EN BANC

JENNY M. AGABON and G.R. No. 158693

VIRGILIO C. AGABON,
Petitioners, Present:

Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Puno,
Panganiban,
Quisumbing,
nares!"antiago,
"andova#!Gutierre$,
! versus ! %ar&io,
'ustria!(artine$,
%orona,
%ar&io!(ora#es,
%a##e)o, "r.,
'$*una,
+inga,
%,i*o!Na$ario, and
Gar*ia, JJ.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION (NLRC), RIVIERA
HOME IMPROVEMENTS, INC. Promu#gated:
and VICENTE ANGELES,
Res&ondents. November 1-, .//0
x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

DECISION


YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

+,is &etition 1or revie2 see3s to reverse t,e de*ision
415
o1 t,e %ourt o1
'&&ea#s dated Januar6 .3, .//3, in %'!G.R. "P No. 63/1-, modi16ing t,e
de*ision o1 Nationa# 7abor Re#ations %ommission 8N7R%9 in N7R%!N%R %ase
No. /.300.!//.

Private res&ondent Riviera :ome ;m&rovements, ;n*. is engaged in t,e
business o1 se##ing and insta##ing ornamenta# and *onstru*tion materia#s. ;t
em&#o6ed &etitioners <irgi#io 'gabon and Jenn6 'gabon as g6&sum board and
*orni*e insta##ers on Januar6 ., 199.
4.5
unti# =ebruar6 .3, 1999 2,en t,e6 2ere
dismissed 1or abandonment o1 2or3.

Petitioners t,en 1i#ed a *om&#aint 1or i##ega# dismissa# and &a6ment o1
mone6 *#aims
435
and on De*ember .8, 1999, t,e 7abor 'rbiter rendered a de*ision
de*#aring t,e dismissa#s i##ega# and ordered &rivate res&ondent to &a6 t,e monetar6
*#aims. +,e dis&ositive &ortion o1 t,e de*ision states:

>:?R?=@R?, &remises *onsidered, >e 1ind t,e termination o1
t,e *om&#ainants i##ega#. '**ording#6, res&ondent is ,ereb6 ordered to
&a6 t,em t,eir ba*32ages u& to November .9, 1999 in t,e sum o1:

1. Jenn6 (. 'gabon ! P56, .31.93
.. <irgi#io %. 'gabon ! 56, .31.93

and, in #ieu o1 reinstatement to &a6 t,em t,eir se&aration &a6 o1 one 819
mont, 1or ever6 6ear o1 servi*e 1rom date o1 ,iring u& to November .9,
1999.

Res&ondent is 1urt,er ordered to &a6 t,e *om&#ainants t,eir
,o#ida6 &a6 and servi*e in*entive #eave &a6 1or t,e 6ears 1996, 199- and
1998 as 2e## as t,eir &remium &a6 1or ,o#ida6s and rest da6s and <irgi#io
'gabonAs 13
t,
mont, &a6 di11erentia# amounting to +>@ +:@B"'ND
@N? :BNDR?D =;=+ 8P.,15/.//9 Pesos, or t,e aggregate amount o1
@N? :BNDR?D +>?N+ @N? +:@B"'ND ";C :BNDR?D
"?<?N+ ?;G:+ D 93E1// 8P1.1,6-8.939 Pesos 1or Jenn6 'gabon,
and @N? :BNDR?D +>?N+ +:R?? +:@B"'ND ?;G:+
:BNDR?D +>?N+ ?;G:+ D 93E1// 8P1.3,8.8.939 Pesos 1or
<irgi#io 'gabon, as &er atta*,ed *om&utation o1 Ju#ieta %. Ni*o#as, @;%,
Resear*, and %om&utation Bnit, N%R.

"@ @RD?R?D.
405



@n a&&ea#, t,e N7R% reversed t,e 7abor 'rbiter be*ause it 1ound t,at t,e
&etitioners ,ad abandoned t,eir 2or3, and 2ere not entit#ed to ba*32ages and
se&aration &a6. +,e ot,er mone6 *#aims a2arded b6 t,e 7abor 'rbiter 2ere a#so
denied 1or #a*3 o1 eviden*e.
455

B&on denia# o1 t,eir motion 1or re*onsideration, &etitioners 1i#ed a &etition
1or *ertiorari 2it, t,e %ourt o1 '&&ea#s.

+,e %ourt o1 '&&ea#s in turn ru#ed t,at t,e dismissa# o1 t,e &etitioners 2as
not i##ega# be*ause t,e6 ,ad abandoned t,eir em&#o6ment but ordered t,e &a6ment
o1 mone6 *#aims. +,e dis&ositive &ortion o1 t,e de*ision reads:

>:?R?=@R?, t,e de*ision o1 t,e Nationa# 7abor Re#ations
%ommission is R?<?R"?D on#6 inso1ar as it dismissed &etitionerAs
mone6 *#aims. Private res&ondents are ordered to &a6 &etitioners
,o#ida6 &a6 1or 1our 809 regu#ar ,o#ida6s in 1996, 199-, and 1998, as
2e## as t,eir servi*e in*entive #eave &a6 1or said 6ears, and to &a6 t,e
ba#an*e o1 &etitioner <irgi#io 'gabonAs 13
t,
mont, &a6 1or 1998 in t,e
amount o1 P.,15/.//.

"@ @RD?R?D.
465

:en*e, t,is &etition 1or revie2 on t,e so#e issue o1 2,et,er &etitioners 2ere
i##ega##6 dismissed.
4-5

Petitioners assert t,at t,e6 2ere dismissed be*ause t,e &rivate res&ondent
re1used to give t,em assignments un#ess t,e6 agreed to 2or3 on a pakyaw basis
2,en t,e6 re&orted 1or dut6 on =ebruar6 .3, 1999. +,e6 did not agree on t,is
arrangement be*ause it 2ou#d mean #osing bene1its as "o*ia# "e*urit6 "6stem
8"""9 members. Petitioners a#so *#aim t,at &rivate res&ondent did not *om&#6 2it,
t,e t2in reFuirements o1 noti*e and ,earing.
485


Private res&ondent, on t,e ot,er ,and, maintained t,at &etitioners 2ere not
dismissed but ,ad abandoned t,eir 2or3.
495
;n 1a*t, &rivate res&ondent sent t2o
#etters to t,e #ast 3no2n addresses o1 t,e &etitioners advising t,em to re&ort 1or
2or3. Private res&ondentAs manager even ta#3ed to &etitioner <irgi#io 'gabon b6
te#e&,one sometime in June 1999 to te## ,im about t,e ne2 assignment at Pa*i1i*
P#a$a +o2ers invo#ving 0/,/// sFuare meters o1 *orni*e insta##ation 2or3.
:o2ever, &etitioners did not re&ort 1or 2or3 be*ause t,e6 ,ad sub*ontra*ted to
&er1orm insta##ation 2or3 1or anot,er *om&an6. Petitioners a#so demanded 1or an
in*rease in t,eir 2age to P.8/.// &er da6. >,en t,is 2as not granted, &etitioners
sto&&ed re&orting 1or 2or3 and 1i#ed t,e i##ega# dismissa# *ase.
41/5


;t is 2e##!sett#ed t,at 1indings o1 1a*t o1 Fuasi!)udi*ia# agen*ies #i3e t,e
N7R% are a**orded not on#6 res&e*t but even 1ina#it6 i1 t,e 1indings are su&&orted
b6 substantia# eviden*e. +,is is es&e*ia##6 so 2,en su*, 1indings 2ere a11irmed b6
t,e %ourt o1 '&&ea#s.
4115
:o2ever, i1 t,e 1a*tua# 1indings o1 t,e N7R% and t,e
7abor 'rbiter are *on1#i*ting, as in t,is *ase, t,e revie2ing *ourt ma6 de#ve into
t,e re*ords and eGamine 1or itse#1 t,e Fuestioned 1indings.
41.5

'**ording#6, t,e %ourt o1 '&&ea#s, a1ter a *are1u# revie2 o1 t,e 1a*ts, ru#ed
t,at &etitionersA dismissa# 2as 1or a )ust *ause. +,e6 ,ad abandoned t,eir
em&#o6ment and 2ere a#read6 2or3ing 1or anot,er em&#o6er.

+o dismiss an em&#o6ee, t,e #a2 reFuires not on#6 t,e eGisten*e o1 a )ust and
va#id *ause but a#so en)oins t,e em&#o6er to give t,e em&#o6ee t,e o&&ortunit6 to
be ,eard and to de1end ,imse#1.
4135
'rti*#e .8. o1 t,e 7abor %ode enumerates t,e
)ust *auses 1or termination b6 t,e em&#o6er: 8a9 serious mis*ondu*t or 2i##1u#
disobedien*e b6 t,e em&#o6ee o1 t,e #a21u# orders o1 ,is em&#o6er or t,e #atterAs
re&resentative in *onne*tion 2it, t,e em&#o6eeAs 2or3H 8b9 gross and ,abitua#
neg#e*t b6 t,e em&#o6ee o1 ,is dutiesH 8*9 1raud or 2i##1u# brea*, b6 t,e em&#o6ee
o1 t,e trust re&osed in ,im b6 ,is em&#o6er or ,is du#6 aut,ori$ed re&resentativeH
8d9 *ommission o1 a *rime or o11ense b6 t,e em&#o6ee against t,e &erson o1 ,is
em&#o6er or an6 immediate member o1 ,is 1ami#6 or ,is du#6 aut,ori$ed
re&resentativeH and 8e9 ot,er *auses ana#ogous to t,e 1oregoing.

'bandonment is t,e de#iberate and un)usti1ied re1usa# o1 an em&#o6ee to
resume ,is em&#o6ment.
4105
;t is a 1orm o1 neg#e*t o1 dut6, ,en*e, a )ust *ause 1or
termination o1 em&#o6ment b6 t,e em&#o6er.
4155
=or a va#id 1inding o1
abandonment, t,ese t2o 1a*tors s,ou#d be &resent: 819 t,e 1ai#ure to re&ort 1or
2or3 or absen*e 2it,out va#id or )usti1iab#e reasonH and 8.9 a *#ear intention to
sever em&#o6er!em&#o6ee re#ations,i&, 2it, t,e se*ond as t,e more determinative
1a*tor 2,i*, is mani1ested b6 overt a*ts 1rom 2,i*, it ma6 be dedu*ed t,at t,e
em&#o6ees ,as no more intention to 2or3. +,e intent to dis*ontinue t,e
em&#o6ment must be s,o2n b6 *#ear &roo1 t,at it 2as de#iberate and un)usti1ied.
4165

;n =ebruar6 1999, &etitioners 2ere 1reFuent#6 absent ,aving sub*ontra*ted
1or an insta##ation 2or3 1or anot,er *om&an6. "ub*ontra*ting 1or anot,er *om&an6
*#ear#6 s,o2ed t,e intention to sever t,e em&#o6er!em&#o6ee re#ations,i& 2it,
&rivate res&ondent. +,is 2as not t,e 1irst time t,e6 did t,is. ;n Januar6 1996, t,e6
did not re&ort 1or 2or3 be*ause t,e6 2ere 2or3ing 1or anot,er *om&an6. Private
res&ondent at t,at time 2arned &etitioners t,at t,e6 2ou#d be dismissed i1 t,is
,a&&ened again. Petitioners disregarded t,e 2arning and eG,ibited a *#ear
intention to sever t,eir em&#o6er!em&#o6ee re#ations,i&. +,e re*ord o1 an
em&#o6ee is a re#evant *onsideration in determining t,e &ena#t6 t,at s,ou#d be
meted out to ,im.
41-5

;n Sandoval Shipyard v. Clave,
4185
2e ,e#d t,at an em&#o6ee 2,o de#iberate#6
absented 1rom 2or3 2it,out #eave or &ermission 1rom ,is em&#o6er, 1or t,e
&ur&ose o1 #oo3ing 1or a )ob e#se2,ere, is *onsidered to ,ave abandoned ,is )ob.
>e s,ou#d a&&#6 t,at ru#e 2it, more reason ,ere 2,ere &etitioners 2ere absent
be*ause t,e6 2ere a#read6 2or3ing in anot,er *om&an6.

+,e #a2 im&oses man6 ob#igations on t,e em&#o6er su*, as &roviding )ust
*om&ensation to 2or3ers, observan*e o1 t,e &ro*edura# reFuirements o1 noti*e and
,earing in t,e termination o1 em&#o6ment. @n t,e ot,er ,and, t,e #a2 a#so
re*ogni$es t,e rig,t o1 t,e em&#o6er to eG&e*t 1rom its 2or3ers not on#6 good
&er1orman*e, adeFuate 2or3 and di#igen*e, but a#so good *ondu*t
4195
and #o6a#t6.
+,e em&#o6er ma6 not be *om&e##ed to *ontinue to em&#o6 su*, &ersons 2,ose
*ontinuan*e in t,e servi*e 2i## &atent#6 be inimi*a# to ,is interests.
4./5

'1ter estab#is,ing t,at t,e terminations 2ere 1or a )ust and va#id *ause, 2e
no2 determine i1 t,e &ro*edures 1or dismissa# 2ere observed.

+,e &ro*edure 1or terminating an em&#o6ee is 1ound in Ioo3 <;, Ru#e ;,
"e*tion .8d9 o1 t,e Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code:

Standards o due pro!ess" re#uirements o noti!e. J ;n a## *ases o1
termination o1 em&#o6ment, t,e 1o##o2ing standards o1 due &ro*ess s,a##
be substantia##6 observed:

;. =or termination o1 em&#o6ment based on )ust *auses as
de1ined in 'rti*#e .8. o1 t,e %ode:

8a9 ' 2ritten noti*e served on t,e em&#o6ee s&e*i16ing t,e
ground or grounds 1or termination, and giving to said em&#o6ee
reasonab#e o&&ortunit6 2it,in 2,i*, to eG&#ain ,is sideH

8b9 ' ,earing or *on1eren*e during 2,i*, t,e em&#o6ee
*on*erned, 2it, t,e assistan*e o1 *ounse# i1 t,e em&#o6ee so desires, is
given o&&ortunit6 to res&ond to t,e *,arge, &resent ,is eviden*e or rebut
t,e eviden*e &resented against ,imH and

8*9 ' 2ritten noti*e o1 termination served on t,e em&#o6ee
indi*ating t,at u&on due *onsideration o1 a## t,e *ir*umstan*es, grounds
,ave been estab#is,ed to )usti16 ,is termination.

;n *ase o1 termination, t,e 1oregoing noti*es s,a## be served on
t,e em&#o6eeAs #ast 3no2n address.

Dismissa#s based on )ust *auses *ontem&#ate a*ts or omissions attributab#e to
t,e em&#o6ee 2,i#e dismissa#s based on aut,ori$ed *auses invo#ve grounds under
t,e 7abor %ode 2,i*, a##o2 t,e em&#o6er to terminate em&#o6ees. ' termination
1or an aut,ori$ed *ause reFuires &a6ment o1 se&aration &a6. >,en t,e termination
o1 em&#o6ment is de*#ared i##ega#, reinstatement and 1u## ba*32ages are mandated
under 'rti*#e .-9. ;1 reinstatement is no #onger &ossib#e 2,ere t,e dismissa# 2as
un)ust, se&aration &a6 ma6 be granted.

Pro*edura##6, 819 i1 t,e dismissa# is based on a )ust *ause under 'rti*#e .8.,
t,e em&#o6er must give t,e em&#o6ee t2o 2ritten noti*es and a ,earing or
o&&ortunit6 to be ,eard i1 reFuested b6 t,e em&#o6ee be1ore terminating t,e
em&#o6ment: a noti*e s&e*i16ing t,e grounds 1or 2,i*, dismissa# is soug,t a
,earing or an o&&ortunit6 to be ,eard and a1ter ,earing or o&&ortunit6 to be ,eard,
a noti*e o1 t,e de*ision to dismissH and 8.9 i1 t,e dismissa# is based on aut,ori$ed
*auses under 'rti*#es .83 and .80, t,e em&#o6er must give t,e em&#o6ee and t,e
De&artment o1 7abor and ?m&#o6ment 2ritten noti*es 3/ da6s &rior to t,e
e11e*tivit6 o1 ,is se&aration.

=rom t,e 1oregoing ru#es 1our &ossib#e situations ma6 be derived: 819 t,e
dismissa# is 1or a )ust *ause under 'rti*#e .8. o1 t,e 7abor %ode, 1or an aut,ori$ed
*ause under 'rti*#e .83, or 1or ,ea#t, reasons under 'rti*#e .80, and due &ro*ess
2as observedH 8.9 t,e dismissa# is 2it,out )ust or aut,ori$ed *ause but due &ro*ess
2as observedH 839 t,e dismissa# is 2it,out )ust or aut,ori$ed *ause and t,ere 2as
no due &ro*essH and 809 t,e dismissa# is 1or )ust or aut,ori$ed *ause but due &ro*ess
2as not observed.

;n t,e 1irst situation, t,e dismissa# is undoubted#6 va#id and t,e em&#o6er
2i## not su11er an6 #iabi#it6.

;n t,e se*ond and t,ird situations 2,ere t,e dismissa#s are i##ega#, 'rti*#e
.-9 mandates t,at t,e em&#o6ee is entit#ed to reinstatement 2it,out #oss o1
seniorit6 rig,ts and ot,er &rivi#eges and 1u## ba*32ages, in*#usive o1 a##o2an*es,
and ot,er bene1its or t,eir monetar6 eFuiva#ent *om&uted 1rom t,e time t,e
*om&ensation 2as not &aid u& to t,e time o1 a*tua# reinstatement.

;n t,e 1ourt, situation, t,e dismissa# s,ou#d be u&,e#d. >,i#e t,e &ro*edura#
in1irmit6 *annot be *ured, it s,ou#d not inva#idate t,e dismissa#. :o2ever, t,e
em&#o6er s,ou#d be ,e#d liable or non$!omplian!e with the pro!edural
re#uirements o due pro!ess.

+,e &resent *ase sFuare#6 1a##s under t,e 1ourt, situation. +,e dismissa#
s,ou#d be u&,e#d be*ause it 2as estab#is,ed t,at t,e &etitioners abandoned t,eir
)obs to 2or3 1or anot,er *om&an6. Private res&ondent, ,o2ever, did not 1o##o2 t,e
noti*e reFuirements and instead argued t,at sending noti*es to t,e #ast 3no2n
addresses 2ou#d ,ave been use#ess be*ause t,e6 did not reside t,ere an6more.
Bn1ortunate#6 1or t,e &rivate res&ondent, t,is is not a va#id eG*use be*ause t,e #a2
mandates t,e t2in noti*e reFuirements to t,e em&#o6eeAs #ast 3no2n address.
4.15

+,us, it s,ou#d be ,e#d liable or non$!omplian!e with the pro!edural re#uirements
o due pro!ess.

' revie2 and re!eGamination o1 t,e re#evant #ega# &rin*i&#es is a&&ro&riate
and time#6 to *#ari16 t,e various ru#ings on em&#o6ment termination in t,e #ig,t
o1 Serrano v. %ational Labor Relations Commission.
4..5

Prior to 1989, t,e ru#e 2as t,at a dismissa# or termination is i##ega# i1 t,e
em&#o6ee 2as not given an6 noti*e. ;n t,e 1989 *ase o1 &enphil Corp. v. %ational
Labor Relations Commission,
4.35
2e reversed t,is #ong!standing ru#e and ,e#d t,at
t,e dismissed em&#o6ee, a#t,oug, not given an6 noti*e and ,earing, 2as not
entit#ed to reinstatement and ba*32ages be*ause t,e dismissa# 2as 1or grave
mis*ondu*t and insubordination, a )ust ground 1or termination under 'rti*#e .8..
+,e em&#o6ee ,ad a vio#ent tem&er and *aused troub#e during o11i*e ,ours, de16ing
su&eriors 2,o tried to &a*i16 ,im. >e *on*#uded t,at reinstating t,e em&#o6ee and
a2arding ba*32ages Kma6 en*ourage ,im to do even 2orse and 2i## render a
mo*3er6 o1 t,e ru#es o1 dis*i&#ine t,at em&#o6ees are reFuired to observe.L
4.05
>e
1urt,er ,e#d t,at:

Bnder t,e *ir*umstan*es, t,e dismissa# o1 t,e &rivate res&ondent
1or )ust *ause s,ou#d be maintained. :e ,as no rig,t to return to ,is
1ormer em&#o6ment.

:o2ever, t,e &etitioner must nevert,e#ess be ,e#d to a**ount 1or
1ai#ure to eGtend to &rivate res&ondent ,is rig,t to an investigation be1ore
*ausing ,is dismissa#. +,e ru#e is eG&#i*it as above dis*ussed. +,e
dismissa# o1 an em&#o6ee must be or 'ust or authori(ed !ause and ater
due pro!ess. Petitioner *ommitted an in1ra*tion o1 t,e se*ond
reFuirement. +,us, it must be im&osed a san*tion 1or its 1ai#ure to give a
1orma# noti*e and *ondu*t an investigation as reFuired b6 #a2 be1ore
dismissing &etitioner 1rom em&#o6ment. %onsidering t,e *ir*umstan*es
o1 t,is *ase &etitioner must indemni16 t,e &rivate res&ondent t,e amount
o1 P1,///.//. +,e measure o1 t,is a2ard de&ends on t,e 1a*ts o1 ea*,
*ase and t,e gravit6 o1 t,e omission *ommitted b6 t,e em&#o6er.
4.55

+,e ru#e t,us evo#ved: 2,ere t,e em&#o6er ,ad a va#id reason to dismiss an
em&#o6ee but did not 1o##o2 t,e due &ro*ess reFuirement, t,e dismissa# ma6 be
u&,e#d but t,e em&#o6er 2i## be &ena#i$ed to &a6 an indemnit6 to t,e em&#o6ee.
+,is be*ame 3no2n as t,e &enphil or Ie#ated Due Pro*ess Ru#e.

@n Januar6 .-, .///, in Serrano, t,e ru#e on t,e eGtent o1 t,e san*tion 2as
*,anged. >e ,e#d t,at t,e vio#ation b6 t,e em&#o6er o1 t,e noti*e reFuirement in
termination 1or )ust or aut,ori$ed *auses 2as not a denia# o1 due &ro*ess t,at 2i##
nu##i16 t,e termination. :o2ever, t,e dismissa# is ine11e*tua# and t,e em&#o6er
must &a6 1u## ba*32ages 1rom t,e time o1 termination unti# it is )udi*ia##6 de*#ared
t,at t,e dismissa# 2as 1or a )ust or aut,ori$ed *ause.

+,e rationa#e 1or t,e re!eGamination o1 t,e &enphil do*trine in Serrano 2as
t,e signi1i*ant number o1 *ases invo#ving dismissa#s 2it,out reFuisite noti*es. >e
*on*#uded t,at t,e im&osition o1 &ena#t6 b6 2a6 o1 damages 1or vio#ation o1 t,e
noti*e reFuirement 2as not serving as a deterrent. :en*e, 2e no2 reFuired
&a6ment o1 1u## ba*32ages 1rom t,e time o1 dismissa# unti# t,e time t,e %ourt 1inds
t,e dismissa# 2as 1or a )ust or aut,ori$ed *ause.

Serrano 2as *on1ronting t,e &ra*ti*e o1 em&#o6ers to Kdismiss no2 and &a6
#aterL b6 im&osing 1u## ba*32ages.

>e be#ieve, ,o2ever, t,at t,e ru#ing in Serrano did not *onsider t,e 1u##
meaning o1 'rti*#e .-9 o1 t,e 7abor %ode 2,i*, states:

'R+. .-9. "e*urit6 o1 +enure. J ;n *ases o1 regu#ar em&#o6ment,
t,e em&#o6er s,a## not terminate t,e servi*es o1 an em&#o6ee eG*e&t 1or a
)ust *ause or 2,en aut,ori$ed b6 t,is +it#e. 'n em&#o6ee 2,o is un)ust#6
dismissed 1rom 2or3 s,a## be entit#ed to reinstatement 2it,out #oss o1
seniorit6 rig,ts and ot,er &rivi#eges and to ,is 1u## ba*32ages, in*#usive
o1 a##o2an*es, and to ,is ot,er bene1its or t,eir monetar6 eFuiva#ent
*om&uted 1rom t,e time ,is *om&ensation 2as 2it,,e#d 1rom ,im u& to
t,e time o1 ,is a*tua# reinstatement.


+,is means t,at t,e termination is i##ega# on#6 i1 it is not 1or an6 o1 t,e
)usti1ied or aut,ori$ed *auses &rovided b6 #a2. Pa6ment o1 ba*32ages and ot,er
bene1its, in*#uding reinstatement, is )usti1ied on#6 i1 t,e em&#o6ee 2as un)ust#6
dismissed.

+,e 1a*t t,at t,e Serrano ru#ing *an *ause un1airness and in)usti*e 2,i*,
e#i*ited strong dissent ,as &rom&ted us to revisit t,e do*trine.

+o be sure, t,e Due Pro*ess %#ause in 'rti*#e ;;;, "e*tion 1 o1 t,e
%onstitution embodies a s6stem o1 rig,ts based on mora# &rin*i&#es so dee&#6
imbedded in t,e traditions and 1ee#ings o1 our &eo&#e as to be deemed 1undamenta#
to a *ivi#i$ed so*iet6 as *on*eived b6 our entire ,istor6. Due &ro*ess is t,at 2,i*,
*om&orts 2it, t,e dee&est notions o1 2,at is 1air and rig,t and )ust.
4.65
;t is a
*onstitutiona# restraint on t,e #egis#ative as 2e## as on t,e eGe*utive and )udi*ia#
&o2ers o1 t,e government &rovided b6 t,e Ii## o1 Rig,ts.

Due &ro*ess under t,e 7abor %ode, #i3e Constitutional due pro!ess) ,as t2o
as&e*ts: substantive, i.e., t,e va#id and aut,ori$ed *auses o1 em&#o6ment
termination under t,e 7abor %odeH and &ro*edura#, i.e., t,e manner o1 dismissa#.
Pro*edura# due &ro*ess reFuirements 1or dismissa# are 1ound in t,e ;m&#ementing
Ru#es o1 P.D. 00., as amended, ot,er2ise 3no2n as t,e 7abor %ode o1 t,e
P,i#i&&ines in Ioo3 <;, Ru#e ;, "e*. ., as amended b6 De&artment @rder Nos. 9
and 1/.
4.-5
Irea*,es o1 t,ese due pro!ess reFuirements vio#ate t,e 7abor %ode.
+,ere1ore statutory due pro!ess s,ou#d be di11erentiated 1rom 1ai#ure to *om&#6
2it,!onstitutional due pro!ess.

Constitutional due pro!ess &rote*ts t,e individua# 1rom t,e government and
assures ,im o1 ,is rig,ts in *rimina#, *ivi# or administrative &ro*eedingsH
2,i#e statutory due pro!ess 1ound in t,e 7abor %ode and ;m&#ementing Ru#es
&rote*ts em&#o6ees 1rom being un)ust#6 terminated 2it,out )ust *ause a1ter noti*e
and ,earing.

;n Sebuguero v. %ational Labor Relations Commission,
4.85
t,e dismissa# 2as
1or a )ust and va#id *ause but t,e em&#o6ee 2as not a**orded due &ro*ess. +,e
dismissa# 2as u&,e#d b6 t,e %ourt but t,e em&#o6er 2as san*tioned. +,e san*tion
s,ou#d be in t,e nature o1 indemni1i*ation or &ena#t6, and de&ends on t,e 1a*ts o1
ea*, *ase and t,e gravit6 o1 t,e omission *ommitted b6 t,e em&#o6er.

;n %ath v. %ational Labor Relations Commission,
4.95
it 2as ru#ed t,at even i1
t,e em&#o6ee 2as not given due &ro*ess, t,e 1ai#ure did not o&erate to eradi*ate t,e
)ust *auses 1or dismissa#. +,e dismissa# being 1or )ust *ause, albeit 2it,out due
&ro*ess, did not entit#e t,e em&#o6ee to reinstatement, ba*32ages, damages and
attorne6As 1ees.

(r. Justi*e Jose %. <itug, in ,is se&arate o&inion in *++ *arine Servi!es)
In!. v. %ational Labor Relations Commission,
43/5
2,i*, o&inion ,e reiterated
in Serrano, stated:

%. >,ere t,ere is )ust *ause 1or dismissa# but due &ro*ess ,as not been
&ro&er#6 observed b6 an em&#o6er, it 2ou#d not be rig,t to order eit,er t,e
reinstatement o1 t,e dismissed em&#o6ee or t,e &a6ment o1 ba*32ages to ,im. ;n
1ai#ing, ,o2ever, to *om&#6 2it, t,e &ro*edure &res*ribed b6 #a2 in terminating
t,e servi*es o1 t,e em&#o6ee, t,e em&#o6er must be deemed to ,ave o&ted or, in
an6 *ase, s,ou#d be made #iab#e, 1or t,e &a6ment o1 se&aration &a6. ;t mig,t be
&ointed out t,at t,e noti*e to be given and t,e ,earing to be *ondu*ted genera##6
*onstitute t,e t2o!&art due &ro*ess reFuirement o1 #a2 to be a**orded to t,e
em&#o6ee b6 t,e em&#o6er. Nevert,e#ess, &e*u#iar *ir*umstan*es mig,t obtain in
*ertain situations 2,ere to underta3e t,e above ste&s 2ou#d be no more t,an a
use#ess 1orma#it6 and 2,ere, a**ording#6, it 2ou#d not be im&rudent to a&&#6
t,e res ipsa lo#uitur ru#e and a2ard, in #ieu o1 se&aration &a6, nomina# damages to
t,e em&#o6ee. G G G.
4315

'1ter *are1u##6 ana#6$ing t,e *onseFuen*es o1 t,e divergent do*trines in t,e
#a2 on em&#o6ment termination, 2e be#ieve t,at in *ases invo#ving dismissa#s 1or
*ause but 2it,out observan*e o1 t,e t2in reFuirements o1 noti*e and ,earing, t,e
better ru#e is to abandon t,e Serrano do*trine and to 1o##o2 &enphil b6 ,o#ding
t,at t,e dismissa# 2as 1or )ust *ause but im&osing san*tions on t,e em&#o6er. "u*,
san*tions, ,o2ever, must be sti11er t,an t,at im&osed in &enphil. I6 doing so, t,is
%ourt 2ou#d be ab#e to a*,ieve a 1air resu#t b6 dis&ensing )usti*e not )ust to
em&#o6ees, but to em&#o6ers as 2e##.

+,e un1airness o1 de*#aring i##ega# or ine11e*tua# dismissa#s 1or va#id or
aut,ori$ed *auses but not *om&#6ing 2it, statutor6 due &ro*ess ma6 ,ave 1ar!
rea*,ing *onseFuen*es.

+,is 2ou#d en*ourage 1rivo#ous suits, 2,ere even t,e most notorious
vio#ators o1 *om&an6 &o#i*6 are re2arded b6 invo3ing due &ro*ess. +,is a#so
*reates absurd situations 2,ere t,ere is a )ust or aut,ori$ed *ause 1or dismissa# but
a &ro*edura# in1irmit6 inva#idates t,e termination. 7et us ta3e 1or eGam&#e a *ase
2,ere t,e em&#o6ee is *aug,t stea#ing or t,reatens t,e #ives o1 ,is *o!em&#o6ees or
,as be*ome a *rimina#, 2,o ,as 1#ed and *annot be 1ound, or 2,ere serious
business #osses demand t,at o&erations be *eased in #ess t,an a mont,.
;nva#idating t,e dismissa# 2ou#d not serve &ub#i* interest. ;t *ou#d a#so dis*ourage
investments t,at *an generate em&#o6ment in t,e #o*a# e*onom6.

+,e *onstitutiona# &o#i*6 to &rovide 1u## &rote*tion to #abor is not meant to
be a s2ord to o&&ress em&#o6ers. +,e *ommitment o1 t,is %ourt to t,e *ause o1
#abor does not &revent us 1rom sustaining t,e em&#o6er 2,en it is in t,e rig,t, as in
t,is *ase.
43.5
%ertain#6, an em&#o6er s,ou#d not be *om&e##ed to &a6 em&#o6ees 1or
2or3 not a*tua##6 &er1ormed and in 1a*t abandoned.

+,e em&#o6er s,ou#d not be *om&e##ed to *ontinue em&#o6ing a &erson 2,o
is admitted#6 gui#t6 o1 mis1easan*e or ma#1easan*e and 2,ose *ontinued
em&#o6ment is &atent#6 inimi*a# to t,e em&#o6er. +,e #a2 &rote*ting t,e rig,ts o1
t,e #aborer aut,ori$es neit,er o&&ression nor se#1!destru*tion o1 t,e em&#o6er.
4335

;t must be stressed t,at in t,e &resent *ase, t,e &etitioners *ommitted a grave
o11ense, i.e., abandonment, 2,i*,, i1 t,e reFuirements o1 due &ro*ess 2ere
*om&#ied 2it,, 2ou#d undoubted#6 resu#t in a va#id dismissa#.

'n em&#o6ee 2,o is *#ear#6 gui#t6 o1 *ondu*t vio#ative o1 'rti*#e .8.
s,ou#d not be &rote*ted b6 t,e "o*ia# Justi*e %#ause o1 t,e %onstitution. "o*ia#
)usti*e, as t,e term suggests, s,ou#d be used on#6 to *orre*t an in)usti*e. 's t,e
eminent Justi*e Jose P. 7aure# observed, so*ia# )usti*e must be 1ounded on
t,e rec!n"#"n $ #%e nece&&"#' $ "n#erde(endence a)n! d"*er&e +n"#& $ a
&c"e#' and $ #%e (r#ec#"n #%a# &%+,d -e e.+a,,' and e*en,' ex#ended # a,,
!r+(& a& a c)-"ned $rce "n +r &c"a, and ecn)"c ,"$e, *onsistent 2it, t,e
1undamenta# and &aramount ob)e*tive o1 t,e state o1 &romoting t,e ,ea#t,, *om1ort,
and Fuiet o1 a## &ersons, and o1 bringing about Kt,e greatest good to t,e greatest
number.L
4305

T%"& "& n# # &a' #%a# #%e C+r# /a& /rn! /%en "# r+,ed #%e /a' "# d"d
"n Wenphil, Serrano and re,a#ed ca&e&. Sc"a, 0+&#"ce "& n# -a&ed n r"!"d
$r)+,a& &e# "n &#ne. I# %a& # a,,/ $r c%an!"n! #")e& and c"rc+)&#ance&.

Justi*e ;sagani %ru$ strong#6 asserts t,e need to a&&#6 a ba#an*ed a&&roa*,
to #abor!management re#ations and dis&ense )usti*e 2it, an even ,and in ever6
*ase:

>e ,ave re&eated#6 stressed t,at so*ia# )usti*e J or an6 )usti*e 1or
t,at matter J is 1or t,e deserving, 2,et,er ,e be a mi##ionaire in ,is
mansion or a &au&er in ,is ,ove#. ;t is true t,at, in *ase o1 reasonab#e
doubt, 2e are to ti#t t,e ba#an*e in 1avor o1 t,e &oor to 2,om t,e
%onstitution 1itting#6 eGtends its s6m&at,6 and *om&assion. Iut never is
it )usti1ied to give &re1eren*e to t,e &oor sim&#6 be*ause t,e6 are &oor,
or re)e*t t,e ri*, sim&#6 be*ause t,e6 are ri*,, 1or )usti*e must a#2a6s be
served 1or t,e &oor and t,e ri*, a#i3e, a**ording to t,e mandate o1 t,e
#a2.
4355

Justi*e in ever6 *ase s,ou#d on#6 be 1or t,e deserving &art6. ;t s,ou#d not be
&resumed t,at ever6 *ase o1 i##ega# dismissa# 2ou#d automati*a##6 be de*ided in
1avor o1 #abor, as management ,as rig,ts t,at s,ou#d be 1u##6 res&e*ted and
en1or*ed b6 t,is %ourt. 's interde&endent and indis&ensab#e &artners in nation!
bui#ding, #abor and management need ea*, ot,er to 1oster &rodu*tivit6 and
e*onomi* gro2t,H ,en*e, t,e need to 2eig, and ba#an*e t,e rig,ts and 2e#1are o1
bot, t,e em&#o6ee and em&#o6er.

>,ere t,e dismissa# is 1or a )ust *ause, as in t,e instant *ase, t,e #a*3 o1
statutor6 due &ro*ess s,ou#d not nu##i16 t,e dismissa#, or render it i##ega#, or
ine11e*tua#. :o2ever, t,e em&#o6er s,ou#d indemni16 t,e em&#o6ee 1or t,e
vio#ation o1 ,is statutor6 rig,ts, as ru#ed in Reta v. %ational Labor Relations
Commission.
4365
+,e indemnit6 to be im&osed s,ou#d be sti11er to dis*ourage t,e
ab,orrent &ra*ti*e o1 Kdismiss no2, &a6 #ater,L 2,i*, 2e soug,t to deter in
t,e Serrano ru#ing. +,e san*tion s,ou#d be in t,e nature o1 indemni1i*ation or
&ena#t6 and s,ou#d de&end on t,e 1a*ts o1 ea*, *ase, ta3ing into s&e*ia#
*onsideration t,e gravit6 o1 t,e due &ro*ess vio#ation o1 t,e em&#o6er.

Bnder t,e %ivi# %ode, nomina# damages is ad)udi*ated in order t,at a rig,t
o1 t,e &#ainti11, 2,i*, ,as been vio#ated or invaded b6 t,e de1endant, ma6 be
vindi*ated or re*ogni$ed, and not 1or t,e &ur&ose o1 indemni16ing t,e &#ainti11 1or
an6 #oss su11ered b6 ,im.
43-5

's enun*iated b6 t,is %ourt in ,iernes v. %ational Labor Relations
Commissions,
4385
an em&#o6er is #iab#e to &a6 indemnit6 in t,e 1orm o1 nomina#
damages to an em&#o6ee 2,o ,as been dismissed i1, in e11e*ting su*, dismissa#,
t,e em&#o6er 1ai#s to *om&#6 2it, t,e reFuirements o1 due &ro*ess. +,e %ourt,
a1ter *onsidering t,e *ir*umstan*es t,erein, 1iGed t,e indemnit6 at P.,59/.5/,
2,i*, 2as eFuiva#ent to t,e em&#o6eeAs one mont, sa#ar6. +,is indemnit6 is
intended not to &ena#i$e t,e em&#o6er but to vindi*ate or re*ogni$e t,e em&#o6eeAs
rig,t to statutor6 due &ro*ess 2,i*, 2as vio#ated b6 t,e em&#o6er.
4395

+,e vio#ation o1 t,e &etitionersA rig,t to statutor6 due &ro*ess b6 t,e &rivate
res&ondent 2arrants t,e &a6ment o1 indemnit6 in t,e 1orm o1 nomina# damages.
+,e amount o1 su*, damages is addressed to t,e sound dis*retion o1 t,e *ourt,
ta3ing into a**ount t,e re#evant *ir*umstan*es.
40/5
Cn&"der"n! #%e (re*a","n!
c"rc+)&#ance& "n #%e ca&e a# -ar, /e dee) "# (r(er # $"x "# a# P12,222.22. >e
be#ieve t,is 1orm o1 damages 2ou#d serve to deter em&#o6ers 1rom 1uture
vio#ations o1 t,e statutor6 due &ro*ess rig,ts o1 em&#o6ees. 't t,e ver6 #east, it
&rovides a vindi*ation or re*ognition o1 t,is 1undamenta# rig,t granted to t,e #atter
under t,e 7abor %ode and its ;m&#ementing Ru#es.

Private res&ondent *#aims t,at t,e %ourt o1 '&&ea#s erred in ,o#ding t,at it
1ai#ed to &a6 &etitionersA ,o#ida6 &a6, servi*e in*entive #eave &a6 and 13
t,
mont,
&a6.

>e are not &ersuaded.

>e a11irm t,e ru#ing o1 t,e a&&e##ate *ourt on &etitionersA mone6 *#aims.
Private res&ondent is #iab#e 1or &etitionersA ,o#ida6 &a6, servi*e in*entive #eave &a6
and 13
t,
mont, &a6 2it,out dedu*tions.

's a genera# ru#e, one 2,o &#eads &a6ment ,as t,e burden o1 &roving it.
?ven 2,ere t,e em&#o6ee must a##ege non!&a6ment, t,e genera# ru#e is t,at t,e
burden rests on t,e em&#o6er to &rove &a6ment, rat,er t,an on t,e em&#o6ee to
&rove non!&a6ment. +,e reason 1or t,e ru#e is t,at t,e &ertinent &ersonne# 1i#es,
&a6ro##s, re*ords, remittan*es and ot,er simi#ar do*uments J 2,i*, 2i## s,o2 t,at
overtime, di11erentia#s, servi*e in*entive #eave and ot,er *#aims o1 2or3ers ,ave
been &aid J are not in t,e &ossession o1 t,e 2or3er but in t,e *ustod6 and abso#ute
*ontro# o1 t,e em&#o6er.
4015


;n t,e *ase at bar, i1 &rivate res&ondent indeed &aid &etitionersA ,o#ida6 &a6
and servi*e in*entive #eave &a6, it *ou#d ,ave easi#6 &resented do*umentar6 &roo1s
o1 su*, monetar6 bene1its to dis&rove t,e *#aims o1 t,e &etitioners. Iut it did not,
eG*e&t 2it, res&e*t to t,e 13
t,
mont, &a6 2,erein it &resented *as, vou*,ers
s,o2ing &a6ments o1 t,e bene1it in t,e 6ears dis&uted.
40.5
'##egations b6 &rivate
res&ondent t,at it does not o&erate during ,o#ida6s and t,at it a##o2s its em&#o6ees
1/ da6s #eave 2it, &a6, ot,er t,an being se#1!serving, do not *onstitute &roo1 o1
&a6ment. %onseFuent#6, it 1ai#ed to dis*,arge t,e onus probandi t,ereb6 ma3ing it
#iab#e 1or su*, *#aims to t,e &etitioners.

'nent t,e dedu*tion o1 """ #oan and t,e va#ue o1 t,e s,oes 1rom &etitioner
<irgi#io 'gabonAs 13
t,
mont, &a6, 2e 1ind t,e same to be unaut,ori$ed. +,e
evident intention o1 Presidentia# De*ree No. 851 is to grant an additional in!ome in
t,e 1orm o1 t,e 13
t,
mont, &a6 to em&#o6ees not a#read6 re*eiving t,e same
4035
so as
Kto urther prote!t the level o real wages rom the ravages o world$wide
inlation.L
4005
%#ear#6, as additiona# in*ome, t,e 13
t,
mont, &a6 is in*#uded in t,e
de1inition o1 2age under 'rti*#e 9-819 o1 t,e 7abor %ode, to 2it:

819 K>ageL &aid to an6 em&#o6ee s,a## mean t,e remuneration or
earnings, ,o2ever designated, *a&ab#e o1 being eG&ressed in terms o1 mone6
2,et,er 1iGed or as*ertained on a time, tas3, &ie*e , or *ommission basis, or ot,er
met,od o1 *a#*u#ating t,e same, 2,i*, is &a6ab#e b6 an em&#o6er to an em&#o6ee
under a 2ritten or un2ritten *ontra*t o1 em&#o6ment 1or 2or3 done or to be done,
or 1or servi*es rendered or to be rendered and in*#udes t,e 1air and reasonab#e
va#ue, as determined b6 t,e "e*retar6 o1 7abor, o1 board, #odging, or ot,er
1a*i#ities *ustomari#6 1urnis,ed b6 t,e em&#o6er to t,e em&#o6eeML

1rom 2,i*, an em&#o6er is &ro,ibited under 'rti*#e 113
4055
o1 t,e same %ode 1rom
ma3ing an6 dedu*tions 2it,out t,e em&#o6eeAs 3no2#edge and *onsent. ;n t,e
instant *ase, &rivate res&ondent 1ai#ed to s,o2 t,at t,e dedu*tion o1 t,e """ #oan
and t,e va#ue o1 t,e s,oes 1rom &etitioner <irgi#io 'gabonAs 13
t,
mont, &a6 2as
aut,ori$ed b6 t,e #atter. +,e #a*3 o1 aut,orit6 to dedu*t is 1urt,er bo#stered b6 t,e
1a*t t,at &etitioner <irgi#io 'gabon in*#uded t,e same as one o1 ,is mone6 *#aims
against &rivate res&ondent.

+,e %ourt o1 '&&ea#s &ro&er#6 reinstated t,e monetar6 *#aims a2arded b6
t,e 7abor 'rbiter ordering t,e &rivate res&ondent to &a6 ea*, o1 t,e &etitioners
,o#ida6 &a6 1or 1our regu#ar ,o#ida6s 1rom 1996 to 1998, in t,e amount o1
P6,5././/, servi*e in*entive #eave &a6 1or t,e same &eriod in t,e amount o1
P3,.55.// and t,e ba#an*e o1 <irgi#io 'gabonAs t,irteent, mont, &a6 1or 1998 in
t,e amount o1 P.,15/.//.

3HERE4ORE, in vie2 o1 t,e 1oregoing, t,e &etition is 5ENIE5. +,e
de*ision o1 t,e %ourt o1 '&&ea#s dated Januar6 .3, .//3, in %'!G.R. "P No.
63/1-, 1inding t,at &etitionersA Jenn6 and <irgi#io 'gabon abandoned t,eir 2or3,
and ordering &rivate res&ondent to &a6 ea*, o1 t,e &etitioners ,o#ida6 &a6 1or 1our
regu#ar ,o#ida6s 1rom 1996 to 1998, in t,e amount o1 P6,5././/, servi*e in*entive
#eave &a6 1or t,e same &eriod in t,e amount o1 P3,.55.// and t,e ba#an*e o1
<irgi#io 'gabonAs t,irteent, mont, &a6 1or 1998 in t,e amount o1 P.,15/.//
is A44IRME5 2it, t,e MO5I4ICATION t,at &rivate res&ondent Riviera :ome
;m&rovements, ;n*. is 1urt,er OR5ERE5 to &a6 ea*, o1 t,e &etitioners t,e
amount o1 P3/,///.// as nomina# damages 1or non!*om&#ian*e 2it, statutor6 due
&ro*ess.

No *osts.

SO OR5ERE5
G.R. No. L-22196 June 30, 1967
ESTEBAN MORANO, CHAN SAU WAH n! "U #AN "UN, petitioners-appellants,
vs.
HON. MART$N$ANO %$%O &n '&( )*)&+, ( A)+&n- Co..&((&one/ o0 $..&-/+&on, respondent-
appellant.
Engracio Fabre Law Office for petitioners-appellants.
Office of the Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz and Solicitor A. M. Amores for respondent-appellant.
SANCHE1, J.:
Chan Sau Wah, a Chinese citizen born in Fukien, China on January 6, 19!, arrived in the
"hilippines on #ove$ber !, 1961 to visit her cousin, Sa$uel %ee &alaps. She le't in $ainland
China t(o o' her children by a 'irst $arria)e* Fu +se ,a( and Fu -an .ai With her (as Fu -an Fun,
her $inor son also by the 'irst $arria)e, born in ,on)kon) on Septe$ber 11, 19/0.
Chan Sau Wah and her $inor son Fu -an Fun (ere per$itted only into the "hilippines under a
te$porary visitor1s visa 'or t(o 2!3 $onths and a'ter they posted a cash bond o' "4,555.55.
6n January !4, 196!, Chan Sau Wah $arried 7steban &orano, a native-born Filipino citizen. 8orn
to this union on Septe$ber 16, 196! (as 7steban &orano, Jr.
+o prolon) their stay in the "hilippines, Chan Sau Wah and Fu -an Fun obtained several e9tensions.
+he last e9tension e9pired on Septe$ber 15, 196!.!wph".#$t
:n a letter dated ;u)ust 1, 196!, the Co$$issioner o' :$$i)ration ordered Chan Sau Wah and her
son, Fu -an Fun, to leave the country on or be'ore Septe$ber 15, 196! (ith a (arnin) that upon
'ailure so to do, he (ill issue a (arrant 'or their arrest and (ill cause the con'iscation o' their bond.
:nstead o' leavin) the country, on Septe$ber 15, 196!, Chan Sau Wah 2(ith her husband 7steban
&orano3 and Fu -an Fun petitioned the Court o' First :nstance o' &anila 'or mandamus to co$pel
the Co$$issioner o' :$$i)ration to cancel petitioners1 ;lien Certi'icates o' <e)istration= prohibition
to stop the Co$$issioner 'ro$ issuin) a (arrant 'or their arrest, and preli$inary in>unction to
restrain the Co$$issioner 'ro$ con'iscatin) their cash bond and 'ro$ issuin) (arrants o' arrest
pendin) resolution o' this case.
1
+he trial court, on #ove$ber , 196!, issued the (rit o' preli$inary
in>unction prayed 'or, upon a "!,555-bond. ;'ter trial and the stipulations o' 'acts 'iled by the parties,
the Court o' First :nstance rendered >ud)$ent, %iz*
:# ?:7W 6F ;%% +,7 F6<7@6:#@, >ud)$ent is hereby rendered as 'ollo(s*
2a3 @rantin) this petition 'or Mandamus and "rohibition (ith respect to petitioner C,;# S;A
W;,, (ho is hereby declared a citizen o' the "hilippines= orderin) the respondent to cancel
her ;lien Certi'icate o' <e)istration and other i$$i)ration papers, upon the pay$ent o'
proper dues= and declarin) the preli$inary in>unction (ith respect to her per$anent,
prohibitin) the respondent, his representatives or subordinates 'ro$ arrestin) andBor
deportin) said petitioner=
2b3 Cis$issin) this petition (ith respect to petitioner FA -;# FA#, and dissolvin) the (rit o'
preli$inary in>unction issued herein, restrainin) the respondent, his representatives or
subordinates 'ro$ arrestin) andBor deportin) said petitioner=
2c3 ;uthorizin) respondent Co$$issioner to 'or'eit the bond 'iled by herein petitioners C,;#
S;A W;, and FA -;# FA# in the a$ount o' "4,555.55= and
2d3 Cenyin), 'or lack o' $erit, the prayer to declare Sec. 0 2a3 o' the "hilippine :$$i)ration
;ct o' 1945 unconstitutional=
Without pronounce$ent, as to costs.
"etitioners and respondent Co$$issioner both appealed.
We (ill deal (ith the clai$s o' both appellants in their proper seDuence.
1. +he Solicitor @eneral1s brie' assails the trial court1s declaration that Chan Sau Wah is a citizen o'
the "hilippines. +he court a &uo took the position that EChan Sau Wah beca$e, by virtue o', and
upon, her $arria)e to 7steban &orano, a natural-born Filipino, a Filipino citizen.
!
"laced to the 'ore is para)raph 1, Section 1/ o' Co$$on(ealth ;ct 40 F<evised #aturalization ;ctG,
(hich reads*
Sec. 1/. Effect of the naturalization on wife children. H ;ny (o$an (ho is no( or $ay
herea'ter be $arried to a citizen o' the "hilippines, and (ho $i)ht hersel' be la('ully
naturalized shall be dee$ed a citizen o' the "hilippines.
+o apply this provision, t(o reDuisites $ust concur* 2a3 valid $arria)e o' an alien (o$an to a citizen
o' the "hilippines and 2b3 the alien (o$an hersel' $i)ht be la('ully naturalized.
We $ay concede that the 'irst reDuisite has been properly $et. +he validity o' the $arria)e is
presu$ed.
8ut can the sa$e be said o' the second reDuisiteI +his Duestion by all $eans is not ne(. :n a series
o' cases, this Court has declared that the $arria)e o' an alien (o$an to a Filipino citizen does
not ipso facto $ake her a Filipino citizen. She $ust satis'actorily sho( that she has all the
Duali'ications and none o' the disDuali'ications reDuired by the #aturalization %a(.

L' Gio( )a alias

*' Gio( )a et al. %s. Emilio Galang, %-!1!, &arch 1J, 1966,
K
clearly (rites do(n the philosophy
behind the rule in the 'ollo(in) e9pressive lan)ua)e, %iz*
<e'lection (ill reveal (hy this $ust be so. +he Duali'ications prescribed under section ! o'
the #aturalization ;ct, and the disDuali'ications enu$erated in its section 4, are not $utually
e9clusive= and i' all that (ere to be reDuired is that the (i'e o' a Filipino be not disDuali'ied
under section 4, the result $i)ht (ell be that citizenship (ould be con'erred upon persons in
violation o' the policy o' the statute. For e9a$ple, section 4 disDuali'ies only H
E2c3 "oly)a$ists or believers in the practice o' poly)a$y= and
2b3 "ersons convicted o' cri$es involvin) $oral turpitude,E
so that a black$ailer, or a $aintainer o' )a$blin) or ba(dy houses, not previously convicted
by a co$petent court, (ould not be thereby disDuali'ied= still it is certain that the la( did not
intend such a person to, be ad$itted as a citizen in vie( o' the reDuire$ent o' section ! that
an applicant 'or citizenship E$ust be o' )ood $oral character.E
Si$ilarly, the citizen1s (i'e $i)ht be a convinced believer in racial supre$acy, in )overn$ent
by certain selected classes, in the ri)ht to vote e9clusively by certain Eherrenvolk,E and thus
disbelieve in the principles underlyin) the "hilippine Constitution= yet she (ould not be
disDuali'ied under section 4, as lon) as she is not Eopposed to or)anized )overn$ent,E nor
a''iliated to )roups Eupholdin) or teachin) doctrines opposin) all or)anized )overn$ents,E
nor Ede'endin) or teachin) the necessity or propriety o' violence, personal assault or
assassination 'or the success or predo$inance o' their ideas.E Et sic de caeteris.
Apon the principle o' selective citizenship, (e cannot a''ord to depart 'ro$ the (ise precept a''ir$ed
and rea''ir$ed in the cases hereto'ore noted.
:n the additional stipulation o' 'acts o' July , 196, petitioners ad$it that Chan Sau Wah is not
possessed o' all the Duali'ications reDuired by the #aturalization %a(.
8ecause o' all these (e are le't under no doubt that petitioner Chan Sau Wah did not beco$e a
Filipino citizen.
!. SDuarely put in issue by petitioners is the constitutionality o' Section 0 2a3 o' the :$$i)ration ;ct
o' 1945, (hich reads*
Sec. 0. 2a3 +he 'ollo(in) aliens shall be arrested upon the (arrant o' the Co$$issioner o'
:$$i)ration or o' any other o''icer desi)nated by hi$ 'or the purpose and deported upon the
(arrant o' the Co$$issioner o' :$$i)ration a'ter a deter$ination by the 8oard o'
Co$$issioners o' the e9istence o' the )round 'or deportation as char)ed a)ainst the alien*
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
203 ;ny alien (ho re$ains in the "hilippines in violation o' any li$itation or condition under
(hich he (as ad$itted as a noni$$i)rant.
"etitioners ar)ue that the le)al precept >ust Duoted trenches upon the constitutional $andate in
Section 1 23, ;rticle ::: F8ill o' <i)htsG o' the Constitution, to (it*
23 +he ri)ht o' the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and e''ects a)ainst
unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no (arrants shall issue but
upon probable cause, to be deter$ined by the >ud)e a'ter e9a$ination under oath or
a''ir$ation o' the co$plainant and the (itnesses he $ay produce, and particularly describin)
the place to be searched, and the persons or thin)s to be seized.
+hey say that the Constitution li$its to >ud)es the authority to issue (arrants o' arrest and that the
le)islative dele)ation o' such po(er to the Co$$issioner o' :$$i)ration is thus violative o' the 8ill o'
<i)hts.
Section 1 23, ;rticle ::: o' the Constitution, (e perceive, does not reDuire >udicial intervention in the
e9ecution o' a 'inal order o' deportation issued in accordance (ith la(. +he constitutional li$itation
conte$plates an order o' arrest in the e9ercise o' >udicial po(er
4
as a step preli$inary or incidental
to prosecution or proceedin)s 'or a )iven o''ense or ad$inistrative action, not as a $easure
indispensable to carry out a valid decision by a co$petent o''icial, such as a le)al order o'
deportation, issued by the Co$$issioner o' :$$i)ration, in pursuance o' a valid le)islation.
+he 'ollo(in) 'ro$ ;$erican Jurisprudence,
/
is illu$inatin)*
:t is thorou)hly established that Con)ress has po(er to order the deportation o' aliens (hose
presence in the country it dee$s hurt'ul. 6(in) to the nature o' the proceedin), the
deportation o' an alien (ho is 'ound in this country in violation o' la( is not a deprivation o'
liberty (ithout due process o' la(. +his is so, althou)h the inDuiry devolves upon e9ecutive
o''icers, and their 'indin)s o' 'act, a'ter a 'air thou)h su$$ary hearin), are $ade conclusive.
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
+he deter$ination o' the propriety o' deportation is not a prosecution 'or, or a conviction o',
cri$e= nor is the deportation a punish$ent, even thou)h the 'acts underlyin) the decision
$ay constitute a cri$e under local la(. +he proceedin) is in e''ect si$ply a re'usal by the
)overn$ent to harbor persons (ho$ it does not (ant. +he coincidence o' local penal la(
(ith the policy o' Con)ress is purely accidental, and, thou)h supported by the sa$e 'acts, a
cri$inal prosecution and a proceedin) 'or deportation are separate and independent.
:n conseDuence, the constitutional )uarantee set 'orth in Section 1 23, ;rticle ::: o' the Constitution
a'oresaid, reDuirin) that the issue o' probable cause be deter$ined by a >ud)e, does not e9tend to
deportation proceedin)s.
6
+he vie( (e here e9press 'inds support in the discussions durin) the constitutional convention. +he
convention reco)nized, as sanctioned by due process, possibilities and cases o' deprivation o'
liberty, other than by order o' a co$petent court.
0
:ndeed, the po(er to deport or e9pel aliens is an attribute o' soverei)nty. Such po(er is planted on
the Eaccepted $a9i$ o' international la(, that every soverei)n nation has the po(er, as inherent in
soverei)nty, and essential to sel'-preservation, to 'orbid the entrance o' 'orei)ners (ithin its
do$inions.E
J
So it is, that this Court once aptly re$arked that there can be no controversy on the 'act
that (here aliens are ad$itted as te$porary visitors, Ethe la( is to the e''ect that te$porary visitors
(ho do not depart upon the e9piration o' the period o' stay )ranted the$ are sub>ect to deportation
by the Co$$issioner o' :$$i)ration, 'or havin) violated the li$itation or condition under (hich they
(ere ad$itted as non-i$$i)rants 2:$$i)ration %a(, Sec. 0 2a3, subsection 203= C.;. 61, as
a$ended3.E
9
;nd, in a case directly in point, (here the po(er o' the Co$$issioner to issue (arrants o'
arrest was challengedas unconstitutional, because Esuch po(er is only vested in a >ud)e by Section
1, para)raph , ;rticle ::: o' our Constitution,E this Court declared H
+his ar)u$ent overlooks the 'act that the stay o' appellant #) ,ua +o as te$porary visitor is
sub>ect to certain contractual stipulations as contained in the cash bond put up by hi$,
a$on) the$, that in case o' breach the Co$$issioner $ay reDuire the reco$$it$ent o' the
person in (hose 'avor the bond has been 'iled. +he Co$$issioner did nothin) but to en'orce
such condition. Such a step is necessary to enable the Co$$issioner to prepare the )round
'or his deportation under section 0 2a3 o' Co$$on(ealth ;ct 61. ; contrary interpretation
(ould render such po(er nu)atory to the detri$ent o' the State.
15
:t is in this conte9t that (e rule that Section 0 2a3 o' the :$$i)ration ;ct o' 1945 is not
constitutionally proscribed.
. ; seDuel to the Duestions >ust discussed is the second error set 'orth in the )overn$ent1s brie'.
+he Solicitor @eneral balks at the lo(er court1s rulin) that petitioner Chan Sau Wah is entitled to
per$anent residence in the "hilippines (ithout 'irst co$plyin) (ith the reDuire$ents o' Sections 9
and 1 o' the :$$i)ration ;ct o' 1945, as a$ended by <epublic ;ct /5.
We 'irst )o to the la(, %iz*
S7C. 9 Flast para)raphG
;n alien (ho is ad$itted as a noni$$i)rant cannot re$ain in the "hilippines per$anently. +o
obtain per$anent ad$ission, a noni$$i)rant alien $ust depart voluntarily to so$e 'orei)n
country and procure 'ro$ the appropriate "hilippine consul the proper visa and therea'ter
under)o e9a$ination by the o''icers o' the 8ureau o' :$$i)ration at a "hilippine port o' entry
'or deter$ination o' his ad$issibility in accordance (ith the reDuire$ents o' this ;ct.
S7C. 1. Ander the conditions set 'orth in this ;ct there $ay be ad$itted into the "hilippines
i$$i)rants, ter$ed EDuota i$$i)rantsE not in e9cess o' 'i'ty 2/53 o' any one nationality or
(ithout nationality 'or any one calendar year, e9cept that the 'ollo(in) i$$i)rants, ter$ed
EnonDuota i$$i)rants,E $aybe ad$itted (ithout re)ard to such nu$erical li$itations.
+he correspondin) "hilippine Consular representative abroad shall investi)ate and certi'y
the eli)ibility o' a Duota i$$i)rant previous to his ad$ission into the "hilippines. Luali'ied
and desirable aliens (ho are in the "hilippines under te$porary stay $ay be ad$itted (ithin
the Duota, sub>ect to the provisions o' the last para)raph o' section 9 o' this ;ct.
2a3 +he (i'e or the husband or the un$arried child under t(enty-one years o' a)e o' a
"hilippine citizen, i' acco$panyin) or 'ollo(in) to >oin such citizen=
2b3 ; child o' alien parents born durin) the te$porary visit abroad o' the $other, the $other
havin) been previously la('ully ad$itted into the "hilippine 'or per$anent residence, i' the
child is acco$panyin) or co$in) to >oin a parent and applies 'or ad$ission (ithin 'ive years
'ro$ the date o' its birth=
Concededly, Chan Sau Wah entered the "hilippines on a tourist-temporar' visitor1s visa. She is a
non-i$$i)rant. Ander Section 1 >ust Duoted, she $ay there'ore be ad$itted i' she (ere a Duali'ied
and desirable alien and sub>ect to the provisions o' the last para)raph o' Section 9. +here'ore, first,
she $ust depart voluntarily to so$e 'orei)n country= second, she $ust procure 'ro$ the appropriate
consul the proper visa= and third, she $ust therea'ter under)o e9a$ination by the o''icials o' the
8ureau o' :$$i)ration at the port o' entry 'or deter$ination o' her ad$issibility in accordance (ith
the reDuire$ents o' the i$$i)ration ;ct.
+his Court in a nu$ber o' cases has ruled, and consistently too, that an alien ad$itted as a
te$porary visitor cannot chan)e his or her status (ithout 'irst departin) 'ro$ the country and
co$plyin) (ith the reDuire$ents o' Section 9 o' the :$$i)ration ;ct.
11
+he )rava$en o' petitioners1 ar)u$ent is that Chan Sau Wah has, since her entry, $arried in &anila
a native-born Filipino, 7steban &orano. :t (ill not particularly help analysis 'or petitioners to appeal
to 'a$ily solidarity in an e''ort to th(art her deportation. Chan Sau Wah, see$in)ly is not one (ho
has a hi)h re)ard 'or such solidarity. "roo'* She le't t(o o' her children by the 'irst $arria)e, both
$inors, in the care o' nei)hbors in Fukien, China.
+hen, the (ordin) o' the statute hereto'ore adverted to is a 'orbiddin) obstacle (hich (ill prevent
this Court 'ro$ (ritin) into the la( an additional provision that $arria)e o' a te$porary alien visitor
to a Filipino (ould ipso facto$ake her a per$anent resident in his country. +his is a 'ield closed to
>udicial action. #o breadth o' discretion is allo(ed us. We cannot insulate her 'ro$ the State1s po(er
o' deportation.
<eally, it (ould be an easy $atter 'or an alien (o$an to enter the "hilippines as a te$porary visitor,
)o throu)h a $ock $arria)e, but actually live (ith another $an as husband and (i'e, and thereby
skirt the provisions o' our i$$i)ration la(. ;lso, a (o$an o' undesirable character $ay enter this
country, ply a pernicious trade, $arry a Filipino, and a)ain thro( overboard Sections 9 and 1 o' the
;ct. Such a 'lankin) $ove$ent, (e are con'ident, is i$per$issible.
<ecently (e con'ir$ed the rule that an alien (i'e o' a Filipino $ay not stay per$anently (ithout 'irst
departin) 'ro$ the "hilippines. <eason* Ciscoura)e entry under 'alse pretenses.
1!
+he rulin) o' the trial court on this score should be reversed.
4. :t is petitioners1 turn to point as error the dis$issal o' the petition 'or mandamus and prohibition
(ith respect to petitioner Fu -an Fun.
"etitioners1 line o' thou)ht is this* Fu -an Fun 'ollo(s the citizenship o' his $other. +hey cite Section
1/, para)raph , Co$$on(ealth ;ct 40, (hich says that*
; 'orei)n-born $inor child, i' d(ellin) in the "hilippines at the ti$e o' the naturalization o' the
parent, shall auto$atically beco$e a "hilippine citizen. . . .
"etitioners1 position is based on the assu$ption that Chan Sau Wah, the $other, is a Filipino citizen.
We have held that she is not. ;t best, Fu -an Fun is a step-son o' 7steban &orano, husband o'
Chan Sau Wah. ; step-son is not a 'orei)n-born child o' the step-'ather. +he word child, (e are
certain, $eans le)iti$ate child, not a step-child. We are not (antin) in precedents. +hus, (hen the
Constitution provides that EFtGhose (hose 'athers are citizens o' the "hilippinesE are citizens
thereo',
1
the 'unda$ental charter intends EthoseE to apply to le)iti$ate children.
14
:n another case,
the ter$ E$inor childrenE or E$inor childE in Section 1/ o' the <evised #aturalization %a( re'ers only
to le)iti$ate children o' Filipino citizens. +his Court, thru &r. Chie' Justice <oberto Concepcion,
there said*
1/
:t is clai$ed that the phrases E$inor childrenE and E$inor child,E used in these provisions,
include adopted children. +he ar)u$ent is predicated upon the theory that an adopted child
is, 'or all intents and purposes, a le)iti$ate child. Whenever, the (ord EchildrenE or EchildE is
used in statutes, it is )enerally understood, ho(ever, to re'er to le)iti$ate children, unless
the conte9t o' the la( and its spirit indicate clearly the contrary. +hus, 'or instance, (hen the
Constitution provides that Ethose (hose 'athers are citizens o' the "hilippines,E and Ethose
(hose $others are citizens o' the "hilippinesE (ho shall elect "hilippine citizenship upon
reachin) the a)e o' $a>ority, are citizens o' the "hilippines 2;rticle :?, Section 1, subdivisions
FG and F4G3, our 'unda$ental la( clearly re'ers to legitimate children 2Chion)bian vs. Ce
%eon, 46 6''. @az., 6/!-6/4= Serra v. <epublic, %-4!!, &ay 1!, 19/!3.
;t any rate, Fu -an Fun entered the "hilippines as a te$porary visitor. +he status o' a te$porary
visitor cannot be converted into, that o' a per$anent resident, as (e have hereto'ore held, (ithout
'irst co$plyin) (ith Section 9 o' the :$$i)ration %a(.
/. "etitioners 'inally aver that the lo(er court erred in authorizin) respondent Co$$issioner to 'or'eit
the bond 'iled by petitioners Chan Sau Wah and Fu -an Fun in the a$ount o' "4,555.55.
,ere is petitioners1 posture. +hey en>oyed their stay in the "hilippines upon a bond. #o( they co$e
to court and say that as the prescribed 'or$ o' this bond (as not e9pressly approved by the
Secretary o' Justice in accordance (ith Section o' Co$$on(ealth ;ct 61, (hich reads H
S7C. . . . . ,e FCo$$issioner o' :$$i)rationG shall issue, sub>ect to the approval o' the
Cepart$ent ,ead, such rules and re)ulations and prescribes such 'or$s o' bond, reports,
and other papers, and shall issue 'ro$ ti$e to ti$e such instruction, not inconsistent (ith
la(, as he shall dee$ best calculated to carry out the provisions o' the i$$i)ration la(s. . . .
that bond is void.
<easons there are (hich prevent us 'ro$ )ivin) our i$pri$atur to this ar)u$ent.
+he provision reDuirin) o''icial approval o' a bond is $erely directory. E:rre)ularity or entire 'ailure in
this respect does not a''ect the validity o' the bond.
16
+he reason 'or the rule, is 'ound in 9 C.J., p. !6
2'ootnote3, (hich reads*
2a3 +eason for rule. H EStatutes reDuirin) bonds to be approved by certain o''icials are not for the
purpose of protecting the obligors in the bond, but are ai$ed to protect the public, to insure their
solvency, and to create evidence o' an uni$peachable character o' the 'act o' their e9ecution. When
they are e9ecuted 'or a le)al purpose, be'ore a proper tribunal, and are in 'act accepted and
approved by the o''icer or body, (hose duty it (as to approve the$, it could serve no use'ul purpose
o' the la( to hold the$ invalid, to release all the obli)ors thereon, and to de'eat every purpose o' its
e9ecution, si$ply because the 'act o' approval (as not indorsed precisely as had been directed by
the %e)islature.E ;$erican 8ook Co. vs. Wells, J SW 6!!, 6!0, !6 .y %-11/9. 2e$phasis supplied3
;nd another. +his bond (as accepted by the )overn$ent. :t had been there. +he 'or$ o' the bond
here used is o' lon) continued usa)e. :' the )overn$ent did not Duestion the 'or$ o' the bond at all,
then (e $ust assu$e that it counted (ith the Secretary1s approval. For the presu$ption is that
o''icial duty has been le)ally per'or$ed.
Surely enou)h, eDuitable considerations (ill stop petitioners 'ro$ pleadin) invalidity o' the bond.
+hey o''ered that bond to enable the$ to enter and stay in this country. +hey en>oyed bene'its
there'ro$. +hey cannot, Ein la(, and )ood conscience, be allo(ed to reap the 'ruitsE o' that bond,
and then >ettison the sa$e. +hey are Eprecluded 'ro$ attackin) the validityE o' such bond.
10
;ctually, to petitioners the bond (as )ood (hile they sou)ht entry into the "hilippines= they o''ered it
as security 'or the undertakin)= that they E(ill actually depart 'ro$ the "hilippinesE (hen their ter$ o'
stay e9pires. #o( that the bond is bein) con'iscated because they overstayed, they $ake an about-
'ace and say that such bond is null and void. +hey shall not pro'it 'ro$ this inconsistent position.
+heir bond should be con'iscated.
Con'or$ably to the 'ore)oin), the >ud)$ent under revie( is hereby $odi'ied as 'ollo(s*
213 +he portion thereo' (hich reads*
2a3 @rantin) their petition 'or Mandamus and "rohibition (ith respect to petitioner C,;#
S;A W;,, (ho is hereby declared a citizen o' the "hilippines= orderin) the respondent to
cancel her ;lien Certi'icate o' <e)istration and other i$$i)ration papers, upon the pay$ent
o' proper dues= and declarin) preli$inary in>unction (ith respect to her per$anent,
prohibitin) the respondent, his representatives or subordinates 'ro$ arrestin) andBor
deportin) said petitioner=
is hereby reversed* and, in conseDuence H
+he petition 'or mandamus and prohibition (ith respect to petitioner Chan Sau Wah is hereby
denied= and the >ud)$ent declarin) her a citizen o' the "hilippines, directin) respondent to cancel
her ;lien Certi'icate o' <e)istration and other i$$i)ration papers, and declarin) the preli$inary
in>unction (ith respect to her per$anent, are all hereby set aside= and
2!3 :n all other respects, the decision appealed 'ro$ is hereby a''ir$ed.
#o costs. So ordered.
,oncepcion- ,...- +e'es- ../.L.- Ma(alintal- /engzon ..0.- 1aldi%ar and ,astro- ....- concur.
G.R. No. 22270 3e)e.4e/ 15, 1929
3R. NEMES$O E. 6RU3ENTE, petitioner,
vs.
THE HON. E7ECUT$%E JU3GE ABELAR3O M. 3A#R$T, RTC Mn&8, B/n)' 33 n! 6EO6LE
O" THE 6H$L$66$NES, respondents.
Francisco S/ Ace2as 333- Oscar S. Atencio- +odolfo M. ,apoc'an- Ernesto 0. Fernandez- +omulo /.
Macalintal- +odrigo ). Melchor- +udegelio 4. 5acorda 6irgilio L. 6alle and Luciano 4. 6alencia for
petitioner.

