You are on page 1of 8

CAMILLE MAY SAVILLO

LLB 1E

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
SEARCH & SEIZURE

MANALILI VS. COURT OF APPEALS, 280 SCRA 400


FACTS: At about 2:10 in the afternoon of April 11, 1988, policemen from the AntiNarcotics Unit of the Kalookan City Police Station were conducting a surveillance along
A. Mabini street, Kalookan City, in front of the Kalookan City Cemetery. The surveillance
was being made because of information that drug addicts were roaming the area in front
of the Kalookan City Cemetery. Upon reaching the Kalookan City Cemetery, the
policemen chanced upon Alain Manalili in front of the cemetery who appeared high on
drugs. Manalili was observed to have reddish eyes and to be walking in a swaying
manner. When he tried to avoid the policemen, the latter approached him and
introduced themselves as police officers. The policemen then asked Manalili what he
was holding in his hands. Manalili showed the wallet and allowed the police to examine
the same. The policemen found suspected crushed marijuana residue inside. The trial
court convicted petitioner of illegal possession of marijuana residue. The CA affirmed
the decision.
ISSUES: Whether the evidence was a product of an illegal search and therefore is
inadmissible as evidence
RULING: The Court held that the search was valid, being akin to a stop-and-frisk. In the
landmark case of Terry vs Ohio, a stop-and-frisk was defined as the vernacular
designation of the right of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street, interrogate him,
and pat him for weapons. Where a police officer observes an unusual conduct which
leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be
afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently
dangerous, where in the course of investigating this behavior he identified himself as a
policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of
the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others safety, he is
entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited
search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which
might be used to assault him. Such a search is a reasonable search under the Fourth
Amendment, and any weapon seized may properly be introduced in evidence against
the person from whom they were taken.
In Philippine jurisprudence, the general rule is that a search and seizure must be
validated by a previously secured judicial warrant; otherwise, such search and seizure is
unconstitutional and subject to challenge. This right, however, is not absolute. Stop-andfrisk has already been adopted as an exception to the general rule against a search
without a warrant.
In the case at hand, Patrolman Espiritu and his companions observed during their
surveillance that appellant had red eyes and was wobbling like a drunk along the
Caloocan City Cemetery, which according to police information was a popular hangout
of drug addicts. From his experience as a member of the Anti-Narcotics Unit of the
Caloocan City Police, such suspicious behavior was characteristic of drug addicts who
were high. The policemen therefore had sufficient reason to stop petitioner to
investigate if he was actually high on drugs.

CAMILLE MAY SAVILLO

LLB 1E

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
SEARCH & SEIZURE

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. EDISON SUCRO, MARCH 18, 1991


FACTS: On March 21, 1989, Pat. Roy Fulgencio, a member of the INP, Kalibo, Aklan,
was instructed to monitor the activities of Edison Sucro, because of information
gathered that Sucro was selling marijuana. As planned, at about 5:00 P.M. on said date,
Pat. Fulgencio saw appellant enter a 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. After a while Sucro went back to the
chapel and again came out with marijuana which he gave to a group of persons. It was
at this instance that Pat. Fulgencio radioed P/Lt. Seraspi and reported the activity going
on. Pat. Fulgencio was instructed to continue monitoring developments. At about 6:30
P.M., Pat. Fulgencio again called up Seraspi to report that a third buyer later Identified
as Ronnie Macabante, was transacting with Sucro.
The police caught up with Macabante and 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 in front of
the chapel. The police team was able to overtake and arrest Sucro and recovered 19
sticks and 4 teabags of marijuana from the cart inside the chapel. The teabags of
marijuana were sent to the PC-INP Crime Laboratory Service, at Camp Delgado, Iloilo
City for analysis. The specimens were all found positive of marijuana.
ISSUE: Whether or not the arrest without warrant of the accused is lawful and
consequently, whether or not the evidence resulting from such arrest is admissible
RULING: The Court rules in the affirmative. Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules on
Criminal Procedure provides for the instances where arrest without warrant is
considered lawful. The rule states: 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. The records show that Fulgencio, within a
distance of two meters saw Sucro conduct his nefarious activity. He saw Sucro talk to
some persons, go inside the chapel, and return to them and exchange some things.
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, being members of the team which monitored Sucro's
nefarious activity.

CAMILLE MAY SAVILLO

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.

PEOPLE VS. ABE VALDEZ, SEPTEMBER 5, 2000


FACTS: The police received a tip about the presence of a marijuana plantation,
allegedly owned by Valdez at Sitio Bulan, Ibung, Villaverde, Nueva Vizcaya. The
following day, the police team, accompanied by their informer, left for the site where the
marijuana plants were allegedly being grown. The police found Valdez alone in his nipa
hut. They then proceeded to look around the area where appellant had his kaingin and
saw 7 five-foot high, flowering marijuana plants in two rows, approximately 25 meters
from appellant's hut. When asked, Valdez admitted that they were his. The police
uprooted the 7 marijuana plants and took photos of Valdez standing beside the
cannabis plants. Valdez was then arrested. Analysis of the plants showed positive
indication for marijuana. The RTC found Valdez guilty beyond reasonable doubt for
violating Section 9 of the Dangerous Drugs Act and was sentenced to suffer the penalty
of death by lethal injection.
ISSUE: Whether or not the search and seizure of the marijuana plants was lawful and
whether the seized plants were admissible as evidence
RULING: The Constitution lays down the general rule that a search and seizure must
be carried on the strength of a judicial warrant. Otherwise, the search and seizure is
deemed "unreasonable." Evidence procured on the occasion of an unreasonable search
and seizure shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding.
In the instant case, there was no search warrant issued by a judge after personal
determination of the existence of probable cause. From the declarations of the police
officers themselves, it is clear that they had at least one day to obtain a warrant to
search the farm. Their informant had revealed his name to them. The place where the
cannabis plants were planted was pinpointed. From the information in their possession,
they could have convinced a judge that there was probable cause to justify the issuance
of a warrant. But they did not. Instead, they uprooted the plants and apprehended the
accused on the excuse that the trip was a good six hours and inconvenient to them.
Also, the plain view doctrine cannot be applied. For the doctrine to apply, the following
elements must be present: (a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless
arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties; (b) the
evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have the right to be where
they are; and (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and (d) plain view justified
mere seizure of evidence without further search.
The seizure of evidence in "plain view" applies only where the police officer
is not searching for evidence against the accused, but inadvertently comes across an
incriminating object. In this case, the discovery of the cannabis plants was not

