by the police. is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he
observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband, or
Q While you were at the back of this house, do you otherwise subject to seizure. The law enforcement
recall any unusual incident? officer must lawfully make an initial intrusion or
A Yes, sir. properly be in a position from which he can particularly
view the area. In the course of such lawful intrusion,
Q Can you tell the Honorable Court what was that he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence
incident? incriminating the accused. The object must be open to
A Yes, sir. A person went out at the top of the house eye and hand, and its discovery inadvertent. [20]
and threw something.
Tested against these standards, we find that the
Q And did you see the person who threw something seizure of the two receivers of the .45 caliber pistol
out of this house? outside petitioners house falls within the purview of
A Yes, sir. the plain view doctrine.
Hence, as correctly declared by the CA, the two Q Mr. Witness, at around 4:00 oclock that early
receivers were admissible as evidence. The liability for morning of August 28, 2002, do you recall another
their possession, however, should fall only on Valerio unusual incident?
and not on petitioner. A Yes, sir.
The foregoing disquisition notwithstanding, we find Q And can you tell us what was that incident?
that petitioner is not liable for illegal possession of part A I saw a person throwing something there and the
of a firearm. one that was thrown fell on top of the roof of another
In dissecting how and when liability for illegal house.
possession of firearms attaches, the following
disquisitions in People v. De Gracia[22] are instructive: Q And you saw that person who again threw
something from the rooftop of the house?
The rule is that ownership is not an essential element A Yes, sir.
of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. What
the law requires is merely possession which includes Q Did you recognize him?
not only actual physical possession but also A Yes, sir.
constructive possession or the subjection of the thing
to one's control and management. This has to be so if Q Who was that person?
the manifest intent of the law is to be effective. The A Zaldy Valerio again.
same evils, the same perils to public security, which
the law penalizes exist whether the unlicensed holder xxxx
of a prohibited weapon be its owner or a borrower. To
accomplish the object of this law the proprietary Q Where were you when you saw this Zaldy Valerio
concept of the possession can have no bearing thr[o]w something out of the house?
whatsoever. A I was on the road in front of the house.
But is the mere fact of physical or constructive
possession sufficient to convict a person for unlawful Q Where was Zaldy Valerio when you saw him thr[o]w
possession of firearms or must there be an intent to something out of the house?
possess to constitute a violation of the law? This query A He was on top of the house.
assumes significance since the offense of illegal
possession of firearms is a malum prohibitum punished xxxx
by a special law, in which case good faith and absence
of criminal intent are not valid defenses. Q Later on, were you able to know what was that
When the crime is punished by a special law, as a rule, something thrown out?
intent to commit the crime is not necessary. It is A Yes, sir.
sufficient that the offender has the intent to perpetrate
the act prohibited by the special law. Intent to commit Q What was that?
the crime and intent to perpetrate the act must be A Another lower receiver of a cal. 45.
distinguished. A person may not have consciously
intended to commit a crime; but he did intend to xxxx
commit an act, and that act is, by the very nature of Q And what did he tell you?
things, the crime itself. In the first (intent to commit A It [was] on the wall of another house and it [could]
the crime), there must be criminal intent; in the be seen right away.
second (intent to perpetrate the act) it is enough that
the prohibited act is done freely and consciously. xxxx
In the present case, a distinction should be made
between criminal intent and intent to possess. While
mere possession, without criminal intent, is sufficient Q What did you do if any?
to convict a person for illegal possession of a firearm, A We waited for the owner of the house to wake up.
it must still be shown that there was animus
possidendi or an intent to possess on the part of the xxxx
accused. Such intent to possess is, however, without
regard to any other criminal or felonious intent which Q Who opened the fence for you?
the accused may have harbored in possessing the A It was a lady who is the owner of the house.
firearm. Criminal intent here refers to the intention of
the accused to commit an offense with the use of an Q When you entered the premises of the house of the
unlicensed firearm. This is not important in convicting lady, what did you find?
a person under Presidential Decree No. 1866. Hence, A We saw the lower receiver of this .45 cal. (sic) [21]
in order that one may be found guilty of a violation of
the decree, it is sufficient that the accused had no The ensuing recovery of the receivers may have been
authority or license to possess a firearm, and that he deliberate; nonetheless, their initial discovery was
intended to possess the same, even if such possession indubitably inadvertent. It is not crucial that at initial
was made in good faith and without criminal intent. sighting the seized contraband be identified and
Concomitantly, a temporary, incidental, casual, or known to be so. The law merely requires that the law
harmless possession or control of a firearm cannot be enforcer observes that the seized item may be
considered a violation of a statute prohibiting the
The CA correctly convicted Valerio with illegal possession of this kind of weapon, such as Presidential
possession of part of a firearm. Decree No. 1866. Thus, although there is physical or
constructive possession, for as long as the animus
In illegal possession of a firearm, two (2) things must possidendi is absent, there is no offense committed. [23]
be shown to exist: (a) the existence of the subject
firearm; and (b) the fact that the accused who Certainly, illegal possession of firearms, or, in this
possessed the same does not have the corresponding case, part of a firearm, is committed when the holder
license for it.[26] thereof:
Anent the lack of authority, SPO1 Tan testified that, Petitioners apparent liability for illegal possession of
upon verification, it was ascertained that Valerio is not part of a firearm can only proceed from the
a duly licensed/registered firearm holder of any type, assumption that one of the thrown receivers matches
kind, or caliber of firearms. [29] To substantiate his the gun seen tucked in the waistband of her shorts
statement, he submitted a certification [30] to that effect earlier that night. Unfortunately, the prosecution failed
and identified the same in court.[31] The testimony of to convert such assumption into concrete evidence.
SPO1 Tan, or the certification, would suffice to prove
beyond reasonable doubt the second element. [32] Mere speculations and probabilities cannot substitute
for proof required to establish the guilt of an accused
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the February 10, beyond reasonable doubt. The rule is the same
2009 Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby whether the offenses are punishable under the Revised
REVERSED with respect to petitioner Elenita Fajardo y Penal Code, which are mala in se, or in crimes, which
Castro, who is hereby ACQUITTED on the ground that are malum prohibitum by virtue of special law. [25]The
her guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. quantum of proof required by law was not adequately
SO ORDERED. met in this case in so far as petitioner is concerned.
----
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) The gun allegedly seen tucked in petitioners waistband
Terry v. Ohio was not identified with sufficient particularity; as such,
No. 67 it is impossible to match the same with any of the
Argued December 12, 1967 seized receivers. Moreover, SPO1 Tan categorically
Decided June 10, 1968 stated that he saw Valerio holding two guns when he
392 U.S. 1 and the rest of the PISOG arrived in petitioners house.
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO It is not unlikely then that the receivers later on
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of discarded were components of the two (2) pistols seen
the Court. with Valerio.
This case presents serious questions concerning the
role of the Fourth Amendment in the confrontation on These findings also debunk the allegation in the
the street between the citizen and the policeman information that petitioner conspired with Valerio in
investigating suspicious circumstances. committing illegal possession of part of a firearm.
Petitioner Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed There is no evidence indubitably proving that
weapon and sentenced to the statutorily prescribed petitioner participated in the decision to commit the
term of one to three years in the penitentiary. criminal act committed by Valerio.
[Footnote 1] Following
[5] Hence, this Court is constrained to acquit petitioner on
the denial of a pretrial motion to suppress, the the ground of reasonable doubt. The constitutional
prosecution introduced in evidence two revolvers and presumption of innocence in her favor was not
a number of bullets seized from Terry and a adequately overcome by the evidence adduced by the
codefendant, Richard Chilton, [Footnote 2] by prosecution.
Cleveland Police Detective Martin McFadden. At the
facing the other two, with Terry between McFadden hearing on the motion to suppress this evidence,
and the others, and patted down the outside of his Officer McFadden testified that, while he was patrolling
clothing. In the left breast pocket of Terry's overcoat, in plain clothes in downtown Cleveland at
Officer McFadden felt a pistol. He reached inside the approximately 2:30 in the afternoon of October 31,
overcoat pocket, but was unable to remove the gun. At 1963, his attention was attracted by two men, Chilton
this point, keeping Terry between himself and the and Terry, standing on the corner of Huron Road and
others, the officer ordered all three men to enter Euclid Avenue. He had never seen the two men before,
Zucker's store. As they went in, he removed Terry's and he was unable to say precisely what first drew his
overcoat completely, removed a .38 caliber revolver eye to them. However, he testified that he had been a
from the pocket and ordered all three men to face the policeman for 39 years and a detective for 35, and
wall with their hands raised. Officer McFadden that he had been assigned to patrol this vicinity of
proceeded to pat down the outer clothing of Chilton downtown Cleveland for shoplifters and pickpockets for
and the third man, Katz. He discovered another 30 years. He explained that he had developed routine
revolver in the outer pocket of Chilton's overcoat, but habits of observation over the years, and that he
no weapons were found on Katz. The officer testified would "stand and watch people or walk and watch
that he only patted the men down to see whether they people at many intervals of the day." He added: "Now,
had weapons, and that he did not put his hands in this case, when I looked over, they didn't look right
beneath the outer garments of either Terry or Chilton to me at the time."
until he felt their guns. So far as appears from the His interest aroused, Officer McFadden took up a post
record, he never placed his hands beneath Katz' outer of observation in the entrance to a store 300 to 400
garments. Officer McFadden seized Chilton's gun, feet
asked the proprietor of the store to call a police [6]
wagon, and took all three men to the station, where away from the two men. "I get more purpose to watch
Chilton and Terry were formally charged with carrying them when I seen their movements," he testified. He
concealed weapons. saw one of the men leave the other one and walk
On the motion to suppress the guns, the prosecution southwest on Huron Road, past some stores. The man
took the position that they had been seized following a paused for a moment and looked in a store window,
search incident to a lawful arrest. The trial court then walked on a short distance, turned around and
rejected this theory, stating that it "would be walked back toward the corner, pausing once again to
stretching the facts beyond reasonable look in the same store window. He rejoined his
comprehension" to find that Officer companion at the corner, and the two conferred briefly.