6A3$LLA, J.:
+his is a petition 'or certiorari to annul and set aside the order o' respondent Jud)e dated 9 &arch
19JJ (hich denied the petitioner1s $otion to Duash Search Warrant #o. J0-14, as (ell as his order
dated !5 ;pril 19JJ denyin) petitioner1s $otion 'or reconsideration o' the earlier order.
:t appears that on 1 6ctober 19J0, "B&a>or ;lladin Ci$a)$ali(, Chie' o' the :ntelli)ence Special
;ction Civision 2:S;C3 o' the Western "olice Cistrict 2W"C3 'iled (ith the <e)ional +rial Court 2<+C3
o' &anila, 8ranch , presided over by respondent Jud)e ;belardo Cayrit, no( ;ssociate Justice o'
the Court o' ;ppeals. an application
1
'or the issuance o' a search (arrant, docketed therein as S7;<C,
W;<<;#+ #6. J0-14, 'or ?:6%;+:6# 6F "C #6. 1J66 2:lle)al "ossession o' Firear$s, etc.3 entitled
E"eople o' the "hilippines, "lainti'', versus #e$esis 7. "rudente, Ce'endant.E :n his application 'or search
(arrant, "B&a>or ;lladin Ci$a)$ali( alle)ed, a$on) others, as 'ollo(s*
1. +hat he has been in'or$ed and has )ood and su''icient reasons to believe that
#7&7S:6 "<AC7#+7 (ho $ay be 'ound at the "olytechnic Aniversity o' the
"hilippines, ;nonas St. Sta. &esa, Sa$paloc, &anila, has in his control or
possession 'irear$s, e9plosives hand)renades and a$$unition (hich are ille)ally
possessed or intended to be used as the $eans o' co$$ittin) an o''ense (hich the
said #7&7S:6 "<AC7#+7 is keepin) and concealin) at the 'ollo(in) pre$ises o'
the "olytechnic Aniversity o' the "hilippines, to (it*
a. 6''ices o' the Cepart$ent o' &ilitary Science and +actics at the
)round 'loor and other roo$s at the )round 'loor=
b. 6''ice o' the "resident, Cr. #e$esio "rudente at "A", Second
Floor and other roo$s at the second 'loor=
!. +hat the undersi)ned has veri'ied the report and 'ound it to be a 'act, and
there'ore, believes that a Search Warrant should be issued to enable the
undersi)ned or any a)ent o' the la( to take possession and brin) to this ,onorable
Court the 'ollo(in) described properties*
a. & 16 ;r$alites (ith a$$unitions=
b. .J and .4/ Caliber hand)uns and pistols=
c. e9plosives and hand)renades= and,
d. assorted (eapons (ith a$$unitions.
:n support o' the application 'or issuance o' search (arrant, "B%t. Florenio C. ;n)eles, 6:C o' the
:ntelli)ence Section o' 2:S;C3 e9ecuted a ECeposition o' WitnessE dated 1 6ctober 19J0,
subscribed and s(orn to be'ore respondent Jud)e. :n his deposition, "B%t. Florenio ;n)eles
declared, inter alia, as 'ollo(s*
L* Co you kno( "B&a>or ;lladin Ci$a)$ali(, the applicant 'or a
Search WarrantI
;* -es, sir, he is the Chie', :ntelli)ence and Special ;ction Civision,
Western "olice Cistrict.
L* Co you kno( the pre$ises o' "olytechnic Aniversity o' the
"hilippines at ;nonas St., Sta. &esa, Sa$paloc, &anila
;* -es, sir, the said place has been the sub>ect o' our surveillance
and observation durin) the past 'e( days.
L* Co you have personal kno(led)e that in the said pre$ises is kept
the 'ollo(in) properties sub>ect o' the o''ense o' violation o' "C #o.
1J66 or intended to be used as a $eans o' co$$ittin) an o''ense*
a. & 16 ;r$alites (ith a$$unitions=
b. .J and 4/ Caliber hand)uns and pistols=
c. e9plosives and hand)renades= and d. ;ssorted (eapons (ith a$$unitionsI
;* -es sir.
L* Co you kno( (ho is or (ho are the person or persons (ho has or
have control o' the above-described pre$isesI
;* -es sir, it is Cr. #e$esio "rudente, "resident o' the "olytechnic
Aniversity o' the "hilippines.
L* ,o( do you kno( that said property is sub>ect o' the o''ense o'
violation o' "res. Cecree #o. 1J66 or intended to be used as the
$eans o' co$$ittin) an o''enseI
;* Sir, as a result o' our continuous surveillance conducted 'or
several days, (e )athered in'or$ation 'ro$ veri'ied sources that the
holder o' said 'irear$s and e9plosives as (ell as a$$unitions aren1t
licensed to possess said 'irear$s and a$$unition. Further, the
pre$ises is a school and the holders o' these 'irear$s are not
students (ho (ere not supposed to possess 'irear$s, e9plosives and
a$$unition.
6n the sa$e day, 1 6ctober 19J0, respondent Jud)e issued Search Warrant #o. J0-14,
3
the
pertinent portions o' (hich read as 'ollo(s*
:t appearin) to the satis'action o' the undersi)ned, a'ter e9a$inin) under oath
applicant ;%%;C:# &. C:&;@&;%:W and his (itness F%6<7#:6 C. ;#@7%7S that
there are )ood and su''icient reasons to believe 2probable cause3 that #7&7S:6
"<AC7#+7 has in his control in the pre$ises o' "olytechnic Aniversity o' the
"hilippines, ;nonas St., Sta. &esa, Sa$paloc, &anila, properties (hich are sub>ect
o' the above o''ense or intended to be used as the $eans o' co$$ittin) the said
o''ense.
-ou are hereby co$$anded to $ake an i$$ediate search at any ti$e in the day or
ni)ht o' the pre$ises o' "olytechnic Aniversity o' the "hilippines, $ore particularly
2a3 o''ices o' the Cepart$ent o' &ilitary Science and +actics at the )round 'loor and
other roo$s at the )round 'loor= 2b3 o''ice o' the "resident, Cr. #e$esio "rudente at
"A", Second Floor and other roo$s at the second 'loor, and 'orth(ith seize and take
possession o' the 'ollo(in) personal properties, to (it*
a. & 16 ;r$alites (ith a$$unition=
b. .J and .4/ Caliber hand)uns and pistols=
c. e9plosives and hand )renades= and
d. assorted (eapons (ith a$$unitions.
and brin) the above described properties to the undersi)ned to be dealt (ith as the
la( directs.
6n 1 #ove$ber 19J0, a Sunday and ;ll Saints Cay, the search (arrant (as en'orced by so$e !55
W"C operatives led by "BCol. 7d)ar Cula +orre, Ceputy Superintendent, W"C, and "B&a>or <o$eo
&a)anto, "recinct J Co$$ander.
:n his a''idavit,
5
dated ! #ove$ber 19J0, <icardo ;bando y -usay, a $e$ber o' the searchin) tea$,
alle)ed that he 'ound in the dra(er o' a cabinet inside the (ash roo$ o' Cr. "rudente1s o''ice a bul)in)
bro(n envelope (ith three 23 live 'ra)$entation hand )renades separately (rapped (ith old
ne(spapers, classi'ied by "BS)t. J.%. Cruz as 'ollo(s 2a3 one 213 pc.H& Fra)$entation hand )renade
2live3= 2b3 one 2113 pc.H&!6 Fra)$entation hand )renade 2live3= and 2c3 one 213 pc.H"<8H4!
Fra)$entation hand )renade 2live3.
6n 6 #ove$ber 19J0, petitioner $oved to Duash the search (arrant. ,e clai$ed that 213 the
co$plainant1s lone (itness, %t. Florenio C. ;n)eles, had no personal kno(led)e o' the 'acts (hich
'or$ed the basis 'or the issuance o' the search (arrant= 2!3 the e9a$ination o' the said (itness (as
not in the 'or$ o' searchin) Duestions and ans(ers= 23 the search (arrant (as a )eneral (arrant,
'or the reason that it did not particularly describe the place to be searched and that it 'ailed to char)e
one speci'ic o''ense= and 243 the search (arrant (as issued in violation o' Circular #o. 19 o' the
Supre$e Court in that the co$plainant 'ailed to alle)e under oath that the issuance o' the search
(arrant on a Saturday (as ur)ent.
9
+he applicant, "B&a>or ;lladin Ci$a)$ali( thru the Chie', :nspectorate and %e)al ;''airs Civision,
W"C, opposed the $otion.
6
;'ter petitioner had 'iled his reply
7
to the opposition, he 'iled a
supple$ental $otion to Duash.
2
+herea'ter, on 9 &arch 19JJ, respondent Jud)e issued an order,
9
denyin) the petitioner1s $otion and
supple$ental $otion to Duash. "etitioner1s $otion 'or reconsideration
10
(as like(ise denied in the
order
11
dated !5 ;pril 19JJ.
,ence, the present recourse, petitioner alle)in) that respondent Jud)e has decided a Duestion o'
substance in a $anner not in accord (ith la( or applicable decisions o' the Supre$e Court, or that
the respondent Jud)e )ravely abused his discretion tanta$ount to e9cess o' >urisdiction, in issuin)
the disputed orders.
For a valid search (arrant to issue, there $ust be probable cause, (hich is to be deter$ined
personally by the >ud)e, a'ter e9a$ination under oath or a''ir$ation o' the co$plainant and the
(itnesses he $ay produce, and particularly describin) the place to be searched and the persons or
thin)s to be seized.
12
+he probable cause $ust be in connection (ith one speci'ic o''ense
13
and the
>ud)e $ust, be'ore issuin) the (arrant, personally e9a$ine in the 'or$ o' searchin) Duestions and
ans(ers, in (ritin) and under oath, the co$plainant and any (itness he $ay produce, on 'acts personally
kno(n to the$ and attach to the record their s(orn state$ents to)ether (ith any a''idavits sub$itted.
15
+he Eprobable causeE 'or a valid search (arrant, has been de'ined Eas such 'acts and circu$stances
(hich (ould lead a reasonably discreet arid prudent $an to believe that an o''ense has been
co$$itted, and that ob>ects sou)ht in connection (ith the o''ense are in the place sou)ht to be
searched.E
19
+his probable cause $ust be sho(n to be (ithin the personal kno(led)e o' the co$plainant
or the (itnesses he $ay produce and not based on $ere hearsay.
16
"etitioner assails the validity o' Search Warrant #o. J0-14 on the )round that it (as issued on the
basis o' 'acts and circu$stances (hich (ere not (ithin the personal kno(led)e o' the applicant and
his (itness but based on hearsay evidence. :n his application 'or search (arrant, "B&a>or ;lladin
Ci$a)$ali( stated that Ehe has been informed7 that #e$esio "rudente Ehas in his control and
possessionE the 'irear$s and e9plosives described therein, and that he Ehas %erified the report and
found it to be a fact.E 6n the other hand, in his supportin) deposition, "B%t. Florenio C. ;n)eles
declared that, as a result o' their continuous surveillance 'or several days, they E)athered
in'or$ations 'ro$ veri'ied sourcesE that the holders o' the said 'ire ar$s and e9plosives are not
licensed to possess the$. :n other (ords, the applicant and his (itness had no personal
(nowledge o' the 'acts and circu$stances (hich beca$e the basis 'or issuin) the Duestioned search
(arrant, but ac&uired (nowledge thereof only throu)h in'or$ation 'ro$ other sources or persons.
While it is true that in his application 'or search (arrant, applicant "B&a>or Ci$a)$ali( stated
that he %erified the information he had earlier recei%ed that petitioner had in his possession and
custody the t there is nothin) in the record to sho( or indicate ho( and (hen said applicant veri'ied
the earlier in'or$ation acDuired by hi$ as to >usti'y his conclusion that he found such information to
be a fact. ,e $i)ht have clari'ied this point i' there had been searchin) Duestions and ans(ers, but
there (ere none. :n 'act, the records yield no Duestions and ans(ers, (hether searchin) or not, vis-
a-vis the said applicant.
What the records sho( is the deposition o' (itness, "B%t. ;n)eles, as the only support to "B&a>or
Ci$a)$ali(1s application, and the said deposition is based on hearsay. For, it avers that they
2presu$ably, the police authorities3 had conducted continuous surveillance 'or several days o' the
suspected pre$ises and, as a result thereo', they Egathered information from %erified sources7 that
the holders o' the sub>ect 'irear$s and e9plosives are not licensed to possess the$.
3n Al%arez %s. ,ourt of First 3nstance,
17
this Court laid the 'ollo(in) test in deter$inin) (hether the
alle)ations in an application 'or search (arrant or in a supportin) deposition, are based on personal
kno(led)e or notH
+he true test o' su''iciency o' a deposition or a''idavit to (arrant issuance o' a search
(arrant is (hether it has been dra(n in a $anner that per>ury could be char)ed
thereon and the a''iant be held liable 'or da$a)e caused. +he oath reDuired $ust
re'er to the truth o' the 'acts (ithin the personal kno(led)e o' the applicant 'or
search (arrant, andBor his (itnesses, not o' the 'acts $erely reported by a person
(ho$ one considers to be reliable.
+ested by the above standard, the alle)ations o' the (itness, "B%t. ;n)eles, in his deposition, do not
co$e up to the level o' 'acts o' his personal kno(led)e so $uch so that he cannot be held liable
'or per2ur' 'or such alle)ations in causin) the issuance o' the Duestioned search (arrant.
:n the sa$e Al%arez case,
12
the applicant stated that his purpose 'or applyin) 'or a search (arrant (as
that* E:t had been reported to $e by a person (ho$ : consider to be reliable that there are bein) kept in
said pre$ises books, docu$ents, receipts, lists, chits and other papers used by hi$ in connection (ith his
activities as a $oney lender, challen)in) usurious rate o' interests, in violation o' la(.E +he Court held that
this (as insu''icient 'or the purpose o' issuin) a search (arrant.
:n 0eople %s. S' .uco-
19
(here the a''idavit contained an alle)ation that there had been a report to the
a''iant by a person (ho$ lie considered reliable that in said pre$ises (ere E'raudulent books,
correspondence and records,E this (as like(ise held as not su''icient 'or the purpose o' issuin) a search
(arrant. 7vidently, the alle)ations contained in the application o' "B &a>or ;lladin Ci$a)$ali( and the
declaration o' "B%t. Florenio C. ;n)eles in his deposition (ere insu''icient basis 'or the issuance o' a valid
search (arrant. ;s held in the Al%arez case*
+he oath reDuired $ust re'er to the truth o' the 'acts (ithin the personal kno(led)e o'
the petitioner or his (itnesses, because the purpose thereo' is to convince the
co$$ittin) $a)istrate, not the individual $akin) the a''idavit and seekin) the
issuance o' the (arrant, o' the e9istence o' probable cause.
8esides, respondent Jud)e did not take the deposition o' the applicant as reDuired by the <ules o'
Court. ;s held in +oan %. Gonzales,
20
E2$3ere a''idavits o' the co$plainant and his (itnesses are thus
not su''icient. +he e9a$inin) Jud)e has to take depositions in (ritin) o' the co$plainant and the
(itnesses he $ay produce and attach the$ to the record.E
&oreover, a perusal o' the deposition o' "B%t. Florenio ;n)eles sho(s that it (as too brie' and short.
<espondent Jud)e did not e9a$ine hi$ Ein the 'or$ o' searchin) Duestions and ans(ers.E 6n the
contrary, the Duestions asked (ere leadin) as they called 'or a si$ple EyesE or EnoE ans(er. ;s held
in 8uintero %s. 9/3,E
21
the Duestions propounded by respondent 79ecutive Jud)e to the applicant1s
(itness are not su''iciently searchin) to establish probable cause. ;skin) o' leadin) Duestions to the
deponent in an application 'or search (arrant, and conductin) o' e9a$ination in a )eneral $anner, (ould
not satis'y the reDuire$ents 'or issuance o' a valid search (arrant.E
&ani'estly, in the case at bar, the evidence 'ailed to sho( the e9istence o' probable cause to >usti'y
the issuance o' the search (arrant. +he Court also notes post facto that the search in Duestion
yielded, no ar$alites, hand)uns, pistols, assorted (eapons or a$$unitions as stated in the
application 'or search (arrant, the supportin) deposition, and the search (arrant the supportin)
hand )renades (ere itsel' 6nly three 23 live 'ra)$entation 'ound in the searched pre$ises o' the
"A", accordin) to the a''idavit o' an alle)ed $e$ber o' the searchin) party.
+he Court avails o' this decision to reiterate the strict reDuire$ents 'or deter$ination o' Eprobable
causeE in the valid issuance o' a search (arrant, as enunciated in earlier cases. +rue, these
reDuire$ents are strin)ent but the purpose is to assure that the constitutional ri)ht o' the individual
a)ainst unreasonable search and seizure shall re$ain both $eanin)'ul and e''ective.
"etitioner also assails the validity o' the search (arrant on the )round that it 'ailed to particularly
describe the place to be searched, contendin) that there (ere several roo$s at the )round 'loor and
the second 'loor o' the "A".
+he rule is, that a description o' a place to be searched is su''icient i' the o''icer (ith the (arrant can,
(ith reasonable e''ort, ascertain and :denti'y the place intended .
22
:n the case at bar, the application
'or search (arrant and the search (arrant itsel' described the place to be searched as the pre$ises o'
the "olytechnic Aniversity o' the "hilippines, located at ;nonas St., Sta. &esa, Sa$paloc, &anila $ore
particularly, the o''ices o' the Cepart$ent o' &ilitary Science and +actics at the )round 'loor, and the
6''ice o' the "resident, Cr. #e$esio "rudente, at "A", Second Floor and other roo$s at the second 'loor.
+he desi)nation o' the places to be searched su''iciently co$plied (ith the constitutional in>unction that a
search (arrant $ust particularly describe the place to be searched, even i' there (ere several roo$s at
the )round 'loor and second 'loor o' the "A".
"etitioner ne9t attacks the validity o' the Duestioned (arrant, on the )round that it (as issued in
violation o' the rule that a search (arrant can be issued only in connection (ith one speci'ic o''ense.
+he search (arrant issued by respondent >ud)e, accordin) to petitioner, (as issued (ithout any
re'erence to any particular provision o' "C #o. 1J66 that (as violated (hen alle)edly ".C. #o. 1J66
punishes several o''enses.
:n Stonehill %s. 4io(no,
23
Where the (arrants involved (ere issued upon applications statin) that the
natural and >uridical persons therein na$ed had co$$itted a Eviolation o' Central 8ank %a(s, +ari'' and
Custo$s %a(s, :nternal <evenue Code and <evised "enal Code,E the Court held that no speci'ic o''ense
had been alle)ed in the applications 'or a search (arrant, and that it (ould be a le)al hearsay o' the
hi)hest order to convict anybody o' a E?iolation o' Central 8ank %a(s, +ari'' and Custo$s %a(s, :nternal
<evenue Code and <evised "enal CodeE (ithout re'erence to any deter$inate provision o' said la(s and
codes.
:n the present case, ho(ever, the application 'or search (arrant (as captioned* EFor ?iolation o' "C
#o. 1J66 2:lle)al "ossession o' Firear$s, etc.3 While the said decree punishes several o''enses, the
alle)ed violation in this case (as, Duali'ied by the phrase Eille)al possession o' 'irear$s, etc.E ;s
e9plained by respondent Jud)e, the ter$ Eetc.E re'erred to a$$unitions and e9plosives. :n other
(ords, the search (arrant (as issued 'or the speci'ic o''ense o' ille)al possession o' 'irear$s and
e9plosives. ,ence, the 'ailure o' the search (arrant to $ention the particular provision o' "C #o. 1-
J66 that (as violated is not o' such a )ravity as to call 'or its invalidation on this score. 8esides,
(hile ille)al possession o' 'irear$s is penalized under Section 1 o' "C #o. 1J66 and ille)al
possession o' e9plosives is penalized under Section thereo', it cannot be overlooked that said
decree is a codi'ication o' the various la(s on ille)al possession o' 'irear$s, a$$unitions and
e9plosives= such ille)al possession o' ite$s destructive o' li'e and property are related o''enses or
belon) to the sa$e species, as to be subsu$ed (ithin the cate)ory o' ille)al possession o' 'irear$s,
etc. under ".C. #o. 1J66. ;s observed by respondent Jud)e*
25
+he )ra$$atical synta9 o' the phraseolo)y co$parative (ith the title o' "C 1J66 can
only $ean that ille)al possession o' 'irear$s, a$$unitions and e9plosives, have
been codi'ied under Section 1 o' said "residential Cecree so $uch so that the
second and third are 'orthri)htly species o' ille)al possession o' 'irear$s under
Section 213 thereo' :t has lon) been a practice in the investi)ative and prosecution
ar$ o' the )overn$ent, to desi)nate the cri$e o' ille)al possession o' 'irear$s,
a$$unitions and e9plosives as 1ille)al possession o' 'irear$s, etc.1 +he Constitution
as (ell as the <ules o' Cri$inal "rocedure does not reco)nize the issuance o' one
search (arrant 'or ille)al possession o' 'irear$s, one (arrant 'or ille)al possession o'
a$$unitions, and another 'or ille)al possession o' e9plosives. #either is the 'ilin) o'
three di''erent in'or$ations 'or each o' the above o''enses sanctioned by the <ules o'
Court. +he usual practice adopted by the courts is to 'ile a sin)le in'or$ation 'or
ille)al possession o' 'irear$s and a$$unitions. +his practice is considered to be in
accordance (ith Section 1, <ule 115 o' the 19J/ <ules on Cri$inal "rocedure
(hich provides that* 1; co$plaint or in'or$ation $ust char)e but one o''ense, e:cept
onl' in those cases in which e:isting laws prescribe a single punishment for %arious
offenses. Cescribably, the servers did not search 'or articles other than 'irear$s,
a$$unitions and e9plosives. +he issuance o' Search Warrant #o. J0-14 is dee$ed
pro'oundly consistent (ith said rule and is there'ore valid and en'orceable.
27$phasis supplied3
Finally, in connection (ith the petitioner1s contention that the 'ailure o' the applicant to state, under
oath, the ur)ent need 'or the issuance o' the search (arrant, his application havin) been 'iled on a
Saturday, rendered the Duestioned (arrant invalid 'or bein) violative o' this Court1s Circular #o. 19,
dated 14 ;u)ust 19J0, (hich reads*
. ;pplications 'iled a'ter o''ice hours, durin) Saturdays, Sundays and holidays shall
like(ise be taken co)nizance o' and acted upon by any >ud)e o' the court havin)
>urisdiction o' the place to be searched, but in such cases the applicant shall certi'y
and state the 'acts under oath, to the satis'action o' the >ud)e, that the issuance is
ur)ent.
it (ould su''ice to state that the above section o' the circular $erely provides 'or a )uideline,
departure 'ro$ (hich (ould not necessarily a''ect the validity o' an other(ise valid search (arrant.
W,7<7F6<7, all the 'ore)oin) considered, the petition is @<;#+7C. +he Duestioned orders dated
9 &arch 19JJ and !5 ;pril 19JJ as (ell as Search Warrant #o. J0-14 are hereby ;##A%%7C and
S7+ ;S:C7.
+he three 23 live 'ra)$entation hand )renades (hich, accordin) to <icardo -. ;bando, a $e$ber o'
the searchin) tea$, (ere seized in the (ashroo$ o' petitioner1s o''ice at the "A", are ordered
delivered to the Chie', "hilippine Constabulary 'or proper disposition.
S6 6<C7<7C.
Fernan- ,...- 9ar%asa- Melencio-)errera- Gutierrez- .r.- ,ruz- 0aras- Feliciano- Ganca'co- /idin-
Sarmiento- ,ortes- Gri#o-A&uino- Medialdea and +egalado- ...- concur.

G.R. No. L-59392 Jnu/, 29, 1937
NARC$SO AL%ARE1, petitioner,
vs.
THE COURT O" "$RST $NSTANCE O" TA#ABAS n! THE ANT$-USUR# BOAR3, respondents.
Godofredo +e'es for petitioner.
Adolfo 9. Feliciano for respondents Anti-;sur' /oard.
9o appearance for other respondent.
$M6ER$AL, J.:
+he petitioner asks that the (arrant o' June , 196, issued by the Court o' First :nstance o'
+ayabas, orderin) the search o' his house and the seizure, at any ti$e o' the day or ni)ht, o' certain
accountin) books, docu$ents and papers belon)in) to hi$ in his residence situated in :n'anta,
"rovince o' +ayabas, as (ell as the order o' a later date, authorizin) the a)ents o' the ;nti-Asury
8oard to retain the articles seized, be declared ille)al and set aside, and prays that all the articles in
Duestion be returned to hi$.
6n the date above-$entioned, the chie' o' the secret service o' the ;nti-Asury 8oard, o' the
Cepart$ent o' Justice, presented to Jud)e 7duardo @utierrez Cavid then presidin) over the Court o'
First :nstance o' +ayabas, an a''idavit alle)in) that accordin) to reliable in'or$ation, the petitioner
kept in his house in :n'anta, +ayabas, books, docu$ents, receipts, lists, chits and other papers used
by hi$ in connection (ith his activities as a $oney-lender char)in) usurious rates o' interest in
violation o' the la(. :n his oath at the and o' the a''idavit, the chie' o' the secret service stated that
his ans(ers to the Duestions (ere correct to the best o' his kno(led)e and belie'. ,e did not s(ear
to the truth o' his state$ents upon his o(n kno(led)e o' the 'acts but upon the in'or$ation received
by hi$ 'ro$ a reliable person. Apon the a''idavit in Duestion the Jud)e, on said date, issued the
(arrant (hich is the sub>ect $atter o' the petition, orderin) the search o' the petitioner1s house at
nay ti$e o' the day or ni)ht, the seizure o' the books and docu$ents above-$entioned and the
i$$ediate delivery thereo' to hi$ to be disposed o' in accordance (ith the la(. With said (arrant,
several a)ents o' the ;nti-Asury 8oard entered the petitioner1s store and residence at seven o1clock
on the ni)ht o' June 4, 196, and seized and took possession o' the 'ollo(in) articles* internal
revenue licenses 'or the years 19 to 196, one led)er, t(o >ournals, t(o cashbooks, nine order
books, 'our notebooks, 'our checks stubs, t(o $e$orandu$s, three bankbooks, t(o contracts, 'our
stubs, 'orty-ei)ht stubs o' purchases o' copra, t(o inventories, t(o bundles o' bills o' ladin), one
bundle o' credit receipts, one bundle o' stubs o' purchases o' copra, t(o packa)es o'
correspondence, one receipt book belon)in) to %uis Fernandez, 'ourteen bundles o' invoices and
other papers $any docu$ents and loan contracts (ith security and pro$issory notes, /54 chits,
pro$issory notes and stubs o' used checks o' the ,on)kon) M Shan)hai 8ankin) Corporation. +he
search 'or and a seizure o' said articles (ere $ade (ith the opposition o' the petitioner (ho stated
his protest belo( the inventories on the )round that the a)ents seized even the ori)inals o' the
docu$ents. ;s the articles had not been brou)ht i$$ediately to the >ud)e (ho issued the search
(arrant, the petitioner, throu)h his attorney, 'iled a $otion on June J, 196, prayin) that the a)ent
7$ilio %. Sion)co, or any other a)ent, be ordered i$$ediately to deposit all the seized articles in the
o''ice o' the clerk o' court and that said a)ent be declared )uilty o' conte$pt 'or havin) disobeyed
the order o' the court. 6n said date the court issued an order directin) 7$ilio %. Sion)co to deposit
all the articles seized (ithin t(enty-'our hours 'ro$ the receipt o' notice thereo' and )ivin) hi$ a
period o' 'ive 2/3 days (ithin (hich to sho( cause (hy he should not be punished 'or conte$pt o'
court. 6n June 15th, ;ttorney ;rsenio <odri)uez, representin) the ;nti-Asury 8oard, 'iled a $otion
prayin) that the order o' the Jth o' said $onth be set aside and that the ;nti-Asury 8oard be
authorized to retain the articles seized 'or a period o' thirty 253 days 'or the necessary investi)ation.
+he attorney 'or the petitioner, on June !5th, 'iled another $otion alle)in) that, not(ithstandin) the
order o' the Jth o' said $onth, the o''icials o' the ;nti-Asury 8oard had 'ailed to deposit the articles
seized by the$ and prayin) that a search (arrant be issued, that the sheri'' be ordered to take all
the articles into his custody and deposit o' the ;nti-Asury 8oard be punished 'or conte$pt o' court.
Said attorney, on June !4th, 'iled an e9 parte petition alle)in) that (hile a)ent 7$ilio %. Sion)co had
deposited so$e docu$ents and papers in the o''ice o' the clerk o' court, he had so 'ar 'ailed to 'ile
an inventory duly veri'ied by oath o' all the docu$ents seized by hi$, to return the search (arrant
to)ether (ith the a''idavit it presented in support thereo', or to present the report o' the proceedin)s
taken by hi$= and prayed that said a)ent be directed to 'iled the docu$ents in Duestion i$$ediately.
6n the !/th o' said $onth the court issued an order reDuirin) a)ent 7$ilio %. Sion)co 'orth(ith to 'ile
the search (arrant and the a''idavit in the court, to)ether (ith the proceedin)s taken by hi$, and to
present an inventory duly veri'ied by oath o' all the articles seized. 6n July !d o' said year, the
attorney 'or the petitioner 'iled another petition alle)in) that the search (arrant issue (as ille)al and
that it had nit yet been returned to date to)ether (ith the proceedin)s taken in connection there(ith,
and prayin) that said (arrant be cancelled, that an order be issued directin) the return o' all the
articles seized to the petitioner, that the a)ent (ho seized the$ be declared )uilty o' conte$pt o'
court, and that char)es be 'iled a)ainst hi$ 'or abuse o' authority. 6n Septe$ber 15, 196, the court
issued an order holdin)* that the search (arrant (as obtained and issued in accordance (ith the
la(, that it had been duly co$plied (ith and, conseDuently, should not be cancelled, and that a)ent
7$ilio %. Sion)co did not co$$it any conte$pt o' court and $ust, there'ore, be e9onerated, and
orderin) the chie' o' the ;nti-Asury 8oard in &anila to sho( case, i' any, (ithin the une9tendible
period o' t(o 2!3 days 'ro$ the date o' notice o' said order, (hy all the articles seized appearin) in
the inventory, 79hibit 1, should not be returned to the petitioner. +he assistant chie' o' the ;nti-Asury
8oard o' the Cepart$ent o' Justice 'iled a $otion prayin), 'or the reasons stated therein, that the
articles seized be ordered retained 'or the purpose o' conductin) an investi)ation o' the violation o'
the ;nti-Asury %a( co$$itted by the petitioner. :n vie( o' the opposition o' the attorney 'or the
petitioner, the court, on Septe$ber !/th, issued an order reDuirin) the ;nti-Asury 8oard to speci'y
the ti$e needed by it to e9a$ine the docu$ents and papers seized and (hich o' the$ should be
retained, )rantin) it a period o' 'ive 2/3 days 'or said purpose. 6n the 5th o' said $onth the
assistant chie' o' the ;nti-Asury 8oard 'iled a $otion prayin) that he be )ranted ten 2153 days to
co$ply (ith the order o' Septe$ber !/th and that the clerk o' court be ordered to return to hi$ all
the docu$ents and papers to)ether (ith the inventory thereo'. +he court, in an order o' 6ctober !d
o' said year, )ranted hi$ the additional period o' ten2153 days and ordered the clerk o' court to send
hi$ a copy o' the inventory. 6n 6ctober 15th, said o''icial a)ain 'iled another $otion alle)in) that he
needed si9ty 2653 days to e9a$ine the docu$ents and papers seized, (hich are desi)nated on
pa)es 1 to 4 o' the inventory by #os. /, 1516, !, !/, !6, !0, 5, 1, 4, 6, 0, J, 9, 45, 41, 4!,
4 and 4/, and prayin) that he be )ranted said period o' si9ty 2653 days. :n an order o' 6ctober 16th,
the court )ranted hi$ the period o' si9ty 2653 days to investi)ate said nineteen 2193 docu$ents. +he
petitioner alle)es, and it is not denied by the respondents, that these nineteen 2193docu$ents
continue in the possession o' the court, the rest havin) been returned to said petitioner.
:. ; search (arrant is an order in (ritin), issued in the na$e o' the "eople o' the "hilippine
:slands, si)ned by a >ud)e or a >ustice o' the peace, and directed to a peace o''icer,
co$$andin) hi$ to search 'or personal property and brin) it be'ore the court 2section 9/,
@eneral 6rders. #o. /J, as a$ended by section 6 o' ;ct #o. !JJ63. 6' all the ri)hts o' a
citizen, 'e( are o' )reater i$portance or $ore essential to his peace and happiness than the
ri)ht o' personal security, and that involves the e9e$ption o' his private a''airs, books, and
papers 'ro$ the inspection and scrutiny o' others 23n re "aci'ic <ail(ays Co$$ission, !
Fed., !41= :nterstate Co$$erce Co$$ission vs 8ri$son, J %a(. ed., 1540= 8royd %s. A. S.,
!9 %a(. ed., 046= Caroll%s. A. S., 69 %a(. ed., /4, /493. While the po(er to search and
seize is necessary to the public (el'are, still it $ust be e9ercised and the la( en'orced
(ithout trans)ressin) the constitutional ri)hts or citizen, 'or the en'orce$ent o' no statue is o'
su''icient i$portance to >usti'y indi''erence to the basis principles o' )overn$ent
2"eople %s. 7lias, 140 #. 7., 40!3.
::. ;s the protection o' the citizen and the $aintenance o' his constitutional ri)ht is one o' the
hi)hest duties and privile)es o' the court, these constitutional )uaranties should be )iven a
liberal construction or a strict construction in 'avor o' the individual, to prevent stealthy
encroach$ent upon, or )radual depreciation on, the ri)hts secured by the$2State %s. Custer
County, 19J "ac., 6!= State %s. &cCaniel, !1 "ac., 96/= !0 "ac., 03. Since the
proceedin) is a drastic one, it is the )eneral rule that statutes authorizin) searches and
seizure or search (arrants $ust be strictly construed 2<ose %s. St. Clair, !J Fed., F!dG, 1J9=
%eonard %s.A. S., 6 Fed. F!dG, /= "erry %s. A. S. 14 Fed. F!dG,JJ= Co'er %s. State, 11J So.,
613.
:::. +he petitioner clai$s that the search (arrant issued by the court is ille)al because it has
been based upon the a''idavit o' a)ent &ariano @. ;l$eda in (hose oath he declared that he
had no personal kno(led)e o' the 'acts (hich (ere to serve as a basis 'or the issuance o'
the (arrant but that he had kno(led)e thereo' throu)h $ere in'or$ation secured 'ro$ a
person (ho$ he considered reliable. +o the Duestion EWhat are your reason 'or applyin) 'or
this search (arrantE, appearin) in the a''idavit, the a)ent ans(ered* E:t has been reported to
$e by a person (ho$ : consider to be reliable that there are bein) kept in said pre$ises,
books, docu$ents, receipts, lists, chits, and other papers used by hi$ in connection (ith his
activities as a $oney-lender, char)in) a usurious rate o' interest, in violation o' the la(E and
in attestin) the truth o' his state$ents contained in the a''idavit, the said a)ent states that he
'ound the$ to be correct and true to the best o' his kno(led)e and belie'.
Section 1, para)raph , o' ;rticle ::: o' the Constitution, relative to the bill o' ri)hts, provides
that E+he ri)ht o' the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and e''ects
a)ainst unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no (arrants shall
issue but upon probable cause, to be deter$ined by the >ud)e a'ter e9a$ination under oath
or a''ir$ation o' the co$plainant and the (itnesses he $ay produce, and particularly
describin) the place top be searched, and the persons or thin)s to be seized.E Section 90 o'
@eneral 6rders, #o. /J provides that E; search (arrant shall not issue e9cept 'or probable
cause and upon application supported by oath particularly describin) the place to be
searched and the person or thin) to be seized.E :t (ill be noted that both provisions reDuire
that there be not only probable cause be'ore the issuance o' a search (arrant but that the
search (arrant $ust be based upon an application supported by oath o' the applicant ands
the (itnesses he $ay produce. :n its broadest sense, an oath includes any 'or$ o'
attestation by (hich a party si)ni'ies that he is bound in conscience to per'or$ an act
'aith'ully and truth'ully= and it is so$eti$es de'ined asan out(ard pled)e )iven by the person
takin) it that his attestation or pro$ise is $ade under an i$$ediate sense o' his
responsibility to @od 28ouvier1s %a( Cictionary= State %s. Jackson, 10 #. W., 154= 3n
re Sa)e, !4 6h. Cir. Ct. F#. S.G, 0= "u$phery %s. State, 1!! #. W., 19= "riest %s. State, 6 #.
W., 46J= State %s. Jones, 1/4 "ac., 0J= ;t(ood %s. State, 111 So., J6/3. +he oath reDuired
$ust re'er to the truth o' the 'acts (ithin the personal kno(led)e o' the petitioner or his
(itnesses, because the purpose thereo' is to convince the co$$ittin) $a)istrate, not the
individual $akin) the a''idavit and seekin) the issuance o' the (arrant, o' the e9istence o'
probable cause 2A. S. %s.+ureaud, !5 Fed., 6!1= A. S. %s. &ichalski, !6/ Fed., J49= A.
S. %s. "itotto, !60 Fed., 65= A. S. %s. %ai Che(, !9J Fed., 6/!3. +he true test o' su''iciency
o' an a''idavit to (arrant issuance o' a search (arrant is (hether it has been dra(n in such a
$anner that per>ury could be char)ed thereon and a''iant be held liable 'or da$a)es caused
2State %s. <oosevelt Country !5th Jud. Cis. Ct., !44 "ac., !J5= State %s. Luartier, !6 "ac.,
0463.
:t (ill like(ise be noted that section 1, para)raph , o' ;rticle ::: o' the Constitution prohibits
unreasonable searches and seizure. Anreasonable searches and seizures are a $enace
a)ainst (hich the constitutional )uarantee a''ord 'ull protection. +he ter$ Eunreasonable
search and seizureE is not de'ined in the Constitution or in @eneral 6rders #o. /J, and it is
said to have no 'i9ed, absolute or unchan)eable $eanin), althou)h the ter$ has been
de'ined in )eneral lan)ua)e. ;ll ille)al searches and seizure are unreasonable (hile la('ul
ones are reasonable. What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search or seizure in
any particular case is purely a >udicial Duestion, deter$inable 'ro$ a consideration o' the
circu$stances involved, includin) the purpose o' the search, the presence or absence or
probable cause, the $anner in (hich the search and seizure (as $ade, the place or thin)
searched, and the character o' the articles procured 2@o-8art :$portin) Co. %s. A. S. 0/ %a(.
ed., 04= "eru %s. A. S., 4 Fed., F!dG, JJ1=A. S. %s. ?atune, !9! Fed., 490= ;n)elo %s. A. S.
05 %a(, ed., 14/= %a$bert %s. A. S. !J! Fed., 41= A. S. %s.8ate$an, !0J Fed., !1=
&ason %s. <ollins, 16 Fed. Cas. F#o. 9!/!G, ! 8iss., 993.
:n vie( o' the 'ore)oin) and under the above-cited authorities, it appears that the a''idavit,
(hich served as the e9clusive basis o' the search (arrant, is insu''icient and 'atally de'ective
by reason o' the $anner in (hich the oath (as $ade, and there'ore, it is hereby held that
the search (arrant in Duestion and the subseDuent seizure o' the books, docu$ents and
other papers are ille)al and do not in any (ay (arrant the deprivation to (hich the petitioner
(as sub>ected.
:?. ;nother )round alle)ed by the petitioner in askin) that the search (arrant be declared
ille)al and cancelled is that it (as not supported by other a''idavits aside 'ro$ that $ade by
the applicant. :n other (ords, it is contended that the search (arrant cannot be issued unless
it be supported by a''idavits $ade by the applicant and the (itnesses to be presented
necessity by hi$. Section 1, para)raph , o' ;rticle ::: o' the Constitution provides that no
(arrants shall issue but upon probable cause, to be deter$ined by the >ud)e a'ter
e9a$ination under oath or a''ir$ation o' the co$plainant and the (itnesses he $ay produce.
Section 9J o' @eneral 6rders, #o. /J provides that the >ud)e or >ustice $ust, be'ore issuin)
the (arrant, e9a$ine under oath the co$plainant and any (itnesses he $ay produce and
take their depositions in (ritin). :t is the practice in this >urisdiction to attach the a''idavit o' at
least the applicant or co$plainant to the application. :t is ad$itted that the >ud)e (ho issued
the search (arrant in this case, relied e9clusively upon the a''idavit $ade by a)ent &ariano
@. ;l$eda and that he did not reDuire nor take the deposition o' any other (itness. #either
the Constitution nor @eneral 6rders. #o. /J provides that it is o' i$perative necessity to take
the deposition o' the (itnesses to be presented by the applicant or co$plainant in addition to
the a''idavit o' the latter. +he purpose o' both in reDuirin) the presentation o' depositions is
nothin) $ore than to satis'y the co$$ittin) $a)istrate o' the e9istence o' probable cause.
+here'ore, i' the a''idavit o' the applicant or co$plainant is su''icient, the >ud)e $ay dispense
(ith that o' other (itnesses. :nas$uch as the a''idavit o' the a)ent in this case (as
insu''icient because his kno(led)e o' the 'acts (as not personal but $erely hearsay, it is the
duty o' the >ud)e to reDuire the a''idavit o' one or $ore (itnesses 'or the purpose o'
deter$inin) the e9istence o' probable cause to (arrant the issuance o' the search (arrant.
When the a''idavit o' the applicant o' the co$plaint contains su''icient 'acts (ithin his
personal and direct kno(led)e, it is su''icient i' the >ud)e is satis'ied that there e9ist probable
cause= (hen the applicant1s kno(led)e o' the 'acts is $ere hearsay, the a''idavit o' one or
$ore (itnesses havin) a personal kno(led)e o' the 'act is necessary. We conclude,
there'ore, that the (arrant issued is like(ise ille)al because it (as based only on the a''idavit
o' the a)ent (ho had no personal kno(led)e o' the 'acts.
?. +he petitioner alle)ed as another )round 'or the declaration o' the ille)ality o' the search
(arrant and the cancellation thereo', the 'act that it authorized its e9ecution at ni)ht. Section
151 o' @eneral 6rders, #o. /J authorizes that the search be $ade at ni)ht (hen it is
positively asserted in the a''idavits that the property is on the person or in the place ordered
to be searched. ;s (e have declared the a''idavits insu''icient and the (arrant issued
e9clusively upon it ille)al, our conclusion is that the contention is eDually (ell 'ounded and
that the search could not le)ally be $ade at ni)ht.
?:. 6ne o' the )rounds alle)ed by the petitioner in support o' his contention that the (arrant
(as issued ille)ally is the lack o' an adeDuate description o' the books and docu$ents to be
seized. Section 1, para)raphs , o' ;rticle ::: o' the Constitution, and section 90 o' @eneral
6rders, #o. /J provide that the a''idavit to be presented, (hich shall serve as the basis 'or
deter$inin) (hether probable cause e9ist and (hether the (arrant should be issued, $ust
contain a particular description o' the place to be searched and the person or thin) to be
seized. +hese provisions are $andatory and $ust be strictly co$plied (ith 2&unch%s. A. S.,
!4 Fed. F!dG, /1J= A. S. %s. 8oyd, 1 Fed. F!dG, 1519= A. S. %s. Carlson, !9! Fed., 46= A.
S. %s.8orko(ski, !6J Fed., 45J= :n re +ri-State Coal M Coke Co., !/ Fed., 65/=
"eople %s. &ayen, 1JJ Cal., !0= "eople %s. .ahn, !/6 :ll. ;pp., 41!/3= but (here, by the
nature o' the )oods to be seized, their description $ust be rather )enerally, it is not reDuired
that a technical description be )iven, as this (ould $ean that no (arrant could issue
2"eople %s. <ubio, /0 "hil., !J4= "eople %s. .ahn, supra3. +he only description o' the articles
)iven in the a''idavit presented to the >ud)e (as as 'ollo(s* Ethat there are bein) kept in said
pre$ises books, docu$ents, receipts, lists, chits and other papers used by hi$ in connection
(ith his activities as $oney-lender, char)in) a usurious rate o' interest, in violation o' the
la(.E +akin) into consideration the nature o' the article so described, it is clear that no other
$ore adeDuate and detailed description could have been )iven, particularly because it is
di''icult to )ive a particular description o' the contents thereo'. +he description so $ade
substantially co$plies (ith the le)al provisions because the o''icer o' the la( (ho e9ecuted
the (arrant (as thereby placed in a position enablin) hi$ to identi'y the articles, (hich he
did.
?::. +he last )round alle)ed by the petitioner, in support o' his clai$ that the search (arrant
(as obtained ille)ally, is that the articles (ere seized in order that the ;nti-Asury 8oard
$i)ht provide itsel' (ith evidence to be used by it in the cri$inal case or cases (hich $i)ht
be 'iled a)ainst hi$ 'or violation o' the ;nti-usury %a(. ;t the hearin) o' the incidents o' the
case raised be'ore the court it clearly appeared that the books and docu$ents had really
been seized to enable the ;nti-Asury 8oard to conduct an investi)ation and later use all or
so$e o' the articles in Duestion as evidence a)ainst the petitioner in the cri$inal cases that
$ay be 'iled a)ainst hi$. +he seizure o' books and docu$ents by $eans o' a search
(arrant, 'or the purpose o' usin) the$ as evidence in a cri$inal case a)ainst the person in
(hose possession they (ere 'ound, is unconstitutional because it $akes the (arrant
unreasonable, and it is eDuivalent to a violation o' the constitutional provision prohibitin) the
co$pulsion o' an accused to testi'y a)ainst hi$sel' 2Ay .heytin %s.?illareal, 4! "hil,, JJ6=
8rady %s. A. S., !66 A. S., 6!5= +e$perani %s. A. S., !99 Fed., 6/= A. S. %s.&adden, !90
Fed., 609= 8oyd %s. A. S.,116 A. S., 116= Caroll %s. A. S., !60 A. S., 1!3. +here'ore, it
appearin) that at least nineteen o' the docu$ents in Duestion (ere seized 'or the purpose o'
usin) the$ as evidence a)ainst the petitioner in the cri$inal proceedin) or proceedin)s 'or
violation a)ainst hi$, (e hold that the search (arrant issued is ille)al and that the
docu$ents should be returned to hi$.
+he ;nti-Asury 8oard insinuates in its ans(er that the petitioner cannot no( Duestion the validity o'
the search (arrant or the proceedin)s had subseDuent to the issuance thereo', because he has
(aived his constitutional ri)hts in proposin) a co$pro$ise (hereby he a)reed to pay a 'ine o' "!55
'or the purpose o' evadin) the cri$inal proceedin) or proceedin)s. We are o' the opinion that there
(as no such (aiver, 'irst, because the petitioner has e$phatically denied the o''er o' co$pro$ise
and, second, because i' there (as a co$pro$ise it re''ered but to the institution o' cri$inal
proceedin)s 'ro violation o' the ;nti-Asury %a(. +he (aiver (ould have been a )ood de'ense 'or the
respondents had the petitioner voluntarily consented to the search and seizure o' the articles in
Duestion, but such (as not the case because the petitioner protested 'ro$ the be)innin) and stated
his protest in (ritin) in the insu''icient inventory 'urnished hi$ by the a)ents.
Said board alle)es as another de'ense that the re$edy sou)ht by the petitioner does not lie because
he can appeal 'ro$ the orders (hich pre>udiced hi$ and are the sub>ect $atter o' his petition.
Section !!! o' the Code o' Civil "rocedure in 'act provides that mandamus (ill not issue (hen there
is another plain, speedy and adeDuate re$edy in the ordinary course o' la(. We are o' the opinion,
ho(ever, that an appeal 'ro$ said orders (ould have to lapse be'ore he recovers possession o' the
docu$ents and be'ore the ri)hts, o' (hich he has been unla('ully deprived, are restored to hi$
2Fa>ardo %s. %lorente, 6 "hil., 4!6= &anotoc %s. &c&ickin) and +rinidad, 15 "hil., 119= Cruz ,errera
de %ukban %s. &c&ickin), 14 "hil., 641= %a$b %s. "hipps, !! "hil., 4/63.
Su$$arizin) the 'ore)oin) conclusions, (e hold*
1. +hat the provisions o' the Constitution and @eneral 6rders, #o. /J, relative to search and
seizure, should be )iven a liberal construction in 'avor o' the individual in order to $aintain
the constitutional )uaranties (hole and in their 'ull 'orce=
!. +hat since the provisions in Duestion are drastic in their 'or$ and 'unda$entally restrict
the en>oy$ent o' the o(nership, possession and use o' the personal property o' the
individual, they should be strictly construed=
. +hat the search and seizure $ade are ille)al 'or the 'ollo(in) reasons* 2a3 8ecause the
(arrant (as based solely upon the a''idavit o' the petitioner (ho had no personal kno(led)e
o' the 'acts o' probable cause, and 2b3 because the (arrant (as issued 'or the sole purpose
o' seizin) evidence (hich (ould later be used in the cri$inal proceedin)s that $i)ht be
instituted a)ainst the petitioner, 'or violation o' the ;nti-Asury %a(=
4. +hat as the (arrant had been issued unreasonably, and as it does not appear positively in
the a''idavit that the articles (ere in the possession o' the petitioner and in the place
indicated, neither could the search and seizure be $ade at ni)ht=
/. +hat althou)h it is not $andatory to present a''idavits o' (itnesses to corroborate the
applicant or a co$plainant in cases (here the latter has personal kno(led)e o' the 'acts,
(hen the applicant1s or co$plainant1s kno(led)e o' the 'acts is $erely hearsay, it is the duty
o' the >ud)e to reDuire a''idavits o' other (itnesses so that he $ay deter$ine (hether
probable cause e9ists=
6. +hat a detailed description o' the person and place to be searched and the articles to be
seized is necessary, but (hereby, by the nature o' the articles to be seized, their description
$ust be rather )eneral, but is not reDuired that a technical description be )iven, as this
(ould $ean that no (arrant could issue=
0. +hat the petitioner did not (aive his constitutional ri)hts because the o''er o' co$pro$ise
or settle$ent attributed to hi$, does not $ean, i' so $ade, that he voluntarily tolerated the
search and seizure= and
J. +hat an appeal 'ro$ the orders Duestioned by the petitioner, i' taken by hi$, (ould not be
an e''ective, speedy or adeDuate re$edy in the ordinary course o' la(, and, conseDuently,
the petition 'or mandamus'iled by hi$, lies.
For the 'ore)oin) considerations, the search (arrant and the seizure o' June , 196, and the orders
o' the respondent court authorizin) the relation o' the books and docu$ents, are declared ille)al and
are set aside, and it is ordered that the >ud)e presidin) over the Court o' First :nstance o' +ayabas
direct the i$$ediate return to the petitioner o' the nineteen 2193 docu$ents desi)nated on pa)es 1
to 4 o' the inventory by #os. /, 15, 16, !, !/,!6, !0, 5, 1, 4, 6, 0, J, 9, 45, 41, 4!, 4 and
4/, (ithout special pronounce$ent as to costs. So ordered.
A%ance#a- ,...- 6illa-+eal- 4iaz and ,oncepcion- ...- concur.
[G.R. No. L-32409. February 27, 1971.]
BACHE & C. !"H#L.$, #NC. a%& FRE'ER#C( E. )EGGER*AN, Petitioners, +. HN. ,-'GE .#.ENC#
*. R-#/, *#)AEL ". .ERA, 0% 102 3a4a305y a2 Co660220o%er o7 #%5er%a8 Re+e%ue, AR9-R
LGRN#, R'LF 'E LEN, GA.#N .ELA):-E/, *#*#R 'ELL)A, N#CANR ALCR',
,HN 'E, ,HN 'E, ,HN 'E, a%& ,HN 'E, Respondents.
)a% ,ua%, A7r03a, Go%;a8e2 & )a% A<u250%, 7or Petitioners.
)o80305or Ge%era8 Fe80= :. A%5o%0o, A22025a%5 )o80305or Ge%era8 Cr0240% . . Bau5025a, )o80305or "e&ro
A. Ra60re; a%& )4e30a8 A55or%ey ,a06e *. *a;a 7or Respondents.
' E C # ) # N
.#LLA*R, J.>
This is an original action of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, with prayer for a writ of preliminary
mandatory and prohibitory injunction. In their petition Bache & Co. (Phil., Inc., a corporation duly organi!ed
and e"isting under the laws of the Philippines, and its President, #rederic$ %. &eggerman, pray this Court to
declare null and 'oid &earch (arrant )o. *+,+-. issued by respondent /udge on #ebruary *0, 12-.3 to
order respondents to desist from enforcing the same and4or $eeping the documents, papers and effects
sei!ed by 'irtue thereof, as well as from enforcing the ta" assessments on petitioner corporation alleged by
petitioners to ha'e been made on the basis of the said documents, papers and effects, and to order the
return of the latter to petitioners. (e ga'e due course to the petition but did not issue the writ of
preliminary injunction prayed for therein.
The pertinent facts of this case, as gathered from record, are as follows5chanrob1es 'irtual 1awlibrary
6n #ebruary *7, 12-., respondent ,isael P. 8era, Commissioner of Internal 9e'enue, wrote a letter
addressed to respondent /udge 8i'encio ,. 9ui! re:uesting the issuance of a search warrant against
petitioners for 'iolation of &ection 7;(a of the )ational Internal 9e'enue Code, in relation to all other
pertinent pro'isions thereof, particularly &ections 0<, -*, -<, *.= and *.2, and authori!ing 9e'enue
%"aminer 9odolfo de >eon, one of herein respondents, to ma$e and file the application for search warrant
which was attached to the letter.
In the afternoon of the following day, #ebruary *0, 12-., respondent ?e >eon and his witness, respondent
@rturo >ogronio, went to the Court of #irst Instance of 9i!al. They brought with them the following papers5
respondent 8eraAs aforesaid letter+re:uest3 an application for search warrant already filled up but still
unsigned by respondent ?e >eon3 an affida'it of respondent >ogronio subscribed before respondent ?e
>eon3 a deposition in printed form of respondent >ogronio already accomplished and signed by him but not
yet subscribed3 and a search warrant already accomplished but still unsigned by respondent /udge.
@t that time respondent /udge was hearing a certain case3 so, by means of a note, he instructed his ?eputy
Cler$ of Court to ta$e the depositions of respondents ?e >eon and >ogronio. @fter the session had
adjourned, respondent /udge was informed that the depositions had already been ta$en. The stenographer,
upon re:uest of respondent /udge, read to him her stenographic notes3 and thereafter, respondent /udge
as$ed respondent >ogronio to ta$e the oath and warned him that if his deposition was found to be false and
without legal basis, he could be charged for perjury. 9espondent /udge signed respondent de >eonAs
application for search warrant and respondent >ogronioAs deposition, &earch (arrant )o. *+,+-. was then
sign by respondent /udge and accordingly issued.
Three days later, or on #ebruary *=, 12-., which was a &aturday, the BI9 agents ser'ed the search warrant
petitioners at the offices of petitioner corporation on @yala @'enue, ,a$ati, 9i!al. PetitionersA lawyers
protested the search on the ground that no formal complaint or transcript of testimony was attached to the
warrant. The agents ne'ertheless proceeded with their search which yielded si" bo"es of documents.
6n ,arch <, 12-., petitioners filed a petition with the Court of #irst Instance of 9i!al praying that the search
warrant be :uashed, dissol'ed or recalled, that preliminary prohibitory and mandatory writs of injunction be
issued, that the search warrant be declared null and 'oid, and that the respondents be ordered to pay
petitioners, jointly and se'erally, damages and attorneyAs fees. 6n ,arch 1=, 12-., the respondents, thru
the &olicitor Beneral, filed an answer to the petition. @fter hearing, the court, presided o'er by respondent
/udge, issued on /uly *2, 12-., an order dismissing the petition for dissolution of the search warrant. In the
meantime, or on @pril 1;, 12-., the Bureau of Internal 9e'enue made ta" assessments on petitioner
corporation in the total sum of P*,027,-*2.2-, partly, if not entirely, based on the documents thus sei!ed.
Petitioners came to this Court.
The petition should be granted for the following reasons5chanrob1es 'irtual 1aw library
1. 9espondent /udge failed to personally e"amine the complainant and his witness.
The pertinent pro'isions of the Constitution of the Philippines and of the 9e'ised 9ules of Court are5jgc5chanrobles.com.ph
C(< The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable
searches and sei!ures shall not be 'iolated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, to be
determined by the judge after e"amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses
he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be
sei!ed.C (@rt. III, &ec. 1, Constitution.
C&%C. <. 9e:uisites for issuing search warrant. D @ search warrant shall not issue but upon probable cause
in connection with one specific offense to be determined by the judge or justice of the peace after
e"amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be sei!ed.
C)o search warrant shall issue for more than one specific offense.
C&%C. 7. %"amination of the applicant. D The judge or justice of the peace must, before issuing the warrant,
personally e"amine on oath or affirmation the complainant and any witnesses he may produce and ta$e
their depositions in writing, and attach them to the record, in addition to any affida'its presented to him.C
(9ule 1*;, 9e'ised 9ules of Court.
The e"amination of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, re:uired by @rt. III, &ec. 1, par. <,
of the Constitution, and by &ecs. < and 7, 9ule 1*; of the 9e'ised 9ules of Court, should be conducted by
the judge himself and not by others. The phrase Cwhich shall be determined by the judge after e"amination
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce,C appearing in the said
constitutional pro'ision, was introduced by ?elegate #rancisco as an amendment to the draft submitted by
the &ub+Committee of &e'en. The following discussion in the Constitutional Con'ention (>aurel, Proceedings
of the Philippine Constitutional Con'ention, 8ol. III, pp. -00+-0- is enlightening5jgc5chanrobles.com.ph
C&9. 69%)&%. 8amos a dejar compaEero los piropos y 'amos al grano.
%n los casos de una necesidad de actuar inmediatamente para :ue no se frusten los fines de la justicia
mediante el registro inmediato y la incautacion del cuerpo del delito, no cree &u &eEoria :ue causaria cierta
demora el procedimiento apuntado en su enmienda en tal forma :ue podria frustrar los fines de la justicia o
si &u &eEoria encuentra un remedio para esto casos con el fin de compaginar los fines de la justicia con los
derechos del indi'iduo en su persona, bienes etcetera, etcetera.
C&9. #9@)CI&C6. )o puedo 'er en la practica el caso hipottico :ue &u &eEoria pregunta por la siguiente
ra!on5 el :ue solicita un mandamiento de registro tiene :ue hacerlo por escrito y ese escrito no aparecer en
la ,esa del /ue! sin :ue alguien 'aya el jue! a presentar ese escrito o peticion de sucuestro. %sa persona
:ue presenta el registro puede ser el mismo denunciante o alguna persona :ue solicita dicho mandamiento
de registro. @hora toda la enmienda en esos casos consiste en :ue haya peticion de registro y el jue! no se
atendra solamente a sea peticion sino :ue el jue! e"aminer a ese denunciante y si tiene testigos tambin
e"aminer a los testigos.
C&9. 69%)&%. )o cree &u &eEoria :ue el tomar le declaracion de ese denunciante por escrito siempre
re:ueriria algun tiempoF.
C&9. #9@)CI&C6. &eria cuestio de un par de horas, pero por otro lado minimi!amos en todo lo posible las
'ejaciones injustas con la e"pedicion arbitraria de los mandamientos de registro. Creo :ue entre dos males
debemos escoger. el menor.
x x x
C,9. >@G9%>. . . . The reason why we are in fa'or of this amendment is because we are incorporating in our
constitution something of a fundamental character. )ow, before a judge could issue a search warrant, he
must be under the obligation to e"amine personally under oath the complainant and if he has any witness,
the witnesses that he may produce . . .Ccralaw 'irtua1awlibrary
The implementing rule in the 9e'ised 9ules of Court, &ec. 7, 9ule 1*;, is more emphatic and candid, for it
re:uires the judge, before issuing a search warrant, to Cpersonally e"amine on oath or affirmation the
complainant and any witnesses he may produce . . .Ccralaw 'irtua1awlibrary
Personal e"amination by the judge of the complainant and his witnesses is necessary to enable him to
determine the e"istence or non+e"istence of a probable cause, pursuant to @rt. III, &ec. 1, par. <, of the
Constitution, and &ec. <, 9ule 1*; of the 9e'ised 9ules of Court, both of which prohibit the issuance of
warrants e"cept Cupon probable cause.C The determination of whether or not a probable cause e"ists calls
for the e"ercise of judgment after a judicial appraisal of facts and should not be allowed to be delegated in
the absence of any rule to the contrary.
In the case at bar, no personal e"amination at all was conducted by respondent /udge of the complainant
(respondent ?e >eon and his witness (respondent >ogronio. (hile it is true that the complainantAs
application for search warrant and the witnessA printed+form deposition were subscribed and sworn to before
respondent /udge, the latter did not as$ either of the two any :uestion the answer to which could possibly
be the basis for determining whether or not there was probable cause against herein petitioners. Indeed, the
participants seem to ha'e attached so little significance to the matter that notes of the proceedings before
respondent /udge were not e'en ta$en. @t this juncture it may be well to recall the salient facts. The
transcript of stenographic notes (pp. ;1+-;, @pril 1, 12-., @nne" /+* of the Petition ta$en at the hearing of
this case in the court below shows that per instruction of respondent /udge, ,r. %leodoro 8. Bon!ales,
&pecial ?eputy Cler$ of Court, too$ the depositions of the complainant and his witness, and that
stenographic notes thereof were ta$en by ,rs. Baspar. @t that time respondent /udge was at the sala
hearing a case. @fter respondent /udge was through with the hearing, ?eputy Cler$ Bon!ales, stenographer
Baspar, complainant ?e >eon and witness >ogronio went to respondent /udgeAs chamber and informed the
/udge that they had finished the depositions. 9espondent /udge then re:uested the stenographer to read to
him her stenographic notes. &pecial ?eputy Cler$ Bon!ales testified as follows5jgc5chanrobles.com.ph
C@ @nd after finishing reading the stenographic notes, the Honorable /udge re:uested or instructed them,
re:uested ,r. >ogronio to raise his hand and warned him if his deposition will be found to be false and
without legal basis, he can be charged criminally for perjury. The Honorable Court told ,r. >ogronio whether
he affirms the facts contained in his deposition and the affida'it e"ecuted before ,r. 9odolfo de >eon.
CI @nd thereafterF
C@ @nd thereafter, he signed the deposition of ,r. >ogronio.
CI (ho is this heF
C@ The Honorable /udge.
CI The deposition or the affida'itF
C@ The affida'it, Jour Honor.Ccralaw 'irtua1awlibrary
Thereafter, respondent /udge signed the search warrant.
The participation of respondent /udge in the proceedings which led to the issuance of &earch (arrant )o. *+
,+-. was thus limited to listening to the stenographerAs readings of her notes, to a few words of warning
against the commission of perjury, and to administering the oath to the complainant and his witness. This
cannot be consider a personal e"amination. If there was an e"amination at all of the complainant and his
witness, it was the one conducted by the ?eputy Cler$ of Court. But, as stated, the Constitution and the
rules re:uire a personal e"amination by the judge. It was precisely on account of the intention of the
delegates to the Constitutional Con'ention to ma$e it a duty of the issuing judge to personally e"amine the
complainant and his witnesses that the :uestion of how much time would be consumed by the judge in
e"amining them came up before the Con'ention, as can be seen from the record of the proceedings :uoted
abo'e. The reading of the stenographic notes to respondent /udge did not constitute sufficient compliance
with the constitutional mandate and the rule3 for by that manner respondent /udge did not ha'e the
opportunity to obser'e the demeanor of the complainant and his witness, and to propound initial and follow+
up :uestions which the judicial mind, on account of its training, was in the best position to concei'e. These
were important in arri'ing at a sound inference on the all+important :uestion of whether or not there was
probable cause.
*. The search warrant was issued for more than one specific offense.
&earch (arrant )o. *+,+-. was issued forC K'Liolation of &ec. 7;(a of the )ational Internal 9e'enue Code
in relation to all other pertinent pro'isions thereof particularly &ecs. 0<, -*, -<, *.= and *.2.C The :uestion
is5 (as the said search warrant issued Cin connection with one specific offense,C as re:uired by &ec. <, 9ule
1*;F
To arri'e at the correct answer it is essential to e"amine closely the pro'isions of the Ta" Code referred to
abo'e. Thus we find the following5chanrob1es 'irtual 1aw library
&ec. 7;(a re:uires the filing of income ta" returns by corporations.
&ec. 0< re:uires the withholding of income ta"es at source.
&ec. -* imposes surcharges for failure to render income ta" returns and for rendering false and fraudulent
returns.
&ec. -< pro'ides the penalty for failure to pay the income ta", to ma$e a return or to supply the information
re:uired under the Ta" Code.
&ec. *.= penali!esC KaLny person who distills, rectifies, repac$s, compounds, or manufactures any article
subject to a specific ta", without ha'ing paid the pri'ilege ta" therefore, or who aids or abets in the conduct
of illicit distilling, rectifying, compounding, or illicit manufacture of any article subject to specific ta" . . .,C
and pro'ides that in the case of a corporation, partnership, or association, the official and4or employee who
caused the 'iolation shall be responsible.
&ec. *.2 penali!es the failure to ma$e a return of receipts, sales, business, or gross 'alue of output
remo'ed, or to pay the ta" due thereon.
The search warrant in :uestion was issued for at least four distinct offenses under the Ta" Code. The first is
the 'iolation of &ec. 7;(a, &ec. -* and &ec. -< (the filing of income ta" returns, which are interrelated.
The second is the 'iolation of &ec. 0< (withholding of income ta"es at source. The third is the 'iolation of
&ec. *.= (unlawful pursuit of business or occupation3 and the fourth is the 'iolation of &ec. *.2 (failure to
ma$e a return of receipts, sales, business or gross 'alue of output actually remo'ed or to pay the ta" due
thereon. %'en in their classification the si" abo'e+mentioned pro'isions are embraced in two different titles5
&ecs. 7;(a, 0<, -* and -< are under Title II (Income Ta"3 while &ecs. *.= and *.2 are under Title 8
(Pri'ilege Ta" on Business and 6ccupation.
9espondents argue that &tonehill, %t. @l. '. ?io$no, %t @l., >+1200., /une 12, 12;- (*. &C9@ <=<, is not
applicable, because there the search warrants were issued for C'iolation of Central Ban$ >aws, Internal
9e'enue (Code and 9e'ised Penal Code3C whereas, here &earch (arrant )o *+,+-. was issued for 'iolation
of only one code, i.e., the )ational Internal 9e'enue Code. The distinction more apparent than real, because
it was precisely on account of the &tonehill incident, which occurred sometime before the present 9ules of
Court too$ effect on /anuary 1, 12;7, that this Court amended the former rule by inserting therein the
phrase Cin connection with one specific offense,C and adding the sentence C)o search warrant shall issue for
more than one specific offense,C in what is now &ec. <, 9ule 1*;. Thus we said in &tonehill5jgc5chanrobles.com.ph
C&uch is the seriousness of the irregularities committed in connection with the disputed search warrants,
that this Court deemed it fit to amend &ection < of 9ule 1** of the former 9ules of Court that Ma search
warrant shall not issue but upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense.A )ot satisfied with
this :ualification, the Court added thereto a paragraph, directing that Mno search warrant shall issue for more
than one specific offense.AC
<. The search warrant does not particularly describe the things to be sei!ed.
The documents, papers and effects sought to be sei!ed are described in &earch (arrant )o. *+,+-. in this
manner5jgc5chanrobles.com.ph
CGnregistered and pri'ate boo$s of accounts (ledgers, journals, columnars, receipts and disbursements
boo$s, customers ledgers3 receipts for payments recei'ed3 certificates of stoc$s and securities3 contracts,
promissory notes and deeds of sale3 tele" and coded messages3 business communications, accounting and
business records3 chec$s and chec$ stubs3 records of ban$ deposits and withdrawals3 and records of foreign
remittances, co'ering the years 12;; to 12-..Ccralaw 'irtua1awlibrary
The description does not meet the re:uirement in @rt III, &ec. 1, of the Constitution, and of &ec. <, 9ule 1*;
of the 9e'ised 9ules of Court, that the warrant should particularly describe the things to be sei!ed.
In &tonehill, this Court, spea$ing thru ,r. Chief /ustice 9oberto Concepcion, said5jgc5chanrobles.com.ph
CThe gra'e 'iolation of the Constitution made in the application for the contested search warrants was
compounded by the description therein made of the effects to be searched for and sei!ed, to wit5chanrob1es 'irtual 1aw library
MBoo$s of accounts, financial records, 'ouchers, journals, correspondence, receipts, ledgers, portfolios, credit
journals, typewriters, and other documents and4or paper showing all business transactions including
disbursement receipts, balance sheets and related profit and loss statements.A
CThus, the warrants authori!ed the search for and sei!ure of records pertaining to all business transactions
of petitioners herein, regardless of whether the transactions were legal or illegal. The warrants sanctioned
the sei!ure of all records of the petitioners and the aforementioned corporations, whate'er their nature, thus
openly contra'ening the e"plicit command of our Bill of 9ights D that the things to be sei!ed be particularly
described D as well as tending to defeat its major objecti'e5 the elimination of general warrants.Ccralaw 'irtua1awlibrary
(hile the term Call business transactionsC does not appear in &earch (arrant )o. *+,+-., the said warrant
ne'ertheless tends to defeat the major objecti'e of the Bill of 9ights, i.e., the elimination of general
warrants, for the language used therein is so all+embracing as to include all concei'able records of petitioner
corporation, which, if sei!ed, could possibly render its business inoperati'e.
In Gy Nheytin, %t. @l. '. 8illareal, etc., %t @l., 7* Phil. ==;, =2;, this Court had occasion to e"plain the
purpose of the re:uirement that the warrant should particularly describe the place to be searched and the
things to be sei!ed, to wit5jgc5chanrobles.com.ph
C. . . Both the /ones >aw (sec. < and Beneral 6rders )o. 0= (sec. 2- specifically re:uire that a search
warrant should particularly describe the place to be searched and the things to be sei!ed. The e'ident
purpose and intent of this re:uirement is to limit the things to be sei!ed to those, and only those,
particularly described in the search warrant D to lea'e the officers of the law with no discretion regarding
what articles they shall sei!e, to the end that Munreasonable searches and sei!uresA may not be made, D
that abuses may not be committed. That this is the correct interpretation of this constitutional pro'ision is
borne out by @merican authorities.Ccralaw 'irtua1awlibrary
The purpose as thus e"plained could, surely and effecti'ely, be defeated under the search warrant issued in
this case.
@ search warrant may be said to particularly describe the things to be sei!ed when the description therein is
as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow (People '. 9ubio3 0- Phil. <=73 or when the description
e"presses a conclusion of fact D not of law D by which the warrant officer may be guided in ma$ing the
search and sei!ure (idem., dissent of @bad &antos, J.,3 or when the things described are limited to those
which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued (&ec. *, 9ule 1*;, 9e'ised
9ules of Court. The herein search warrant does not conform to any of the foregoing tests. If the articles
desired to be sei!ed ha'e any direct relation to an offense committed, the applicant must necessarily ha'e
some e'idence, other than those articles, to pro'e the said offense3 and the articles subject of search and
sei!ure should come in handy merely to strengthen such e'idence. In this e'ent, the description contained
in the herein disputed warrant should ha'e mentioned, at least, the dates, amounts, persons, and other
pertinent data regarding the receipts of payments, certificates of stoc$s and securities, contracts,
promissory notes, deeds of sale, messages and communications, chec$s, ban$ deposits and withdrawals,
records of foreign remittances, among others, enumerated in the warrant.
9espondents contend that certiorari does not lie because petitioners failed to file a motion for
reconsideration of respondent /udgeAs order of /uly *2, 12-.. The contention is without merit. In the first
place, when the :uestions raised before this Court are the same as those which were s:uarely raised in and
passed upon by the court below, the filing of a motion for reconsideration in said court before certiorari can
be instituted in this Court is no longer a prere:uisite. (Pajo, etc., %t. @l. '. @go, %t @l., 1.= Phil., 2.0. In the
second place, the rule re:uiring the filing of a motion for reconsideration before an application for a writ
of certiorari can be entertained was ne'er intended to be applied without considering the circumstances.
(,atutina '. Buslon, %t @l., 1.2 Phil., 17.. In the case at bar time is of the essence in 'iew of the ta"
assessments sought to be enforced by respondent officers of the Bureau of Internal 9e'enue against
petitioner corporation, 6n account of which immediate and more direct action becomes necessary. (,atute
'. Court of @ppeals, %t @l., *; &C9@ -;=. >astly, the rule does not apply where, as in this case, the
depri'ation of petitionersA fundamental right to due process taints the proceeding against them in the court
below not only with irregularity but also with nullity. (,atute '. Court of @ppeals, %t @l., supra.
It is ne"t contended by respondents that a corporation is not entitled to protection against unreasonable
search and sei!ures. @gain, we find no merit in the contention.
C@lthough, for the reasons abo'e stated, we are of the opinion that an officer of a corporation which is
charged with a 'iolation of a statute of the state of its creation, or of an act of Congress passed in the
e"ercise of its constitutional powers, cannot refuse to produce the boo$s and papers of such corporation, we
do not wish to be understood as holding that a corporation is not entitled to immunity, under the 7th
@mendment, against unreasonable searches and sei!ures. @ corporation is, after all, but an association of
indi'iduals under an assumed name and with a distinct legal entity. In organi!ing itself as a collecti'e body it
wai'es no constitutional immunities appropriate to such body. Its property cannot be ta$en without
compensation. It can only be proceeded against by due process of law, and is protected, under the 17th
@mendment, against unlawful discrimination . . .C (Hale '. Hen$el, *.1 G.&. 7<, 0. >. ed. ;0*.
CIn >inn '. Gnited &tates, 1;< C.C.@. 7-., *01 #ed. 7-;, 7=., it was thought that a different rule applied to
a corporation, the ground that it was not pri'ileged from producing its boo$s and papers. But the rights of a
corporation against unlawful search and sei!ure are to be protected e'en if the same result might ha'e been
achie'ed in a lawful way.C (&il'erthorne >umber Company, %t. @l. '. Gnited &tates of @merica, *01 G.&. <=0,
;7 >. ed. <12.
In &tonehill, %t. @l. '. ?io$no, %t @l., supra, this Court impliedly recogni!ed the right of a corporation to
object against unreasonable searches and sei!ures, thus5jgc5chanrobles.com.ph
C@s regards the first group, we hold that petitioners herein ha'e no cause of action to assail the legality of
the contested warrants and of the sei!ures made in pursuance thereof, for the simple reason that said
corporations ha'e their respecti'e personalities, separate and distinct from the personality of herein
petitioners, regardless of the amount of shares of stoc$ or the interest of each of them in said corporations,
whate'er, the offices they hold therein may be. Indeed, it is well settled that the legality of a sei!ure can be
contested only by the party whose rights ha'e been impaired thereby, and that the objection to an unlawful
search and sei!ure is purely personal and cannot be a'ailed of by third parties. Conse:uently, petitioners
herein may not 'alidly object to the use in e'idence against them of the documents, papers and things
sei!ed from the offices and premises of the corporations ad'erted to abo'e, since the right to object to the
admission of said papers in e'idence belongs e"clusi'ely to the corporations, to whom the sei!ed effects
belong, and may not be in'o$ed by the corporate officers in proceedings against them in their indi'idual
capacity . . .Ccralaw 'irtua1awlibrary
In the &tonehill case only the officers of the 'arious corporations in whose offices documents, papers and
effects were searched and sei!ed were the petitioners. In the case at bar, the corporation to whom the
sei!ed documents belong, and whose rights ha'e thereby been impaired, is itself a petitioner. 6n that score,
petitioner corporation here stands on a different footing from the corporations in &tonehill.
The ta" assessments referred to earlier in this opinion were, if not entirely D as claimed by petitioners D at
least partly D as in effect admitted by respondents D based on the documents sei!ed by 'irtue of &earch
(arrant )o. *+,+-.. #urthermore, the fact that the assessments were made some one and one+half months
after the search and sei!ure on #ebruary *0, 12-., is a strong indication that the documents thus sei!ed
ser'ed as basis for the assessments. Those assessments should therefore not be enforced.
P9%,I&%& C6)&I?%9%?, the petition is granted. @ccordingly, &earch (arrant )o. *+,+-. issued by
respondent /udge is declared null and 'oid3 respondents are permanently enjoined from enforcing the said
search warrant3 the documents, papers and effects sei!ed thereunder are ordered to be returned to
petitioners3 and respondent officials the Bureau of Internal 9e'enue and their representati'es are
permanently enjoined from enforcing the assessments mentioned in @nne" CBC of the present petition, as
well as other assessments based on the documents, papers and effects sei!ed under the search warrant
herein nullified, and from using the same against petitioners in any criminal or other proceeding. )o
pronouncement as to costs.
Concepcion, C.J., ?i!on, ,a$alintal, Oaldi'ar, #ernando, Teehan$ee and ,a$asiar, JJ., concur.
9eyes, /.B.>., J., concurs with ,r. /ustice Barredo.
Castro, J., concurs in the result.
)e4ara5e 40%0o%2
B@99%?6, J., concurring5chanrob1es 'irtual 1aw library
I concur.
I agree with the ruling that the search warrants in :uestion 'iolates the specific injunction of &ection <, 9ule
1*; that C)o search warrant shall issue for more than one specific offense.C There is no :uestion in my mind
that, as 'ery clearly pointed out by ,r. /ustice 8illamor, the phrase Cfor 'iolation of &ection 7; (a of the
)ational Internal 9e'enue Code in relation to all other pertinent pro'isions thereof, particularly &ections 0<,
-*, -<, *.= and *.2C refers to more than one specific offense, considering that the 'iolation of &ection 0<
which refers to withholding of income ta"es at the sources, &ection *.= which punishes pursuit of business
or occupation without payment of the corresponding specific or pri'ilege ta"es, and &ection *.2 which
penali!es failure to ma$e a return of receipts sales, business or gross 'alue output actually remo'ed or to
pay the ta"es thereon in connection with Title 8 on Pri'ilege Ta"es on Business and 6ccupation can hardly
be absorbed in a charge of alleged 'iolation of &ection 7;(a, which merely re:uires the filing of income ta"
returns by corporations, so as to constitute with it a single offense. I percei'e here the danger that the
result of the search applied for may be used as basis not only for a charge of 'iolating &ection 7;(a but also
and separately of &ection 0<, *.= and *.2. 6f course, it is to be admitted that &ections -* and -<, also
mentioned in the application, are really directly related to &ection 7;(a because &ection -* pro'ides for
surcharges for failure to render, returns and for rendering false and fraudulent returns and &ection -< refers
to the penalty for failure to file returns or to pay the corresponding ta". Ta$en together, they constitute one
single offense penali!ed under &ection -<. I am not and cannot be in fa'or of any scheme which amounts to
an indirect means of achie'ing that which not allowed to be done directly. By merely saying that a party is
being charged with 'iolation of one section of the code in relation to a number of other sections thereof
which in truth ha'e no clear or direct bearing with the first is to me condemnable because it is no less than a
shotgun de'ice which trenches on the basic liberties intended to be protected by the une:ui'ocal limitations
imposed by the Constitution and the 9ules of Court on the pri'ilege to secure a search warrant with the
aggra'ating circumstance of being coupled with an attempt to mislead the judge before whom the
application for its issuance is presented.
I cannot close this brief concurrence without e"pressing my 'ehement disappro'al of the action ta$en by
respondent internal re'enue authorities in using the documents and papers secured during the search, the
legality of which was pending resolution by the court, as basis of an assessment, no matter how highly
moti'ated such action might ha'e been. This smac$s of lac$ of respect, if not contempt for the court and is
certainly intolerable. @t the 'ery least, it appears as an attempt to render the court proceedings moot and
academic, and dealing as this case does with constitutionally protected rights which are part and parcel of
the basic concepts of indi'idual liberty and democracy, the go'ernment agents should ha'e been the first
ones to refrain from trying to ma$e a farce of these court proceedings. Indeed, it is to be regretted that the
go'ernment agents and the court ha'e acted irregularly, for it is highly doubtful if it would be consistent with
the sacredness of the rights herein found to ha'e been 'iolated to permit the filing of another application
which complies with the constitutional re:uirements abo'e discussed and the ma$ing of another search upon
the return of the papers and documents now in their illegal possession. This could be an instance wherein
ta"es properly due the &tate will probably remain unassessed and unpaid only because the ones in charge of
the e"ecution of the laws did not $now how to respect basic constitutional rights and liberties.
G.R. No. 22929 No:e.4e/ 15, 1922
MA7$MO %. SOL$%EN, ANTON$O %. ROCES, "RE3ER$C; ;. AGCAOL$, n! GO3O"RE3O L.
MAN1ANAS,petitioners,
vs.
THE HON. RAMON 6. MA;AS$AR, 6/e(&!&n- Ju!-e o0 +'e Re-&on8 T/&8 Cou/+ o0 Mn&8,
B/n)' 39, UN3ERSECRETAR# S$L%ESTRE BELLO $$$, o0 +'e 3e*/+.en+ o0 Ju(+&)e, LU$S C.
%$CTOR, THE C$T# "$SCAL O" MAN$LA n! 6RES$3ENT CORA1ON C. A<U$NO, respondents.
G.R. No. 22227 No:e.4e/ 15, 1922
LU$S 3. BELTRAN, petitioner,
vs.
THE HON. RAMON 6. MA;AS$AR, 6/e(&!&n- Ju!-e o0 B/n)' 39 o0 +'e Re-&on8 T/&8 Cou/+, +
Mn&8, THE HON. LU$S %$CTOR, C$T# "$SCAL O" MAN$LA, 6EO6LE O" THE 6H$L$66$NES,
SU6ER$NTEN3ENT O" THE WESTERN 6OL$CE 3$STR$CT, n! THE MEMBERS O" THE
6ROCESS SER%$NG UN$T AT THE REG$ONAL TR$AL COURT O" MAN$LA, respondents.
G.R. No. 23979 No:e.4e/ 15, 1922.
LU$S 3. BELTRAN, petitioner,
vs.
E7ECUT$%E SECRETAR# CATAL$NO MACARA$G, SECRETAR# O" JUST$CE SE3"RE#
OR3O=E1, UN3ERSECRETAR# O" JUST$CE S$L%ESTRE BELLO $$$, THE C$T# "$SCAL O"
MAN$LA JESUS ". GUERRERO, n! JU3GE RAMON 6. MA;AS$AR, 6/e(&!&n- Ju!-e o0
B/n)' 39 o0 +'e Re-&on8 T/&8 Cou/+, + Mn&8, respondents.
Angara- Abello- ,oncepcion- +egala and ,ruz for petitioners in G.+. 9o. <=><>.
0erfecto 6. Fernandez- .ose 0. Fernandez and ,ristobal 0. Fernandez for petitioner in G.+. 9os.
<=<=? and <@A?A.
R E S O L U T $ O N

6ER CUR$AM>
:n these consolidated cases, three principal issues (ere raised* 213 (hether or not petitioners (ere
denied due process (hen in'or$ations 'or libel (ere 'iled a)ainst the$ althou)h the 'indin) o' the
e9istence o' a prima faciecase (as still under revie( by the Secretary o' Justice and, subseDuently,
by the "resident= 2!3 (hether or not the constitutional ri)hts o' 8eltran (ere violated (hen
respondent <+C >ud)e issued a (arrant 'or his arrest (ithout personally e9a$inin) the co$plainant
and the (itnesses, i' any, to deter$ine probable cause= and 23 (hether or not the "resident o' the
"hilippines, under the Constitution, $ay initiate cri$inal proceedin)s a)ainst the petitioners throu)h
the 'ilin) o' a co$plaint-a''idavit.
SubseDuent events have rendered the 'irst issue $oot and acade$ic. 6n &arch 5, 19JJ, the
Secretary o' Justice denied petitioners1 $otion 'or reconsideration and upheld the resolution o' the
Andersecretary o' Justice sustainin) the City Fiscal1s 'indin) o' a prima facie case a)ainst
petitioners. ; second $otion 'or reconsideration 'iled by petitioner 8eltran (as denied by the
Secretary o' Justice on ;pril 0, 19JJ. 6n appeal, the "resident, throu)h the 79ecutive Secretary,
a''ir$ed the resolution o' the Secretary o' Justice on &ay !, 19JJ. +he $otion 'or reconsideration
(as denied by the 79ecutive Secretary on &ay 16, 19JJ. With these develop$ents, petitioners1
contention that they have been denied the ad$inistrative re$edies available under the la( has lost
'actual support.
:t $ay also be added that (ith respect to petitioner 8eltran, the alle)ation o' denial o' due process o'
la( in the preli$inary investi)ation is ne)ated by the 'act that instead o' sub$ittin) his counter-
a''idavits, he 'iled a E&otion to Ceclare "roceedin)s Closed,E in e''ect (aivin) his ri)ht to re'ute the
co$plaint by 'ilin) counter-a''idavits. Cue process o' la( does not reDuire that the respondent in a
cri$inal case actually 'ile his counter-a''idavits be'ore the preli$inary investi)ation is dee$ed
co$pleted. ;ll that is reDuired is that the respondent be )iven the opportunity to sub$it counter-
a''idavits i' he is so $inded.
+he second issue, raised by petitioner 8eltran, calls 'or an interpretation o' the constitutional
provision on the issuance o' (arrants o' arrest. +he pertinent provision reads*
;rt. :::, Sec. !. +he ri)ht o' the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers
and e''ects a)ainst unreasonable searches and seizures o' (hatever nature and 'or
any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search (arrant or (arrant o' arrest shall
issue e9cept upon probable cause to be deter$ined personally by the >ud)e a'ter
e9a$ination nder oath or a''ir$ation o' the co$plainant and the (itnesses he $ay
produce, and particularly describin) the place to be searched and the persons or
thin)s to be seized.
+he addition o' the (ord EpersonallyE a'ter the (ord Edeter$inedE and the deletion o' the )rant o'
authority by the 190 Constitution to issue (arrants to Eother responsible o''icers as $ay be
authorized by la(,E has apparently convinced petitioner 8eltran that the Constitution no( reDuires
the >ud)e to personally e9a$ine the co$plainant and his (itnesses in his deter$ination o' probable
cause 'or the issuance o' (arrants o' arrest. +his is not an accurate interpretation.
What the Constitution underscores is the e9clusive and personal responsibility o' the issuin) >ud)e to
satis'y hi$sel' o' the e9istence o' probable cause. :n satis'yin) hi$sel' o' the e9istence o' probable
cause 'or the issuance o' a (arrant o' arrest, the >ud)e is not reDuired to personally e9a$ine the
co$plainant and his (itnesses. Follo(in) established doctrine and procedure, he shall* 213
personally evaluate the report and the supportin) docu$ents sub$itted by the 'iscal re)ardin) the
e9istence o' probable cause and, on the basis thereo', issue a (arrant o' arrest= or 2!3 i' on the basis
thereo' he 'inds no probable cause, he $ay disre)ard the 'iscal1s report and reDuire the sub$ission
o' supportin) a''idavits o' (itnesses to aid hi$ in arrivin) at a conclusion as to the e9istence o'
probable cause.
Sound policy dictates this procedure, other(ise >ud)es (ould be unduly laden (ith the preli$inary
e9a$ination and investi)ation o' cri$inal co$plaints instead o' concentratin) on hearin) and
decidin) cases 'iled be'ore their courts.
6n June 5, 19J0, the Supre$e Court unani$ously adopted Circular #o. 1!, settin) do(n
)uidelines 'or the issuance o' (arrants o' arrest. +he procedure therein provided is reiterated and
clari'ied in this resolution.
:t has not been sho(n that respondent >ud)e has deviated 'ro$ the prescribed procedure. +hus, (ith
re)ard to the issuance o' the (arrants o' arrest, a 'indin) o' )rave abuse o' discretion a$ountin) to
lack or e9cess o' >urisdiction cannot be sustained.
;nent the third issue, petitioner 8eltran ar)ues that Ethe reasons (hich necessitate presidential
i$$unity 'ro$ suit i$pose a correlative disability to 'ile suit.E ,e contends that i' cri$inal
proceedin)s ensue by virtue o' the "resident1s 'ilin) o' her co$plaint-a''idavit, she $ay subseDuently
have to be a (itness 'or the prosecution, brin)in) her under the trial court1s >urisdiction. +his,
continues 8eltran, (ould in an indirect (ay de'eat her privile)e o' i$$unity 'ro$ suit, as by testi'yin)
on the (itness stand, she (ould be e9posin) hersel' to possible conte$pt o' court or per>ury.
+he rationale 'or the )rant to the "resident o' the privile)e o' i$$unity 'ro$ suit is to assure the
e9ercise o' "residential duties and 'unctions 'ree 'ro$ any hindrance or distraction, considerin) that
bein) the Chie' 79ecutive o' the @overn$ent is a >ob that, aside 'ro$ reDuirin) all o' the o''ice
holder1s ti$e, also de$ands undivided attention.
8ut this privile)e o' i$$unity 'ro$ suit, pertains to the "resident by virtue o' the o''ice and $ay be
invoked only by the holder o' the o''ice= not by any other person in the "resident1s behal'. +hus, an
accused in a cri$inal case in (hich the "resident is co$plainant cannot raise the presidential
privile)e as a de'ense to prevent the case 'ro$ proceedin) a)ainst such accused.
&oreover, there is nothin) in our la(s that (ould prevent the "resident 'ro$ (aivin) the privile)e.
+hus, i' so $inded the "resident $ay shed the protection a''orded by the privile)e and sub$it to the
court1s >urisdiction. +he choice o' (hether to e9ercise the privile)e or to (aive it is solely the
"resident1s prero)ative. :t is a decision that cannot be assu$ed and i$posed by any other person.
;s re)ards the contention o' petitioner 8eltran that he could not be held liable 'or libel because o' the
privile)ed character or the publication, the Court reiterates that it is not a trier o' 'acts and that such
a de'ense is best le't to the trial court to appreciate a'ter receivin) the evidence o' the parties.
;s to petitioner 8eltran1s clai$ that to allo( the libel case to proceed (ould produce a Echillin) e''ectE
on press 'reedo$, the Court 'inds no basis at this sta)e to rule on the point.
+he petitions 'ail to establish that public respondents, throu)h their separate acts, )ravely abused
their discretion as to a$ount to lack o' >urisdiction. ,ence, the (rits o' certiorari and prohibition
prayed 'or cannot issue.
W,7<7F6<7, 'indin) no )rave abuse o' discretion a$ountin) to e9cess or lack o' >urisdiction on
the part o' the public respondents, the Court <esolved to C:S&:SS the petitions in @. <. #os. J!/J/,
J!J!0 and J909. +he 6rder to $aintain the status &uo contained in the <esolution o' the Court en
banc dated ;pril 0, 19JJ and reiterated in the <esolution dated ;pril !6, 19JJ is %:F+7C.
Fernan- ,...- 9ar%asa- Melencio-)errera- ,ruz- 0aras- Feliciano- Ganca'co- 0adilla- /idin-
Sarmiento- ,ortes- Gri#o-A&uino Medialdea and +egalado- ...- concur.


