Professional Documents
Culture Documents
LLB 1E
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
SEARCH & SEIZURE
LLB 1E
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
SEARCH & SEIZURE
LLB 1E
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
SEARCH & SEIZURE
The failure of the police officers to secure a warrant stems from the fact that their
knowledge acquired from the surveillance was insufficient to fulfill the requirements for
the issuance of a search warrant. What is paramount is that probable cause existed.
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 under
Sec. 12, Rule 126 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, 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.
LLB 1E
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
SEARCH & SEIZURE
inadvertent. The seized marijuana plants were not "immediately apparent" and a "further
search" was needed. In sum, the marijuana plants in question were not in "plain view" or
"open to eye and hand." The "plain view" doctrine, thus, cannot be made to apply.
The Court holds that the confiscated plants were evidently obtained during an illegal
search and seizure and the plants cannot, as products of an unlawful search and
seizure, be used as evidence against Valdez.
LLB 1E
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
SEARCH & SEIZURE
LLB 1E
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
SEARCH & SEIZURE
ISSUE: Whether or not the marijuana seized from the accused was a product of
unlawful search without a warrant and is therefore inadmissible in evidence
RULING: This contention is devoid of merit. One of the exceptions to the general rule
requiring a search warrant is a search incident to a lawful arrest. Thus, Section 12 of
Rule 126 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure provides: 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. Meanwhile, Rule 113, Sec. 5(a)
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.
Accused was caught in flagrante, since he was carrying marijuana at the time of his
arrest. This case therefore falls squarely within the exception. The warrantless search
was incident to a lawful arrest and is consequently valid.
The transcript of stenographic notes reveals that there was an informer who pointed to
the accused-appellant as carrying marijuana. Faced with such on-the-spot information,
the police officers had to act quickly. There was not enough time to secure a search
warrant. The Court cannot therefore apply the ruling in Aminnudin to the case at bar. To
require search warrants during on-the-spot apprehensions of drug pushers, illegal
possessors of firearms, jueteng collectors, smugglers of contraband goods, robbers,
etc. would make it extremely difficult, if not impossible to contain the crimes with which
these persons are associated.
FACTS: A temporary checkpoint was set up at Kilometer 14, Acop, Tublay, Mountain
Province for the purpose of checking all vehicles coming from the Cordillera Region.
This was after information that a Caucasian will be travelling with prohibited drugs from
Sagada came to the knowledge of the authorities. The tip was received the same
morning that the checkpoint was set up.
At about 1:30 in the afternoon, the bus where Malmstedt was riding was stopped. The
officers announced that they were members of the NARCOM and that they would
conduct an inspection. Malmstedt was the sole foreigner riding and was seated at the
rear of the bus. During the inspection, they noticed a bulge on Malmstedts waist.
Suspecting the bulge to be a gun, they asked for Malmstedts passport. Malmstedt
failed to comply and was require to have the bulge taken out which turned out to be a
LLB 1E
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
SEARCH & SEIZURE
pouch bag with hashish, a derivative of marijuana. The inspectors also found travelling
bags with teddy bears inside containing hashish.
During the trial Malmstedt pleaded not guilty and invoked the illegality of the search.
The trial court found him guilty under RA 6425.
ISSUE: Whether or not the evidence obtained were inadmissible for having been
obtained illegally
RULING:
The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. However,
where the search is made pursuant to a lawful arrest, there is no need to obtain a
search warrant.
The court ruled that the search was pursuant to a lawful arrest. Malmstedt was
searched and arrested while transporting prohibited drugs. A crime was actually being
committed by the accused and he was caught in flagrante delicto. There was a probable
cause on the part of the arresting officer that a crime is actually being committed. There
was suspicion since there was information about the crime being done and the fact that
he was not able to present his passport aroused the suspicion of the officers conducting
the investigation.
LLB 1E
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
SEARCH & SEIZURE
the approaching group and immediately ordered Sgt. Sagario to start the car and leave
the area. As they passed by the group, then only six meters away, the latter pointed to
them, drew their guns and fired at the team, which attack resulted in the wounding of
Sgt. Sagario on the right thigh. Nobody in the surveillance team was able to retaliate
because they sought cover inside the car and they were afraid that civilians or
bystanders might be caught in the cross-fire.
As a consequence, at around 6:30 A.M. of December 5, 1989, a searching team raided
the Eurocar Sales Office. They were able to find and confiscate six cartons of M-16
ammunition, five bundles of C-4 dynamites, M-shells of different calibers,
and "molotov" bombs inside one of the rooms belonging to a certain Col. Matillano.
They found Rolando de Gracia inside the office of Col. Matillano, holding a C-4 and
suspiciously peeping through a door. De Gracia was the only person then present inside
the room. As a result of the raid, the team arrested De Gracia, as well as two janitors at
the Eurocar building. No search warrant was secured by the raiding team because,
according to them, at that time 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.
De Gracia was charged in two separate informations for illegal possession of
ammunition and explosives in furtherance of rebellion, and for attempted homicide. De
Gracia was convicted for illegal possession of firearms in furtherance of rebellion, but
was acquitted of attempted homicide.
ISSUE: Whether or not there was a valid search and seizure
RULING: Under the foregoing circumstances, it is the Courts considered opinion that
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. The trial judge
himself manifested that on December 5, 1989 when the raid was conducted, his court
was closed. Under such urgency and exigency of the moment, a search warrant could
lawfully be dispensed with.