[8] Then the second man went through the same series of
McFadden had had probable cause to arrest the men motions, strolling down Huron Road, looking in the
before he patted them down for weapons. However, same window, walking on a short distance, turning
the court denied the defendants' motion on the ground back, peering in the store window again, and returning
that Officer McFadden, on the basis of his experience, to confer with the first man at the corner. The two men
"had reasonable cause to believe . . . that the repeated this ritual alternately between five and six
defendants were conducting themselves suspiciously, times apiece -- in all, roughly a dozen trips. At one
and some interrogation should be made of their point, while the two were standing together on the
action." Purely for his own protection, the court held, corner, a third man approached them and engaged
the officer had the right to pat down the outer clothing them briefly in conversation. This man then left the
of these men, who he had reasonable cause to believe two others and walked west on Euclid Avenue. Chilton
might be armed. The court distinguished between an and Terry resumed their measured pacing, peering,
investigatory "stop" and an arrest, and between a and conferring. After this had gone on for 10 to 12
"frisk" of the outer clothing for weapons and a full- minutes, the two men walked off together, heading
blown search for evidence of crime. The frisk, it held, west on Euclid Avenue, following the path taken earlier
was essential to the proper performance of the by the third man.
officer's investigatory duties, for, without it, "the By this time, Officer McFadden had become thoroughly
answer to the police officer may be a bullet, and a suspicious. He testified that, after observing their
loaded pistol discovered during the frisk is elaborately casual and oft-repeated reconnaissance of
admissible." the store window on Huron Road, he suspected the two
After the court denied their motion to suppress, Chilton men of "casing a job, a stick-up," and that he
and Terry waived jury trial and pleaded not guilty. The considered it his duty as a police officer to investigate
court adjudged them guilty, and the Court of Appeals further. He added that he feared "they may have a
for the Eighth Judicial District, Cuyahoga County, gun." Thus, Officer McFadden followed Chilton and
affirmed. State v. Terry, 5 Ohio App.2d 122, 214 Terry and saw them stop in front of Zucker's store to
N.E.2d 114 (1966). The Supreme Court of Ohio talk to the same man who had conferred with them
dismissed their appeal on the ground that no earlier on the street corner. Deciding that the situation
"substantial constitutional question" was involved. We was ripe for direct action, Officer McFadden
granted certiorari, 387 U.S. 929 (1967), to determine approached the three men, identified
whether the admission of the revolvers in evidence [7]
violated petitioner's rights under the Fourth himself as a police officer and asked for their names.
Amendment, made applicable to the States by the At this point, his knowledge was confined to what he
Fourteenth. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643(1961). We had observed. He was not acquainted with any of the
affirm the conviction. three men by name or by sight, and he had received
I no information concerning them from any other
The Fourth Amendment provides that "the right of the source. When the men "mumbled something" in
people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, response to his inquiries, Officer McFadden grabbed
and effects, against unreasonable searches and petitioner Terry, spun him around so that they were
[11] seizures, shall not be violated. . . ." This inestimable
citizen in the interest of effective law enforcement on right of
the basis of a police officer's suspicion. [Footnote 5] [9]
On the other side, the argument is made that the personal security belongs as much to the citizen on
authority of the police must be strictly circumscribed the streets of our cities as to the homeowner closeted
by the law of arrest and search as it has developed to in his study to dispose of his secret affairs. For as this
date in the traditional jurisprudence of the Fourth Court has always recognized,
Amendment. [Footnote 6] It is contended with some "No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully
force that there is not -- and cannot be -- a variety of guarded, by the common law than the right of every
police activity which does not depend solely upon the individual to the possession and control of his own
voluntary cooperation of the citizen, and yet which person, free from all restraint or interference of others,
stops short of an arrest based upon probable cause to unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law."
make such an arrest. The heart of the Fourth Union Pac. R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U. S. 250, 251
Amendment, the argument runs, is a severe (1891).
requirement of specific justification for any intrusion We have recently held that "the Fourth Amendment
upon protected personal security, coupled with a protects people, not places," Katz v. United States, 389
highly developed system of judicial controls to enforce U. S. 347, 351 (1967), and wherever an individual may
upon the agents of the State the commands of the harbor a reasonable "expectation of privacy," id. at
Constitution. Acquiescence by the courts in the 361 (MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, concurring), he is entitled
compulsion inherent to be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.
[12] Of course, the specific content and incidents of this
in the field interrogation practices at issue here, it is right must be shaped by the context in which it is
urged, would constitute an abdication of judicial asserted. For "what the Constitution forbids is not all
control over, and indeed an encouragement of, searches and seizures, but unreasonable searches and
substantial interference with liberty and personal seizures." Elkins v. United States, 364 U. S. 206, 222
security by police officers whose judgment is (1960). Unquestionably petitioner was entitled to the
necessarily colored by their primary involvement in protection of the Fourth Amendment as he walked
"the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out down the street in Cleveland. Beck v. Ohio, 379 U. S.
crime." Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10, 14 89 (1964); Rios v. United States, 364 U. S. 253 (1960);
(1948). This, it is argued, can only serve to exacerbate Henry v. United States, 361 U. S. 98 (1959); United
police-community tensions in the crowded centers of States v. Di Re, 332 U. S. 581(1948); Carroll v. United
our Nation's cities. [Footnote 7] States, 267 U. S. 132 (1925). The question is whether,
In this context, we approach the issues in this case in all the circumstances of this on-the-street
mindful of the limitations of the judicial function in encounter, his right to personal security was violated
controlling the myriad daily situations in which by an unreasonable search and seizure.
policemen and citizens confront each other on the We would be less than candid if we did not
street. The State has characterized the issue here as acknowledge that this question thrusts to the fore
"the right of a police officer . . . to make an on-the- difficult and troublesome issues regarding a sensitive
street stop, interrogate and pat down for weapons area of police activity -- issues which have never
(known in street vernacular as 'stop and frisk'). before been squarely
[Footnote 8]" But this is only partly accurate. For the [10]
issue is not the abstract propriety of the police presented to this Court. Reflective of the tensions
conduct, but the admissibility against petitioner of the involved are the practical and constitutional
evidence uncovered by the search and seizure. Ever arguments pressed with great vigor on both sides of
since its inception, the rule excluding evidence seized the public debate over the power of the police to "stop
in violation of the Fourth Amendment has been and frisk" -- as it is sometimes euphemistically termed
recognized as a principal mode of discouraging lawless -- suspicious persons.
police conduct. See Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. On the one hand, it is frequently argued that, in
383, 391-393 (1914). Thus, its major thrust is a dealing with the rapidly unfolding and often dangerous
deterrent one, see Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618, situations on city streets, the police are in need of an
629-635 (1965), and experience has taught that it is escalating set of flexible responses, graduated in
the only effective deterrent to police misconduct in the relation to the amount of information they possess. For
criminal context, and that, without it, the constitutional this purpose, it is urged that distinctions should be
guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures made between a "stop" and an "arrest" (or a "seizure"
would be a mere "form of words." Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. of a person), and between a "frisk" and a "search."
S. 643, 655 (1961). The rule also serves another vital [Footnote 3] Thus, it is argued, the police should be
function -- "the imperative of judicial integrity." Elkins allowed to "stop" a person and detain him briefly for
[13] questioning upon suspicion that he may be connected
v. United States, 364 U. S. 206, 222 (1960). Courts with criminal activity. Upon suspicion that the person
which sit under our Constitution cannot and will not be may be armed, the police should have the power to
made party to lawless invasions of the constitutional "frisk" him for weapons. If the "stop" and the "frisk"
rights of citizens by permitting unhindered give rise to probable cause to believe that the suspect
governmental use of the fruits of such invasions. Thus, has committed a crime, then the police should be
in our system, evidentiary rulings provide the context empowered to make a formal "arrest," and a full
in which the judicial process of inclusion and exclusion incident "search" of the person. This scheme is
approves some conduct as comporting with justified in part upon the notion that a "stop" and a
constitutional guarantees and disapproves other "frisk" amount to a mere "minor inconvenience and
actions by state agents. A ruling admitting evidence in petty indignity," [Footnote 4] which can properly be
a criminal trial, we recognize, has the necessary effect imposed upon the
attention to the quite narrow question posed by the of legitimizing the conduct which produced the
facts before us: whether it is always unreasonable for evidence, while an application of the exclusionary rule
a policeman to seize a person and subject him to a withholds the constitutional imprimatur.
limited search for weapons unless there is probable The exclusionary rule has its limitations, however, as a
cause for an arrest. tool of judicial control. It cannot properly be invoked to
[16] exclude the products of legitimate police investigative
Given the narrowness of this question, we have no techniques on the ground that much conduct which is
occasion to canvass in detail the constitutional closely similar involves unwarranted intrusions upon
limitations upon the scope of a policeman's power constitutional protections. Moreover, in some contexts,
when he confronts a citizen without probable cause to the rule is ineffective as a deterrent. Street encounters
arrest him. between citizens and police officers are incredibly rich
II in diversity. They range from wholly friendly exchanges
Our first task is to establish at what point in this of pleasantries or mutually useful information to
encounter the Fourth Amendment becomes relevant. hostile confrontations of armed men involving arrests,
That is, we must decide whether and when Officer or injuries, or loss of life. Moreover, hostile
McFadden "seized" Terry, and whether and when he confrontations are not all of a piece. Some of them
conducted a "search." There is some suggestion in the begin in a friendly enough manner, only to take a
use of such terms as "stop" and "frisk" that such police different turn upon the injection of some unexpected
conduct is outside the purview of the Fourth element into the conversation. Encounters are initiated
Amendment because neither action rises to the level by the police for a wide variety of purposes, some of
of a "search" or "seizure" within the meaning of the which are wholly unrelated to a desire to prosecute for
Constitution. [Footnote 12] We emphatically reject this crime. [Footnote 9] Doubtless some
notion. It is quite plain that the Fourth Amendment [14]
governs "seizures" of the person which do not police "field interrogation" conduct violates the Fourth
eventuate in a trip to the stationhouse and prosecution Amendment. But a stern refusal by this Court to
for crime -- "arrests" in traditional terminology. It must condone such activity does not necessarily render it
be recognized that, whenever a police officer accosts responsive to the exclusionary rule. Regardless of how
an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, effective the rule may be where obtaining convictions
he has "seized" that person. And it is nothing less than is an important objective of the police, [Footnote 10] it
sheer torture of the English language to suggest that a is powerless to deter invasions of constitutionally
careful exploration of the outer surfaces of a person's guaranteed rights where the police either have no
clothing all over his or her body in an attempt to find interest in prosecuting or are willing to forgo
weapons is not a "search." Moreover, it is simply successful prosecution in the interest of serving some
fantastic to urge that such a procedure other goal.