Se*/+e O*&n&on(

GUT$ERRE1, JR., J., concurrin)*
: concur (ith the $a>ority opinion inso'ar as it involves the three principal issues $entioned in its
openin) state$ent. ,o(ever, as to the $ore i$portant issue on (hether or not the prosecution o'
the libel case (ould produce a Echillin) e''ectE on press 'reedo$, : be) to reserve $y vote. : believe
this is the $ore i$portant issue in these petitions and it should be resolved no( rather that later.
Consistent (ith our decision in Salonga %. ,ruz 0ano 214 SC<; 4J F19J/G3, the Court should not
hesitate to Duash a cri$inal prosecution in the interest o' $ore enli)htened and substantial >ustice
(here it is not alone the cri$inal liability o' an accused in a see$in)ly $inor libel case (hich is
involved but broader considerations o' )overn$ental po(er versus a pre'erred 'reedo$.
We have in these 'our petitions the unusual situation (here the hi)hest o''icial o' the <epublic and
one (ho en>oys unprecedented public support asks 'or the prosecution o' a ne(spaper colu$nist,
the publisher and chair$an o' the editorial board, the $ana)in) editor and the business $ana)er in
a not too indubitable a case 'or alle)ed libel.
: a$ 'ully in accord (ith an all out prosecution i' the e''ect (ill be li$ited to punishin) a
ne(spaper$an (ho, instead o' observin) accuracy and 'airness, en)a)es in un(arranted personal
attacks, irresponsible t(istin) o' 'acts, o' $alicious distortions o' hal'-truths (hich tend to cause
dishonor, discredit, or conte$pt o' the co$plainant. ,o(ever, this case is not a si$ple prosecution
'or libel. We have as co$plainant a po(er'ul and popular "resident (ho heads the investi)ation and
prosecution service and appoints $e$bers o' appellate courts but (ho 'eels so terribly $ali)ned
that she has taken the unorthodo9 step o' )oin) to court inspite o' the invocations o' 'reedo$ o' the
press (hich (ould inevitably 'ollo(.
: believe that this Court should have acted on this issue no( instead o' leavin) the $atter to 'iscals
and de'ense la(yers to ar)ue be'ore a trial >ud)e.
+here is al(ays bound to be harass$ent inherent in any cri$inal prosecution. Where the
harass$ent )oes beyond the usual di''iculties encountered by any accused and results in an
un(illin)ness o' $edia to 'reely criticize )overn$ent or to Duestion )overn$ent handlin) o' sensitive
issues and public a''airs, this Court and not a lo(er tribunal should dra( the de$arcation line.
;s early as &arch J, 191J, the decision in ;nited States %. /ustos 20 "hil. 013 stated that
E2c3o$plete liberty to co$$ent on the conduct o' public $en is a scalpel in the case o' 'ree speech.
+he sharp incision o' its probe relieves the abscesses o' o''icialdo$. &en in public li'e $ay su''er
under a hostile and un>ust accusation= the (ound can be assua)ed (ith the bal$ o' a clear
conscience.E +he Court pointed out that (hile de'a$ation is not authorized, criticis$ is to be
e9pected and should be borne 'or the co$$on )ood.
:n 0eople %. 0erfecto 24 "hil. JJ0 F19!!G3, the Court stated*
999 999 999
... #o lon)er is there a &inister o' the Cro(n o(n or a person in authority o' such
e9alted position that the citizen $ust speak o' hi$ only (ith bated breath. E:n the eye
o' our Constitution and la(s, every $an is a soverei)n, a ruler and a 'ree$an, and
has eDual ri)hts (ith every other $an.E 2at p. 9553
:n 'act, the Court observed that hi)h o''icial position, instead o' a''ordin) i$$unity 'ro$ slanderous
and libelous char)es, (ould actually invite attacks by those (ho desire to create sensation. :t (ould
see$ that (hat (ould ordinarily be slander i' directed at the typical person should be e9a$ined 'ro$
various perspectives i' directed at a hi)h )overn$ent o''icial. ;)ain, the Supre$e Court should dra(
this 'ine line instead o' leavin) it to lo(er tribunals.
+his Court has stressed as authoritative doctrine in Elizalde %. Gutierrez 206 SC<; 44J F1900G3 that a
prosecution 'or libel lacks >usti'ication i' the o''endin) (ords 'ind sanctuary (ithin the shelter o' the
'ree press )uaranty. :n other (ords, a prosecution 'or libel should not be allo(ed to continue, (here
a'ter discountin) the possibility that the (ords $ay not be really that libelous, there is likely to be a
chillin) e''ect, a patently inhibitin) 'actor on the (illin)ness o' ne(spaper$en, especially editors and
publishers to coura)eously per'or$ their critical role in society. :', instead o' $erely readin) $ore
care'ully (hat a colu$nist (rites in his daily colu$n, the editors tell their people to lay o'' certain
issues or certain o''icials, the e''ect on a 'ree press (ould be hi)hly in>urious.
8ecause $any Duestions re)ardin) press 'reedo$ are le't unans(ered by our resolution, : $ust call
attention to our decisions (hich caution that Eno inroads on press 'reedo$ should be allo(ed in the
)uise o' punitive action visited on (hat other(ise should be characterized as libel.E 2%opez v. Court
o' ;ppeals, 4 SC<; 110 F1905G= See also the citations in 7lizalde v. @utierrez, supra3.
+he Anited States Supre$e Court is even $ore e$phatic, to (it*
:n decidin) the Duestion no(, (e are co$pelled by neither precedent nor policy to
)ive any $ore (ei)ht to the epithet ElibelE than (e have to other E$ere labelsE o'
state la(. #. ;. ;. C. ". v. 8utton, 01 AS 41/, 4!9, 9% ed !d 45/, 41/, J S Ct !J.
%ike insurrection, conte$pt, advocacy o' unla('ul acts, breach o' the peace,
obscenity, solicitation o' le)al business, and the other various other 'or$ulae 'or the
repression o' e9pression that have been challen)ed in this Court, libel can clai$ no
talis$anic i$$unity 'ro$ constitutional li$itations. :t $ust be $easured by standards
that satis'y the First ;$end$ent.
999 999 999
+hose (ho (on our independence believed ... that public discussion is a political
duty= and that this should be a 'unda$ental principle o' the ;$erican )overn$ent.
+hey reco)nized the risk to (hich all hu$an institutions are sub>ect. 8ut they kne(
that order cannot be secured $erely throu)h 'ear o' punish$ent 'or its in'raction= that
it is hazardous to discoura)e thou)ht, hope and i$a)ination= that 'ear breeds
repression= that repression breeds hate= that hate $enaces stable )overn$ent= that
the path o' sa'ety lies in the opportunity to discuss 'reely supposed )rievances and
proposed re$edies= and that the 'ittin) re$edy 'or evil counsel is )ood ones.
8elievin) in the po(er o' reason as applied throu)h public discussion, they
esche(ed silence coerced by la(Hthe ar)u$ent o' 'orce in its (orst 'or$. ...
+hus (e consider this case a)ainst the back)round o' a pro'ound national
co$$it$ent to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited,
robust, and (ide open, and that it $ay (ell include vehe$ent, caustic, and
so$eti$es unpleasantly sharp attacks on )overn$ent and public o''icials. ... 2at pp.
055-0513
Shuntin) aside the individual liability o' &r. %uis 8eltran, is there a prima facie sho(in) that &essrs.
&a9i$o Soliven, ;ntonio ?. <oces, Frederick .. ;)caoili, and @odo'redo %. &anzanas kno(in)ly
participated in a (il'ul purveyin) o' 'alsehoodI Considerin) the 'ree speech aspects o' these
petitions, should not a di''erentiated approach to their particular liabilities be taken instead o' lu$pin)
up everybody (ith the o''endin) colu$nistI : realize that the la( includes publishers and editors but
perhaps the Echillin) e''ectE issue applies (ith sin)ular e''ectivity to publishers and editors vis-a-vis
ne(spaper colu$nists. +here is no Duestion that, ordinarily, libel is not protected by the 'ree speech
clause but (e have to understand that so$e provocative (ords, (hich i' taken literally $ay appear
to sha$e or dispara)e a public 'i)ure, $ay really be intended to provoke debate on public issues
(hen uttered or (ritten by a $edia personality. Will not a cri$inal prosecution in the type o' case
no( be'ore us da$pen the vi)or and li$it the variety o' public debateI +here are $any other
Duestions arisin) 'ro$ this unusual case (hich have not been considered.
:, o' course, concur (ith the Court1s opinion because it has decided to li$it the issues to narro(ly
dra(n ones. : see no reason to disa)ree (ith the (ay the Court has resolved the$. +he 'irst issue
on pre$aturity is $oot. +he second issue discusses a procedure no( e$bodied in the recently
a$ended <ules o' Court on ho( a Jud)e should proceed be'ore he issues a (arrant o' arrest. ;nent
the third issue, considerations o' public policy dictate that an incu$bent "resident should not be
sued. ;t the sa$e ti$e, the "resident cannot stand by helplessly bere't o' le)al re$edies i'
so$ebody vili'ies or $ali)ns hi$ or her.
+he Court has decided to de'er the Echillin) e''ectE issue 'or a later day. +o this, : take e9ception. :
kno( that $ost o' our 'iscals and >ud)es are coura)eous individuals (ho (ould not allo( any
considerations o' possible conseDuences to their careers to stand in the (ay o' public duty. 8ut (hy
should (e sub>ect the$ to this proble$I ;nd (hy should (e allo( the possibility o' the trial court
treatin) and decidin) the case as one 'or ordinary libel (ithout botherin) to 'ully e9plore the $ore
i$portant areas o' concern, the e9tre$ely di''icult issues involvin) )overn$ent po(er and 'reedo$
o' e9pression.
,o(ever, since (e have decided to de'er the Echillin) e''ectE issue 'or a later day, : li$it $ysel' to
reiteratin) the dissentin) (ords o' &r. Justice Jackson in the ;$erican case o' /eaurnhais %.
3llinois 24 A. S. !/53 (hen he said*
:' one can clai$ to announce the >ud)$ent o' le)al history on any sub>ect, it is that
cri$inal libel la(s are consistent (ith the concept o' ordered liberty only (hen
applied (ith sa'e)uards evolved to prevent their invasion o' 'reedo$ o' e9pression.
:n the trial o' the libel case a)ainst the petitioners, the sa'e)uards in the na$e o' 'reedo$ o'
e9pression should be 'aith'ully applied.
Se*/+e O*&n&on(
GUT$ERRE1, JR., J., concurrin)*
: concur (ith the $a>ority opinion inso'ar as it involves the three principal issues $entioned in its
openin) state$ent. ,o(ever, as to the $ore i$portant issue on (hether or not the prosecution o'
the libel case (ould produce a Echillin) e''ectE on press 'reedo$, : be) to reserve $y vote. : believe
this is the $ore i$portant issue in these petitions and it should be resolved no( rather that later.
Consistent (ith our decision in Salonga %. ,ruz 0ano 214 SC<; 4J F19J/G3, the Court should not
hesitate to Duash a cri$inal prosecution in the interest o' $ore enli)htened and substantial >ustice
(here it is not alone the cri$inal liability o' an accused in a see$in)ly $inor libel case (hich is
involved but broader considerations o' )overn$ental po(er versus a pre'erred 'reedo$.
We have in these 'our petitions the unusual situation (here the hi)hest o''icial o' the <epublic and
one (ho en>oys unprecedented public support asks 'or the prosecution o' a ne(spaper colu$nist,
the publisher and chair$an o' the editorial board, the $ana)in) editor and the business $ana)er in
a not too indubitable a case 'or alle)ed libel.
: a$ 'ully in accord (ith an all out prosecution i' the e''ect (ill be li$ited to punishin) a
ne(spaper$an (ho, instead o' observin) accuracy and 'airness, en)a)es in un(arranted personal
attacks, irresponsible t(istin) o' 'acts, o' $alicious distortions o' hal'-truths (hich tend to cause
dishonor, discredit, or conte$pt o' the co$plainant. ,o(ever, this case is not a si$ple prosecution
'or libel. We have as co$plainant a po(er'ul and popular "resident (ho heads the investi)ation and
prosecution service and appoints $e$bers o' appellate courts but (ho 'eels so terribly $ali)ned
that she has taken the unorthodo9 step o' )oin) to court inspite o' the invocations o' 'reedo$ o' the
press (hich (ould inevitably 'ollo(.
: believe that this Court should have acted on this issue no( instead o' leavin) the $atter to 'iscals
and de'ense la(yers to ar)ue be'ore a trial >ud)e.
+here is al(ays bound to be harass$ent inherent in any cri$inal prosecution. Where the
harass$ent )oes beyond the usual di''iculties encountered by any accused and results in an
un(illin)ness o' $edia to 'reely criticize )overn$ent or to Duestion )overn$ent handlin) o' sensitive
issues and public a''airs, this Court and not a lo(er tribunal should dra( the de$arcation line.
;s early as &arch J, 191J, the decision in ;nited States %. /ustos 20 "hil. 013 stated that
E2c3o$plete liberty to co$$ent on the conduct o' public $en is a scalpel in the case o' 'ree speech.
+he sharp incision o' its probe relieves the abscesses o' o''icialdo$. &en in public li'e $ay su''er
under a hostile and un>ust accusation= the (ound can be assua)ed (ith the bal$ o' a clear
conscience.E +he Court pointed out that (hile de'a$ation is not authorized, criticis$ is to be
e9pected and should be borne 'or the co$$on )ood.
:n 0eople %. 0erfecto 24 "hil. JJ0 F19!!G3, the Court stated*
999 999 999
... #o lon)er is there a &inister o' the Cro(n o(n or a person in authority o' such
e9alted position that the citizen $ust speak o' hi$ only (ith bated breath. E:n the eye
o' our Constitution and la(s, every $an is a soverei)n, a ruler and a 'ree$an, and
has eDual ri)hts (ith every other $an.E 2at p. 9553
:n 'act, the Court observed that hi)h o''icial position, instead o' a''ordin) i$$unity 'ro$ slanderous
and libelous char)es, (ould actually invite attacks by those (ho desire to create sensation. :t (ould
see$ that (hat (ould ordinarily be slander i' directed at the typical person should be e9a$ined 'ro$
various perspectives i' directed at a hi)h )overn$ent o''icial. ;)ain, the Supre$e Court should dra(
this 'ine line instead o' leavin) it to lo(er tribunals.
+his Court has stressed as authoritative doctrine in Elizalde %. Gutierrez 206 SC<; 44J F1900G3 that a
prosecution 'or libel lacks >usti'ication i' the o''endin) (ords 'ind sanctuary (ithin the shelter o' the
'ree press )uaranty. :n other (ords, a prosecution 'or libel should not be allo(ed to continue, (here
a'ter discountin) the possibility that the (ords $ay not be really that libelous, there is likely to be a
chillin) e''ect, a patently inhibitin) 'actor on the (illin)ness o' ne(spaper$en, especially editors and
publishers to coura)eously per'or$ their critical role in society. :', instead o' $erely readin) $ore
care'ully (hat a colu$nist (rites in his daily colu$n, the editors tell their people to lay o'' certain
issues or certain o''icials, the e''ect on a 'ree press (ould be hi)hly in>urious.
8ecause $any Duestions re)ardin) press 'reedo$ are le't unans(ered by our resolution, : $ust call
attention to our decisions (hich caution that Eno inroads on press 'reedo$ should be allo(ed in the
)uise o' punitive action visited on (hat other(ise should be characterized as libel.E 2%opez v. Court
o' ;ppeals, 4 SC<; 110 F1905G= See also the citations in 7lizalde v. @utierrez, supra3.B!reCCanDEFwG
+he Anited States Supre$e Court is even $ore e$phatic, to (it*
:n decidin) the Duestion no(, (e are co$pelled by neither precedent nor policy to
)ive any $ore (ei)ht to the epithet ElibelE than (e have to other E$ere labelsE o'
state la(. #. ;. ;. C. ". v. 8utton, 01 AS 41/, 4!9, 9% ed !d 45/, 41/, J S Ct !J.
%ike insurrection, conte$pt, advocacy o' unla('ul acts, breach o' the peace,
obscenity, solicitation o' le)al business, and the other various other 'or$ulae 'or the
repression o' e9pression that have been challen)ed in this Court, libel can clai$ no
talis$anic i$$unity 'ro$ constitutional li$itations. :t $ust be $easured by standards
that satis'y the First ;$end$ent.
999 999 999
+hose (ho (on our independence believed ... that public discussion is a political
duty= and that this should be a 'unda$ental principle o' the ;$erican )overn$ent.
+hey reco)nized the risk to (hich all hu$an institutions are sub>ect. 8ut they kne(
that order cannot be secured $erely throu)h 'ear o' punish$ent 'or its in'raction= that
it is hazardous to discoura)e thou)ht, hope and i$a)ination= that 'ear breeds
repression= that repression breeds hate= that hate $enaces stable )overn$ent= that
the path o' sa'ety lies in the opportunity to discuss 'reely supposed )rievances and
proposed re$edies= and that the 'ittin) re$edy 'or evil counsel is )ood ones.
8elievin) in the po(er o' reason as applied throu)h public discussion, they
esche(ed silence coerced by la(Hthe ar)u$ent o' 'orce in its (orst 'or$. ...
+hus (e consider this case a)ainst the back)round o' a pro'ound national
co$$it$ent to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited,
robust, and (ide open, and that it $ay (ell include vehe$ent, caustic, and
so$eti$es unpleasantly sharp attacks on )overn$ent and public o''icials. ... 2at pp.
055-0513
Shuntin) aside the individual liability o' &r. %uis 8eltran, is there a prima facie sho(in) that &essrs.
&a9i$o Soliven, ;ntonio ?. <oces, Frederick .. ;)caoili, and @odo'redo %. &anzanas kno(in)ly
participated in a (il'ul purveyin) o' 'alsehoodI Considerin) the 'ree speech aspects o' these
petitions, should not a di''erentiated approach to their particular liabilities be taken instead o' lu$pin)
up everybody (ith the o''endin) colu$nistI : realize that the la( includes publishers and editors but
perhaps the Echillin) e''ectE issue applies (ith sin)ular e''ectivity to publishers and editors vis-a-vis
ne(spaper colu$nists. +here is no Duestion that, ordinarily, libel is not protected by the 'ree speech
clause but (e have to understand that so$e provocative (ords, (hich i' taken literally $ay appear
to sha$e or dispara)e a public 'i)ure, $ay really be intended to provoke debate on public issues
(hen uttered or (ritten by a $edia personality. Will not a cri$inal prosecution in the type o' case
no( be'ore us da$pen the vi)or and li$it the variety o' public debateI +here are $any other
Duestions arisin) 'ro$ this unusual case (hich have not been considered.
:, o' course, concur (ith the Court1s opinion because it has decided to li$it the issues to narro(ly
dra(n ones. : see no reason to disa)ree (ith the (ay the Court has resolved the$. +he 'irst issue
on pre$aturity is $oot. +he second issue discusses a procedure no( e$bodied in the recently
a$ended <ules o' Court on ho( a Jud)e should proceed be'ore he issues a (arrant o' arrest. ;nent
the third issue, considerations o' public policy dictate that an incu$bent "resident should not be
sued. ;t the sa$e ti$e, the "resident cannot stand by helplessly bere't o' le)al re$edies i'
so$ebody vili'ies or $ali)ns hi$ or her.
+he Court has decided to de'er the Echillin) e''ectE issue 'or a later day. +o this, : take e9ception. :
kno( that $ost o' our 'iscals and >ud)es are coura)eous individuals (ho (ould not allo( any
considerations o' possible conseDuences to their careers to stand in the (ay o' public duty. 8ut (hy
should (e sub>ect the$ to this proble$I ;nd (hy should (e allo( the possibility o' the trial court
treatin) and decidin) the case as one 'or ordinary libel (ithout botherin) to 'ully e9plore the $ore
i$portant areas o' concern, the e9tre$ely di''icult issues involvin) )overn$ent po(er and 'reedo$
o' e9pression.
,o(ever, since (e have decided to de'er the Echillin) e''ectE issue 'or a later day, : li$it $ysel' to
reiteratin) the dissentin) (ords o' &r. Justice Jackson in the ;$erican case o' /eaurnhais %.
3llinois 24 A. S. !/53 (hen he said*
:' one can clai$ to announce the >ud)$ent o' le)al history on any sub>ect, it is that
cri$inal libel la(s are consistent (ith the concept o' ordered liberty only (hen
applied (ith sa'e)uards evolved to prevent their invasion o' 'reedo$ o' e9pression.
:n the trial o' the libel case a)ainst the petitioners, the sa'e)uards in the na$e o' 'reedo$ o'
e9pression should be 'aith'ully applied.
G.R. No. 105961 O)+o4e/ 7, 1995
CONGRESSMAN "RANC$SCO B. AN$AG, JR., petitioner,
vs.
COMM$SS$ON ON ELECT$ONS n! 3E6ARTMENT O" JUST$CE S6EC$AL TAS;
"ORCE, respondents.
+onolfo S. 0asamba for petitioner.

BELLOS$LLO, JR., J.:
"7+:+:6#7< assails in this petition 2'or declaratory relie', certiorari and prohibition3 the 'ollo(in)
resolutions o' the Co$$ission on 7lections* <esolution #o. !!0 dated !6 Cece$ber 1991 'or bein)
unconstitutional, and <esolution #o. 9!-5J!9 dated 6 ;pril 199! and <esolution #o. 9!-5999 dated
! ;pril 199!, 'or (ant o' le)al and 'actual bases.
+he 'actual backdrop* :n preparation 'or the synchronized national and local elections scheduled on
11 &ay 199!, the Co$$ission on 7lections 2C6&7%7C3 issued on 11 Cece$ber 1991 <esolution
#o. !! other(ise re'erred to as the E@un 8an,E pro$ul)atin) rules and re)ulations on bearin),
carryin) and transportin) o' 'irear$s or other deadly (eapons, on security personnel or body)uards,
on bearin) ar$s by $e$bers o' security a)encies or police or)anizations, and or)anization or
$aintenance o' reaction 'orces durin) the election period.
1
SubseDuently, on !6 Cece$ber 1991
C6&7%7C issued <esolution #o. !!0 providin) 'or the su$$ary disDuali'ication o' candidates en)a)ed
in )unrunnin), usin) and transportin) o' 'irear$s, or)anizin) special strike 'orces, and establishin) spot
checkpoints.
2
6n 15 January 199!, pursuant to the E@un 8an,E &r. Serapio ". +accad, Ser)eant-at-;r$s, ,ouse o'
<epresentatives, (rote petitioner (ho (as then Con)ress$an o' the 1st Cistrict o' 8ulacan
reDuestin) the return o' the t(o 2!3 'irear$s
3
issued to hi$ by the ,ouse o' <epresentatives. Apon
bein) advised o' the reDuest on 1 January 199! by his sta'', petitioner i$$ediately instructed his driver,
7rnesto ;rellano, to pick up the 'irear$s 'ro$ petitioner1s house at ?alle ?erde and return the$ to
Con)ress.
&ean(hile, at about 'ive o1clock in the a'ternoon o' the sa$e day, the "hilippine #ational "olice
2"#"3 headed by Senior Superintendent Canilo Cordero set up a checkpoint outside the 8atasan
Co$ple9 so$e t(enty 2!53 $eters a(ay 'ro$ its entrance. ;bout thirty $inutes later, the police$en
$annin) the outpost 'la))ed do(n the car driven by ;rellano as it approached the checkpoint. +hey
searched the car and 'ound the 'irear$s neatly packed in their )un cases and placed in a ba) in the
trunk o' the car. ;rellano (as then apprehended and detained. ,e e9plained that he (as ordered by
petitioner to )et the 'irear$s 'ro$ the house and return the$ to Ser)eant-at-;r$s +accad o' the
,ouse o' <epresentatives.
+herea'ter, the police re'erred ;rellano1s case to the 6''ice o' the City "rosecutor 'or inDuest. +he
re'erral did not include petitioner as a$on) those char)ed (ith an election o''ense. 6n 1/ January
199!, the City "rosecutor ordered the release o' ;rellano a'ter 'indin) the latter1s s(orn e9planation
$eritorious.
5
6n !J January 199!, the City "rosecutor invited petitioner to shed li)ht on the circu$stances
$entioned in ;rellano1s s(orn e9planation. "etitioner not only appeared at the preli$inary
investi)ation to con'ir$ ;rellano1s state$ent but also (rote the City "rosecutor ur)in) hi$ to
e9onerate ;rellano. ,e e9plained that ;rellano did not violate the 'irear$s ban as he in 'act (as
co$plyin) (ith it (hen apprehended by returnin) the 'irear$s to Con)ress= and, that he (as
petitioner1s driver, not a security o''icer nor a body)uard.
9
6n 6 &arch 199!, the 6''ice o' the City "rosecutor issued a resolution (hich, a$on) other $atters,
reco$$ended that the case a)ainst ;rellano be dis$issed and that the Euno''icialE char)e a)ainst
petitioner be also dis$issed.
6
#evertheless, on 6 ;pril 199!, upon reco$$endation o' its %a( Cepart$ent, C6&7%7C issued
<esolution #o. 9!-5J!9 directin) the 'ilin) o' in'or$ation a)ainst petitioner and ;rellano 'or violation
o' Sec. !61, par. 2D3, o' 8.". 8l). JJ1 other(ise kno(n as the 6$nibus 7lection Code, in relation to
Sec. ! o' <.;. #o. 0166=
7
and petitioner to sho( cause (hy he should not be disDuali'ied 'ro$ runnin)
'or an elective position, pursuant to C6&7%7C <esolution #o. !!0, in relation to Sec. !, and / o'
<.;. 0166, and
Sec. /!, par. 2c3, o' 8.". 8l). JJ1.
2
6n 1 ;pril 199!, petitioner $oved 'or reconsideration and to hold in abeyance the ad$inistrative
proceedin)s as (ell as the 'ilin) o' the in'or$ation in court.
9
6n ! ;pril 199!, the C6&7%7C denied
petitioner1s $otion 'or reconsideration.
10
,ence, this recourse.
"etitioner Duestions the constitutionality o' <esolution #o. !!0. ,e ar)ues that the rules and
re)ulations o' an ad$inistrative body $ust respect the li$its de'ined by la(= that the 6$nibus
7lection Code provides 'or the disDuali'ication o' any personBcandidate 'ro$ runnin) 'or or holdin) a
public o''ice, i.e., any person (ho has either been declared by co$petent authority as insane or
inco$petent or has been sentenced by 'inal >ud)$ent 'or subversion, insurrection, rebellion or 'or
any o''ense 'or (hich he has been sentenced to a penalty o' $ore than ei)hteen $onths or 'or a
cri$e involvin) $oral turpitude= that )unrunnin), usin) or transportin) 'irear$s or si$ilar (eapons
and other acts $entioned in the resolution are not (ithin the letter or spirit o' the provisions o' the
Code= that the resolution did a(ay (ith the reDuire$ent o' 'inal conviction be'ore the co$$ission o'
certain o''enses= that instead, it created a presu$ption o' )uilt as a candidate $ay be disDuali'ied
'ro$ o''ice in situations 2a3 (here the cri$inal char)e is still pendin), 2b3 (here there is no pendin)
cri$inal case, and 2c3 (here the accused has already been acDuitted, all contrary to the reDuisite
Duantu$ o' proo' 'or one to be disDuali'ied 'ro$ runnin) or holdin) public o''ice under the 6$nibus
7lection Code, i.e., proo' beyond reasonable doubt. ;s a result, petitioner concludes, <esolution #o.
!!0 violates the 'unda$ental la( thus renderin) it 'atally de'ective.
8ut, the issue on the disDuali'ication o' petitioner 'ro$ runnin) in the
11 &ay 199! synchronized elections (as rendered $oot (hen he lost his bid 'or a seat in Con)ress
in the elections that ensued. ConseDuently, it is no( 'utile to discuss the i$plications o' the char)e
a)ainst hi$ on his Duali'ication to run 'or public o''ice.
,o(ever, there still re$ains an i$portant Duestion to be resolved, i.e., (hether he can be validly
prosecuted 'or instructin) his driver to return to the Ser)eant-at-;r$s o' the ,ouse o'
<epresentatives the t(o 'irear$s issued to hi$ on the basis o' the evidence )athered 'ro$ the
(arrantless search o' his car.
"etitioner stron)ly protests a)ainst the $anner by (hich the "#" conducted the search. ;ccordin)
to hi$, (ithout a (arrant and (ithout in'or$in) the driver o' his 'unda$ental ri)hts the police$en
searched his car. +he 'irear$s (ere not tucked in the (aist nor (ithin the i$$ediate reach o'
;rellano but (ere neatly packed in their )un cases and (rapped in a ba) kept in the trunk o' the car.
+hus, the search o' his car that yielded the evidence 'or the prosecution (as clearly violative o'
Secs. ! and , par. 2!3, ;rt. :::, o' the Constitution.
11
"etitioner 'urther $aintains that he (as neither i$pleaded as party respondent in the preli$inary
investi)ation be'ore the 6''ice o' the City "rosecutor nor included in the char)e sheet. ConseDuently,
$akin) hi$ a respondent in the cri$inal in'or$ation (ould violate his constitutional ri)ht to due
process.
"etitioner disputes the char)e that he violated Sec. o' <.;. 0166, (hich prohibits any candidate
'or public o''ice durin) the election period 'ro$ e$ployin) or availin) hi$sel' or en)a)in) the
services o' security personnel or body)uards since, ad$ittedly, ;rellano (as not a security o''icer or
body)uard but a civilian e$ployee assi)ned to hi$ as driver by the ,ouse o' <epresentatives.
Speci'ically, petitioner 'urther ar)ues, ;rellano (as instructed to return to Con)ress, as he did, the
'irear$s in co$pliance (ith the directive o' its Ser)eant-at-;r$s pursuant to the E@un 8an,E thus, no
la( (as in 'act violated.
12
6n !/ June 199!, (e reDuired C6&7%7C to 'ile its o(n co$$ent on the
petition
13
upon $ani'estation o' the Solicitor @eneral that it could not take the position o' C6&7%7C and
prayed instead to be e9cused 'ro$ 'ilin) the reDuired co$$ent.
15
C6&7%7C clai$s that petitioner is char)ed (ith violation o' Sec. !61, par. 2D3, in relation to Sec.
!6, o' 8.". 8l). JJ1 (hich provides that Ethe principals, acco$plices and accessories, as de'ined in
the <evised "enal Code, shall be cri$inally liable 'or election o''enses.E :t points out that it (as upon
petitioner1s instruction that ;rellano brou)ht the 'irear$s in Duestion outside petitioner1s residence,
sub$ittin) that his ri)ht to be heard (as not violated as he (as invited by the City "rosecutor to
e9plain the circu$stances re)ardin) ;rellano1s possession o' the 'irear$s. "etitioner also 'iled a
s(orn (ritten e9planation about the incident. Finally, C6&7%7C clai$s that violation o'
the E@un 8anE is mala prohibita, hence, the intention o' the o''ender is i$$aterial.
19
8e that as it $ay, (e 'ind no need to delve into the alle)ed constitutional in'ir$ity o' <esolution #o.
!!0 since this petition $ay be resolved (ithout passin) upon this particular issue.
16
;s a rule, a valid search $ust be authorized by a search (arrant duly issued by an appropriate
authority. ,o(ever, this is not absolute. ;side 'ro$ a search incident to a la('ul arrest, a (arrantless
search had been upheld in cases o' $ovin) vehicles and the seizure o' evidence in plain vie(,
17
as
(ell as the search conducted at police or $ilitary checkpoints (hich (e declared are not ille)al per se,
and stressed that the warrantless search is not %iolati%e of the ,onstitution for as long as the %ehicle is
neither searched nor its occupants sub2ected to a bod' search- and the inspection of the %ehicle is merel'
limited to a %isual search.
12
"etitioner contends that the )uns (ere not tucked in ;rellano1s (aist nor placed (ithin his reach, and
that they (ere neatly packed in )un cases and placed inside a ba) at the back o' the car.
Si)ni'icantly, C6&7%7C did not rebut this clai$. +he records do not sho( that the $anner by (hich
the packa)e (as bundled led the "#" to suspect that it contained 'irear$s. +here (as no $ention
either o' any report re)ardin) any nervous, suspicious or unnatural reaction 'ro$ ;rellano (hen the
car (as stopped and searched. @iven these circu$stances and relyin) on its visual observation, the
"#" could not thorou)hly search the car la('ully as (ell as the packa)e (ithout violatin) the
constitutional in>unction.
;n e9tensive search (ithout (arrant could only be resorted to i' the o''icers conductin) the search
had reasonable or probable cause to believe before the search that either the $otorist (as a la(
o''ender or that they (ould 'ind the instru$entality or evidence pertainin) to the co$$ission o' a
cri$e in the vehicle to be searched.
19
+he e9istence o' probable cause >usti'yin) the (arrantless search
is deter$ined by the 'acts o' each case.
20
+hus, (e upheld the validity o' the (arrantless search in
situations (here the s$ell o' $ari>uana e$anated 'ro$ a plastic ba) o(ned by the accused, or (here the
accused (as actin) suspiciously, and atte$pted to 'lee.
21
We also reco)nize the stop-and-search (ithout (arrant conducted by police o''icers on the basis o'
prior con'idential in'or$ation (hich (ere reasonably corroborated by other attendant $atters, e.).,
(here a con'idential report that a sizeable volu$e o' $ari>uana (ould be transported alon) the route
(here the search (as conducted and appellants (ere cau)ht in flagrante delicto transportin) dru)s
at the ti$e o' their arrest=
22
(here apart 'ro$ the intelli)ence in'or$ation, there (ere reports by an
undercover Edeep penetrationE a)ent that appellants (ere brin)in) prohibited dru)s into the
country=
23
(here the in'or$ation that a Caucasian co$in) 'ro$ Sa)ada brin)in) prohibited dru)s (as
stren)thened by the conspicuous bul)e in accused1s (aistline, and his suspicious 'ailure to produce his
passport and other identi'ication papers=
25
(here the physical appearance o' the accused 'itted the
description )iven in the con'idential in'or$ation about a (o$an transportin) $ari>uana=
29
(here the
accused carryin) a bul)in) black leather ba) (ere suspiciously Duiet and nervous (hen Dueried about its
contents=
26
or (here the identity o' the dru) courier (as already established by police authorities (ho
received con'idential in'or$ation about the probable arrival o' accused on board one o' the vessels
arrivin) in Cu$a)uete City.
27
:n the case at bench, (e 'ind that the checkpoint (as set up t(enty 2!53 $eters 'ro$ the entrance to
the 8atasan Co$ple9 to en'orce <esolution
#o. !!0. +here (as no evidence to sho( that the police$en (ere i$pelled to do so because o' a
con'idential report leadin) the$ to reasonably believe that certain $otorists $atchin) the description
'urnished by their in'or$ant (ere en)a)ed in )unrunnin), transportin) 'irear$s or in or)anizin)
special strike 'orces. #or, as adverted to earlier, (as there any indication 'ro$ the packa)e or
behavior o' ;rellano that could have tri))ered the suspicion o' the police$en. ;bsent such >usti'yin)
circu$stances speci'ically pointin) to the culpability o' petitioner and ;rellano, the search could not
be valid. +he action then o' the police$en unreasonably intruded into petitioner1s privacy and the
security o' his property, in violation o' Sec. !, ;rt. :::, o' the Constitution. ConseDuently, the 'irear$s
obtained in violation o' petitioner1s ri)ht a)ainst (arrantless search cannot be ad$itted 'or any
purpose in any proceedin).
:t $ay be ar)ued that the see$in) acDuiescence o' ;rellano to the search constitutes an i$plied
(aiver o' petitioner1s ri)ht to Duestion the reasonableness o' the search o' the vehicle and the
seizure o' the 'irear$s.
While <esolution #o. !!0 authorized the settin) up o' checkpoints, it ho(ever stressed that
E)uidelines shall be $ade to ensure that no in'rin)e$ent o' civil and political ri)hts results 'ro$ the
i$ple$entation o' this authority,E and that Ethe places and $anner o' settin) up o' checkpoints shall
be deter$ined in consultation (ith the Co$$ittee on Firear$s 8an and Security "ersonnel created
under Sec. /, <esolution #o. !!.E
22
+he 'acts sho( that "#" installed the checkpoint at about 'ive
o1clock in the a'ternoon o' 1 January 199!. +he search (as $ade soon therea'ter, or thirty $inutes later.
:t (as not sho(n that ne(s o' i$pendin) checkpoints (ithout necessarily )ivin) their locations, and the
reason 'or the sa$e have been announced in the $edia to 'ore(arn the citizens. #or did the in'or$al
checkpoint that a'ternoon carry si)ns in'or$in) the public o' the purpose o' its operation. ;s a result,
$otorists passin) that place did not have any inklin) (hatsoever about the reason behind the instant
e9ercise. With the authorities in control to stop and search passin) vehicles, the $otorists did not have
any choice but to sub$it to the "#"1s scrutiny. 6ther(ise, any atte$pt to turnabout albeit innocent (ould
raise suspicion and provide probable cause 'or the police to arrest the $otorist and to conduct an
e9tensive search o' his vehicle.
:n the case o' petitioner, only his driver (as at the car at that ti$e it (as stopped 'or inspection. ;s
conceded by C6&7%7C, driver ;rellano did not kno( the purpose o' the checkpoint. :n the 'ace o'
'ourteen 2143 ar$ed police$en conductin) the operation,
29
driver ;rellano bein) alone and a $ere
e$ployee o' petitioner could not have $arshalled the stren)th and the coura)e to protest a)ainst the
e9tensive search conducted in the vehicle. :n such scenario, the Ei$plied acDuiescence,E i' there (as any,
could not be $ore than a $ere passive con'or$ity on ;rellano1s part to the search, and EconsentE )iven
under inti$idatin) or coercive circu$stances is no consent (ithin the purvie( o' the constitutional
)uaranty.
&oreover, the $anner by (hich C6&7%7C proceeded a)ainst petitioner runs counter to the due
process clause o' the Constitution. +he 'acts sho( that petitioner (as not a$on) those char)ed by
the "#" (ith violation o' the 6$nibus 7lection Code. #or (as he sub>ected by the City "rosecutor
to a preli$inary investi)ation 'or such o''ense. +he non-disclosure by the City "rosecutor to the
petitioner that he (as a respondent in the preli$inary investi)ation is violative o' due process (hich
reDuires that the procedure established by la( should be obeyed.
30
C6&7%7C ar)ues that petitioner (as )iven the chan)e to be heard because he (as invited to
enli)hten the City "rosecutor re)ardin) the circu$stances leadin) to the arrest o' his driver, and that
petitioner in 'act sub$itted a s(orn letter o' e9planation re)ardin) the incident. +his does not satis'y
the reDuire$ent o' due process the essence o' (hich is the reasonable opportunity to be heard and
to sub$it any evidence one $ay have in support o' his de'ense.
31
Cue process )uarantees the
observance o' both substantive and procedural ri)hts, (hatever the source o' such ri)hts, be it the
Constitution itsel' or only a statute or a rule o' court.
32
:n Go %. ,ourt of Appeals,
33
(e held
that H
While the ri)ht to preli$inary investi)ation is statutory rather than constitutional in its
'unda$ent, since it has in 'act been established by statute, it is a component part of
due process in criminal 2ustice. +he ri)ht to have a preli$inary investi)ation
conducted be'ore bein) bound over to trial 'or a cri$inal o''ense and hence 'or$ally
at risk o' incarceration or so$e other penalty is not a $ere 'or$al or technical ri)ht= it
is a substanti%e right . . . . F+Ghe ri)ht to an opportunity to avoid a process pain'ul to
anyone save, perhaps, to hardened cri$inals is a valuable ri)ht. +o deny petitioner1s
clai$ to a preli$inary investi)ation (ould be to deprive hi$ o' the 'ull $easure o' his
ri)ht to due process.
;pparently, petitioner (as $erely invited durin) the preli$inary investi)ation o' ;rellano to
corroborate the latter1s e9planation. "etitioner then (as $ade to believe that he (as not a party
respondent in the case, so that his (ritten e9planation on the incident (as only intended to
e9culpate ;rellano, not petitioner hi$sel'. ,ence, it cannot be seriously contended that petitioner
(as 'ully )iven the opportunity to $eet the accusation a)ainst hi$ as he (as not apprised that he
(as hi$sel' a respondent (hen he appeared be'ore the City "rosecutor.
Finally, it $ust be pointed out too that petitioner1s 'ilin) o' a $otion 'or reconsideration (ith
C6&7%7C cannot be considered as a (aiver o' his clai$ to a separate preli$inary investi)ation 'or
hi$sel'. +he $otion itsel' e9presses petitioner1s vi)orous insistence on his ri)ht. "etitioner1s
protestation started as soon as he learned o' his inclusion in the char)e, and did not ease up even
a'ter C6&7%7C1s denial o' his $otion 'or reconsideration. +his is understandably so since the
prohibition a)ainst carryin) 'irear$s bears the penalty o' i$prison$ent o' not less than one 213 year
nor $ore than si9 263 years (ithout probation and (ith disDuali'ication 'ro$ holdin) public o''ice, and
deprivation o' the ri)ht to su''ra)e. ;)ainst such stron) stance, petitioner clearly did not (aive his
ri)ht to a preli$inary investi)ation.
W,7<7F6<7, the instant petition is @<;#+7C. +he (arrantless search conducted by the
"hilippine #ational "olice on 1 January 199! is declared ille)al and the 'irear$s seized durin) the
(arrantless search cannot be used as evidence in any proceedin) a)ainst petitioner. ConseDuently,
C6&7%7C <esolution #o. 9!-5J!9 dated 6 ;pril 199! bein) violative o' the Constitution is S7+
;S:C7.
+he te$porary restrainin) order (e issued on / &ay 199! is $ade per$anent.
S6 6<C7<7C.
9ar%asa- ,...- +omero- 8uiason- 0uno- Hapunan and Mendoza- ...- concur.
Feliciano- 0adilla and /idin- ...- are on lea%e.
NNNNNNN
G.R. No. 23922 M, 25, 1990
R$CAR3O C. %ALMONTE AN3 UN$ON O" LAW#ERS AN3 A3%OCATES "OR 6EO6LES?S
R$GHTS @ULA6A,petitioners,
vs.
GEN. RENATO 3E %$LLA AN3 NAT$ONAL CA6$TAL REG$ON 3$STR$CT
COMMAN3, respondents.
+icardo ,. 6almonte for and in his own behalf and co-petitioners.

6A3$LLA, J.:
:n the Court1s decision dated !9 Septe$ber 19J9, petitioners1 petition 'or prohibition seekin) the
declaration o' the checkpoints as unconstitutional and their dis$antlin) andBor bannin), (as
dis$issed.
"etitioners have 'iled the instant $otion and supple$ental $otion 'or reconsideration o' said
decision. 8e'ore sub$ission o' the incident 'or resolution, the Solicitor @eneral, 'or the respondents,
'iled his co$$ent, to (hich petitioners 'iled a reply.
:t should be stated, at the outset, that no(here in the Duestioned decision did this Court
le)alize all checkpoints, i.e. at all ti$es and under all circu$stances. What the Court declared is, that
checkpoints are not ille)al per se.+hus, under e9ceptional circu$stances, as (here the survival o'
or)anized )overn$ent is on the balance, or (here the lives and sa'ety o' the people are in )rave
peril, checkpoints $ay be allo(ed and installed by the )overn$ent. :$plicit in this proposition is, that
(hen the situation clears and such )rave perils are re$oved, checkpoints (ill have absolutely no
reason to re$ain.
<ecent and on-)oin) events have pointed to the continuin) validity and need 'or checkpoints
$anned by either $ilitary or police 'orces. +he si9th 26th3 atte$pted coup dI etat 2stron)er than all
previous ones3 (as sta)ed only last 1 Cece$ber 19J9. ;nother atte$pt at a coup dI etat is taken
al$ost 'or )ranted. +he #";, throu)h its sparro( units, has not relented but instead accelerated its
liDuidation o' ar$ed 'orces and police personnel. &urders, se9 cri$es, hold-ups and dru) abuse
have beco$e daily occurrences. Anlicensed 'irear$s and a$$unition have beco$e 'avorite ob>ects
o' trade. S$u))lin) is at an all ti$e hi)h. Whether or not e''ective as e9pected, checkpoints have
been re)arded by the authorities as a security $easure desi)ned to entrap cri$inals and insur)ents
and to constitute a dra)net 'or all types o' articles in ille)al trade.
#o one can be co$pelled, under our libertarian syste$, to share (ith the present )overn$ent its
ideolo)ical belie's and practices, or co$$end its political, social and econo$ic policies or
per'or$ance. 8ut, at least, one $ust concede to it the basic ri)ht to de'end itsel' 'ro$ its ene$ies
and, (hile in po(er, to pursue its pro)ra$ o' )overn$ent intended 'or public (el'are= and in the
pursuit o' those ob>ectives, the )overn$ent has the eDual ri)ht, under its police po(er, to select the
reasonable $eans and $ethods 'or best achievin) the$. +he checkpoint is evidently one o' such
$eans it has selected.
;d$ittedly, the routine checkpoint stop does intrude, to a certain e9tent, on $otorist1s ri)ht to E'ree
passa)e (ithout interruptionE, but it cannot be denied that, as a rule, it involves only a brie' detention
o' travellers durin) (hich the vehicle1s occupants are reDuired to ans(er a brie' Duestion or
t(o.
1
For as lon) as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants sub>ected to a body search, and
the inspection o' the vehicle is li$ited to a visual search, said routine checks cannot be re)arded as
violative o' an individual1s ri)ht a)ainst unreasonable search.
+hese routine checks, (hen conducted in a 'i9ed area, are even less intrusive. ;s held by the A.S.
Supre$e Court*
<outine checkpoint stops do not intrude si$ilarly on the $otorin) public. First, the
potential inter'erence (ith le)iti$ate tra''ic is $ini$al. &otorists usin) these
hi)h(ays are not taken by surprise as they kno(, or $ay obtain kno(led)e o', the
location o' the checkpoints and (ill not be stopped else(here. Second, checkpoint
operations both appear to and actually involve less discretionary en'orce$ent
activity. +he re)ularized $anner in (hich established checkpoints are operated is
visible evidence, reassurin) to la(-abidin) $otorists, that the stops are duly
authorized and believed to serve the public interest. +he location o' a 'i9ed
checkpoint is not chosen by o''icers in the 'ield, but by o''icials responsible 'or
$akin) overall decisions as to the $ost e''ective allocation o' li$ited en'orce$ent
resources. We $ay assu$e that such o''icials (ill be unlikely to locate a checkpoint
(here it bears arbitrarily or oppressively on $otorists as a class, and since 'ield
o''icers $ay stop only those cars passin) the checkpoint, there is less roo$ 'or
abusive or harassin) stops o' individuals than there (as in the case o' rovin)-patrol
stops. &oreover, a clai$ that a particular e9ercise o' discretion in locatin) or
operatin) a checkpoint is unreasonable is sub>ect to post-stop >udicial revie(.
2
+he checkpoints are nonetheless attacked by the $ovants as a warrantless search and seizure and,
there'ore, violative o' the Constitution.
3
;s already stated, vehicles are )enerally allo(ed to pass these checkpoints a'ter a routine
inspection and a 'e( Duestions. :' vehicles are stopped and e9tensively searched, it is because o'
so$e probable cause (hich >usti'ies a reasonable belie' o' the $en at the checkpoints that either the
$otorist is a la(-o''ender or the contents o' the vehicle are or have been instru$ents o' so$e
o''ense. ;)ain, as held by the A.S. Supre$e CourtH
;uto$obiles, because o' their $obility, $ay be searched (ithout a (arrant upon
'acts not >usti'yin) a (arrantless search o' a residence or o''ice. /rinegar %. ;nited
States, J AS 165, 9 % 7d 1J09, 69 S Ct 15! 219493= ,arroll %. ;nited States, !60
AS 1!, 69 % 7d /4,4/ S Ct !J5, 9 ;%< 095 219!/3. +he cases so holdin) have,
ho(ever, al(ays insisted that the o''icers conductin) the search have 1reasonable or
probable cause to believe that they (ill 'ind the instru$entality o' a cri$e or evidence
pertainin) to a cri$e be'ore they be)in their (arrantless search. ...
5
8esides these (arrantless searches and seizures at the checkpoints are Duite si$ilar to searches
and seizures acco$panyin) (arrantless arrests durin) the co$$ission o' a cri$e, or i$$ediately
therea'ter. :n 0eople %s. Hagui Malasu&ui it (as heldH
+o hold that no cri$inal can, in any case, be arrested and searched 'or the evidence
and tokens o' his cri$e (ithout a (arrant, (ould be to leave society, to a lar)e
e9tent, at the $ercy o' the shre(dest the $ost e9pert, and the $ost depraved o'
cri$inals, 'acilitatin) their escape in $any instances.
9
8y the sa$e token, a (arrantless search o' inco$in) and out)oin) passen)ers, at the arrival and
departure areas o' an international airport, is a practice not constitutionally ob>ectionable because it
is 'ounded on public interest, sa'ety, and necessity.
%astly, the Court1s decision on checkpoints does not, in any (ay, validate nor condone abuses
co$$itted by the $ilitary $annin) the checkpoints. +he Court1s decision (as concerned (ith po(er,
i.e. (hether the )overn$ent e$ployin) the $ilitary has the po(er to install said checkpoints. 6nce
that po(er is ackno(led)ed, the Court1s inDuiry ceases. +rue, po(er i$plies the possibility o' its
abuse. 8ut (hether there is abuse in a particular situation is a di''erent Eball )a$eE to be resolved in
the constitutional arena.
+he Court, like all other concerned $e$bers o' the co$$unity, has beco$e a(are o' ho( so$e
checkpoints have been used as points o' thievery and e9tortion practiced upon innocent civilians.
7ven the increased prices o' 'oodstu''s co$in) 'ro$ the provinces, enterin) the &etro &anila area
and other urban centers, are lar)ely bla$ed on the checkpoints, because the $en $annin) the$
have reportedly beco$e Ee9pertsE in $ulctin) travellin) traders. +his, o' course, is a national tra)edy
.
8ut the Court could not a priori re)ard in its no( assailed decision that the $en in uni'or$ are
rascals or thieves. +he Court had to assume that the $en in uni'or$ live and act by the code o'
honor and they are assi)ned to the checkpoints to protect, and not to abuse, the citizenry.
6
+he
checkpoint is a $ilitary Econcoction.E :t behooves the $ilitary to i$prove the LA;%:+- o' their $en
assi)ned to these checkpoints. For no syste$ or institution (ill succeed unless the $en behind it are
honest, noble and dedicated.
:n any situation, (here abuse $arks the operation o' a checkpoint, the citizen is not helpless. For the
$ilitary is not above but sub>ect to the la(. ;nd the courts e9ist to see that the la( is supre$e.
Soldiers, includin) those (ho $an checkpoints, (ho abuse their authority act beyond the scope o'
their authority and are, there'ore, liable cri$inally and civilly 'or their abusive acts=
7
+his tenet should
be in)rained in the soldiery in the clearest o' ter$s by hi)her $ilitary authorities.
;CC6<C:#@%-, the &otion and Supple$ental &otion 'or <econsideration are C7#:7C. +his denial
is F:#;%.
S6 6<C7<7C.
G.R. No. 165219 Se*+e.4e/ 3, 2009
SR. $NS6. JERR# C. %ALEROSO, "etitioner,
vs.
COURT O" A66EALS n! 6EO6LE O" THE 6H$L$66$NES, <espondents.
< 7 S 6 % A + : 6 #
NACHURA, J.:
For resolution is the %etter-;ppeal
1
o' Senior :nspector 2Sr. :nsp.3 Jerry C. ?aleroso 2?aleroso3
prayin) that our February !!, !55J Cecision
!
and June 5, !55J <esolution

be set aside and a ne(

one be entered acDuittin) hi$ o' the cri$e o' ille)al possession o' 'irear$ and a$$unition.
+he 'acts are brie'ly stated as 'ollo(s*
?aleroso (as char)ed (ith violation o' "residential Cecree #o. 1J66, co$$itted as 'ollo(s*
+hat on or about the 15th day o' July, 1996, in Luezon City, "hilippines, the said accused (ithout
any authority o' la(, did then and there (ill'ully, unla('ully and kno(in)ly have in hisBher possession
and under hisBher custody and control
6ne 213 cal. J ECharter ;r$sE revolver bearin) serial no. /!1/ (ith 'ive 2/3 live a$$o.
(ithout 'irst havin) secured the necessary licenseBper$it issued by the proper authorities.
C6#+<;<- +6 %;W.
4
When arrai)ned, ?aleroso pleaded Enot )uilty.E
/
+rial on the $erits ensued.
Curin) trial, the prosecution presented t(o (itnesses* Senior "olice 6''icer 2S"63! ;ntonio
Cisuanco 2Cisuanco3 o' the Cri$inal :nvesti)ation Civision o' the Central "olice Cistrict Co$$and=
and 7pi'anio CeriDuito 2CeriDuito3, <ecords ?eri'ier o' the Firear$s and 79plosives Civision in Ca$p
Cra$e. +heir testi$onies are su$$arized as 'ollo(s*
6n July 15, 1996, at around 9*5 a.$., Cisuanco received a Cispatch 6rder 'ro$ the desk o''icer
directin) hi$ and three 23 other police$en to serve a Warrant o' ;rrest, issued by Jud)e :)nacio
Salvador, a)ainst ?aleroso 'or a case o' kidnappin) (ith ranso$.
6
;'ter a brie'in), the tea$ conducted the necessary surveillance on ?aleroso checkin) his hideouts in
Cavite, Caloocan, and 8ulacan. 7ventually, the tea$ $e$bers proceeded to the :nte)rated #ational
"olice 2:#"3 Central "olice Station in Culiat, Luezon City, (here they sa( ?aleroso about to board a
tricyle. Cisuanco and his tea$ approached ?aleroso. +hey put hi$ under arrest, in'or$ed hi$ o' his
constitutional ri)hts, and bodily searched hi$. +hey 'ound a Charter ;r$s revolver, bearin) Serial
#o. /!1/, (ith 'ive 2/3 pieces o' live a$$unition, tucked in his (aist.
0
?aleroso (as then brou)ht to the police station 'or Duestionin). Apon veri'ication in the Firear$s and
79plosives Civision in Ca$p Cra$e, CeriDuito presented a certi'ication
J
that the sub>ect 'irear$ (as
not issued to ?aleroso, but (as licensed in the na$e o' a certain <aul "alencia Salvatierra o'
Sa$paloc, &anila.
9
6n the other hand, ?aleroso, S"6 ;)ustin <. +i$bol, Jr. 2+i$bol3, and ;drian -uson testi'ied 'or the
de'ense. +heir testi$onies are su$$arized as 'ollo(s*
6n July 15, 1996, ?aleroso (as sleepin) inside a roo$ in the boardin) house o' his children located
at Sa)ana ,o$es, 8aran)ay #e( 7ra, Luezon City. ,e (as a(akened by 'our 243 heavily ar$ed
$en in civilian attire (ho pointed their )uns at hi$ and pulled hi$ out o' the roo$.
15
+he raidin) tea$
tied his hands and placed hi$ near the 'aucet 2outside the roo$3 then (ent back inside, searched
and ransacked the roo$. &o$ents later, an operative ca$e out o' the roo$ and e9clai$ed, E,oy,
$ay nakuha akon) baril sa loobOE
11
Cisuanco in'or$ed ?aleroso that there (as a standin) (arrant 'or his arrest. ,o(ever, the raidin)
tea$ (as not ar$ed (ith a search (arrant.
1!
+i$bol testi'ied that he issued to ?aleroso a &e$orandu$ <eceipt
1
dated July 1, 199 coverin) the
sub>ect 'irear$ and its a$$unition, upon the verbal instruction o' Col. ;n)elito &oreno.
14
6n &ay 6, 199J, the <e)ional +rial Court 2<+C3, 8ranch 90, Luezon City, convicted ?aleroso as
char)ed and sentenced hi$ to su''er the indeter$inate penalty o' 'our 243 years, t(o 2!3 $onths and
one 213 day, as $ini$u$, to si9 263 years, as $a9i$u$. +he )un sub>ect o' the case (as 'urther
ordered con'iscated in 'avor o' the )overn$ent.
1/
6n appeal, the Court o' ;ppeals 2C;3 a''ir$ed
16
the <+C decision but the $ini$u$ ter$ o' the
indeter$inate penalty (as lo(ered to 'our 243 years and t(o 2!3 $onths.
6n petition 'or revie(, (e a''ir$ed
10
in 'ull the C; decision. ?aleroso 'iled a &otion 'or
<econsideration
1J
(hich (as denied (ith 'inality
19
on June 5, !55J.
?aleroso is a)ain be'ore us throu)h this %etter-;ppeal
!5
i$plorin) this Court to once $ore take a
conte$plative re'lection and deliberation on the case, 'ocusin) on his breached constitutional ri)hts
a)ainst unreasonable search and seizure.
!1
&ean(hile, as the 6''ice o' the Solicitor @eneral 26S@3 'ailed to ti$ely 'ile its Co$$ent on
?alerosoPs &otion 'or <econsideration, it instead 'iled a &ani'estation in %ieu o' Co$$ent.
!!
:n its &ani'estation, the 6S@ chan)ed its previous position and no( reco$$ends ?alerosoPs
acDuittal. ;'ter a second look at the evidence presented, the 6S@ considers the testi$onies o' the
(itnesses 'or the de'ense $ore credible and thus concludes that ?aleroso (as arrested in a
boardin) house. &ore i$portantly, the 6S@ a)rees (ith ?aleroso that the sub>ect 'irear$ (as
obtained by the police o''icers in violation o' ?alerosoPs constitutional ri)ht a)ainst ille)al search and
seizure, and should thus be e9cluded 'ro$ the evidence 'or the prosecution. %astly, assu$in) that
the sub>ect 'irear$ (as ad$issible in evidence, still, ?aleroso could not be convicted o' the cri$e,
since he (as able to establish his authority to possess the )un throu)h the &e$orandu$ <eceipt
issued by his superiors.
;'ter considerin) ane( ?alerosoPs ar)u$ents throu)h his %etter-;ppeal, to)ether (ith the 6S@Ps
position reco$$endin) his acDuittal, and keepin) in $ind that substantial ri)hts $ust ulti$ately
rei)n supre$e over technicalities, this Court is s(ayed to reconsider.
!
+he %etter-;ppeal is actually in the nature o' a second $otion 'or reconsideration. While a second
$otion 'or reconsideration is, as a )eneral rule, a prohibited pleadin), it is (ithin the sound discretion
o' the Court to ad$it the sa$e, provided it is 'iled (ith prior leave (henever substantive >ustice $ay
be better served thereby.
!4
+his is not the 'irst ti$e that this Court is suspendin) its o(n rules or e9ceptin) a particular case
'ro$ the operation o' the rules. :n Ce @uz$an v. Sandi)anbayan,
!/
despite the denial o' Ce
@uz$anPs $otion 'or reconsideration, (e still entertained his 6$nibus &otion, (hich (as actually a
second $otion 'or reconsideration. 7ventually, (e reconsidered our earlier decision and re$anded
the case to the Sandi)anbayan 'or reception and appreciation o' petitionerPs evidence. :n that case,
(e said that i' (e (ould not co$passionately bend back(ards and 'le9 technicalities, petitioner
(ould surely e9perience the dis)race and $isery o' incarceration 'or a cri$e (hich he $i)ht not
have co$$itted a'ter all.
!6
;lso in ;stor)a v. "eople,
!0
on a second $otion 'or reconsideration, (e
set aside our earlier decision, re-e9a$ined the records o' the case, then 'inally acDuitted 8enito
;stor)a o' the cri$e o' ;rbitrary Cetention on the )round o' reasonable doubt. ;nd in Sta. <osa
<ealty Cevelop$ent Corporation v. ;$ante,
!J
by virtue o' the January 1, !554 7n 8anc <esolution,
the Court authorized the Special First Civision to suspend the <ules, so as to allo( it to consider and
resolve respondentPs second $otion 'or reconsideration a'ter the $otion (as heard on oral
ar)u$ents. ;'ter a re-e9a$ination o' the $erits o' the case, (e )ranted the second $otion 'or
reconsideration and set aside our earlier decision.
Clearly, suspension o' the rules o' procedure, to pave the (ay 'or the re-e9a$ination o' the 'indin)s
o' 'act and conclusions o' la( earlier $ade, is not (ithout basis.
We (ould like to stress that rules o' procedure are $erely tools desi)ned to 'acilitate the attain$ent
o' >ustice. +hey are conceived and pro$ul)ated to e''ectively aid the courts in the dispensation o'
>ustice. Courts are not slaves to or robots o' technical rules, shorn o' >udicial discretion. :n renderin)
>ustice, courts have al(ays been, as they ou)ht to be, conscientiously )uided by the nor$ that, on
the balance, technicalities take a backseat to substantive ri)hts, and not the other (ay around. +hus,
i' the application o' the <ules (ould tend to 'rustrate rather than to pro$ote >ustice, it (ould al(ays
be (ithin our po(er to suspend the rules or e9cept a particular case 'ro$ its operation.
!9
#o( on the substantive aspect.
+he Court notes that the version o' the prosecution, as to (here ?aleroso (as arrested, is di''erent
'ro$ the version o' the de'ense. +he prosecution clai$s that ?aleroso (as arrested near the :#"
Central "olice Station in Culiat, Luezon City, (hile he (as about to board a tricycle. ;'ter placin)
?aleroso under arrest, the arrestin) o''icers bodily searched hi$, and they 'ound the sub>ect 'irear$
and a$$unition. +he de'ense, on the other hand, insists that he (as arrested inside the boardin)
house o' his children. ;'ter servin) the (arrant o' arrest 2alle)edly 'or kidnappin) (ith ranso$3,
so$e o' the police o''icers searched the boardin) house and 'orcibly opened a cabinet (here they
discovered the sub>ect 'irear$.
;'ter a thorou)h re-e9a$ination o' the records and consideration o' the >oint appeal 'or acDuittal by
?aleroso and the 6S@, (e 'ind that (e $ust )ive $ore credence to the version o' the de'ense.
?alerosoPs appeal 'or acDuittal 'ocuses on his constitutional ri)ht a)ainst unreasonable search and
seizure alle)ed to have been violated by the arrestin) police o''icers= and i' so, (ould render the
con'iscated 'irear$ and a$$unition inad$issible in evidence a)ainst hi$.
+he ri)ht a)ainst unreasonable searches and seizures is secured by Section !, ;rticle ::: o' the
Constitution (hich states*
S7C. !. +he ri)ht o' the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and e''ects a)ainst
unreasonable searches and seizures o' (hatever nature and 'or any purpose shall be inviolable, and
no search (arrant or (arrant o' arrest shall issue e9cept upon probable cause to be deter$ined
personally by the >ud)e a'ter e9a$ination under oath or a''ir$ation o' the co$plainant and the
(itnesses he $ay produce, and particularly describin) the place to be searched and the persons or
thin)s to be seized.
Fro$ this constitutional provision, it can readily be )leaned that, as a )eneral rule, the procure$ent
o' a (arrant is reDuired be'ore a la( en'orcer can validly search or seize the person, house, papers,
or e''ects o' any individual.
5
+o underscore the si)ni'icance the la( attaches to the 'unda$ental ri)ht o' an individual a)ainst
unreasonable searches and seizures, the Constitution succinctly declares in ;rticle :::, Section 2!3,
that Eany evidence obtained in violation o' this or the precedin) section shall be inad$issible in
evidence 'or any purpose in any proceedin).E
1
+he above proscription is not, ho(ever, absolute. +he 'ollo(in) are the (ell-reco)nized instances
(here searches and seizures are allo(ed even (ithout a valid (arrant*
1. Warrantless search incidental to a la('ul arrest=
!. FSeizureG o' evidence in Eplain vie(.E +he ele$ents are* a3 a prior valid intrusion based on
the valid (arrantless arrest in (hich the police are le)ally present in the pursuit o' their
o''icial duties= b3 the evidence (as inadvertently discovered by the police (ho have the ri)ht
to be (here they are= c3 the evidence $ust be i$$ediately apparent= and d3 Eplain vie(E
>usti'ied $ere seizure o' evidence (ithout 'urther search=
. Search o' a $ovin) vehicle. ,i)hly re)ulated by the )overn$ent, the vehiclePs inherent
$obility reduces e9pectation o' privacy especially (hen its transit in public thorou)h'ares
'urnishes a hi)hly reasonable suspicion a$ountin) to probable cause that the occupant
co$$itted a cri$inal activity=
4. Consented (arrantless search=
/. Custo$s search=
6. Stop and Frisk=
0. 79i)ent and e$er)ency circu$stances.
!
J. Search o' vessels and aircra't= FandG
9. :nspection o' buildin)s and other pre$ises 'or the en'orce$ent o' 'ire, sanitary and
buildin) re)ulations.