CAMILLE MAY SAVILLO

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.

PEOPLE VS. CHUA HO SAN, 308 SCRA 432


FACTS: In response to reports of rampant smuggling of firearms and other contraband,
the Chief of Police of the Bacnotan Police Station, of La Union began patrolling the
Bacnotan coastline with his officers. While monitoring the coastal area of Barangay
Bulala March 29, 1995, he intercepted a radio call at around 12:45 p.m. from Barangay
Captain Juan Almoite of Barangay Tammocalao requesting police assistance regarding
an unfamiliar speedboat the latter had spotted. They observed that the speedboat
ferried a lone male passenger, which was Chua. When the speedboat landed, Chua
alighted, and using both hands, carried what appeared a multicolored strawbag. He
then walked towards the road. Chua suddenly changed direction and broke into a run
upon seeing the approaching officers. The police prevented him from fleeing by holding
on to his right arm. They then introduced themselves as police officers but Chua
appeared impassive. The police then resorted to sign language and motioned with his
hands for Chua to open the bag. This time, Chua apparently understood and acceded
to the request. A search of the bag yielded several transparent plastic packets
containing yellowish crystalline substances. They brought Chua to the police
headquarters. The contents were sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory and they found it to
be positive of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a regulated drug.
ISSUE: Whether the warrantless arrest, search and seizure in this case constitutes a
valid exemption from the warrant requirement
RULING: The Court finds that there are no facts on record reasonably suggestive or
demonstrative of Chuas participation in an ongoing criminal enterprise that could have
spurred police officers from conducting the obtrusive search. There is no probable
cause. There was no classified information that a foreigner would disembark at
Tammocalao beach bearing prohibited drug on the date in question. Chua was not
identified as a drug courier by a police informer or agent. The fact that the vessel that
ferried him to shore bore no resemblance to the fishing boats of the area did not
automatically mark him as in the process of perpetrating an offense.

CAMILLE MAY SAVILLO

LLB 1E

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
SEARCH & SEIZURE

The search cannot therefore be denominated as incidental to an arrest. While a


contemporaneous search of a person arrested may be effected to deliver dangerous
weapons or proofs or implements used in the commission of the crime and which
search may extend to the area within his immediate control where he might gain
possession of a weapon or evidence he can destroy, a valid arrest must precede the
search. The process cannot be reversed.
Chua was acquitted, the evidence not being sufficient to establish his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.

PEOPLE VS. TANGLIBEN, 184 SCRA 220


FACTS: In the late evening of March 2, 1982, Patrolmen Silverio Quevedo and Romeo
L. Punzalan of the San Fernando Police Station, together with Barangay Tanod Macario
Sacdalan, were conducting surveillance mission at the Victory Liner Terminal compound
located at Barangay San Nicolas, San Fernando, Pampanga. The surveillance was
aimed not only against persons who may commit misdemeanors at the said place but
also on persons who may be engaging in the traffic of dangerous drugs based on
informations supplied by informers. It was around 9:30 in the evening that said
Patrolmen noticed a person caring a traveling bag who was acting suspiciously and they
confronted him. The person was requested to open the red traveling bag but the person
refused, only to accede later on when the patrolmen identified themselves. Found inside
the bag were marijuana leaves wrapped in a plastic wrapper and weighing one kilo,
more or less. The person was asked of his name and the reason why he was at the said
place and he gave his name as Medel Tangliben and explained that he was waiting for a
ride to Olongapo City to deliver the marijuana leaves. Tangliben was taken to the police
headquarters at San Fernando, Pampanga, for further investigation. When the leaves
were examined, they found positive results for marijuana.

CAMILLE MAY SAVILLO

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.

PEOPLE VS. MALMSTEDT, 198 SCRA 401

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

CAMILLE MAY SAVILLO

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.

PEOPLE VS. DE GRACIA, 233 SCRA 211


FACTS: The incidents involved in this case took place at the height of the coup d'
etat staged in December, 1989 by ultra-rightist elements headed by the Reform the
Armed Forces Movement-Soldiers of the Filipino People (RAM-SFP) against the
Government.
Early in the morning of December 1, 1989, the Intelligence Division of the National
Capital Region Defense Command, was conducting a surveillance of the Eurocar Sales
Office located at EDSA in Quezon City. The surveillance was conducted pursuant to an
intelligence report received by the division that said establishment was being occupied
by elements of the RAM-SFP as a communication command post. A crowd was then
gathered near the Eurocar office watching the on-going bombardment near Camp
Aguinaldo. After a while, a group of five men disengaged themselves from the crowd
and walked towards the car of the surveillance team. At that moment, Maj. Soria saw

CAMILLE MAY SAVILLO

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.

You might also like