SEARCH AND SEIZURES

LIM VS FELIX

FACTS: At the vicinity of the airport road of the Masbate Domestic Airport,
Congressman Moises Espinosa, Sr. and his security escorts were attacked and
killed by a lone assassin. Dante Siblante another security escort of Congressman
Espinosa, Sr. survived the assassination plot, although, he himself suffered a
gunshot wound. The RTC of Masbate concluded that a probable cause has been
established for the issuance of warrants of arrest for the accused. In the same
Order, the court ordered the arrest of the petitioners plus bail for provisional
liberty. On July 5, 1990, the respondent court (RTC Makati) issued warrants of
arrest against the accused including the petitioners herein. The respondent Judge
said: “In the instant cases, the preliminary investigation was conducted by the
Municipal Trial Court of Masbate, Masbate which found the existence of probable
cause that the offense of multiple murder was committed and that all the accused
are probably guilty thereof, which was affirmed upon review by the Provincial
Prosecutor who properly filed with the Regional Trial Court four separate
informations for murder. Considering that both the two competent officers to
whom such duty was entrusted by law have declared the existence of probable
cause, each information is complete in form and substance, and there is no visible
defect on its face, this Court finds it just and proper to rely on the prosecutor’s
certification in each information xxx”

ISSUE: Whether or not a judge may issue a warrant of arrest without bail by
simply relying on the prosecution’s certification and recommendation that a
probable cause exists

HELD: No, The Judge cannot ignore the clear words of the 1987 Constitution
which requires probable cause to be personally determined by the Judge, not
by any other officer or person. If a Judge relies solely on the certification of the
Prosecutor as in this case where all the records of the investigation are in Masbate,
he or she has not personally determined probable cause. The determination is
made by the Provincial Prosecutor. The constitutional requirement has not been
satisfied. The Judge commits a grave abuse of discretion. The records of the
preliminary investigation conducted by the Municipal Court of Masbate and
reviewed by the respondent Fiscal were still in Masbate when the respondent
Fiscal issued the warrants of arrest against the petitioners. There was no basis for
the respondent Judge to make his own personal determination regarding the
existence of a probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest as mandated by
the Constitution.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. EDISON SUCRO

FACTS: Roy Fulgencio was instructed by P/Lt. Vicente Seraspi, Jr. (Station
Commander of the INP) to monitor the activities of Edison Sucro, because of
information gathered by Seraspi that Sucro was selling marijuana. Pat. Fulgencio
saw accused enter the chapel, taking something which turned out later to be
marijuana from the compartment of a cart found inside the chapel, and then return
to the street where he handed the same to a buyer, Aldie Borromeo. After a while
Sucro went back to the chapel and again came out with marijuana which he gave to
a group of persons. Pat. Fulgencio called up Seraspi to report that a third buyer
later identified as Ronnie Macabante, was transacting with accused. At that point,
the team of P/Lt. Seraspi proceeded to the area and while the police officers were
at the Youth Hostel at Maagma St., Pat. Fulgencio told P/Lt. Seraspi to intercept
Macabante and Sucro. Upon seeing the police, Macabante threw something to the
ground which turned out to be a tea bag of marijuana. When confronted,
Macabante readily admitted that he bought the same from Sucro. The police team
was able to overtake and arrest Sccro and recovered 19 sticks and 4 teabags of
marijuana from the cart inside the chapel and another teabag from Macabante.

ISSUES: (1) Whether or not arrest without warrant is lawful.

(2) Whether or Not evidence from such arrest is admissible.