:n the e9ceptional instances (here a (arrant is not necessary to e''ect a valid search or seizure,
(hat constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search or seizure is purely a >udicial Duestion,
deter$inable 'ro$ the uniDueness o' the circu$stances involved, includin) the purpose o' the
search or seizure, the presence or absence o' probable cause, the $anner in (hich the search and
seizure (as $ade, the place or thin) searched, and the character o' the articles procured.
4
:n li)ht o' the enu$erated e9ceptions, and applyin) the test o' reasonableness laid do(n above, is
the (arrantless search and seizure o' the 'irear$ and a$$unition validI
We ans(er in the ne)ative.
For one, the (arrantless search could not be >usti'ied as an incident to a la('ul arrest. Searches and
seizures incident to la('ul arrests are )overned by Section 1, <ule 1!6 o' the <ules o' Court, (hich
reads*
S7C. 1. Search incident to la('ul arrest. Q ; person la('ully arrested $ay be searched 'or
dan)erous (eapons or anythin) (hich $ay have been used or constitute proo' in the co$$ission o'
an o''ense (ithout a search (arrant.
We (ould like to stress that the scope o' the (arrantless search is not (ithout li$itations. :n "eople
v. %ean)siri,
/
"eople v. Cubcubin, Jr.,
6
and "eople v. 7stella,
0
(e had the occasion to lay do(n the
para$eters o' a valid (arrantless search and seizure as an incident to a la('ul arrest.
When an arrest is $ade, it is reasonable 'or the arrestin) o''icer to search the person arrested in
order to re$ove any (eapon that the latter $i)ht use in order to resist arrest or e''ect his escape.
6ther(ise, the o''icerPs sa'ety $i)ht (ell be endan)ered, and the arrest itsel' 'rustrated. :n addition,
it is entirely reasonable 'or the arrestin) o''icer to search 'or and seize any evidence on the
arresteePs person in order to prevent its conceal$ent or destruction.
J
&oreover, in la('ul arrests, it beco$es both the duty and the ri)ht o' the apprehendin) o''icers to
conduct a (arrantless search not only on the person o' the suspect, but also in the per$issible area
(ithin the latterPs reach.
9
6ther(ise stated, a valid arrest allo(s the seizure o' evidence or
dan)erous (eapons either on the person o' the one arrested or (ithin the area o' his i$$ediate
control.
45
+he phrase E(ithin the area o' his i$$ediate controlE $eans the area 'ro$ (ithin (hich he
$i)ht )ain possession o' a (eapon or destructible evidence.
41
; )un on a table or in a dra(er in 'ront
o' one (ho is arrested can be as dan)erous to the arrestin) o''icer as one concealed in the clothin)
o' the person arrested.
4!
:n the present case, ?aleroso (as arrested by virtue o' a (arrant o' arrest alle)edly 'or kidnappin)
(ith ranso$. ;t that ti$e, ?aleroso (as sleepin) inside the boardin) house o' his children. ,e (as
a(akened by the arrestin) o''icers (ho (ere heavily ar$ed. +hey pulled hi$ out o' the roo$, placed
hi$ beside the 'aucet outside the roo$, tied his hands, and then put hi$ under the care o'
Cisuanco.
4
+he other police o''icers re$ained inside the roo$ and ransacked the locked
cabinet
44
(here they 'ound the sub>ect 'irear$ and a$$unition.
4/
With such discovery, ?aleroso (as
char)ed (ith ille)al possession o' 'irear$ and a$$unition.
Fro$ the 'ore)oin) narration o' 'acts, (e can readily conclude that the arrestin) o''icers served the
(arrant o' arrest (ithout any resistance 'ro$ ?aleroso. +hey placed hi$ i$$ediately under their
control by pullin) hi$ out o' the bed, and brin)in) hi$ out o' the roo$ (ith his hands tied. +o be
sure, the cabinet (hich, accordin) to ?aleroso, (as locked, could no lon)er be considered as an
Earea (ithin his i$$ediate controlE because there (as no (ay 'or hi$ to take any (eapon or to
destroy any evidence that could be used a)ainst hi$.
+he arrestin) o''icers (ould have been >usti'ied in searchin) the person o' ?aleroso, as (ell as the
tables or dra(ers in 'ront o' hi$, 'or any concealed (eapon that $i)ht be used a)ainst the 'or$er.
8ut under the circu$stances obtainin), there (as no co$parable >usti'ication to search throu)h all
the desk dra(ers and cabinets or the other closed or concealed areas in that roo$ itsel'.
46
:t is (orthy to note that the purpose o' the e9ception 2(arrantless search as an incident to a la('ul
arrest3 is to protect the arrestin) o''icer 'ro$ bein) har$ed by the person arrested, (ho $i)ht be
ar$ed (ith a concealed (eapon, and to prevent the latter 'ro$ destroyin) evidence (ithin reach.
+he e9ception, there'ore, should not be strained beyond (hat is needed to serve its purpose.
40
:n the
case be'ore us, search (as $ade in the locked cabinet (hich cannot be said to have been (ithin
?alerosoPs i$$ediate control. +hus, the search e9ceeded the bounds o' (hat $ay be considered as
an incident to a la('ul arrest.
4J
#or can the (arrantless search in this case be >usti'ied under the Eplain vie( doctrine.E
+he Eplain vie( doctrineE $ay not be used to launch unbridled searches and indiscri$inate seizures
or to e9tend a )eneral e9ploratory search $ade solely to 'ind evidence o' de'endantPs )uilt. +he
doctrine is usually applied (here a police o''icer is not searchin) 'or evidence a)ainst the accused,
but nonetheless inadvertently co$es across an incri$inatin) ob>ect.
49
;s enunciated in "eople v. Cubcubin, Jr.
/5
and "eople v. %ean)siri*
/1
What the Eplain vie(E cases have in co$$on is that the police o''icer in each o' the$ had a prior
>usti'ication 'or an intrusion in the course o' (hichF,G he ca$e inadvertently across a piece o'
evidence incri$inatin) the accused. +he doctrine serves to supple$ent the prior >usti'ication Q
(hether it be a (arrant 'or another ob>ect, hot pursuit, search incident to la('ul arrest, or so$e other
le)iti$ate reason 'or bein) present unconnected (ith a search directed a)ainst the accused Q and
per$its the (arrantless seizure. 6' course, the e9tension o' the ori)inal >usti'ication is le)iti$ate only
(here it is i$$ediately apparent to the police that they have evidence be'ore the$= the Eplain vie(E
doctrine $ay not be used to e9tend a )eneral e9ploratory search 'ro$ one ob>ect to another until
so$ethin) incri$inatin) at last e$er)es.
/!
:ndeed, the police o''icers (ere inside the boardin) house o' ?alerosoPs children, because they (ere
supposed to serve a (arrant o' arrest issued a)ainst ?aleroso. :n other (ords, the police o''icers had
a prior >usti'ication 'or the intrusion. ConseDuently, any evidence that they (ould inadvertently
discover $ay be used a)ainst ?aleroso. ,o(ever, in this case, the police o''icers did not >ust
accidentally discover the sub>ect 'irear$ and a$$unition= they actually searched 'or evidence
a)ainst ?aleroso.
Clearly, the search $ade (as ille)al, a violation o' ?alerosoPs ri)ht a)ainst unreasonable search and
seizure. ConseDuently, the evidence obtained in violation o' said ri)ht is inad$issible in evidence
a)ainst hi$.a%%phi
Anreasonable searches and seizures are the $enace a)ainst (hich the constitutional )uarantees
a''ord 'ull protection. While the po(er to search and seize $ay at ti$es be necessary 'or public
(el'are, still it $ay be e9ercised and the la( en'orced (ithout trans)ressin) the constitutional ri)hts
o' the citizens, 'or no en'orce$ent o' any statute is o' su''icient i$portance to >usti'y indi''erence to
the basic principles o' )overn$ent. +hose (ho are supposed to en'orce the la( are not >usti'ied in
disre)ardin) the ri)hts o' an individual in the na$e o' order. 6rder is too hi)h a price to pay 'or the
loss o' liberty.
/
8ecause a (arrantless search is in dero)ation o' a constitutional ri)ht, peace o''icers (ho conduct it
cannot invoke re)ularity in the per'or$ance o' o''icial 'unctions.
/4
+he 8ill o' <i)hts is the bedrock o' constitutional )overn$ent. :' people are stripped naked o' their
ri)hts as hu$an bein)s, de$ocracy cannot survive and )overn$ent beco$es $eanin)less. +his
e9plains (hy the 8ill o' <i)hts, contained as it is in ;rticle ::: o' the Constitution, occupies a position
o' pri$acy in the 'unda$ental la( (ay above the articles on )overn$ental po(er.
//
Without the ille)ally seized 'irear$, ?alerosoPs conviction cannot stand. +here is si$ply no su''icient
evidence to convict hi$.
/6
;ll told, the )uilt o' ?aleroso (as not proven beyond reasonable doubt
$easured by the reDuired $oral certainty 'or conviction. +he evidence presented by the prosecution
(as not enou)h to overco$e the presu$ption o' innocence as constitutionally ordained. :ndeed, it
(ould be better to set 'ree ten $en (ho $i)ht probably be )uilty o' the cri$e char)ed than to convict
one innocent $an 'or a cri$e he did not co$$it.
/0
With the 'ore)oin) disDuisition, there is no $ore need to discuss the other issues raised by ?aleroso.
6ne 'inal note. +he Court values liberty and (ill al(ays insist on the observance o' basic
constitutional ri)hts as a condition sine Dua non a)ainst the a(eso$e investi)ative and prosecutory
po(ers o' the )overn$ent.
/J
W,7<7F6<7, in vie( o' the 'ore)oin), the February !!, !55J Cecision and June 5, !55J
<esolution are <7C6#S:C7<7C and S7+ ;S:C7. Sr. :nsp. Jerry ?aleroso is hereby ;CLA:++7C o'
ille)al possession o' 'irear$ and a$$unition.
S6 6<C7<7C.
.R. No. 96177 Jnu/, 27, 1993
6EO6LE O" THE 6H$L$66$NES, plainti''-appellee,
vs.
MAR$ MUSA , HANTATALU, accused-appellant.
5he Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
0ablo L. Murillo for accused-appellant.

ROMERO, J.:
+he appellant, &ari &usa, seeks, in this appeal, the reversal o' the decision, dated ;u)ust 1,
1995,
1
o' the <e)ional +rial Court 2<+C3 o' Ra$boan)a City, 8ranch S::, 'indin) hi$ )uilty o' sellin)
$ari>uana in violation o' ;rticle ::, Section 4 o' <epublic ;ct #o. 64!/, as a$ended, other(ise kno(n as
the Can)erous Cru)s ;ct o' 190!.
+he in'or$ation 'iled on Cece$ber 1/, 19J9 a)ainst the appellant reads*
+hat on or about Cece$ber 14, 19J9, in the City o' Ra$boan)a, "hilippines, and
(ithin the >urisdiction o' this ,onorable Court, the
above-na$ed accused, not bein) authorized by la(, did then and there, (il'ully,
unla('ully and 'eloniously sell to one S@+. ;&;C6 ;#:, t(o 2!3 (rappers containin)
dried $ari>uana leaves, kno(in) the sa$e to be a prohibited dru).
C6#+<;<- +6 %;W.
2
Apon his arrai)n$ent on January 11, 1995, the appellant pleaded not )uilty.
3
;t the trial, the prosecution presented three 23 (itnesses, na$ely* 213 S)t. ;$ado ;ni, Jr. o' the 9th
#arcotics Co$$and 2#;<C6&3 o' Ra$boan)a City, (ho acted as poseur-buyer in the buy-bust
operation $ade a)ainst the appellant= 2!3 +BS)t. Jesus 8elar)a, also o' the 9th #arcotics Co$$and
o' Ra$boan)a City, (ho (as the #;<C6& tea$ leader o' the buy-bust operation= and 23 ;thena
7lisa ". ;nderson, the Cocu$ent 79a$iner and Forensic Che$ist o' "C-:#" Cri$e %aboratory o'
<e)ional Co$$and 2<7C6&3 9. +he evidence o' the prosecution (as su$$arized by the trial court
as 'ollo(s*
"rosecution evidence sho(s that in the $ornin) o' Cece$ber 1, 19J9, +BS)t. Jesus
8elar)a, leader o' a #;<C6+:CS C6&&;#C 2#;<C6&3 tea$ based at Calarian,
Ra$boan)a City, instructed S)t. ;$ado ;ni to conduct surveillance and test buy on a
certain &ari &usa o' Suterville, Ra$boan)a City. :n'or$ation received 'ro$ civilian
in'or$er (as that this &ari &usa (as en)a)ed in sellin) $ari>uana in said place. So
S)t. ;$ado ;ni, another #;<C6& a)ent, proceeded to Suterville, in co$pany (ith a
#;<C6& civilian in'or$er, to the house o' &ari &usa to (hich house the civilian
in'or$er had )uided hi$. +he sa$e civilian in'or$er had also described to hi$ the
appearance o' &ari &usa. ;$ado ;ni (as able to buy one ne(spaper-(rapped dried
$ari>uana 279h. E7E3 'or "15.55. S)t. ;ni returned to the #;<C6& o''ice and turned
over the ne(spaper-(rapped $ari>uana to +BS)t. Jesus 8elar)a. S)t. 8elar)a
inspected the stu'' turned over to hi$ and 'ound it to be $ari>uana.
+he ne9t day, Cece$ber 14, 19J9, about 1*5 ".&., a buy-bust (as planned. S)t.
;$ado ;ni (as assi)ned as the poseur buyer 'or (hich purpose he (as )iven
"!5.55 2(ith S# @;9//JJ3 by 8elar)a. +he
buy-bust $oney had been taken by +BS)t. Jesus 8elar)a 'ro$ &BS)t. #oh Sali
&ihasun, Chie' o' :nvesti)ation Section, and 'or (hich 8elar)a si)ned a receipt 279h.
E%E M E%-lE 3 +he tea$ under S)t. Foncar)as (as assi)ned as back-up security. ; pre-
arran)ed si)nal (as arran)ed consistin) o' S)t. ;ni1s raisin) his ri)ht hand, a'ter he
had succeeded to buy the $ari>uana. +he t(o #;<C6& tea$s proceeded to the
tar)et site in t(o civilian vehicles. 8elar)a1s tea$ (as co$posed o' S)t. 8elar)a,
tea$ leader, S)t. ;$ado ;ni, poseur buyer, S)t. %e)o and S)t. 8ion).
;rrivin) at the tar)et site, S)t. ;ni proceeded to the house o' &ari &usa, (hile the
rest o' the #;<C6& )roup positioned the$selves at strate)ic places about 95 to
155 $eters 'ro$ &ari &usa1s house. +BS)t. 8elar)a could see (hat (ent on bet(een
;ni and suspect &ari &usa 'ro$ (here he (as. ;ni approached &ari &usa, (ho
ca$e out o' his house, and asked ;ni (hat he (anted. ;ni said he (anted so$e
$ore stu''. ;ni )ave &ari &usa the "!5.55 $arked $oney. ;'ter receivin) the
$oney, &ari &usa (ent back to his house and ca$e back and )ave ;$ado ;ni t(o
ne(spaper (rappers containin) dried $ari>uana. ;ni opened the t(o (rappers and
inspected the contents. Convinced that the contents (ere $ari>uana, ;ni (alked
back to(ards his co$panions and raised his ri)ht hand. +he t(o #;<C6& tea$s,
ridin) the t(o civilian vehicles, sped to(ards S)t. ;ni. ;ni >oined 8elar)a1s tea$ and
returned to the house.
;t the ti$e S)t. ;ni 'irst approached &ari &usa, there (ere 'our persons inside his
house* &ari &usa, another boy, and t(o (o$en, one o' (ho$ ;ni and 8elar)a later
ca$e to kno( to be &ari &usa1s (i'e. +he second ti$e, ;ni (ith the #;<C6& tea$
returned to &ari &usa1s house, the (o$an, (ho (as later kno(n as &ari &usa1s
(i'e, slipped a(ay 'ro$ the house. S)t. 8elar)a 'risked &ari &usa but could not 'ind
the "!5.55 $arked $oney (ith hi$. &ari &usa (as then asked (here the "!5.55
(as and he told the #;<C6& tea$ he has )iven the $oney to his (i'e 2(ho had
slipped a(ay3. S)t. 8elar)a also 'ound a plastic ba) containin) dried $ari>uana
inside it so$e(here in the kitchen. &ari &usa (as then placed under arrest and
brou)ht to the #;<C6& o''ice. ;t Suterville, S)t. ;ni turned over to S)t. 8elar)a the
t(o ne(spaper-(rapped $ari>uana he had earlier bou)ht 'ro$ &ari &usa 279hs. ECE
M ECE3.
:n the #;<C6& o''ice, &ari &usa 'irst )ave his na$e as ,ussin &usa. %ater on,
&ari &usa )ave his true na$e H &ari &usa. +BS)t. Jesus 8elar)a turned over the
t(o ne(spaper-(rapped $ari>uana 2bou)ht at the buy-bust3, the one ne(spaper-
(rapped $ari>uana 2bou)ht at the test-buy3 and the plastic ba) containin) $ore
$ari>uana 2(hich had been taken by S)t. %e)o inside the kitchen o' &ari &usa3 to
the "C Cri$e %aboratory, Ra$boan)a City, 'or laboratory e9a$ination. +he turnover
o' the $ari>uana speci$en to the "C Cri$e %aboratory (as by (ay o' a letter-
reDuest, dated Cece$ber 14, 19J9 279h. E8E3, (hich (as sta$ped E<7C7:?7CE by
the "C Cri$e %aboratory 279h. E8-1E3 on the sa$e day.
&rs. ;thena 7lisa ". ;nderson, the Forensic Che$ist o' the "C Cri$e %aboratory,
e9a$ined the $ari>uana speci$ens sub>ectin) the sa$e to her three tests. ;ll
sub$itted speci$ens she e9a$ined )ave positive results 'or the presence o'
$ari>uana. &rs. ;nderson reported the results o' her e9a$ination in her Che$istry
<eport C-155-J9, dated Cece$ber 14, 19J9, 279h. EJE, EJ-1E, EJ-!E, EJ-E, EJ-4E and
EJ-/E3. &rs. ;nderson identi'ied in court the t(o ne(spaper (rapped $ari>uana
bou)ht at the
buy-bust on Cece$ber 14, 19J9, throu)h her initial and the (ei)ht o' each speci$en
(ritten (ith red ink on each (rapper 279hs. EC-1E and EC-1E3. She also identi'ied the
one ne(spaper-(rapped $ari>uana bou)ht at the test-buy on Cece$ber 1, 19J9,
throu)h her $arkin)s 279h. E7-1E3. &rs. ;nderson also identi'ied her Che$istry
<eport 279h. EJE M sub-$arkin)s.3
+. S)t. 8elar)a identi'ied the t(o buy-bust ne(spaper (rapped $ari>uana throu)h his
initial, the (ords Ebuy-bustE and the (ords ECece$ber 14, 19J9, !*4/ ".&.E 2(ritten
on 79hs. ECE and ECE3. 8elar)a also identi'ied the receipt o' the "!5 $arked $oney
2(ith S# @;9//JJ3 279h. E%E3, dated Cece$ber 14, 19J9, and his si)nature thereon
279h.
E%-1E3. ,e also identi'ied the letter-reDuest, dated Cece$ber 14, 19J9, addressed to
the "C Cri$e %aboratory 279h. E8E3 and his si)nature thereon 279h. E8-!E3 and the
sta$p o' the "C Cri$e %aboratory $arked E<7C7:?7CE 279h. E8-1E3.
5
For the de'ense, the 'ollo(in) testi'ied as (itnesses* 213 the accused-appellant &ari ,. &usa= and
2!3 ;hara <. &usa, his (i'e. +he trial court su$$arized the version o' the de'ense, thus*
F6Gn Cece$ber 14, 19J9, at about 1*5 in the a'ternoon, &ari &usa (as in his house
at Suterville, Ra$boan)a City. With hi$ (ere his (i'e, ;hara &usa, kno(n as ;ra,
his one-year old child, a (o$an $anicurist, and a $ale cousin na$ed ;bdul &usa.
;bout 1*5 that a'ternoon, (hile he (as bein) $anicured at one hand, his (i'e (as
inside the one roo$ o' their house, puttin) their child to sleep. +hree #;<C6&
a)ents, (ho introduced the$selves as #;<C6& a)ents, dressed in civilian clothes,
)ot inside &ari &usa1s house (hose door (as open. +he #;<C6& a)ents did not
ask per$ission to enter the house but si$ply announced that they (ere #;<C6&
a)ents. +he #;<C6& a)ents searched &ari &usa1s house and &ari &usa asked
the$ i' they had a search (arrant. +he #;<C6& a)ents (ere >ust silent. +he
#;<C6& a)ents 'ound a red plastic ba) (hose contents, &ari &usa said, he did not
kno(. ,e also did not kno( i' the plastic ba) belon)ed to his brother, Faisal, (ho
(as livin) (ith hi$, or his 'ather, (ho (as livin) in another house about ten ar$s-
len)th a(ay. &ari &usa, then, (as handcu''ed and (hen &ari &usa asked (hy, the
#;<C6& a)ents told hi$ 'or clari'ication.
&ari &usa (as brou)ht in a pick-up, his (i'e >oinin) hi$ to the #;<C6& 6''ice at
Calarian, Ra$boan)a City. :nside the #;<C6& 6''ice, &ari &usa (as investi)ated
by one #;<C6& a)ent (hich investi)ation (as reduced into (ritin). +he (ritin) or
docu$ent (as interpreted to &ari &usa in +a)alo). +he docu$ent stated that the
$ari>uana belon)ed to &ari &usa and &ari &usa (as asked to si)n it. 8ut &ari
&usa re'used to si)n because the $ari>uana did not belon) to hi$. &ari &usa said
he (as not told that he (as entitled to the assistance o' counsel, althou)h he hi$sel'
told the #;<C6& a)ents he (anted to be assisted by counsel.
&ari &usa said 'our bullets (ere then placed bet(een the 'in)ers o' his ri)ht hand
and his 'in)ers (ere pressed (hich 'elt very pain'ul. +he #;<C6& a)ents bo9ed
hi$ and &ari &usa lost consciousness. While &ari &usa (as $altreated, he said his
(i'e (as outside the #;<C6& buildin). +he very day he (as arrested 2on cross-
e9a$ination &ari &usa said it (as on the ne9t day3, &ari &usa (as brou)ht to the
Fiscal1s 6''ice by three #;<C6& a)ents. +he 'iscal asked hi$ i' the $ari>uana (as
o(ned by hi$ and he said Enot.E ;'ter that sin)le Duestion, &ari &usa (as brou)ht to
the City Jail. &ari &usa said he did not tell the 'iscal that he had been $altreated by
the #;<C6& a)ents because he (as a'raid he $i)ht be $altreated in the 'iscal1s
o''ice.
&ari &usa denied the #;<C6& a)ents1 char)e that he had sold t(o (rappers o'
$ari>uana to the$= that he had received 'ro$ the$ a "!5.55 bill (hich he had )iven
to his (i'e. ,e did not sell $ari>uana because he (as a'raid that (as a)ainst the la(
and that the person sellin) $ari>uana (as cau)ht by the authorities= and he had a
(i'e and a very s$all child to support. &ari &usa said he had not been arrested 'or
sellin) $ari>uana be'ore.
9
;'ter trial, the trial court rendered the assailed decision (ith the 'ollo(in) disposition*
W,7<7F6<7, 'indin) accused &ari &usa y ,antatalu )uilty beyond reasonable
doubt o' sellin) $ari>uana and pursuant to Sec. 4, ;rt :: o' <ep. ;ct #o. 64!/, he is
sentenced to li'e i$prison$ent and to pay the 'ine o' "!5,555.55, the latter i$posed
(ithout subsidiary i$prison$ent.
6
:n this appeal, the appellant contends that his )uilt (as not proved beyond reasonable doubt and
i$pu)ns the credibility o' the prosecution (itnesses.
+he appellant clai$s that the testi$ony o' S)t. ;ni, the poseur-buyer, is not credible because* 213
prior to the buy-bust operation, neither S)t. ;ni nor the other #;<C6& a)ents (ere personally
kno(n by the appellant or vice-versa= and 2!3 there (as no (itness to the alle)ed )ivin) o' the t(o
(rappers o' $ari>uana by the appellant to S)t. ;ni.
S)t. ;ni testi'ied that on Cece$ber 1, 19J9, upon instruction by +BS)t. Jesus 8elar)a, he
conducted a test-buy operation on the appellant (hereby he bou)ht one (rapper o' $ari>uana 'or
"1/.55 'ro$ the latter.
7
,e reported the success'ul operation to +BS)t. 8elar)a on the sa$e
day.
2
Whereupon, +BS)t. 8elar)a conducted a con'erence to or)anize a buy-bust operation 'or the
'ollo(in) day.
9
6n Cece$ber 14, 19J9, at 1*5 p.$., t(o #;<C6& tea$s in separate vehicles headed by +BS)t.
8elar)a and a certain S)t. Foncardas (ent to the place o' operation, (hich (as the appellant1s
house located in %aDuian Co$pound, Suterville, Ra$boan)a City. S)t. ;ni (as (ith the tea$ o'
+BS)t. 8elar)a, (hose other $e$bers (ere S)ts. %e)o and 8ion).
10
S)t. ;ni (as )iven a $arked
"!5.55 bill by +BS)t. 8elar)a, (hich (as to be used in the operation.
Apon reachin) the place, the #;<C6& a)ents positioned the$selves at strate)ic places.
11
S)t. ;ni
approached the house. 6utside the house, the appellant asked S)t. ;ni (hat he (anted. S)t. ;ni asked
hi$ 'or so$e $ore $ari>uana.
12
S)t. ;ni )ave hi$ the $arked "!5.55 bill and the appellant (ent inside
the house and brou)ht back t(o paper (rappers containin) $ari>uana (hich he handed to S)t.
;ni.
13
Fro$ his position, S)t. ;ni could see that there (ere other people in the house.
15
;'ter the e9chan)e, S)t. ;ni approached the other #;<C6& a)ents and $ade the pre-arran)ed
si)nal o' raisin) his ri)ht hand.
19
+he #;<C6& a)ents, acco$panied by S)t. ;ni, (ent inside the house
and $ade the arrest. +he a)ents searched the appellant and unable to 'ind the $arked $oney, they
asked hi$ (here it (as. +he appellant said that he )ave it to his (i'e.
16
+he Court, a'ter a care'ul readin) o' the record, 'inds the testi$ony o' S)t. ;ni re)ardin) the buy-
bust operation, (hich resulted in the apprehension, prosecution and subseDuent conviction o' the
appellant, to be direct, lucid and 'orthri)ht. 8ein) totally untainted by contradictions in any o' the
$aterial points, it deserves credence.
+he contention that the appellant could not have transacted (ith S)t. ;ni because they do not kno(
each other is (ithout $erit. +he day be'ore the
buy-bust operation, S)t. ;ni conducted a test-buy and he success'ully bou)ht a (rapper o'
$ari>uana 'ro$ the appellant. +hrou)h this previous transaction, S)t. ;ni (as able to )ain the
appellant1s con'idence 'or the latter to sell $ore $ari>uana to S)t. ;ni the 'ollo(in) day, durin) the
buy-bust operation. &oreover, the Court has held that (hat $atters is not an e9istin) 'a$iliarity
bet(een the buyer and the seller, 'or Duite o'ten, the parties to the transaction $ay be stran)ers, but
their a)ree$ent and the acts constitutin) the sale and delivery o' the $ari>uana.
17
+he appellant, a)ain to cast doubt on the credibility o' S)t. ;ni, ar)ues that it (as i$possible 'or the
appellant to sell $ari>uana (hile his (i'e, cousin and $anicurist (ere present. 8ut the place o' the
co$$ission o' the cri$e o' sellin) prohibited dru)s has been held to be not crucial
12
and the
presence o' other people apart 'ro$ the buyer and seller (ill not necessarily prevent the consu$$ation o'
the ille)al sale. ;s the Court observed in 0eople %. 0aco,
19
these 'actors $ay so$eti$es ca$ou'la)e the
co$$ission o' the cri$e. :n the instant case, the 'act that the other people inside the appellant1s house
are kno(n to the appellant $ay have )iven hi$ so$e assurance that these people (ill not report hi$ to
the authorities.
+he appellant, besides assailin) S)t. ;ni1s credibility, also Duestions the credibility o' +BS)t. 8elar)a.
+he appellant sub$its that since +BS)t. 8elar)a ad$itted that he (as about 95 $eters a(ay 'ro$
S)t. ;ni and the appellant, he could not have possibly (itnessed the sale. +he appellant
invokes 0eople %.
Ale
20
(here the Court observed that 'ro$ a distance o' 15-1/ $eters, a police$an cannot distin)uish
bet(een $ari>uana ci)arette 'ro$ ordinary ones by the type o' rollin) done on the ci)arette sticks. ;nd
since +BS)t. 8elar)a alle)edly did not see the sale, the appellant contends that the uncorroborated
testi$ony o' S)t. ;ni can not stand as basis 'or his conviction.
0eople %. Ale does not apply here because the police$an in that case testi'ied that he and his
co$panion (ere certain that the appellant therein handed $ari>uana ci)arettes to the poseur-buyer
based on the appearance o' the ci)arette sticks. +he Court re>ected this clai$, statin) that*
+his Court cannot )ive 'ull credit to the testi$onies o' the prosecution (itnesses
$arked as they are (ith contradictions and tainted (ith inaccuracies.
8iTan testi'ied that they (ere able to tell that the 'our ci)arettes (ere $ari>uana
ci)arettes because accordin) to hi$, the rollin) o' ordinary ci)arettes are di''erent
'ro$ those o' $ari>uana ci)arettes. 2tsn, #ove$ber 1, 19J4, p. 153.
:t is ho(ever, incredible to believe that they could discern the type o' rollin) done on
those ci)arettes 'ro$ the distance (here they (ere observin) the alle)ed sale o'
$ore or less 15 to 1/ $eters.
21
:n the case at bar, ho(ever, +BS)t. 8elar)a did not positively clai$ that he sa( the appellant hand
over $ari>uana to S)t. ;ni. What he said (as that there (as an e9chan)e o' certain articles bet(een
the t(o. +he relevant portion o' +BS)t. 8elar)a1s testi$ony reads*
22
L #o(, do you re$e$ber (hether S)t. ;ni (as able to reach the
house o' &ari &usaI
; -es, $a1a$.
L ;'ter reachin) &ari &usa, did you see (hat happened 2sic3I
; -es, $a1a$.
L Could you please tell usI
; Fro$ our vehicle the stainless o(ner type >eep (here S)t. %e)o,
S)t. 8ion) (ere boarded, : sa( that S)t. ;ni proceeded to the house
near the road and he (as $et by one person and later kno(n as &ari
&usa (ho (as at the ti$e (earin) short pants and later on : sa( that
S)t. ;ni handed so$ethin) to hi$, therea'ter received by &ari &usa
and (ent inside the house and ca$e back later and handed
so$ethin) to S)t. ;ni.
Contrary to the contention o' the appellant, it (as not i$possible 'or +BS)t. 8elar)a to have seen,
'ro$ a distance o' 95-155 $eters, S)t. ;ni hand to the appellant Eso$ethin)E and 'or the latter to
)ive to the 'or$er Eso$ethin).E
#ot(ithstandin) the 'act that +BS)t. 8elar)a could not have been certain that (hat S)t. ;ni received
'ro$ the appellant (as $ari>uana because o' the distance, his testi$ony, nevertheless, corroborated
the direct evidence, (hich the Court earlier ruled to be convincin), presented by S)t. ;ni on the
'ollo(in) $aterial points* 213 +BS)t. 8elar)a instructed S)t. ;ni to conduct a surveillance and test-buy
operation on the appellant at Suterville, Ra$boan)a City on Cece$ber 1, 19J9=
23
2!3 later that sa$e
day, S)t. ;ni (ent back to their o''ice and reported a success'ul operation and turned over to +BS)t.
8elar)a one (rapper o' $ari>uana=
25
23 +BS)t. 8elar)a then or)anized a tea$ to conduct a buy-bust
operation the 'ollo(in) day=
29
243 on Cece$ber 14, 19J9, +BS)t. 8elar)a led a tea$ o' #;<C6& a)ents
(ho (ent to Suterville, Ra$boan)a City=
26
2/3 +BS)t. 8elar)a )ave a "!5.55 $arked bill to S)t. ;ni (hich
(as to be used in the buy-bust operation=
27
263 upon the arrival o' the #;<C6& a)ents in Suterville,
Ra$boan)a City, S)t. ;ni proceeded to the house o' the appellant (hile so$e a)ents stayed in the
vehicles and others positioned the$selves in strate)ic places=
22
the appellant $et S)t. ;ni and an
e9chan)e o' articles took place.
29
+he corroborative testi$ony o' +BS)t. 8elar)a stren)thens the direct evidence )iven by S)t. ;ni.
;dditionally, the Court has ruled that the 'act that the police o''icers (ho acco$panied the poseur-
buyer (ere unable to see e9actly (hat the appellant )ave the poseur-buyer because o' their
distance or position (ill not be 'atal to the prosecution1s case
30
provided there e9ists other evidence,
direct or circu$stantial, e.)., the testi$ony o' the poseur-buyer, (hich is su''icient to prove the
consu$$ation o' the sale o' the prohibited dru)
+he appellant ne9t assails the seizure and ad$ission as evidence o' a plastic ba) containin)
$ari>uana (hich the #;<C6& a)ents 'ound in the appellant1s kitchen. :t appears that a'ter S)t. ;ni
)ave the pre-arran)ed si)nal to the other #;<C6& a)ents, the latter $oved in and arrested the
appellant inside the house. +hey searched hi$ to retrieve the $arked $oney but didn1t 'ind it. Apon
bein) Duestioned, the appellant said that he )ave the $arked $oney to his (i'e.
31
+herea'ter, +BS)t.
8elar)a and S)t. %e)o (ent to the kitchen and noticed (hat +BS)t. 8elar)a described as a Ecellophane
colored (hite and stripe han)in) at the corner o' the kitchen.E
32
+hey asked the appellant about its
contents but 'ailin) to )et a response, they opened it and 'ound dried $ari>uana leaves. ;t the trial, the
appellant Duestioned the ad$issibility o' the plastic ba) and the $ari>uana it contains but the trial court
issued an 6rder rulin) that these are ad$issible in evidence.
33
8uilt into the Constitution are )uarantees on the 'reedo$ o' every individual a)ainst unreasonable
searches and seizures by providin) in ;rticle :::, Section !, the 'ollo(in)*
+he ri)ht o' the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and e''ects
a)ainst unreasonable searches and seizures o' (hatever nature and 'or any purpose
shall be inviolable, and no search (arrant or (arrant o' arrest shall issue e9cept
upon probable cause to be deter$ined personally by the >ud)e a'ter e9a$ination
under oath or a''ir$ation o' the co$plainant and the (itness he $ay produce, and
particularly describin) the place to be searched and the persons or thin)s to be
seized.
Further$ore, the Constitution, in con'or$ity (ith the doctrine laid do(n in Stonehill %.
4io(no,
35
declares inad$issible, any evidence obtained in violation o' the 'reedo$ 'ro$ unreasonable
searches and seizures.
39
While a valid search (arrant is )enerally necessary be'ore a search and seizure $ay be e''ected,
e9ceptions to this rule are reco)nized. +hus, in Al%ero %. 4izon,
36
the Court stated that. EFtGhe $ost
i$portant e9ception to the necessity 'or a search (arrant is the ri)ht o' search and seizure as an incident
to a la('ul arrest.E
37
<ule 1!6, Section 1! o' the <ules o' Court e9pressly authorizes a (arrantless search and seizure
incident to a la('ul arrest, thus*
Sec. 1!. Search incident to lawful arrest. H ; person la('ully arrested $ay be
searched 'or dan)erous (eapons or anythin) (hich $ay be used as proo' o' the
co$$ission o' an o''ense, (ithout a search (arrant.
+here is no doubt that the (arrantless search incidental to a la('ul arrest authorizes the arrestin)
o''icer to $ake a search upon the person o' the person arrested. ;s early as 1959, the Court has
ruled that EFaGn o''icer $akin) an arrest $ay take 'ro$ the person arrested any $oney or property
'ound upon his person (hich (as used in the co$$ission o' the cri$e or (as the 'ruit o' the cri$e or
(hich $i)ht 'urnish the prisoner (ith the $eans o' co$$ittin)
violence or o' escapin), or (hich $ay be used as evidence in the trial o' the cause . . . E
32
,ence, in a
buy-bust operation conducted to entrap a dru)-pusher, the la( en'orce$ent a)ents $ay seize the $arked
$oney 'ound on the person
o' the pusher i$$ediately a'ter the arrest even (ithout arrest and search (arrants.
39
:n the case at bar, the #;<C6& a)ents searched the person o' the appellant a'ter arrestin) hi$ in
his house but 'ound nothin). +hey then searched the entire house and, in the kitchen, 'ound and
seized a plastic ba) han)in) in a corner.
+he (arrantless search and seizure, as an incident to a suspect1s la('ul arrest, $ay e9tend beyond
the person o' the one arrested to include the pre$ises or surroundin)s under his i$$ediate
control.
50
6b>ects in the Eplain vie(E o' an o''icer (ho has the ri)ht to be in the position to have that vie(
are sub>ect to seizure and $ay be presented as evidence.
51
:n Her %. ,alifornia
52
police o''icers, (ithout securin) a search (arrant but havin) in'or$ation that the
de'endant husband (as sellin) $ari>uana 'ro$ his apart$ent, obtained 'ro$ the buildin) $ana)er a
passkey to de'endants1 apart$ent, and entered it. +here they 'ound the de'endant husband in the livin)
roo$. +he de'endant (i'e e$er)ed 'ro$ the kitchen, and one o' the o''icers, a'ter identi'yin) hi$sel',
observed throu)h the open door(ay o' the kitchen, a s$all scale atop the kitchen sink, upon (hich lay a
brick-shaped packa)e containin) )reen lea'y substance (hich he reco)nized as $ari>uana. +he packa)e
o' $ari>uana (as used as evidence in prosecutin) de'endants 'or violation o' the #arcotic %a(. +he
ad$issibility o' the packa)e (as challen)ed be'ore the A.S. Supre$e Court, (hich held, a'ter observin)
that it (as not unreasonable 'or the o''icer to (alk to the door(ay o' the ad>acent kitchen on seein) the
de'endant (i'e e$er)e there'ro$, that Ethe discovery o' the brick o' $ari>uana did not constitute a search,
since the o''icer $erely sa( (hat (as placed be'ore hi$ in 'ull vie(.
53
+he A.S. Supre$e Court ruled that
the (arrantless seizure o' the $ari>uana (as le)al on the basis o' the Eplain vie(E doctrine and upheld the
ad$issibility o' the seized dru)s as part o' the prosecution1s evidence.
55
+he Eplain vie(E doctrine $ay not, ho(ever, be used to launch unbridled searches and
indiscri$inate seizures nor to e9tend a )eneral e9ploratory search $ade solely to 'ind evidence o'
de'endant1s )uilt. +he Eplain vie(E doctrine is usually applied (here a police o''icer is not searchin)
'or evidence a)ainst the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently co$es across an incri$inatin)
ob>ect.
59
Further$ore, the A.S. Supre$e Court stated the 'ollo(in) li$itations on the application o' the
doctrine*
What the Eplain vie(E cases have in co$$on is that the police o''icer in each o' the$ had a prior
>usti'ication 'or an intrusion in the course o' (hich he ca$e inadvertently across a piece o' evidence
incri$inatin) the accused. +he doctrine serves to supple$ent the prior >usti'ication H (hether it be a
(arrant 'or another ob>ect, hot pursuit, search incident to la('ul arrest, or so$e other le)iti$ate
reason 'or bein) present unconnected (ith a search directed a)ainst the accused H and per$its the
(arrantless seizure. 6' course, the e9tension o' the ori)inal >usti'ication is le)iti$ate only (here it is
i$$ediately apparent to the police that they have evidence be'ore the$= the Eplain vie(E doctrine
$ay not be used to e9tend a )eneral e9ploratory search 'ro$ one ob>ect to another until so$ethin)
incri$inatin) at last e$er)es.
56
:t has also been su))ested that even i' an ob>ect is observed in Eplain vie(,E the Eplain vie(E doctrine
(ill not >usti'y the seizure o' the ob>ect (here the incri$inatin) nature o' the ob>ect is not apparent
'ro$ the Eplain vie(E o' the ob>ect.
57
Stated di''erently, it $ust be i$$ediately apparent to the police that
the ite$s that they observe $ay be evidence o' a cri$e, contraband, or other(ise sub>ect to seizure.
:n the instant case, the appellant (as arrested and his person searched in the livin) roo$. Failin) to
retrieve the $arked $oney (hich they hoped to 'ind, the #;<C6& a)ents searched the (hole
house and 'ound the plastic ba) in the kitchen. +he plastic ba) (as, there'ore, not (ithin their Eplain
vie(E (hen they arrested the appellant as to >usti'y its seizure. +he #;<C6& a)ents had to $ove
'ro$ one portion o' the house to another be'ore they si)hted the plastic ba). Anlike Her %s.
,alifornia, (here the police o''icer had reason to (alk to the door(ay o' the ad>acent kitchen and
'ro$ (hich position he sa( the $ari>uana, the #;<C6& a)ents in this case (ent 'ro$ roo$ to roo$
(ith the obvious intention o' 'ishin) 'or $ore evidence.
&oreover, (hen the #;<C6& a)ents sa( the plastic ba) han)in) in one corner o' the kitchen, they
had no clue as to its contents. +hey had to ask the appellant (hat the ba) contained. When the
appellant re'used to respond, they opened it and 'ound the $ari>uana. Anlike Her %. ,alifornia, (here
the $ari>uana (as visible to the police o''icer1s eyes, the #;<C6& a)ents in this case could not
have discovered the inculpatory nature o' the contents o' the ba) had they not 'orcibly opened it.
7ven assu$in) then, that the #;<C6& a)ents inadvertently ca$e across the plastic ba) because it
(as (ithin their Eplain vie(,E (hat $ay be said to be the ob>ect in their Eplain vie(E (as >ust the
plastic ba) and not the $ari>uana. +he incri$inatin) nature o' the contents o' the plastic ba) (as not
i$$ediately apparent 'ro$ the Eplain vie(E o' said ob>ect. :t cannot be clai$ed that the plastic ba)
clearly betrayed its contents, (hether by its distinctive con'i)uration, its transprarency, or other(ise,
that its contents are obvious to an observer.
52
We, there'ore, hold that under the circu$stances o' the case, the Eplain vie(E doctrine does not
apply and the $ari>uana contained in the plastic ba) (as seized ille)ally and cannot be presented in
evidence pursuant to ;rticle :::, Section 2!3 o' the Constitution.
+he e9clusion o' this particular evidence does not, ho(ever, di$inish, in any (ay, the da$a)in)
e''ect o' the other pieces o' evidence presented by the prosecution to prove that the appellant sold
$ari>uana, in violation o' ;rticle ::, Section 4 o' the Can)erous Cru)s ;ct o' 190!. We hold that by
virtue o' the testi$onies o' S)t. ;ni and +BS)t. 8elar)a and the t(o (rappin)s o' $ari>uana sold by
the appellant to S)t. ;ni, a$on) other pieces o' evidence, the )uilt o' the appellant o' the cri$e
char)ed has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
W,7<7F6<7, the appeal is C:S&:SS7C and the >ud)$ent o' the <e)ional +rial Court ;FF:<&7C.
S6 6<C7<7C.
Gutierrez- .r.- /idin- 4a%ide- .r. and Melo- ...- concur.
G.R. No. 29139 Au-u(+ 2, 1990
ROMEO 6OSA3AS , 1AMORA, petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT O" A66EALS n! THE 6EO6LE O" THE
6H$L$66$NES, respondents.
+ud' G. Agra%ate for petitioner.

GANCA#CO, J.:
+he validity o' a (arrantless search on the person o' petitioner is put into issue in this case.
6n 6ctober 16, 19J6 at about 15*55 o1clock in the $ornin) "at. Arsicio An)ab and "at. A$bra
A$par, both $e$bers o' the :nte)rated #ational "olice 2:#"3 o' the Cavao &etrodisco$ assi)ned
(ith the :ntelli)ence +ask Force, (ere conductin) a surveillance alon) &a)allanes Street, Cavao
City. While they (ere (ithin the pre$ises o' the <izal &e$orial Colle)es they spotted petitioner
carryin) a EburiE ba) and they noticed hi$ to be actin) suspiciously.
+hey approached the petitioner and identi'ied the$selves as $e$bers o' the :#". "etitioner
atte$pted to 'lee but his atte$pt to )et a(ay (as th(arted by the t(o not(ithstandin) his
resistance.
+hey then checked the EburiE ba) o' the petitioner (here they 'ound one 213 caliber .J S$ith M
Wesson revolver (ith Serial #o. 005196
1
t(o 2!3 rounds o' live a$$unition 'or a .J caliber )un
2
a
s$oke 2tear )as3 )renade,
3
and t(o 2!3 live a$$unitions 'or a .!! caliber )un.
5
+hey brou)ht the
petitioner to the police station 'or 'urther investi)ation. :n the course o' the sa$e, the petitioner (as asked
to sho( the necessary license or authority to possess 'irear$s and a$$unitions 'ound in his possession
but he 'ailed to do so. ,e (as then taken to the Cavao &etrodisco$ o''ice and the prohibited articles
recovered 'ro$ hi$ (ere indorsed to &BS)t. Cidoy the o''icer then on duty. ,e (as prosecuted 'or ille)al
possession o' 'irear$s and a$$unitions in the <e)ional +rial Court o' Cavao City (herein a'ter a plea o'
not )uilty and trial on the $erits a decision (as rendered on 6ctober J, 19J0 'indin) petitioner )uilty o'
the o''ense char)ed as 'ollo(s*
W,7<7F6<7, in vie( o' all the 'ore)oin), this Court , 'inds the accused )uilty
beyond reasonable doubt o' the o''ense char)ed.
:t appearin) that the accuse d (as belo( ei)hteen 21J3 years old at the ti$e o' the
co$$ission o' the o''ense 2;rt. 6J, par. !3, he is hereby sentenced to an
indeter$inate penalty ran)in) 'ro$ +7# 2153 -7;<S and 6#7 213 C;- o' prision
ma'or to +W7%?7 21!3 -ears, F:?7 2/3 $onths and 7leven 2113 days o' +eclusion
5emporal, and to pay the costs.
+he 'irear$, a$$unitions and s$oke )renade are 'or'eited in 'avor o' the
)overn$ent and the 8ranch Clerk o' Court is hereby directed to turn over said ite$s
to the Chie', Cavao &etrodisco$, Cavao City.
9
#ot satis'ied there(ith the petitioner interposed an appeal to the Court o' ;ppeals (herein in due
course a decision (as rendered on February !, 19J9 a''ir$in) in toto the appealed decision (ith
costs a)ainst the petitioner.
6
,ence, the herein petition 'or revie(, the $ain thrust o' (hich is that there bein) no la('ul arrest or
search and seizure, the ite$s (hich (ere con'iscated 'ro$ the possession o' the petitioner are
inad$issible in evidence a)ainst hi$.
+he Solicitor @eneral, in >usti'yin) the (arrantless search o' the buri ba) then carried by the
petitioner, ar)ues that under Section 1!, <ule 16 o' the <ules o' Court a person la('ully arrested
$ay be searched 'or dan)erous (eapons or anythin) used as proo' o' a co$$ission o' an o''ense
(ithout a search (arrant. :t is 'urther alle)ed that the arrest (ithout a (arrant o' the petitioner (as
la('ul under the circu$stances.
Section /, <ule 11 o' the 19J/ <ules on Cri$inal "rocedure provides as 'ollo(s*
S7C. /. Arrest without warrantJ when lawful K ; peace o''icer or a private person
$ay, (ithout a (arrant, arrest a person*
2a3 When in his presence, the person to be arrested has co$$itted is actually
co$$ittin), or is atte$ptin) to co$$it an o''ense=
2b3 When an o''ense has in 'act >ust been co$$itted, and he has personal
kno(led)e o' 'acts indicatin) that the person to be arrested has co$$itted it= and
2c3 When the person to be arrested is a prisoner (ho has escaped 'ro$ a penal
establish$ent or place (here he is servin) 'inal >ud)$ent or te$porarily con'ined
(hile his case is pendin), or has escaped (hile bein) trans'erred 'ro$ one
con'ine$ent to another.
:n cases 'allin) under para)raphs 2a3 and 2b3 hereo', the person arrested (ithout a
(arrant shall be 'orth(ith delivered to the nearest police station or >ail, and he shall
be proceeded a)ainst in accordance (ith <ule 11!, Section 0. 26a, 10a3
Fro$ the 'ore)oin) provision o' la( it is clear that an arrest (ithout a (arrant $ay be e''ected by a
peace o''icer or private person, a$on) others, (hen in his presence the person to be arrested has
co$$itted, is actually co$$ittin), or is atte$ptin) to co$$it an o''ense= or (hen an o''ense has in
'act >ust been co$$itted, and he has personal kno(led)e o' the 'acts indicatin) that the person
arrested has co$$itted it.
+he Solicitor @eneral ar)ues that (hen the t(o police$en approached the petitioner, he (as
actually co$$ittin) or had >ust co$$itted the o''ense o' ille)al possession o' 'irear$s and
a$$unitions in the presence o' the police o''icers and conseDuently the search and seizure o' the
contraband (as incidental to the la('ul arrest in accordance (ith Section 1!, <ule 1!6 o' the 19J/
<ules on Cri$inal "rocedure. We disa)ree.
;t the ti$e the peace o''icers in this case identi'ied the$selves and apprehended the petitioner as
he atte$pted to 'lee they did not kno( that he had co$$itted, or (as actually co$$ittin) the
o''ense o' ille)al possession o' 'irear$s and a$$unitions. +hey >ust suspected that he (as hidin)
so$ethin) in the buri ba). +hey did no( kno( (hat its contents (ere. +he said circu$stances did
not >usti'y an arrest (ithout a (arrant.
,o(ever, there are $any instances (here a (arrant and seizure can be e''ected (ithout necessarily
bein) preceded by an arrest, 'ore$ost o' (hich is the Estop and searchE (ithout a search (arrant at
$ilitary or police checkpoints, the constitutionality or validity o' (hich has been upheld by this Court
in 6almonte %s. de 6illa,
7
as 'ollo(s*
"etitioner ?al$onte1s )eneral alle)ation to the e''ect that he had been stopped and
searched (ithout a search (arrant by the $ilitary $annin) the checkpoints, (ithout
$ore, i.e., (ithout statin) the details o' the incidents (hich a$ount to a violation o'
his li)ht a)ainst unla('ul search and seizure, is not su''icient to enable the Court to
deter$ine (hether there (as a violation o' ?al$onte1s ri)ht a)ainst unla('ul search
and seizure. 9ot all searches and seizures are prohibited. 5hose which are
reasonable are not forbidden. A reasonable search is not to be determined b' an'
fi:ed formula but is to be resol%ed according to the facts of each case.
Where, 'or e9a$ple, the o''icer $erely dra(s aside the curtain o' a vacant vehicle
(hich is parked on the public 'air )rounds, or si$ply looks into a vehicle or 'lashes a
li)ht therein, these do not constitute unreasonable search.
+he settin) up o' the Duestioned checkpoints in ?alenzuela 2and probably in other
areas3 $ay be considered as a security $easure to enable the #C<CC to pursue its
$ission o' establishin) e''ective territorial de'ense and $aintainin) peace and order
'or the bene'it o' the public. Checkpoints $ay also be re)arded as $easures to
th(art plots to destabilize the )overn$ent in the interest o' public security. :n this
connection, the Court $ay take >udicial notice o' the shi't to urban centers and their
suburbs o' the insur)ency $ove$ent, so clearly re'lected in the increased killin)s in
cities o' police and $ilitary $en by #"; Esparro( units,E not to $ention the
abundance o' unlicensed 'irear$s and the alar$in) rise in la(lessness and violence
in such urban centers, not all o' (hich are reported in $edia, $ost likely brou)ht
about by deterioratin) econo$ic conditions H (hich all su$ up to (hat one can
ri)htly consider, at the very least, as abnor$al ti$es. /etween the inherent right of
the state to protect its e:istence and promote public welfare and an indi%idualIs right
against a warrantless search which is howe%er reasonabl' conducted- the former
should pre%ail.
+rue, the $annin) o' checkpoints by the $ilitary is susceptible o' abuse by the $en
in uni'or$ in the sa$e $anner that all )overn$ental po(er is susceptible o' abuse.
8ut, at the cost o' occasional inconvenience, disco$'ort and even irritation to the
citizen, the checkpoints durin) these abnor$al ti$es, (hen conducted (ithin
reasonable li$its, are part o' the price (e pay 'or an orderly society and a peace'ul
co$$unity. 27$phasis supplied3.
+hus, as bet(een a (arrantless search and seizure conducted at $ilitary or police checkpoints and
the search thereat in the case at bar, there is no Duestion that, indeed, the latter is $ore reasonable
considerin) that unlike in the 'or$er, it (as e''ected on the basis o' a probable cause. +he probable
cause is that (hen the petitioner acted suspiciously and atte$pted to 'lee (ith the buri ba) there
(as a probable cause that he (as concealin) so$ethin) ille)al in the ba) and it (as the ri)ht and
duty o' the police o''icers to inspect the sa$e.
:t is too $uch indeed to reDuire the police o''icers to search the ba) in the possession o' the
petitioner only a'ter they shall have obtained a search (arrant 'or the purpose. Such an e9ercise
$ay prove to be useless, 'utile and $uch too late.
:n 0eople %s. ,F3 of +izal,
2
this Court held as 'ollo(s*
. . . :n the ordinary cases (here (arrant is indispensably necessary, the $echanics
prescribed by the Constitution and reiterated in the <ules o' Court $ust be 'ollo(ed
and satis'ied. 8ut We need not ar)ue that there are e9ceptions. +hus in the
e9traordinary events (here (arrant is not necessary to e''ect a valid search or
seizure, or (hen the latter cannot be per'or$ed e9cept (ithout (arrant, (hat
constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search or seizure beco$es purely a
>udicial Duestion, deter$inable 'ro$ the uniDueness o' the circu$stances involved,
includin) the purpose o' the search or seizure, the presence or absence o' probable
cause, the $anner in (hich the search and seizure (as $ade, the place or thin)
searched and the character o' the articles procured.
+he Court reproduces (ith approval the 'ollo(in) disDuisition o' the Solicitor @eneral*
+he assailed search and seizure $ay still be >usti'ied as akin to a Estop and 'riskE
situation (hose ob>ect is either to deter$ine the identity o' a suspicious individual or
to $aintain the status Duo $o$entarily (hile the police o''icer seeks to obtain $ore
in'or$ation. +his is illustrated in the case o'5err' %s. Ohio, 9! A.S. 1 2196J3. :n this
case, t(o $en repeatedly (alked past a store (indo( and returned to a spot (here
they apparently con'erred (ith a third $an. +his aroused the suspicion o' a police
o''icer. +o the e9perienced o''icer, the behaviour o' the $en indicated that they (ere
sizin) up the store 'or an ar$ed robbery. When the police o''icer approached the
$en and asked the$ 'or their na$es, they $u$bled a reply. Whereupon, the o''icer
)rabbed one o' the$, spun hi$ around and 'risked hi$. Findin) a concealed (eapon
in one, he did the sa$e to the other t(o and 'ound another (eapon. :n the
prosecution 'or the o''ense o' carryin) a concealed (eapon, the de'ense o' ille)al
search and seizure (as put up. +he Anited States Supre$e Court held that Ea police
o''icer $ay in appropriate circu$stances and in an appropriate $anner approach a
person 'or the purpose o' investi)atin) possible cri$inal behaviour even thou)h there
is no probable cause to $ake an arrest.E :n such a situation, it is reasonable 'or an
o''icer rather than si$ply to shru) his shoulder and allo( a cri$e to occur, to stop a
suspicious individual brie'ly in order to deter$ine his identity or $aintain thestatus
&uo (hile obtainin) $ore in'or$ation. . . .
Clearly, the search in the case at bar can be sustained under the e9ceptions hereto'ore discussed,
and hence, the constitutional )uarantee a)ainst unreasonable searches and seizures has not been
violated.
9
W,7<7F6<7, the petition is C7#:7C (ith costs a)ainst petitioner.
S6 6<C7<7C.
9ar%asa L,hairmanM- ,ruz- Gri#o-A&uino and Medialdea- ...- concur.
NNNN
G.R. No. 136292 Jnu/, 19, 2002
RU3# CABALLES , TA$=O, petitioner,
vs.
COURT O" A66EALS n! 6EO6LE O" THE 6H$L$66$NES, respondents.
6UNO, J.:
+his is an appeal by certiorari 'ro$ the decision
1
o' respondent Court o' ;ppeals dated Septe$ber
1/, 199J (hich a''ir$ed the >ud)$ent rendered by the <e)ional +rial Court o' Santa Cruz, %a)una,
'indin) herein petitioner, <udy Caballes y +aiTo, )uilty beyond reasonable doubt o' the cri$e o' the't,
and the resolution
!
dated #ove$ber 9, 199J (hich denied petitioner1s $otion 'or reconsideration.
:n an :n'or$ation

dated 6ctober 16, 19J9, petitioner (as char)ed (ith the cri$e o' the't co$$itted
as 'ollo(s*
E+hat on or about the !Jth day o' June, 19J9, in the &unicipality o' "a)san>an, andBor
else(here in the "rovince o' %a)una, and (ithin the >urisdiction o' this ,onorable Court, the
above-na$ed accused, (ith intent o' )ain, and (ithout the kno(led)e and consent o' the
o(ner thereo', the #;+:6#;% "6W7< C6<"6<;+:6#, did then and there (il'ully,
unla('ully and 'eloniously take, steal and carry a(ay about 65-k) o' ;lu$inu$ Cable
Conductors, valued at "!0, 4/5.55, belon)in) to and to the da$a)e and pre>udice o' said
o(ner #ational "o(er Corp., in the a'oresaid a$ount.
C6#+<;<- +6 %;W.E
Curin) the arrai)n$ent, petitioner pleaded not )uilty and hence, trial on the $erits ensued.
+he 'acts are su$$arized by the appellate court as 'ollo(s*
EF;tG about 9*1/ p.$. o' June !J, 19J9, S)t. ?ictorino #oce>a and "at. ;le9 de Castro, (hile
on a routine patrol in 8aran)ay Sa$palucan, "a)san>an, %a)una, spotted a passen)er >eep
unusually covered (ith Ekaka(atiE leaves.
Suspectin) that the >eep (as loaded (ith s$u))led )oods, the t(o police o''icers 'la))ed
do(n the vehicle. +he >eep (as driven by appellant. When asked (hat (as loaded on the
>eep, he did not ans(er= he appeared pale and nervous.
With appellant1s consent, the police o''icers checked the car)o and they discovered bundles
o' .5J $$ alu$inu$B)alvanized conductor (ires e9clusively o(ned by #ational "o(er
Corporation 2#"C3. +he conductor (ires (ei)hed 055 kilos and valued at "//, !44.4/.
#oce>a asked appellant (here the (ires ca$e 'ro$ and appellant ans(ered that they ca$e
'ro$ Cavinti, a to(n appro9i$ately J kilo$eters a(ay 'ro$ Sa$palucan. +herea'ter,
appellant and the vehicle (ith the hi)h-volta)e (ires (ere brou)ht to the "a)san>an "olice
Station. Canilo Cabale took pictures o' the appellant and the >eep loaded (ith the (ires
(hich (ere turned over to the "olice Station Co$$ander o' "a)san>an, %a)una. ;ppellant
(as incarcerated 'or 0 days in the &unicipal >ail.
:n de'ense, appellant interposed denial and alibi. ,e testi'ied that he is a driver and resident
o' "a)san>an, %a)una= a #;<C6& civilian a)ent since January, 19JJ althou)h his
identi'ication card 2:C3 has already e9pired. :n the a'ternoon o' June !J, 19J9, (hile he (as
drivin) a passen)er >eepney, he (as stopped by one <esty Fernandez (ho reDuested hi$ to
transport in his >eepney conductor (ires (hich (ere in Cavinti, %a)una. ,e told <esty to (ait
until he had 'inished his last trip 'or the day 'ro$ Santa Cruz, %a)una. 6n his (ay to Santa
Cruz, %a)una, he dropped by the #;<C6& headDuarters and in'or$ed his superior, S)t.
Callos, that so$ethin) unla('ul (as )oin) to happen. S)t. Callos advised hi$ to proceed
(ith the loadin) o' the (ires and that the 'or$er (ould act as back-up and intercept the
vehicle at the Sa$bat "atrol 8ase in "a)san>an.
;'ter receivin) those instructions, he (ent back to see <esty. ;lthou)h <esty had his o(n
vehicle, its tires (ere old so the cable (ires (ere loaded in appellant1s >eep and covered (ith
kaka(ati leaves. +he loadin) (as done by about 'ive 2/3 $asked $en. ,e (as
pro$ised "1,555.55 'or the >ob. Apon crossin) a brid)e, the t(o vehicles separated but in
his case, he (as intercepted by S)t. #oce>a and "at. Ce Castro. When they discovered the
cables, he told the police o''icers that the cables (ere loaded in his >eep by the o(ner, <esty
Fernandez. 8ut despite his e9planation, he (as ordered to proceed to police headDuarters
(here he (as interro)ated. +he police o''icers did not believe hi$ and instead locked hi$ up
in >ail 'or a (eek.E
4
6n ;pril !0, 199, the court a &uo rendered >ud)$ent
/
the dispositive portion o' (hich reads*
EW,7<7F6<7, 'indin) the accused )uilty beyond reasonable doubt o' the cri$e o' +he't o'
property (orth"//,!44.4/, the Court hereby sentences hi$ to su''er i$prison$ent 'ro$
+W6 2!3 F-7;<SG, F6A< 243 &6#+,S, and 6#7 213 C;- o' "rision Correccional, as
$ini$u$, to +7# 2153 -7;<S o' "rision &ayor, as $a9i$u$, to inde$ni'y the co$plainant
#ational "o(er Corporation in the a$ount o' "//, !44.4/, and to pay the costs.E
6n appeal, the Court o' ;ppeals a''ir$ed the >ud)$ent o' conviction but deleted the a(ard 'or
da$a)es on the )round that the stolen $aterials (ere recovered and $odi'ied the penalty i$posed,
to (it*
EW,7<7F6<7, the appealed decision is hereby ;FF:<&7C (ith the $odi'ication that
appellant <AC- C;8;%%7S is 'ound )uilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal in the't,
de'ined and penalized under ;rticles 5J and 59, par. 1, <evised "enal Code, and there
bein) no $odi'yin) circu$stances, he is hereby $eted an indeter$inate penalty o' Four 243
years, #ine 293 $onths and 7leven 2113 days o' prision correccional, as $ini$u$ ter$, to
7i)ht 2J3 years, 7i)ht 2J3 $onths and one 213 day o' prision $ayor, as $a9i$u$ ter$. #o
civil inde$nity and no costs.E
6
"etitioner co$es be'ore us and raises the 'ollo(in) issues*
E2a3 Whether or not the constitutional ri)ht o' petitioner (as violated (hen the police o''icers
searched his vehicle and seized the (ires 'ound therein (ithout a search (arrant and (hen
sa$ples o' the (ires and re'erences to the$ (ere ad$itted in evidence as basis 'or his
conviction=
2b3 Whether or not respondent Court erred in re>ectin) petitioner1s de'ense that he (as
en)a)ed in an entrap$ent operation and in indul)in) in speculation and con>ecture in
re>ectin) said de'ense= and
2c3 Whether or not the evidence o' the prosecution 'ailed to establish the )uilt o' petitioner
beyond reasonable doubt and thus 'ailed to overco$e the constitutional ri)ht o' petitioner to
presu$ption o' innocence.E
+he conviction or acDuittal o' petitioner hin)es pri$arily on the validity o' the (arrantless search and
seizure $ade by the police o''icers, and the ad$issibility o' the evidence obtained by virtue thereo'.
:n holdin) that the (arrantless search and seizure is valid, the trial court ruled that*
E;s his last stra( o' ar)u$ent, the accused Duestions the constitutionality o' the search and
validity o' his arrest on the )round that no (arrant (as issued to that e''ect. +he Court
cannot a)ain sustain such vie(. :n the case o' "eople v. %o ,o FWin)G, @.<. #o. JJ510,
January !1, 1991, it has been held that 1considerin) that be'ore a (arrant can be obtained,
the place, thin)s and persons to be searched $ust be described to the satis'action o' the
issuin) >ud)e - a reDuire$ent (hich borders on the i$possible in the case o' s$u))lin)
e''ected by the use o' a $ovin) vehicle that can transport contraband 'ro$ one place to
another (ith i$punity, a (arrantless search o' a $ovin) vehicle is >usti'ied on )rounds o'
practicability.1 +he doctrine is not o' recent vinta)e. :n the case o' ?al$onte vs. de ?illa, @.<.
#o. J9JJ, &ay !4, 1995 2<esolution on &otion 'or <econsideration, Septe$ber !9, 19J93,
it (as ruled that 1auto$obiles because o' their $obility $ay be searched (ithout a (arrant
upon 'acts not >usti'yin) (arrantless search o' a resident or o''ice. 9 9 9 +o hold that no
cri$inal can, in any case, be arrested and searched 'or the evidence and tokens o' his cri$e
(ithout a (arrant, (ould be to leave society, to a lar)e e9tent, at the $ercy o' the shre(dest,
the $ost e9pert, and the $ost depraved o' cri$inals, 'acilitatin) their escape in $any
instances1 2:bid.3. :n A$il v. <a$os, 1J0 SC<; 11, and "eople vs. 6rtiz, 191 SC<; J6, the
Supre$e Court held that a search $ay be $ade even (ithout a (arrant (here the accused
is cau)ht in 'la)rante. Ander the circu$stances, the police o''icers are not only authorized
but are also under obli)ation to arrest the accused even (ithout a (arrant.E
0
"etitioner contends that the 'la))in) do(n o' his vehicle by police o''icers (ho (ere on routine
patrol, $erely on EsuspicionE that Eit $i)ht contain s$u))led )oods,E does not constitute probable
cause that (ill >usti'y a (arrantless search and seizure. ,e insists that, contrary to the 'indin)s o' the
trial court as adopted by the appellate court, he did not )ive any consent, e9press or i$plied, to the
search o' the vehicle. "er'orce, any evidence obtained in violation o' his ri)ht a)ainst unreasonable
search and seizure shall be dee$ed inad$issible.
7nshrined in our Constitution is the inviolable ri)ht o' the people to be secure in their persons and
properties a)ainst unreasonable searches and seizures, as de'ined under Section !, ;rticle :::
thereo', (hich reads*
ESec. !. +he ri)ht o' the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and e''ects
a)ainst unreasonable searches and seizures o' (hatever nature and 'or any purpose shall
be inviolable, and no search (arrant or (arrant o' arrest shall issue e9cept upon probable
cause to be deter$ined personally by the >ud)e a'ter e9a$ination under oath or a''ir$ation
o' the co$plainant and the (itnesses he $ay produce, and particularly describin) the place
to be searched and the persons or thin)s to be seized.E
+he e9clusionary rule under Section 2!3, ;rticle ::: o' the Constitution bars the ad$ission o'
evidence obtained in violation o' such ri)ht.
+he constitutional proscription a)ainst (arrantless searches and seizures is not absolute but ad$its
o' certain e9ceptions, na$ely* 213 (arrantless search incidental to a la('ul arrest reco)nized under
Section 1!, <ule 1!6 o' the <ules o' Court and by prevailin) >urisprudence=
J
2!3 seizure o' evidence
in plain vie(=
9
23 search o' $ovin) vehicles=
15
243 consented (arrantless search=
11
2/3 custo$s
search= 263 stop and 'risk situations 2+erry search3=
1!
and 203 e9i)ent and e$er)ency circu$stances.
1
:n cases (here (arrant is necessary, the steps prescribed by the Constitution and reiterated in the
<ules o' Court $ust be co$plied (ith. :n the e9ceptional events (here (arrant is not necessary to
e''ect a valid search or seizure, or (hen the latter cannot be per'or$ed e9cept (ithout a (arrant,
(hat constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search or seizure is purely a >udicial Duestion,
deter$inable 'ro$ the uniDueness o' the circu$stances involved, includin) the purpose o' the
search or seizure, the presence or absence o' probable cause, the $anner in (hich the search and
seizure (as $ade, the place or thin) searched and the character o' the articles procured.
14
:t is not controverted that the search and seizure conducted by the police o''icers in the case at bar
(as not authorized by a search (arrant. +he $ain issue is (hether the evidence taken 'ro$ the
(arrantless search is ad$issible a)ainst the appellant. Without said evidence, the prosecution
cannot prove the )uilt o' the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.Nwphi .nOt
3. Search of mo%ing %ehicle
,i)hly re)ulated by the )overn$ent, the vehicle1s inherent $obility reduces e9pectation o' privacy
especially (hen its transit in public thorou)h'ares 'urnishes a hi)hly reasonable suspicion a$ountin)
to probable cause that the occupant co$$itted a cri$inal activity.
1/
+hus, the rules )overnin) search
and seizure have over the years been steadily liberalized (henever a $ovin) vehicle is the ob>ect o'
the search on the basis o' practicality. +his is so considerin) that be'ore a (arrant could be obtained,
the place, thin)s and persons to be searched $ust be described to the satis'action o' the issuin)
>ud)e H a reDuire$ent (hich borders on the i$possible in the case o' s$u))lin) e''ected by the use
o' a $ovin) vehicle that can transport contraband 'ro$ one place to another (ith i$punity. We $i)ht
add that a (arrantless search o' a $ovin) vehicle is >usti'ied on the )round that it is not practicable
to secure a (arrant because the vehicle can be Duickly $oved out o' the locality or >urisdiction in
(hich the (arrant $ust be sou)ht.
16
Searches (ithout (arrant o' auto$obiles is also allo(ed 'or the
purpose o' preventin) violations o' s$u))lin) or i$$i)ration la(s, provided such searches are
$ade at borders or 1constructive borders1 like checkpoints near the boundary lines o' the State.
10
+he $ere $obility o' these vehicles, ho(ever, does not )ive the police o''icers unli$ited discretion to
conduct indiscri$inate searches (ithout (arrants i' $ade (ithin the interior o' the territory and in the
absence o' probable cause.
1J
Still and all, the i$portant thin) is that there (as probable cause to
conduct the (arrantless search, (hich $ust still be present in such a case.
;lthou)h the ter$ eludes e9act de'inition, probable cause si)ni'ies a reasonable )round o' suspicion
supported by circu$stances su''iciently stron) in the$selves to (arrant a cautious $an1s belie' that
the person accused is )uilty o' the o''ense (ith (hich he is char)ed= or the e9istence o' such 'acts
and circu$stances (hich could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent $an to believe that an
o''ense has been co$$itted and that the ite$s, articles or ob>ects sou)ht in connection (ith said
o''ense or sub>ect to seizure and destruction by la( is in the place to be searched.
19
+he reDuired
probable cause that (ill >usti'y a (arrantless search and seizure is not deter$ined by a 'i9ed 'or$ula
but is resolved accordin) to the 'acts o' each case.
!5
6ne such 'or$ o' search o' $ovin) vehicles is the Estop-and-searchE (ithout (arrant at $ilitary or
police checkpoints (hich has been declared to be not ille)al per se,
!1
'or as lon) as it is (arranted by
the e9i)encies o' public order
!!
and conducted in a (ay least intrusive to $otorists.
!
; checkpoint
$ay either be a $ere routine inspection or it $ay involve an e9tensive search.
<outine inspections are not re)arded as violative o' an individual1s ri)ht a)ainst unreasonable
search. +he search (hich is nor$ally per$issible in this instance is li$ited to the 'ollo(in) instances*
213 (here the o''icer $erely dra(s aside the curtain o' a vacant vehicle (hich is parked on the public
'air )rounds=
!4
2!3 si$ply looks into a vehicle=
!/
23 'lashes a li)ht therein (ithout openin) the car1s
doors=
!6
243 (here the occupants are not sub>ected to a physical or body search=
!0
2/3 (here the
inspection o' the vehicles is li$ited to a visual search or visual inspection=
!J
and 263 (here the routine
check is conducted in a 'i9ed area.
!9
#one o' the 'ore)oin) circu$stances is obtainin) in the case at bar. +he police o''icers did not
$erely conduct a visual search or visual inspection o' herein petitioner1s vehicle. +hey had to reach
inside the vehicle, li't the kaka(ati leaves and look inside the sacks be'ore they (ere able to see the
cable (ires. :t cannot be considered a si$ple routine check.
:n the case o' Un&+e! S++e( :(. 6&e//e,
5
the Court held that the physical intrusion o' a part o' the
body o' an a)ent into the vehicle )oes beyond the area protected by the Fourth ;$end$ent, to (it*
E+he ;)ent . . . stuck his head throu)h the driver1s side (indo(. +he a)ent thus e''ected a
physical intrusion into the vehicle. . . FWGe are a(are o' no case holdin) that an o''icer did not
conduct a search (hen he physically intruded part o' his body into a space in (hich the
suspect had a reasonable e9pectation o' privacy. F+heG ;)entF1sG . . . physical intrusion
allo(ed hi$ to see and to s$ell thin)s he could not see or s$ell 'ro$ outside the vehicle. . .
:n doin) so, his inspection (ent beyond that portion o' the vehicle (hich $ay be vie(ed 'ro$
outside the vehicle by either inDuisitive passersby or dili)ent police o''icers, and into the area
protected by the Fourth a$end$ent, >ust as $uch as i' he had stuck his head inside the
open (indo( o' a ho$e.E
6n the other hand, (hen a vehicle is stopped and sub>ected to an e9tensive search, such a
(arrantless search (ould be constitutionally per$issible only i' the o''icers conductin) the search
have reasonable or probable cause to believe, be'ore the search, that either the $otorist is a la(-
o''ender or they (ill 'ind the instru$entality or evidence pertainin) to a cri$e in the vehicle to be
searched.
1
+his Court has in the past 'ound probable cause to conduct (ithout a >udicial (arrant an e9tensive
search o' $ovin) vehicles in situations (here 213 there had e$anated 'ro$ a packa)e the distinctive
s$ell o' $ari>uana= 2!3 a)ents o' the #arcotics Co$$and 2E#arco$E3 o' the "hilippine #ational
"olice 2E"#"E3 had received a con'idential report 'ro$ in'or$ers that a sizeable volu$e o' $ari>uana
(ould be transported alon) the route (here the search (as conducted= 23 #arco$ a)ents had
received in'or$ation that a Caucasian co$in) 'ro$ Sa)ada, &ountain "rovince, had in his
possession prohibited dru)s and (hen the #arco$ a)ents con'ronted the accused Caucasian,
because o' a conspicuous bul)e in his (aistline, he 'ailed to present his passport and other
identi'ication papers (hen reDuested to do so= 243 #arco$ a)ents had received con'idential
in'or$ation that a (o$an havin) the sa$e physical appearance as that o' the accused (ould be
transportin) $ari>uana=
!
2/3 the accused (ho (ere ridin) a >eepney (ere stopped and searched by
police$en (ho had earlier received con'idential reports that said accused (ould transport a lar)e
Duantity o' $ari>uana= and 263 (here the $ovin) vehicle (as stopped and searched on the basis o'
intelli)ence in'or$ation and clandestine reports by a deep penetration a)ent or spy - one (ho
participated in the dru) s$u))lin) activities o' the syndicate to (hich the accused belon)ed - that
said accused (ere brin)in) prohibited dru)s into the country.