[17] Proper adjudication of cases in which the exclusionary
performed in public by a policeman while the citizen rule is invoked demands a constant awareness of
stands helpless, perhaps facing a wall with his hands these limitations. The wholesale harassment by certain
raised, is a "petty indignity." [Footnote 13] It is a elements of the police community, of which minority
serious intrusion upon the sanctity of the person, groups, particularly Negroes, frequently complain,
which may inflict great indignity and arouse strong [Footnote 11] will not be
resentment, and it is not to be undertaken lightly. [15]
[Footnote 14] stopped by the exclusion of any evidence from any
The danger in the logic which proceeds upon criminal trial. Yet a rigid and unthinking application of
distinctions between a "stop" and an "arrest," or the exclusionary rule, in futile protest against practices
"seizure" of the person, and between a "frisk" and a which it can never be used effectively to control, may
"search," is twofold. It seeks to isolate from exact a high toll in human injury and frustration of
constitutional scrutiny the initial stages of the contact efforts to prevent crime. No judicial opinion can
between the policeman and the citizen. And, by comprehend the protean variety of the street
suggesting a rigid all-or-nothing model of justification encounter, and we can only judge the facts of the case
and regulation under the Amendment, it obscures the before us. Nothing we say today is to be taken as
utility of limitations upon the scope, as well as the indicating approval of police conduct outside the
initiation, of police action as a means of constitutional legitimate investigative sphere. Under our decision,
regulation. [Footnote 15] This Court has held, in courts still retain their traditional responsibility to
[18] guard against police conduct which is overbearing or
the past that a search which is reasonable at its harassing, or which trenches upon personal security
inception may violate the Fourth Amendment by virtue without the objective evidentiary justification which
of its intolerable intensity and scope. Kremen v. the Constitution requires. When such conduct is
United States, 353 U. S. 346 (1957); Go-Bart Importing identified, it must be condemned by the judiciary, and
Co. v. its fruits must be excluded from evidence in criminal
[19] trials. And, of course, our approval of legitimate and
United States, 282 U. S. 344, 356-358 (1931); see restrained investigative conduct undertaken on the
United States v. Di Re, 332 U. S. 581, 586-587 (1948). basis of ample factual justification should in no way
The scope of the search must be "strictly tied to and discourage the employment of other remedies than
justified by" the circumstances which rendered its the exclusionary rule to curtail abuses for which that
initiation permissible. Warden v. Hayden, 387 U. S. sanction may prove inappropriate.
294, 310 (1967) (MR. JUSTICE FORTAS, concurring); Having thus roughly sketched the perimeters of the
see, e.g., Preston v. United States, 376 U. S. 364, 367- constitutional debate over the limits on police
368 (1964); Agnello v. United States, 269 U. S. 20, 30- investigative conduct in general and the background
31 (1925). against which this case presents itself, we turn our
assured that, at some point, the conduct of those The distinctions of classical "stop-and-frisk" theory
charged with enforcing the laws can be subjected to thus serve to divert attention from the central inquiry
the more detached, neutral scrutiny of a judge who under the Fourth Amendment -- the reasonableness in
must evaluate the reasonableness of a particular all the circumstances of the particular governmental
search or seizure in light of the particular invasion of a citizen's personal security. "Search" and
circumstances. [Footnote 19] And, in making that "seizure" are not talismans. We therefore reject the
assessment, it is imperative that the facts be judged notions that the Fourth Amendment does not come
against an objective standard: would the facts into play at all as a limitation upon police conduct if
[22] the officers stop short of something called a "technical
available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or arrest" or a "full-blown search."
the search "warrant a man of reasonable caution in the In this case, there can be no question, then, that
belief" that the action taken was appropriate? Cf. Officer McFadden "seized" petitioner and subjected
Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132 (1925); Beck v. him to a "search" when he took hold of him and patted
Ohio, 379 U. S. 89, 96-97 (1964). [Footnote 20] down the outer surfaces of his clothing. We must
Anything less would invite intrusions upon decide whether, at that point, it was reasonable for
constitutionally guaranteed rights based on nothing Officer McFadden to have interfered with petitioner's
more substantial than inarticulate hunches, a result personal security as he did. [Footnote 16] And, in
this Court has consistently refused to sanction. See, determining whether the seizure and search were
e.g., Beck v. Ohio, supra; Rios v. United States, 364 U. "unreasonable," our inquiry
S. 253 (1960); Henry v. United States, 361 U. S. 98 [20]
(1959). And simple "'good faith on the part of the is a dual one -- whether the officer's action was
arresting officer is not enough.' . . . If subjective good justified at its inception, and whether it was reasonably
faith alone were the test, the protections of the Fourth related in scope to the circumstances which justified
Amendment would evaporate, and the people would the interference in the first place.
be 'secure in their persons, houses, papers, and III
effects,' only in the discretion of the police." Beck v. If this case involved police conduct subject to the
Ohio, supra, at 97. Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment, we would
Applying these principles to this case, we consider first have to ascertain whether "probable cause" existed to
the nature and extent of the governmental interests justify the search and seizure which took place.
involved. One general interest is, of course, that of However, that is not the case. We do not retreat from
effective crime prevention and detection; it is this our holdings that the police must, whenever
interest which underlies the recognition that a police practicable, obtain advance judicial approval of
officer may, in appropriate circumstances and in an searches and seizures through the warrant procedure,
appropriate manner, approach a person for purposes see, e.g., Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347 (1967);
of investigating possibly criminal behavior even Beck v. Ohio, 379 U. S. 89, 96 (1964); Chapman v.
though there is no probable cause to make an arrest. It United States, 365 U. S. 610 (1961), or that, in most
was this legitimate investigative function Officer instances, failure to comply with the warrant
McFadden was discharging when he decided to requirement can only be excused by exigent
approach petitioner and his companions. He had circumstances, see, e.g., Warden v. Hayden, 387 U. S.
observed Terry, Chilton, and Katz go through a series 294 (1967) (hot pursuit); cf. Preston v. United States,
of acts, each of them perhaps innocent in itself, but 376 U. S. 364, 367-368 (1964). But we deal here with
which, taken together, warranted further investigation. an entire rubric of police conduct -- necessarily swift
There is nothing unusual in two men standing together action predicated upon the on-the-spot observations of
on a street corner, perhaps waiting for someone. Nor is the officer on the beat -- which historically has not
there anything suspicious about people been, and, as a practical matter, could not be,
[23] subjected to the warrant procedure. Instead, the
in such circumstances strolling up and down the street, conduct involved in this case must be tested by the
singly or in pairs. Store windows, moreover, are made Fourth Amendment's general proscription against
to be looked in. But the story is quite different where, unreasonable searches and seizures. [Footnote 17]
as here, two men hover about a street corner for an Nonetheless, the notions which underlie both the
extended period of time, at the end of which it warrant procedure and the requirement of probable
becomes apparent that they are not waiting for cause remain fully relevant in this context. In order to
anyone or anything; where these men pace alternately assess the reasonableness of Officer McFadden's
along an identical route, pausing to stare in the same conduct as a general proposition, it is necessary "first
store window roughly 24 times; where each completion to focus upon
of this route is followed immediately by a conference [21]
between the two men on the corner; where they are the governmental interest which allegedly justifies
joined in one of these conferences by a third man who official intrusion upon the constitutionally protected
leaves swiftly, and where the two men finally follow interests of the private citizen," for there is "no ready
the third and rejoin him a couple of blocks away. It test for determining reasonableness other than by
would have been poor police work indeed for an officer balancing the need to search [or seize] against the
of 30 years' experience in the detection of thievery invasion which the search [or seizure] entails." Camara
from stores in this same neighborhood to have failed v. Municipal Court, 387 U. S. 523, 534-535, 536-537
to investigate this behavior further. (1967). And, in justifying the particular intrusion, the
The crux of this case, however, is not the propriety of police officer must be able to point to specific and
Officer McFadden's taking steps to investigate articulable facts which, taken together with rational
petitioner's suspicious behavior, but, rather, whether inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that
there was justification for McFadden's invasion of intrusion. [Footnote 18] The scheme of the Fourth
Terry's personal security by searching him for weapons Amendment becomes meaningful only when it is
protect the arresting officer from assault with a in the course of that investigation. We are now
concealed weapon, Preston v. United States, 376 U. S. concerned with more than the governmental interest
364, 367 (1964), is also justified on other grounds, in investigating crime; in addition, there is the more
ibid., and can therefore involve a relatively extensive immediate interest of the police officer in taking steps
exploration of the person. A search for weapons in the to assure himself that the person with whom he is
absence of probable cause to dealing is not armed with a weapon that could
[26] unexpectedly and fatally be used against him.
arrest, however, must, like any other search, be strictly Certainly it would be unreasonable to require that
circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its police officers take unnecessary risks in the
initiation. Warden v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294, 310 performance of their duties. American criminals have a
(1967) (MR. JUSTICE FORTAS, concurring). Thus, it must long tradition of armed violence, and every year in this
be limited to that which is necessary for the discovery country many law enforcement officers are killed in the
of weapons which might be used to harm the officer or line of duty, and thousands more are wounded.
others nearby, and may realistically be characterized [24]
as something less than a "full" search, even though it Virtually all of these deaths and a substantial portion
remains a serious intrusion. of the injuries are inflicted with guns and knives.