HELD: A peace officer or private person may, without warrant, arrest a person: (a)
When in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal
knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it;
An offense is committed in the presence or within the view of an officer, within the
meaning of the rule authorizing an arrest without a warrant, when the officer sees
the offense, although at a distance, or hears the disturbances created thereby and
proceeds at once to the scene thereof. Fulgencio, within a distance of two meters
saw Sucro conduct his nefarious activity and the fact that Macabante, when
intercepted by the police, was caught throwing the marijuana stick and when
confronted, readily admitted that he bought the same from accused-appellant
clearly indicates that Sucro had just sold the marijuana stick to Macabante, and
therefore, had just committed an illegal act of which the police officers had
personal knowledge of the actual commission of the crime when it had earlier
conducted surveillance activities of the accused. That searches and seizures must
be supported by a valid warrant is not an absolute rule. Among the exceptions
granted by law is a search incidental to a lawful arrest which provides that a person
lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may
be used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant. There
is nothing unlawful about the arrest considering its compliance with the
requirements of a warrantless arrest. Ergo, the fruits obtained from such lawful
arrest are admissible in evidence.
 PEOPLE VS. ABE VALDEZ

FACTS: Abe Valdez, accused-appellant, is charged for violating Section 9 of the

Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (R.A. No. 7659). The accused was allegedly caught
in flagrante delicto and without authority of law, planted, cultivated and cultured
seven (7) fully grown marijuana from which dangerous drugs may be
manufactured or derived. The prosecution presented its witnesses from the police
force, who testified how the information was received, the commencement of their
operation and its details under the specific instruction of Inspector Parungao.
Accordingly, they found appellant alone in his nipa hut, then, proceeded to look
around the area where appellant had his kaingin and saw seven (7) five-foot high,
flowering marijuana plants in two rows, approximately 25 meters away from his
nipa hut. They uprooted the seven marijuana plants, took photos of appellant
standing beside the cannabis plants and arrested him. The defense presented
Valdez as its sole witness and pleaded not guilty. He testified he was weeding his
vegetable farm when he was called by a person whose identity he does not know.
He was asked to go with the latter to see something. This unknown person then
brought appellant to the place where the marijuana plants were found,
approximately 100 meters away from his nipa hut. Five armed policemen were
present and they made him stand in front of the hemp plants. He was then asked if
he knew anything about the marijuana growing there. When he denied any
knowledge thereof, SPO2 Libunao poked a fist at him and told him to admit
ownership of the plants. At the police headquarters, appellant reiterated that he
knew nothing about the marijuana plants seized by the police.

ISSUE: Whether or not the search and seizure of the marijuana plants in the
present case is lawful and the seized evidence admissible.

HELD: There was no search warrant issued by a judge after personal

determination of the existence of probable cause given the fact that police had
ample time to obtain said warrant. The protection against illegal search and seizure
is constitutionally mandated and only under specific instances are searches allowed
without warrants. The mantle of protection extended by the Bill of Rights covers
both innocent and guilty alike against any form of high-handedness of law
enforcers, regardless of the praiseworthiness of their intentions.

The confiscated plants were evidently obtained during an illegal search and
seizure. As per admissibility of the marijuana plants as evidence for the
prosecution, the said plants cannot, as products of an unlawful search and seizure,
be used as evidence against appellant. They are fruits of the proverbial poisoned
tree. It was, therefore, a reversible error on the part of the court a quo to have
admitted and relied upon the seized marijuana plants as evidence to convict
appellant.
 PEOPLE V. CHUA HO SAN

FACTS: On March 29, 1995, Chief of Police Jim Cid intercepted a radio call from
Barangay Captain Juan Almoite regarding an unfamiliar speedboat the latter had
spotted. The reported vessel was different from the ones used by the fishermen in
the area. Cid gathered his men, led by SPO1 Badua, and went to the place where
the speedboat was attempting to dock. The policemen observed that there was only
one male passenger on the vessel. Upon docking, the passenger carried a
multicolored strawbag, and started walking towards the road. Police officers
approached the passenger who started running after seeing them. However, he was
stopped by Badua. The three policemen introduced themselves as such, but the
man was unruffled by the fact. Cid instructed the man to open the bag that he was
carrying but the latter did not move nor look like he understood the instruction. Cid
tried to talk to him in English and Ilocano, and eventually resolved to “sign
language”. The man understood the gestures made by Cid and opened the bag.
Inside the bag were several transparent plastic packets containing yellowish
crystalline substances which was believed to be shabu. Upon seeing the contents,
the three policemen brought with them the unidentified man to the police station.
At the police station, Cid informed the man of his constitutional rights but did not
get a response. Basing on his features, they assumed him to be Taiwanese,
therefore, Cid ordered his men to look for a resident in the area who
speaks Chinese to act as an interpreter. Go Ping Guan, the interpreter,
spoke in a familiar language to the accused and informed him of his constitutional
rights. The man, without eliciting any reaction, showed his ID with the name Chua
Ho San printed on it. The 29 plastic packets found inside the bag of Chua were sent
to the laboratory for examination and was later revealed to be methamphetamine
hydrochloride, also known as shabu. Chua was initially charged with illegal
possession of the said drug, but according to the prosecutor, the facts of the case
could support an indictment for illegal transport of a regulated drug. The trial court
found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of
Sec. 15,Art. III of R.A. No. 6425, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, as charged in the
Information.