:n the case at bar, the vehicle o' the petitioner (as 'la))ed do(n because the police o''icers (ho
(ere on routine patrol beca$e suspicious (hen they sa( that the back o' the vehicle (as covered
(ith kaka(ati leaves (hich, accordin) to the$, (as unusual and unco$$on.
"at. ;le9 de Castro recounted the incident as 'ollo(s*
E;++-. S;#+6S
L #o( on said date and ti$e do you re$e$ber o' any unusual incident (hile you (ere
per'or$in) your dutyI
; -es, sir, at that ti$e and date $ysel' and "olice S)t. #oce>a (ere conductin) patrol in
the said place (hen (e spotted a suspicious >eepney so (e stopped the >eepney and
searched the load o' the >eepney and (e 'ound out 2sic3 these conductor (ires.
L -ou $entioned about the 'act that (hen you sa( the >eepney you beca$e
suspicious, B', !&! ,ou 4e)o.e (u(*&)&ou(C
; Be)u(e +'e )/-o B( )o:e/e! B&+' 8e:e( n! 4/n)'e(, (&/.
L When you beca$e suspicious upon seein) those leaves on top o' the load (hat did
you do ne9t, i' anyI
; We stopped the >eepney and searched the contents thereo', sir.E
4
+he testi$ony o' ?ictorino #oce>a did not 'are any better*
E;++- S;#+6S
L When you sa( the accused drivin) the said vehicle, (hat did you doI
; Be)u(e $ (B +'+ +'e :e'&)8e 4e&n- !/Bn 4, C488e( B( )o:e/e! 4,
DDB+& 8e:e(, $ 4e).e (u(*&)&ou( (&n)e (u)' :e'&)8e ('ou8! no+ 4e )o:e/e! 4,
+'o(e n! $ 08--e! '&., (&/.E
/
We hold that the 'act that the vehicle looked suspicious si$ply because it is not co$$on 'or such to
be covered (ith kaka(ati leaves does not constitute Eprobable causeE as (ould >usti'y the conduct o'
a search (ithout a (arrant.
:n 6eo*8e :(. C'u Ho Sn,
6
(e held that the 'act that the (atercra't used by the accused (as
di''erent in appearance 'ro$ the usual 'ishin) boats that co$$only cruise over the 8acnotan seas
coupled (ith the suspicious behavior o' the accused (hen he atte$pted to 'lee 'ro$ the police
authorities do not su''iciently establish probable cause. +hus*
E:n the case at bar, the Solicitor @eneral proposes that the 'ollo(in) details are su))estive o'
probable cause - persistent reports o' ra$pant s$u))lin) o' 'irear$ and other contraband
articles, C,A;1s (atercra't di''erin) in appearance 'ro$ the usual 'ishin) boats that
co$$only cruise over the 8acnotan seas, C,A;1s ille)al entry into the "hilippines 9 9 9,
C,A;1s suspicious behavior, i.e., he atte$pted to 'lee (hen he sa( the police authorities,
and the apparent ease by (hich C,A; can return to and navi)ate his speedboat (ith
i$$ediate dispatch to(ards the hi)h seas, beyond the reach o' "hilippine la(s.
+his Court, ho(ever, 'inds that these do not constitute Eprobable cause.E #one o' the telltale
clues, e.)., ba) or packa)e e$anatin) the pun)ent odor o' $ari>uana or other prohibited
dru), con'idential report andBor positive identi'ication by in'or$ers o' courier o' prohibited
dru) andBor the ti$e and place (here they (ill transportBdeliver the sa$e, suspicious
de$eanor or behavior, and suspicious bul)e in the (aist - accepted by this Court as
su''icient to >usti'y a (arrantless arrest e9ists in this case. +here (as no classi'ied
in'or$ation that a 'orei)ner (ould dise$bark at +a$$ocalao beach bearin) prohibited dru)
on the date in Duestion. C,A; (as not identi'ied as a dru) courier by a police in'or$er or
a)ent. T'e 0)+ +'+ +'e :e((e8 +'+ 0e//&e! '&. +o ('o/e 4o/e no /e(e.48n)e +o +'e
0&('&n- 4o+( o0 +'e /e !&! no+ u+o.+&)88, ./D '&. ( &n +'e */o)e(( o0
*e/*e+/+&n- n o00en(e. 9 9 9.E 2emphasis supplied3
:n addition, the police authorities do not clai$ to have received any con'idential report or tipped
in'or$ation that petitioner (as carryin) stolen cable (ires in his vehicle (hich could other(ise have
sustained their suspicion. 6ur >urisprudence is replete (ith cases (here tipped in'or$ation has
beco$e a su''icient probable cause to e''ect a (arrantless search and seizure.
0
An'ortunately, none
e9ists in this case.
33. 0lain %iew doctrine
:t cannot like(ise be said that the cable (ires 'ound in petitioner1s vehicle (ere in plain vie(, $akin)
its (arrantless seizure valid.
Jurisprudence is to the e''ect that an ob>ect is in plain vie( i' the ob>ect itsel' is plainly e9posed to
si)ht. Where the ob>ect seized (as inside a closed packa)e, the ob>ect itsel' is not in plain vie( and
there'ore cannot be seized (ithout a (arrant. ,o(ever, i' the packa)e proclai$s its contents,
(hether by its distinctive con'i)uration, its transparency, or i' its contents are obvious to an observer,
then the contents are in plain vie( and $ay be seized. :n other (ords, i' the packa)e is such that an
e9perienced observer could in'er 'ro$ its appearance that it contains the prohibited article, then the
article is dee$ed in plain vie(. :t $ust be i$$ediately apparent to the police that the ite$s that they
observe $ay be evidence o' a cri$e, contraband or other(ise sub>ect to seizure.
J
:t is clear 'ro$ the records o' this case that the cable (ires (ere not e9posed to si)ht because they
(ere placed in sacks
9
and covered (ith leaves. +he articles (ere neither transparent nor
i$$ediately apparent to the police authorities. +hey had no clue as to (hat (as hidden underneath
the leaves and branches. ;s a $atter o' 'act, they had to ask petitioner (hat (as loaded in his
vehicle. :n such a case, it has been held that the ob>ect is not in plain vie( (hich could have >usti'ied
$ere seizure o' the articles (ithout 'urther search.
45
333. ,onsented search
"etitioner contends that the state$ent o' S)t. ?ictorino #oce>a that he checked the vehicle E(ith the
consent o' the accusedE is too va)ue to prove that petitioner consented to the search. ,e clai$s that
there is no speci'ic state$ent as to ho( the consent (as asked and ho( it (as )iven, nor the
speci'ic (ords spoken by petitioner indicatin) his alle)ed Econsent.E ;t $ost, there (as only an
i$plied acDuiescence, a $ere passive con'or$ity, (hich is no EconsentE at all (ithin the purvie( o'
the constitutional )uarantee.
Coubtless, the constitutional i$$unity a)ainst unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal
ri)ht (hich $ay be (aived. +he consent $ust be voluntary in order to validate an other(ise ille)al
detention and search, i.e., the consent is uneDuivocal, speci'ic, and intelli)ently )iven,
unconta$inated by any duress or coercion.
41
,ence, consent to a search is not to be li)htly in'erred,
but $ust be sho(n by clear and convincin) evidence.
4!
+he Duestion (hether a consent to a search
(as in 'act voluntary is a Duestion o' 'act to be deter$ined 'ro$ the totality o' all the
circu$stances.
4
<elevant to this deter$ination are the 'ollo(in) characteristics o' the person )ivin)
consent and the environ$ent in (hich consent is )iven* 213 the a)e o' the de'endant= 2!3 (hether he
(as in a public or secluded location= 23 (hether he ob>ected to the search or passively looked
on=
44
243 the education and intelli)ence o' the de'endant= 2/3 the presence o' coercive police
procedures= 263 the de'endant1s belie' that no incri$inatin) evidence (ill be 'ound=
4/
203 the nature o'
the police Duestionin)= 2J3 the environ$ent in (hich the Duestionin) took place= and 293 the possibly
vulnerable sub>ective state o' the person consentin).
46
:t is the State (hich has the burden o'
provin), by clear and positive testi$ony, that the necessary consent (as obtained and that it (as
'reely and voluntarily )iven.
40
:n the case at bar, S)t. ?ictorino #oce>a testi'ied on the $anner in (hich the search (as conducted
in this (ise*
EW:+#7SS
L 6n June !J, 19J9, (here (ere youI
; We (ere conductin) patrol at the poblacion and so$e baran)ays, sir.
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
L ;'ter conductin) the patrol operation, do you re$e$ber o' any unusual incident on
said date and ti$eI
; -es, sir.
L What is that incidentI
; While : (as conductin) $y patrol at baran)ay Sa$palucan, : sa( <udy Caballes
drivin) a vehicle and the vehicle contained alu$inu$ (ires, sir.
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
L When you sa( the accused drivin) the said vehicle, (hat did you doI
; 8ecause : sa( that the vehicle bein) driven by Caballes (as covered by kaka(ati
leaves, : beca$e suspicious since such vehicle should not be covered by those and :
'la))ed hi$, sir.
L Cid the vehicle stopI
; #e(, (&/, n! 0+e/ (&! :e'&)8e (+o*F*e!G, $ /e.o:e! +'e )o:e/ o0 (&! :e'&)8e n!
4, (o !o&n-, $ (B +'e 8u.&nu. B&/e(.
L 8e'ore you sa( the alu$inu$ (ires, did you talk to the accusedI
; -es, sir, : asked hi$ (hat his load (as.
L What (as the ans(er o' CaballesI
; He !&! no+ n(Be/ n! $ o4(e/:e! '&. +o 4e *8e, En-**.u+8E @sicA, (o $ +o8!
'&. $ B&88 8ooD + +'e )on+en+( o0 '&( :e'&)8e n! 'e n(Be/e! &n +'e *o(&+&:e.
L ;nd a'ter you sa( 'or yoursel' the alu$inu$ (ires loaded on the >eep, (hat did you
doI
; : asked hi$ (here those (ires ca$e 'ro$ and he ans(ered those ca$e 'ro$ the
Cavinti area, sir.E
4J
+his Court is not un$ind'ul o' cases upholdin) the validity o' consented (arrantless searches and
seizure. 8ut in these cases, the police o''icers1 reDuest to search personnel e''ects (as orally
articulated to the accused and in such lan)ua)e that le't no roo$ 'or doubt that the latter 'ully
understood (hat (as reDuested. :n so$e instance, the accused even verbally replied to the reDuest
de$onstratin) that he also understood the nature and conseDuences o' such reDuest.
49
:n A(un)&on :(. Cou/+ o0 A**e8(,
/5
the apprehendin) o''icers sou)ht the per$ission o' petitioner
to search the car, to (hich the latter a)reed. "etitioner therein hi$sel' 'reely )ave his consent to said
search. :n 6eo*8e :(. L)e/n,
/1
the appellants (ho (ere ridin) in a ta9i (ere stopped by t(o
police$en (ho asked per$ission to search the vehicle and the appellants readily a)reed. :n
upholdin) the validity o' the consented search, the Court held that appellant hi$sel' (ho (as
Eurbanized in $anneris$ and speechE e9pressly said that he (as consentin) to the search as he
alle)edly had nothin) to hide and had done nothin) (ron). :n 6eo*8e :(. Cu&Hon,
/!
the accused
ad$itted that they si)ned a (ritten per$ission statin) that they 'reely consented to the search o'
their lu))a)e by the #8: a)ents to deter$ine i' they (ere carryin) shabu. :n 6eo*8e :(. Mon+&88,
/
it
(as held that the accused spontaneously per'or$ed a''ir$ative acts o' volition by hi$sel' openin)
the ba) (ithout bein) 'orced or inti$idated to do so, (hich acts should properly be construed as a
clear (aiver o' his ri)ht. :n 6eo*8e :(. O.Ben-,
/4
the police o''icers asked the accused i' they
could see the contents o' his ba) to (hich the accused said Eyou can see the contents but those are
only clothin)s.E +hen the police$en asked i' they could open and see it, and accused ans(ered Eyou
can see it.E +he Court said there (as a valid consented search.Nwphi .nOt
:n case o' consented searches or (aiver o' the constitutional )uarantee a)ainst obtrusive searches,
it is 'unda$ental that to constitute a (aiver, it $ust 'irst appear that 213 the ri)ht e9ists= 2!3 that the
person involved had kno(led)e, either actual or constructive, o' the e9istence o' such ri)ht= and 23
the said person had an actual intention to relinDuish the ri)ht.
//
:n the case at bar, the evidence is lackin) that the petitioner intentionally surrendered his ri)ht
a)ainst unreasonable searches. +he $anner by (hich the t(o police o''icers alle)edly obtained the
consent o' petitioner 'or the$ to conduct the search leaves $uch to be desired. When petitioner1s
vehicle (as 'la))ed do(n, S)t. #oce>a approached petitioner and E+o8! '&. $ B&88 8ooD + +'e
)on+en+( o0 '&( :e'&)8e n! 'e n(Be/e! &n +'e *o(&+&:e.E We are hard put to believe that by
utterin) those (ords, the police o''icers (ere askin) or reDuestin) 'or per$ission that they be
allo(ed to search the vehicle o' petitioner. For all intents and purposes, they (ere &n0o/.&n-, n,,
&.*o(&n- upon herein petitioner that they (ill search his vehicle. +he EconsentE )iven under
inti$idatin) or coercive circu$stances is no consent (ithin the purvie( o' the constitutional
)uaranty. :n addition, in cases (here this Court upheld the validity o' consented search, it (ill be
noted that the police authorities e9pressly asked, in no uncertain ter$s, 'or the consent o' the
accused to be searched. ;nd the consent o' the accused (as established by clear and positive
proo'. :n the case o' herein petitioner, the state$ents o' the police o''icers (ere no+ (D&n- 0o/ '&(
)on(en+= they (ere !e)8/&n- to hi$ that they (ill look inside his vehicle. 8esides, it is doubt'ul
(hether per$ission (as actually reDuested and )ranted because (hen S)t. #oce>a (as asked
durin) his direct e9a$ination (hat he did (hen the vehicle o' petitioner stopped, he ans(ered that
he re$oved the cover o' the vehicle and sa( the alu$inu$ (ires. :t (as only a'ter he (as asked a
clari'icatory Duestion that he added that he told petitioner he (ill inspect the vehicle. +o our $ind,
this (as $ore o' an a'terthou)ht. %ike(ise, (hen "at. de Castro (as asked t(ice in his direct
e9a$ination (hat they did (hen they stopped the >eepney, his consistent ans(er (as that they
searched the vehicle. ,e never testi'ied that he asked petitioner 'or per$ission to conduct the
search.
/6
#either can petitioner1s passive sub$ission be construed as an i$plied acDuiescence to the
(arrantless search. :n6eo*8e :(. B//o(,
/0
appellant 8arros, (ho (as carryin) a carton bo9,
boarded a bus (here t(o police$en (ere ridin). +he police$en inspected the carton and 'ound
$ari>uana inside. When asked (ho o(ned the bo9, appellant denied o(nership o' the bo9 and 'ailed
to ob>ect to the search. +he Court there struck do(n the (arrantless search as ille)al and held that
the accused is not to be presu$ed to have (aived the unla('ul search conducted si$ply because
he 'ailed to ob>ect, citin) the rulin) in the case o' 6eo*8e :(. Bu/-o(,
/J
to (itP
E;s the constitutional )uaranty is not dependent upon any a''ir$ative act o' the citizen, the
courts do not place the citizens in the position o' either contestin) an o''icer1s authority by
'orce, or (aivin) his constitutional ri)hts= but instead they hold that a peace'ul sub$ission to
a search or seizure is not a consent or an invitation thereto, but is $erely a de$onstration o'
re)ard 'or the supre$acy o' the la(.E
Castin) aside the cable (ires as evidence, the re$ainin) evidence on record are insu''icient to
sustain petitioner1s conviction. ,is )uilt can only be established (ithout violatin) the constitutional
ri)ht o' the accused a)ainst unreasonable search and seizure.
WHERE"ORE, the i$pu)ned decision is RE%ERSE3 and SET AS$3E, and accused <udy Caballes
is herebyAC<U$TTE3 o' the cri$e char)ed. Cost de o'icio.
SO OR3ERE3.
4a%ide- .r.- ,...- Hapunan- 0ardo and Qnares-Santiago- ...- concur.
FG.R. No. 132221. 3e)e.4e/ 12, 2000G
THE 6EO6LE O" THE 6H$L$66$NES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.LE$LA
JOHNSON # RE#ES, accused-appellant.
3 E C $ S $ O N
MEN3O1A, J.>
+his is an appeal 'ro$ the decision,
F1G
dated &ay 14, 1999, o' the <e)ional +rial
Court, 8ranch 115, "asay City, 'indin) accused-appellant %eila Johnson y <eyes

)uilty
o' violation o' U16 o' <.;. #o. 64!/ 2Can)erous Cru)s ;ct3, as a$ended by <.;. #o.
06/9, and sentencin) her to su''er the penalty o' reclusion perpetua and to pay a 'ine
o' "/55,555.55 and the costs o' the suit.
+he in'or$ation a)ainst accused-appellant alle)ed*
+hat on June !6, 199J inside the #inoy ;Duino :nternational ;irport, and
(ithin the >urisdiction o' this ,onorable Court, the above-na$ed ;ccused did
then and there (ill'ully, unla('ully and 'eloniously possess three plastic ba)s
o' $etha$pheta$ine hydrochloride, a re)ulated dru), each ba) (ei)hin)*
V1 6#7 ,A#C<7C 7:@,+- S7?7# "6:#+ F:?7 21J0./3 )ra$s=
V!

6#7 ,A#C<7C #:#7+- 7:@,+ "6:#+ R7<6 219J.53 )ra$s= and
V 6#7 ,A#C<7C #:#7+- F6A< "6:#+ S7?7# 2194.03 )ra$s,
respectively,
or a total o' "$%E HUN3RE3 E$GHT# 6O$NT TWO @920.2A -/.( o0
.e+'.*'e+.&ne ',!/o)'8o/&!e.
+hat the above-na$ed accused does not have the correspondin)
license or prescription to possess or use said re)ulated dru).
C6#+<;<- +6 %;W.
F!G
Apon bein) arrai)ned, accused-appellant pleaded not )uilty,
FG
(hereupon trial (as
held.
+he prosecution presented 'our (itnesses, na$ely, #8: Forensic Che$ist @eor)e
de %ara, S"64 <eynaldo 7$bile, duty 'risker 6livia <a$irez, and S"61 <izalina
8ernal. +he de'ense presented accused-appellant (ho testi'ied in her o(n behal'.
+he 'acts are as 'ollo(s*
;ccused-appellant %eila <eyes Johnson (as, at the ti$e o' the incident, /J years
old, a (ido(, and a resident o' 6cean Side, Cali'ornia, A.S.;. She is a 'or$er Filipino
citizen (ho (as naturalized as an ;$erican on June 16, 196J and had since been
(orkin) as a re)istered nurse, takin) care o' )eriatric patients and those (ith
;lzhei$erPs disease, in convalescent ho$es in the Anited States.
F4G
6n June 16, 199J, she arrived in the "hilippines to visit her sonPs 'a$ily in
Cala$ba, %a)una. She (as due to 'ly back to the Anited States on July !6. 6n July
!/, she checked in at the "hilippine ?illa)e ,otel to avoid the tra''ic on the (ay to the
#inoy ;Duino :nternational ;irport 2#;:;3 and checked out at /*5 p.$. the ne9t day,
June !6, 199J.
F/G
;t around 0*5 p.$. o' that day, 6livia <a$irez (as on duty as a lady 'risker at @ate
16 o' the #;:; departure area. ,er duty (as to 'risk departin) passen)ers,
e$ployees, and cre( and check 'or (eapons, bo$bs, prohibited dru)s, contraband
)oods, and e9plosives.
F6G
When she 'risked accused-appellant %eila Johnson, a departin) passen)er bound
'or the Anited States via Continental ;irlines CS-91!, she 'elt so$ethin) hard on the
latterPs abdo$inal area. Apon inDuiry, &rs. Johnson e9plained she needed to (ear t(o
panty )irdles as she had >ust under)one an operation as a result o' an ectopic
pre)nancy.
F0G
#ot satis'ied (ith the e9planation, <a$irez reported the $atter to her superior,
S"64 <eynaldo 7$bile, sayin) WSir- hindi po a(o naniniwalang pant' lang po i'on.X
2WSir, : do not believe that it is >ust a panty.X3 She (as directed to take accused-appellant
to the nearest (o$enPs roo$ 'or inspection. <a$irez took accused-appellant to the rest
roo$, acco$panied by S"61 <izalina 8ernal. 7$bile stayed outside.
FJG
:nside the (o$enPs roo$, accused-appellant (as asked a)ain by <a$irez (hat the
hard ob>ect on her sto$ach (as and accused-appellant )ave the sa$e ans(er she had
previously )iven. <a$irez then asked her Wto brin) out the thin) under her )irdle.X
;ccused-appellant brou)ht out three plastic packs, (hich <a$irez then turned over to
7$bile, outside the (o$enPs roo$.
F9G
+he con'iscated packs, $arked as 79hibits C-1, C-! and C-, contained a total o'
/J5.! )ra$s o' a substance (hich (as 'ound by #8: Che$ist @eor)e de %ara to be
$etha$pheta$ine hydrochloride or Wshabu.X
F15G
7$bile took accused-appellant and the plastic packs to the 1st <e)ional ;viation
and Security 6''ice 21st <;S63 at the arrival area o' the #;:;, (here accused-
appellantPs passport and ticket (ere taken and her lu))a)e opened. "ictures (ere
taken and her personal belon)in)s (ere ite$ized.
F11G
:n her de'ense, accused-appellant alle)ed that she (as standin) in line at the last
boardin) )ate (hen she (as approached by 7$bile and t(o 'e$ale o''icers. She
clai$ed she (as handcu''ed and taken to the (o$enPs roo$. +here, she (as asked to
undress and (as then sub>ected to a body search. She insisted that nothin) (as 'ound
on her person. She (as later taken to a roo$ 'illed (ith bo9es, )arba)e, and a
chair. ,er passport and her purse containin) YJ/5.55 and so$e chan)e (ere taken
'ro$ her, 'or (hich no receipt (as issued to her. ;'ter t(o hours, she said, she (as
trans'erred to the o''ice o' a certain Col. Castillo.
F1!G
;'ter another t(o hours, Col. Castillo and about ei)ht security )uards ca$e in and
thre( t(o (hite packa)es on the table. +hey told her to ad$it that the packa)es (ere
hers. 8ut she denied kno(led)e and o(nership o' the packa)es. She (as detained at
the 1st <;S6 o''ice until noon o' June !J, 1999 (hen she (as taken be'ore a 'iscal 'or
inDuest.
F1G
She clai$ed that throu)hout the period o' her detention, 'ro$ the ni)ht o'
June !6 until June !J, she (as never allo(ed to talk to counsel nor (as she allo(ed to
call the A.S. 7$bassy or any o' her relatives in the "hilippines.
F14G
6n &ay 14, 1999, the trial court rendered a decision, the dispositive portion o'
(hich reads*
F1/G
W,7<7F6<7, >ud)$ent is hereby rendered 'indin) the accused %7:%;
J6,#S6# - <7-7S, @A:%+- beyond reasonable doubt o' the o''ense o'
?iolation o' Section 16 o' <epublic ;ct 64!/ as a$ended and hereby i$poses
on her the penalty o' <7C%AS:6# "7<"7+A; and conde$ns said accused
to pay a 'ine o' F:?7 ,A#C<7C +,6AS;#C "7S6S 2"/55,555.553 (ithout
subsidiary i$prison$ent in case o' insolvency and to pay the costs o' suit.
+he &etha$pheta$ine ,ydrochloride 2shabu3 havin) a total net (ei)ht o'
/J5.! )ra$s 279hibits W@X, WC-!X and WC-X3 are hereby con'iscated in 'avor o'
the )overn$ent and the 8ranch Clerk o' Court is hereby ordered to cause the
transportation thereo' to the Can)erous Cru)s 8oard 'or disposition in
accordance (ith la(.
+he accused shall be credited in 'ull 'or the period o' her detention at the City
Jail o' "asay City durin) the pendency o' this case provided that she a)reed
in (ritin) to abide by and co$ply strictly (ith the rules and re)ulations o' the
City Jail.
S6 6<C7<7C.
;ccused-appellant contends that the trial court convicted her* 213 Wdespite 'ailure o'
the prosecution in provin) the ne)ative alle)ation in the in'or$ation=X 2!3 Wdespite 'ailure
o' the prosecution in provin) the Duantity o' $etha$pheta$ine hydrochloride=X 23
Wdespite violation o' her constitutional ri)hts=X and 243 W(hen )uilt (as not proven beyond
reasonable doubt.X
F16G
First. ;ccused-appellant clai$s that she (as arrested and detained in )ross
violation o' her constitutional ri)hts. She ar)ues that the WshabuX con'iscated 'ro$ her is
inad$issible a)ainst her because she (as 'orced to a''i9 her si)nature on the plastic
ba)s (hile she (as detained at the 1
st
<;S6 o''ice, (ithout the assistance o' counsel
and (ithout havin) been in'or$ed o' her constitutional ri)hts. ,ence, she ar)ues, the
$etha$pheta$ine hydrochloride, or Wshabu,X should have been e9cluded 'ro$ the
evidence.
F10G
+he contention has no $erit. #o state$ent, i' any, (as taken 'ro$ accused-
appellant durin) her detention and used in evidence a)ainst her. +here is, there'ore, no
basis 'or accused-appellantPs invocation o' ;rt. :::, U1!213 and 23. 6n the other hand,
(hat is involved in this case is an arrest in flagrante delicto pursuant to a valid search
$ade on her person.
+he trial court held*
+he constitutional ri)ht o' the accused (as not violated as she (as never
placed under custodial investi)ation but (as validly arrested (ithout (arrant
pursuant to the provisions o' Section /, <ule 11 o' the 19J/ <ules o'
Cri$inal "rocedure (hich provides*
Sec. /. ;rrest (ithout (arrant= (hen la('ul. ; peace o''icer or a private person $ay,
(ithout a (arrant, arrest a person*
2a3 (hen in his presence, the person to be arrested has co$$itted, is actually
co$$ittin), or is atte$ptin) to co$$it an o''ense=
2b3 (hen an o''ense has in 'act >ust been co$$itted, and he has personal
kno(led)e o' 'acts indicatin) that the person to be arrested has co$$itted it= and
2Anderscorin) supplied3
9 9 9 9
; custodial investi)ation has been de'ined in "eople. v. ;yson 10/ SC<; !5
as Wthe Duestionin) initiated by la( en'orce$ent o''icers a'ter a person has
been taken FinG custody or other(ise deprived o' his 'reedo$ in any si)ni'icant
(ay. +his presupposes that he is suspected o' havin) co$$itted an o''ense
and that the investi)ator is tryin) to elicit in'or$ation or FaG con'ession 'ro$
hi$.E
+he circu$stances surroundin) the arrest o' the accused above 'alls in either
para)raph 2a3 or 2b3 o' the <ule above cited, hence the alle)ation that she has
been sub>ected to custodial investi)ation is 'ar 'ro$ bein) accurate.
F1JG
+he $etha$pheta$ine hydrochloride seized 'ro$ her durin) the routine 'risk at the
airport (as acDuired le)iti$ately pursuant to airport security procedures.
"ersons $ay lose the protection o' the search and seizure clause by e9posure o'
their persons or property to the public in a $anner re'lectin) a lack o' sub>ective
e9pectation o' privacy, (hich e9pectation society is prepared to reco)nize as
reasonable.
F19G
Such reco)nition is i$plicit in airport security procedures. With increased
concern over airplane hi>ackin) and terroris$ has co$e increased security at the
nationPs airports. "assen)ers atte$ptin) to board an aircra't routinely pass throu)h
$etal detectors= their carry-on ba))a)e as (ell as checked lu))a)e are routinely
sub>ected to 9-ray scans. Should these procedures su))est the presence o' suspicious
ob>ects, physical searches are conducted to deter$ine (hat the ob>ects are. +here is
little Duestion that such searches are reasonable, )iven their $ini$al intrusiveness, the
)ravity o' the sa'ety interests involved, and the reduced privacy e9pectations associated
(ith airline travel.
F!5G
:ndeed, travelers are o'ten noti'ied throu)h airport public address
syste$s, si)ns, and notices in their airline tickets that they are sub>ect to search and, i'
any prohibited $aterials or substances are 'ound, such (ould be sub>ect to
seizure. +hese announce$ents place passen)ers on notice that ordinary constitutional
protections a)ainst (arrantless searches and seizures do not apply to routine airport
procedures.
+he packs o' $etha$pheta$ine hydrochloride havin) thus been obtained throu)h a
valid (arrantless search, they are ad$issible in evidence a)ainst the accused-appellant
herein. Corollarily, her subseDuent arrest, althou)h like(ise (ithout (arrant, (as
>usti'ied since it (as e''ected upon the discovery and recovery o' WshabuX in her
person in flagrante delicto.
;nent her alle)ation that her si)nature on the said packs 279hibits C-1, C-! and C-
herein3 had been obtained (hile she (as in the custody o' the airport authorities (ithout
the assistance o' counsel, the Solicitor @eneral correctly points out that no(here in the
records is it indicated that accused-appellant (as reDuired to a''i9 her si)nature to the
packs. :n 'act, only the si)natures o' 7$bile and <a$irez thereon, alon) (ith their
testi$ony to that e''ect, (ere presented by the prosecution in provin) its case.
+here is, ho(ever, no >usti'ication 'or the con'iscation o' accused-appellantPs
passport, airline ticket, lu))a)e, and other personal e''ects. +he pictures taken durin)
that ti$e are also inad$issible, as are the )irdle taken 'ro$ her, and her si)nature
thereon. <ule 1!6, U! o' the <evised <ules o' Cri$inal "rocedure authorizes the
search and seizure only o' the 'ollo(in)*
0ersonal propert' to be seized. Z ; search (arrant $ay be issued 'or the
search and seizure o' personal property*
2a3 Sub>ect o' the o''ense=
2b3 Stolen or e$bezzled and other proceeds or 'ruits o' the o''ense= and
2c3 Ased or intended to be used as the $eans o' co$$ittin) an o''ense.
;ccordin)ly, the above ite$s seized 'ro$ accused-appellant should be returned to
her.
Second. ;ccused-appellant ar)ues that the prosecution 'ailed to 'ully ascertain the
Duantity o' $etha$pheta$ine hydrochloride to >usti'y the i$position o' the penalty
o' reclusion perpetua.
Section !5 o' <.;. #o. 64!/, as a$ended by <.;. #o. 06/9, states*
Section !5 - Application Of 0enalties- ,onfiscation And Forfeiture Of 5he
0roceeds or 3nstrument Of 5he ,rime Q +he penalties 'or o''enses under
Section , 4, 0, J and 9 o' ;rticle :: and Sections 14, 14-;, 1/ and 16 o' ;rticle
::: o' this ;ct, shall be applied i' the dan)erous dru)s involved is in any o' the
'ollo(in) Duantities*
1. 45 )ra$s or $ore o' opiu$=
!. 45 )ra$s or $ore o' $orphine=
3. 200 -/.( o/ .o/e o0 ('4u, o/ .e+',8.*'e+.&ne ',!/o)'8o/&!eI
4. 45 )ra$s or $ore o' heroin=
/. 0/5 )ra$s or $ore o' indian he$p o' $ari>uana=
6. /5 )ra$s o' $ari>uana resin or $ari>uana resin oil=
0. 45 )ra$s or $ore o' cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride= or
J. :n case o' other dan)erous dru)s, the Duantity o' (hich is 'ar beyond
therapeutic reDuire$ents as deter$ined and pro$ul)ated by the Can)erous
Cru)s 8oard, a'ter public consultationBhearin)s conducted 'or the purpose.
6ther(ise, i' the Duantity involved is less than the 'ore)oin) Duantities, the
penalty shall ran)e 'ro$ prision correccional to reclusion perpetuadependin)
upon the Duantity.
Ander this provision, accused-appellant there'ore stands to su''er the penalty
o' reclusion perpetua to death 'or her possession o' /J5.! )ra$s o' shabu.
;ccused-appellant atte$pts to distin)uish bet(een a Duantitative and a Dualitative
e9a$ination o' the substance contained in 79hibits C-1, C-! and C-. She ar)ues that
the e9a$ination conducted by the #8: 'orensic che$ist (as a Dualitative one (hich
$erely yielded positive 'indin)s 'or shabu, but 'ailed to establish its purity= hence, its
e9act Duantity re$ains indeter$inate and unproved.
+his contention is like(ise (ithout $erit.
+he e9pert (itness, @eor)e Ce %ara, stated that the tests conducted (ould have
indicated the presence o' i$purities i' there (ere any. ,e testi'ied*
"<6S. ?7%;SC6 8y $i9in) it t(ice, &r. Witness, i' there are any adulterants or i$purities,
it (ill be discovered by >ust $i9in) itI
W:+#7SS :' so$e dru)s or additives (ere present, it (ill appear in a thin layer
chro$ato)raphic e9a$ination.
"<6S. ?7%;SC6 Cid other dru)s or other additives appear &r. WitnessI
W:+#7SS :n $y thin layer chro$ato)raphic plate, it only appears one spot (hich
rese$bles or the sa$e as the &etha$pheta$ine ,ydrochloride sa$ple
. . . .
"<6S. ?7%;SC6 So, &r. Witness, i' there are any adulterants present in the che$icals you
have e9a$ined, in che$ical e9a$ination, (hat color it (ill re)ister, i' anyI
W:+#7SS :n sa$ple, it contained a potassiu$ alu$inu$ sul'ate, it (ill not react (ith the
rea)ent, there'ore it (ill not dissolve. :n $y e9a$ination, all the speci$ens reacted on
the re-a)ents, sir.
"<6S. ?7%;SC6 ;nd (hat is potassiu$ alu$inu$ sul'ate in lay$anPs ter$I
W:+#7SS :t is only a ta(as.
. . . .
C6A<+ :n this particular case, did you 'ind any alu$inu$ sul'ate or ta(as in the
speci$enI
W:+#7SS #one, your ,onor.
. . . .
;++-. ;@66+ : (ill cite an e9a$ple, supposin) ten )ra$s o' &etha$pheta$ine
,ydrochloride is $i9ed (ith !55 )ra$s o' ta(as, you (ill sub$it that to Dualitative
e9a$ination, (hat (ill be your 'indin)s, ne)ative or positive, &r. WitnessI
W:+#7SS :t (ill )ive a positive result 'or &etha$pheta$ine ,ydrochloride.
;++-. ;@66+ +hat is Dualitative e9a$ination.
W:+#7SS ;nd also positive 'or alu$inu$ sul'ate.
F!1G
; Dualitative deter$ination relates to the identity o' the $aterial, (hereas a
Duantitative analysis reDuires the deter$ination o' the percenta)e co$bination o' the
co$ponents o' a $i9ture. ,ence, a Dualitative identi'ication o' a po(der $ay reveal the
presence o' heroin and Duinine, 'or instance, (hereas a Duantitative analysis $ay
conclude the presence o' 15 percent heroin and 95 percent Duinine.
F!!G
Ce %ara testi'ied that he used a chro$ato)raphy test to deter$ine the contents o'
79hibits C-1, C-! and C-. Chro$ato)raphy is a $eans o' separatin) and tentatively
identi'yin) the co$ponents o' a $i9ture. :t is particularly use'ul 'or analyzin) the
$ultico$ponent speci$ens that are 'reDuently received in a cri$e lab.

For e9a$ple,
illicit dru)s sold on the street $ay be diluted (ith practically any $aterial that is at the
disposal o' the dru) dealer to increase the Duantity o' the product that is $ade available
to prospective custo$ers. ,ence, the task o' identi'yin) an illicit dru) preparation (ould
be an arduous one (ithout the aid o' chro$ato)raphic $ethods to 'irst separate the
$i9ture into its co$ponents.
F!G
+he testi$ony o' Ce %ara established not only that the tests (ere thorou)h, but also
that the scienti'ically correct $ethod o' obtainin) an accurate representative sa$ple had
been obtained.
F!4G
;t any rate, as the Solicitor-@eneral has pointed out, i' accused-
appellant (as not satis'ied (ith the results, it (ould have been a si$ple $atter 'or her to
ask 'or an independent e9a$ination o' the substance by another che$ist. +his she did
not do.
5hird. ;ccused-appellant ar)ues that the prosecution 'ailed to prove the ne)ative
alle)ation in the in'or$ation that she did not have a license to possess or use
$etha$pheta$ine hydrochloride or Wshabu.X
;rt. ::: o' <epublic ;ct #o. 64!/, as a$ended by <epublic ;ct #o. 06/9 provides*
S7C. 16. 0ossession or ;se of +egulated 4rugs. - +he penalty o' reclusion
perpetua to death and a 'ine ran)in) 'ro$ 'ive hundred thousand pesos to ten
$illion pesos shall be i$posed upon any person (ho shall possess or use any
re)ulated dru) (ithout the correspondin) license or prescription, sub>ect to
the provisions o' Section !5 hereo'.
;ccused-appellant clai$s that possession or use o' $etha$pheta$ine
hydrochloride or Wshabu,Xa re)ulated dru), is not unla('ul unless the possessor or user
does not have the reDuired license or prescription. She points out that since the
prosecution 'ailed to present any certi'ication that she is not authorized to possess or
use re)ulated dru)s, it there'ore 'alls short o' the Duantu$ o' proo' needed to sustain a
conviction.
+he contention has no $erit.
+he Duestion raised in this case is si$ilar to that raised in ;nited States %. ,han
5oco.
F!/G
+he accused in that case (as char)ed (ith s$okin) opiu$ (ithout bein) duly
re)istered. ,e de$urred to the in'or$ation on the )round that it 'ailed to alle)e that the
use o' opiu$ had not been prescribed as a $edicine by a duly licensed and practicin)
physician.
+his Court denied the $otion and said*
+he evident interest and purpose o' the statute is to prohibit and to penalize
)enerally the s$okin) o' opiu$ in these :slands. 8ut the le)islator desired to
(ithdra( 'ro$ the operation o' the statute a li$ited class o' s$okers (ho
s$oked under the advice and by prescription o' a licensed and practicin)
physician . . . . ,ence (here one is char)ed (ith a violation o' the )eneral
provisions o' the 6piu$ %a(, it is $ore lo)ical as (ell as $ore practical and
convenient, i' he did in 'act s$oke opiu$ under the advice o' a physician, that
he should set up this 'act by (ay o' de'ense, than that the prosecution should
be called upon to prove that every s$oker, char)ed (ith a violation o' the la(,
does so (ithout such advice or prescription. :ndeed, (hen it is considered
that under the la( any person $ay, in case o' need and at any ti$e, procure
the advice o' a physician to use opiu$ or so$e o' its derivatives, and that in
the nature o' thin)s no public record o' prescriptions o' this kind is or can be
reDuired to be kept, it is $ani'est that it (ould be (holly i$practicable and
absurd to i$pose on the prosecution the burden o' alle)in) and provin) the
'act that one usin) opiu$ does so (ithout the advice o' a physician. +o prove
beyond a reasonable doubt, in a particular case, that one usin) opiu$ does
so (ithout the advice or prescription o' a physician (ould be in $ost cases a
practical i$possibility (ithout the aid o' the de'endant hi$sel', (hile a
de'endant char)ed (ith the ille)al use o' opiu$ should 'ind little di''iculty in
establishin) the 'act that he used it under the advice and on the prescription o'
a physician, i' in 'act he did so.
F!6G
;n accused person so$eti$es o(es a duty to hi$sel' i' not to the State. :' he does
not per'or$ that duty he $ay not al(ays e9pect the State to per'or$ it 'or hi$. :' he
'ails to $eet the obli)ation (hich he o(es to hi$sel', (hen to $eet it is an easy thin)
'or hi$ to do, he has no one but hi$sel' to bla$e.
&oreover, as correctly pointed out by the Solicitor @eneral, there is nothin) in <.;.
#o. 64!/ or the Can)erous Cru)s ;ct, as a$ended, (hich reDuires the prosecution to
present a certi'ication that accused-appellant has no license or per$it to possess
shabu. &ere possession o' the prohibited substance is a cri$e per se and the burden
o' proo' is upon accused-appellant to sho( that she has a license or per$it under the
la( to possess the prohibited dru).
Fourth. %astly, accused-appellant contends that the evidence presented by the
prosecution is not su''icient to support a 'indin) that she is )uilty o' the cri$e char)ed.
+his contention $ust like(ise be re>ected.
Credence (as properly accorded to the testi$onies o' the prosecution (itnesses,
(ho are la( en'orcers. When police o''icers have no $otive to testi'y 'alsely a)ainst the
accused, courts are inclined to uphold this presu$ption. :n this case, no evidence has
been presented to su))est any i$proper $otive on the part o' the police en'orcers in
arrestin) accused-appellant. +his Court accords )reat respect to the 'indin)s o' the trial
court on the $atter o' credibility o' the (itnesses in the absence o' any palpable error or
arbitrariness in its 'indin)s.
F!0G
:t is note(orthy that, aside 'ro$ the denial o' accused-appellant, no other (itness
(as presented in her behal'. ,er denial cannot prevail over the positive testi$onies o'
the prosecution (itnesses.
F!JG
;s has been held, denial as a rule is a (eak 'or$ o'
de'ense, particularly (hen it is not substantiated by clear and
convincin) evidence. +he de'ense o' denial or 'ra$e-up, like alibi, has been invariably
vie(ed by the courts (ith dis'avor 'or it can >ust as easily be concocted and is a
co$$on and standard de'ense ploy in $ost prosecutions 'or violation o' the Can)erous
Cru)s ;ct.
F!9G
+he Court is convinced that the reDuire$ents o' the la( in order that a person $ay
be validly char)ed (ith and convicted o' ille)al possession o' a dan)erous dru) in
violation o' <.;. #o. 64!/, as a$ended, have been co$plied (ith by the prosecution in
this case. +he decision o' the trial court $ust accordin)ly be upheld.
;s re)ards the 'ine i$posed by the trial court, it has been held that courts $ay 'i9
any a$ount (ithin the li$its established by la(.
F5G
Considerin) that 'ive hundred ei)hty
point t(o 2/J5.!3 )ra$s o' shabu (ere con'iscated 'ro$ accused-appellant, the 'ine
i$posed by the trial court $ay properly be reduced to "/5,555.55.
WHERE"ORE, the decision o' the <e)ional +rial Court o' "asay City, 8ranch 115,
'indin) accused-appellant )uilty o' violation o' U16 o' <.;. #o. 64!/, as a$ended, and
i$posin) upon her the penalty o' reclusion perpetua is hereby ;FF:<&7C (ith the
&6C:F:C;+:6# that the 'ine i$posed on accused-appellant is reduced
to "/5,555.55. Costs a)ainst appellant.
+he passport, airline ticket, lu))a)e, )irdle and other personal e''ects not yet
returned to the accused-appellant are hereby ordered returned to her.
SO OR3ERE3.
G.R. No. 93239 M/)' 12, 1991
6EO6LE O" THE 6H$L$66$NES, plainti''-appellee,
vs.
E3$SON SUCRO, accused-appellant.
5he Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Fidencio S. +az for accused-appellant.

GUT$ERRE1, JR., J.:p
7dison Sucro (as char)ed (ith and convicted o' violation o' Section 4, ;rticle :: o' the Can)erous
Cru)s ;ct, under an :n'or$ation (hich reads*
+hat on or about the !1st day o' &arch, 19J9, in the evenin), in the "oblacion,
&unicipality o' .alibo, "rovince o' ;klan, <epublic o' the "hilippines, and (ithin the
>urisdiction o' this ,onorable Court, the above-na$ed accused, actin) as a pusher or
broker in the business o' sellin), ad$inisterin), delivery, )ivin) a(ay to another
andBor distributin) prohibited dru)s, did then and there (il'ully, unla('ully and
'eloniously and (ithout authority o' la( have in his possession and control nineteen
2193 pieces o' $ari>uana ci)arette sticks and 'our 243 tea ba)s o' dried $ari>uana
leaves (hich (ere con'iscated 'ro$ hi$ by the police authorities o' .alibo, ;klan,
shortly a'ter havin) sold one tea ba) o' dried $ari>uana leaves to a custo$er. 2+ollo,
p. 93
Apon arrai)n$ent, the accused-appellant, assisted by counsel, entered a plea o' Enot )uiltyE to the
o''ense char)ed. +rial ensued and a >ud)$ent o' conviction (as rendered, the pertinent portion o'
(hich reads*
W,7<7F6<7, >ud)$ent is rendered 'indin) the accused 7dison Sucro )uilty o' the
sale o' prohibited dru) under Section 4, ;rticle :: o' the Can)erous Cru) ;ct, as
a$ended, and sentencin) hi$ to su''er the penalty o' li'e i$prison$ent, and pay a
'ine o' "!5,555, and costs. ,e shall be entitled to 'ull credit in the service o' his
sentence (ith the period 'or (hich he has under)one preventive i$prison$ent to the
date o' pro$ul)ation o' this >ud)$ent. ;ll the ite$s o' $ari>uana con'iscated in this
case are declared 'or'eited in 'avor o' the State. 2+ollo, p. 413
Fro$ the 'ore)oin) >ud)$ent o' conviction, accused-appellant interposes this appeal, assi)nin) the
'ollo(in) as errors alle)edly co$$itted by the court a &uo, to (it*
:
+,7 %6W7< C6A<+ 7<<7C :# ;C&:++:#@ ;S 7?:C7#C7 F6< +,7
"<6S7CA+:6# 7S,:8:+S E7E-E7-4E, +7; 8;@S 6F ;%%7@7C &;<:JA;#;, +6
87 +,7 ,O+0;S 4EL3,53J FA<+,7<&6<7, +,;+ +,7 S;&7 W7<7 +;.7#
W:+,6A+ +,7 <7LA:<7C W;<<;#+ 6F S7;<C, ;#C ;<<7S+ S:#C7 +,7
;CCAS7C W;S #6+ :# +,7 ;C+ 6F C6&&:++:#@ ;#- 6FF7#S7 ;+ +,7 +:&7
6F ,:S ;<<7S+.
::
+,7 %6W7< C6A<+ 7<<7C :# F:#C:#@ +,7 ;CCAS7C 7C:S6# SAC<6
@A:%+- 6F +,7 S;%7 6F "<6,:8:+7C C<A@S A#C7< S7C+:6# 4, ;<+:C%7 ::,
6F +,7 C;#@7<6AS C<A@S ;C+ ;#C S7#+7#C:#@ ,:& +6 SAFF7< ;
"7#;%+- 6F %:F7 :&"<:S6#&7#+ ;#C +6 ";- ; F:#7 6F " !5,555.55.
2;ppellant1s 8rie', p. 13
+he antecedent 'acts o' the case as su$$arized by the Solicitor @eneral are as 'ollo(s*
6n &arch !1, 19J9, "at. <oy Ful)encio, a $e$ber o' the :#", .alibo, ;klan, (as
instructed by "B%t. ?icente Seraspi, Jr. 2Station Co$$ander o' the :#" .alibo, ;klan3
to $onitor the activities o' appellant 7dison Sucro, because o' in'or$ation )athered
by Seraspi that Sucro (as sellin) $ari>uana. 2p. 6, +S#, &ay !,19J93.
;s planned, at about /*55 ".&. on said date, "at. Ful)encio "ositioned hi$sel' under
the house o' a certain ;rlie <e)alado at C. Lui$po Street. ;d>acent to the house o'
<e)alado, about ! $eters a(ay, (as a chapel. +herea'ter, "at. Ful)encio sa(
appellant enter the chapel, takin) so$ethin) (hich turned out later to be $ari>uana
'ro$ the co$part$ent o' a cart 'ound inside the chapel, and then return to the street
(here he handed the sa$e to a buyer, ;ldie 8orro$eo. ;'ter a (hile appellant (ent
back to the chapel and a)ain ca$e out (ith $ari>uana (hich he )ave to a )roup o'
persons. 2pp. 6-J, 1/-1J, 3bid3. :t (as at this instance that "at. Ful)encio radioed
"B%t. Seraspi and reported the activity )oin) on. "B%t. Seraspi instructed "at.
Ful)encio to continue $onitorin) develop$ents. ;t about 6*5 ".&., "at. Ful)encio
a)ain called up Seraspi to report that a third buyer later :denti'ied as <onnie
&acabante, (as transactin) (ith appellant. 2pp. 1J-19, 3bid3
;t that point, the tea$ o' "B%t. Seraspi proceeded to the area and (hile the police
o''icers (ere at the -outh ,ostel at &aa)$a St., "at. Ful)encio told "B%t. Seraspi to
intercept &acabante and appellant. "B%t. Seraspi and his tea$ cau)ht up (ith
&acabante at the crossin) o' &abini and &aa)$a Sts. in 'ront o' the ;klan &edical
Center. Apon seein) the police, &acabante thre( so$ethin) to the )round (hich
turned out to be a tea ba) o' $ari>uana. 2pp. 6-J, +S#, June 19, 19J93 When
con'ronted, &acabante readily ad$itted that he bou)ht the sa$e 'ro$ appellant
27dison Sucro3 in 'ront o' the chapel. 2p. 6, +S#, &ay !4, 19J93 +he police tea$ (as
able to overtake and arrest appellant at the corner o' C. Lui$po and ?eterans Sts.
+he police recovered 19 sticks and 4 teaba)s o' $ari>uana 'ro$ the cart inside the
chapel and another teaba) 'ro$ &acabante, +he teaba)s o' $ari>uana (ere sent to
the "C-:#" Cri$e %aboratory Service, at Ca$p Cel)ado, :loilo City 'or analysis. +he
speci$ens 279hibits E@E to E@-1JE, 79hibits E7E to E7-4E3 (ere all 'ound positive o'
$ari>uana. 2pp. 40, +S#, Sept. 4, 19J93E 2;ppellee1s 8rie', pp. -63
;s can be seen 'ro$ the 'acts, the issue hin)es $ainly on (hether or not the arrest (ithout (arrant
o' the accused is la('ul and conseDuently, (hether or not the evidence resultin) 'ro$ such arrest is
ad$issible.
We rule in the a''ir$ative.
+he accused-appellant contends that his arrest (as ille)al, bein) a violation o' his ri)hts )ranted
under Section !, ;rticle ::: o' the 19J0 Constitution. ,e stresses that there (as su''icient ti$e 'or the
police o''icers to apply 'or a search and arrest (arrants considerin) that Ful)encio in'or$ed his
Station Co$$ander o' the activities o' the accused t(o days be'ore &arch !1, 19J9, the date o' his
arrest.
+his contention is (ithout $erit.
Section /, <ule 11 o' the <ules on Cri$inal "rocedure provides 'or the instances (here arrest
(ithout (arrant is considered la('ul. +he rule states*
Arrest without warrant- when lawful. H ; peace o''icer or private person $ay, (ithout
(arrant, arrest a person*
2a3 *hen in his presence- the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
co$$ittin), or is atte$ptin) to co$$it an o''ense=
2b3 *hen an offense has in fact 2ust been committed- and he has personal
(nowledge o' 'acts indicatin) that the person to be arrested has co$$itted it=
27$phasis supplied3
;n o''ense is co$$itted in the presence or (ithin the vie( o' an o''icer, (ithin the $eanin) o' the
rule authorizin) an arrest (ithout a (arrant, (hen the o''icer sees the o''ense, althou)h at a
distance, or hears the disturbances created thereby and proceeds at once to the scene thereo'.
2A.S. v. Fortaleza, 1! "hil. 40! F1959G= and A.S. v. Sa$onte, 16 "hil. /16 F1915G3
+he records sho( that Ful)encio (ent to ;rlie <e)alado1s house at C. Lui$po Street to $onitor the
activities o' the accused (ho (as earlier reported to be sellin) $ari>uana at a chapel t(o 2!3 $eters
a(ay 'ro$ <e)alado1s house.
Ful)encio, (ithin a distance o' t(o $eters sa( Sucro conduct his ne'arious activity. ,e sa( Sucro
talk to so$e persons, )o inside the chapel, and return to the$ and e9chan)e so$e thin)s. +hese,
Sucro did three ti$es durin) the ti$e that he (as bein) $onitored. Ful)encio (ould then relay the
on-)oin) transaction to "B%t. Seraspi.
;nent the second reDuire$ent, the 'act that &acabante, (hen intercepted by the police, (as cau)ht
thro(in) the $ari>uana stick and (hen con'ronted, readily ad$itted that he bou)ht the sa$e 'ro$
accused-appellant clearly indicates that Sucro had >ust sold the $ari>uana stick to &acabante, and
there'ore, had >ust co$$itted an ille)al act o' (hich the police o''icers had personal kno(led)e,
bein) $e$bers o' the tea$ (hich $onitored Sucro1s ne'arious activity.
+he court earlier indicated in the case o' 0eople %. /ati 2@.<. #o. J04!9, ;u)ust !0, 19953 that
police o''icers have personal kno(led)e o' the actual co$$ission o' the cri$e (hen it had earlier
conducted surveillance activities o' the accused. +hus, it stated*
When %uciano and Caraan reached the place (here the alle)ed transaction (ould
take place and (hile positioned at a street co$er, they sa( appellant <e)alado 8ati
and Warner &arDuez by the side o' the street about 'orty to 'i'ty $eters a(ay 'ro$
the$ 2the public o''icers3. +hey sa( &arDuez )ivin) so$ethin) to 8ati, (ho,
therea'ter handed a (rapped ob>ect to &arDuez (ho then inserted the ob>ect inside
the 'ront o' his pants in 'ront o' his abdo$en (hile 8ati, on his part, placed the thin)
)iven to hi$ inside his pocket. 2p. !3
999 999 999
. . . 8oth "atrol$an %uciano and Caraan actuall' witnessed the sa$e and their
testi$onies (ere based on their actual and personal kno(led)e o' the events that
took place leadin) to appellant1s arrest. +hey $ay not have been (ithin hearin)
distance, specially since conversation (ould e9pectedly be carried on in hushed
tones, but they (ere certainly near enou)h to observe the $ove$ents o' the
appellant and the buyer. &oreover, these prosecution (itnesses are all la( en'orcers
and are, there'ore, presu$ed to have re)ularly per'or$ed their duties in the absence
o' proo' to the contrary 2"eople v. 8ati, supra citing "eople v. ;)apito, @.<. #o.
00J6, 6ctober 1!, 19J03
+he accused Duestions the 'ailure o' the police o''icers to secure a (arrant considerin) that
Ful)encio hi$sel' kne( o' Sucro1s activities even prior to the 'or$er1s >oinin) the police 'orce.
Ful)encio reported Sucro1s activities only three days be'ore the incident.
;s the records reveal, Ful)encio and Sucro had kno(n each other since their childhood years and
that a'ter Ful)encio >oined the police 'orce, he told the accused-appellant not to sell dru)s in their
locality. ,ence, it is possible that because o' this 'riendship, Ful)encio hesitated to report his
childhood 'riend and $erely advised hi$ not to en)a)e in such activity. ,o(ever, because o' reliable
in'or$ation )iven by so$e in'or$ants that sellin) (as )oin) on everyday, he (as constrained to
report the $atter to the Station Co$$ander.
6n the other hand, the 'ailure o' the police o''icers to secure a (arrant ste$s 'ro$ the 'act that their
kno(led)e acDuired 'ro$ the surveillance (as insu''icient to 'ul'ill the reDuire$ents 'or the issuance
o' a search (arrant. What is para$ount is that probable cause e9isted. +hus, it has been held in the
case o' 0eople %. Lo )o *ing- et al. 2@.<. #o. JJ510, January !1, 19913*
:n the instant case, it (as 'ir$ly established 'ro$ the 'actual 'indin)s o' the trial court
that the authorities had reasonable )round to believe that appellant (ould atte$pt to
brin) in contraband and transport it (ithin the country. +he belie' (as based on
intelli)ence reports )athered 'ro$ surveillance activities on the suspected syndicate,
o' (hich appellant (as touted to be a $e$ber. ;side 'ro$ this, they (ere also
certain as to the e9pected date and ti$e o' arrival o' the accused 'ro$ China. 8ut
such kno(led)e (as clearly insu''icient to enable the$ to 'ul'ill the reDuire$ents 'or
the issuance o' a search (arrant. Still and all, the i$portant thin) is that there (as
probable cause to conduct the (arrantless search, (hich $ust still be present in
such a case.
;s the Solicitor @eneral has pointed out*
+here are several instances (hen a (arrantless search and seizure can be e''ected
(ithout necessarily bein) preceded by an arrest provided the sa$e is e''ected on the
basis o' probable cause 2e.). stop and search (ithout (arrant at checkpoints3.
8et(een (arrantless searches and seizures at checkpoints and in the case at bar
the latter is $ore reasonable considerin) that unlike in the 'or$er, it (as e''ected on
the basis o' probable cause. Ander the circu$stances 2$onitorin) o' transactions3
there e9isted probable cause 'or the arrestin) o''icers, to arrest appellant (ho (as in
'act sellin) $ari>uana and to seize the contraband.
+hat searches and seizures $ust be supported by a valid (arrant is not an absolute rule 2&anipon,
Jr. v. Sandi)anbayan, 14 SC<; !60 F19J6G3. ;$on) the e9ceptions )ranted by la( is a search
incidental to a la('ul arrest under Sec. 1!, <ule 1!6 o' the <ules on Cri$inal "rocedure, (hich
provides that a person la('ully arrested $ay be searched 'or dan)erous (eapons or anythin) (hich
$ay be used as proo' o' the co$$ission o' an o''ense, (ithout a search (arrant. 2"eople v. Castiller,
@.<. #o. J00J, ;u)ust 6, 19953
+he accused-appellant clai$s that the arrest havin) been done (ithout (arrant, it 'ollo(s that the
evidence obtained there'ro$ is inad$issible.
;s earlier discussed, there is nothin) unla('ul about the arrest considerin) its co$pliance (ith the
reDuire$ents o' a (arrantless arrest. 7r)o, the 'ruits obtained 'ro$ such la('ul arrest are ad$issible
in evidence.
7dison Sucro assails the trial court1s reliance on the state$ent o' &acabante (hose reason 'or
testi'yin) could be $erely to escape prosecution.
We Duote the trial court1s 'indin) as to the testi$ony o' &acabante*
+he non-'ilin) o' a co$plaint a)ainst hi$ 'or possession o' $ari>uana $ay have been
the reason o' 2sic3 his (illin)ness to testi'y in court a)ainst the accused. 8ut this
does not necessarily taint the evidence that proceeds 'ro$ his lips. ;s e9plained by
%t. Seraspi, the best sources o' in'or$ation a)ainst dru) pushers are usually their
custo$ers, especially i' as in this case, there is no other direct evidence o' the sellin)
e9cept the testi$ony o' the buyer. We accept this observation as a realistic appraisal
o' a situation in (hich dru) users are, and should be e$ployed by la( en'orce$ent
authorities to bolster the drive a)ainst pushers (ho are the real 'elons in our society.
We have observed the de$eanor o' the (itness in court, and 'ound hi$ to be
strai)ht'or(ard, unhesitatin), and spontaneous in his declarations, so that (e are
satis'ied as to his intention and disposition to tell the truth 2+ollo, p. 453
+i$e and a)ain it has been held that the 'indin)s o' the trial court are entitled to )reat (ei)ht and
should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is sho(n that the trial court had overlooked certain 'acts
o' (ei)ht and i$portance, it bein) ackno(led)ed. that the court belo(, havin) seen and heard the
(itnesses durin) the trial, is in a better position to evaluate their testi$onies 2"eople v. A$ali, et al.,
@.<. #o. J44/5, February 4, 1991 citing "eople v. ;lvarez, 16 SC<; 04/ F19JJG= "eople v. Corado,
5 SC<; / F1969G= and "eople v. 7spe>o, 6 SC<; 455 F1905G3.
Further$ore, the testi$ony o' &acabante (as corroborated on $aterial points by public o''icers
Ful)encio and Seraspi.
+here is nothin) in the record to su))est that the police o''icers (ere co$pelled by any $otive than
to acco$plish their $ission to capture a dru) pusher in the e9ecution o' the cri$e, the presu$ption
bein) that police o''icers per'or$ their duties re)ularly in the absence o' any evidence to the contrary
2<ule 11, Sec. 2$3, <evised <ules on 7vidence= "eople v. Castiller, supra citing "eople v.
#atipravat, 14/ SC<; 4J F19J6G3.
+he prosecution evidence (as 'urther bolstered by the 'indin)s o' the Forensic Che$ist that the
ite$s seized (ere all positive 'or $ari>uana.
:n contrast to the evidence presented by the prosecution, accused-appellant1s de'ense is alibi (hich
is unavailin) considerin) that he (as positively identi'ied by &acabante to be the person 'ro$ (ho$
he bou)ht $ari>uana.
Sucro alle)es that he could not have co$$itted the cri$e since he (as (ith his uncle and cousin
distributin) handbills 'or his ;untie1s candidacy. +he 'act, ho(ever, re$ains that it does not preclude
the possibility that he (as present in the vicinity as established by his ad$ission that he $oved a lot
and even had the occasion to $eet &acabante on the street.
:t is (ell-settled that $ere denials cannot prevail a)ainst the positive identi'ication o' the appellant as
the seller o' the prohibited substances. 2"eople v. .han, 161 SC<; 456 F19JJG= and "eople v. "aco,
105 SC<; 6J1 F19J9G3
"re$ises considered, this Court is convinced that appellant 7dison Sucro had indeed co$$itted the
o''ense char)ed. +he trial court1s decision $ust be upheld.
W,7<7F6<7, the decision appealed 'ro$ is hereby ;FF:<&7C.
S6 6<C7<7C.
Fernan- ,...- Feliciano- /idin and 4a%ide- .r.- ...- concur.
G.R. No. 95993 Se*+e.4e/ 9, 1995
6EO6LE O" THE 6H$L$66$NES, plainti''-appellee,
vs.
ARMAN3O 3E LARA # GALARO, accused-appellant.
5he Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
5an- Manzano R 6elez for accused-appellant.

