PEOPLE V. BAGISTA, G.R. 86218 1. CITED IN G.R. No. 188611, PP. V. BELEN MARIACOS, 6/16/2010 In People v.

Bagista,[16] the Court said: The constitutional proscription against warrantless searches and seizures admits of certain exceptions. Aside from a search incident to a lawful arrest, a warrantless search had been upheld in cases of a moving vehicle, and the seizure of evidence in plain view. With regard to the search of moving vehicles, this had been justified on the ground that the mobility of motor vehicles makes it possible for the vehicle to be searched to move out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. This in no way, however, gives the police officers unlimited discretion to conduct warrantless searches of automobiles in the absence of probable cause. When a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive search, such a warrantless search has been held to be valid only as long as the officers conducting the search have reasonable or probable cause to believe before the search that they will find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime, in the vehicle to be searched. 2. CITED IN G.R. No. 185379, 11/27/2009, PP. V. QUEBRAL This Court held in People v. Bagista[6] that the NARCOM officers had probable cause to stop and search all vehicles coming from the north at Acop, Tublay, Benguet, in view of the confidential information they received from their regular informant that a woman fitting the description of the accused would be bringing marijuana from up north. They likewise had probable cause to search her belongings since she fitted the given description. In such a case, the warrantless search was valid and, consequently, any evidence obtained from it is admissible against the accused. 3. CITED IN G.R. NO. 186529 PP. V. JACK RACHO 8 /3 /2010 We are not unaware of another set of jurisprudence that deems reliable information sufficient to justify a search incident to a lawful warrantless arrest. As cited in People v. Tudtud, these include People v. Maspil, Jr.,[31] People v. Bagista,[32] People v. Balingan,[33] People v. Lising,[34] People v. Montilla,[35] People v. Valdez,[36]and People v. Gonzales.[37] In these cases, the Court sustained the validity of the warrantless searches notwithstanding the absence of overt acts or suspicious circumstances that would indicate that the accused had committed, was actually committing, or attempting to commit a crime. But as aptly observed by the Court, except in Valdez and Gonzales, they were covered by the other exceptions to the rule against warrantless searches.[38]

4. CITED IN G.R. No. 90391 March 24, 1993, PP. V. ALIH JUMA Accused-appellant would also fault the trial court for giving full credence to the testimonies of the two prosecution witnesses, Sgt. Marino Undangan and Sgt. Eulogio Requina. We reiterate, at the risk of being redundant, the time-honored rule that the matter of assigning values to the testimony of witnesses is best performed by the trial courts. Unlike appellate courts, they can weigh such testimony in clear observance of the demeanor, conduct and attitude of the witnesses at the trial. The exception is when the trial court has overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, might affect the result. 11 5. CITED IN G.R. No. 144037. September 26, 2003, PP. TUDTUD The RTC justified the warrantless search of appellants belongings under the first exception, as a search incident to a lawful arrest. It cited as authorities this Courts rulings in People v. Claudio,[63] People v. Tangliben,[64] People v. Montilla,[65] and People v. Valdez.[66] The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), in arguing for the affirmance of the appealed decision, invokes the cases of People v. Maspil, Jr.,[67] People v. Malmstedt, [68] and People v. Bagista.[69]