Issue: Whether or not the accused who was acting suspiciously constitutes
Probable Cause impelling the police officers from affecting an in flagrante delicto
arrest.

Held: No, the Court, finds that these do not constitute “probable cause.” None of
the telltale clues, e.g., bag or package emanating the pungent odor of marijuana or
other prohibited drug, confidential report and/or positive identification by
informers of courier(s) of prohibited drug and/or the time and place where they
will transport/deliver the same, suspicious demeanor or behavior and suspicious
bulge in the waist — accepted by the Court as sufficient to justify a warrantless
arrest exists in this case. In cases of in fragrante delicto, arrests, a peace officer or a
private person may without a warrant, arrest a person, when, in his presence, the
person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense.
 PEOPLE VS TANGLIBEN

FACTS: Patrolmen Silverio and Romeo Punzalan were conducting surveillance at

the San Fernando Victory Liner Terminal. At around 9:30pm they noticed a
person, Medel Tangliben, carrying a traveling bag who acted suspiciously. They
confronted him, inspected his bag, and there they found marijuana leaves. The
accused was then taken to the Police Headquarters for further investigations. The
TC found Tangliben guilty of violating sec.4 art. 2 of the RA 6425 or the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.

ISSUE: Whether or Not there was an unlawful search due to lack of search
warrant.

HELD: No. Rule 113 sec. 5 provides the a peace officer or a private person may
w/o a warrant arrest a person when in his presence the person to be arrested has
committed, is committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.

In the present case, the accused was found to have been committing possession of
marijuana and can be therefore searched lawfully even without a search warrant.
Another reason is that this case poses urgency on the part of the arresting police
officers. It was found out that an informer pointed to the accused telling the
policemen that the accused was carrying marijuana. The police officers had to act
quickly and there was not enough time to secure a search warrant.
 PEOPLE VS LEILA JOHNSON

FACTS: Leila Johnson was arrested at the airport after she was found to have in
her possession more than 500 grams of shabu when she was initially frisked by a
security personnel at a gate in the airport. The security personnel felt something
hard in respondent’s abdominal area and when asked she said that she had to wear
2 girdles because of an operation. Unconvinced, the security personnel went to her
supervisor. Subsequently, after a thorough search on respondent, packets of shabu
were seized from her.

ISSUE: Whether or not there is a valid search made.

HELD: The constitutional right of the accused was not violated as she was never
placed under custodial investigation but was validly arrested without warrant
pursuant to the provisions of Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal
Procedure which provides: A peace officer or a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person: (a) when in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b)
when an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of
facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it.

The methamphetamine hydrochloride seized from her during the routine frisk at
the airport was acquired legitimately pursuant to airport security procedures.

Persons may lose the protection of the search and seizure clause by exposure of
their persons or property to the public in a manner reflecting a lack of subjective
expectation of privacy, which expectation society is prepared to recognize as
reasonable. Such recognition is implicit in airport security procedures. Passengers
attempting to board an aircraft routinely pass through metal detectors; their carry-
on baggages as well as checked luggage are routinely subjected to x-ray scans.
Should these procedures suggest the presence of suspicious objects, physical
searches are conducted to determine what the objects are. Indeed, travelers are
often notified through airport public address systems, signs, and notices in their
airline tickets that they are subject to search and, if any prohibited materials or
substances are found, such would be subject to seizure. These announcements
place passengers on notice that ordinary constitutional protections against
warrantless searches and seizures do not apply to routine airport procedures.