<U$ASON, J.:
+his is an appeal 'ro$ the decision o' the <e)ional +rial Court, 8ranch !J, &anila in Cri$inal Case
#o. 949/, 'indin) appellant )uilty beyond reasonable doubt o' violatin) Section 4 o' <epublic ;ct
#o. 64!/, as a$ended by 8.". 8l). 109.
:
+he :n'or$ation char)ed appellant as 'ollo(s*
+hat on or about January 9, 19J0, in the City o' &anila, "hilippines, the said
accused, not bein) authorized by la( to sell, deliver, )ive a(ay to another or
distribute any prohibited dru), did then and there (ill'ully and unla('ully sell or o''er
'or sale t(o 2!3 'oils o' 'lo(erin) tops o' $ari>uana and one 213 plastic ba) o'
'lo(erin) tops o' $ari>uana, (hich are prohibited dru)s 2+ollo, p. 63.
Apon arrai)n$ent, appellant, assisted by his counsel de parte- pleaded not )uilty to the in'or$ation
2<ecords p. /3.
::
6n Cece$ber 1/, 19J6, Capt. <estituto Cablayan o' the #ational Cri$inal :nvesti)ation Service
2#C:S3 o' the Western "olice Cistrict 2W"C3, instructed S)t. 7nriDue Cavid to conduct a surveillance
operation in the vicinity o' @arrido and Ra$ora Streets at Sta. ;na, &anila, a'ter receivin) reports o'
ra$pant dru)-pushin) in that area 2+S#, Cece$ber 14, 19J0, p. !13.
:n co$pliance thereo', a tea$ led by S)t. 7nriDue Cavid, conducted a surveillance operation on
Cece$ber 1/ and 10, and con'ir$ed the reported dru)-pushin) activities in that area by the )roup o'
appellant and a certain <icky alias E"ilayE 2+S#, Cece$ber !, 19J0, pp. /-63. #o arrest (as $ade
because the tea$ (as instructed by their superior to conduct a surveillance operation only 2+S#,
January 11, 19JJ, p. !J3.
6n January J, 19J0, &alaya 279h. EFE3 and "eople1s +oni)ht 279h. E.E3, reported that there (ere
ra$pant, dru)-pushin) activities in the vicinity o' @arrido and Ra$ora Streets in Sta. ;na, &anila,
pro$ptin) @en. ;l'redo %i$, then W"C Superintendent, to repri$and the #C:S o''ice 2+S#,
Cece$ber !, 19J0, p. !3.
6n January 9, because o' the repri$and )iven by @en. %i$, Capt. Cablayan instructed S)t. Cavid to
plan a buy-bust operation and to 'or$ a
si9-$an tea$ (ith "'c. &artin 6rol'o, Jr. as the poseur-buyer 2+S#, Cece$ber !, 19J0, p. 6,
January 11, 19JJ, p. 63.
;t around 4*4/ ".&. o' the sa$e day, the tea$, to)ether (ith their con'idential in'or$ant, (ent to
@arrido Street. Apon arrivin) threat, they strate)ically positioned the$selves. "'c. 6rol'o, Jr. and the
con'idential in'or$ant proceeded to the house o' appellant located at #o. !!60 @arrido Street, (here
they sa( hi$ standin) outside. +he con'idential in'or$ant introduced "'c. 6rol'o, Jr. to appellant as
an interested buyer o' $ari>uana. ;ppellant asked "'c. 6rol'o, Jr. E:lan an) bibilhin ninyoIE 2,o(
$uch (ill you buyI3. "'c. 6rol'o, Jr., replied* E+(o 'oilsE handin) at the sa$e ti$e the $arked
t(enty-peso bill 279h. E7E3 to appellant. +he latter, a'ter placin) the $oney in the ri)ht pocket o' his
pants, (ent inside his house 2+S#, January 11, 19JJ, pp. 0-93. &inutes later, appellant ca$e back
and handed t(o 'oils 279hs. EC-1-aE and EC-1-bE3 (rapped in onion paper 2+S#, January 11, 19JJ, p.
J3. :t (as a'ter he handed the t(o 'oils to "'c. 6rol'o Jr., that he sensed the presence o' the police
operatives. ,e then tried to retrieve the t(o 'oils but "'c. 6rol'o, Jr. prevented hi$ 'ro$ doin) so.
Curin) the scu''le, one 'oil (as torn. ;ppellant then ran inside his house (ith "'c. 6rol'o, Jr. in
pursuit. +he latter (as able to subdue appellant. S)t. Cavid con'ronted appellant, (ho ad$itted that
he kept prohibited dru)s in his house. ;ppellant sho(ed the arrestin) o''icers a blue plastic ba) (ith
(hite linin) containin) prohibited dru)s. ; receipt o' the articles seized 279h. EFE3 (as $ade by "'c.
6rol'o, Jr. 2+S#, January 11, 19JJ, pp. 1!-1/3.
+herea'ter, the tea$, to)ether (ith appellant, proceeded to the W"C headDuarters 'or investi)ation.
+hereat, S)t. Cavid ordered "'c. 6rol'o, Jr. to co$$ence the investi)ation o' appellant 2+S#,
January 11, 19JJ, pp. 19-!13.
Curin) the investi)ation, appellant (as apprised o' his constitutional ri)hts to re$ain silent and to
have the assistance o' counsel. When appellant (as asked to )ive a (ritten state$ent, he re'used to
do so pendin) arrival o' his la(yer 2+S#, January 11, 19JJ, p. !3.
+he prohibited dru)s seized 'ro$ appellant (ere brou)ht to the #8: 'or che$ical analysis. ; report
and certi'ication o' &s. ;ida "ascual, Forensic Che$ist o' the #8: 279hs. ECE and ECE3, sho( the
dru)s to be positive 'or $ari>uana.
;ppellant denied havin) sold $ari>uana to anyone and clai$ed that the arrestin) o''icers $erely
planted the $ari>uana on his person. ,e testi'ied that on January 9, 19J0, he arrived ho$e 'ro$
(ork as a security )uard o' the ?er)ara 8rothers ;)ency at around *55 ".&. ;'ter chan)in) his
clothes, he (ent out to 'etch his son, (ho (as le't in the care o' a nei)hbor. Apon returnin) to his
house (ith his son, he (as arrested by the police. +he police proceeded to search his house,
(ithout any search (arrant sho(n to hi$. ;'ter the search, he and his (i'e (ere brou)ht to the W"C
headDuarters. ,e clai$ed that inspite o' his protestation that he (ould like to (ait 'or his la(yer
be'ore )ivin) any state$ent, the police continued their interro)ation.
;ppellant denied that the t(enty-peso bill (as )iven to hi$ by the poseur-buyer. ,e clai$ed that he
(as $erely 'orced to si)n his na$e on the photocopy o' the t(enty-peso bill 279h. EFE3 and that the
'irst ti$e he sa( the blue plastic ba) containin) prohibited dru)s (as (hen he (as at the police
station 2+S#, June 14, 19JJ, pp. 1-113.
+o corroborate his story, appellant presented his youn)er brother, @erry de %ara.
6n 6ctober !, 19J9, the trial court rendered its decision, disposin) as 'ollo(s*
W,7<7F6<7, >ud)$ent is hereby rendered 'indin) the accused )uilty beyond
reasonable doubt o' violation o' Sec 4, ;rt :: o' <.;. 64!/ as a$ended as char)ed in
the :n'or$ation= and this Court hereby sentences the accused to su''er a penalty o'
li'e i$prison$ent and to pay a 'ine o' "!5,555.55 2+ollo- p. !43.
,ence, this appeal.
:::
:n his appeal, appellant Duestions the le)ality o' his arrest and the seizure o' prohibited dru)s 'ound
inside his house. Further$ore, he clai$s that he (as not assisted by counsel durin) his custodial
interro)ation 2+ollo, pp. //-/03.
;s to the le)ality o' appellant1s arrest, (e 'ind that the police operatives acted (ithin the bounds o'
la(.
Section /, <ule 11 o' the 19J/ <ules on Cri$inal "rocedures dealin) (ith (arrantless arrests
provides*
;rrest (ithout (arrant= (hen la('ul. H ; peace o''icer or a private person $ay,
(ithout a (arrant, arrest a person=
a3 When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has co$$itted, is actually
co$$ittin), or is atte$ptin) to co$$it an o''ense=
b3 When an o''ense has in 'act >ust been co$$itted and he has personal kno(led)e
o' 'acts indicatin) that the person to be arrested has co$$itted it=
999 999 999
:n the case at bench, appellant (as cau)ht red-handed in deliverin) t(o tin 'oils o' $ari>uana to "at.
6rol'o, Jr., the poseur-buyer. ;pplyin) the a'ore$entioned provision o' la(, appellant1s arrest (as
la('ully e''ected (ithout need o' a (arrant o' arrest. E,avin) cau)ht the appellant in flagrante as a
result o' the buy-bust operation, the police$en (ere not only authorized but (ere also under
obli)ation to apprehend the dru) pusher even (ithout a (arrant o' arrestE 2"eople v. .alubiran, 196
SC<; 644 F1991G= 0eople %s. 4e Los Santos, !55 SC<; 41 F1991G3.
;ppellant, ho(ever, asseverates that his arrest (as precipitated only by ne(spaper publications
about the ra$pant sale o' dru)s alon) @arrido and Ra$ora Streets, Sta. ;na, &anila 2+ollo, p. /3. :'
appellant i$plies that the police $erely sta)e-$ana)ed his arrest in order to sho( that they (ere not
re$iss in their duties, then appellant is (ron). ; surveillance on the ille)al activities o' the appellant
(as already conducted by the police as early as Cece$ber 1/ and 10, 19J6. +he ne(spaper reports
concernin) the ille)al dru) activities ca$e out only on January J and 14, 19J0, lon) a'ter the police
kne( o' the said ille)al activities. ;ppellant1s eventual arrest on January 9, 19J0 (as the result o' the
surveillance conducted and the buy-bust operation.
+he evidence sho(s that appellant ran inside his house upon sensin) the presence o' the police
operatives. +he testi$ony o' "at. 6rol'o, Jr., the poseur-buyer, is as 'ollo(s*
F:SC;%*
L* ;'ter placin) the "!5 bill in his ri)ht pocket, (hat did he doI
;* ,e (ent to his house and $inutes later, he ca$e back, sir.
L* When he ca$e back (hat happenedI
;* ,e handed to $e t(o tin 'oils containin) suspected $ari>uana
leaves (rapped in onion paper.
L* ;nd (hat happened ne9t (hen he returned (ith those ite$sI
;* ;'ter he handed to $e t(o 'oils, he sensed the presence o' the
operatives and he tried to retrieve the t(o 'oils, sir, and : prevented
hi$ and durin) the scu''le one piece o' 'oil (as broken, he tried to run
inside the house, so : subdued hi$ i$$ediately and apprehended
hi$ (hile he (as inside the house.
L* ;'ter he (as subdued by your )roup, (hat happenedI
;* S)t. Cavid con'ronted hi$ re)ardin) this case and he voluntarily
ad$itted that he (as still keepin) prohibited dru)s inside his houseI
L* What did the )roup do a'ter he voluntarily ad$itted that he (as
keepin) prohibited dru)s inside his houseI
;* ,e pointed inside his house 2sic3 one plastic ba) colored blue (ith
(hite linin) containin) prohibited dru)E 2+S#, January 11, 19JJ, pp.
1!-143.
+he police$en1s entry into the house o' appellant (ithout a search (arrant (as in hot-pursuit o' a
person cau)ht co$$ittin) an o''ense in flagrante. +he arrest that 'ollo(ed the hot-pursuit (as valid
219J/ <ules on Cri$inal "rocedure, <ule 11, Section /FaG3.
We also 'ind as valid the seizure o' the plastic ba) o' prohibited dru)s 'ound inside appellant1s
house.
+he seizure o' the plastic ba) containin) prohibited dru)s (as the result o' appellant1s arrest inside
his house. ; conte$poraneous search $ay be conducted upon the person o' the arrestee and the
i$$ediate vicinity (here the arrest (as $ade 2"eople v. Castiller, 1JJ SC<; 06 F1995G3.
We 'ind to be $eritorious appellant1s clai$ that he (as not assisted by counsel durin) the custodial
investi)ation, speci'ically (hen he (as 'orced to si)n the photocopy o' the $arked t(enty-peso bill
279h. E7E3, <eceipt o' "roperty Seized 279h. EFE3, and the 8ookin) and :n'or$ation Sheet 279h. E,E3.
+he said docu$ents are inad$issible in evidence 'or the reason that there (as no sho(in) that
appellant (as then assisted by counsel nor his (aiver thereto put into (ritin) 2Constitution, ;rt. :::,
Sec. F!G3.
8e that as it $ay, the re>ection o' said evidence (ould not a''ect the conviction o' appellant in vie( o'
the abundance o' other evidence establishin) his )uilt. +he rulin) in 0eople %. Mau'ao, !50 SC<;
0! 2199!3 isapropos*
:t bears e$phasis, ho(ever, that the accused appellant1s con'or$ity to the
Duestioned docu$ents has not been a 'actor at all in his conviction. For even i' these
docu$ents (ere disre)arded, still the accused-appellant1s )uilt has been adeDuately
established by other evidence o' record. +he trial court1s verdict (as based on the
evidence o' the prosecution not on his si)natures on the Duestioned docu$ents.
;ccused-appellant1s denial si$ply can not prevail over the detailed and unshaken
testi$onies o' the apprehendin) o''icers (ho cau)ht hi$ red-handed sellin)
$ari>uana and (ho have not sho(n to have any ulterior $otive to testi'y 'alsely
a)ainst accused-appellant.
:?
+he trial court sentenced appellant to su''er the penalty o' li'e i$prison$ent and to pay a 'ine o'
"!5,555.55 pursuant to Section 4, ;rticle :: o' the Can)erous Cru)s ;ct o' 190!, as a$ended by
8.". 8l). 109. ,o(ever, said la( (as 'urther a$ended by <.;. #o. 06/9.
Ander Section 10 o' <.;. #o. 06/9, the penalty to be i$posed 'or sellin), ad$inisterin), deliverin) or
distributin) less than 0/5 )ra$s o' $ari>uana, shall ran)e 'ro$ 7prision correccional to reclusion
perpetua dependin) upon the Duantity.E
Ander Section 4 o' <.;. #o. 06/9, the penalty 'or sellin), dispensin), deliverin), transportin) or
distributin) $ari>uana in e9cess o' 0/5 )ra$s or $ore shall be Ereclusion perpetua to death and a
'ine ran)in) 'ro$ Five ,undred +housand "esos to +en &illion "esos.E
We noticed that the penalty o' reclusion perpetua (as i$posed by <.;. #o. 06/9 as the $a9i$u$
penalty (hen the Duantity o' the $ari>uana involved in the o''ense is less than 0/5 )ra$s and at the
sa$e ti$e as the $ini$u$ penalty (hen the Duantity o' $ari>uana involved is 0/5 )ra$s or $ore. :t
is the duty o' the Court to har$onize con'lictin) provisions to )ive e''ect to the (hole la( 2<u'ino
%opez and Sons v. Court o' ;ppeals, 155 "hil. J/5 F19/0G3. Further$ore, one o' this Court1s
pri$ordial responsibilities is to )ive a statute its sensible construction. +his is to e''ectuate the
intention o' the le)islature so as to avoid an absurd conclusion (ith re)ard to its $eanin) 2%a$b v.
"hipps, !! "hil. 4/6 F191!G3. +here'ore, (hen the Duantity involved is less than 0/5 )ra$s, Section
10 o' <.;. #o. 06/9 should be read correctly to provide a penalty ran)in) 'ro$ prision
correccional to reclusion temporal only.
+he provision o' ;rticle !! o' the <evised "enal Code, (hich states that Epenal la(s shall have a
retroactive e''ect inso'ar as they 'avor the person )uilty o' a 'elony,E 'inds $eanin) in this case.
;ppellant is entitled to bene'it 'ro$ the reduction o' the penalty introduced by <.;. #o. 06/9.
:n order to deter$ine the penalty to be i$posed on appellant, (e 'irst divide the a$ount o' 0/5
)ra$s into three to correspond to the three applicable penalties, na$ely, prision correccional, prision
ma'or and reclusion temporal.
:' the $ari>uana involved is 'ro$ /55 to 049 )ra$s, the penalty to be i$posed is reclusion temporal.
:' the $ari>uana involved is 'ro$ !/5 to 499 )ra$s, the penalty to be i$posed is prision ma'or and i'
the (ei)ht o' the $ari>uana involved is belo( !/5 )ra$s, the penalty to be i$posed is prision
correccional.
Since there is no evidence as to the (ei)ht o' the t(o 'oils and one plastic ba) o' 'lo(erin) tops o'
$ari>uana seized 'ro$ appellant, (e resolve the doubt in 'avor o' appellant and conclude that the
Duantity involved (as* 2i3 belo( 0/5 )ra$s= and 2ii3 not less than !/5 but not $ore than 499 )ra$s.
,ence, the $a9i$u$ penalty that can be i$posed on appellant is prision ma'or. ;pplyin) the
:ndeter$inate Sentence %a( to appellant, (ho (as convicted under a special la( 2"eople vs.
&acantando, 159 SC<; / F19J1G3, and as such la( (as interpreted in 0eople %. Simon- @.<. #o.
95!J, July !9, 1994, the $ini$u$ penalty that can be i$posed on appellant should be (ithin the
ran)e o' prision correccional.
W,7<7F6<7, the Cecision appealed 'ro$ is ;FF:<&7C (ith the $odi'ication that appellant shall
su''er an indeter$inate penalty o' F6A< 243 years and +W6 2!3 days o' prision correccional, as
$ini$u$, to 7:@,+ 2J3 years and 6#7 213 day o' prision ma'or, as $a9i$u$.
S6 6<C7<7C.
4a%ide- .r.- /ellosillo and Hapunan- ...- concur.
,ruz- ..- is on lea%e.
G.R. No. 99257-52. M/)' 10, 1993.
"76"%7 6F +,7 ",:%:"":#7S, plainti''-appellee, vs. @;8<:7% @7<7#+7 y 8A%%6, accused-
appellant.
+he Solicitor @eneral 'or plainti''-appellee.
"ublic ;ttorney1s 6''ice 'or accused-appellant.
S-%%;8AS
1. <7&7C:;% %;W= C<:&:#;% "<6C7CA<7= ;<<7S+ W:+,6A+ W;<<;#+= %;WFA% W,7#
;<<7S+:#@ 6FF:C7< ,;S "7<S6#;% .#6W%7C@7 +,;+ +,7 "7<S6# +6 87 ;<<7S+7C
,;S C6&&:++7C +,7 C<:&7= C;S7 ;+ 8;<. H +he police$en arrested @erente only so$e
three 23 hours a'ter @erente and his co$panions had killed 8lace. +hey sa( 8lace dead in the
hospital and (hen they inspected the scene o' the cri$e, they 'ound the instru$ents o' death* a
piece o' (ood and a concrete hollo( block (hich the killers had used to blud)eon hi$ to death. +he
eye-(itness, 7dna 7d(ina <eyes, reported the happenin) to the police$en and pinpointed her
nei)hbor, @erente, as one o' the killers. Ander those circu$stances, since the police$en had
personal kno(led)e o' the violent death o' 8lace and o' 'acts indicatin) that @erente and t(o others
had killed hi$, they could la('ully arrest @erente (ithout a (arrant. :' they had postponed his arrest
until they could obtain a (arrant, he (ould have 'led the la( as his t(o co$panions did.
!. :C.= :C.= S7;<C, ;#C S7:RA<7= ?;%:C 7?7# W:+,6A+ ; W;<<;#+ W,7# &;C7 ;S ;#
:#C:C7#+ +6 %;WFA% ;<<7S+= <;+:6#;%7. H +he search conducted on @erente1s person (as
like(ise la('ul because it (as $ade as an incident to a valid arrest. +his is in accordance (ith
Section 1!, <ule 1!6 o' the <evised <ules o' Court (hich provides* ESection 1!. Search incident to
la('ul arrest. H ; person la('ully arrested $ay be searched 'or dan)erous (eapons or anythin)
(hich $ay be used as proo' o' the co$$ission o' an o''ense, (ithout a search (arrant.E +he 'risk
and search o' appellant1s person upon his arrest (as a per$issible precautionary $easure o'
arrestin) o''icers to protect the$selves, 'or the person (ho is about to be arrested $ay be ar$ed
and $i)ht attack the$ unless he is 'irst disar$ed. :n ;da$s vs. Willia$s, 40 A.S. 14, cited in
Justice :sa)ani ;. Cruz1s Constitutional %a(, 1991 7dition, p. 1/5, it (as ruled that Ethe individual
bein) arrested $ay be 'risked 'or concealed (eapons that $ay be used a)ainst the arrestin) o''icer
and all unla('ul articles 'ound his person, or (ithin his i$$ediate control $ay be seized.E
. C<:&:#;% %;W= C6#S":<;C-= %:;8:%:+- 6F C6#S":<;+6<S= <A%7= C;S7 ;+ 8;<. H
+here is no $erit in appellant1s alle)ation that the trial court erred in convictin) hi$ o' havin)
conspired and cooperated (ith Fredo and +otoy 7chi)oren to kill 8lace despite the testi$ony o' Cr.
?alentin 8ernales that the 'racture on the back o' the victi$1s skull could have been in'licted by one
person only. (hat Cr. 8ernales stated (as a $ere possibility that only one person dropped the
concrete hollo( block on the head o' the victi$, s$ashin) it. +hat circu$stance, even i' true, does
not absolve the other t(o co-conspirators in the $urder o' 8lace 'or (hen there is a conspiracy to
co$$it a cri$e, the act o' one conspirator is the act o' all. +he conspiracy (as proven by the
eye(itness-testi$ony o' 7dna 7d(ina <eyes, that she overheard the appellant and his co$panions
conspire to kill 8lace, that actin) in concert, they attacked their victi$ (ith a piece o' (ood and a
hollo( block and caused his death. EWhen there is no evidence indicatin) that the principal (itness
'or the prosecution (as $oved by i$proper $otive, the presu$ption is that he (as not so $oved
and his testi$ony is entitled to 'ull 'aith and creditE 2"eople vs. 8elibet, 199 SC<; /J0, /JJ3. ,ence,
the trial court did not err in )ivin) 'ull credit to 7dna <eyes1 testi$ony.
4. :C.= C:?:% :#C7&#:+- F6< C7;+,= :#C<7;S7C +6 "/5,555.55. H +he Solicitor @eneral
correctly pointed out in the appellee1s brie' that the a(ard o' "5,555.55 as civil inde$nity 'or the
death o' Clarito 8lace should be increased to "/5,555.55 in accordance (ith our rulin) in "eople vs.
Sison, 1J9 SC<; 64.
C 7 C : S : 6 #
@<:[6-;LA:#6, J p*
+his is an appeal 'ro$ the decision o' the <e)ional +rial Court o' ?alenzuela, &etro &anila, 8ranch
10!, (hich 'ound the appellant )uilty o' ?iolation o' Section J o' <epublic ;ct 64!/ 2Can)erous
Cru)s ;ct o' 190!3 and sentenced hi$ to su''er the penalty o' i$prison$ent 'or a ter$ o' t(elve 21!3
years and one 213 day, as $ini$u$, to t(enty 2!53 years, as $a9i$u$= and also 'ound hi$ )uilty o'
&urder 'or (hich cri$e he (as sentenced to su''er the penalty o' reclusion perpetua. +he dispositive
portion o' the appealed decision reads*
EW,7<7F6<7, in vie( o' the 'ore)oin) the Court 'inds the accused @abriel @erente in Cri$inal
Case #o. 15!//-?-95 )uilty beyond reasonable doubt o' ?iolation o' Section J o' <.;. 64!/ and
hereby sentences hi$ to su''er the penalty o' i$prison$ent o' t(elve years and one day as
$ini$u$ to t(enty years as $a9i$u$, and a 'ine o' t(elve thousand, (ithout subsidiary
i$prison$ent in case o' insolvency, and to pay the costs.
E:n Cri$inal Case #o. 15!/6-?-95, the Court 'inds the accused @abriel @erente )uilty beyond
reasonable doubt o' the cri$e o' &urder, and there by 2sic3 no a))ravatin) circu$stances nor
$iti)atin) circu$stances, is hereby sentenced to su''er the penalty o' reclusion perpetua= to
inde$ni'y the heirs o' the victi$ in the su$ o' "5,555.55, and in the a$ount o' "10,659.55 as
'uneral e9penses, (ithout subsidiary i$prison$ent in case o' insolvency, and to pay the costs. +he
accused @abriel @erente shall be credited (ith the 'ull ter$ o' his preventive i$prison$ent.E 2p. !/,
<ollo.3
;ppellant @abriel @erente y 8ullo (as char)ed (ith ?iolation o' Section J, ;rt. :: o' <.;. 64!/, (hich
(as docketed as Cri$inal Case #o. 15!//-?-95 o' the <e)ional +rial Court o' ?alenzuela, &etro
&anila. +he :n'or$ation reads*
E+hat on or about the 5th day o' ;pril, 1995, in the $unicipality o' ?alenzuela, &etro &anila,
"hilippines, and (ithin the >urisdiction o' this ,onorable Court, the above-na$ed accused, (ithout
>usti'ication, did then and there (il'ully, unla('ully and 'eloniously have in his possession and control
dried 'lo(erin) tops (rapped in 'oil (ith $arkin)s and place in a transparent plastic ba) (hich are
considered prohibited dru)s.E 2p. !, <ollo.3
+he sa$e accused, to)ether (ith +otoy and Fredo 7chi)oren (ho are both at lar)e, (as char)ed
(ith &urder in Cri$inal Case #o. 15!/6-?-95 in an in'or$ation o' the sa$e date and si)ned by the
sa$e ;ssistant "rovincial "rosecutor, as 'ollo(s*
E+hat on or about the 5th day o' ;pril, 1995, in the $unicipality o' ?alenzuela, &etro &anila,
"hilippines, and (ithin the >urisdiction o' this ,onorable Court, the above-na$ed accused to)ether
(ith t(o 2!3 others (ho are still at lar)e and a)ainst (ho$ the preli$inary investi)ation has not yet
been ter$inated by the 6''ice o' the "rovincial "rosecutor o' 8ulacan, conspirin), con'ederatin)
to)ether and $utually helpin) one another, ar$ed (ith a piece o' (ood and hallo( 2sic3 block and
(ith intent to kill one Clarito 8. 8lace, did then and there (il'ully, unla('ully and 'eloniously, (ith
evident pre$editation and treachery, attack, assault and hit (ith the said piece o' (ood and hollo(
block the said Clarito 8. 8lace, hittin) the latter on the di''erent parts o' his body, thereby in'lictin)
serious physical in>uries (hich directly caused the death o' the said victi$.E 2p. , <ollo.3
7dna 7d(ina <eyes testi'ied that at about 0*55 a.$. o' ;pril 5, 1995, appellant @abriel @erente,
to)ether (ith Fredo 7chi)oren and +otoy 7chi)oren, started drinkin) liDuor and s$okin) $ari>uana
in the house o' the appellant (hich is about si9 263 $eters a(ay 'ro$ the house o' the prosecution
(itness (ho (as in her house on that day. She overheard the three $en talkin) about their intention
to kill Clarito 8lace. She testi'ied that she heard Fredo 7chi)oren sayin), E@abriel, papatayin natin si
Clarito 8lace,E and +otoy 7chi)oren alle)edly seconded Fredo1s su))estion sayin)* E"apatayin natin
1yan $a$aya.E ;ppellant alle)edly a)reed* ESi)ue, papatayin natin $a$aya.E 2pp. -4, tsn, ;u)ust
!4, 1995.3
Fredo and +otoy 7chi)oren and @erente carried out their plan to kill Clarito 8lace at about !*55 p.$.
o' the sa$e day. +he prosecution (itness, 7dna 7d(ina <eyes, testi'ied that she (itnessed the
killin). Fredo 7chi)oren struck the 'irst blo( a)ainst Clarito 8lace, 'ollo(ed by +otoy 7chi)oren and
@abriel @erente (ho hit hi$ t(ice (ith a piece o' (ood in the head and (hen he 'ell, +otoy
7chi)oren dropped a hollo( block on the victi$1s head. +herea'ter, the three $en dra))ed 8lace to
a place behind the house o' @erente.
;t about 4*55 p.$. o' the sa$e day, "atrol$an Jai$e Arrutia o' the ?alenzuela "olice Station
received a report 'ro$ the "alo "olice Cetach$ent about a $aulin) incident. ,e (ent to the
?alenzuela Cistrict ,ospital (here the victi$ (as brou)ht. ,e (as in'or$ed by the hospital o''icials
that the victi$ died on arrival. +he cause o' death (as $assive 'racture o' the skull caused by a hard
and heavy ob>ect. <i)ht a(ay, "atrol$an Arrutia, to)ether (ith "olice Corporal <o$eo %i$a and
"atrol$an ;le9 A$ali, proceeded to "aseo de 8las (here the $aulin) incident took place. +here
they 'ound a piece o' (ood (ith blood stains, a hollo( block and t(o roaches o' $ari>uana. +hey
(ere in'or$ed by the prosecution (itness, 7dna 7d(ina <eyes, that she sa( the killin) and she
pointed to @abriel @erente as one o' the three $en (ho killed Clarito.
+he police$en proceeded to the house o' the appellant (ho (as then sleepin). +hey told hi$ to
co$e out o' the house and they introduced the$selves as police$en. "atrol$an Arrutia 'risked
appellant and 'ound a coin purse in his pocket (hich contained dried leaves (rapped in ci)arette
'oil. +he dried leaves (ere sent to the #ational 8ureau o' :nvesti)ation 'or e9a$ination. +he Forensic
Che$ist 'ound the$ to be $ari>uana.
6nly the appellant, @abriel @erente, (as apprehended by the police. +he other suspects, Fredo and
+otoy 7chi)oren, are still at lar)e.
6n &ay !, 1995, t(o separate in'or$ations (ere 'iled by ;ssistant "rovincial "rosecutor 8en>a$in
Carai) a)ainst hi$ 'or ?iolation o' Section J, ;rt. ::, o' <.;. 64!/, and 'or &urder.
When arrai)ned on &ay 16, 1995, the appellant pleaded not )uilty to both char)es. ; >oint trial o' the
t(o cases (as held. 6n Septe$ber !4, 1995, the trial court rendered a decision convictin) hi$ o'
?iolation o' Section J o' <.;. 64!/ and o' &urder.
:n this appeal o' the appellant, the 'ollo(in) errors are ascribed to the trial court*
1. the court a Duo )ravely erred in ad$ittin) the $ari>uana leaves adduced in evidence by the
prosecution= and
!. the court a Duo )ravely erred in convictin) the accused-appellant o' the cri$es char)ed despite
the absence o' evidence reDuired to prove his )uilt beyond reasonable doubt.
+he appellant contends that the trial court erred in ad$ittin) the $ari>uana leaves as evidence in
violation o' his constitutional ri)ht not to be sub>ected to ille)al search and seizure, 'or the dried
$ari>uana leaves (ere seized 'ro$ hi$ in the course o' a (arrantless arrest by the police o''icers.
We do not a)ree.
+he search o' appellant1s person and the seizure o' the $ari>uana leaves in his possession (ere
valid because they (ere incident to a la('ul (arrantless arrest.
"ara)raphs 2a3 and 2b3, Section /, <ule 11 o' the <evised <ules o' Court provide*
1S7C+:6# /. ;rrest (ithout (arrant= (hen la('ul. H ; peace o''icer or a private person $ay, (ithout
a (arrant, arrest a person*
E2a3 When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has co$$itted, is actually co$$ittin), or is
atte$ptin) to co$$it an o''ense=E
E2b3 When an o''ense has in 'act >ust been co$$itted, and he has personal kno(led)e o' 'acts
indicatin) that the person to be arrested has co$$itted it= . . .1
+he police$en arrested @erente only so$e three 23 hours a'ter @erente and his co$panions had
killed 8lace. +hey sa( 8lace dead in the hospital and (hen they inspected the scene o' the cri$e,
they 'ound the instru$ents o' death* a piece o' (ood and a concrete hollo( block (hich the killers
had used to blud)eon hi$ to death. +he eye-(itness, 7dna 7d(ina <eyes, reported the happenin)
to the police$en and pinpointed her nei)hbor, @erente, as one o' the killers. Ander those
circu$stances, since the police$en had personal kno(led)e o' the violent death o' 8lace and o'
'acts indicatin) that @erente and t(o others had killed hi$, they could la('ully arrest @erente (ithout
a (arrant. :' they had postponed his arrest until they could obtain a (arrant, he (ould have 'led the
la( as his t(o co$panions did.
:n A$il vs. <a$os, 1J0 SC<; 11, the arrest o' the accused (ithout a (arrant (as e''ected one 213
day a'ter he had shot to death t(o Capco$ soldiers. +he arrest (as held la('ul by this Court upon
the rationale stated by us in "eople vs. &alasu)ui, 6 "hil. !!1, !!J, thus*
E+o hold that no cri$inal can, in any case, be arrested and searched 'or the evidence and tokens o'
his cri$e (ithout a (arrant, (ould be to leave society, to a lar)e e9tent, at the $ercy o' the
shre(dest, the $ost e9pert, and the $ost depraved o' cri$inals, 'acilitatin) their escape in $any
instances.E
+he search conducted on @erente1s person (as like(ise la('ul because it (as $ade as an incident
to a valid arrest. +his is in accordance (ith Section 1!, <ule 1!6 o' the <evised <ules o' Court (hich
provides*
ES7C+:6# 1!. Search incident to la('ul arrest. H ; person la('ully arrested $ay be searched 'or
dan)erous (eapons or anythin) (hich $ay be used as proo' o' the co$$ission o' an o''ense,
(ithout a search (arrant.E
+he 'risk and search o' appellant1s person upon his arrest (as a per$issible precautionary $easure
o' arrestin) o''icers to protect the$selves, 'or the person (ho is about to be arrested $ay be ar$ed
and $i)ht attack the$ unless he is 'irst disar$ed. :n ;da$s vs. Willia$s, 40 A.S. 14, cited in
Justice :sa)ani ;. Cruz1s Constitutional %a(, 1991 7dition, p. 1/5, it (as ruled that Ethe individual
bein) arrested $ay be 'risked 'or concealed (eapons that $ay be used a)ainst the arrestin) o''icer
and all unla('ul articles 'ound in his person, or (ithin his i$$ediate control $ay be seized.E
+here is no $erit in appellant1s alle)ation that the trial court erred in convictin) hi$ o' havin)
conspired and cooperated (ith Fredo and +otoy 7chi)oren to kill 8lace despite the testi$ony o' Cr.
?alentin 8ernales that the 'racture on the back o' the victi$1s skull could have been in'licted by one
person only.
What Cr. 8ernales stated (as a $ere possibility that only one person dropped the concrete hollo(
block on the head o' the victi$, s$ashin) it. +hat circu$stance, even i' true, does not absolve the
other t(o co-conspirators in the $urder o' 8lace 'or (hen there is a conspiracy to co$$it a cri$e,
the act o' one conspirator is the act o' all. +he conspiracy (as proven by the eye(itness-testi$ony
o' 7dna 7d(ina <eyes, that she overheard the appellant and his co$panions conspire to kill 8lace,
that actin) in concert, they attacked their victi$ (ith a piece o' (ood and a hollo( block and caused
his death. EWhen there is no evidence indicatin) that the principal (itness 'or the prosecution (as
$oved by i$proper $otive, the presu$ption is that he (as not so $oved and his testi$ony is
entitled to 'ull 'aith and creditE 2"eople vs. 8elibet, 199 SC<; /J0, /JJ3. ,ence, the trial court did not
err in )ivin) 'ull credit to 7dna <eyes1 testi$ony.
;ppellant1s 'ailure to escape 2because he (as very drunk3 is no indiciu$ o' his innocence.
+he Solicitor @eneral correctly pointed out in the appellee1s brie' that the a(ard o' "5,555.55 as
civil inde$nity 'or the death o' Clarito 8lace should be increased to "/5,555.55 in accordance (ith
our rulin) in "eople vs. Sison, 1J9 SC<; 64.
W,7<7F6<7, the appealed decision is hereby ;FF:<&7C, (ith $odi'ication o' the civil inde$nity
a(arded to the heirs o' the victi$, Clarito 8lace, (hich is hereby increased to "/5,555.55.
S6 6<C7<7C.
Cruz, 8ellosillo and Luiason, JJ ., concur.
PEOPLE O4 THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PO6 ALBERT
ABRIOL, MACARIO ASTELLERO, and JAN7ARIO
5OS5OS, accused-appellants.
5 E C I S I O N
87IS7MBING, J.9
@n a&&ea# is t,e de*ision dated (a6 1-, 1995, o1 t,e Regiona# +ria# %ourt o1 %ebu %it6,
Iran*, 1/, in %rimina# %ases Nos. %IB!3/35/ 1or murder and %IB!33660 1or i##ega#
&ossession o1 1irearms, 1inding a&&e##ants '#bert 'brio#, (a*ario 'ste##ero, and Januario Dosdos
gui#t6 be6ond reasonab#e doubt o1 murder and vio#ation o1 Presidentia# De*ree No. 1866 on
;##ega# Possession o1 =irearms. ;ts de*reta# &ortion reads:
>:?R?=@R?, )udgement is ,ereb6 rendered:
;n %rimina# %ase No. %IB!3/35/ 1or (urder, t,e %ourt 1inds a**used '#bert 'brio#,
(a*ario 'ste##ero and Januario Dosdos, GB;7+ o1 murder be6ond reasonab#e doubt
and ea*, is ,ereb6 senten*ed to re!lusion perpetua, 2it, t,e a**essor6 &ena#ties
&rovided b6 #a2H to indemni16 t,e ,eirs o1 de*eased '#e)andro =#ores t,e sum o1
P5/,///.//H a*tua# damages o1 P3/,///.//, re&resenting a reasonab#e amount 1or t,e
emba#ming, vigi#, 2a3e, and buria# eG&ensesH P3/,///.// 1or attorne6As 1eesH and to
&a6 t,e *osts.
=or insu11i*ien*6 o1 eviden*e, a**used Gaudioso Nava#es is ,ereb6 '%QB;++?D
2it, !osts de oi!io.
;n %rimina# %ase No. %IB!33660 1or ;##ega# Possession o1 =irearms, a**used '#bert
'brio#, (a*ario 'ste##ero and Januario Dosdos, are ,ereb6 senten*ed to su11er an
indeterminate &ena#t6 o1 10 6ears, 8 mont,s and 1 da6 to 1- 6ears and 0 mont,s and
to &a6 t,e *osts.
+,e .38 *a#iber revo#ver, "N P/8005 and t,e t2o .05 *a#iber &isto#s 2it, "N PG@
135/6 and "N 5.069, are ,ereb6 *on1is*ated and 1or1eited in 1avor o1 t,e Government
and a**ording#6, t,e %#er3 o1 %ourt o1 t,is Iran*, is dire*ted to turn over t,e said
1irearms to t,e %,ie1 o1 Po#i*e, %ebu %it6, or to t,e =irearms and ?G&#osives @11i*e
8=?@9 o1 t,e PNP Region -, u&on &ro&er re*ei&t.
+,e %ebu %it6 %,ie1 o1 Po#i*e is dire*ted to re#ease immediate#6 u&on re*ei&t ,ereo1,
t,e &erson o1 Gaudioso Nava#es, un#ess t,ere be an6 ot,er va#id reason 1or ,is
*ontinued detention.
"@ @RD?R?D.
415
+,is )udgment 2as t,e *u#mination o1 &ro*eedings beginning 2it, t,e 'mended ;n1ormation
dated "e&tember 6, 1993, do*3eted as %rimina# %ase No. %IB!3/35/, 2,erein a&&e##ants P@.
'#bert 'brio# o1 t,e P,i#i&&ine Nationa# Po#i*e 8PNP9, (a*ario 'ste##ero, Januario Dosdos, and
PNP PE%,ie1 ;ns&e*tor Gaudioso Nava#es 2ere *,arged 2it, murder a##eged#6 *ommitted as
1o##o2s:
+,at on or about t,e 5
t,
da6 o1 June, 1993, at about 11:5/ P.(., in t,e %it6 o1 %ebu,
P,i#i&&ines and 2it,in t,e )urisdi*tion o1 t,is :onorab#e %ourt, t,e said a**used,
armed 2it, ,andguns, *onniving and *on1ederating toget,er and mutua##6 ,e#&ing one
anot,er, 2it, trea*,er6 and evident &remeditation, 2it, de#iberate intent, 2it, intent
to 3i##, did t,en and t,ere s,ot one '#e)andro =#ores a#ias '#eG 2it, t,e said ,andguns,
,itting ,im on t,e di11erent &arts o1 ,is bod6, t,ereb6 in1#i*ting u&on ,im t,e
1o##o2ing &,6si*a# in)uries:
%'RD;@ R?"P;R'+@R 'RR?"+ DB? +@ ":@%N 'ND
:?(@RR:'G? "?%@ND'R +@ (B7+;P7? GBN":@+ >@BND" +@
+:? +RBNN 'ND +:? :?'D
as a *onseFuen*e o1 2,i*, t,e said '#e)andro =#ores a#ias '#eG died #ater.
%@N+R'R +@ 7'>.
4.5
't t,e time o1 t,e in*ident, a&&e##ant 'brio#, a &o#i*eman &revious#6 detai#ed as a )ai#guard
at t,e Iagong Iu,a6 Re,abi#itation %enter 8IIR%9 in %ebu %it6, 2as ,imse#1 a detention
&risoner in IIR%. :e 2as *,arged 2it, murder, a non!bai#ab#e o11ense, in %rimina# %ase No.
%IB!.8803 be1ore t,e R+% o1 %ebu %it6, Iran*, 10.
435
'&&e##ant 'ste##ero 2as a 1ormer &risoner at IIR%, 2,o ,ad served time 1or grave t,reats.
405
+,e 2arden t,en, %,ie1 ;ns&e*tor Nava#es,
455
em&#o6ed ,im as ,is &ersona# driver and genera#
1a*totum.
465
Nava#es 2as 1ound gui#t6 o1 grave mis*ondu*t in 'dministrative %ase No. /1!93 1or
a##o2ing 'brio# and Dosdos out o1 IIR% on t,e da6 o1 t,e murder and 2as summari#6
dismissed 1rom t,e &o#i*e 1or*e.
Dosdos ,ad been *onvi*ted b6 t,e R+% o1 %ebu %it6, Iran*, 1/, o1 ,ig,2a6 robber6 in
%rimina# %ase No. %IB!1815. but Nava#es 1ai#ed to a*t on t,e mittimus ordering DosdosA
trans1er to t,e nationa# &enitentiar6, and ,e remained in IIR%.
4-5
'brio# and Dosdos en)o6ed
s&e*ia# &rivi#eges at IIR% as t,e 2ardenAs errand bo6s
485
or Ktrustees.L
+,e vi*tim, '#e)andro =#ores a#ias K'#eG,L 2as a 1ormer &o#i*eman. :e 2as dismissed 1rom
t,e PNP in 'ugust 199. a1ter testing &ositive 1or &ro,ibited drugs.
495
'brio#, 'ste##ero, and Dosdos 2ere a#so indi*ted 1or i##ega# &ossession o1 1irearms in
%rimina# %ase No. %IB!33660. +,e *,arge s,eet reads:
+,at on or about t,e 5
t,
da6 o1 June 1993 at about 11:08 P.(. in t,e %it6 o1 %ebu,
P,i#i&&ines, and 2it,in t,e )urisdi*tion o1 t,is :onorab#e %ourt, t,e said a**used,
*onniving and *on1ederating toget,er and mutua##6 ,e#&ing one anot,er, 2it,
de#iberate intent, did t,en and t,ere 3ee& under t,eir *ontro# and &ossession t,e
1o##o2ing:
1. one 819 .38 *a#. revo#ver 8'rms*or9 2it, "N P/8005 2it, siG
em&t6 s,e##sH
.. one 819 .05 *a#. &isto# 8%o#t9 2it, "N P6/135/6 2it, 9 #ive
ammunitions 8si*9H
3. one 819 .05 *a#. Pisto# 8%o#t9 2it, "N 5.069 2it, 1ive #ive
ammunitions.
2it,out 1irst obtaining a &ermit or #i*ense t,ere1or 1rom *om&etent aut,orit6.
%@N+R'R +@ 7'>.
41/5
>,en arraigned, a## t,e a**used &#eaded not gui#t6 to bot, *,arges. "in*e t,e indi*tments
arose 1rom t,e same in*ident, t,e *ases 2ere )oint#6 tried.
+,e 1a*ts o1 t,e *ase are as 1o##o2s:
't around 11:5/ P.(., June 5, 1993, Romeo "ta. %ru$, Jr., a radio ne2s re&orter t,en aboard
,is )ee&, ,ad )ust rea*,ed t,e 'I"!%IN *om&ound in P. de# Rosario "treet, %ebu %it6, 2,en ,e
,eard a *ou&#e o1 guns,ots. :e #oo3ed around and sa2 a man running unsteadi#6 to2ards t,e
interse*tion o1 P. de# Rosario "treet and Jones 'venue 8@smeOa Iou#evard9. +,e man 2as
s,outing -abang) tabang. 8K:e#&P :e#&PL9. "ta. %ru$, Jr., sa2 a red KJi116L ma3e a B!turn near
t,e gate o1 t,e *it6 *entra# s*,oo# t,at near#6 ran over t,e man s,outing 1or ,e#&. +,e man turned
ba*3 and staggered to2ards t,e dire*tion o1 Ia*a#so 'venue and Brge##o Private Road, but a1ter
a 1e2 meters on 2obb#6 #egs, ,e sto&&ed and *o##a&sed.
(ean2,i#e, t,e KJi116L 1o##o2ed. ;t sto&&ed beside t,e 1a##en 1igure and a ta##, t,in man
a#ig,ted. +,e man 1ired severa# s,ots at t,e &rostrate 1igure. :e boarded t,e KJi116L 2,i*, s&ed
a2a6 to2ards 7eon Ni#at "treet. Romeo "ta. %ru$, Jr., moved ,is )ee& and 1o*used its ,ead#ig,ts
on t,e vi*tim.
;n t,e meantime, P@3 '#eGander Ruste#a 2as at a vu#*ani$ing s,o& near t,e interse*tion o1
Ia*a#so 'venue and 7eon Ni#at "treet, 2,en ,e ,eard guns,ots *oming 1rom t,e nort,. :e ran
to2ards 2,ere t,e guns,ots *ame and sa2 &eo&#e s*am&ering. '## o1 a sudden, t,e KJi116L 2it,
t,ree &ersons on board s&ed &ast ,im and made an abru&t #e1t turn at 7eon Ni#at "treet. Ruste#a
immediate#6 radioed 1or assistan*e. (inutes #ater, &atro# *ar No. ./1 2it, P@. :erbert Ramos
on board arrived. Ruste#a boarded t,e *ar and t,e6 1o##o2ed t,e KJi116,L 2,i#e broad*asting an
a#arm to &o#i*e ,eadFuarters and ot,er mobi#e &atro# *ars.
@n nearb6 %o#on "treet, "P@1 ?#ea$ar 'brigana and P@. Romeo 'be##ana 2ere *ruising
aboard &atro# *ar No. ./8, 2,en t,e6 ,eard a radio message t,at t,e sus&e*ts in t,e s,ooting
in*ident 2ere aboard a KJi116.L 's t,e6 turned #e1t at 7eon Ni#at "treet, t,e6 sa2 t,e KJi116L
,eading to2ards %arbon (ar3et. +,e6 &ursued t,e KJi116L 2,i*, sto&&ed in 1ront o1 t,e Don
Ios*o Iui#ding near IIR%, 2,en &o#i*e *ar No. ./5, 2it, P@ ?ugenio Iadrinas and P@.
Gera#d %ue aboard, b#o*3ed t,e KJi116AsL &at,. %ue 1ired a 2arning s,ot and t,ree &ersons
a#ig,ted. +,e driver 2as a&&e##ant 'ste##ero, 2,om %ue ,ad re*ogni$ed and seen be1ore at t,e
IIR%. 'brigana and %ue a&&roa*,ed t,e trio 2,o stood a meter a2a6 1rom t,e KJi116.L "P@1
'brigana 1ris3ed 'brio# and sei$ed 1rom ,is 2aist a .38 *a#iber revo#ver 2it, seria# number
P@8085 2it, siG 869 em&t6 s,e##s in its *6#inder.
4115
Bnder 'brio#As seat, t,e &o#i*e a#so 1ound a .
05 *a#iber &isto# bearing seria# number PG@ 135/6 2it, nine 899 #ive rounds in its maga$ine and
anot,er .05 *a#iber &isto# 2it, seria# number 5.069 #oaded 2it, 1ive 859 un1ired bu##ets.
41.5
>,i#e t,e &atro# *ars 2ere *,asing t,e KJi116,L anot,er &o#i*e team &ro*eeded to t,e *rime
s*ene in res&onse to t,e a#arm. +,is team 1rom Po#i*e "tation No. 3 in "an Ni*o#as, %ebu %it6
rus,ed t,e vi*tim to t,e %ebu %it6 (edi*a# %enter, 2,ere ,e 2as &ronoun*ed dead on
arriva#. (ean2,i#e, P@3 %e#so "evi##e, Jr., a ,omi*ide investigator o1 Po#i*e "tation No. 3 1ound
1our 809 .05 *a#iber s,e##s some 1our 809 1eet a2a6 1rom t,e vi*timAs bod6, and t2o 8.9 de1ormed
s#ugs 2,ere t,e vi*tim ,ad #ain, and submitted t,em to t,e Region - PNP %rime 7aborator6 1or
ba##isti*s testing.
4135
Dr. 7adis#ao Dio#a, Jr., %,ie1 o1 t,e PNP Region - %rime 7aborator6 auto&sied t,e vi*timAs
bod6. :e 1ound t,at t,e *ause o1 t,e vi*timAs deat, 2as K*ardiores&irator6 arrest due to s,o*3
and ,emorr,age se*ondar6 to mu#ti&#e guns,ot 2ounds to t,e trun3 and ,ead.L
4105
Dr. Dio#a
re*overed a .38 *a#iber s#ug 1rom t,e *or&se, 2,i*, ,e #ater submitted 1or ba##isti*s eGamination.
"P@0 7emue# %aser, ba##isti*ian o1 t,e PNP %rime 7aborator6, re&orted t,e 1o##o2ing:
1. =ired *artridge *ases mar3ed KJ'!1L to KJ'!3L &ossesses simi#ar individua#
*,ara*teristi*s mar3ings 2it, t,e test *artridge *ases 1ired 1rom *a# .05 2it, "N:
PG@135/6H
.. =ired *artridge *ases mar3ed KJ'!0L and K?!69!6L &ossesses simi#ar individua#
*,ara*teristi*s mar3ings 2it, t,e test *artridge *ases 1ired 1rom *a# .05 &isto# 2it, "N:
5.069H
3. =ired bu##et meta# )a*3et mar3ed KJ'!5L &ossesses simi#ar individua# *,ara*teristi*s
mar3ings 2it, test bu##ets 1ired 1rom *a# .05 &isto# 2it, "N: PG@135/6H
0. =ired *artridge *ases mar3ed K?!05!1L to K?!05!6L &ossesses simi#ar individua#
*,ara*teristi*s mar3ings 2it, t,e test *artridge *ases 1ired 1rom *a# .38 Rev. "N:
P8005H
5. =ired bu##ets mar3ed as KJ'!6L and K7DL &ossesses simi#ar individua# *,ara*teristi*
mar3ings 2it, t,e test bu##ets 1ired 1rom *a# .38 Rev. "N: P8005.
4155
+,e 1o##o2ing da6, a&&e##ants under2ent a &ara11in test. +,e ,ands o1 a&&e##ants 2ere 1ound
&ositive 1or gun&o2der residues. ' *,emistr6 test on t,e 1irearms s,o2ed t,at t,e t,ree
,andguns 2ere a#so &ositive. ;ns&e*tor (6rna 'reo#a, %,ie1 o1 t,e %,emistr6 "e*tion o1 t,e
PNP Region - %rime 7aborator6, stated in ,er testimon6 t,at t,e 1irearms ,ad been 1ired,
4165
and
t,at a&&e##ants ,ad 1ired t,e guns 2it,in a &eriod o1 sevent6!t2o 8-.9 ,ours &rior to t,e
eGamination.
+,e 2ido2 and re#atives o1 t,e vi*tim testi1ied on t,e &ossib#e motive be,ind t,e
3i##ing. +,e6 *#aimed t,e vi*tim, a *on1essed drug user, ma6 ,ave been Krubbed outL on t,e
orders o1 Nava#es 1or 1ai#ure to remit P31,/// as &ro*eeds 1rom &us,ing &ro,ibited drugs. '1ter
1ai#ing to de#iver t,e drug mone6 to Nava#es, 1or 2,om ,e 2as re&eated#6 &us,ing drugs, t,e
vi*tim 2ent into ,iding, but #ater returned to %ebu %it6 be*ause ,e missed ,is 1ami#6.
41-5
'&&e##ants den6 t,e a**usations. 'brio# averred t,at ,e and Dosdos 2ere among t,e severa#
KtrusteesL at IIR% assigned to 2or3 in t,e 3it*,en. '&&e##ant 'ste##ero, 2,o 2as t,e 2ardenAs
driver, 2as a#so in *,arge o1 mar3eting 1or t,e &risonersA 1ood. @n t,e da6 o1 t,e in*ident,
'ste##ero rea#i$ed t,at t,ere 2as no mone6 1or t,e neGt da6As mar3eting so ,e as3ed 'brio# to
a**om&an6 ,im to t,e ,ouse o1 Nava#es, but sin*e ,e 2as not in, t,e6 returned to IIR% and sa2
Nava#es an ,our #ater. '1ter t,e6 re*eived t,e mone6 1rom Nava#esA nie*e on t,eir 2a6 ba*3 to
IIR%, Dosdos ,eard guns,ots. 'brio# ordered 'ste##ero, 2,o 2as driving, to turn ba*3. +,en
'brio# *#aimed ,e sa2 a ta##, s#im man a#ig,t 1rom a KJi116L and s,oot at a &rone 1igure on t,e
ground. "e*onds #ater, t,e gunman returned to t,e KJi116,L 2,i*, s&ed o11. 'brio# said ,e
ordered 'ste##ero to *,ase t,at KJi116L but it ,ad too mu*, o1 a ,eadstart and t,e6 #ost sig,t o1
it. 'brio# ordered 'ste##ero to &ro*eed to IIR%. 't %o#on "treet, t,e6 ,eard guns,ots be,ind
t,em and t,e b#aring siren o1 a &o#i*e *ar. +,e6 eG&#ained t,at sin*e t,e6 2ere detention
&risoners, t,e6 ,ad to evade meeting t,e &o#i*e. +,e6 ,eard more gun s,ots. B&on rea*,ing
IIR%, t,e gates 2ere *#osed, so t,e6 drove to t,e o#d air&ort. @n t,eir 2a6 ba*3 to IIR%
severa# &o#i*e *ars b#o*3ed t,em and arrested t,em. "P@0 ?#ea$ar 'brigana 1ris3ed ,im and
too3 t,e .38 servi*e revo#ver 1rom ,is 2aist.
4185
'brio# a#so testi1ied t,at ,e surrendered ,is servi*e 1irearm to t,e IIR% 'dministrative
@11i*er 2,en ,e 2as served a 2arrant o1 arrest 1or murder in %rimina# %ase No. %IB!
.8803. :o2ever, t,e ,andgun 2as de1e*tive and it 2as returned to ,im 1or re&air b6 'rms*or,
and u&on re&air ,e ,anded it over to t,e IIR% armor6. +,e armorer returned it to ,im sin*e
t,ere 2as no &#a*e to 3ee& it. :e said t,at a#t,oug, ,e 2as a detention &risoner, ,e ,ad 6et to be
dis*,arged 1rom t,e servi*e. :e 2as assigned guard and es*ort duties b6 t,e 2arden.
4195
'brio#
said t,at on t,e da6 o1 t,e in*ident ,e 2as, as a IIR% )ai#guard, aut,ori$ed to *arr6 ,is servi*e
1irearm.
4./5
:e &resented a (emorandum Re*ei&t
4.15
aut,ori$ing ,im to *arr6 t,e government!
issued .38 revo#ver.
4..5
@n t,e 2itness stand, 'ste##ero and Dosdos narrated a simi#ar version o1 t,e in*ident as did
'brio#. Iot, ve,ement#6 denied ,aving an6 3no2#edge o1 t,e t2o .05 *a#iber &isto#s 1ound b6
P@3 %ue in t,e KJi116.L
4.35
+,e de1ense a#so &resented Dr. Jesus P. %erna, medi*o!#ega# o11i*er o1 t,e %ebu %it6 PNP
%ommand, to testi16 on t,e *a#iber o1 t,e 1irearms 2,i*, mig,t ,ave *aused t,e guns,ot 2ounds
o1 t,e vi*tim. Re#6ing on t,e Ne*ro&s6 Re&ort &re&ared b6 Dr. Dio#a, Dr. %erna de*#ared t,at
2ound nos. 1 and ., 2,i*, ea*, measured /.6 *m. b6 /.6 *m., ma6 ,ave been *aused b6 a .38
*a#iber 1irearm. 's to 2ound nos. 3 and 0, 2,i*, ea*, measured /.5 *m. b6 /.5 *m., it 2as
&ossib#e t,at a .38 ,andgun 2as used, or one 2it, a sma##er bore. Dr. %erna o&ined t,at a .05
&isto# *ou#d not ,ave in1#i*ted a## t,e 1oregoing 2ounds, as t,e entr6 &oints 2ere too sma## 1or a .
05 *a#iber bu##et. >it, res&e*t to t,e gra$ing 2ounds 1ound on t,e vi*timAs bod6, Dr. %erna
testi1ied t,at it 2as im&ossib#e to determine t,e *a#iber o1 t,e 1irearm used.
4.05
+,e tria# *ourt 1ound a&&e##antsA version o1 t,e in*ident neit,er *onvin*ing and *redib#e and,
as ear#ier stated, it be#ieved t,e &rose*utionAs version. PetitionersA 2ere *onvi*ted o1 t,e o11enses
*,arged.
:en*e, t,is a&&ea#, 2it, a&&e##ants assigning t,e 1o##o2ing errors:
I
+:? 7@>?R %@BR+ ?RR?D ;N %@N<;%+;NG +:? '%%B"?D!'PP?77'N+"
@= +:? %R;(?" @= (BRD?R 'ND ;77?G'7 P@""?"";@N @= =;R?'R("
D?"P;+? +:? =7;(" 'ND BNR?7;'I7? ?<;D?N%? PR?"?N+?D I +:?
PR@"?%B+;@N.
II
+:? 7@>?R %@BR+ ?RR?D ;N =;ND;NG +:? GB;7+ @= +:? '%%B"?D!
'PP?77'N+" @= +:? %R;(? @= (BRD?R 'ND ;77?G'7 P@""?"";@N @=
=;R?'R(" I?@ND R?'"@N'I7? D@BI+.
't issue is 2,et,er t,e &rose*utionAs eviden*e, 2,i*, is main#6 *ir*umstantia#, su11i*es to
*onvi*t a&&e##ants 1or murder and vio#ation o1 Presidentia# De*ree No. 1866, be6ond reasonab#e
doubt.
A. Criinal Case No. C!"-#$#%$
@n t,eir *onvi*tion 1or murder, a&&e##ants argue t,at t,e &rose*utionAs *ir*umstantia#
eviden*e against t,em is 2ea3, ambiguous, and in*on*#usive. "&e*i1i*a##6, a&&e##ants *ontend
t,at t,e6 s,ou#d be a*Fuitted be*ause:
/irst, e6e2itness Romeo "ta. %ru$, Jr., did not &ersona##6 identi16 t,em as t,e *u#&rits. 't
no &oint in ,is testimon6 did e6e2itness "ta. %ru$, Jr., &ositive#6 identi16 an6 o1 t,e a&&e##ants or
a&&e##ant 'brio# as t,e gunman. "ta. %ru$, Jr. on#6 gave a genera# des*ri&tion o1 t,e assai#ants,
des&ite attem&ts to ma3e ,im give a *ategori*a# identi1i*ation. :e admitted ,e 1ound out t,e
name o1 'brio# 1rom te#evision and ne2s re&orts and *ou#d not identi16 'brio# as t,e one 2,om
,e sa2 s,ot t,e vi*tim. +,e trans*ri&t o1 ,is testimon6 is revea#ing.
Q: +,en a1ter t,e Ji116 sto&&ed in 1ront o1 t,e 1a##en vi*tim, 2,at ,a&&ened neGtQ
': ; sa2 t,at t,ere 2as a man 2,o disembar3ed 1rom t,e Ji116. :e 2as a ta##, t,in 1e##o2 2,o
disembar3ed 1rom t,e Ji116 and at t,e same time, ,e s,ot t,e 1a##en vi*tim.
Q: :o2 man6 times did ,e s,oot t,e vi*timQ
': ; *annot *ount attorne6 but ; sa2 ,im s,ooting t,e vi*tim.
Q: ;n 6our a11idavit, 6ou said t,at t,e &erson 2,o disembar3ed 1rom t,e Ji116, 2,ose name 6ou
3no2 #ater on as P@. '#bert 'brio#, PNP, s,ot t,e vi*tim in t,e di11erent &arts o1 ,is bod6. ;1
'#bert 'brio# is no2 in t,e *ourtroom, 2i## 6ou &#ease &oint to ,imQ
': ; 2i## 3no2 ,im attorne6 be*ause o1 t,e +< s,o2s and ne2s&a&ers.
%@BR+: 8+@ >;+N?""9
Q: ou are re1erring to t,e name o1 t,at man 2,o disembar3ed 1rom t,e Ji116 and 1ired severa# s,ots
at t,e 1a##en vi*timQ
': es, ; 3no2 ,is name our :onor on 8si*9 t,e ne2s *ast.
%@BR+: 8+@ >;+N?""9
Q: '#rig,t, 1orget t,e ne2s. +,e man 6ou sa2 2,en ,e a#ig,ted 1rom t,e Ji116 and &oured 8si*9
severa# bu##ets on t,e 1a##en man, #oo3 around i1 ,e is in t,e *ourtroomQ
': I !annot identiy 0our 1onor.
%@BR+:
Q: ou *annotQ
': 2ut 3be!ause4 what I saw is a man who is tall and thin be!ause it was dark.
G G G
Q: :o2 man6 &ersons 1ired a s,ot at t,e 1a##en manQ
': ; on#6 sa2 t,at man our :onor 2,o a#ig,ted 1rom t,e Ji116.
Q: Did 6ou see ,is &,6si*a# 1eaturesQ
': Only 5t6his) I !an only tell his height) he was tall and his body build is thin. -all and
thin. 8?m&,asis su&&#ied9
4.55
"in*e t,e so#e e6e2itness *ou#d not identi16 t,e gunman and ,is *om&anions, t,e
&rose*ution re#ied on *ir*umstantia# eviden*e 1rom 2,i*, t,e tria# *ourt *ou#d dra2 its 1indings
and *on*#usion o1 *u#&abi#it6.
4.65
%ir*umstantia# eviden*e ma6 be re#ied u&on, as in t,is *ase,
2,en to insist on dire*t testimon6 2ou#d resu#t in setting 1e#ons 1ree.
Se!ond, a&&e##ants assert t,at t,e &ara11in tests are )udi*ia##6 re*ogni$ed as unre#iab#e and
in*on*#usive. ' &ara11in test *ou#d estab#is, t,e &resen*e or absen*e o1 nitrates on t,e
,and. :o2ever, it *annot estab#is, t,at t,e sour*e o1 t,e nitrates 2as t,e dis*,arge o1
1irearms. Nitrates are a#so 1ound in substan*es ot,er t,an gun&o2der. ' &erson 2,o tests
&ositive ma6 ,ave ,and#ed one or more substan*es 2it, t,e same &ositive rea*tion 1or nitrates
su*, as eG&#osives, 1ire2or3s, 1erti#i$ers, &,arma*euti*a#s, toba**o, and #eguminous
&#ants. :en*e, t,e &resen*e o1 nitrates s,ou#d on#6 be ta3en as an indi*ation o1 a &ossibi#it6 t,at
a &erson ,as 1ired a gun.
4.-5
:o2ever, it must be borne in mind t,at a&&e##ants 2ere not *onvi*ted
on t,e so#e basis o1 t,e &ara11in test.
-hird, a&&e##ants *#aim t,at t,e auto&s6 re&ort o1 &rose*ution 2itness Dr. 7adis#ao Dio#a
revea#ed serious ambiguities.
4.85
Dr. Jesus P. %erna, using t,e same auto&s6 re&ort, said t,at t,e
guns,ot 2ounds measuring /.6 G /.6 *entimeters *ou#d not ,ave been *aused b6 a .05 *a#iber
&isto# be*ause an entran*e 2ound o1 t,at si$e 2as too sma## 1or a .05 *a#iber bu##et.
4.95
Dr. %erna
*#aimed t,at a 2ound in1#i*ted b6 a .05 &isto# 2ou#d ,ave an entr6 &oint o1 an62,ere 1rom 1.1 to
1.3 *entimeters. :e de*#ared t,at it 2as 2it, more reason t,at an entran*e 2ound measuring .5 G
.5 *entimeters *ou#d not be *aused b6 a *a#iber .05 bu##et.
43/5
"in*e no 1irearm sma##er t,an a .38
*a#iber &isto# 2as sei$ed 1rom a&&e##ants, t,e6 *#aim t,e observation o1 Dr. %erna on#6 s,o2s
t,at t,e6 *ou#d not ,ave s,ot t,e vi*tim.
>e note, ,o2ever, t,at during *ross!eGamination, Dr. Dio#a *are1u##6 eG&#ained t,at a
1irearmAs *a#iber is not t,e on#6 basis 1or determining t,e *ause o1 t,e guns,ot 2ound. :e said:
'++. R?(@+;QB?:
Q: "o, norma##6 t,e si$e o1 .5 *m G .5 *m 2,i*, is t,e &oint o1 entr6 o1 guns,ot 2ound No. 3 t,is
ma6 ,ave been *aused b6 a 1irearm o1 #esser *a#iber t,an *a#iber .38Q
': Not ne*essari#6. +,ere is a ver6 sma## di11eren*e in t,e si$e and t,is does not &re*#ude t,at
guns,ot 2ound No. 3 ma6 ,ave a#so been *aused b6 t,e same 1irearm 2,i*, *aused guns,ot
2ounds Nos. 1 and .. -here are a!tors whi!h oten ae!t the si(e o the wounds at the time o
the e7amination) perhaps a re!ission 5si!6 o the skin in the area where gunshot &ound %o. 8 was
inli!ted so that gunshot wound be!omes smaller.
Q: Did 6ou not sa6 t,at norma##6 t,e &oint o1 entr6 o1 t,e guns,ot 2ounds var6 2it, t,e *a#iber o1
t,e 1irearm 2,i*, *aused it, so t,at t,e &oint o1 entr6 *aused b6 one 1irearm o1 a &arti*u#ar *a#iber
ma6 be bigger t,an t,e &oint o1 entr6 o1 a guns,ot 2ound *aused b6 anot,er 1irearm o1 #esser
*a#iberQ
': I told you o other a!tors that oten ae!t the si(e o the entry o the bullet although the !aliber
is one basis o the si(e o the wounds.
G G G
Q: >i## 6ou eG&#ain 1urt,er on t,at be*ause m6 understanding is t,at .5 *m 2ound must &er1or*e be
*aused b6 a 1irearm o1 #esser *a#iber t,an t,at 2,i*, *aused t,e .6 *m 2oundQ
': 's ; said t,ere are ranges in t,e si$e o1 t,e 2ounds. +,e varian*e in t,e si$e o1 t,e 2ound 2,en
it is minima# does not eG*#ude t,e &ossibi#it6 t,at a 2ound 2it, a .5 *m si$e and .6 *m si$e *ou#d
,ave been *aused b6 t,e same *a#iber. 8?m&,asis su&&#ied9.
4315
+,e @11i*e o1 t,e "o#i*itor Genera# &oints out t,at Dr. Dio#aAs testimon6 is su&&orted b6 Dr.
Pedro P. "o#is, a medi*a# eG&ert, in ,is boo3 entit#ed Legal *edi!ine. +,e 1a*tors 2,i*, *ou#d
ma3e t,e 2ound o1 entran*e bigger t,an t,e *a#iber in*#ude: 819 s,ooting in *onta*t or near 1ireH
8.9 de1ormit6 o1 t,e bu##et 2,i*, enteredH 839 a bu##et 2,i*, mig,t ,ave entered t,e s3in
side2iseH and 809 an a*ute angu#ar a&&roa*, o1 t,e bu##et. :o2ever, 2,ere t,e 2ound o1
entran*e is sma##er t,an t,e 1irearmAs *a#iber, t,e same ma6 be attributed to t,e 1ragmentation o1
t,e bu##et be1ore entering t,e s3in or to a !ontra!tion o the elasti! tissues o the skin8stress
su&&#ied9.
43.5
Dr. Dio#a testi1ied t,at a .05 *a#iber &isto# *ou#d ,ave *aused t,e gra$ing 2ounds on
t,e vi*timAs ,ead and eGtremities.
4335
Dr. %erna *orroborated Dr. Dio#aAs 1indings in t,is regard.
4305
"u*, eG&ert o&inions dis&rove a&&e##antsA t,eor6 t,at t,e .05 *a#iber ,andguns *on1is*ated
1rom t,em *ou#d not ,ave been used in 3i##ing t,e vi*tim.
/ourth, a&&e##ants a##ege t,at t,e testimon6 o1 PE;ns&e*tor 7emue# %aser, t,e &rose*utionAs
ba##isti*s eG&ert, *#ear#6 s,o2s t,at: 819 :e is ignorant about su*, ba##isti*s instruments su*, as
t,e mi*rometer, goniometer, and &ressure barre#.
4355
8.9 :e is not *onversant 2it, Kt,e reFuired
re1eren*es *on*erning ba##isti*s,L &arti*u#ar#6 boo3s on t,e sub)e*t b6 1oreign aut,orities.
4365
839
:e *ou#d not Ks*ienti1i*a##6 determine t,e *a#iber o1 a bu##et.L
43-5
"in*e PE;ns&e*tor %aser #a*3ed
adeFuate training and eG&ertise in ba##isti*s, t,e6 *#aim t,at ,is o&inion t,at t,e test bu##ets and
*artridges mat*,ed t,e s#ugs and *artridges re*overed 1rom t,e s*ene o1 t,e *rime 2as not
re#iab#e. '&&e##ants a#so assai# %aserAs 1ai#ure to ta3e t,e ne*essar6 &,otogra&,s to su&&ort ,is
1indings.
'n eG&ert 2itness is Kone 2,o be#ongs to t,e &ro1ession or *a##ing to 2,i*, t,e sub)e*t
matter o1 t,e inFuir6 re#ates and 2,o &ossesses s&e*ia# 3no2#edge on Fuestions on 2,i*, ,e
&ro&oses to eG&ress an o&inion.L
4385
+,ere is no de1inite standard o1 determining t,e degree o1
s3i## or 3no2#edge t,at a 2itness must &ossess in order to testi16 as an eG&ert. ;t is su11i*ient t,at
t,e 1o##o2ing 1a*tors be &resent: 819 training and edu*ationH 8.9 &arti*u#ar, 1irst!,and 1ami#iarit6
2it, t,e 1a*ts o1 t,e *aseH and 839 &resentation o1 aut,orities or standards u&on 2,i*, ,is o&inion
is based.
4395
+,e Fuestion o1 2,et,er a 2itness is &ro&er#6 Fua#i1ied to give an eG&ert o&inion on
ba##isti*s rests 2it, t,e dis*retion o1 t,e tria# *ourt.
40/5
;n giving *reden*e to %aserAs eG&ert testimon6, t,e tria# *ourt eG&#ained:
+,e de1ense do2ngraded t,e *a&abi#it6 o1 %aser in 1orensi*s ba##isti*s and identi16ing
1irearms. (u*, stress is given to t,e absen*e o1 &,otogra&,s o1 ,is
eGamination. Nonet,e#ess, t,e %ourt is satis1ied 82it,9 %aserAs eGamination, 1indings
and *on*#usions 2it, t,e use o1 a mi*ros*o&e. %aserAs *on*#usion based on ,is
eGamination deserves *redit. :e 1ound t,e im&ressions on t,e &rimer o1 t,e 1ired
*artridges t,at 2ere test!1ired to ,ave t,e same *,ara*teristi*s 2it, t,ose re*overed at
t,e s*ene o1 t,e *rime. >,enever a triggerman &um&s a bu##et 8into9 t,e bod6 o1 ,is
vi*tim, ,e re#eases a *,un3 o1 *on*rete eviden*e t,at binds ,im inse&arab#6 to ,is
a*t. ?ver6 gun barre# dee&#6 im&rints on ever6 bu##et its *,ara*teristi* mar3ing
&e*u#iar to t,at gun and t,at gun a#one. +,ese mar3ing mig,t be mi*ros*o&i* but t,e6
are terrib#6 vo*a# in announ*ing t,eir origin. 'nd t,e6 are as in1a##ib#e 1or &ur&oses o1
identi1i*ation, as t,e &rint #e1t b6 t,e ,uman 1inger.
4015
>e agree 2it, t,e tria# *ourt t,at PE;ns&e*tor %aser Fua#i1ies as a ba##isti*s eG&ert. :e is a
#i*ensed *rimino#ogist, trained at t,e Ia##isti*s %ommand and 7aborator6 %enter in =ort
Ioni1a*io, in t,e PNP %rime 7aborator6 in %am& %rame, and in t,e Nationa# Iureau o1
;nvestigation. :e ,ad &revious#6 testi1ied as an eG&ert 2itness in at #east t2ent6!seven 8.-9
murder and ,omi*ide *ases a## over t,e *ountr6.
40.5
'n eG&ert 2itness need not &resent
*om&arative mi*ro&,otogra&,s o1 test bu##ets and *artridges to su&&ort ,is 1indings.
4035
?Gamination under a *om&arison mi*ros*o&e s,o2ing t,at t,e test bu##et and t,e eviden*e
bu##et bot, *ame 1rom t,e same gun is su11i*ient.
4005
(oreover, t,e ba##isti*ian *on*#usive#6 1ound
simi#ar *,ara*teristi* mar3ings in t,e eviden*e, test *artridges and s#ugs.
/ith, a&&e##ants aver t,at t,e &rose*ution 1ai#ed to s,o2 an6 &#ausib#e motive 1or a&&e##ants
to 3i## t,e vi*tim. +,e &rose*ution tried to &rove t,at t,eir *o!a**used Nava#es instigated t,em to
3i## t,e vi*tim be*ause Nava#es ,ad a grudge against ,im. :o2ever, as Nava#es 2as a*Fuitted,
a&&e##ants insist t,at Nava#esA a*Fuitta# s,ou#d redound to t,eir bene1it sin*e no motive 2as
im&uted on t,eir &art.
(otive is not an essentia# e#ement o1 a *rime,
4055
&arti*u#ar#6 o1 murder.
4065
;t be*omes re#evant
on#6 2,ere t,ere is no &ositive eviden*e o1 an a**usedAs dire*t &arti*i&ation in t,e *ommission o1
a *rime.
40-5
"tated ot,er2ise, &roo1 o1 motive be*omes essentia# to a *onvi*tion on#6 2,ere t,e
eviden*e o1 an a**usedAs &arti*i&ation in an o11ense is *ir*umstantia#.
4085
' *are1u# &erusa# o1 t,e
"tateAs eviden*e revea#s t,at t,e &rose*ution ,ad estab#is,ed su11i*ient motive 2,6 a&&e##ants
3i##ed t,e vi*tim, inde&endent o1 an6 grudge 2,i*, Nava#es ma6 ,ave ,ad against t,e #atter. 't
t,e time o1 t,e in*ident, a&&e##ants 'brio# and Dosdos 2ere bot, IIR% detention &risoners
during Nava#esA term as 2arden. 'brio# and Dosdos 2ere treated as ,ig,#6 1avored KtrusteesL o1
Nava#es and 2ere never #o*3ed u&. 'brio# and Dosdos 2ere even a##o2ed to go out o1 IIR% to
do t,e mar3eting 1or t,e &risonAs 3it*,en. '&&e##ant 'ste##ero, a 1ormer detention &risoner, 2as
a#so a re*i&ient o1 Nava#esA 1avors. Nava#es ,ired 'ste##ero as ,is &ersona# driver a1ter t,e #atter
served ,is senten*e. Nava#es and t,e vi*tim, a 1ormer IIR% )ai#guard, 2ere asso*iates in
dea#ing 2it, &ro,ibited drugs, unti# t,e6 ,ad a 1a##ing out a##eged#6 a1ter t,e vi*tim 1ai#ed to
remit to Nava#es &ro*eeds 1rom t,e sa#e o1 i##ega# drugs amounting to P31,///. '&&e##ants
a&&arent#6 3i##ed t,e vi*tim to return t,e Ks&e*ia# 1avorsL Nava#es ,ad s,o2ered t,em. 7a*3 o1 a
motive does not ne*essari#6 &re*#ude *onvi*tion. Persons ,ave been 3i##ed or assau#ted 1or no
reason at a##, and 1riends,i& or even re#ations,i& is no deterrent to t,e *ommission o1 a *rime.
4095
Si7th) in t,e &resent *ase, a&&e##ants *ontend t,at t,e PNP *annot be &resumed to ,ave done
t,eir 2or3 sin*e it *ommitted errors and b#unders in trans1erring &ossession and *ustod6 o1 t,e
&,6si*a# eviden*e. +,e6 a##ege t,ere 2as a &ossibi#it6 t,at t,e eviden*e 2as tainted, &#anted, or
manu1a*tured. Iesides, a&&e##ants &oint out t,at t,e &resum&tion o1 regu#arit6 *annot &revai#
over t,e *onstitutiona# &resum&tion o1 inno*en*e o1 t,e a**used.
+,e re*ord s,o2s t,at t,e &o#i*e o11i*ers did not issue a*3no2#edgement re*ei&ts in some
instan*es. :o2ever, minor #a&ses do not mean t,at t,e "tate ,ad 1ai#ed to s,o2 an unbro3en
*,ain o1 *ustod6 o1 t,e sub)e*t 1irearms and ammunition, nor t,at said 1irearms and ammunition
2ere tam&ered. +,e s#ugs and s&ent s,e##s re*overed 1rom t,e s*ene o1 t,e *rime and t,e
vi*timAs *or&se 2ere &#ain#6 identi1ied in o&en *ourt b6 t,e PNP investigators. +,e ba##isti*ian
testi1ied t,at t,e bu##ets and *artridges re*overed 1rom t,e *rime s*ene ,ad been 1ired 1rom t,e
sub)e*t ,andguns. Bnder t,ese *ir*umstan*es, 2e must res&e*t t,e &resum&tion o1 t,e regu#arit6
in t,e &er1orman*e o1 duties.
Seventh) a&&e##ants insist t,at t,e &rose*ution 1ai#ed to s,o2 t,at t,e red KJi116L used b6
t,em and sei$ed b6 t,e &o#i*e o11i*ers 2as t,e same ve,i*#e used b6 t,e gunmen 2,o 3i##ed
'#e)andro =#ores. '&&e##ants &oint out t,at P@3 Ruste#a, 2,o 2as aboard &o#i*e *ar No. ./1,
testi1ied t,at t,e6 #ost sig,t o1 t,e red KJi116L 2,i#e *,asing it a#ong 7eon Ni#at
"treet. '&&e##ants argue t,at t,e KJi116L 2,i*, 2as *,ased b6 &atro# *ar No. ./8 unti# it 2as
*ornered near IIR% b6 t,e ot,er &ursuing &atro# *ars 2as not t,e same ve,i*#e origina##6
sig,ted and tai#ed b6 &atro# *ar No. ./1.
;n re)e*ting t,is t,eor6, t,e tria# *ourt stated t,at:
MP@3 Ruste#a 2,o 2as nearb6, immediate#6 ran to t,e s*ene o1 t,e *rime and met
t,e red )i116 2it, t,ree &ersons on board, t,at s&eedi#6 &assed b6 ,im &ro*eeding
to2ards 7eon Ni#at "treet. %ar ./8 readi#6 &i*3ed u& t,e trai# and &ursued t,e red
)i116 1rom 7eon Ni#at, t,en ma3ing abru&t turns on do2nto2n streets unti# ot,er &atro#
*ars )oined t,e *,ase and *a&tured t,em in 7a,ug, near t,e IIR%. +,e identit6 o1 t,e
red )i116 2as never interru&ted. (embers o1 t,e (obi#e Patro# %ars identi1ied in *ourt
2it,out batting an e6e#as,, t,e red )i116 2,i*, 2as t,e ob)e*t o1 t,e s,ooting
a#arm. +,ere 2as no interru&tion, no #et!u& in t,e *,ase, rig,t a1ter '#e)andro =#ores
2as s,ot and t,ere 2as no ot,er red )i116 t,at t,e *re2s o1 t,e 8&ursuing9 &atro# *ars
noti*ed.
+,e %ourt re)e*ts t,eir *#aim o1 inno*en*e, 1or t,eir ver6 a*ts be#ied t,e same.
'ste##ero *ou#d ,ave sto&&ed t,e )ee& u&on noti*ing t,at &atro# *ars 2ere a#read6
running a1ter t,em 2it, sirens, b#in3ers and 2arning s,ots 1ired. =rom 7eon Ni#at
"treet to 7a,ug air&ort, t,ere 2ere severa# &o#i*e stations t,at t,e6 *ou#d ,ave soug,t
s,e#ter and &o#i*e assistan*e. Gui#t ,as man6 2a6s o1 sur1a*ing. ;nstead o1 sto&&ing,
'brio# ordered 'ste##ero to a**e#erate t,eir s&eed. +,eir obvious &ur&ose 2as to e#ude
t,e &atro# *ars. =#ig,t is indi*ative o1 gui#t.
45/5
Iut, in t,is *ase, is t,e tota#it6 o1 t,e *ir*umstantia# eviden*e re#ied u&on b6 t,e tria# *ourt
su11i*ient to su&&ort a *onvi*tionQ
%ir*umstantia# eviden*e is t,at 2,i*, indire*t#6 &roves a 1a*t in issue. =or *ir*umstantia#
eviden*e to be su11i*ient to su&&ort a *onvi*tion, a## t,e *ir*umstan*es must be *onsistent 2it,
ea*, ot,er, *onsistent 2it, t,e t,eor6 t,at t,e a**used is gui#t6 o1 t,e o11ense *,arged, and at t,e
same time in*onsistent 2it, t,e ,6&ot,esis t,at ,e is inno*ent and 2it, ever6 ot,er &ossib#e,
rationa# ,6&ot,esis, eG*e&t t,at o1 gui#t.
4515
'n a**used *an be *onvi*ted on t,e basis o1
*ir*umstantia# eviden*e 2,ere a## t,e *ir*umstan*es *onstitute an unbro3en *,ain #eading to one
1air and reasonab#e *on*#usion &ointing to t,e a**used, to t,e eG*#usion o1 a## ot,ers, as t,e
*u#&rit.
45.5
;n our assessment, t,e &rose*utionAs eviden*e *onstitutes an unbro3en *,ain o1 events
#eading to t,e inevitab#e *on*#usion o1 gui#t on t,e &art o1 a&&e##ants. =irst, t,e 1ata# s,ooting o1
'#e)andro =#ores o**urred at around 11:5/ P.(. o1 June 5, 1993 in 1ront o1 t,e 'I"!%IN
*om&ound in %ebu %it6. +,e gunman, 2,o 2as ta## and t,in, a#ig,ted 1rom a red KJi116,L
&um&ed severa# bu##ets into t,e &rone vi*tim, and got ba*3 aboard t,e KJi116L 2,i*, t,en s&ed
to2ards 7eon Ni#at "treet. "e*ond, e6e2itness Romeo "ta. %ru$, Jr.As des*ri&tion o1 t,e gunman
as Kta## and t,inL &er1e*t#6 mat*,es t,e &,6siFue o1 a&&e##ant 'brio#. +,ird, P@3 '#eGander
Ruste#a, 2,o 2as *#ose to t,e *rime s*ene, ,eard t,e guns,ots and ran to2ards t,e &#a*e 2,ere
t,e sound o1 guns,ots emanated. ' red KJi116L 2it, t,ree &ersons aboard 2,i$$ed b6 ,im and
abru&t#6 turned at 7eon Ni#at "treet. '1ter "ta. %ru$, Jr. in1ormed ,im t,at t,e gunmen 2ere
aboard a red KJi116,L Ruste#a boarded &atro# *ar No. ./1, radioed an a#arm, and *ommen*ed a
&ursuit o1 t,e 1#eeing ve,i*#e. Po#i*e *ar no. ./8 re*eived t,e a#arm, and on turning into 7eon
Ni#at "treet, en*ountered t,e s&eeding red KJi116.L +,e6 immediate#6 *,ased t,e KJi116L but 1ai#ed
to *at*, it. Po#i*e *ars Nos. ./8 and ./5 *ornered t,e ve,i*#e in 1ront o1 t,e Don Ios*o bui#ding
near IIR%. P@. Gera#d %ue, on &atro# *ar no. ./5 1ired a 2arning s,ot at t,e ve,i*#e and
dire*ted a## t,ose aboard to disembar3. +,ree men got out, 2it, t,eir ,ands raised. "P@1
'brigana, on &atro# *ar no. ./8 and P@. %ue a&&roa*,ed t,e trio. 'brigana 1ris3ed t,e man 2,o
2as seated in t,e 1ront &assenger seat, 2,o turned out to be a&&e##ant 'brio#, and re*overed 1rom
,is 2aist a .38 *a#iber revo#ver 2it, siG em&t6 s,e##s. %ue sear*,ed t,e red KJi116L and 1ound
t2o #oaded .05 *a#iber &isto#s under t,e 1ront seat 2,ere 'brio# ,ad sat. @t,er &o#i*e o11i*ers
immediate#6 2ent to t,e *rime s*ene 2,ere t,e6 1ound t,e vi*tim bare#6 a#ive. P@3 "evi##e
retrieved 1our .05 *a#iber s#ugs and t2o de1ormed s#ugs at t,e s&ot 2,ere t,e vi*tim 2as
s,ot. +,e auto&s6 o1 t,e vi*timAs remains s,o2ed t,at ,e died o1 *ardio res&irator6 arrest due to
s,o*3 and ,emorr,age se*ondar6 to guns,ot 2ounds. ' de1ormed meta# )a*3et o1 a .38 *a#iber
s#ug 2as re*overed 1rom t,e *or&se. Ia##isti*s tests s,o2ed t,at t,e bu##ets and *artridges ,ad
identi*a# individua# *,ara*teristi*s 2it, t,ose o1 t,e test bu##ets and *artridges. Para11in tests
*ondu*ted on ea*, o1 t,e a&&e##ants, one da6 a1ter t,e in*ident, revea#ed t,at a## 2ere &ositive 1or
gun&o2der residues. +,e sub)e*t 1irearms 2ere a#so *,emi*a##6 eGamined and 1ound &ositive 1or
gun&o2der residue. Ie1ore t,e s,ooting in*ident, a&&e##ants 2ere seen at Nava#esA ,ouse unti#
around -:3/ P.(., 2,en t,e6 #e1t aboard Nava#esA red KJi116L 2it, 'ste##ero driving, 'brio# in t,e
1ront &assenger seat, and Dosdos in t,e ba*3 seat.
4535
'&&e##antsA seating arrangements 2ere
eGa*t#6 t,e same, severa# ,ours #ater, a1ter t,e6 2ere &ursued and *ornered b6 &o#i*e *ars near
IIR%. '&&e##ants admitted t,at t,e6 dro&&ed b6 t,e Nava#es residen*e at around -:// P.(. and
11:// P.(.
+,ese unbro3en *,ain o1 events &rove not on#6 a&&e##antsA identities but a#so t,eir
&arti*i&ation and *o##e*tive res&onsibi#it6 in t,e murder o1 '#e)andro =#ores. +,e6 revea# a unit6
o1 &ur&ose and *on*erted a*tion eviden*ing t,eir *ons&ira*6 to 3i## ,im. 'gainst t,is matriG o1
1a*ts and *ir*umstan*es, a&&e##antsA bare denia#s *annot stand. +,eir stor6 o1 *,asing a red
KJi116L is mere#6 a disingenuous diversion o1 no evidentiar6 va#ue 1or t,e de1ense.
=ina##6, t,e in1ormation 1or murder a##eged trea*,er6 and evident &remeditation. >e note,
t,oug,, t,at t,e tria# *ourt did not state 2,i*, *ir*umstan*e Fua#i1ied t,e 3i##ing into murder.
' revie2 o1 t,e re*ord 2ou#d revea# t,at t,ere 2as no evident &remeditation. +,ere is
evident &remeditation 2,en t,e 1o##o2ing are s,o2n: 8a9 t,e time 2,en t,e a**used determined
to *ommit t,e *rimeH 8b9 an a*t or a*ts mani1est#6 indi*ating t,at t,e a**used ,as *#ung to ,is
determinationH and 8*9 a #a&se o1 time bet2een t,e determination to *ommit t,e *rime and t,e
eGe*ution t,ereo1 su11i*ient to a##o2 ,im to re1#e*t u&on t,e *onseFuen*es o1 ,is a*t.
4505
?vident
&remeditation indi*ates de#iberate &#anning and &re&aration. No2,ere in t,e re*ord is it s,o2n
2,en and ,o2 a&&e##ants &#anned and &re&ared to 3i## t,e vi*tim.
%on*erning trea*,er6, ,o2ever, it 2as s,o2n t,at: 819 t,e means o1 eGe*ution em&#o6ed
gave t,e &erson atta*3ed no o&&ortunit6 to de1end ,imse#1 or reta#iateH and 8.9 t,e means o1
eGe*ution 2as de#iberate#6 or *ons*ious#6 ado&ted.
4555
+,ese t2in reFuisites 2ere adeFuate#6
&roved.
'&&e##ants ,ad su&eriorit6 in numbers and 2ea&ons. +,e vi*tim 2as 2it,out an6 means to
de1end ,imse#1 as no 2ea&on 2as 1ound or even intimated to be in ,is &ossession. +,e vi*tim
2as running a2a6 1rom t,e KJi116L &rior to t,e 3i##ing. +,at ,e 2as 2arned or t,reatened ear#ier
is o1 no moment. ?ven 2,en t,e vi*tim is 2arned o1 danger to ,is &erson, i1 t,e eGe*ution o1 t,e
atta*3 made it im&ossib#e 1or t,e vi*tim to de1end ,imse#1 or to reta#iate, trea*,er6 *an sti## be
a&&re*iated.
4565
+,e vi*tim 2as #6ing &rostrate on t,e ground 2,en ,e 2as de#iberate#6 and
mer*i#ess#6 ridd#ed 2it, bu##ets. +,e 2ea&ons used, t,e number o1 assai#ants, t,e s2i1t and
&#anned manner o1 t,e atta*3, and t,e mu#ti&#e number o1 2ounds in1#i*ted u&on t,e vi*tim a##
demonstrate a determined assau#t 2it, intent to 3i## t,e vi*tim. No doubt t,ere 2as trea*,er6.
!. Criinal Case No. C!"-##&&'
@n t,eir *onvi*tion 1or i##ega# &ossession o1 1irearms, a&&e##ants *ontend t,at t,e ,andguns
and ammunitions a##eged#6 ta3en 1rom t,em b6 t,e &o#i*e o11i*ers 2ere i##ega##6 sei$ed. +,e6
assert t,at t,e &o#i*e ,ad no 2arrant to e11e*t a sear*, and sei$ure, su*, t,at t,ese i##ega##6 sei$ed
1irearms 2ere inadmissib#e as eviden*e, and it 2as error 1or t,e tria# *ourt to admit t,em.
+,ere are eig,t 889 instan*es 2,ere a 2arrant#ess sear*, and sei$ure is va#id. +,e6 are: 819
*onsented sear*,esH
45-5
8.9 as an in*ident to a #a21u# arrestH
4585
839 sear*,es o1 vesse#s and air*ra1t
1or vio#ation o1 immigration, *ustoms, and drug #a2sH
4595
809 sear*,es o1 moving ve,i*#esH
46/5
859
sear*,es o1 automobi#es at borders or *onstru*tive bordersH 869 2,ere t,e &ro,ibited arti*#es are
in K&#ain vie2HL
4615
8-9 sear*,es o1 bui#dings and &remises to en1or*e 1ire, sanitar6, and bui#ding
regu#ationsH and 889 Ksto& and 1ris3L o&erations.
46.5
;n t,is *ase, t,e 2arrant#ess sear*, and sei$ure o1 t,e sub)e*t ,andguns and ammunition is
va#id 1or t2o reasons. ;t 2as a sear*, in*identa# to a #a21u# arrest. ;t 2as made a1ter a 1ata#
s,ooting, and &ursuit o1 a 1ast!moving ve,i*#e see3ing to e#ude &ursuing &o#i*e o11i*ers, and a
more t,an reasonab#e be#ie1 on t,e &art o1 t,e &o#i*e o11i*ers t,at t,e 1#eeing sus&e*ts aboard said
ve,i*#e ,ad )ust engaged in *rimina# a*tivit6. +,e urgent need o1 t,e &o#i*e to ta3e immediate
a*tion in t,e #ig,t o1 t,e 1oregoing eGigen*ies *#ear#6 satis1ies t,e reFuirements 1or 2arrant#ess
arrests under t,e Ru#es o1 %ourt.
4635
(oreover, 2,en *aug,t in lagrante deli!to 2it, 1irearms and
ammunition 2,i*, t,e6 2ere not aut,ori$ed to *arr6, a&&e##ants 2ere a*tua##6 vio#ating P.D. No.
1866, anot,er ground 1or va#id arrest under t,e Ru#es.
4605
'&&e##ants 1urt,er *ontend t,at t,e tria# *ourt erred in *onvi*ting a&&e##ants 'ste##ero and
Dosdos o1 i##ega# &ossession o1 1irearms. +,e6 &oint out t,at t,e .38 *a#iber revo#ver 2as
re*overed 1rom a&&e##ant 'brio#, 2,o as a &o#i*eman 2as aut,ori$ed to *arr6 and &ossess said
1irearm, as eviden*ed b6 ,is (emorandum Re*ei&t 8(R9, 2,i*, ,ad Knot been re*a##ed,
*an*e##ed or revo3ed unti# t,e time o1 t,e tria# o1 t,ese *ases.L '&&e##ants *#aim t,at t,e t2o .05
*a#iber &isto#s *ou#d ,ave been #e1t in t,e ve,i*#e b6 PNP &ersonne# assigned at IIR%,
*onsidering t,at t,e red KJi116L 2as genera##6 used as a servi*e ve,i*#e b6 IIR%
&ersonne#. +,e6 a#so argue t,at t,e &rose*ution 1ai#ed to &rove a&&e##antsA o2ners,i&, *ontro#,
and &ossession o1 t,e .05 *a#iber &isto#s, *onsidering t,at a&&e##ants 2ere siG meters a2a6 1rom
t,e KJi116L 2,en said ,andguns 2ere a##eged#6 1ound.
+o sustain a *onvi*tion 1or vio#ation o1 P.D. No. 1866, t,e &rose*ution must &rove t2o
e#ements o1 t,e o11ense: 819 t,e eGisten*e o1 t,e sub)e*t 1irearmH 8.9 t,e 1a*t t,at t,e a**used 2,o
o2ned or &ossessed t,e 1irearm does not ,ave t,e *orres&onding #i*ense or &ermit to &ossess it.
4655
+,ese t,e &rose*ution did. ;t &resented a .38 *a#iber revo#ver 2it, seria# number P@8005, a .
05 *a#iber &isto# 2it, seria# number PG@ 135/6 Para @rdinan*e, and a .05 *a#iber &isto# 2it,
seria# number 5.069. +,e .38 *a#iber ,andgun 2as re*overed 1rom a&&e##ant 'brio#, 2,i#e t,e
t2o .05 *a#iber automati*s 2ere 1ound and sei$ed 1rom under t,e 1ront &assenger seat o1
a&&e##antsA ve,i*#e. "P@0 'Fui##es =amoso o1 t,e %ebu %it6 PNP (etro&o#itan Distri*t
%ommandAs =irearms and ?G&#osive Bnit testi1ied t,at a&&e##ants 2ere not #isted as #i*ensed
1irearm o2ners in %ebu %it6.
4665
+,e &rose*ution a#so &resented a *erti1i*ation 1rom PE"enior
;ns&e*tor ?d2in RoFue o1 t,e =irearms and ?G&#osives Division o1 PNP :eadFuarters at %am&
%rame, Que$on %it6 t,at a&&e##ant 'brio# is not #i*ensed to ,o#d an6 1irearmH t,at t,e .05 *a#iber
&isto#s 2ere un#i*ensedH and t,at a *erti1i*ation 1rom t,e PNP =irearms and ?G&#osives @11i*e
attesting t,at a &erson is not a #i*ensee o1 an6 1irearm, &roves be6ond reasonab#e doubt t,e
se*ond e#ement o1 i##ega# &ossession o1 1irearm.
46-5
'brio# insists t,at ,e ,ad a va#id (R aut,ori$ing ,im to *arr6 t,e .38 revo#ver. >e agree
2it, t,e observation o1 t,e tria# *ourt t,at:
+,e *#aim o1 'brio# t,at .38 *a#iber 2as issued to ,im, as eviden*ed b6 t,e
*orres&onding re*ei&t 8(R9, is o1 no moment. >,i#e an (R is an aut,orit6 o1 'brio#
to &ossess t,e government 1irearm t,at 2as issued to ,im, 2,en ,e 2as *,arged and
detained at IIR% 1or an ear#ier *ase o1 murder, ot,er t,an t,e *ase at bar, ,e 2as
a#read6 t,en at t,at moment a detained &risoner and t,ere1ore, 8un9aut,ori$ed to *arr6
a 1irearm. ' mi#itar6 man or a member o1 t,e PNP 2,o *ommits a *rime, is
immediate#6 disarmed u&on ,is arrest and stri&&ed o1 a## t,e rig,ts and &rivi#eges t,at
go 2it, t,e 1un*tion o1 ,is o11i*e, and t,is in*#udes, in t,e *ase o1 'brio#, ,is
(R. +,us, 2,en ,e s,ot '#e)andro =#ores 2it, ,is .38 *a#iber revo#ver, t,is 1irearm
2as a#read6 unaut,ori$ed and its use and &ossession i##ega#.
4685
?ven i1 'brio#As (R 2as va#id, said aut,ori$ation 2as #imited on#6 to t,e .38 *a#iber
revo#ver and not t,e t2o .05 *a#iber automati* &isto#s 1ound under t,e 1ront &assenger seat o1 t,e
KJi116.L '&&e##ants 2ere sti## in t,e un#a21u# &ossession o1 t,e .05 *a#iber &isto#s. Bnder P.D. No.
1866, &ossession is not #imited to a*tua# &ossession.
4695
;n t,is *ase, a&&e##ants ,ad *ontro# over
t,e &isto#s. +,e6 2ere a## #iab#e sin*e *ons&ira*6 2as estab#is,ed and t,e a*t o1 one is t,e a*t o1
a##.
4-/5
'&&e##ants *#aim t,at t,e6 2ere siG meters a2a6 1rom t,e KJi116L 2,en it 2as sear*,ed and
t,e t2o .05 *a#iber &isto#s 2ere sei$ed. +,e6 suggest t,at t,e &o#i*emen 2,o sear*,ed t,e
ve,i*#e *ou#d ,ave &#anted said 1irearms. +,e tria# *ourt 1ound t,at t,e6 2ere in 1a*t on#6 one
meter a2a6 1rom t,e ve,i*#e. =indings o1 1a*t o1 t,e tria# *ourt, 2,en su&&orted b6 t,e eviden*e
on re*ord, are binding and *on*#usive u&on a&&e##ate *ourts.
4-15
'## to#d, on t,e *,arge o1 i##ega# &ossession o1 1irearms, no reversib#e error 2as *ommitted
b6 t,e tria# *ourt 2,en it 1ound a&&e##ants gui#t6 be6ond reasonab#e doubt.
+,e @11i*e o1 t,e "o#i*itor Genera# re*ommends t,at a#t,oug, a&&e##ants 2ere *,arged 2it,
and *onvi*ted o1 t2o se&arate o11enses o1 murder and vio#ation o1 P.D. No. 1866, R.'. No. 8.90,
2,i*, amended said de*ree, s,ou#d be a&&#ied to a&&e##ants retroa*tive#6, *iting 9eople v.
*olina) .9. "%R' -0., --9 819989 inter&reting R.'. No. 8.90.
>e agree. >e ru#ed in *olina t,at 2it, t,e &assage o1 R.'. No. 8.90 on June 6, 199-, t,e
use o1 an un#i*ensed 1irearm in murder or ,omi*ide is not a se&arate *rime, but mere#6 a s&e*ia#
aggravating *ir*umstan*e. +,is 2as re*ent#6 reiterated in 9eople v. Castillo) G.R. Nos. 13159.!
93, =ebruar6 15, .///.
4-.5
'&&e##ants are t,us gui#t6 on#6 o1 murder 2it, t,e s&e*ia# aggravating
*ir*umstan*e o1 use o1 un#i*ensed 1irearms. +,e im&osition o1 t,e &ena#t6 o1 re!lusion
perpetua*annot ,o2ever be modi1ied sin*e t,e murder too3 &#a*e be1ore t,e e11e*tivit6 o1 R.'.
No. -659.
' 1ina# 2ord on t,e damages. ;n addition to t,e a2ard o1 P5/,/// as indemnit6 e7 deli!to,
t,e tria# *ourt a2arded P3/,/// in a*tua# damages, Kre&resenting a reasonab#e amount 1or t,e
emba#ming, vigi#, 2a3e and buria# eG&enses,L and P3/,/// as attorne6As 1ees. +o be entit#ed to
a*tua# damages, it is ne*essar6 to &rove t,e a*tua# amount o1 #oss 2it, a reasonab#e degree o1
*ertaint6, &remised u&on *om&etent &roo1, and on t,e best eviden*e obtainab#e b6 t,e in)ured
&art6.
4-35
No su*, eviden*e 2as o11ered. +,e a2ard o1 a*tua# damages must, t,ere1ore, be
de#eted. :o2ever, tem&erate damages ma6 be a2arded sin*e t,e 1ami#6 o1 t,e vi*tim ,as
demonstrab#6 s&ent 1or t,e 2a3e, 1unera# and buria# arrangements. +,e amount o1 P./,///
s,ou#d su11i*e as tem&erate damages. ;n addition, 2e 1ind an a2ard o1 eGem&#ar6 damages in
order, &ursuant to 'rti*#e ..3/ o1 t,e %ivi# %ode.
4-05
+,e 3i##ing 2as attended b6 t,e s&e*ia#
aggravating *ir*umstan*e o1 use o1 un#i*ensed 1irearms. (oreover, t,e &ub#i* good demands
t,at detained &risoners s,ou#d not abuse t,eir status as Ktrustees.L :ad t,e &o#i*e been
unsu**ess1u# in t,eir &ursuit o1 a&&e##ants, t,e #atter 2ou#d ,ave used t,e IIR% as s,e#ter and as
an a#ibi t,at t,e6 *ou#d not ,ave *ommitted t,e *rime sin*e t,e6 2ere t,en in detention. +,us,
2e 1ind an a2ard o1 P1/,/// as eGem&#ar6 damages in order. '**ording#6, t,e a2ard o1
attorne6As 1ees is sustained.
4-55
3HERE4ORE, t,e assai#ed De*ision o1 t,e Regiona# +ria# %ourt o1 %ebu %it6, Iran*, 1/,
in %rimina# %ases Nos. %IB!3/35/ and %IB!33660 is ,ereb6 (@D;=;?D. '&&e##ants '#bert
'brio#, (a*ario 'ste##ero, and Januario Dosdos are ,ereb6 1ound GB;7+ o1 murder, Fua#i1ied
b6 trea*,er6, 2it, t,e s&e*ia# aggravating *ir*umstan*e o1 use o1 un#i*ensed 1irearms and are
,ereb6 senten*ed to su11er t,e &ena#t6 o1 re!lusion perpetua 2it, t,e a**essor6 &ena#ties
&rovided 1or b6 #a2. '&&e##ants 'brio#, 'ste##ero, and Dosdos are a#so ordered to &a6, )oint#6
and severa##6, t,e ,eirs o1 '#e)andro =#ores t,e sum o1 P5/,/// as deat, indemnit6, P./,/// as
tem&erate damages, P1/,/// as eGem&#ar6 damages, and P3/,/// as attorne6As 1ees, as 2e## as
t,e *osts.
SO OR5ERE5.
2ellosillo) 5Chairman6) *endo(a) 2uena) and :e Leon) Jr.) JJ.) *on*ur.
<epublic o' the "hilippines
SU6REME COURT
&anila
7# 8;#C
G.R. No. 21967 Ju8, 9, 1990
$N THE MATTER O" THE 6ET$T$ON "OR HABEAS COR6US O" ROBERTO UM$L, ROLAN3O
3URAL n! RENATO %$LLANUE%A. MANOL$TA O. UM$L, n! N$CANOR 6. 3URAL, "EL$C$TAS
%. SESE, petitioners,
vs.
"$3EL %. RAMOS, MAJ. GEN. RENATO 3E %$LLA, BR$G. GEN. RAMON MONTANO, BR$G. GEN.
ALE7AN3ER AGU$RRE, respondents.
G.R. No(. 25921-22 Ju8, 9, 1990
AMEL$A RO<UE n! W$L"RE3O BUENAOBRA, petitioners,
vs.
GEN. RENATO 3E %$LLA n! GEN. RAMON MONTANO, respondents.
G.R. No(. 25923-25 Ju8, 9, 1990
$N THE MATTER O" THE 6ET$T$ON "OR HABEAS COR6US O" ATT#. 3OM$NGO T.
ANONUE%O n! RAMON CAS$6LE. 3OM$NGO T. ANONUE%O n! RAMON
CAS$6LE, petitioners,
vs.
HON. "$3EL %. RAMOS, GEN. RENATO S. 3E %$LLA, COL. E%AR$STO CAR$NO, LT. COL. RE7
3. 6$A3, TJSGT. CONRA3O 3E TORRES, SJSGT. ARNOL3 3UR$AN, n! Co..n!&n- O00&)e/,
6C-$N6 3e+en+&on Cen+e/, C.* C/.e, <ueHon C&+,, respondents.
G.R. No. 23162 Ju8, 9, 1990
$N THE MATTER O" THE A66L$CAT$ON "OR HABEAS COR6US O" %$C;# A. OCA#A AN3
3ANN# R$%ERA. %$RG$L$O A. OCA#A, petitioner,
vs.
BR$G. GEN. ALE7AN3ER AGU$RRE, COL. HERCULES CATALUNA, COL. NESTOR
MAR$ANO, respondents.
G.R. No. 29727 Ju8, 9, 1990
$N THE MATTER O" A66L$CAT$ON "OR HABEAS COR6US O"> 3EOGRAC$AS
ES6$R$TU, petitioner,
vs.
BR$G. GEN. AL"RE3O S. L$M, COL. R$CAR3O RE#ES, respondents.
G.R. No. 26332 Ju8, 9, 1990
$N THE MATTER O" THE 6ET$T$ON "OR HABEAS COR6US O" NARC$SO B. NA1ARENO.
AL"RE3O NA1ARENO, petitioner,
vs.
THE STAT$ON COMMAN3ER O" THE MUNT$NGLU6A 6OL$CE STAT$ON, Mun+&n-8u*, Me+/o
Mn&8, 6JSGT. JAC$NTO ME3$NA, 6JSGT. ELA3$O TAGLE, 6JSGT. LE%$ SOLE3A3, n! 6JSGT.
MAURO AROJA3O,respondents.
Efren ). Mercado for petitioners in G.+. 9o. <>S?.
+icardo ,. 6almonte for petitioners in G.+. 9os. <T><-<=.
+amon S. Esguerra- /arbara Anne ,. Migallos and Agripino G. Morga for petitioners in G.+. 9os.
<T><@-<T.
Efren ). Mercado for petitioner in G.+. 9o. <@S=.
/anzuela- Flores- Miralles- +aneses- S'- 5a&uio R Association for petitioner in G.+. 9o. <>?=?.
.osefina G. ,ampbell-,astillo for petitioners in G.+. 9o. <S@@=.
5he Solicitor General for the respondents.