A second, and related, objection to petitioner's [Footnote 21]
argument is that it assumes that the law of arrest has In view of these facts, we cannot blind ourselves to the
already worked out the balance between the particular need for law enforcement officers to protect
interests involved here -- the neutralization of danger themselves and other prospective victims of violence
to the policeman in the investigative circumstance and in situations where they may lack probable cause for
the sanctity of the individual. But this is not so. An an arrest. When an officer is justified in believing that
arrest is a wholly different kind of intrusion upon the individual whose suspicious behavior he is
individual freedom from a limited search for weapons, investigating at close range is armed and presently
and the interests each is designed to serve are dangerous to the officer or to others, it would appear
likewise quite different. An arrest is the initial stage of to be clearly unreasonable to deny the officer the
a criminal prosecution. It is intended to vindicate power to take necessary measures to determine
society's interest in having its laws obeyed, and it is whether the person is, in fact, carrying a weapon and
inevitably accompanied by future interference with the to neutralize the threat of physical harm.
individual's freedom of movement, whether or not trial We must still consider, however, the nature and quality
or conviction ultimately follows. [Footnote 22] The of the intrusion on individual rights which must be
protective search for weapons, on the other hand, accepted if police officers are to be conceded the right
constitutes a brief, though far from inconsiderable, to search for weapons in situations where probable
intrusion upon the sanctity of the person. It does not cause to arrest for crime is lacking. Even a limited
follow that, because an officer may lawfully arrest a search of the outer clothing for weapons constitutes a
person only when he is apprised of facts sufficient to severe,
warrant a belief that the person has committed or is [25]
committing a crime, the officer is equally unjustified, though brief, intrusion upon cherished personal
absent that kind of evidence, in making any intrusions security, and it must surely be an annoying,
short of an arrest. Moreover, a perfectly reasonable frightening, and perhaps humiliating experience.
apprehension of danger may arise long before the Petitioner contends that such an intrusion is
officer is possessed of adequate information to justify permissible only incident to a lawful arrest, either for a
taking a person into custody for crime involving the possession of weapons or for a
[27] crime the commission of which led the officer to
the purpose of prosecuting him for a crime. Petitioner's investigate in the first place. However, this argument
reliance on cases which have worked out standards of must be closely examined.
reasonableness with regard to "seizures" constituting Petitioner does not argue that a police officer should
arrests and searches incident thereto is thus refrain from making any investigation of suspicious
misplaced. It assumes that the interests sought to be circumstances until such time as he has probable
vindicated and the invasions of personal security may cause to make an arrest; nor does he deny that police
be equated in the two cases, and thereby ignores a officers, in properly discharging their investigative
vital aspect of the analysis of the reasonableness of function, may find themselves confronting persons
particular types of conduct under the Fourth who might well be armed and dangerous. Moreover, he
Amendment. See Camara v. Municipal Court, supra. does not say that an officer is always unjustified in
Our evaluation of the proper balance that has to be searching a suspect to discover weapons. Rather, he
struck in this type of case leads us to conclude that says it is unreasonable for the policeman to take that
there must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a step until such time as the situation evolves to a point
reasonable search for weapons for the protection of where there is probable cause to make an arrest.
the police officer, where he has reason to believe that When that point has been reached, petitioner would
he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, concede the officer's right to conduct a search of the
regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest suspect for weapons, fruits or instrumentalities of the
the individual for a crime. The officer need not be crime, or "mere" evidence, incident to the arrest.
absolutely certain that the individual is armed; the There are two weaknesses in this line of reasoning,
issue is whether a reasonably prudent man, in the however. First, it fails to take account of traditional
circumstances, would be warranted in the belief that limitations upon the scope of searches, and thus
his safety or that of others was in danger. Cf. Beck v. recognizes no distinction in purpose, character, and
Ohio, 379 U. S. 89, 91 (1964); Brinegar v. United extent between a search incident to an arrest and a
States, 338 U. S. 160, 174-176 (1949); Stacey v. limited search for weapons. The former, although
Emery, 97 U. S. 642, 645 (1878). [Footnote 23] And in justified in part by the acknowledged necessity to
We need not develop at length in this case, however, determining whether the officer acted reasonably in
the limitations which the Fourth Amendment places such circumstances, due weight must be given not to
upon a protective seizure and search for weapons. his inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or "hunch,"
These limitations will have to be developed in the but to the specific reasonable inferences which he is
concrete factual circumstances of individual cases. entitled to draw from the facts in light of his
See Sibron v. New York, post, p. 40, decided today. experience. Cf. Brinegar v. United States supra.
Suffice it to note that such a search, unlike a search IV
without a warrant incident to a lawful arrest, is not We must now examine the conduct of Officer
justified by any need to prevent the disappearance or McFadden in this case to determine whether his search
destruction of evidence of crime. See Preston v. and seizure of petitioner were reasonable, both at their
United States, 376 U. S. 364, 367 (1964). The sole inception
justification of the search in the present situation is the [28]
protection of the police officer and others nearby, and and as conducted. He had observed Terry, together
it must therefore be confined in scope to an intrusion with Chilton and another man, acting in a manner he
reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or took to be preface to a "stick-up." We think, on the
other hidden instruments for the assault of the police facts and circumstances Officer McFadden detailed
officer. before the trial judge, a reasonably prudent man would
The scope of the search in this case presents no have been warranted in believing petitioner was
serious problem in light of these standards. Officer armed, and thus presented a threat to the officer's
McFadden patted down the outer clothing of petitioner safety while he was investigating his suspicious
and his two companions. He did not place his hands in behavior. The actions of Terry and Chilton were
their pockets or under the outer surface of their consistent with McFadden's hypothesis that these men
garments until he had were contemplating a daylight robbery -- which, it is
[30] reasonable to assume, would be likely to involve the
felt weapons, and then he merely reached for and use of weapons -- and nothing in their conduct from
removed the guns. He never did invade Katz' person the time he first noticed them until the time he
beyond the outer surfaces of his clothes, since he confronted them and identified himself as a police
discovered nothing in his pat-down which might have officer gave him sufficient reason to negate that
been a weapon. Officer McFadden confined his search hypothesis. Although the trio had departed the original
strictly to what was minimally necessary to learn scene, there was nothing to indicate abandonment of
whether the men were armed and to disarm them an intent to commit a robbery at some point. Thus,
once he discovered the weapons. He did not conduct a when Officer McFadden approached the three men
general exploratory search for whatever evidence of gathered before the display window at Zucker's store,
criminal activity he might find. he had observed enough to make it quite reasonable
V to fear that they were armed, and nothing in their
We conclude that the revolver seized from Terry was response to his hailing them, identifying himself as a
properly admitted in evidence against him. At the time police officer, and asking their names served to dispel
he seized petitioner and searched him for weapons, that reasonable belief. We cannot say his decision at
Officer McFadden had reasonable grounds to believe that point to seize Terry and pat his clothing for
that petitioner was armed and dangerous, and it was weapons was the product of a volatile or inventive
necessary for the protection of himself and others to imagination, or was undertaken simply as an act of
take swift measures to discover the true facts and harassment; the record evidences the tempered act of
neutralize the threat of harm if it materialized. The a policeman who, in the course of an investigation,
policeman carefully restricted his search to what was had to make a quick decision as to how to protect
appropriate to the discovery of the particular items himself and others from possible danger, and took
which he sought. Each case of this sort will, of course, limited steps to do so.
have to be decided on its own facts. We merely hold The manner in which the seizure and search were
today that, where a police officer observes unusual conducted is, of course, as vital a part of the inquiry as
conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in whether they were warranted at all. The Fourth
light of his experience that criminal activity may be Amendment proceeds as much by limitations upon
afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing the
may be armed and presently dangerous, where, in the [29]
course of investigating this behavior, he identifies scope of governmental action as by imposing
himself as a policeman and makes reasonable preconditions upon its initiation. Compare Katz v.
inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the United States, 389 U. S. 347, 354-356 (1967). The
encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his entire deterrent purpose of the rule excluding evidence
own or others' safety, he is entitled for the protection seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment rests on
of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully the assumption that "limitations upon the fruit to be
limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in gathered tend to limit the quest itself." United States
an attempt to discover weapons which might be used v. Poller, 43 F.2d 911, 914 (C.A.2d Cir.1930); see, e.g.,
to assault him. Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618, 629-635 (1965);
[31] Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961); Elkins v. United
Such a search is a reasonable search under the Fourth States, 364 U. S. 206, 216-221 (1960). Thus, evidence
Amendment, and any weapons seized may properly be may not be introduced if it was discovered by means
introduced in evidence against the person from whom of a seizure and search which were not reasonably
they were taken. related in scope to the justification for their initiation.