The packs of methamphetamine hydrochloride having thus been obtained through

a valid warrantless search, they are admissible in evidence against the accused-
appellant herein. Corollarily, her subsequent arrest, although likewise without
warrant, was justified since it was effected upon the discovery and recovery of
“shabu” in her person in flagrante delicto.
 PEOPLE VS MALMSTEDT

FACTS: Captain Alen Vasco, the commanding officer of the first regional
Command (NARCOM) stationed at Camp Dangwa, ordered his men to set up a
temporary checkpoint for the purpose of checking all vehicles coming from the
Cordillera Region. The order to establish a checkpoint was prompted by persistent
reports that vehicles coming from Sagada were transporting marijuana and other
prohibited drugs and there was also information about a Caucasian coming from
Sagada having in his possession prohibited drugs. In the afternoon the bus where
accused was riding stopped. Sgt. Fider and CIC Galutan boarded the bus and
announced that they were members of the NARCOM and that they would conduct
an inspection. During the inspection CIC Galutan noticed a bulge on accused
waist. Suspecting the bulge on accused waist to be a gun, the officer asked for
accused’s passport and other identification papers. When accused failed to comply,
the officer required him to bring out whatever it was that was bulging o his waist.
And it turned out to be a pouched bag and when accused opened the same the
officer noticed four suspicious looking objects wrapped in brown packing tape. It
contained hashish, a derivative of marijuana. The officer also inspects the bag of
accused. Inside was a stuffed toy each, upon inspection, contain Marijuana.

ISSUE: Whether or not there is a valid and reasonable search and seizure.

RULING: The search and seizure was valid. A crime was actually being
committed by the accused and he was caught in flagrante delicto, thus the search
made upon his personal effects falls squarely under paragraph 1 of of Section 5,
Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, which allows a warrantless
search incident to a lawful arrest.

When NARCOM received the information that a Caucasian travelling from Sagada
to Baguio City was carrying with him a prohibited drug, there was no time to
obtain a search warrant.
 VALMONTE vs DE VILLA

FACTS: On 20 January 1987, the National Capital Region District Command

(NCRDC) was activated with the mission of conducting security operations within
its area of responsibility and peripheral areas, for the purpose of establishing an
effective territorial defense and maintaining peace and order at NCR. As part of its
duty, the NCRDC installed checkpoints in various parts of Valenzuela, Metro
Manila. Petitioners aver that, because of the installation of said checkpoints, the
residents of Valenzuela are worried of being harassed and of their safety being
placed at the arbitrary, capricious and whimsical disposition of the military
manning the checkpoints, considering that their cars and vehicles are being
subjected to regular searches and check-ups, especially at night or at dawn, without
the benefit of a search warrant and/or court order. Their alleged fear for their safety
increased when, at dawn of 9 July 1988, Benjamin Parpon, a supply officer of the
Municipality of Valenzuela, Bulacan, was gunned down allegedly in cold blood by
the members of the NCRDC for ignoring and/or refusing to submit himself to the
checkpoint and for continuing to speed off despite of warning shots fired in the air.
Petitioner Valmonte also claims that, on several occasions, he had gone thru these
checkpoints where he was stopped and his car subjected to search/check-up
without a court order or search warrant.

ISSUE: Whether or not the installation of checkpoints violates the right of the
people against unreasonable searches and seizures?

RULING: Not all searches and seizures are prohibited. Those which are
reasonable are not forbidden. A reasonable search is not to be determined by any
fixed formula but is to be resolved according to the facts of each case. The setting
up of the questioned checkpoints in Valenzuela (and probably in other areas) may
be considered as a security measure to enable the NCRDC to pursue its mission of
establishing effective territorial defense and maintaining peace and order for the
benefit of the public. True, the manning of checkpoints by the military is
susceptible of abuse by the men in uniform, in the same manner that all
governmental power is susceptible of abuse. But, at the cost of occasional
inconvenience, discomfort and even irritation to the citizen, the checkpoints during
these abnormal times, when conducted within reasonable limits, are part of the
price we pay for an orderly society and a peaceful community. Furthermore, the
Court stressed that the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and
seizures is a personal right which can be invoked only by those whose rights have
been infringed, or threatened to be infringed. What constitutes a reasonable or
unreasonable search and seizure in any particular case is purely a judicial question,
determinable from a consideration of the circumstances involved.
 PEOPLE VS DE GRACIA