6ER CUR$AM>
+he are ei)ht 2J3 petitioners 'or habeas corpus 'iled be'ore the Court, (hich have been consolidated
because o' the si$ilarity o' issues raised, prayin) 'or the issuance o' the (rit o' habeas corpus,
orderin) the respective respondents to produce the bodies o' the persons na$ed therein and to
e9plain (hy they should not be set at liberty (ithout 'urther delay.
:n their respective <eturns, the respondents uni'or$ly assert that the privile)e o' the (rit o' habeas
corpus is not available to the petitioners as they have been legall' arrested and are detained by
virtue o' %alid informations 'iled in court a)ainst the$.
+he petitioners counter that their detention is unla('ul as their arrests (ere $ade without
warrant and, that no preliminar' in%estigation (as 'irst conducted, so that the in'or$ations 'iled
a)ainst the$ are null and void.
+he Court has care'ully revie(ed the contentions o' the parties in their respective pleadin)s, and it
'inds that the persons detained have not been ille)ally arrested nor arbitrarily deprived o' their
constitutional ri)ht to liberty, and that the circu$stances attendin) these cases do not (arrant their
release on habeas corpus.
+he arrest o' a person (ithout a (arrant o' arrest or previous co$plaint is reco)nized in la(. +he
occasions or instances (hen such an arrest $ay be e''ected are clearly spelled out in Section /,
<ule 11 o' the <ules o' Court, as a$ended, (hich provides*
Sec. /. Arrest without warrant= when lawful. H ; peace o''icer or a private person
$ay, (ithout a (arrant, arrest a person*
2a3 When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has co$$itted, is actually
co$$ittin), or is atte$ptin) to co$$it an o''ense=
2b3 When an o''ense has in 'act >ust been co$$itted, and he has personal
kno(led)e o' 'acts indicatin) that the person to be arrested has co$$itted it= and
2c3 When the person to be arrested is a prisoner (ho has escaped 'ro$ a penal
establish$ent or place (here he is servin) 'inal >ud)$ent or te$porarily con'ined
(hile his case is pendin), or has escaped (hile bein) trans'erred 'ro$ one
con'ine$ent to another.
:n cases 'allin) under para)raphs 2a3 and 2b3 hereo', the person arrested (ithout a
(arrant shall be 'orth(ith delivered to the nearest police station or >ail, and he shall
be proceeded a)ainst in accordance (ith <ule 11!, Section 0.
;n arrest (ithout a (arrant o' arrest, under Section / para)raphs 2a3 and 2b3 o' <ule 11 o' the
<ules o' Court, as a$ended, is >usti'ied (hen the person arrested is cau)ht in flagranti delicto, %iz.,
in the act o' co$$ittin) an o''ense= or (hen an o''ense has >ust been co$$itted and the person
$akin) the arrest has personal kno(led)e o' the 'acts indicatin) that the person arrested has
co$$itted it. +he rationale behind la('ul arrests, (ithout (arrant, (as stated by this Court in the
case o' 0eople %s. Hagui Malasugui
1
thus*
+o hold that no cri$inal can, in any case, be arrested and searched 'or the evidence
and tokens o' his cri$e (ithout a (arrant, (ould be to leave society, to a lar)e
e9tent, at the $ercy o' the shre(dest, the $ost e9pert, and the $ost depraved o'
cri$inals, 'acilitatin) their escape in $any instances.
+he record o' the instant cases (ould sho( that the persons in (hose behal' these petitions
'or habeas corpushave been 'iled, had 'reshly co$$itted or (ere actually co$$ittin) an o''ense,
(hen apprehended, so that their arrests (ithout a (arrant (ere clearly >usti'ied, and that they are,
'urther, detained by virtue o' valid in'or$ations 'iled a)ainst the$ in court.
; brie' narration o' the 'acts and events surroundin) each o' the ei)ht 2J3 petitions is in order.
:
:n @.<. #o. J1/60 2A$il vs. <a$os3, the record sho(s that, on 1 February 19JJ, the <e)ional
:ntelli)ence 6perations Anit o' the Capital Co$$and 2<:6A-C;"C6&3 received con'idential
in'or$ation about a $e$ber o' the #"; Sparro( Anit 2liDuidation sDuad3 bein) treated 'or a )unshot
(ound at the St. ;)nes ,ospital in <oosevelt ;venue, Luezon City. Apon veri'ication, it (as 'ound
that the (ounded person, (ho (as listed in the hospital records as <onnie Javelon, is actually
<olando Cural, a $e$ber o' the #"; liDuidation sDuad, responsible 'or the killin) o' t(o 2!3
C;"C6& soldiers the day be'ore, or on 1 January 19JJ, in &acaninin) Street, 8a)on) 8arrio,
Caloocan City. :n vie( o' this veri'ication, <olando Cural (as trans'erred to the <e)ional &edical
Services o' the C;"C6&, 'or security reasons. While con'ined thereat, or on 4 February 19JJ,
<olando Cural (as positively identi'ied by eye(itnesses as the )un$an (ho (ent on top o' the hood
o' the C;"C6& $obile patrol car, and 'ired at the t(o 2!3 C;"C6& soldiers seated inside the car
identi'ied as +BS)t. Carlos "abon and C:C <enato &anli)ot.
;s a conseDuence o' this positive identi'ication, <olando Cural (as re'erred to the Caloocan City
Fiscal (ho conducted an inDuest and therea'ter 'iled (ith the <e)ional +rial Court o' Caloocan City
an in'or$ation char)in) <olando Cural alias <onnie Javelon (ith the cri$e o' ECouble &urder (ith
;ssault Apon ;)ents o' "ersons in ;uthority.E +he case (as docketed therein as Cri$inal Case #o.
C-511! and no bail (as reco$$ended. 6n 1/ February 19JJ, the in'or$ation (as a$ended to
include, as de'endant, 8ernardo :tucal, Jr. (ho, at the 'ilin) o' the ori)inal in'or$ation, (as still
unidenti'ied.
&ean(hile, on 6 February 19JJ, a petition 'or habeas corpus (as 'iled (ith this Court on behal'
o' +oberto ;mil,+olando 4ural, and +enato 6illanue%a. +he Court issued the (rit o' habeas
corpus on 9 February 19JJ and the respondents 'iled a <eturn o' the Writ on 1! February 19JJ.
+herea'ter, the parties (ere heard on 1/ February 19JJ.
6n !6 February 19JJ, ho(ever, +oberto ;mil and +enato 6illanue%a posted bail be'ore the
<e)ional +rial Court o' "asay City (here char)es 'or violation o' the ;nti-Subversion ;ct had been
'iled a)ainst the$, and they (ere accordin)ly released. +he petition 'or habeas corpus, inso'ar as
A$il and ?illanueva are concerned, is no( $oot and acade$ic and is accordin)ly dis$issed, since
the (rit o' habeas corpus does not lie in 'avor o' an accused in a cri$inal case (ho has been
released on bail.
2
;s to +olando 4ural, it clearly appears that he (as not arrested (hile in the act o' shootin) the t(o
2!3 C;"C6& soldiers a'ore$entioned. #or (as he arrested >ust a'ter the co$$ission o' the said
o''ense 'or his arrest ca$e a da' after the said shootin) incident. See$in)ly, his arrest (ithout
(arrant is un>usti'ied.
,o(ever, <olando Cural (as arrested 'or bein) a $e$ber o' the #e( "eoples ;r$y 2#";3, an
outla(ed subversive or)anization. Subversion bein) a continuing offense, the arrest o' <olando
Cural (ithout (arrant is >usti'ied as it can be said that he (as co$$ittin) an o''ense (hen arrested.
+he cri$es o' rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to co$$it such cri$es, and cri$es or
o''enses co$$itted in 'urtherance thereo' or in connection there(ith constitute direct assaults
a)ainst the State and are in the nature o' continuing crimes. ;s stated by the Court in an earlier
case*
Fro$ the 'acts as above-narrated, the clai$ o' the petitioners that they (ere initially
arrested ille)ally is, there'ore, (ithout basis in la( and in 'act. +he cri$es o'
insurrection or rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to co$$it such cri$es,
and other cri$es and o''enses co$$itted in the 'urtherance, on the occasion thereo',
or incident thereto, or in connection there(ith under "residential "rocla$ation #o.
!54/, are all in the nature o' continuin) o''enses (hich set the$ apart 'ro$ the
co$$on o''enses, aside 'ro$ their essentially involvin) a $assive conspiracy o'
nation(ide $a)nitude. Clearly then, the arrest o' the herein detainees (as (ell
(ithin the bounds o' the la( and e9istin) >urisprudence in our >urisdiction.
!. +he arrest o' persons involved in the rebellion (hether as its 'i)htin) ar$ed
ele$ents, or 'or co$$ittin) non-violent acts but in 'urtherance o' the rebellion, is
$ore an act o' capturin) the$ in the course o' an ar$ed con'lict, to Duell the
rebellion, than 'or the purpose o' i$$ediately prosecutin) the$ in court 'or a
statutory o''ense. +he arrest, there'ore, need not 'ollo( the usual procedure in the
prosecution o' o''enses (hich reDuires the deter$ination by a >ud)e o' the e9istence
o' probable cause be'ore the issuance o' a >udicial (arrant o' arrest and the )rantin)
o' bail i' the o''ense is bailable. 6bviously, the absence o' a >udicial (arrant is no
le)al i$pedi$ent to arrestin) or capturin) persons co$$ittin) overt acts o' violence
a)ainst )overn$ent 'orces, or any other $ilder acts but eDually in pursuance o' the
rebellious $ove$ent. +he arrest or capture is thus i$pelled by the e9i)encies o' the
situation that involves the very survival o' society and its )overn$ent and duly
constituted authorities. :' killin) and other acts o' violence a)ainst the rebels 'ind
>usti'ication in the e9i)encies o' ar$ed hostilities (hich is o' the essence o' (a)in) a
rebellion or insurrection, $ost assuredly so in case o' invasion, $erely seizin) their
persons and detainin) the$ (hile any o' these contin)encies continues cannot be
less >usti'ied. . . .
3
+he record, $oreover, sho(s that the cri$inal case 'iled a)ainst +olando 4ural and /ernardo
3tucal, .r. 'or ECouble &urder, etc.E (as tried in the court belo( and at the conclusion thereo', or on
10 ;u)ust 19JJ, <olando Cural and 8ernardo :tucal, Jr. (ere 'ound )uilty o' the char)e and
sentenced accordin)ly. <olando Cural is no( servin) the sentence i$posed upon hi$ by the trial
court. +hus, the (rit o' habeas corpus is no lon)er available to hi$. For, as held in the early case
o' ;.S. %s. *ilson*
5
:n this case, (hatever $ay be said about the $anner o' his arrest, the 'act re$ains
that the de'endant (as actually in court in the custody o' the la( on &arch !9, (hen
a co$plaint su''icient in 'or$ and substance (as read to hi$. +o this he pleaded not
)uilty. +he trial 'ollo(ed, in (hich, and in the >ud)$ent o' )uilty pronounced by the
court, (e 'ind no error. Whether, i' there (ere irre)ularities in brin)in) hi$ personally
be'ore the court, he could have been released on a (rit o' habeas corpus or no( has
a civil action 'or da$a)es a)ainst the person (ho arrested hi$ (e need not inDuire.
:t is enou)h to say that such irre)ularities are not su''icient to set aside a valid
>ud)$ent rendered upon a su''icient co$plaint and a'ter a trial 'ree 'ro$ error.
::
:n @.<. #os. J4/J1-J! 2<oDue vs. Ce ?illa3, the arrest o' Amelia +o&ue and *ilfredo /uenaobra,
(ithout (arrant, is also >usti'ied. When apprehended at the house o' <enato Constantino in &arikina
,ei)hts, &arikina, &etro &anila, Wil'redo 8uenaobra admitted that he (as an #"; courier and he
had (ith hi$ letters to <enato Constantino and other $e$bers o' the rebel )roup. ;$elia <oDue,
upon the other hand, (as a $e$ber o' the #ational Anited Front Co$$ission, in char)e o' 'inance,
and admitted o(nership o' subversive docu$ents 'ound in the house o' her sister in Caloocan City.
She (as also in possession o' a$$unition and a 'ra)$entation )renade 'or (hich she had no per$it
or authority to possess.
+he record o' these t(o 2!3 cases sho(s that on !0 June 19JJ, one <o)elio <a$os y :banes, a
$e$ber o' the #";, (ho had surrendered to the $ilitary authorities, told $ilitary a)ents about the
operations o' the Co$$unist "arty o' the "hilippines 2C""3 and the #e( "eoples ;r$y 2#";3 in
&etro &anila. ,e identi'ied so$e o' his 'or$er co$rades as E.a &on)E, a sta'' $e$ber o' the
Co$$unications and +ransportation 8ureau= E.a #eliaE, a sta'' $e$ber in char)e o' 'inance= E.a
&illerE, an #"; courier 'ro$ Sorso)on and %opez, Luezon= E.a +edE, and E.a +otoyE. ,e also
pointed to a certain house occupied by <enato Constantino located in the ?illaluz Co$pound,
&olave St., &arikina ,ei)hts, &arikina, &etro &anila, (hich is used as a sa'ehouse o' the #ational
Anited Front Co$$ission 2#AFC3 o' the C""-#";.
:n vie( o' these revelations, the Constantino house (as placed under $ilitary surveillance and on 1!
;u)ust 19JJ, pursuant to a search (arrant issued by Jud)e 7utropio &i)rino o' the <e)ional +rial
Court o' "asi), a search o' the house (as conducted at about /*55 o1clock in the a'ternoon, by a
co$bined tea$ o' the Cri$inal :nvesti)ation Service, #ational Capital Cistrict 2C:S-#CC3 and the
Constabulary Security @roup 2CS@3. :n the course o' the search, the 'ollo(in) articles (ere 'ound
and taken under proper receipt*
a3 6ne 213 Colt &16;1 lon) ri'le (ith de'aced serial nu$ber=
b3 6ne 213 Cal. .J5 ;C+B9$$ &odel "".BJ S#* !65/00 M !65/00J=
c3 +(o 2!3 'ra)$entation hand )renades=
d3 Fi'ty-si9 2/63 live a$$unition 'or Cal. /./6 $$=
e3 Five 2/3 live a$$unition 'or Cal. .J5=
'3 6ne 213 :C6& ?,F F& <adio +ransciever S#* 1495
)3 6ne 213 <e)ulated po(er supply !!5? ;C=
h3 6ne 213 ;ntennae 2ad>ustable3=
i3 6ne 213 Speaker (ith cord ;%7S;<=
>3 ?olu$inous Subversive docu$ents.
When con'ronted, <enato Constatino could not produce any per$it or authority to possess the
'irear$s, a$$unition, radio and other co$$unications eDuip$ent. ,ence, he (as brou)ht to the
C:S ,eadDuarters 'or investi)ation. When Duestioned, he re'used to )ive a (ritten state$ent,
althou)h he admitted that he (as a sta'' $e$ber o' the e9ecutive co$$ittee o' the #AFC and a
rankin) $e$ber o' the :nternational Cepart$ent o' the Co$$unist "arty o' the "hilippines 2C""3.
;t about J*55 o1clock in the evenin) o' the sa$e day 21! ;u)ust 19JJ3, Wil'redo 8uenaobra arrived
at the house o' <enato Constantino in the ?illaluz Co$pound. When accosted, he
readily admitted to the $ilitary a)ents that he is a re)ular $e$ber o' the C""B#"; and that he (ent
to the place to deliver letters to E.a &on)E, re'errin) to <enato Constatino, and other $e$bers o'
the rebel )roup. 6n 'urther Duestionin), he also ad$itted that he is kno(n as E.a &illerE and that he
(as 'ro$ 8aran)ay San "edro, %opez, Luezon. ;$on) the ite$s taken 'ro$ hi$ (ere the 'ollo(in)*
213 ,and(ritten letter addressed to E.a 8in) M Co. 'ro$ ; M Co.E dated ;u)ust 11,
19JJ=
2!3 ,and(ritten letter addressed to E<6C 'ro$ ?:C 2Schell datre3E dated ;u)ust 11,
19JJ=
23 ,and(ritten letter addressed to ESuzieE 'ro$ E?icE, dated ;u)ust 11, 19JJ.
;lso 'ound 8uenaobra1s possession (as a piece o' paper containin) a (ritten but >u$bled telephone
nu$ber o' Florida &. <oDue, sister o' ;$elia <oDue alias E.a #eliaE, at 69 @eroni$o St., Caloocan
City. ;ctin) on the lead provided as to the (hereabouts o' Amelia +o&ue, the $ilitary a)ents (ent to
the )iven address the ne9t day 21 ;u)ust 19JJ3. +hey arrived at the place at about 11*55 o1clock in
the $ornin). ;'ter identi'yin) the$selves as $ilitary a)ents and a'ter seekin) per$ission to search
the place, (hich (as )ranted, the $ilitary a)ents conducted a search in the presence o' the
occupants o' the house and the baran)ay captain o' the place, one Jesus C. 6lba.
+he $ilitary a)ents 'ound the place to be another sa'ehouse o' the #AFCBC"". +hey 'ound led)ers,
>ournals, vouchers, bank deposit books, 'olders, co$puter diskettes, and subversive docu$ents as
(ell as live a$$unition 'or a .J S"% Winchester, 11 rounds o' live a$$unition 'or a cal. .4/, 19
rounds o' live a$$unition 'or an &16 <i'le, and a 'ra)$entation )renade. ;s a result, ;$elia <oDue
and the other occupants o' the house (ere brou)ht to the "C-C:S ,eadDuarters at Ca$p Cra$e,
Luezon City, 'or investi)ation. ;$elia <oDue admitted to the investi)ators that the volu$inous
docu$ents belon)ed to her and that the other occupants o' the house had no kno(led)e o' the$. ;s
a result, the said other occupants o' the house (ere released 'ro$ custody.
6n 1/ ;u)ust 19JJ, ;$elia <oDue (as brou)ht to the Caloocan City Fiscal 'or inDuest a'ter (hich
an in'or$ation char)in) her (ith violation o' "C 1J66 (as 'iled (ith the <e)ional +rial Court o'
Caloocan City. +he case is docketed therein as Cri$inal Case #o. C-1196. ;nother in'or$ation 'or
violation o' the ;nti-Subversion ;ct (as 'iled a)ainst ;$elia <oDue be'ore the &etropolitan +rial
Court o' Caloocan City, (hich is docketed therein as Cri$inal Case #o. C-1/54/J.
;n in'or$ation 'or violation o' the ;nti-Subversion ;ct (as 'iled a)ainst *ilfredo /uenaobra be'ore
the &etropolitan +rial Court o' &arikina, &etro &anila. +he case is docketed therein as Cri$inal
Case #o. !01/. 8ail (as set at "4,555.55.
6n !4 ;u)ust 19JJ, a petition 'or habeas corpus (as 'iled be'ore this Court on behal' o' ;$elia
<oDue and Wil'redo 8uenaobra. ;t the hearin) o' the case, ho(ever, Wil'redo 8uenaobra
$ani'ested his desire to stay in the "C-:#" Stockade at Ca$p Cra$e, Luezon City. ;ccordin), the
petition 'or habeas corpus 'iled on his behal' is no( $oot and acade$ic. 6nly the petition o' ;$elia
<oDue re$ains 'or resolution.
+he contention o' respondents that petitioners <oDue and 8uenaobra are o''icers andBor $e$bers
o' the #ational Anited Front Co$$ission 2#AFC3 o' the C"" (as not controverted or traversed by
said petitioners. +he contention $ust be dee$ed ad$itted.
9
;s o''icers andBor $e$bers o' the #AFC-
C"", their arrest, (ithout (arrant, (as >usti'ied 'or the sa$e reasons earlier stated %is-a-%is +olando
4ural. +he arrest (ithout (arrant o' <oDue (as additionally >usti'ied as she (as, at the ti$e o'
apprehension, in possession o' a$$unitions (ithout license to possess the$.
:::
:n @.<. #os. J4/J-J4 2;nonuevo vs. <a$os3, the arrest o' 4omingo Anonue%o and +amon
,asiple, (ithout (arrant, is also >usti'ied under the rules. 8oth are ad$ittedly $e$bers o' the
standin) co$$ittee o' the #AFC and, (hen apprehended in the house o' <enato Constatino, they
had a ba) containin) subversive $aterials, and both carried 'irear$s and a$$unition 'or (hich they
had no license to possess or carry.
+he record o' these t(o 2!3 cases sho(s that at about 0*5 o1clock in the evenin) o' 1 ;u)ust 19JJ,
Co$in)o +. ;nonuevo and <a$on Casiple arrived at the house o' <enato Constatino at &arikina
,ei)hts, &arikina, (hich (as still under surveillance by $ilitary a)ents. +he $ilitary a)ents noticed
bul)in) ob>ects on their (aist lines. When 'risked, the a)ents 'ound the$ to be loaded )uns.
;nonuevo and Casiple (ere asked to sho( their per$it or license to possess or carry 'irear$s and
a$$unition, but they could not produce any. ,ence, they (ere brou)ht to "C ,eadDuarters 'or
investi)ation. Found in their possession (ere the 'ollo(in) articles*
a3 ?olu$inous subversive docu$ents
b3 6ne 213 Cal. 0.6/ &6C J !C "istol S#* 55141! (ith one 213 $a)azine 'or Cal.
0.6/ containin) ten 2153 live a$$unition o' sa$e caliber=
c3 6ne 213 Cal. 0.6/ "ietro 8arreta S#= ;1JJ6J last di)it ta$pered (ith one 213
$a)azine containin) 'ive 2/3 live a$$unition o' sa$e caliber.
;t the "C Stockade, Co$in)o ;nonuevo (as identi'ied as E.a +edE, and <a$on Casiple as E.a
+otoyE o' the C"", by their co$rades (ho had previously surrendered to the $ilitary.
6n 1/ ;u)ust 19JJ, the record o' the investi)ation and other docu$entary evidence (ere 'or(arded
to the "rovincial Fiscal at "asi), &etro &anila, (ho conducted an inDuest, a'ter (hich Co$in)o
;nonuevo and <a$on Casiple (ere char)ed (ith violation o' "residential Cecree #o. 1J66 be'ore
the <e)ional +rial Court o' "asi), &etro &anila. +he cases are docketed therein as Cri$inal Cases
#os. 04J6 ad 04J0, respectively. #o bail (as reco$$ended.
6n !4 ;u)ust 19JJ, a petition 'or habeas corpus (as 'iled (ith this Court on behal' o' Co$in)o
;nonuevo and <a$on Casiple, alle)in) that the said ;nonuevo and Casiple (ere unla('ully
arrested (ithout a (arrant and that the in'or$ations 'iled a)ainst the$ are null and void 'or havin)
been 'iled (ithout prior hearin) and preli$inary investi)ation. 6n 5 ;u)ust 19JJ, the Court issued
the (rit o' habeas corpus, and a'ter the respondents had 'iled a <eturn o' the Writ, the parties (ere
heard.
+he petitioners1 2;nonuevo and Casiple3 clai$ that they (ere unla('ully arrested because there (as
no previous (arrant o' arrest, is (ithout $erit +he record sho(s that Co$in)o ;nonuevo and
<a$on Casiple (ere carryin) unlicensed 'irear$s and a$$unition in their person (hen they (ere
apprehended.
+here is also no $erit in the contention that the in'or$ations 'iled a)ainst the$ are null and void 'or
(ant o' a preli$inary investi)ation. +he 'ilin) o' an in'or$ation, (ithout a preli$inary investi)ation
havin) been 'irst conducted, is sanctioned by the <ules. Sec. 0, <ule 11! o' the <ules o' Court, as
a$ended, reads*
Sec. 0. *hen accused lawfull' arrested without a warrant. H When a person is
la('ully arrested (ithout a (arrant 'or an o''ense co)nizable by the <e)ional +rial
Court the co$plaint or in'or$ation $ay be 'iled by the o''ended party, peace o''icer
or 'iscal (ithout a preli$inary investi)ation havin) been 'irst conducted, on the basis
o' the a''idavit o' the o''ended party or arrestin) o''icer or person.
,o(ever, be'ore the 'ilin) o' such co$plaint or in'or$ation, the person arrested $ay
ask 'or a preli$inary investi)ation by a proper o''icer in accordance (ith this <ule,
but he $ust si)n a (aiver o' the provisions o' ;rticle 1!/ o' the <evised "enal Code,
as a$ended, (ith the assistance o' a la(yer and in case o' non-availability o' a
la(yer, a responsible person o' his choice. #ot(ithstandin) such (aiver, he $ay
apply 'or bail as provided in the correspondin) rule and the investi)ation $ust be
ter$inated (ithin 'i'teen 21/3 days 'ro$ its inception.
:' the case has been 'iled in court (ithout a preli$inary investi)ation havin) been 'irst
conducted, the accused $ay (ithin 'ive 2/3 days 'ro$ the ti$e he learns o' the 'ilin)
o' the in'or$ation, ask 'or a preli$inary investi)ation (ith the sa$e ri)ht to adduced
evidence in his 'avor in the $anner prescribed in this <ule.
+he petitioners Co$in)o ;nonuevo and <a$on Casiple, ho(ever, re'used to si)n a (aiver o' the
provisions o' ;rticle 1!/ o' the <evised "enal Code, as a$ended. :n the in'or$ations 'iled a)ainst
the$, the prosecutor $ade identical certi'ications, as 'ollo(s*
+his is to certi'y that the accused has been char)ed in accordance (ith Sec. 0, <ule
11! o' the 19J/ <ules on Cri$inal "rocedure, that no preli$inary investi)ation (as
conducted because the accused has not $ade and si)ned a (aiver o' the provisions
o' ;rt. 1!/ o' the <evised "enal Code, as a$ended= that based on the evidence
presented, there is reasonable )round to believe that the cri$e has been co$$itted,
and that the accused is probably )uilty thereo'.
#or did petitioners ask 'or a preli$inary investi)ation a'ter the in'or$ations had been 'iled a)ainst
the$ in court. "etitioners cannot no( clai$ that they have been deprived o' their constitutional ri)ht
to due process.
:?
:n @.<. #o. J16! 26caya vs. ;)uirre3, the arrest (ithout (arrant, o' 6ic(' Oca'a is >usti'ied under
the <ules, since she had (ith her unlicensed a$$unition (hen she (as arrested. +he record o' this
case sho(s that on 1! &ay 19JJ, a)ents o' the "C :ntelli)ence and :nvesti)ation o' the <izal "C-
:#" Co$$and, ar$ed (ith a search (arrant issued by Jud)e 7utropio &i)rino o' the <e)ional +rial
Court o' "asi), &etro &anila, conducted a search o' a house located at 8lock 19, "hase ::, &arikina
@reen ,ei)hts, &arikina, &etro &anila, believed to be occupied by 8enito +ia$son, head o' the
C""-#";. :n the course o' the search, ?icky 6caya arrived in a car driven by Canny <ivera.
Subversive docu$ents and several rounds o' a$$unition 'or a .4/ cal. pistol (ere 'ound in the car
o' ?icky 6caya. ;s a result, ?icky 6caya and Canny <ivera (ere brou)ht to the "C ,eadDuarters
'or investi)ation. When ?icky 6caya could not produce any per$it or authorization to possess the
a$$unition, an in'or$ation char)in) her (ith violation o' "C 1J66 (as 'iled (ith the <e)ional +rial
Court o' "asi), &etro &anila. +he case is docketed therein as Cri$inal Case #o. 0440. Canny
<ivera, on the other hand, (as released 'ro$ custody.
6n 10 &ay 19JJ, a petition 'or habeas corpus (as 'iled, (ith this Court on behal' o' ?icky 6caya
and Canny <ivera. :t (as alle)ed therein that ?icky 6caya (as ille)ally arrested and detained, and
denied the ri)ht to a preli$inary investi)ation.
:t (ould appear, ho(ever, that ?icky 6caya (as arrested in flagranti delicto so that her arrest (ithout
a (arrant is >usti'ied. #o preli$inary investi)ation (as conducted because she (as arrested (ithout
a (arrant and she re'used to (aive the provisions o' ;rticle 1!/ o' the <evised "enal Code,
pursuant to Sec. 0, <ule 11! o' the <ule o' Court, as a$ended.
?
+he petitioners ?icky 6caya, Co$in)o ;nonuevo, <a$on Casiple, and ;$elia <oDue clai$ that the
'irear$s, a$$unition and subversive docu$ents alle)ed to have been 'ound in their possession
(hen they (ere arrested, did not belon) to the$, but (ere EplantedE by the $ilitary a)ents to >usti'y
their ille)al arrest.
+he petitioners, ho(ever, have not introduced any evidence to support their a'oresaid clai$. 6n the
other hand, no evil $otive or ill-(ill on the part o' the arrestin) o''icers that (ould cause the said
arrestin) o''icers in these cases to accuse the petitioners 'alsely, has been sho(n. 8esides, the
arrestin) o''icers in these cases do not appear to be seekers o' )lory and bounty hunters 'or, as
counsel 'or the petitioners ;nonuevo and Casiple say, Ethere is absolutely nothin) in the evidence
sub$itted durin) the inDuest that petitioners are on the 1;F" 6rder o' 8attle (ith a re(ard o'
"1/5,555.55 each on their heads.1E
6
6n the other hand, as pointed out by the Solicitor @eneral, the
arrest o' the petitioners is not a product o' a (itch hunt or a 'ishin) e9pedition, but the result o' an in-depth
surveillance o' #"; sa'ehouses pointed to by no less than 'or$er co$rades o' the petitioners in the rebel
$ove$ent.
+he Solicitor @eneral, in his Consolidated &e$orandu$, aptly observes*
. . . . +o reiterate, the 'ocal point in the case o' petitioners <oDue, 8uenaobra,
;nonuevo and Casiple, (as the la('ul search and seizure conducted by the $ilitary
at the residence o' <enato Constantino at ?illaluz Co$pound, &olave St., &arikina
,ei)hts, &arikina, &etro &anila. +he raid at Constantino1s residence, (as not a (itch
huntin) or 'ishin) e9pedition on the part o' the $ilitary. :t (as a result o' an in-depth
$ilitary surveillance coupled (ith the leads provided by 'or$er $e$bers o' the
under)round subversive or)anizations. +hat raid produced positive results. to date,
nobody has disputed the 'act that the residence o' Constantino (hen raided yielded
co$$unication eDuip$ent, 'irear$s and a$$unitions, as (ell as subversive
docu$ents.
+he $ilitary a)ents (orkin) on the in'or$ation provided by Constantino that other
$e$bers o' his )roup (ere co$in) to his place, reasonably conducted a Estake-outE
operation (hereby so$e $e$bers o' the raidin) tea$ (ere le't behind the place.
+rue enou)h, barely t(o hours a'ter the raid and Constantino1s arrest, petitioner
8uenaobra arrived at Constantino1s residence. ,e acted suspiciously and (hen
'risked and searched by the $ilitary authorities, 'ound in his person (ere letters.
+hey are no ordinary letters, as even a cursory readin) (ould sho(. #ot only that,
8uenaobra ad$itted that he is a #"; courier and (as there to deliver the letters to
Constantino.
SubseDuently, less than t(enty 'our hours a'ter the arrest o' Constantino and
8uenaobra, petitioners ;nonuevo and Casiple arrived at Constantino1s place. Would
it be unreasonable 'or the $ilitary a)ents to believe that petitioners ;nonuevo and
Casiple are a$on) those e9pected to visit Constantino1s residence considerin) that
Constatino1s in'or$ation (as true, in that 8uenaobra did co$e to that placeI Was it
unreasonable under the circu$stances, on the part o' the $ilitary a)ents, not to 'risk
and search anyone (ho should visit the residence o' Constantino, such as
petitioners ;nonuevo and CasipleI &ust this ,onorable Court yield to ;nonuevo and
Casiple1s 'li$sy and bare assertion that they (ent to visit Constantino, (ho (as to
leave 'or Saudi ;rabia on the day they (ere arrested thereatI
;s to petitioner <oDue, (as it unreasonable 'or the $ilitary authorities to e''ect her
arrest (ithout (arrant considerin) that it (as 8uenaobra (ho provided the leads on
her identityI :t cannot be denied that 8uenaobra had connection (ith <oDue.
8ecause the 'or$er has the phone nu$ber o' the latter. Why the necessity o'
>u$blin) <oDue1s telephone nu$ber as (ritten on a piece o' paper taken 'ro$
8uenaobra1s possessionI "etitioners <oDue and 8uenaobra have not o''ered any
plausible reason so 'ar.
:n all the above incidents, respondents $aintain that they acted reasonably, under
the ti$e, place and circu$stances o' the events in Duestion, especially considerin)
that at the ti$e o' petitioner1s arrest, incri$inatory evidence, i.e, 'irear$s,
a$$unitions andBor subversive docu$ents (ere 'ound in their possession.
"etitioners, (hen arrested, (ere neither takin) their snacks nor innocently visitin) a
ca$p, but (ere arrested in such ti$e, place and circu$stances, 'ro$ (hich one can
reasonably conclude tat they (ere up to a sinister plot, involvin) ut$ost secrecy and
co$prehensive conspiracy.
:?
:n. @.<. #o. J/0!0 27spiritu vs. %i$3, the release on habeas corpus o' the petitioner Ceo)racias
7spiritu, (ho is detained by virtue o' an :n'or$ation 'or ?iolation o' ;rticle 14! o' the <evised "enal
Code 2:ncitin) to Sedition3 'iled (ith the <e)ional +rial Court o' &anila, is si$ilarly not (arranted.
+he record o' the case sho(s that the said petitioner is the @eneral Secretary o' the "ina)kaisahan)
Sa$ahan n) +super at 6perators #ation(ide 2":S+6#3, an association o' drivers and operators o'
public service vehicles in the "hilippines, or)anized 'or their $utual aid and protection.
"etitioner clai$s that at about /*55 o1clock in the $ornin) o' ! #ove$ber 19JJ, (hile he (as
sleepin) in his ho$e located at 6 ?alencia St., Sta. &esa, &anila, he (as a(akened by his sister
&aria "az %alic (ho told hi$ that a )roup o' persons (anted to hire his >eepney. When he (ent
do(n to talk to the$, he (as i$$ediately put under arrest. When he asked 'or the (arrant o' arrest,
the $en, headed by Col. <icardo <eyes, bodily li'ted hi$ and placed hi$ in their o(ner-type
>eepney. ,e de$anded that his sister, &aria "az %alic, be allo(ed to acco$pany hi$, but the $en
did not accede to his reDuest and hurriedly sped a(ay.
,e (as brou)ht to "olice Station #o. J o' the Western "olice Cistrict at 8lu$entritt, &anila (here he
(as interro)ated and detained. +hen, at about 9*55 o1clock o' the sa$e $ornin), he (as brou)ht
be'ore the respondent %i$ and, there and then, the said respondent ordered his arrest and
detention. ,e (as therea'ter brou)ht to the @eneral ;ssi)n$ent Section, :nvesti)ation Civision o'
the Western "olice Cistrict under "olice Capt. Cresenciano ;. Cabasal (here he (as detained,
restrained and deprived o' his liberty.
7
+he respondents clai$ ho(ever, that the detention o' the petitioner is >usti'ied in vie( o' the
:n'or$ation 'iled a)ainst hi$ be'ore the <e)ional +rial Court o' &anila, docketed therein as Cri$inal
Case #o. JJ-6J-J/, char)in) hi$ (ith violation o' ;rt. 14! o' the <evised "enal Code 2:ncitin) to
Sedition3.
+he respondents also clai$ that the petitioner (as la('ully arrested (ithout a >udicial (arrant o'
arrest since petitioner (hen arrested had in 'act >ust co$$itted an o''ense in that in the a'ternoon o'
!! #ove$ber 19JJ, durin) a press con'erence at the #ational "ress Club.
Ceo)racias 7spiritu throu)h tri-$edia (as heard ur)in) all drivers and operators to
)o on nation(ide strike on #ove$ber !, 19JJ, to 'orce the )overn$ent to )ive into
their de$ands to lo(er the prices o' spare parts, co$$odities, (ater and the
i$$ediate release 'ro$ detention o' the president o' the ":S+6# 2"ina)-isan)
Sa$ahan n) +super 6perators #ation(ide3. Further, (e heard Ceo)racias 7spiritu
takin) the place o' ":S+6# president &edardo <oda and also announced the
'or$ation o' the ;lliance Crivers ;ssociation to )o on nation(ide strike on #ove$ber
!, 19JJ.
2
"olice$en (aited 'or petitioner outside the #ational "res Club in order to investi)ate hi$, but he
)ave the la($en the slip.
9
,e (as ne9t seen at about /*55 o1clock that a'ternoon at a )atherin) o'
drivers and sy$phatizers at the corner o' &a)saysay 8lvd. and ?alencia Street, Sta. &esa, &anila (here
he (as heard to say*
8ukas tuloy an) (el)a natin, su$a)ot na an) Cebu at 8icol na kasali sila, at hindi
tayo titi)il han))an) hindi binibi)ay n) )obyerno ni Cory an) )usto natin) pa)baba
n) hala)a n) spare parts, bilihin at and pa)papalaya sa atin) pinuno na si .a
<oda hanggang sa mag(agulo na.
10
2e$phasis supplied3
+he police 'inally cau)ht up (ith the petitioner on ! #ove$ber 19JJ. ,e (as invited 'or Duestionin)
and brou)ht to police headDuarters a'ter (hich an :n'or$ation 'or violation o' ;rt. 14! o' the <evised
"enal Code (as 'iled a)ainst hi$ be'ore the <e)ional +rial Court o' &anila.
11
Since the arrest o' the petitioner (ithout a (arrant (as in accordance (ith the provisions o' <ule
11, Sec. /2b3 o' the <ules o' Court and that the petitioner is detained by virtue o' a valid in'or$ation
'iled (ith the co$petent court, he $ay not be released on habeas corpus. ,e $ay, ho(ever be
released upon postin) bail as reco$$ended. ,o(ever, (e 'ind the a$ount o' the reco$$ended bail
2"65,555.553 e9cessive and (e reduce it to "15,555.55 only.
?::
:n @.<. #o. J6! 2#azareno vs. Station Co$$ander3, (e also 'ind no $erit in the sub$ission
o' 9arciso 9azareno that he (as ille)ally arrested and is unla('ully detained. +he record o' this case
sho(s that at about J*5 o1clock in the $ornin) o' 14 Cece$ber 19JJ, one <o$ulo 8unye :: (as
killed by a )roup o' $en near the corner o' +. &olina and &endiola Streets in ;laban), &untin)lupa,
&etro &anila. 6ne o' the suspects in the killin) (as <a$il <e)al (ho (as arrested by the police on
!J Cece$ber 19JJ. Apon Duestionin), <e)al pointed to #arciso #azareno as on o' his co$panions
in the killin) o' the said <o$ulo 8unye ::. :n vie( thereo', the police o''icers, (ithout (arrant, picked
up #arciso #azareno and brou)ht hi$ to the police headDuarters 'or Duestionin). 6bviously, the
evidence o' petitioner1s )uilt is stron) because on January 19J9, an in'or$ation char)in) #arciso
#azareno, <a$il <e)ala, and t(o 2!3 others, (ith the killin) o' <o$ulo 8unye :: (as 'iled (ith the
<e)ional +rial Court o' &akati, &etro &anila. +he case is docketed therein as Cri$inal Case #o.
01.
6n 0 January 19J9, #arciso #azareno 'iled a $otion to post bail, but the $otion (as denied by the
trial court in an order dated 15 January 19J9, even as the $otion to post bail, earlier 'iled by his co-
accused, &anuel %aurea)a, (as )ranted by the sa$e trial court.
6n 1 January 19J9, a petition 'or habeas corpus (as 'iled (ith this Court on behal' o' #arciso
#azareno and on 1 January 19J9, the Court issued the (rit o' habeas corpus, returnable to the
"residin) Jud)e o' the <e)ional +rial Court o' 8iTan, %a)una, 8ranch !4, orderin) said court to hear
the case on 5 January 19J9 and therea'ter resolve the petition.
;t the conclusion o' the hearin), or on 1 February 19J9, the "residin) Jud)e o' the <e)ional +rial
Court o' 8iTan, %a)una issued a resolution denyin) the petition 'or habeas corpus, it appearin) that
the said #arciso #azareno is in the custody o' the respondents by reason o' an in'or$ation 'iled
a)ainst hi$ (ith the <e)ional +rial Court o' &akati, &etro &anila (hich had taken co)nizance o'
said case and had, in 'act, denied the $otion 'or bail 'iled by said #arciso #azareno 2presu$ably
because o' the stren)th o' the evidence a)ainst hi$3.
+he 'indin)s o' the "residin) Jud)e o' the <e)ional +rial Court o' 8iTan, %a)una are based upon the
'acts and the la(. ConseDuently, (e (ill not disturb the sa$e. 7vidently, the arrest o' #azareno (as
e''ected by the police (ithout (arrant pursuant to Sec. /2b3, <ule 11, <ules o' Court a'ter he (as
positively i$plicated by his co-accused <a$il <e)ala in the killin) o' <o$ulo 8unye
::= and a'ter investi)ation by the police authorities. ;s held in 0eople %s. Ancheta*
12
+he obli)ation o' an a)ent o' authority to $ake an arrest by reason o' a cri$e, does
not presuppose as a necessary reDuisite 'or the 'ul'ill$ent thereo', the indubitable
e9istence o' a cri$e. For the detention to be per'ectly le)al, it is su''icient that the
a)ent or person in authority $akin) the arrest has reasonably su''icient )rounds to
believe the e9istence o' an act havin) the characteristics o' a cri$e and that the
sa$e )rounds e9ist to believe that the person sou)ht to be detained participated
therein.
?:::
:t is to be noted that, in all the petitions here considered, cri$inal char)es have been 'iled in the
proper courts a)ainst the petitioners. +he rule is, that i' a person alle)ed to be restrained o' his
liberty is in the custody o' an o''icer under process issued by a court >ud)e, and that the court or
>ud)e had >urisdiction to issue the process or $ake the order, o' if such person is charged before
an' court, the (rit o' habeas corpus (ill not be allo(ed. Section 4, <ule 15!, <ules o' Court, as
a$ended is Duite e9plicit in providin) that*
Sec. 4. *hen writ is allowed or discharge authorized. H :' it appears that the person
alle)ed to be restrained o' his liberty is in the custody o' an o''icer under process
issued by a court or >ud)e or by virtue o' a >ud)$ent or order o' a court o' record, and
that the court or >ud)e had >urisdiction to issue the process, render the >ud)$ent, or
$ake the order, the (rit shall not be allo(ed= or i' the >urisdiction appears a'ter the
(rit is allo(ed, the person shall not be dischar)ed by reason o' any in'or$ality or
de'ect in the process, >ud)$ent, or order. 9or shall an'thing in this rule be held to
authorize the discharge of a person charged with a con%icted of an offense in the
0hilippines or o' a person su''erin) i$prison$ent under la('ul >ud)$ent. 2e$phasis
supplied3
;t this point, (e re'er to petitioner1s plea 'or the Court o' re-e9a$ine and, therea'ter, abandon its
pronounce$ent in 3lagan %s. Enrile,
13
that a (rit o' habeas corpus is no lon)er available a'ter an
in'or$ation is 'iled a)ainst the person detained and a (arrant o' arrest or an order o' co$$it$ent, is
issued by the court (here said in'or$ation has been 'iled.
15
+he petitioners clai$ that the said rulin),
(hich (as handed do(n durin) the past dictatorial re)i$e to en'orce and stren)then said re)i$e, has no
place under the present de$ocratic dispensation and collides (ith the basic, 'unda$ental, and
constitutional ri)hts o' the people. "etitioners point out that the said doctrine $akes possible the arrest
and detention o' innocent persons despite lack o' evidence a)ainst the$, and, $ost o'ten, it is only a'ter a
petition 'or habeas corpus is 'iled be'ore the court that the $ilitary authorities 'ile the cri$inal in'or$ation
in the courts o' la( to be able to hide behind the protective $antle o' the said doctrine. +his, petitioners
assert, stands as an obstacle to the 'reedo$ and liberty o' the people and per$its la(less and arbitrary
State action.
We 'ind, ho(ever, no co$pellin) reason to abandon the said doctrine. :t is based upon e9press
provision o' the <ules o' Court and the e9i)encies served by the la(. +he 'ears e9pressed by the
petitioners are not really unre$ediable. ;s the Court sees it, re-e9a$ination or reappraisal, (ith a
vie( to its abandon$ent, o' the :la)an case doctrine is not the ans(er. +he ans(er and the better
practice (ould be, not to li$it the 'unction o' thehabeas corpus to a $ere inDuiry as to (hether or not
the court (hich issued the process, >ud)$ent or order o' co$$it$ent or be'ore (ho$ the detained
person is char)ed, had >urisdiction or not to issue the process, >ud)$ent or order or to take
co)nizance o' the case, but rather, as the Court itsel' states in Morales- .r. %s. Enrile,
19
Ein all
petitions 'or habeas corpus the court $ust inDuire into every phase and aspect o' petitioner1s detention-
'ro$ the $o$ent petition was ta(en into custod' up to the moment the court passes upon the merits of
the petition=E and Eonl' after such a scrutin' can the court satisf' itself that the due process clause of our
,onstitution has in fact been satisfied.E +his is e9actly (hat the Court has done in the petitions at bar.
+his is (hat should hence'orth be done in all 'uture cases o' habeas corpus. :n Short, all cases involvin)
deprivation o' individual liberty should be pro$ptly brou)ht to the courts 'or their i$$ediate scrutiny and
disposition.
W,7<7F6<7, the petitions are hereby C:S&:SS7C, e9cept that in G.+. 9o. <>?=? 27spiritu vs.
%i$3, the bail bond 'or petitioner1s provisional liberty is hereby ordered reduced 'ro$ "65,555.55 to
"15,555.55. #o costs.
S6 6<C7<7C.
Fernan ,...- 9ar%asa- ,...- Melencio-)errera- Gutierrez- .r.- 0aras- Ganca'co- 0adilla- /idin- Gri#o-
A&uino- Medialdea and +egalado- ...- concur.



Se*/+e O*&n&on(

CRU1, J., dissentin) and concurrin)*
: dissent inso'ar as the ponencia a''ir$s the rulin) in Garcia-0adilla %. 7nrile that subversion is a
continuin) o''ense, to >usti'y the arrest (ithout (arrant o' any person at an' time as lon) as the
authorities say he has been placed under surveillance on suspicion o' the o''ense. +hat is a
dan)erous doctrine. ; person $ay be arrested (hen he is doin) the $ost innocent acts, as (hen he
is only (ashin) his hands, or takin) his supper, or even (hen he is sleepin), on the )round that he
is co$$ittin) the Econtinuin)E o''ense o' subversion. %ibertarians (ere appalled (hen that doctrine
(as i$posed durin) the &arcos re)i$e. : a$ alar$ed that even no( this ne( Court is (illin) to
sustain it. : stron)ly ur)e $y collea)ues to discard it alto)ether as one o' the dis)race'ul vesti)es o'
the past dictatorship and uphold the rule )uaranteein) the ri)ht o' the people a)ainst unreasonable
searches and seizures. We can do no less i' (e are really to re>ect the past oppression and co$$it
ourselves to the true 'reedo$. 7ven i' it be ar)ued that the $ilitary should be )iven every support in
our 'i)ht a)ainst subversion, : $aintain that that 'i)ht $ust be (a)ed honorably, in accordance (ith
the 8ill o' <i)hts. : do not believe that in 'i)htin) the ene$y (e $ust adopt the (ays o' the ene$y,
(hich are precisely (hat (e are 'i)htin) against. : sub$it that our $ore i$portant $otivation should
be (hat are (e 'i)htin) for.
79cept 'or this reservation and appeal, : concur (ith the decision.

"EL$C$ANO, J., concurrin)*
: concur in the result reached in each o' the ei)ht 2J3 consolidated "etitions 'or )abeas ,orpus. ;t
the sa$e ti$e, : have so$e reservations concernin) certain state$ents $ade by the Court in @.<.
#o. J1/60 2A$il, et al. v. <a$os3 2"art : o' the Cecision3 and in @.<. #o. J/0!0 27spiritu v. %i$3
2"art ?: o' the Cecision3.
:n @.<. #o. J1/60 2A$il, et al. v. <a$os3, the per curiam opinion states cate)orically that* Ethe
cri$es o' rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to co$$it such cri$es, and cri$es or
o''enses co$$itted in 'urtherance thereo' or in connection there(ith constitute direct assaults
a)ainst the State and are in the nature o' continuing crimes.E +he $a>ority here relies upon Garcia-
0adilla %. Enrile 21!1 SC<; 40! F19JG3. +he $a>ority there $ade the sa$e eDually broad state$ent
but (ithout any visible e''ort to e9a$ine the basis, scope and $eanin) o' such a s(eepin)
state$ent. Garcia-0adilla did not even identi'y the speci'ic o''enses (hich it re)arded as Ein the
nature o' continuin) o''enses (hich set the$ apart 'ro$ the co$$on o''ensesE 21!1 SC<; at 4J93.
:t appears to $e that in @.<. #o. J/0!0 27spiritu v. %i$3 2"art ?: o' the Cecision3, the per
curiam opinion has in e''ect included the o''ense o' Eincitin) to seditionE penalized under ;rticle 14!
o' the <evised "enal Code as a Econtinuin) o''enseE under the capacious blanket o' the $a>ority
opinion in Garcia-0adilla, at least 'or purposes o' deter$inin) the le)ality o' the arrest (ithout a
(arrant o' petitioner Ceo)racias 7spiritu.
: (ould respect'ully recall to $y learned collea)ues in the Court that Eincitin) to seditionE is de'ined in
;rticle 14! o' the <evised "enal Code in ter$s o' speech
1
and that conseDuently it is i$portant
constantly do distin)uish bet(een speech (hich is protected by the constitutional )uaranty o' 'reedo$ o'
speech and o' the press and speech (hich $ay constitutionally be re)arded as violative o' ;rticle 14! o'
the <evised "enal Code. "recisely because speech (hich the police authorities $i)ht re)ard as seditious
or as cri$inal incitin) to sedition $ay (ell turn out to be only an e9ercise o' a constitutionally )uaranteed
'reedo$, : (ould sub$it that (e $ust apply the concept o' Econtinuin) o''enseE narro(ly 'or purposes o'
application o' Section /2b3, <ule 11 o' the <evised <ules o' Court.
:n $y vie(, the very broad state$ent $ade about Econtinuin) cri$esE in @.<. #o. J1/60 2A$il, et al
v. <a$os3 constitutes dictum, considerin) that <olando Cural and 8ernardo :tucal, Jr. had already
been tried in the court belo( 'or Edouble $urder, etc.E and 'ound )uilty o' the o''ense char)ed,
sentenced accordin)ly, and at least in the case o' <olando Cural, service o' the sentence i$posed
upon hi$ by the trial court had already be)un.
Si$ilarly, in @.<. #o. J/0!0 27spiritu v. %i$3 the state$ent that the arrest o' petitioner 7spiritu
(ithout a (arrant (as in accordance (ith the provisions o' Section /2b3, <ule 11 o' the <evised
<ules o' Court does not appear strictly necessary, considerin) that the petitioner had already been
char)ed in a valid in'or$ation 'iled (ith the co$petent court, (hich court had presu$ably issued an
order 'or his co$$it$ent, and considerin) 'urther that he is entitled to bail.
+here is thus no obstacle, to $y $ind, to a care'ul e9a$ination o' the doctrine o' Econtinuin) cri$esE
as applied to such o''enses as subversion and incitin) to sedition and possibly other o''enses, in
so$e 'uture case (here that issue is raised sDuarely and is unavoidable.
,ortes- ..- concurs.

SARM$ENTO, J., dissentin)*
: be) to di''er 'ro$ $y brethren. : sub$it that habeas corpus lies in all ei)ht cases.
@.<. #o. J1/60
+he $a>ority says that <olando Cural1s arrest (ithout a (arrant is la('ul under the <ules o' Court,
(hich reads*
Sec. /. Arrest without warrant= when lawful. H ; peace o''icer or a private person
$ay, (ithout a (arrant, arrest a person*
2a3 When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has co$$itted, is actually
co$$ittin), or is atte$ptin) to co$$it an o''ense=
2b3 When an o''ense has in 'act >ust been co$$itted, and he has personal
kno(led)e o' 'acts indicatin) that the person to be arrested has co$$itted it= and
2c3 When the person to be arrested is a prisoner (ho has escaped 'ro$ a penal
establish$ent or place (here he is servin) 'inal >ud)$ent or te$porarily con'ined
(hile his case is pendin), or has escaped (hile bein) trans'erred 'ro$ one
con'ine$ent to another.
:n cases 'allin) under para)raphs 2a3 and 2b3 hereo', the person arrested (ithout a (arrant shall be
'orth(ith delivered to the nearest police station or >ail, and he shall be proceeded a)ainst in
accordance (ith <ule 11!, Section 0.
1
E<olando Cural,E so states the $a>ority, E(as arrested 'or bein) a $e$ber o' the #e( "eople1s ;r$y
2#";3, an outla(ed subversive or)anization,E
2
and that EFsGubversion bein) a continuing offense, the
arrest o' <olando Cural (ithout a (arrant is >usti'ied as it can be said that he (as co$$ittin) an o''ense
(hen arrested.E
3
;s : said, : be) to di''er.
First, <olando Cural (as char)ed (ith ECouble &urder (ith ;ssault upon ;)ents o' ;uthority.E
5
:' he
had been )uilty o' subversion H the o''ense 'or (hich he (as supposedly arrested %ia a (arrantless
arrest H subversion (as the lo)ical cri$e (ith (hich he should have been char)ed.
+he authorities could not have ri)htly arrested hi$ 'or subversion on account o' the slay o' the t(o
C;"C6& soldiers, a possible basis 'or violation o' the ;nti-Subversion ;ct, because as the $a>ority
points out, Ehe (as not arrested (hile in the act o' shootin) Fthe$G . . . FnGor (as he arrested >ust
a'ter the co$$ission o' the said o''ense 'or his arrest ca$e a da' after the said shootin) incident.E
9
Second, : do not believe that a (arrantless 2or citizen1s3 arrest is possible in case o' subversion H in
the absence o' any overt act that (ould >usti'y the authorities to act. ESubversion,E as the ter$ is
kno(n in la(, $eans Ekno(in)ly, (il'ully and b' o%ert acts a''iliatFin)G Fonesel'G (ith, beco$Fin)G or
re$ainFin)G a $e$ber o' the Co$$unist "arty o' the "hilippines andBor its successor or o' any
subversion association as de'ined in sections t(o and three hereo'. . . . E
6
%o)ically, the $ilitary could
not have kno(n that Cural, at the ti$e he (as taken, (as a $e$ber o' the #e( "eople1s ;r$y because
he (as not per'or$in) any over act that he (as truly, a rebel. :ndeed, it had to take a Everi'icationE
6
be'ore
he could be identi'ied as alle)edly a $e$ber o' the under)round ar$y. Ander these circu$stances, : a$
hard put to say that he (as co$$ittin) subversion (hen he (as arrested, assu$in) that he (as )uilty o'
subversion, 'or purposes o' a (arrantless arrest.
E6vert actE is $ade up o' EFeGvery act, $ove$ent, deed and (ord o' the
FaccusedG,E
7
indicatin) intent to acco$plish a cri$inal ob>ective. Cural, at the ti$e he
(as arrested, (as lyin) in a hospital bed. +his is not the overt act conte$plated by la(.
Ander the <ule above-Duoted, the person $ust have either been apprehended in flagranti 2'irst
para)raph3 or a'ter the act, provided that the peace o''icer has Epersonal kno(led)eE that he, the
suspect, is )uilty. 2second para)raph.3 ;s : stated, Cural (as not cau)ht in the act. &oreover, (hat
the <e)ional :ntelli)ence 6perations Anit o' the Capital Co$$and 2<:6A-C;"C6&3 had in its
hands (as a $ere Econ'idential in'or$ation.E : do not think that this is the personal kno(led)e
re'erred to by the second para)raph.
2
"lainly and si$ply, it is hearsay.
+he rule, 'urther$ore, on (arrantless arrest is an e9ceptional one. 8y its lan)ua)e, it $ay be
e9ercised only in the $ost ur)ent cases and (hen the )uilt o' an o''ender is plain and evident. What
: think (e have here is purely and si$ply, the $ilitary takin) the la( in its hands.
8y sta$pin) validity to <olando Cural1s (arrantless arrest, : a$ a'raid that the $a>ority has set a
very dan)erous precedent. With all due respect, $y brethren has accorded the $ilitary a blanket
authority to pick up any Juan, "edro, and &aria (ithout a (arrant 'or the si$ple reason that
subversion is supposed to be a continuin) o''ense.
+hat <olando Cural (as arrested 'or bein) a $e$ber o' the #e( "eople1s ;r$yE
9
is 'urther$ore to
$e, a hasty state$ent. :t has yet to be established that Cural is indeed a $e$ber o' the Co$$unist
"arty1s $ilitary ar$. ;nd unless proven )uilty, he is presu$ed, and $ust be presu$ed $ost o' all by this
Court, to be innocent.
+he $a>ority also says that habeas corpus is $oot and acade$ic because Cural has been convicted
and is servin) sentence. : like(ise take e9ception. :t has been held that* E+he (rit $ay be )ranted
upon a >ud)$ent already 'inal.E
10
+he (rit o' liberty is a hi)h prero)ative (rit.
11
?indication o' due process is its historic o''ice.
12
@.<. #os. J4/J1-J!
:n the case o' Wil'redo 8uenaobra, the $a>ority avers that he had E$ani'ested his desire to stay in
the "C-:#" stockade,E
13
'or (hich habeas corpus has supposedly beco$e $oot and acade$ic. : a$ not
convinced that that is reason enou)h to dis$iss habeas corpus as $oot and acade$ic. :t is the duty o'
this Court, in $y opinion, to $ake sure that 8uenaobra has $ade his choice 'reely and voluntarily.
"ersonally, : 'ind it indeed stran)e (hy he should pre'er to stay in >ail than )o scot-'ree.
+here is 'urther no doubt that 8uenaobra1s petition is one i$pressed (ith a public interest. :n one
case
15
(e denied a $otion to (ithdra( a petition 'or habeas corpus in vie( o' its 'ar-reachin) i$portance
to the $otion, : do not see ho( (e should act di''erently, perhaps even insouciantly, here, especially since
it involves persons (ho think and believe di''erently 'ro$ the rest o' us.
8oth 8uenaobra and ;$elia <oDue supposedly ad$itted that they (ere rankin) o''icers o' the
Co$$unist "arty o' the "hilippines. ;ccordin) to the $a>ority, 8uenaobra and <oDue are bound by
their ad$issions.
19
+hat both parties had ad$itted to be $e$bers o' the Co$$unist "arty o' the "hilippines 2the
#ational Anited Front Co$$ission3 is a naked contention o' the $ilitary. +he 'act that it has not been
controverted, in $y vie(, does not >usti'y the couple1s arrest (ithout (arrant. Worse, by relyin) on
the bare (ord o' the $ilitary, this very Court has, to all intents and purposes, conde$ned the duo 'or
a cri$e 2subversion andBor ille)al possession o' 'irear$s3 the bone o' contention, precisely, belo(.
@.<. #os. J4/J-J4
: also 'ind the (arrantless arrests o' Co$in)o ;Tonuevo and <a$on Casiple to be contrary to la(.
+hat they are Ead$ittedly $e$bers o' the standin) co$$ittee o' the #AFCE
16
and that Esubversive
$aterialsE
17
and unlicensed 'irear$s (ere 'ound in their possession, are, like 8uenaobra1s and <oDue1s
cases, barren clai$s o' the $ilitary. : also 'ear that by the $a>ority1s stron) lan)ua)e 2that ;Tonuevo and
Casiple are ad$itted #ACF o''icers3 the $a>ority has pronounced the petitioners )uilty, (hen the lo(er
courts have yet to sit in >ud)$ent. : think (e should be the last to pree$pt the decision o' the trial courts.
We (ould have set to nau)ht the presu$ption o' innocence accused persons en>oy.
@.<. #o. J16!
With respect to the case o' ?icky 6caya, : a$ a'raid that : a$ inclined to(ards the sa$e conclusion.
+here (as basis H at the outset H to say that 6caya (as probably )uilty o' ille)al possession o'
'irear$s. ;s : have observed, a (arrantless arrest $ust be predicated upon the e9istence o' a cri$e
bein) actually co$$itted or havin) been co$$itted. What : 'ind here, rather, is nothin) less than a
success'ul 'ishin) e9pedition conducted by the $ilitary upon an un(ary citizen. : a$ Duite distressed
to note that this is still possible under a supposed de$ocracy.
@.<. #o. J/0!0
Ceo)racias 7spiritu (as 'ast asleep in his house (hen he (as placed under arrest. For the li'e o'
$e, : can not 'i)ure out ho( one can be picked upon in one1s o(n ho$e and held $o$ents later
(ithout a (arrant o' arrest.
7spiritu (as alle)edly )uilty o' incitin) to sedition as a result o' a speech delivered in a press
con'erence at the #ational "ress Club on #ove$ber !1, 19JJ. ,e (as, ho(ever, arrested the day
a'ter, #ove$ber !!, 19JJ. Ander these circu$stances, it eludes $e ho( an arrest (ithout a (arrant
could be >usti'ied, either under para)raph 2a3 or para)raph 2b3 o' the <ule on (arrantless arrests.
+he $a>ority avers that since an in'or$ation had been 'iled (ith the court, 7spiritu1s detention, is
alle)edly >usti'iable. +he Duestion is (hether or not an in'or$ation is an authority to hold a person in
custody. Ander the <ules, an in'or$ation $eans Ean accusation in (ritin) char)in) a person (ith an
o''ense subscribed by the 'iscal and 'iled (ith the court.E
12
:t is not, ho(ever, an order to keep one
under detention.
@.<. #o. J6!
+he o''ense 'or (hich #arciso #azareno is bein) held H the 'atal shootin) o' <o$ulo 8unye :: H
(as co$$itted on Cece$ber 14, 19JJ. :t (as, ho(ever, only on Cece$ber !J, 19JJ that the police
collared a suspect, <a$il <e)ala, (ho subseDuently pointed to #azareno as his acco$plice. :t also
escapes $e ho( #azareno, under these circu$stances, could have been validly put under arrest
(ithout a (arrant or the e9istence o' the circu$stance described under either para)raph 2a3 or 2b3 o'
the <ule above-Duoted* +he cri$e had lon) been co$$itted prior to the arrest.
@.<. #os. J1/60= J4/J1-J!= J4/J-J4= J16!=
J/0!0 M J6!= "ostscripts
+he $a>ority has disposed o' these cases on the bedrock o' (hat : vie( as doctrines that have lost
their luster*
1. +he teachin) o' Garcia-0adilla %. Enrile,
19
(hich held that subversion is a continuin) o''ense=
!. +he rulin) in 3lagan %. Enrile.
20
: also 'ind, 'or reasons to be set 'orth hereina'ter, a )lossin) over o' the 'unda$ental ri)hts o' the
petitioners under the Constitution in the authorities1 handlin) o' the petitioners1 cases.
: hold that Garcia-0adilla is no lon)er )ood la( under the present Constitution. +(o reasons
persuade $e. First, it is repu)nant to due process o' la(. 2E+he arrest, there'ore, need not 'ollo( the
usual procedure in the prosecution o' o''enses (hich reDuire the deter$ination by a >ud)e o' the
e9istence o' probable cause be'ore the issuance o' a >udicial (arrant o' arrest and the )rantin) o'
bail i' the o''ense is bailable.E
21
Ander the 19J0 Constitution, not even EFaG state o' $artial la(
suspendFsG the operation o' Fthe CharterG. . .E
22
Second, it leaves the liberty o' citizens to the (hi$ o' one
$an 2E6n these occasions Fthe e9istence o' a state o' e$er)encyG, the "resident takes absolute
co$$and, 'or the very li'e o' the #ation and its )overn$ent, (hich, incidentally, includes the courts, is in
)rave peril. :n so doin), the "resident is ans(erable only to his conscience, the people and to @od. For
their part, in )ivin) hi$ the supre$e $andate as their "resident, the people can only trust and pray that,
)ivin) hi$ their o(n loyalty and (ithout patriotis$, the "resident (ill not 'ail the$.E
23
3 Ander the Charter
no( prevailin), the Chie' 79ecutive shares, to a certain e9tent, the e9ercise o' e$er)ency po(ers, (ith
Con)ress.
25
;s a la( advocate under the re)i$e o' &arcos, : had challen)ed the soundness o' Garcia-0adilla. :
doubted (hether it could stand up under the ae)is o' the 190 Constitution. : still doubt (hether it
can (ithstand scrutiny under the 19J0 Constitution.
+he $a>ority also 'ails to point out that si9 days a'ter @arcia-"adilla (as handed do(n, the Court
pro$ul)atedMorales- .r. %. Enrile,
29
a case that in $y vie( has si)ni'icantly (hittled do(n Garcia-
0adillaIs very esse. :n that case, &r. Justice ,er$o)enes Concepcion, Jr. (rote 'or the $a>ority*
999 999 999
16. ;'ter a person is arrested . . . (ithout a (arrant . . . the proper co$plaint or
in'or$ation a)ainst hi$ $ust be 'iled (ith the courts o' >ustice (ithin the ti$e
prescribed by la(. . .
10. Failure o' the public o''icer to do so (ithout any valid reason (ould constitute a
violation o' ;rt. 1!/, <evised "enal Code, as a$ended. ;nd the person detained
(ould be entitled to be released on a (rit o' habeas corpus, unless he is detained
under subsistin) process issued by a co$petent court.
26
: also )ather 'ro$ the records that none o' the petitioners had been* 213 in'or$ed o' their ri)ht to
re$ain silent= and 2!3 to have co$petent and independent counsel.
27
;s : said, the $a>ority is denyin) habeas corpus on sel'-servin) clai$s o' the $ilitary that the
petitioners 2Cural, 8uenaobra, <oDue, ;Tonuevo, and Casiple3 are $e$bers o' the Co$$unist
"arty o' the "hilippines H and that they have supposedly con'essed to be in 'act $e$bers o' the
outla(ed or)anization. +he Duestion that has not been ans(ered is (hether or not these supposed
con'essions are ad$issible, 'or purposes o' a (arrantless arrest, as evidence o' )uilt, in the absence
o' any sho(in) that they (ere apprised o' their constitutional ri)hts. : a$ perturbed by the silence o'
the $a>ority. : a$ distressed because as (e held in one case, violation o' the Constitution divests
the court o' >urisdiction and entitles the accused to habeas corpus.
22
;ccordin) to the $a>ority, a Ere-e9a$ination or re-appraisal . . . o'
the :la)an doctrine is not the ans(er.E
29
:n $y considered opinion, 3lagan %. Enrile
30
does not ri)ht'ully
belon) in the volu$es o' "hilippine >urisprudence. :n that case, the petitioners, three Cavao-based
la(yers, (ere held by virtue o' a si$ple in'or$ation 2Ethe petition herein has been rendered $oot and
acade$ic by virtue o' the 'ilin) o' an :n'or$ation a)ainst the$ 'or <ebellion . . . and the issuance o' a
Warrant o' ;rrest a)ainst the$E
31
3 (ithout any preli$inary investi)ation 2e9a$ination3 havin) been
previously conducted 2to >usti'y the issuance o' a (arrant3.i EtEc-aUsl ;s : have stated, an in'or$ation is not a
(arrant o' arrest. +he 'act that an in'or$ation e9ists does not $ean that a (arrant (ill be issued.
;ccused persons have the ri)ht o' preli$inary investi)ation 2e9a$ination3.
32
:t 'or$s part and parcel
o' due process o' la( .
33
: 'ind the $a>ority1s reliance on ;.S. %. *ilson,
35
an ancient 2195/3 decision, inapt and untenable. :n
that case, the accused had been served (ith a (arrant and therea'ter taken into custody. +he Duestion
that 'aced the Court (as (hether or not the (arrant (as valid, a$id the accused1s char)es that the >ud)e
(ho issued it did not e9a$ine the co$plainant under oath. We held that the Duery (as acade$ic,
because the accused had already pleaded, and the case had entered the trial sta)e.
+he cases at bar are not on all 'ours. ,ere, no (arrant has been issued. : sub$it that in that event,
the petitioners are entitled to 'reedo$ by (ay o' the (rit o' liberty.
999 999 999
+he apprehensions in Duestion chronicle in $y $ind the increasin) pattern o' arrests and detention
in the country (ithout the sanction o' a >udicial decree. Four years a)o at E7CS;E, and $any years
be'ore it, althou)h (ith $uch 'e(er o' us, (e valiantly challen)ed a dictator and all the evils his
re)i$e had stood 'or* repression o' civil liberties and tra$plin) on o' hu$an ri)hts. We set up a
popular )overn$ent, restored its honored institutions, and cra'ted a de$ocratic constitution that
rests on the )uideposts o' peace and 'reedo$. : 'eel that (ith this Court1s rulin), (e have 'rittered
a(ay, by a stroke o' the pen, (hat (e had so painstakin)ly built in 'our years o' de$ocracy, and
al$ost t(enty years o' stru))le a)ainst tyranny.
:t also occurs to $e that : a$ interposin) (hat loo$s as a Dui9otic outlook o' "hilippine la( on
(arrantless arrests and its i$plications on liberty. :t is an i$pression that does not surprise $e.
Lui9otic as they $ay see$, and $odesty aside, $y vie(s re'lect a stron) bias on $y part H 'or)ed
by years o' e9perience and sharpened by a pain'ul and lonely stru))le 'or 'reedo$ and >ustice H
to(ard $en and (o$en (ho challen)e settled belie's. :' this dissent can not )ain any adherent 'or
no(, let it nevertheless )o on record as a plea to posterity and an appeal 'or tolerance o' opinions
(ith (hich (e not only disa)ree, but opinions (e loathe.
: 'eel it is $y duty to articulate this dissent.