Affirmed. Warden v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294, 310 (1967) (MR.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK concurs in the judgment and the JUSTICE FORTAS, concurring).
opinion except where the opinion quotes from and
addressed has an equal right to ignore his interrogator relies upon this Court's opinion in Katz v. United States
and walk away; he certainly need not submit to a frisk and the concurring opinion in Warden v. Hayden.
for the questioner's protection. I would make it MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, concurring.
perfectly clear that the right to frisk in this case While I unreservedly agree with the Court's ultimate
depends upon the reasonableness of a forcible stop to holding in this case, I am constrained to fill in a few
investigate a suspected crime. gaps, as I see them, in its opinion. I do this because
Where such a stop is reasonable, however, the right to what is said by this Court today will serve as initial
frisk must be immediate and automatic if the reason guidelines for law enforcement authorities and courts
for the stop is, as here, an articulable suspicion of a throughout the land as this important new field of law
crime of violence. Just as a full search incident to a develops.
lawful arrest requires no additional justification, a A police officer's right to make an on-the-street "stop"
limited frisk incident to a lawful stop must often be and an accompanying "frisk" for weapons is, of course,
rapid and routine. There is no reason why an officer, bounded by the protections afforded by the Fourth and
rightfully but forcibly confronting a person suspected Fourteenth Amendments. The Court holds, and I agree,
of a serious crime, should have to ask one question that, while the right does not depend upon possession
and take the risk that the answer might be a bullet. by the officer of a valid warrant, nor upon the
The facts of this case are illustrative of a proper stop existence of probable cause, such activities must be
and an incident frisk. Officer McFadden had no reasonable under the circumstances as the officer
probable cause to arrest Terry for anything, but he had credibly relates them in court. Since the question in
observed circumstances that would reasonably lead an this and most cases is whether evidence produced by
experienced, prudent policeman to suspect that Terry a frisk is admissible, the problem is to determine what
was about to engage in burglary or robbery. His makes a frisk reasonable.
justifiable suspicion afforded a proper constitutional If the State of Ohio were to provide that police officers
basis for accosting Terry, restraining his liberty of could, on articulable suspicion less than probable
movement briefly, and addressing questions to him, cause, forcibly frisk and disarm persons thought to be
and Officer McFadden did so. When he did, he had no carrying concealed weapons, I would have little doubt
reason whatever to suppose that Terry might be that action taken pursuant to such authority could be
armed, apart from the fact that he suspected him of constitutionally reasonable. Concealed weapons create
planning a violent crime. McFadden asked Terry his an immediate
name, to which Terry "mumbled something." [32]
Whereupon McFadden, without asking Terry to speak and severe danger to the public, and though that
louder and without giving him any chance to explain danger might not warrant routine general weapons
his presence or his actions, forcibly frisked him. checks, it could well warrant action on less than a
I would affirm this conviction for what I believe to be "probability." I mention this line of analysis because I
the same reasons the Court relies on. I would, think it vital to point out that it cannot be applied in
however, make explicit what I think is implicit in this case. On the record before us, Ohio has not
affirmance on clothed its policemen with routine authority to frisk
[34] and disarm on suspicion; in the absence of state
the present facts. Officer McFadden's right to interrupt authority, policemen have no more right to "pat down"
Terry's freedom of movement and invade his privacy the outer clothing of passers-by, or of persons to
arose only because circumstances warranted forcing whom they address casual questions, than does any
an encounter with Terry in an effort to prevent or other citizen. Consequently, the Ohio courts did not
investigate a crime. Once that forced encounter was rest the constitutionality of this frisk upon any general
justified, however, the officer's right to take suitable authority in Officer McFadden to take reasonable steps
measures for his own safety followed automatically. to protect the citizenry, including himself, from
Upon the foregoing premises, I join the opinion of the dangerous weapons.
Court. The state courts held, instead, that, when an officer is
MR. JUSTICE WHITE, concurring. lawfully confronting a possibly hostile person in the
I join the opinion of the Court, reserving judgment, line of duty, he has a right, springing only from the
however, on some of the Court's general remarks necessity of the situation, and not from any broader
about the scope and purpose of the exclusionary rule right to disarm, to frisk for his own protection. This
which the Court has fashioned in the process of holding, with which I agree and with which I think the
enforcing the Fourth Amendment. Court agrees, offers the only satisfactory basis I can
Also, although the Court puts the matter aside in the think of for affirming this conviction. The holding has,
context of this case, I think an additional word is in however, two logical corollaries that I do not think the
order concerning the matter of interrogation during an Court has fully expressed.
investigative stop. There is nothing in the Constitution In the first place, if the frisk is justified in order to
which prevents a policeman from addressing questions protect the officer during an encounter with a citizen,
to anyone on the streets. Absent special the officer must first have constitutional grounds to
circumstances, the person approached may not be insist on an encounter, to make a forcible stop. Any
detained or frisked, but may refuse to cooperate and person, including a policeman, is at liberty to avoid a
go on his way. However, given the proper person he considers dangerous. If and when a
circumstances, such as those in this case, it seems to policeman has a right instead to disarm such a person
me the person may be briefly detained against his will for his own protection, he must first have a right not to
while pertinent questions are directed to him. Of avoid him, but to be in his presence. That right must
course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, be more than the liberty (again, possessed by every
answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer citizen) to address questions to other persons, for
furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert ordinarily the person
the officer to the need for continued observation. In [33]
[38] my view, it is temporary detention, warranted by the
for arrest. And that principle has survived to this circumstances, which chiefly justifies the protective
day. . . ." frisk for weapons. Perhaps the frisk itself, where
". . . It is important, we think, that this requirement [of proper, will have beneficial results whether questions
probable cause] be strictly enforced, for the standard are asked or not. If weapons are found, an arrest will
set by the Constitution protects both the officer and follow.
the citizen. If the officer acts with probable cause, he is [35]
protected even though it turns out that the citizen is If none is found, the frisk may nevertheless serve
innocent. . . . And while a search without a warrant is, preventive ends because of its unmistakable message
within limits, permissible if incident to a lawful arrest, if that suspicion has been aroused. But if the
an arrest without a warrant is to support an incidental investigative stop is sustainable at all, constitutional
search, it must be made with probable cause. . . . This rights are not necessarily violated if pertinent
immunity of officers cannot fairly be enlarged without questions are asked and the person is restrained
jeopardizing the privacy or security of the citizen." briefly in the process.
The infringement on personal liberty of any "seizure" MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting.
of a person can only be "reasonable" under the Fourth I agree that petitioner was "seized" within the meaning
Amendment if we require the police to possess of the Fourth Amendment. I also agree that frisking
"probable cause" before they seize him. Only that line petitioner and his companions for guns was a "search."
draws a meaningful distinction between an officer's But it is a mystery how that "search" and that
mere inkling and the presence of facts within the "seizure" can be constitutional by Fourth Amendment
officer's personal knowledge which would convince a standards unless there was "probable cause" [Footnote
reasonable man that the person seized has committed, 1] to believe that (1) a crime had been committed or
is committing, or is about to commit a particular crime. (2) a crime was in the process of being committed or
"In dealing with probable cause, . . . as the very name (3) a crime was about to be committed.
implies, we deal with probabilities. These are not The opinion of the Court disclaims the existence of
technical; they are the factual and practical "probable cause." If loitering were in issue and that
considerations of everyday life on which reasonable [36]
and prudent men, not legal technicians, act." Brinegar was the offense charged, there would be "probable
v. United States, 338 U. S. 160, 175. cause" shown. But the crime here is carrying
To give the police greater power than a magistrate is concealed weapons; [Footnote 2] and there is no basis
to take a long step down the totalitarian path. Perhaps for concluding that the officer had "probable cause" for
such a step is desirable to cope with modern forms of believing that that crime was being committed. Had a
lawlessness. But if it is taken, it should be the warrant been sought, a magistrate would, therefore,
deliberate choice of the people through a have been unauthorized to issue one, for he can act
constitutional amendment. only if there is a showing of "probable cause." We hold
[39] today that the police have greater authority to make a
Until the Fourth Amendment, which is closely allied "seizure" and conduct a "search" than a judge has to
with the Fifth, [Footnote 4] is rewritten, the person and authorize such action. We have said precisely the
the effects of the individual are beyond the reach of all opposite over and over again. [Footnote 3]
government agencies until there are reasonable [37]
grounds to believe (probable cause) that a criminal In other words, police officers up to today have been
venture has been launched or is about to be launched. permitted to effect arrests or searches without
There have been powerful hydraulic pressures warrants only when the facts within their personal
throughout our history that bear heavily on the Court knowledge would satisfy the constitutional standard of
to water down constitutional guarantees and give the probable cause. At the time of their "seizure" without a
police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has warrant, they must possess facts concerning the
probably never been greater than it is today. person arrested that would have satisfied a magistrate
Yet if the individual is no longer to be sovereign, if the that "probable cause" was indeed present. The term
police can pick him up whenever they do not like the "probable cause" rings a bell of certainty that is not
cut of his jib, if they can "seize" and "search" him in sounded by phrases such as "reasonable suspicion."
their discretion, we enter a new regime. The decision Moreover, the meaning of "probable cause" is deeply
to enter it should be made only after a full debate by imbedded in our constitutional history. As we stated in
the people of this country. Henry v. United States, 361 U. S. 98, 100-102:
---- "The requirement of probable cause has roots that are
[G.R. Nos. 136066-67. February 4, 2003] deep in our history. The general warrant, in which the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, name of the person to be arrested was left blank, and
vs. BINAD SY CHUA, accused-appellant. the writs of assistance, against which James Otis
DECISION inveighed, both perpetuated the oppressive practice of
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: allowing the police to arrest and search on suspicion.