FACTS: Reform the Armed Forces Movement-Soldiers of the Filipino People

(RAM-SFP) staged a coup d’état on December 1989 against the Government.
Efren Soria of Intelligence Division, NCR Defense Command, together with his
team, conducted a surveillance of the Eurocar Sales Office in EDSA, QC pursuant
to an intelligence report that the said establishment was being occupied by the
elements of the RAM-SFP as communication command post. Near the Eurocar
office, there were crowd watching the on-going bombardment near Camp
Aguinaldo when a group of five men disengaged themselves and walked towards
their surveillance car. Major Soria ordered the driver to start the car and leave the
area. However, as they passed the area, the five men drew their guns and fired at
them, which resulted to the wounding of the driver. Thereafter, the search team
raided the Eurocar Sales Office and confiscated 6 cartons of M-16 ammunition, 5
bundles of C-4 dynamites, M-shells of different calibers, and molotov. Obenia,
who first entered the establishment, found De Gracia holding a C-4 and
suspiciously peeping through the door in the office of a certain Colonel Matillano.
No search warrant was secured by the raiding team because, according to them,
there was so much disorder considering that the nearby Camp Aguinaldo was
being mopped up by the rebel forces and there was simultaneous firing within the
vicinity of the Eurocar office, aside from the fact that the courts were consequently
closed. Appellant was convicted for illegal possession of firearms in furtherance of
rebellion but was acquitted of attempted homicide.

ISSUE: Whether or not search and seizure is valid.

HELD: YES, it is a valid search and seizure. The instant case falls under one of
the exceptions to the prohibition against a warrantless search. In the first place, the
military operatives, taking into account the facts obtaining in this case, had
reasonable ground to believe that a crime was being committed. There was
consequently more than sufficient probable cause to warrant their action.
Furthermore, under the situation then prevailing, the raiding team had no
opportunity to apply for and secure a search warrant from the courts.
 SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY VS DANGEROUS DRUGS BOARD

FACTS: This is a consolidated case with (Pimentel v. COMELEC) and (Atty.

Laserna v. DDB and PDEA), challenging the constitutionality of RA 9165(c), (d),
(f) and (g) of Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The petitioners
challenge the provision of Sec. 36(c), (d), (f), and (g) of RA 9165 which compels
students of secondary and tertiary schools, officers and employees of public and
private offices, all persons charged before the prosecutor’s office with a criminal
offense having an imposable penalty of imprisonment of not less than six (6) years
and one (1) year, and candidates for public office whether appointed or elected
both in the national or local government, shall be subjected to undergo a
mandatory drug testing. It is unconstitutional for infringing on the constitutional
right to privacy, the right against unreasonable search and seizure, and the right
against self-incrimination, and for being contrary to the due process and equal
protection guarantees.

ISSUE: Whether or not paragraphs (c), (d), (f), and (g) of Sec. 36, RA 9165
violate the right to privacy, the right against unreasonable searches and seizure,
and the equal protection clause.

HELD: The Court ruled that paragraphs (c), (d), and(g) of Sec. 36, RA 9165 is
constitutional. A random drug testing of students in secondary and tertiary schools
is not only acceptable, but may even be necessary if the safety and interest of the
student population, doubtless a legitimate concern of the government, are to be
promoted and protected. Also the mandatory but random drug test for officers and
employees of public and private offices is justifiable. The goal is to discourage
drug use by not telling in advance anyone when and who is to be tested. It is to be
noted the very reason RA 9165 was enacted is to safeguard the well-being of the
citizens from the deleterious effects of dangerous drugs. The Court notes in this
regard that petitioner SJS has failed to show how the mandatory, random, and
suspicionless drug testing violates the right to privacy and constitutes unlawful
and/or unconsented search. The essence of privacy is the right to be left alone. In
context, the right to privacy means the right to be free from unwarranted
exploitation of one’s person or from intrusion into one’s private activities in such a
way as to cause humiliation to a person’s ordinary sensibilities.