Accused-appellant Binad Sy Chua was charged with Police control took the place of judicial control, since
violation of Section 16, Article III of R.A. 6425, as no showing of 'probable cause' before a magistrate
amended by R.A. 7659, and for Illegal Possession of was required."
ammunitions in two separate Informations which read "* * * *"
as follows: "That philosophy [rebelling against these practices]
Criminal Case No. 96-507[1] later was reflected in the Fourth Amendment. And as
That on or about the 21 st day of September 1996, in the early American decisions both before and
the City of Angeles, Philippines, and within the immediately after its adoption show, common rumor or
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named report, suspicion, or even 'strong reason to suspect'
accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and was not adequate to support a warrant
After due testing, forensic chemist S/Insp. Daisy Babor feloniously have in his possession and under his
concluded that the crystalline substances yielded control two (2) plastic bags containing
positive results for shabu. The small plastic bag Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (SHABU) weighing
weighed 13.815 grams while the two big plastic bags more or less two (2) kilos and one (1) small plastic bag
weighed 1.942 kilograms of shabu.[5] containing Methamphetamine Hydrocloride weighing
Accused-appellant vehemently denied the accusation more or less fifteen (15) grams, which is a regulated
against him and narrated a different version of the drug, without any authority whatsoever.
incident. Criminal Case No. 96-513[2]
Accused-appellant alleged that on the night in That on or about the 21 st day of September 1996, in
question, he was driving the car of his wife to follow the City of Angeles, Philippines, and within the
her and his son to Manila. He felt sleepy, so he decided jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
to take the old route along McArthur Highway. He accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
stopped in front of a small store near Thunder Inn feloniously have in his possession and under his
Hotel in Balibago, Angeles City to buy cigarettes and control twenty (20) pieces of live .22 cal. ammunitions,
candies. While at the store, he noticed a man approach without first having obtained a license or permit to
and examine the inside of his car. When he called the possess or carry the same.
attention of the onlooker, the man immediately pulled Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty on arraignment.
out a .45 caliber gun and made him face his car with The two cases were then jointly tried.
raised hands. The man later on identified himself as a The prosecution presented three (3) witnesses, all
policeman. During the course of the arrest, the members of the police force of Angeles City. Their
policeman took out his wallet and instructed him to testimonies can be synthesized as follows:
open his car. He refused, so the policeman took his car On September 21, 1996, at around 10:00 in the
keys and proceeded to search his car. At this time, the evening, SPO2 Mario Nulud and PO2 Emmeraldo
police officers companions arrived at the scene in two Nunag received a report from their confidential
cars. PO2 Nulud, who just arrived at the scene, pulled informant that accused-appellant was about to deliver
him away from his car in a nearby bank, while the drugs that night at the Thunder Inn Hotel in Balibago,
others searched his car. Angeles City. The informer further reported that
Thereafter, he was brought to the Salakot Police accused-appellant distributes illegal drugs in different
Station and was held inside a bathroom for about karaoke bars in Angeles City. On the basis of this lead,
fifteen minutes until Col. Guttierez arrived, who the PNP Chief of Angeles City, Col. Neopito Gutierrez,
ordered his men to call the media. In the presence of immediately formed a team of operatives composed of
reporters, Col. Guttierez opened the box and accused- Major Bernardino, Insp. Tullao, Insp. Emmanuel Nunag,
appellant was made to hold the box while pictures P02 Emmeraldo Nunag, SP01 Fernando Go, and some
were being taken.[6] civilian assets, with SPO2 Mario Nulud, as team
Wilfredo Lagman corroborated the story of the investigator. The group of SPO2 Nulud, PO2 Nunag and
accused-appellant in its material points. He testified the civilian informer positioned themselves across
that he witnessed the incident while he was McArthur Highway near Bali Hai Restaurant, fronting
conducting a routine security check around the Thunder Inn Hotel. The other group acted as their back
premises of the Guess Building, near Thunder Inn up.
Hotel.[7] At around 11:45 in the evening, their informer pointed
On September 15, 1998 the Regional Trial Court of to a car driven by accused-appellant which just arrived
Angeles City, Branch 59, rendered a decision, [8] the and parked near the entrance of the Thunder Inn
dispositive portion of which reads: Hotel. After accused-appellant alighted from the car
WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, judgement is carrying a sealed Zest-O juice box, SPO2 Nulud and
hereby rendered as follows: PO2 Nunag hurriedly accosted him and introduced
1. In Criminal Case No. 96-513 for Illegal Possession of themselves as police officers. As accused-appellant
Ammunitions, the accused is hereby acquitted of the pulled out his wallet, a small transparent plastic bag
crime charged for insufficiency of evidence. with a crystalline substance protruded from his right
2. In Criminal Case No. 96-507 for Illegal Possession of back pocket. Forthwith, SPO2 Nulud subjected him to a
1,955.815 grams of shabu, accused Binad Sy Chua is body search which yielded twenty (20) pieces of live .
found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime 22 caliber firearm bullets from his left back pocket.
charge and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty When SPO2 Nunag peeked into the contents of the
of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of One Million Zest-O box, he saw that it contained a crystalline
(P1,000,000.00) Pesos. substance. SPO2 Nulud instantly confiscated the small
SO ORDERED.[9] transparent plastic bag, the Zest-O juice box, the
Hence, the instant appeal where accused-appellant twenty (20) pieces of .22 caliber firearm bullets and
raised the following errors: the car used by accused-appellant. Afterwards, SPO2
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED GRAVELY IN ITS FOLLOWING Nulud and the other police operatives who arrived at
FINDINGS: the scene brought the confiscated items to the office
A. THE ARREST OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT BINAD SY of Col. Guttierez at the PNP Headquarters in Camp
CHUA WAS LAWFUL; Pepito, Angeles City.[3]
B. THE SEARCH OF HIS PERSON AND THE SUBSEQUENT When Col. Gutierrez opened the sealed Zest-O juice
CONFISCATION OF SHABU ALLEGEDLY FOUND ON HIM box, he found 2 big plastic bags containing crystalline
WERE CONDUCTED IN A LAWFUL AND VALID substances. The initial field test conducted by SPO2
MANNER; Danilo Cruz at the PNP Headquarters revealed that the
C. THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE siezed items contained shabu.[4] Thereafter, SPO2
CRIME CHARGED IS SUFICIENT TO PROVE THE GUILT Nulud together with accused-appellant brought these
OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT BEYOND REAONABLE items for further laboratory examination to the Crime
DOUBT.[10] Laboratory at Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga.
A thorough review of the evidence on record belies the Accused-appellant maintains that the warrantless
findings and conclusion of the trial court. It confused arrest and search made by the police operatives was
the two different concepts of a search incidental to a unlawful; that in the light of the testimony of SPO2
lawful arrest (in flagrante delicto) and of a stop-and- Nulud that prior to his arrest he has been under
frisk. surveillance for two years, there was therefore no
In Malacat v. Court of Appeals,[15] we distinguished the compelling reason for the haste within which the
concepts of a stop-and-frisk and of a search incidental arresting officers sought to arrest and search him
to a lawful arrest, to wit: without a warrant; that the police officers had
At the outset, we note that the trial court confused the sufficient information about him and could have easily
concepts of a stop-and-frisk and of a search incidental arrested him. Accused-appellant further argues that
to a lawful arrest. These two types of warrantless since his arrest was null an void, the drugs that were
searches differ in terms of the requisite quantum of seized should likewise be inadmissible in evidence
proof before they may be validly effected and in their since they were obtained in violation of his
allowable scope. constitutional rights against unreasonable search and
In a search incidental to a lawful arrest, as the seizures and arrest.
precedent arrest determines the validity of the Accused-appellants argument is impressed with merit.
incidental search, the legality of the arrest is Although the trial courts evaluation of the credibility of
questioned in a large majority of these cases, witnesses and their testimonies is entitled to great
e.g.,whether an arrest was merely used as a pretext respect and will not be disturbed on appeal, however,
for conducting a search. In this instance, the law this rule is not a hard and fast one.
requires that there first be arrest before a It is a time-honored rule that the assessment of the
search can be madethe process cannot be trial court with regard to the credibility of witnesses
reversed. At bottom, assuming a valid arrest, the deserves the utmost respect, if not finality, for the
arresting officer may search the person of the arrestee reason that the trial judge has the prerogative, denied
and the area within which the latter may reach for a to appellate judges, of observing the demeanor of the
weapon or for evidence to destroy, and seize any declarants in the course of their testimonies. The only
money or property found which was used in the exception is if there is a showing that the trial judge
commission of the crime, or the fruit of the crime, or overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some fact or
that which may be used as evidence, or which might circumstance of weight and substance that would have
furnish the arrestee with the means of escaping or affected the case.[11]
committing violence. In the case at bar, there appears on record some facts
xxxxxxxxx of weight and substance that have been overlooked,
We now proceed to the justification for and allowable misapprehended, or misapplied by the trial court
scope of a stop-and-frisk as a limited protective which casts doubt on the guilt of accused-appellant.
search of outer clothing for weapons, as laid An appeal in a criminal case opens the whole case for
down in Terry, thus: review and this includes the review of the penalty and
We merely hold today that where a police officer indemnity imposed by the trial court. [12] We are clothed
observes unusual conduct which leads him with ample authority to review matters, even those not
reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that raised on appeal, if we find that their consideration is
criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons necessary in arriving at a just disposition of the case.
with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently Every circumstance in favor of the accused shall be
dangerous, where in the course of investigating considered.[13] This is in keeping with the constitutional
this behavior he identifies himself as a mandate that every accused shall be presumed
policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and innocent unless his guilt is proven beyond reasonable
where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter doubt.
serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or First, with respect to the warrantless arrest and
others safety, he is entitled for the protection of consequent search and seizure made upon accused-
himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully appellant, the court a quo made the following
limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in findings:
an attempt to discover weapons which might be used Accused was searched and arrested while in
to assault him. Such a search is a reasonable search possession of regulated drugs (shabu). A crime was
under the Fourth amendment. actually being committed by the accused and he was
Other notable points of Terry are that while probable caught in flagrante delicto. Thus, the search made
cause is not required to conduct a stop-and-frisk, it upon his personal effects x x x allow a warrantless
nevertheless holds that mere suspicion or a hunch search incident to a lawful arrest. x x x x
will not validate a stop-and-frisk.A genuine While it is true that the police officers were not armed
reason must exist, in light of the police officers with a search warrant when the search was made over
experience and surrounding conditions, to the personal affects (sic) of the accused, however,
warrant the belief that the person detained has under the circumstances of the case, there was
weapons concealed about him.Finally, a stop-and- sufficient probable cause for said officers to believe
frisk serves a two-fold interest: (1) the general interest that accused was then and there committing a crime.
of effective crime prevention and detection, which xxxxxxxxx
underlies the recognition that a police officer may, In the present case, the police received information
under appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate that the accused will distribute illegal drugs that
manner, approach a person for purposes of evening at the Thunder Inn Hotel and its vicinities. The
investigating possible criminal behavior even without police officer had to act quickly and there was no more
probable cause; and (2) the more pressing interest of time to secure a search warrant. The search is valid
safety and self-preservation which permit the police being akin to a stop and frisk.[14]
officer to take steps to assure himself that the person
misdemeanors and also on those who may be engaged with whom he deals is not armed with a deadly
in the traffic of dangerous drugs. At 9:30 in the weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used
evening, the policemen noticed a person carrying a against the police officer.[16] (Emphasis ours)
red travelling bag who was acting suspiciously.They In the case at bar, neither the in flagrante delicto nor
confronted him and requested him to open his bag but the stop and frisk principles is applicable to justify the
he refused. He acceded later on when the policemen warrantless arrest and consequent search and seizure
identified themselves. Inside the bag were marijuana made by the police operatives on accused-appellant.
leaves wrapped in a plastic wrapper. The police In in flagrante delicto arrests, the accused is
officers only knew of the activities of Tangliben apprehended at the very moment he is committing or
on the night of his arrest. attempting to commit or has just committed an
In the instant case, the apprehending policemen offense in the presence of the arresting officer.
already had prior knowledge from the very same Emphasis should be laid on the fact that the law
informant of accused-appellants activities. No less requires that the search be incidental to a lawful
than SPO2 Mario Nulud, the team leader of the arrest. Therefore it is beyond cavil that a lawful arrest
arresting operatives, admitted that their informant has must precede the search of a person and his
been telling them about the activities of accused- belongings.[17] Accordingly, for this exception to apply
appellant for two years prior to his actual arrest on two elements must concur: (1) the person to be
September 21, 1996. An excerpt of the testimony of arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he
SPO2 Mario Nulud reveals the illegality of the arrest of has just committed, is actually committing, or is
accused-appellant as follows: attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act
Q. Did the civilian informer of yours mentioned to you is done in the presence or within the view of the
the name of this chinese drug pusher? arresting officer.[18]
A. He is mentioning the name of Binad or Jojo Chua. We find the two aforementioned elements lacking in
Q. And he had been mentioning these names to you the case at bar. The record reveals that when accused-
even before September 21, 1996? appellant arrived at the vicinity of Thunder Inn Hotel,
A. Yes, sir. he merely parked his car along the McArthur Highway,
Q. How long did this civilian informant have been alighted from it and casually proceeded towards the
telling you about the activities of this chinese drug entrance of the Hotel clutching a sealed Zest-O juice
pusher reckoning in relation to September 21, 1996? box. Accused-appellant did not act in a suspicious
A. That was about two years already. manner. For all intents and purposes, there was no
Q. Nothwithstanding his two years personal knowledge overt manifestation that accused-appellant has just
which you gained from the civilian informant that this committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
chinese drug pusher have been engaged pushing commit a crime.
drugs here in Angeles City, you did not think of However, notwithstanding the absence of any overt
applying for a search warrant for this chinese drug act strongly manifesting a violation of the law, the
pusher? group of SPO2 Nulud hurriedly accosted [19] accused-
A. No, sir. appellant and later on introduced themselves as police
xxxxxxxxx officers.[20] Accused-appellant was arrested before the
Q. When you accosted this Binad Chua, he was alleged drop-off of shabu was done. Probable cause in
casually walking along the road near the Thunder Inn this case was more imagined than real. Thus, there
Hotel, is that right? could have been no in flagrante delicto arrest
A. He was pinpointed by the civilian informer that he is preceding the search, in light of the lack of an overt
the chinese drug pusher that will deliver to him also. physical act on the part of accused-appellant that he
Q. My question Mr. Witness, is this Jojo Chua or Binad had committed a crime, was committing a crime or
Chua the accused in this case he alighted with a was going to commit a crime. As applied to in
Corolla car with plate number 999, I think, he just flagrante delicto arrests, it has been held that reliable
alighted when you saw him? information alone, absent any overt act indicative of a
A. Yes, sir. felonious enterprise in the presence and within the
Q. From the car when he alighted, he casually walked view of the arresting officers, is not sufficient to
towards near the entrance of the Thunder Inn Hotel? constitute probable cause that would justify an in
A. He was about to proceed towards Thunder Inn Hotel flagrante delicto arrest.[21] Hence, in People v.
but he was pinpointed already by the civilian informer. Aminudin,[22] we ruled that the accused-appellant
Q. But he was just walking towards the entrance of the was not, at the moment of his arrest,
Thunder Inn Hotel? committing a crime nor was it shown that he
A. Yes, sir, he is about to enter Thunder Inn Hotel. was about to do so or that he had just done so.
xxxxxxxxx What he was doing was descending the gangplank of
Q. While he was walking, then you and PO2 Nunag the M/V Wilcon 9 and there was no outward indication
pounced on him as you used pounced on him in your that called for his arrest. To all appearances, he was
affidavit? like any of the other passengers innocently
A. Yes, sir. disembarking from the vessel. It was only when the
xxxxxxxxx informer pointed to him as the carrier of the
Q. And you pounced on Jojo Chua before you saw that marijuana that he suddenly became suspect and
alleged small plastic bag, is that correct? so subject to apprehension (Emphasis supplied).
A. Yes, sir. The reliance of the prosecution in People v.
Q. And after that you also confiscated this Zesto juice Tangliben[23] to justify the polices actions is misplaced.
box? In the said case, based on the information supplied by
A. Yes, sir. informers, police officers conducted a surveillance at
xxxxxxxxx the Victory Liner Terminal compound in San Fernando,
Pampanga against persons who may commit
ground for the immediacy of accused-appellants Q. But would you agree with me that not all crystalline
arrest. substance is shabu?
Obviously, the acts of the police operatives wholly A. No, that is shabu and it is been a long time that we
depended on the information given to them by their have been tailing the accused that he is really a drug
confidential informant. Accordingly, before and during pusher.
that time of the arrest, the arresting officers had no Q. So you have been tailing this accused for quite a
personal knowledge that accused-appellant had just long time that you are very sure that what was
committed, was committing, or was about to commit a brought by him was shabu?
crime. A. Yes, sir.[24]
At any rate, even if the fact of delivery of the illegal The police operatives cannot feign ignorance of the
drugs actually occurred, accused-appellants alleged illegal activities of accused-appellant.
warrantless arrest and consequent search would still Considering that the identity, address and activities of
not be deemed a valid stop-and frisk. For a valid stop- the suspected culprit was already ascertained two
and-frisk the search and seizure must precede the years previous to the actual arrest, there was indeed
arrest, which is not so in this case. Besides, as we have no reason why the police officers could not have
earlier emphasized, the information about the illegal obtained a judicial warrant before arresting accused-
activities of accused-appellant was not unknown to the appellant and searching his person. Whatever
apprehending officers. Hence, the search and seizure information their civilian asset relayed to them hours
of the prohibited drugs cannot be deemed as a valid before accused-appellants arrest was not a product of
stop-and-frisk. an on-the-spot tip which may excuse them from
Neither can there be valid seizure in plain view on the obtaining a warrant of arrest. Accordingly, the
basis of the seized items found in accused-appellants arresting teams contention that their arrest of
possession. First, there was no valid intrusion. Second, accused-appellant was a product of an on-the-spot tip
the evidence, i.e., the plastic bags found in the Zest-O is untenable.
juice box which contained crystalline substances later In the same vein, there could be no valid stop-and-frisk
on identified as methamphetamine hydrochloride in this case. A stop-and-frisk was defined as the act of
(shabu) and the 20 rounds of .22 caliber ammunition, a police officer to stop a citizen on the street,
were not inadvertently discovered. The police officers interrogate him, and pat him for weapon(s)[25] or
first arrested accused-appellant and intentionally contraband. The police officer should properly
searched his person and peeked into the sealed Zest-O introduce himself and make initial inquiries, approach
juice box before they were able to see and later on and restrain a person who manifests unusual and
ascertain that the crystalline substance was shabu. suspicious conduct, in order to check the latters outer
There was no clear showing that the sealed Zest-O clothing for possibly concealed weapons. [26] The
juice box accused-appellant carried contained apprehending police officer must have a genuine
prohibited drugs. Neither were the small plastic bags reason, in accordance with the police officers
which allegedly contained crystalline substance and experience and the surrounding conditions, to warrant
the 20 rounds of .22 caliber ammunition visible. These the belief that the person to be held has weapons (or
prohibited substances were not in plain view of the contraband) concealed about him.[27] It should
arresting officers; hence, inadmissible for being the therefore be emphasized that a search and seizure
fruits of the poisonous tree. should precede the arrest for this principle to apply. [28]
In like manner, the search cannot be categorized as a This principle of stop-and-frisk search was invoked by
search of a moving vehicle, a consented warrantless the Court in Manalili v. Court of Appeals.[29] In said
search, or a customs search. It cannot even fall under case, the policemen chanced upon the accused who
exigent and emergency circumstances, for the had reddish eyes, walking in a swaying manner, and
evidence at hand is bereft of any such showing. who appeared to be high on drugs. Thus, we upheld
All told, the absence of ill-motive on the part of the the validity of the search as akin to a stop-and-frisk. In
arresting team cannot simply validate, much more People v. Solayao,[30] we also found justifiable reason to
cure, the illegality of the arrest and consequent stop-and-frisk the accused after considering the
warrantless search of accused-appellant. Neither can following circumstances: the drunken actuations of the
the presumption of regularity of performance of accused and his companions, the fact that his
function be invoked by an officer in aid of the process companions fled when they saw the policemen, and
when he undertakes to justify an encroachment of the fact that the peace officers were precisely on an
rights secured by the Constitution. [31] In People v. intelligence mission to verify reports that armed
Nubla,[32] we clearly stated that: persons where roaming the vicinity.