However, the Court finds no valid justification for mandatory drug testing for
persons accused of crimes (f). The Court finds the situation entirely different in the
case of persons charged before the public prosecutor’s office with criminal
offenses. The operative concepts in the mandatory drug testing are “randomness”
and “suspicionless.” In the case of persons charged with a crime before the
prosecutor’s office, a mandatory drug testing can never be random or
suspicionless. To impose mandatory drug testing on the accused is a blatant
attempt to harness a medical test as a tool for criminal prosecution, contrary to the
stated objectives of RA 9165. Drug testing in this case would violate a persons’
right to privacy guaranteed under Sec. 2, Art. III of the Constitution. Worse still,
the accused persons are veritably forced to incriminate themselves.
 POLLO VS DAVID

FACTS: On January 3. 2007, former CSC Chairperson Karina Constantino-David

received an unsigned complaint letter which was marked “Confidential” from
certain Allan San Pascual. The letter contain allegations that the petitioner has been
helping many who have pending cases in the CSC and the letter sender pleas that
the CSC should investigate this anomaly to maintain the clean and good behavior
of their office. Chairperson David immediately formed a team of four personnel
with background in information technology (IT), and issued a memo directing
them to conduct an investigation and specifically to back up all the files in the
computers found in the Mamamayan Muna (PALD) and Legal divisions. Within
the same day, the investigating team finished the task. It was found that most of the
files copied from the computer assigned to and being used by the petitioner were
draft pleadings or letters in connection with administrative cases in the CSC and
other tribunals. Chairperson David thus issued a Show-Cause Order requiring the
petitioner to submit his explanation or counter-affidavit within five days from
notice. Petitioner denied that he is the person referred to in the anonymous letter-
complaint. He asserted that he had protested the unlawful taking of his computer
done while he was on leave, and that the files in his computer were his personal
files and those of his relatives and associates, and that he is not authorize the
activities as they are in violation of his constitutional right to privacy and
protection against self-incrimination and warrantless search and seizure.

ISSUE: Whether or not the search conducted and the copying of petitioner’s files
without his knowledge and consent lawful?

Ruling: Yes.

Yes. The right to privacy has been accorded recognition in this jurisdiction as a
facet of the right protected by the guarantee against unreasonable search and
seizure under Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. The constitutional
guarantee is not a prohibition of all searches and seizures but only of
“unreasonable” searches and seizures.

The petitioner had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his office and computer
files for he failed to prove that he had an actual expectation of privacy either in his
office or government-issued computer which contained his personal files. He did
not allege that he had a separate enclosed office which he did not share with
anyone, or that his office was always locked and not open to other employees or
visitors. He did not use passwords nor adopted any means to prevent access by
others of his computer files.

The search authorized by the respondent CSC Chair was reasonable since it was
conducted in connection with investigation of work-related misconduct. A search
by a government employer of an employee’s office is justified when there are
reasonable grounds for suspecting that it will turn up evidence that the employee is
guilty of work-related misconduct.
 PEOPLE VS EDANO

FACTS: On the evening of August 6, 2002, members of the Metro Manila Drugs
Enforcement Group, composed of four (4) police officers together with a female
informant, went to the parking area of McDonalds, West Avenue to conduct an
entrapment operation against the accused. At around 7:00 p.m., the appellant
arrived on board a wagon driven by Siochi. The informant approached the
appellant and talked to him inside the vehicle. Afterwards, the informant waved at
PO3 Corbe. When PO3 Corbe was approaching the appellant, the latter went out of
the vehicle and ran away. The police officers chased the appellant and PO3 Corbe
was able to grab the appellant, causing the latter to fall on the ground. PO3 Corbe
recovered a "knot-tied" transparent plastic bag from the appellant’s right hand,
while PO3 Alcancia seized a gun tucked in the appellant’s waist. The other
members of the police arrested Siochi. Thereafter, the police brought the appellant,
Siochi and the seized items to the police station for investigation. The seized items
were examined and found positive for the presence of shabu.