The presumption of regularity in the performance of The foregoing circumstances do not obtain in the case
official duty cannot be used as basis for affirming at bar. There was no valid stop-and-frisk in the case of
accused-appellants conviction because, first, the accused-appellant. To reiterate, accused-appellant was
presumption is precisely just that a mere presumption. first arrested before the search and seizure of the
Once challenged by evidence, as in this case, xxx [it] alleged illegal items found in his possession. The
cannot be regarded as binding truth. Second, the apprehending police operative failed to make any
presumption of regularity in the performance of official initial inquiry into accused-appellants business in the
functions cannot preponderate over the presumption vicinity or the contents of the Zest-O juice box he was
of innocence that prevails if not overthrown by proof carrying. The apprehending police officers only
beyond reasonable doubt. introduced themselves when they already had custody
Furthermore, we entertain doubts whether the items of accused-appellant. Besides, at the time of his arrest,
allegedly seized from accused-appellant were the very accused-appellant did not exhibit manifest unusual
same items presented at the trial of this case. The and suspicious conduct reasonable enough to dispense
record shows that the initial field test where the items with the procedure outlined by jurisprudence and the
seized were identified as shabu, was only conducted at law. There was, therefore, no genuine reasonable
Promulgated: the PNP headquarters of Angeles City. [33] The items
were therefore not marked at the place where they
June 16, 2010 were taken. In People v. Casimiro,[34] we struck down
with disbelief the reliability of the identity of the
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------- confiscated items since they were not marked at the
---------x place where they were seized, thus:
The narcotics field test, which initially identified the
seized item as marijuana, was likewise not conducted
at the scene of the crime, but only at the narcotics
DECISION office. There is thus reasonable doubt as to whether
the item allegedly seized from accused-appellant is the
NACHURA, J.: same brick of marijuana marked by the policemen in
their headquarters and given by them to the crime
laboratory.
Before this Court is an appeal from the Decision [1] of The governments drive against illegal drugs needs the
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02718, support of every citizen. But it should not undermine
which affirmed the decision [2] of the Regional Trial the fundamental rights of every citizen as enshrined in
Court (RTC), Branch 29, San Fernando City, La Union, the Constitution. The constitutional guarantee against
in Criminal Case No. 7144, finding appellant Belen warrantless arrests and unreasonable searches and
Mariacos guilty of violating Article II, Section 5 of seizures cannot be so carelessly disregarded as
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, or the Comprehensive overzealous police officers are sometimes wont to do.
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Fealty to the constitution and the rights it guarantees
should be paramount in their minds, otherwise their
The facts of the case, as summarized by the CA, are as good intentions will remain as such simply because
follows: they have blundered. The criminal goes free, if he
must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can
Accused-appellant Belen Mariacos was charged in an destroy a government more quickly than its failure to
Information, dated November 7, 2005 of violating observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the
Section 5, Article II of Republic Act [No.] 9165, charter of its own existence.[35]
allegedly committed as follows: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of
the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City, Branch 59, in
That on or about the 27th day of October, 2005, in the Criminal Cases Nos. 96-507 and 96-513, convicting
Municipality of San Gabriel, Province of La Union, accused-appellant Binad Sy Chua of violation of
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Section 16, Article III, Republic Act No. 6425 and
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously perpetua and to pay a fine of P1,000,000.00, is
transport, deliver 7,030.3, (sic) grams of dried REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Binad Sy
marijuana fruiting tops without the necessary permit Chua is ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable
or authority from the proper government agency or doubt. Consequently, he is ordered forthwith released
office. from custody, unless he is being lawfully held for
CONTRARY TO LAW. another crime.
SO ORDERED.
When arraigned on December 13, 2005, accused- ----
appellant pleaded not guilty. During the pre-trial, the
following were stipulated upon: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
1. Accused admits that she is the same person
identified in the information as Belen Mariacos;
1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest Firstly, this Court opines that the invocation of Section
recognized under Section 12 [now Section 13], Rule 2, Article III of the Constitution is misplaced. At the
126 of the Rules of Court and by prevailing time, when PO2 Pallayoc looked into the contents of
jurisprudence; the suspicious bags, there was no identified owner. He
asked the other passengers atop the jeepney but no
2. Seizure of evidence in plain view, the elements of one knew who owned the bags. Thus, there could be
which are: no violation of the right when no one was entitled
thereto at that time.
(a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid
warrantless arrest in which the police are legally Secondly, the facts of the case show the urgency of
present in the pursuit of their official duties; the situation. The local police has been trying to
intercept the transport of the illegal drugs for more
(b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the than a day, to no avail. Thus, when PO2 Pallayoc was
police who had the right to be where they are; tipped by the secret agent of the Barangay Intelligence
Network, PO2 Pallayoc had no other recourse than to
(c) the evidence must be immediately apparent[;] verify as promptly as possible the tip and check the
and; contents of the bags.
Thirdly, x x x the search was conducted in a moving
vehicle. Time and again, a search of a moving vehicle
Probable cause is defined as a reasonable ground of (d) plain view justified mere seizure of evidence
suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently without further search.
strong in themselves to induce a cautious man to
believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense 3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the
charged. It refers to the existence of such facts and government, the vehicle's inherent mobility reduces
circumstances that can lead a reasonably discreet and expectation of privacy especially when its transit in
prudent man to believe that an offense has been public thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable
committed, and that the items, articles or objects suspicion amounting to probable cause that the
sought in connection with said offense or subject to occupant committed a criminal activity;
seizure and destruction by law are in the place to be
searched.[19] 4. Consented warrantless search;
Over the years, the rules governing search and seizure Indeed, the search of a moving vehicle is one of the
have been steadily liberalized whenever a moving doctrinally accepted exceptions to the Constitutional
vehicle is the object of the search on the basis of mandate that no search or seizure shall be made
practicality. This is so considering that before a except by virtue of a warrant issued by a judge after
warrant could be obtained, the place, things and personally determining the existence of probable
persons to be searched must be described to the cause.[15]
satisfaction of the issuing judge a requirement which
borders on the impossible in instances where moving In People v. Bagista,[16] the Court said:
vehicle is used to transport contraband from one place
to another with impunity.[21] The constitutional proscription against warrantless
searches and seizures admits of certain exceptions.
This exception is easy to understand. A search Aside from a search incident to a lawful arrest, a
warrant may readily be obtained when the search is warrantless search had been upheld in cases of a
made in a store, dwelling house or other immobile moving vehicle, and the seizure of evidence in plain
structure. But it is impracticable to obtain a warrant view.
when the search is conducted on a mobile ship, on an
aircraft, or in other motor vehicles since they can
quickly be moved out of the locality or jurisdiction With regard to the search of moving vehicles, this had
where the warrant must be sought.[22] been justified on the ground that the mobility of motor
vehicles makes it possible for the vehicle to be
Given the discussion above, it is readily apparent that searched to move out of the locality or jurisdiction in
the search in this case is valid. The vehicle that carried which the warrant must be sought.
the contraband or prohibited drugs was about to leave.
PO2 Pallayoc had to make a quick decision and act This in no way, however, gives the police officers
fast. It would be unreasonable to require him to unlimited discretion to conduct warrantless searches of
procure a warrant before conducting the search under automobiles in the absence of probable cause. When a
the circumstances. Time was of the essence in this vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive
case. The searching officer had no time to obtain a search, such a warrantless search has been held to be
warrant. Indeed, he only had enough time to board the valid only as long as the officers conducting the search
vehicle before the same left for its destination. have reasonable or probable cause to believe before
the search that they will find the instrumentality or
It is well to remember that on October 26, 2005, the evidence pertaining to a crime, in the vehicle to be
night before appellants arrest, the police received searched.
information that marijuana was to be transported from
Barangay Balbalayang, and had set up a checkpoint
around the area to intercept the suspects. At dawn of It is well to remember that in the instances we have
October 27, 2005, PO2 Pallayoc met the secret agent recognized as exceptions to the requirement of a
from the Barangay Intelligence Network, who informed judicial warrant, it is necessary that the officer
him that a baggage of marijuana was loaded on a effecting the arrest or seizure must have been
passenger jeepney about to leave for the poblacion. impelled to do so because of probable cause. The
Thus, PO2 Pallayoc had probable cause to search the essential requisite of probable cause must be satisfied
packages allegedly containing illegal drugs. before a warrantless search and seizure can be
lawfully conducted.[17] Without probable cause, the
This Court has also, time and again, upheld as valid a articles seized cannot be admitted in evidence against
warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest. Thus, the person arrested.[18]
Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court provides:
(P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person who, SEC. 13. Search incident to lawful arrest.A person
unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous
dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, weapons or anything which may have been used or
dispatch in transit or transport any controlled constitute proof in the commission of an offense
precursor and essential chemical, or shall act as a without a search warrant.[23]
broker in such transactions.