ISSUE: Whether or not the warrantless arrest is valid and evidence is admissible.

HELD: The Court ruled that it is not a valid arrest. In the present case, there was
no overt act indicative of a felonious enterprise that could be properly attributed to
the appellant to rouse suspicion in the mind of PO3 Corbe that he (appellant) had
just committed, was actually committing, or was attempting to commit a crime. In
fact, PO3 Corbe testified that the appellant and the informant were just talking with
each other when he approached them. As testified, the appellant and the informant
were just talking to each other; there was no exchange of money and drugs when
he approached the car. Notably, while it is true that the informant waved at PO3
Corbe, the latter admitted that this was not the pre-arranged signal to signify that
the sale of drugs had been consummated. PO3 Corbe also admitted on cross-
examination that he had no personal knowledge on whether there was a prohibited
drug and gun inside the space wagon when he approached it.

That the appellant attempted to run away when PO3 Corbe approached him is
irrelevant and cannot by itself be construed as adequate to charge the police officer
with personal knowledge that the appellant had just engaged in, was actually
engaging in or was attempting to engage in criminal activity.

Considering that the appellant’s warrantless arrest was unlawful, the search and
seizure that resulted from it was likewise illegal. Thus, the alleged plastic bag
containing white crystalline substances seized from him is inadmissible in
evidence, having comefrom an invalid search and seizure.
 ALILI V COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS: On April 11, 1988, Police Anti-Narcotics Unit of Kalookan City

conducted surveillance along A. Mabini Street, in front of the Kalookan City
Cemetery upon receipt of information that drug addicts were roaming around the
area. Upon reaching the cemetery, the policemen chanced upon a male person, the
petitioner, in front of the cemetery who appeared high on drugs. The petitioner had
reddish eyes and was walking in a swaying manner. Petitioner tried to avoid the
policemen, but the officers were able to introduce themselves and asked him what
he was holding in his hands. The petitioner showed his wallet and allowed the
officer to examine it. Policeman Espiritu found suspected crushed marijuana
residue inside. He kept the wallet and its marijuana contents and took petitioner to
headquarters to be further investigated. The suspected marijuana was sent to the
NBI Forensic Chemistry Section for analysis.

Manalili’s version of the story was that early afternoon he was riding in a tricycle
when 3 policemen stopped the tricycle and informed them of the suspected
possession of marijuana, the policemen bodily searched both Manalili and the
driver and upon finding nothing illegal on their persons, let the driver go but
brought Manalili along to the police station. Manalili while on the way to the
station saw a neighbor whom he signaled to follow them and when he was again
searched in the station, he was asked to strip his pants where they found nothing
illegal. Said neighbor then asked the policemen to let Manalili go seeing as they
had not found anything illegal but Manalili was put on a cell who was brought to a
fiscal later that day and was told not to say anything despite his saying that the
policemen had not found mj on his person. Said tricycle driver and neighbor
testified on court as tohow the 2 searches yielded nothing illegal on Manalili’s

ISSUE: (1) Whether or not the search and seizure is valid.

(2) Whether or not petitioner constituted his waiver of rights.

HELD: The general rule is a search and seizure must be validated by a previously
secured judicial warrant; otherwise, such a search and seizure is unconstitutional
and subject to challenge. Any evidence obtained in violation of this
constitutionally guaranteed right is legally inadmissible in any proceeding. The
exceptions to the rule are: (1) search incidental to a lawful arrest, (2) search of
moving vehicles, (3) seizure in plain view, (4) customs search, and (5) waiver by
the accused of their right against unreasonable search and seizure. In these cases,
the search and seizure may be made only with probable cause. Additionally, stop-
and-frisk has already been adopted as another exception to the general rule against
a search without a warrant.

In the present case, petitioner effectively waived the inadmissibility of the

evidence illegally obtained when he failed to raise the issue or object thereto
during the trial.