Se*/+e O*&n&on(
CRU1, J., dissentin) and concurrin)*
: dissent inso'ar as the ponencia a''ir$s the rulin) in Garcia-0adilla %. 7nrile that subversion is a
continuin) o''ense, to >usti'y the arrest (ithout (arrant o' any person at an' time as lon) as the
authorities say he has been placed under surveillance on suspicion o' the o''ense. +hat is a
dan)erous doctrine. ; person $ay be arrested (hen he is doin) the $ost innocent acts, as (hen he
is only (ashin) his hands, or takin) his supper, or even (hen he is sleepin), on the )round that he
is co$$ittin) the Econtinuin)E o''ense o' subversion. %ibertarians (ere appalled (hen that doctrine
(as i$posed durin) the &arcos re)i$e. : a$ alar$ed that even no( this ne( Court is (illin) to
sustain it. : stron)ly ur)e $y collea)ues to discard it alto)ether as one o' the dis)race'ul vesti)es o'
the past dictatorship and uphold the rule )uaranteein) the ri)ht o' the people a)ainst unreasonable
searches and seizures. We can do no less i' (e are really to re>ect the past oppression and co$$it
ourselves to the true 'reedo$. 7ven i' it be ar)ued that the $ilitary should be )iven every support in
our 'i)ht a)ainst subversion, : $aintain that that 'i)ht $ust be (a)ed honorably, in accordance (ith
the 8ill o' <i)hts. : do not believe that in 'i)htin) the ene$y (e $ust adopt the (ays o' the ene$y,
(hich are precisely (hat (e are 'i)htin) against. : sub$it that our $ore i$portant $otivation should
be (hat are (e 'i)htin) for.
79cept 'or this reservation and appeal, : concur (ith the decision.

"EL$C$ANO, J., concurrin)*
: concur in the result reached in each o' the ei)ht 2J3 consolidated "etitions 'or )abeas ,orpus. ;t
the sa$e ti$e, : have so$e reservations concernin) certain state$ents $ade by the Court in @.<.
#o. J1/60 2A$il, et al. v. <a$os3 2"art : o' the Cecision3 and in @.<. #o. J/0!0 27spiritu v. %i$3
2"art ?: o' the Cecision3.
:n @.<. #o. J1/60 2A$il, et al. v. <a$os3, the per curiam opinion states cate)orically that* Ethe
cri$es o' rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to co$$it such cri$es, and cri$es or
o''enses co$$itted in 'urtherance thereo' or in connection there(ith constitute direct assaults
a)ainst the State and are in the nature o' continuing crimes.E +he $a>ority here relies upon Garcia-
0adilla %. Enrile 21!1 SC<; 40! F19JG3. +he $a>ority there $ade the sa$e eDually broad state$ent
but (ithout any visible e''ort to e9a$ine the basis, scope and $eanin) o' such a s(eepin)
state$ent. Garcia-0adilla did not even identi'y the speci'ic o''enses (hich it re)arded as Ein the
nature o' continuin) o''enses (hich set the$ apart 'ro$ the co$$on o''ensesE 21!1 SC<; at 4J93.
:t appears to $e that in @.<. #o. J/0!0 27spiritu v. %i$3 2"art ?: o' the Cecision3, the per
curiam opinion has in e''ect included the o''ense o' Eincitin) to seditionE penalized under ;rticle 14!
o' the <evised "enal Code as a Econtinuin) o''enseE under the capacious blanket o' the $a>ority
opinion in Garcia-0adilla, at least 'or purposes o' deter$inin) the le)ality o' the arrest (ithout a
(arrant o' petitioner Ceo)racias 7spiritu.
: (ould respect'ully recall to $y learned collea)ues in the Court that Eincitin) to seditionE is de'ined in
;rticle 14! o' the <evised "enal Code in ter$s o' speech
1
and that conseDuently it is i$portant
constantly do distin)uish bet(een speech (hich is protected by the constitutional )uaranty o' 'reedo$ o'
speech and o' the press and speech (hich $ay constitutionally be re)arded as violative o' ;rticle 14! o'
the <evised "enal Code. "recisely because speech (hich the police authorities $i)ht re)ard as seditious
or as cri$inal incitin) to sedition $ay (ell turn out to be only an e9ercise o' a constitutionally )uaranteed
'reedo$, : (ould sub$it that (e $ust apply the concept o' Econtinuin) o''enseE narro(ly 'or purposes o'
application o' Section /2b3, <ule 11 o' the <evised <ules o' Court.
:n $y vie(, the very broad state$ent $ade about Econtinuin) cri$esE in @.<. #o. J1/60 2A$il, et al
v. <a$os3 constitutes dictum, considerin) that <olando Cural and 8ernardo :tucal, Jr. had already
been tried in the court belo( 'or Edouble $urder, etc.E and 'ound )uilty o' the o''ense char)ed,
sentenced accordin)ly, and at least in the case o' <olando Cural, service o' the sentence i$posed
upon hi$ by the trial court had already be)un.
Si$ilarly, in @.<. #o. J/0!0 27spiritu v. %i$3 the state$ent that the arrest o' petitioner 7spiritu
(ithout a (arrant (as in accordance (ith the provisions o' Section /2b3, <ule 11 o' the <evised
<ules o' Court does not appear strictly necessary, considerin) that the petitioner had already been
char)ed in a valid in'or$ation 'iled (ith the co$petent court, (hich court had presu$ably issued an
order 'or his co$$it$ent, and considerin) 'urther that he is entitled to bail.
+here is thus no obstacle, to $y $ind, to a care'ul e9a$ination o' the doctrine o' Econtinuin) cri$esE
as applied to such o''enses as subversion and incitin) to sedition and possibly other o''enses, in
so$e 'uture case (here that issue is raised sDuarely and is unavoidable.
,ortes- ..- concurs.

SARM$ENTO, J., dissentin)*
: be) to di''er 'ro$ $y brethren. : sub$it that habeas corpus lies in all ei)ht cases.
@.<. #o. J1/60
+he $a>ority says that <olando Cural1s arrest (ithout a (arrant is la('ul under the <ules o' Court,
(hich reads*
Sec. /. Arrest without warrant= when lawful. H ; peace o''icer or a private person
$ay, (ithout a (arrant, arrest a person*
2a3 When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has co$$itted, is actually
co$$ittin), or is atte$ptin) to co$$it an o''ense=
2b3 When an o''ense has in 'act >ust been co$$itted, and he has personal
kno(led)e o' 'acts indicatin) that the person to be arrested has co$$itted it= and
2c3 When the person to be arrested is a prisoner (ho has escaped 'ro$ a penal
establish$ent or place (here he is servin) 'inal >ud)$ent or te$porarily con'ined
(hile his case is pendin), or has escaped (hile bein) trans'erred 'ro$ one
con'ine$ent to another.
:n cases 'allin) under para)raphs 2a3 and 2b3 hereo', the person arrested (ithout a (arrant shall be
'orth(ith delivered to the nearest police station or >ail, and he shall be proceeded a)ainst in
accordance (ith <ule 11!, Section 0.
1
E<olando Cural,E so states the $a>ority, E(as arrested 'or bein) a $e$ber o' the #e( "eople1s ;r$y
2#";3, an outla(ed subversive or)anization,E
2
and that EFsGubversion bein) a continuing offense, the
arrest o' <olando Cural (ithout a (arrant is >usti'ied as it can be said that he (as co$$ittin) an o''ense
(hen arrested.E
3
;s : said, : be) to di''er.
First, <olando Cural (as char)ed (ith ECouble &urder (ith ;ssault upon ;)ents o' ;uthority.E
5
:' he
had been )uilty o' subversion H the o''ense 'or (hich he (as supposedly arrested %ia a (arrantless
arrest H subversion (as the lo)ical cri$e (ith (hich he should have been char)ed.
+he authorities could not have ri)htly arrested hi$ 'or subversion on account o' the slay o' the t(o
C;"C6& soldiers, a possible basis 'or violation o' the ;nti-Subversion ;ct, because as the $a>ority
points out, Ehe (as not arrested (hile in the act o' shootin) Fthe$G . . . FnGor (as he arrested >ust
a'ter the co$$ission o' the said o''ense 'or his arrest ca$e a da' after the said shootin) incident.E
9
Second, : do not believe that a (arrantless 2or citizen1s3 arrest is possible in case o' subversion H in
the absence o' any overt act that (ould >usti'y the authorities to act. ESubversion,E as the ter$ is
kno(n in la(, $eans Ekno(in)ly, (il'ully and b' o%ert acts a''iliatFin)G Fonesel'G (ith, beco$Fin)G or
re$ainFin)G a $e$ber o' the Co$$unist "arty o' the "hilippines andBor its successor or o' any
subversion association as de'ined in sections t(o and three hereo'. . . . E
6
%o)ically, the $ilitary could
not have kno(n that Cural, at the ti$e he (as taken, (as a $e$ber o' the #e( "eople1s ;r$y because
he (as not per'or$in) any over act that he (as truly, a rebel. :ndeed, it had to take a Everi'icationE
6
be'ore
he could be identi'ied as alle)edly a $e$ber o' the under)round ar$y. Ander these circu$stances, : a$
hard put to say that he (as co$$ittin) subversion (hen he (as arrested, assu$in) that he (as )uilty o'
subversion, 'or purposes o' a (arrantless arrest.
E6vert actE is $ade up o' EFeGvery act, $ove$ent, deed and (ord o' the
FaccusedG,E
7
indicatin) intent to acco$plish a cri$inal ob>ective. Cural, at the ti$e he
(as arrested, (as lyin) in a hospital bed. +his is not the overt act conte$plated by la(.
Ander the <ule above-Duoted, the person $ust have either been apprehended in flagranti 2'irst
para)raph3 or a'ter the act, provided that the peace o''icer has Epersonal kno(led)eE that he, the
suspect, is )uilty. 2second para)raph.3 ;s : stated, Cural (as not cau)ht in the act. &oreover, (hat
the <e)ional :ntelli)ence 6perations Anit o' the Capital Co$$and 2<:6A-C;"C6&3 had in its
hands (as a $ere Econ'idential in'or$ation.E : do not think that this is the personal kno(led)e
re'erred to by the second para)raph.
2
"lainly and si$ply, it is hearsay.
+he rule, 'urther$ore, on (arrantless arrest is an e9ceptional one. 8y its lan)ua)e, it $ay be
e9ercised only in the $ost ur)ent cases and (hen the )uilt o' an o''ender is plain and evident. What
: think (e have here is purely and si$ply, the $ilitary takin) the la( in its hands.
8y sta$pin) validity to <olando Cural1s (arrantless arrest, : a$ a'raid that the $a>ority has set a
very dan)erous precedent. With all due respect, $y brethren has accorded the $ilitary a blanket
authority to pick up any Juan, "edro, and &aria (ithout a (arrant 'or the si$ple reason that
subversion is supposed to be a continuin) o''ense.
+hat <olando Cural (as arrested 'or bein) a $e$ber o' the #e( "eople1s ;r$yE
9
is 'urther$ore to
$e, a hasty state$ent. :t has yet to be established that Cural is indeed a $e$ber o' the Co$$unist
"arty1s $ilitary ar$. ;nd unless proven )uilty, he is presu$ed, and $ust be presu$ed $ost o' all by this
Court, to be innocent.
+he $a>ority also says that habeas corpus is $oot and acade$ic because Cural has been convicted
and is servin) sentence. : like(ise take e9ception. :t has been held that* E+he (rit $ay be )ranted
upon a >ud)$ent already 'inal.E
10
+he (rit o' liberty is a hi)h prero)ative (rit.
11
?indication o' due process is its historic o''ice.
12
@.<. #os. J4/J1-J!
:n the case o' Wil'redo 8uenaobra, the $a>ority avers that he had E$ani'ested his desire to stay in
the "C-:#" stockade,E
13
'or (hich habeas corpus has supposedly beco$e $oot and acade$ic. : a$ not
convinced that that is reason enou)h to dis$iss habeas corpus as $oot and acade$ic. :t is the duty o'
this Court, in $y opinion, to $ake sure that 8uenaobra has $ade his choice 'reely and voluntarily.
"ersonally, : 'ind it indeed stran)e (hy he should pre'er to stay in >ail than )o scot-'ree.
+here is 'urther no doubt that 8uenaobra1s petition is one i$pressed (ith a public interest. :n one
case
15
(e denied a $otion to (ithdra( a petition 'or habeas corpus in vie( o' its 'ar-reachin) i$portance
to the $otion, : do not see ho( (e should act di''erently, perhaps even insouciantly, here, especially since
it involves persons (ho think and believe di''erently 'ro$ the rest o' us.
8oth 8uenaobra and ;$elia <oDue supposedly ad$itted that they (ere rankin) o''icers o' the
Co$$unist "arty o' the "hilippines. ;ccordin) to the $a>ority, 8uenaobra and <oDue are bound by
their ad$issions.
19
+hat both parties had ad$itted to be $e$bers o' the Co$$unist "arty o' the "hilippines 2the
#ational Anited Front Co$$ission3 is a naked contention o' the $ilitary. +he 'act that it has not been
controverted, in $y vie(, does not >usti'y the couple1s arrest (ithout (arrant. Worse, by relyin) on
the bare (ord o' the $ilitary, this very Court has, to all intents and purposes, conde$ned the duo 'or
a cri$e 2subversion andBor ille)al possession o' 'irear$s3 the bone o' contention, precisely, belo(.
@.<. #os. J4/J-J4
: also 'ind the (arrantless arrests o' Co$in)o ;Tonuevo and <a$on Casiple to be contrary to la(.
+hat they are Ead$ittedly $e$bers o' the standin) co$$ittee o' the #AFCE
16
and that Esubversive
$aterialsE
17
and unlicensed 'irear$s (ere 'ound in their possession, are, like 8uenaobra1s and <oDue1s
cases, barren clai$s o' the $ilitary. : also 'ear that by the $a>ority1s stron) lan)ua)e 2that ;Tonuevo and
Casiple are ad$itted #ACF o''icers3 the $a>ority has pronounced the petitioners )uilty, (hen the lo(er
courts have yet to sit in >ud)$ent. : think (e should be the last to pree$pt the decision o' the trial courts.
We (ould have set to nau)ht the presu$ption o' innocence accused persons en>oy.
@.<. #o. J16!
With respect to the case o' ?icky 6caya, : a$ a'raid that : a$ inclined to(ards the sa$e conclusion.
+here (as basis H at the outset H to say that 6caya (as probably )uilty o' ille)al possession o'
'irear$s. ;s : have observed, a (arrantless arrest $ust be predicated upon the e9istence o' a cri$e
bein) actually co$$itted or havin) been co$$itted. What : 'ind here, rather, is nothin) less than a
success'ul 'ishin) e9pedition conducted by the $ilitary upon an un(ary citizen. : a$ Duite distressed
to note that this is still possible under a supposed de$ocracy.
@.<. #o. J/0!0
Ceo)racias 7spiritu (as 'ast asleep in his house (hen he (as placed under arrest. For the li'e o'
$e, : can not 'i)ure out ho( one can be picked upon in one1s o(n ho$e and held $o$ents later
(ithout a (arrant o' arrest.
7spiritu (as alle)edly )uilty o' incitin) to sedition as a result o' a speech delivered in a press
con'erence at the #ational "ress Club on #ove$ber !1, 19JJ. ,e (as, ho(ever, arrested the day
a'ter, #ove$ber !!, 19JJ. Ander these circu$stances, it eludes $e ho( an arrest (ithout a (arrant
could be >usti'ied, either under para)raph 2a3 or para)raph 2b3 o' the <ule on (arrantless arrests.
+he $a>ority avers that since an in'or$ation had been 'iled (ith the court, 7spiritu1s detention, is
alle)edly >usti'iable. +he Duestion is (hether or not an in'or$ation is an authority to hold a person in
custody. Ander the <ules, an in'or$ation $eans Ean accusation in (ritin) char)in) a person (ith an
o''ense subscribed by the 'iscal and 'iled (ith the court.E
12
:t is not, ho(ever, an order to keep one
under detention.
@.<. #o. J6!
+he o''ense 'or (hich #arciso #azareno is bein) held H the 'atal shootin) o' <o$ulo 8unye :: H
(as co$$itted on Cece$ber 14, 19JJ. :t (as, ho(ever, only on Cece$ber !J, 19JJ that the police
collared a suspect, <a$il <e)ala, (ho subseDuently pointed to #azareno as his acco$plice. :t also
escapes $e ho( #azareno, under these circu$stances, could have been validly put under arrest
(ithout a (arrant or the e9istence o' the circu$stance described under either para)raph 2a3 or 2b3 o'
the <ule above-Duoted* +he cri$e had lon) been co$$itted prior to the arrest.
@.<. #os. J1/60= J4/J1-J!= J4/J-J4= J16!=
J/0!0 M J6!= "ostscripts
+he $a>ority has disposed o' these cases on the bedrock o' (hat : vie( as doctrines that have lost
their luster*
1. +he teachin) o' Garcia-0adilla %. Enrile,
19
(hich held that subversion is a continuin) o''ense=
!. +he rulin) in 3lagan %. Enrile.
20
: also 'ind, 'or reasons to be set 'orth hereina'ter, a )lossin) over o' the 'unda$ental ri)hts o' the
petitioners under the Constitution in the authorities1 handlin) o' the petitioners1 cases.
: hold that Garcia-0adilla is no lon)er )ood la( under the present Constitution. +(o reasons
persuade $e. First, it is repu)nant to due process o' la(. 2E+he arrest, there'ore, need not 'ollo( the
usual procedure in the prosecution o' o''enses (hich reDuire the deter$ination by a >ud)e o' the
e9istence o' probable cause be'ore the issuance o' a >udicial (arrant o' arrest and the )rantin) o'
bail i' the o''ense is bailable.E
21
Ander the 19J0 Constitution, not even EFaG state o' $artial la(
suspendFsG the operation o' Fthe CharterG. . .E
22
Second, it leaves the liberty o' citizens to the (hi$ o' one
$an 2E6n these occasions Fthe e9istence o' a state o' e$er)encyG, the "resident takes absolute
co$$and, 'or the very li'e o' the #ation and its )overn$ent, (hich, incidentally, includes the courts, is in
)rave peril. :n so doin), the "resident is ans(erable only to his conscience, the people and to @od. For
their part, in )ivin) hi$ the supre$e $andate as their "resident, the people can only trust and pray that,
)ivin) hi$ their o(n loyalty and (ithout patriotis$, the "resident (ill not 'ail the$.E
23
3 Ander the Charter
no( prevailin), the Chie' 79ecutive shares, to a certain e9tent, the e9ercise o' e$er)ency po(ers, (ith
Con)ress.
25
;s a la( advocate under the re)i$e o' &arcos, : had challen)ed the soundness o' Garcia-0adilla. :
doubted (hether it could stand up under the ae)is o' the 190 Constitution. : still doubt (hether it
can (ithstand scrutiny under the 19J0 Constitution.
+he $a>ority also 'ails to point out that si9 days a'ter @arcia-"adilla (as handed do(n, the Court
pro$ul)atedMorales- .r. %. Enrile,
29
a case that in $y vie( has si)ni'icantly (hittled do(n Garcia-
0adillaIs very esse. :n that case, &r. Justice ,er$o)enes Concepcion, Jr. (rote 'or the $a>ority*
999 999 999
16. ;'ter a person is arrested . . . (ithout a (arrant . . . the proper co$plaint or
in'or$ation a)ainst hi$ $ust be 'iled (ith the courts o' >ustice (ithin the ti$e
prescribed by la(. . .
10. Failure o' the public o''icer to do so (ithout any valid reason (ould constitute a
violation o' ;rt. 1!/, <evised "enal Code, as a$ended. ;nd the person detained
(ould be entitled to be released on a (rit o' habeas corpus, unless he is detained
under subsistin) process issued by a co$petent court.
26
: also )ather 'ro$ the records that none o' the petitioners had been* 213 in'or$ed o' their ri)ht to
re$ain silent= and 2!3 to have co$petent and independent counsel.
27
;s : said, the $a>ority is denyin) habeas corpus on sel'-servin) clai$s o' the $ilitary that the
petitioners 2Cural, 8uenaobra, <oDue, ;Tonuevo, and Casiple3 are $e$bers o' the Co$$unist
"arty o' the "hilippines H and that they have supposedly con'essed to be in 'act $e$bers o' the
outla(ed or)anization. +he Duestion that has not been ans(ered is (hether or not these supposed
con'essions are ad$issible, 'or purposes o' a (arrantless arrest, as evidence o' )uilt, in the absence
o' any sho(in) that they (ere apprised o' their constitutional ri)hts. : a$ perturbed by the silence o'
the $a>ority. : a$ distressed because as (e held in one case, violation o' the Constitution divests
the court o' >urisdiction and entitles the accused to habeas corpus.
22
;ccordin) to the $a>ority, a Ere-e9a$ination or re-appraisal . . . o'
the :la)an doctrine is not the ans(er.E
29
:n $y considered opinion, 3lagan %. Enrile
30
does not ri)ht'ully
belon) in the volu$es o' "hilippine >urisprudence. :n that case, the petitioners, three Cavao-based
la(yers, (ere held by virtue o' a si$ple in'or$ation 2Ethe petition herein has been rendered $oot and
acade$ic by virtue o' the 'ilin) o' an :n'or$ation a)ainst the$ 'or <ebellion . . . and the issuance o' a
Warrant o' ;rrest a)ainst the$E
31
3 (ithout any preli$inary investi)ation 2e9a$ination3 havin) been
previously conducted 2to >usti'y the issuance o' a (arrant3.i EtEc-aUsl ;s : have stated, an in'or$ation is not a
(arrant o' arrest. +he 'act that an in'or$ation e9ists does not $ean that a (arrant (ill be issued.
;ccused persons have the ri)ht o' preli$inary investi)ation 2e9a$ination3.
32
:t 'or$s part and parcel
o' due process o' la( .
33
: 'ind the $a>ority1s reliance on ;.S. %. *ilson,
35
an ancient 2195/3 decision, inapt and untenable. :n
that case, the accused had been served (ith a (arrant and therea'ter taken into custody. +he Duestion
that 'aced the Court (as (hether or not the (arrant (as valid, a$id the accused1s char)es that the >ud)e
(ho issued it did not e9a$ine the co$plainant under oath. We held that the Duery (as acade$ic,
because the accused had already pleaded, and the case had entered the trial sta)e.
+he cases at bar are not on all 'ours. ,ere, no (arrant has been issued. : sub$it that in that event,
the petitioners are entitled to 'reedo$ by (ay o' the (rit o' liberty.
999 999 999
+he apprehensions in Duestion chronicle in $y $ind the increasin) pattern o' arrests and detention
in the country (ithout the sanction o' a >udicial decree. Four years a)o at E7CS;E, and $any years
be'ore it, althou)h (ith $uch 'e(er o' us, (e valiantly challen)ed a dictator and all the evils his
re)i$e had stood 'or* repression o' civil liberties and tra$plin) on o' hu$an ri)hts. We set up a
popular )overn$ent, restored its honored institutions, and cra'ted a de$ocratic constitution that
rests on the )uideposts o' peace and 'reedo$. : 'eel that (ith this Court1s rulin), (e have 'rittered
a(ay, by a stroke o' the pen, (hat (e had so painstakin)ly built in 'our years o' de$ocracy, and
al$ost t(enty years o' stru))le a)ainst tyranny.
:t also occurs to $e that : a$ interposin) (hat loo$s as a Dui9otic outlook o' "hilippine la( on
(arrantless arrests and its i$plications on liberty. :t is an i$pression that does not surprise $e.
Lui9otic as they $ay see$, and $odesty aside, $y vie(s re'lect a stron) bias on $y part H 'or)ed
by years o' e9perience and sharpened by a pain'ul and lonely stru))le 'or 'reedo$ and >ustice H
to(ard $en and (o$en (ho challen)e settled belie's. :' this dissent can not )ain any adherent 'or
no(, let it nevertheless )o on record as a plea to posterity and an appeal 'or tolerance o' opinions
(ith (hich (e not only disa)ree, but opinions (e loathe.
: 'eel it is $y duty to articulate this dissent.
NNNNNNNNNN


Re&ub#i* o1 t,e P,i#i&&ines
"BPR?(? %@BR+
(ani#a

?N I'N%

SOCIAL J7STICE SOCIETY (SJS), G.R. N. :;<=<2
Petitioner,

! versus !

5ANGERO7S 5R7GS BOAR5 and
PHILIPPINE 5R7G EN4ORCEMENT
AGENCY (P5EA),
Res&ondents.
G!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!G
ATTY. MAN7EL J. LASERNA, JR., G.R. N. :;=>11
Petitioner,

! versus !

5ANGERO7S 5R7GS BOAR5 and
PHILIPPINE 5R7G EN4ORCEMENT
AGENCY,
Res&ondents.
G!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!G
A87ILINO 8. PIMENTEL, JR., G.R. N. :>:>;=
Petitioner,
Present:
PBN@, C.
J.,
QB;"B(I;NG,
N'R?"!"'N+;'G@,
%'RP;@,
'B"+R;'!('R+;N?R,
! versus ! %@R@N',
%'RP;@ (@R'7?",
'R%BN',
+;NG',
%:;%@!N'R'R;@,
<?7'"%@, JR.,
N'%:BR',
R??",
7?@N'RD@!D? %'"+R@, and
IR;@N, JJ.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Promu#gated:
Res&ondent.
November 3, .//8
G!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!G
5 E C I S I O N

VELASCO, JR., J.9

;n t,ese 3indred &etitions, t,e *onstitutiona#it6 o1 "e*tion 36 o1 Re&ub#i* '*t
No. 8R'9 9165, ot,er2ise 3no2n as t,eComprehensive :angerous :rugs ;!t o
<==<, inso1ar as it reFuires mandator6 drug testing o1 *andidates 1or &ub#i* o11i*e,
students o1 se*ondar6 and tertiar6 s*,oo#s, o11i*ers and em&#o6ees o1 &ub#i* and
&rivate o11i*es, and &ersons *,arged be1ore t,e &rose*utorAs o11i*e 2it, *ertain
o11enses, among ot,er &ersona#ities, is &ut in issue.

's 1ar as &ertinent, t,e *,a##enged se*tion reads as 1o##o2s:

"?%. 36. ;uthori(ed :rug -esting.S'ut,ori$ed drug testing s,a## be done
b6 an6 government 1orensi* #aboratories or b6 an6 o1 t,e drug testing #aboratories
a**redited and monitored b6 t,e D@: to sa1eguard t,e Fua#it6 o1 t,e test
resu#ts. G G G +,e drug testing s,a## em&#o6, among ot,ers, t2o 8.9 testing
met,ods, t,e s*reening test 2,i*, 2i## determine t,e &ositive resu#t as 2e## as t,e
t6&e o1 drug used and t,e *on1irmator6 test 2,i*, 2i## *on1irm a &ositive
s*reening test. G G G +,e 1o##o2ing s,a## be sub)e*ted to undergo drug testing:

G G G G

8*9 "tudents o1 se*ondar6 and tertiar6 s*,oo#s.S"tudents o1 se*ondar6
and tertiar6 s*,oo#s s,a##, &ursuant to t,e re#ated ru#es and regu#ations as
*ontained in t,e s*,oo#As student ,andboo3 and 2it, noti*e to t,e &arents,
undergo a random drug testing G G GH

8d9 @11i*ers and em&#o6ees o1 &ub#i* and &rivate o11i*es.S@11i*ers and
em&#o6ees o1 &ub#i* and &rivate o11i*es, 2,et,er domesti* or overseas, s,a## be
sub)e*ted to undergo a random drug test as *ontained in t,e *om&an6As 2or3 ru#es
and regu#ations, G G G 1or &ur&oses o1 redu*ing t,e ris3 in t,e 2or3&#a*e. 'n6
o11i*er or em&#o6ee 1ound &ositive 1or use o1 dangerous drugs s,a## be dea#t 2it,
administrative#6 2,i*, s,a## be a ground 1or sus&ension or termination, sub)e*t to
t,e &rovisions o1 'rti*#e .8. o1 t,e 7abor %ode and &ertinent &rovisions o1 t,e
%ivi# "ervi*e 7a2H

G G G G

819 '## &ersons *,arged be1ore t,e &rose*utorAs o11i*e 2it, a *rimina#
o11ense ,aving an im&osab#e &ena#t6 o1 im&risonment o1 not #ess t,an siG 869
6ears and one 819 da6 s,a## undergo a mandator6 drug testH


8g9 '## *andidates 1or &ub#i* o11i*e 2,et,er a&&ointed or e#e*ted bot, in
t,e nationa# or #o*a# government s,a## undergo a mandator6 drug test.

;n addition to t,e above stated &ena#ties in t,is "e*tion, t,ose 1ound to be
&ositive 1or dangerous drugs use s,a## be sub)e*t to t,e &rovisions o1 "e*tion 15 o1
t,is '*t.


G.R. N. :>:>;= 8;#uilino >. 9imentel) Jr. v. Commission on ?le!tions9

@n De*ember .3, .//3, t,e %ommission on ?#e*tions 8%@(?7?%9 issued
Reso#ution No. 6086, &res*ribing t,e ru#es and regu#ations on t,e mandator6 drug
testing o1 *andidates 1or &ub#i* o11i*e in *onne*tion 2it, t,e (a6 1/,
.//0 s6n*,roni$ed nationa# and #o*a# e#e*tions. +,e &ertinent &ortions o1 t,e said
reso#ution read as 1o##o2s:


>:?R?'", "e*tion 36 8g9 o1 Re&ub#i* '*t No. 9165 &rovides:

"?%. 36. ;uthori(ed :rug -esting.SG G G

G G G G

8g9 '## *andidates 1or &ub#i* o11i*e G G G bot, in t,e nationa# or #o*a#
government &%a,, +nder! a )anda#r' dr+! #e&#.

>:?R?'", "e*tion 1, 'rti*#e C; o1 t,e 198- %onstitution &rovides t,at
&ub#i* o11i*ers and em&#o6ees must at a## times be a**ountab#e to t,e &eo&#e,
serve t,em 2it, utmost res&onsibi#it6, integrit6, #o6a#t6 and e11i*ien*6H

>:?R?'", b6 reFuiring *andidates to undergo mandator6 drug test, t,e
&ub#i* 2i## 3no2 t,e Fua#it6 o1 *andidates t,e6 are e#e*ting and t,e6 2i## be
assured t,at on#6 t,ose 2,o *an serve 2it, utmost res&onsibi#it6, integrit6,
#o6a#t6, and e11i*ien*6 2ou#d be e#e*ted G G G.

N@> +:?R?=@R?, +,e 4%@(?7?%5, &ursuant to t,e aut,orit6 vested
in it under t,e %onstitution, Iatas Pambansa I#g. 881 8@mnibus ?#e*tion %ode9,
4R'5 9165 and ot,er e#e*tion #a2s, R?"@7<?D to &romu#gate, as it ,ereb6
&romu#gates, t,e 1o##o2ing ru#es and regu#ations on t,e *ondu*t o1 mandator6
drug testing to *andidates 1or &ub#i* o11i*e4:5

"?%+;@N 1. Coverage.SA,, cand"da#e& $r (+-,"c $$"ce, -#% na#"na,
and ,ca,, "n #%e Ma' :2, 622? S'nc%rn"@ed Na#"na, and Lca,
E,ec#"n& s,a## undergo mandator6 drug test in government 1orensi* #aboratories
or an6 drug testing #aboratories monitored and a**redited b6 t,e De&artment o1
:ea#t,.

"?%. 3. G G G

@n (ar*, .5, .//0, in addition to t,e drug *erti1i*ates 1i#ed 2it, t,eir
res&e*tive o11i*es, t,e %ome#e* @11i*es and em&#o6ees *on*erned s,a## submit to
t,e 7a2 De&artment t2o 8.9 se&arate #ists o1 *andidates. +,e 1irst #ist s,a## *onsist
o1 t,ose *andidates 2,o *om&#ied 2it, t,e mandator6 drug test 2,i#e t,e se*ond
#ist s,a## *onsist o1 t,ose *andidates 2,o 1ai#ed to *om&#6 G G G.

"?%. 0. 9reparation and publi!ation o names o !andidates.SIe1ore t,e
start o1 t,e *am&aign &eriod, t,e 4%@(?7?%5 s,a## &re&are t2o se&arate #ists o1
*andidates. +,e 1irst #ist s,a## *onsist o1 t,ose *andidates 2,o *om&#ied 2it, t,e
mandator6 drug test 2,i#e t,e se*ond #ist s,a## *onsist o1 t,ose *andidates 2,o
1ai#ed to *om&#6 2it, said drug test. G G G

"?%. 5. ?e!t o ailure to undergo mandatory drug test and ile drug test
!ertii!ate.SNo &erson e#e*ted to an6 &ub#i* o11i*e s,a## enter u&on t,e duties o1
,is o11i*e unti# ,e ,as undergone mandator6 drug test and 1i#ed 2it, t,e o11i*es
enumerated under "e*tion . ,ereo1 t,e drug test *erti1i*ate ,erein
reFuired. 8?m&,asis su&&#ied.9


Petitioner 'Fui#ino Q. Pimente#, Jr., a senator o1 t,e Re&ub#i* and a
*andidate 1or re!e#e*tion in t,e (a6 1/, .//0 e#e*tions,
415
1i#ed a Petition 1or
%ertiorari and Pro,ibition under Ru#e 65. ;n it, ,e see3s 819 to nu##i16 "e*. 368g9 o1
R' 9165 and %@(?7?% Reso#ution No. 6086 dated De*ember .3, .//3 1or being
un*onstitutiona# in t,at t,e6 im&ose a Fua#i1i*ation 1or *andidates 1or senators in
addition to t,ose a#read6 &rovided 1or in t,e 198- %onstitutionH and 8.9 to en)oin
t,e %@(?7?% 1rom im&#ementing Reso#ution No. 6086.

Pimente# invo3es as #ega# basis 1or ,is &etition "e*. 3, 'rti*#e <; o1 t,e
%onstitution, 2,i*, states:


"?%+;@N 3. No &erson s,a## be a "enator un#ess ,e is a natura#!born
*iti$en o1 t,e P,i#i&&ines, and, on t,e da6 o1 t,e e#e*tion, is at #east t,irt6!1ive
6ears o1 age, ab#e to read and 2rite, a registered voter, and a resident o1 t,e
P,i#i&&ines 1or not #ess t,an t2o 6ears immediate#6 &re*eding t,e da6 o1 t,e
e#e*tion.



'**ording to Pimente#, t,e %onstitution on#6 &res*ribes a maGimum o1 1ive
859 Fua#i1i*ations 1or one to be a *andidate 1or, e#e*ted to, and be a member o1 t,e
"enate. :e sa6s t,at bot, t,e %ongress and %@(?7?%, b6 reFuiring, via R'
9165 and Reso#ution No. 6086, a senatoria# as&irant, among ot,er *andidates, to
undergo a mandator6 drug test, *reate an additiona# Fua#i1i*ation t,at a## *andidates
1or senator must 1irst be *erti1ied as drug 1ree. :e adds t,at t,ere is no &rovision in
t,e %onstitution aut,ori$ing t,e %ongress or %@(?7?% to eG&and t,e
Fua#i1i*ation reFuirements o1 *andidates 1or senator.

G.R. N. :;<=<2 8So!ial Justi!e So!iety v. :angerous
:rugs 2oard and 9hilippine :rug ?nor!ement ;gen!y9


;n its Petition 1or Pro,ibition under Ru#e 65, &etitioner "o*ia# Justi*e "o*iet6
8"J"9, a registered &o#iti*a# &art6, see3s to &ro,ibit t,e Dangerous Drugs Ioard
8DDI9 and t,e P,i#i&&ine Drug ?n1or*ement 'gen*6 8PD?'9 1rom en1or*ing
&aragra&,s 8*9, 8d9, 819, and 8g9 o1 "e*. 36 o1 R' 9165 on t,e ground t,at t,e6 are
*onstitutiona##6 in1irm. =or one, t,e &rovisions *onstitute undue de#egation o1
#egis#ative &o2er 2,en t,e6 give unbrid#ed dis*retion to s*,oo#s and em&#o6ers to
determine t,e manner o1 drug testing. =or anot,er, t,e &rovisions tren*, in t,e
eFua# &rote*tion *#ause inasmu*, as t,e6 *an be used to ,arass a student or an
em&#o6ee deemed undesirab#e. 'nd 1or a t,ird, a &ersonAs *onstitutiona# rig,t
against unreasonab#e sear*,es is a#so brea*,ed b6 said &rovisions.

G.R. N. :;=>11 8;tty. *anuel J. Laserna) Jr. v. :angerous
:rugs 2oard and 9hilippine :rug ?nor!ement ;gen!y9


Petitioner 'tt6. (anue# J. 7aserna, Jr., as *iti$en and taG&a6er, a#so see3s in
,is Petition 1or %ertiorari and Pro,ibition under Ru#e 65 t,at "e*. 368*9, 8d9, 819,
and 8g9 o1 R' 9165 be stru*3 do2n as un*onstitutiona# 1or in1ringing on t,e
*onstitutiona# rig,t to &riva*6, t,e rig,t against unreasonab#e sear*, and sei$ure,
and t,e rig,t against se#1!in*rimination, and 1or being *ontrar6 to t,e due &ro*ess
and eFua# &rote*tion guarantees.



T%e I&&+e n (ocus Standi

=irst o11, 2e s,a## address t,e )usti*iabi#it6 o1 t,e *ases at ben*, and t,e
matter o1 t,e standing o1 &etitioners "J" and 7aserna to sue. 's res&ondents DDI
and PD?' assert, "J" and 7aserna 1ai#ed to a##ege an6 in*ident amounting to a
vio#ation o1 t,e *onstitutiona# rig,ts mentioned in t,eir se&arate &etitions.
4.5

;t is basi* t,at t,e &o2er o1 )udi*ia# revie2 *an on#6 be eGer*ised in
*onne*tion 2it, a bona ide *ontrovers6 2,i*, invo#ves t,e statute soug,t to be
revie2ed.
435
Iut even 2it, t,e &resen*e o1 an a*tua# *ase or *ontrovers6, t,e %ourt
ma6 re1use to eGer*ise )udi*ia# revie2 un#ess t,e *onstitutiona# Fuestion is broug,t
be1ore it b6 a &art6 ,aving t,e reFuisite standing to *,a##enge it.
405
+o ,ave
standing, one must estab#is, t,at ,e or s,e ,as su11ered some a*tua# or t,reatened
in)ur6 as a resu#t o1 t,e a##eged#6 i##ega# *ondu*t o1 t,e governmentH t,e in)ur6 is
1air#6 tra*eab#e to t,e *,a##enged a*tionH and t,e in)ur6 is #i3e#6 to be redressed b6
a 1avorab#e a*tion.
455


+,e ru#e on standing, ,o2ever, is a matter o1 &ro*edureH ,en*e, it *an be
re#aGed 1or non!traditiona# &#ainti11s, #i3e ordinar6 *iti$ens, taG&a6ers, and
#egis#ators 2,en t,e &ub#i* interest so reFuires, su*, as 2,en t,e matter is o1
trans*endenta# im&ortan*e, o1 overar*,ing signi1i*an*e to so*iet6, or o1 &aramount
&ub#i* interest.
465
+,ere is no doubt t,at Pimente#, as senator o1 t,e P,i#i&&inesand
*andidate 1or t,e (a6 1/, .//0 e#e*tions, &ossesses t,e reFuisite standing sin*e ,e
,as substantia# interests in t,e sub)e*t matter o1 t,e &etition, among ot,er
&re#iminar6 *onsiderations. Regarding "J" and 7aserna, t,is %ourt is 2ont to re#aG
t,e ru#e on lo!us standi o2ing &rimari#6 to t,e trans*endenta# im&ortan*e and t,e
&aramount &ub#i* interest invo#ved in t,e en1or*ement o1 "e*. 36 o1 R' 9165.
T%e Cn&,"da#ed I&&+e&

+,e &rin*i&a# issues be1ore us are as 1o##o2s:

819 Do "e*. 368g9 o1 R' 9165 and %@(?7?% Reso#ution No. 6086 im&ose
an additiona# Fua#i1i*ation 1or *andidates 1or senatorQ %oro##ari#6, *an %ongress
ena*t a #a2 &res*ribing Fua#i1i*ations 1or *andidates 1or senator in addition to t,ose
#aid do2n b6 t,e %onstitutionQ and

8.9 're &aragra&,s 8*9, 8d9, 819, and 8g9 o1 "e*. 36, R' 9165 un*onstitutiona#Q
"&e*i1i*a##6, do t,ese &aragra&,s vio#ate t,e rig,t to &riva*6, t,e rig,t against
unreasonab#e sear*,es and sei$ure, and t,e eFua# &rote*tion *#auseQ @r do t,e6
*onstitute undue de#egation o1 #egis#ative &o2erQ

P")en#e, Pe#"#"n
(Cn&#"#+#"na,"#' $ Sec. 1>A!B $ RA C:>; and
COMELEC Re&,+#"n N. >?=>)

;n essen*e, Pimente# *#aims t,at "e*. 368g9 o1 R' 9165 and %@(?7?%
Reso#ution No. 6086 i##ega##6 im&ose an additiona# Fua#i1i*ation on *andidates 1or
senator. :e &oints out t,at, sub)e*t to t,e &rovisions on nuisan*e *andidates, a
*andidate 1or senator needs on#6 to meet t,e Fua#i1i*ations #aid do2n in "e*. 3, 'rt.
<; o1 t,e %onstitution, to 2it: 819 *iti$ens,i&, 8.9 voter registration, 839 #itera*6, 809
age, and 859 residen*6. Ie6ond t,ese stated Fua#i1i*ation reFuirements, *andidates
1or senator need not &ossess an6 ot,er Fua#i1i*ation to run 1or senator and be voted
u&on and e#e*ted as member o1 t,e "enate. +,e %ongress *annot va#id#6 amend or
ot,er2ise modi16 t,ese Fua#i1i*ation standards, as it *annot disregard, evade, or
2ea3en t,e 1or*e o1 a *onstitutiona# mandate,
4-5
or a#ter or en#arge t,e %onstitution.

Pimente#As *ontention is 2e##!ta3en. '**ording#6, "e*. 368g9 o1 R' 9165
s,ou#d be, as it is ,ereb6 de*#ared as, un*onstitutiona#. ;t is basi* t,at i1 a #a2 or an
administrative ru#e vio#ates an6 norm o1 t,e %onstitution, t,at issuan*e is nu## and
void and ,as no e11e*t. +,e %onstitution is t,e basi* #a2 to 2,i*, a## #a2s must
*on1ormH no a*t s,a## be va#id i1 it *on1#i*ts 2it, t,e %onstitution.
485
;n t,e
dis*,arge o1 t,eir de1ined 1un*tions, t,e t,ree de&artments o1 government ,ave no
*,oi*e but to 6ie#d obedien*e to t,e *ommands o1 t,e %onstitution. >,atever
#imits it im&oses must be observed.
495


%ongressA in,erent #egis#ative &o2ers, broad as t,e6 ma6 be, are sub)e*t to
*ertain #imitations. 's ear#6 as 19.-, in+overnment v. Springer, t,e %ourt ,as
de1ined, in t,e abstra*t, t,e #imits on #egis#ative &o2er in t,e 1o##o2ing 2ise:

"omeone ,as said t,at t,e &o2ers o1 t,e #egis#ative de&artment o1 t,e
Government, #i3e t,e boundaries o1 t,e o*ean, are un#imited. ;n *onstitutiona#
governments, ,o2ever, as 2e## as governments a*ting under de#egated aut,orit6,
t,e &o2ers o1 ea*, o1 t,e de&artments G G G are #imited and *on1ined 2it,in t,e
1our 2a##s o1 t,e *onstitution or t,e *,arter, and ea*, de&artment *an on#6
eGer*ise su*, &o2ers as are ne*essari#6 im&#ied 1rom t,e given &o2ers. +,e
%onstitution is t,e s,ore o1 #egis#ative aut,orit6 against 2,i*, t,e 2aves o1
#egis#ative ena*tment ma6 das,, but over 2,i*, it *annot #ea&.
41/5

+,us, #egis#ative &o2er remains #imited in t,e sense t,at it is sub)e*t to
substantive and *onstitutiona# #imitations 2,i*, *ir*ums*ribe bot, t,e eGer*ise o1
t,e &o2er itse#1 and t,e a##o2ab#e sub)e*ts o1 #egis#ation.
4115
+,e substantive
*onstitutiona# #imitations are *,ie1#6 1ound in t,e Ii## o1 Rig,ts
41.5
and ot,er
&rovisions, su*, as "e*. 3, 'rt. <; o1 t,e %onstitution &res*ribing t,e Fua#i1i*ations
o1 *andidates 1or senators.

;n t,e same vein, t,e %@(?7?% *annot, in t,e guise o1 en1or*ing and
administering e#e*tion #a2s or &romu#gating ru#es and regu#ations to im&#ement
"e*. 368g9, va#id#6 im&ose Fua#i1i*ations on *andidates 1or senator in addition to
2,at t,e %onstitution &res*ribes. ;1 %ongress *annot reFuire a *andidate 1or senator
to meet su*, additiona# Fua#i1i*ation, t,e %@(?7?%, to be sure, is a#so 2it,out
su*, &o2er. +,e rig,t o1 a *iti$en in t,e demo*rati* &ro*ess o1 e#e*tion s,ou#d not
be de1eated b6 un2arranted im&ositions o1 reFuirement not ot,er2ise s&e*i1ied in
t,e %onstitution.
4135


"e*. 368g9 o1 R' 9165, as soug,t to be im&#emented b6 t,e assai#ed
%@(?7?% reso#ution, e11e*tive#6 en#arges t,e Fua#i1i*ation reFuirements
enumerated in t,e "e*. 3, 'rt. <; o1 t,e %onstitution. 's *ou*,ed, said "e*. 368g9
unmista3ab#6 reFuires a *andidate 1or senator to be *erti1ied i##ega#!drug *#ean,
obvious#6 as a &re!*ondition to t,e va#idit6 o1 a *erti1i*ate o1 *andida*6 1or senator
or, 2it, #i3e e11e*t, a *ondition sine #ua non to be voted u&on and, i1 &ro&er, be
&ro*#aimed as senator!e#e*t. +,e %@(?7?% reso#ution *om&#etes t,e *,ain 2it,
t,e &roviso t,at K4n5o &erson e#e*ted to an6 &ub#i* o11i*e s,a## enter u&on t,e duties
o1 ,is o11i*e unti# ,e ,as undergone mandator6 drug test.L <ie2ed, t,ere1ore, in its
&ro&er *onteGt, "e*. 368g9 o1 R' 9165 and t,e im&#ementing %@(?7?%
Reso#ution add anot,er Fua#i1i*ation #a6er to 2,at t,e 198- %onstitution, at t,e
minimum, reFuires 1or members,i& in t,e "enate. >,et,er or not t,e drug!1ree bar
set u& under t,e *,a##enged &rovision is to be ,urd#ed be1ore or a1ter e#e*tion is
rea##6 o1 no moment, as getting e#e*ted 2ou#d be o1 #itt#e va#ue i1 one *annot
assume o11i*e 1or non!*om&#ian*e 2it, t,e drug!testing reFuirement.

;t ma6 o1 *ourse be argued, in de1ense o1 t,e va#idit6 o1 "e*. 368g9 o1 R'
9165, t,at t,e &rovision does not eG&ress#6 state t,at non!*om&#ian*e 2it, t,e drug
test im&osition is a disFua#i16ing 1a*tor or 2ou#d 2or3 to nu##i16 a *erti1i*ate o1
*andida*6. +,is argument ma6 be a**orded &#ausibi#it6 i1 t,e drug test reFuirement
is o&tiona#. Iut t,e &arti*u#ar se*tion o1 t,e #a2, 2it,out eG*e&tion, made drug!
testing on t,ose *overed mandator6, ne*essari#6 suggesting t,at t,e obstinate ones
s,a## ,ave to su11er t,e adverse *onseFuen*es 1or not ad,ering to t,e statutor6
*ommand. 'nd sin*e t,e &rovision dea#s 2it, *andidates 1or &ub#i* o11i*e, it stands
to reason t,at t,e adverse *onseFuen*e adverted to *an on#6 re1er to and revo#ve
around t,e e#e*tion and t,e assum&tion o1 &ub#i* o11i*e o1 t,e *andidates. 'n6
ot,er *onstrua# 2ou#d redu*e t,e mandator6 nature o1 "e*. 368g9 o1 R' 9165 into a
&ure )argon 2it,out meaning and e11e*t 2,atsoever.

>,i#e it is anti!*#ima*ti* to state it at t,is )un*ture, %@(?7?% Reso#ution
No. 6086 is no #onger en1or*eab#e, 1or b6 its terms, it 2as intended to *over on#6
t,e (a6 1/, .//0 s6n*,roni$ed e#e*tions and t,e *andidates running in t,at
e#e*tora# event. Nonet,e#ess, to obviate re&etition, t,e %ourt deems it a&&ro&riate
to revie2 and ru#e, as it ,ereb6 ru#es, on its va#idit6 as an im&#ementing issuan*e.

;t oug,t to be made abundant#6 *#ear, ,o2ever, t,at t,e un*onstitutiona#it6 o1
"e*. 368g9 o1 R' 9165 is rooted on its ,aving in1ringed t,e *onstitutiona# &rovision
de1ining t,e Fua#i1i*ation or e#igibi#it6 reFuirements 1or one as&iring to run 1or and
serve as senator.

SJS Pe#"#"n
(Cn&#"#+#"na,"#' $ Sec. 1>AcB, AdB, A$B, and A!B $ RA C:>;)

+,e drug test &res*ribed under "e*. 368*9, 8d9, and 819 o1 R' 9165 1or
se*ondar6 and tertiar6 #eve# students and &ub#i* and &rivate em&#o6ees, 2,i#e
mandator6, is a random and sus&i*ion#ess arrangement. +,e ob)e*tive is to stam&
out i##ega# drug and sa1eguard in t,e &ro*ess Kt,e 2e## being o1 4t,e5 *iti$enr6,
&arti*u#ar#6 t,e 6out,, 1rom t,e ,arm1u# e11e*ts o1 dangerous drugs.L +,is
statutor6 &ur&ose, &er t,e &o#i*6!de*#aration &ortion o1 t,e #a2, *an be a*,ieved via
t,e &ursuit b6 t,e state o1 Kan intensive and unre#enting *am&aign against t,e
tra11i*3ing and use o1 dangerous drugs G G G t,roug, an integrated s6stem o1
&#anning, im&#ementation and en1or*ement o1 anti!drug abuse &o#i*ies, &rograms
and &ro)e*ts.L
4105
+,e &rimar6 #egis#ative intent is not *rimina# &rose*ution, as
t,ose 1ound &ositive 1or i##ega# drug use as a resu#t o1 t,is random testing are not
ne*essari#6 treated as *rimina#s. +,e6 ma6 even be eGem&t 1rom *rimina# #iabi#it6
s,ou#d t,e i##ega# drug user *onsent to undergo re,abi#itation. "e*s. 50 and 55 o1
R' 9165 are *#ear on t,is &oint:


"e*. 50. ,oluntary Submission o a :rug :ependent to Coninement)
-reatment and Rehabilitation.S' drug de&endent or an6 &erson 2,o vio#ates
"e*tion 15 o1 t,is '*t ma6, b6 ,imse#1E,erse#1 or t,roug, ,isE,er &arent, 4*#ose
re#atives5 G G G a&&#6 to t,e Ioard G G G 1or treatment and re,abi#itation o1 t,e
drug de&enden*6. B&on su*, a&&#i*ation, t,e Ioard s,a## bring 1ort, t,e matter to
t,e %ourt 2,i*, s,a## order t,at t,e a&&#i*ant be eGamined 1or drug
de&enden*6. ;1 t,e eGamination G G G resu#ts in t,e *erti1i*ation t,at t,e a&&#i*ant
is a drug de&endent, ,eEs,e s,a## be ordered b6 t,e %ourt to undergo treatment and
re,abi#itation in a %enter designated b6 t,e Ioard G G G.

G G G G

"e*. 55. ?7emption rom the Criminal Liability @nder the ,oluntary
Submission 9rogram.S' drug de&endent under t,e vo#untar6 submission
&rogram, 2,o is 1ina##6 dis*,arged 1rom *on1inement, s,a## be eGem&t 1rom t,e
*rimina# #iabi#it6 under "e*tion 15 o1 t,is '*t sub)e*t to t,e 1o##o2ing *onditions:

G G G G


"*,oo# *,i#dren, t,e B" "u&reme %ourt noted, are most vu#nerab#e to t,e
&,6si*a#, &s6*,o#ogi*a#, and addi*tive e11e*ts o1 drugs. (aturing nervous s6stems
o1 t,e 6oung are more *riti*a##6 im&aired b6 intoGi*ants and are more in*#ined to
drug de&enden*6. +,eir re*over6 is a#so at a de&ressing#6 #o2 rate.
4155


+,e rig,t to &riva*6 ,as been a**orded re*ognition in t,is )urisdi*tion as a
1a*et o1 t,e rig,t &rote*ted b6 t,e guarantee against unreasonab#e sear*, and
sei$ure
4165
under "e*. ., 'rt. ;;;
41-5
o1 t,e %onstitution. Iut 2,i#e t,e rig,t to &riva*6
,as #ong *ome into its o2n, t,is *ase a&&ears to be t,e 1irst time t,at t,e va#idit6 o1
a state!de*reed sear*, or intrusion t,roug, t,e medium o1 mandator6 random drug
testing among students and em&#o6ees is, in t,is )urisdi*tion, made t,e 1o*a# &oint.
+,us, t,e issue tendered in t,ese &ro*eedings is veritab#6 one o1 1irst im&ression.

B" )uris&ruden*e is, ,o2ever, a ri*, sour*e o1 &ersuasive )uris&ruden*e.
>it, res&e*t to random drug testing among s*,oo# *,i#dren, 2e turn to t,e
tea*,ings o1 ,ernonia S!hool :istri!t ABJ v. ;!ton 8,ernonia9 and 2oard o
?du!ation o Independent S!hool :istri!t %o. C< o 9ottawatomie County, et al. v.
?arls, et al. 82oard o ?du!ation9,
4185
bot, 1air#6 &ertinent B" "u&reme %ourt!
de*ided *ases invo#ving t,e *onstitutiona#it6 o1 governmenta# sear*,.

;n ,ernonia, s*,oo# administrators in <ernonia, @regon 2anted to address
t,e drug mena*e in t,eir res&e*tive institutions 1o##o2ing t,e dis*over6 o1 1reFuent
drug use b6 s*,oo# at,#etes. '1ter *onsu#tation 2it, t,e &arents, t,e6 reFuired
random urina#6sis drug testing 1or t,e s*,oo#As at,#etes. James '*ton, a ,ig,
s*,oo# student, 2as denied &arti*i&ation in t,e 1ootba## &rogram a1ter ,e re1used to
underta3e t,e urina#6sis drug testing. '*ton 1ort,2it, sued, *#aiming t,at t,e
s*,oo#As drug testing &o#i*6 vio#ated, inter alia, t,e =ourt, 'mendment
4195
o1 t,e
B" %onstitution.

+,e B" "u&reme %ourt, in 1as,ioning a so#ution to t,e issues raised
in ,ernonia, *onsidered t,e 1o##o2ing: 819 s*,oo#s standin lo!o parentis over t,eir
studentsH 8.9 s*,oo# *,i#dren, 2,i#e not s,edding t,eir *onstitutiona# rig,ts at t,e
s*,oo# gate, ,ave #ess &riva*6 rig,tsH 839 at,#etes ,ave #ess &riva*6 rig,ts t,an non!
at,#etes sin*e t,e 1ormer observe *ommuna# undress be1ore and a1ter s&orts eventsH
809 b6 )oining t,e s&orts a*tivit6, t,e at,#etes vo#untari#6 sub)e*ted t,emse#ves to a
,ig,er degree o1 s*,oo# su&ervision and regu#ationH 859 reFuiring urine sam&#es
does not invade a studentAs &riva*6 sin*e a student need not undress 1or t,is 3ind o1
drug testingH and 869 t,ere is need 1or t,e drug testing be*ause o1 t,e dangerous
e11e*ts o1 i##ega# drugs on t,e 6oung. +,e B" "u&reme %ourt ,e#d t,at t,e &o#i*6
*onstituted reasonab#e sear*, under t,e =ourt,
4./5
and 10t, 'mendments and
de*#ared t,e random drug!testing &o#i*6 *onstitutiona#.

;n 2oard o ?du!ation, t,e Ioard o1 ?du*ation o1 a s*,oo#
in +e*umse,, @3#a,oma reFuired a drug test 1or ,ig, s*,oo# students desiring to
)oin eGtra!*urri*u#ar a*tivities. 7indsa6 ?ar#s, a member o1 t,e s,o2 *,oir,
mar*,ing band, and a*ademi* team de*#ined to undergo a drug test and averred t,at
t,e drug!testing &o#i*6 made to a&&#6 to non!at,#etes vio#ated t,e =ourt, and 10t,
'mendments. 's ?ar#s argued, un#i3e at,#etes 2,o routine#6 undergo &,6si*a#
eGaminations and undress be1ore t,eir &eers in #o*3er rooms, non!at,#etes are
entit#ed to more &riva*6.

+,e B" "u&reme %ourt, *iting ,ernonia, u&,e#d t,e *onstitutiona#it6 o1 drug
testing even among non!at,#etes on t,e basis o1 t,e s*,oo#As *ustodia#
res&onsibi#it6 and aut,orit6. ;n so ru#ing, said *ourt made no distin*tion bet2een a
non!at,#ete and an at,#ete. ;t ratio*inated t,at s*,oo#s and tea*,ers a*t in &#a*e o1
t,e &arents 2it, a simi#ar interest and dut6 o1 sa1eguarding t,e ,ea#t, o1 t,e
students. 'nd in ,o#ding t,at t,e s*,oo# *ou#d im&#ement its random drug!testing
&o#i*6, t,e %ourt ,inted t,at su*, a test 2as a 3ind o1 sear*, in 2,i*, even a
reasonab#e &arent mig,t need to engage.

;n sum, 2,at *an reasonab#6 be dedu*ed 1rom t,e above t2o *ases and
a&&#ied to t,is )urisdi*tion are: 819 s*,oo#s and t,eir administrators stand in lo!o
parentis 2it, res&e*t to t,eir studentsH 8.9 minor students ,ave *onteGtua##6 1e2er
rig,ts t,an an adu#t, and are sub)e*t to t,e *ustod6 and su&ervision o1 t,eir &arents,
guardians, and s*,oo#sH 839 s*,oo#s, a*ting in lo!o parentis, ,ave a dut6 to
sa1eguard t,e ,ea#t, and 2e##!being o1 t,eir students and ma6 ado&t su*, measures
as ma6 reasonab#6 be ne*essar6 to dis*,arge su*, dut6H and 809 s*,oo#s ,ave t,e
rig,t to im&ose *onditions on a&&#i*ants 1or admission t,at are 1air, )ust, and non!
dis*riminator6.

Guided b6 ,ernonia and 2oard o ?du!ation, t,e %ourt is o1 t,e vie2 and so
,o#ds t,at t,e &rovisions o1 R' 9165 reFuiring mandator6, random, and
sus&i*ion#ess drug testing o1 students are *onstitutiona#. ;ndeed, it is 2it,in t,e
&rerogative o1 edu*ationa# institutions to reFuire, as a *ondition 1or admission,
*om&#ian*e 2it, reasonab#e s*,oo# ru#es and regu#ations and &o#i*ies. +o be sure,
t,e rig,t to enro## is not abso#uteH it is sub)e*t to 1air, reasonab#e, and eFuitab#e
reFuirements.

+,e %ourt *an ta3e )udi*ia# noti*e o1 t,e &ro#i1eration o1 &ro,ibited drugs in
t,e *ountr6 t,at t,reatens t,e 2e##!being o1 t,e &eo&#e,
4.15
&arti*u#ar#6 t,e 6out, and
s*,oo# *,i#dren 2,o usua##6 end u& as vi*tims. '**ording#6, and unti# a more
e11e*tive met,od is *on*e&tua#i$ed and &ut in motion, a random drug testing o1
students in se*ondar6 and tertiar6 s*,oo#s is not on#6 a**e&tab#e but ma6 even be
ne*essar6 i1 t,e sa1et6 and interest o1 t,e student &o&u#ation, doubt#ess a #egitimate
*on*ern o1 t,e government, are to be &romoted and &rote*ted. +o borro2
1rom ,ernonia, K4d5eterring drug use b6 our NationAs s*,oo#*,i#dren is as
im&ortant as en,an*ing e11i*ient en1or*ement o1 t,e NationAs #a2s against t,e
im&ortation o1 drugsLH t,e ne*essit6 1or t,e "tate to a*t is magni1ied b6 t,e 1a*t t,at
t,e e11e*ts o1 a drug!in1ested s*,oo# are visited not )ust u&on t,e users, but u&on
t,e entire student bod6 and 1a*u#t6.
4..5
Need#ess to stress, t,e random testing
s*,eme &rovided under t,e #a2 argues against t,e idea t,at t,e testing aims to
in*riminate unsus&e*ting individua# students.

Just as in t,e *ase o1 se*ondar6 and tertiar6 #eve# students, t,e mandator6 but
random drug test &res*ribed b6 "e*. 36 o1 R' 9165 1or o11i*ers and em&#o6ees o1
&ub#i* and &rivate o11i*es is )usti1iab#e, a#beit not eGa*t#6 1or t,e same reason. +,e
%ourt notes in t,is regard t,at &etitioner "J", ot,er t,an sa6ing t,at Ksub)e*ting
a#most ever6bod6 to drug testing, 2it,out &robab#e *ause, is unreasonab#e, an
un2arranted intrusion o1 t,e individua# rig,t to &riva*6,L
4.35
,as 1ai#ed to s,o2 ,o2
t,e mandator6, random, and sus&i*ion#ess drug testing under "e*. 368*9 and 8d9 o1
R' 9165 vio#ates t,e rig,t to &riva*6 and *onstitutes un#a21u# andEor un*onsented
sear*, under 'rt. ;;;, "e*s. 1 and . o1 t,e %onstitution.
4.05
Petitioner 7asernaAs
#ament is )ust as sim&#isti*, s2ee&ing, and gratuitous and does not merit serious
*onsideration. %onsider 2,at ,e 2rote 2it,out e#aboration:

+,e B" "u&reme %ourt and B" %ir*uit %ourts o1 '&&ea#s ,ave made
various ru#ings on t,e *onstitutiona#it6 o1 mandator6 drug tests in t,e s*,oo# and
t,e 2or3&#a*es. +,e B" *ourts ,ave been *onsistent in t,eir ru#ings t,at t,e
mandator6 drug tests vio#ate a *iti$enAs *onstitutiona# rig,t to &riva*6 and rig,t
against unreasonab#e sear*, and sei$ure. +,e6 are Fuoted eGtensive#6
,ereinbe#o2.
4.55

+,e essen*e o1 &riva*6 is t,e rig,t to be #e1t a#one.
4.65
;n *onteGt, t,e rig,t to
&riva*6 means t,e rig,t to be 1ree 1rom un2arranted eG&#oitation o1 oneAs &erson or
1rom intrusion into oneAs &rivate a*tivities in su*, a 2a6 as to *ause ,umi#iation to
a &ersonAs ordinar6 sensibi#ities.
4.-5
'nd 2,i#e t,ere ,as been genera# agreement
as to t,e basi* 1un*tion o1 t,e guarantee against un2arranted sear*,, Ktrans#ation o1
t,e abstra*t &ro,ibition against Tunreasonab#e sear*,es and sei$uresA into 2or3ab#e
broad guide#ines 1or t,e de*ision o1 &arti*u#ar *ases is a di11i*u#t tas3,L to borro2
1rom C. Camara v. *uni!ipal Court.
4.85
'ut,orities are agreed t,oug, t,at t,e
rig,t to &riva*6 6ie#ds to *ertain &aramount rig,ts o1 t,e &ub#i* and de1ers to t,e
stateAs eGer*ise o1 &o#i*e &o2er.
4.95

's t,e 2arrant#ess *#ause o1 "e*. ., 'rt ;;; o1 t,e %onstitution is *ou*,ed
and as ,as been ,e#d, Kreasonab#enessL is t,e tou*,stone o1 t,e va#idit6 o1 a
government sear*, or intrusion.
43/5
'nd 2,et,er a sear*, at issue ,e2s to t,e
reasonab#eness standard is )udged b6 t,e ba#an*ing o1 t,e government!mandated
intrusion on t,e individua#As &riva*6 interest against t,e &romotion o1 some
*om&e##ing state interest.
4315
;n t,e *rimina# *onteGt, reasonab#eness reFuires
s,o2ing o1 &robab#e *ause to be &ersona##6 determined b6 a )udge. Given t,at t,e
drug!testing &o#i*6 1or em&#o6eesJJand students 1or t,at matterJJunder R' 9165
is in t,e nature o1 administrative sear*, needing 2,at 2as re1erred to
in ,ernonia as Ks2i1t and in1orma# dis*i&#inar6 &ro*edures,L t,e &robab#e!*ause
standard is not reFuired or even &ra*ti*ab#e. Ie t,at as it ma6, t,e revie2 s,ou#d
1o*us on t,e reasonab#eness o1 t,e *,a##enged administrative sear*, in Fuestion.

+,e 1irst 1a*tor to *onsider in t,e matter o1 reasonab#eness is t,e nature o1
t,e &riva*6 interest u&on 2,i*, t,e drug testing, 2,i*, e11e*ts a sear*, 2it,in t,e
meaning o1 "e*. ., 'rt. ;;; o1 t,e %onstitution, intrudes. ;n t,is *ase, t,e o11i*e or
2or3&#a*e serves as t,e ba*3dro& 1or t,e ana#6sis o1 t,e &riva*6 eG&e*tation o1 t,e
em&#o6ees and t,e reasonab#eness o1 drug testing reFuirement. +,e em&#o6eesA
&riva*6 interest in an o11i*e is to a #arge eGtent *ir*ums*ribed b6 t,e *om&an6As
2or3 &o#i*ies, t,e *o##e*tive bargaining agreement, i1 an6, entered into b6
management and t,e bargaining unit, and t,e in,erent rig,t o1 t,e em&#o6er to
maintain dis*i&#ine and e11i*ien*6 in t,e 2or3&#a*e. +,eir &riva*6 eG&e*tation in a
regu#ated o11i*e environment is, in 1ine, redu*edH and a degree o1 im&ingement
u&on su*, &riva*6 ,as been u&,e#d.

Just as de1ining as t,e 1irst 1a*tor is t,e *,ara*ter o1 t,e intrusion aut,ori$ed
b6 t,e *,a##enged #a2. Redu*ed to a Fuestion 1orm, is t,e s*o&e o1 t,e sear*, or
intrusion *#ear#6 set 1ort,, or, as 1ormu#ated in Ople v. -orres, is t,e enab#ing #a2
aut,ori$ing a sear*, Knarro2#6 dra2nL or Knarro2#6 1o*usedLQ
43.5

+,e &oser s,ou#d be ans2ered in t,e a11irmative. =or one, "e*. 36 o1 R'
9165 and its im&#ementing ru#es and regu#ations 8;RR9, as *ou*,ed, *ontain
&rovisions s&e*i1i*a##6 dire*ted to2ards &reventing a situation t,at 2ou#d undu#6
embarrass t,e em&#o6ees or &#a*e t,em under a ,umi#iating eG&erien*e. >,i#e
ever6 o11i*er and em&#o6ee in a &rivate estab#is,ment is under t,e #a2 deemed
1ore2arned t,at ,e or s,e ma6 be a &ossib#e sub)e*t o1 a drug test, nobod6 is rea##6
sing#ed out in advan*e 1or drug testing. +,e goa# is to dis*ourage drug use b6 not
te##ing in advan*e an6one 2,en and 2,o is to be tested. 'nd as ma6 be observed,
"e*. 368d9 o1 R' 9165 itse#1 &res*ribes 2,at, in Ople, is a narro2ing ingredient b6
&roviding t,at t,e em&#o6ees *on*erned s,a## be sub)e*ted to Krandom drug test as
*ontained in t,e *om&an6As 2or3 ru#es and regu#ations G G G 1or &ur&oses o1
redu*ing t,e ris3 in t,e 2or3 &#a*e.L

=or anot,er, t,e random drug testing s,a## be underta3en under *onditions
*a#*u#ated to &rote*t as mu*, as &ossib#e t,e em&#o6eeAs &riva*6 and dignit6. 's to
t,e me*,ani*s o1 t,e test, t,e #a2 s&e*i1ies t,at t,e &ro*edure s,a## em&#o6 t2o
testing met,ods, i.e., t,e s*reening test and t,e *on1irmator6 test, doubt#ess to
ensure as mu*, as &ossib#e t,e trust2ort,iness o1 t,e resu#ts. Iut t,e more
im&ortant *onsideration #ies in t,e 1a*t t,at t,e test s,a## be *ondu*ted b6 trained
&ro1essiona#s in a**ess!*ontro##ed #aboratories monitored b6 t,e De&artment o1
:ea#t, 8D@:9 to sa1eguard against resu#ts tam&ering and to ensure an a**urate
*,ain o1 *ustod6.
4335
;n addition, t,e ;RR issued b6 t,e D@: &rovides t,at a**ess to
t,e drug resu#ts s,a## be on t,e Kneed to 3no2L basisH
4305
t,at t,e Kdrug test resu#t
and t,e re*ords s,a## be 43e&t5 *on1identia# sub)e*t to t,e usua# a**e&ted &ra*ti*es
to &rote*t t,e *on1identia#it6 o1 t,e test resu#ts.L
4355
Notab#6, R' 9165 does not
ob#ige t,e em&#o6er *on*erned to re&ort to t,e &rose*uting agen*ies an6
in1ormation or eviden*e re#ating to t,e vio#ation o1 t,e Comprehensive :angerous
:rugs ;!t re*eived as a resu#t o1 t,e o&eration o1 t,e drug testing. '## to#d,
t,ere1ore, t,e intrusion into t,e em&#o6eesA &riva*6, under R' 9165, is
a**om&anied b6 &ro&er sa1eguards, &arti*u#ar#6 against embarrassing #ea3ages o1
test resu#ts, and is re#ative#6 minima#.

+o reiterate, R' 9165 2as ena*ted as a measure to stam& out i##ega# drug in
t,e *ountr6 and t,us &rote*t t,e 2e##!being o1 t,e *iti$ens, es&e*ia##6 t,e 6out,,
1rom t,e de#eterious e11e*ts o1 dangerous drugs. +,e #a2 intends to a*,ieve t,is
t,roug, t,e medium, among ot,ers, o1 &romoting and reso#ute#6 &ursuing a
nationa# drug abuse &o#i*6 in t,e 2or3&#a*e via a mandator6 random drug test.
4365
+o t,e %ourt, t,e need 1or drug testing to at #east minimi$e i##ega# drug use is
substantia# enoug, to override t,e individua#As &riva*6 interest under t,e
&remises. +,e %ourt *an *onsider t,at t,e i##ega# drug mena*e *uts a*ross gender,
age grou&, and so*ia#! e*onomi* #ines. 'nd it ma6 not be amiss to state t,at t,e
sa#e, manu1a*ture, or tra11i*3ing o1 i##ega# drugs, 2it, t,eir read6 mar3et, 2ou#d be
an investorAs dream 2ere it not 1or t,e i##ega# and immora# *om&onents o1 an6 o1
su*, a*tivities. +,e drug &rob#em ,as ,ard#6 abated sin*e t,e martia# #a2 &ub#i*
eGe*ution o1 a notorious drug tra11i*3er. +,e state *an no #onger assume a #aid ba*3
stan*e 2it, res&e*t to t,is modern!da6 s*ourge. Drug en1or*ement agen*ies
&er*eive a mandator6 random drug test to be an e11e*tive 2a6 o1 &reventing and
deterring drug use among em&#o6ees in &rivate o11i*es, t,e t,reat o1 dete*tion b6
random testing being ,ig,er t,an ot,er modes. +,e %ourt ,o#ds t,at t,e *,osen
met,od is a reasonab#e and enoug, means to #i*3 t,e &rob#em.

+a3ing into a**ount t,e 1oregoing 1a*tors, i.e., t,e redu*ed eG&e*tation o1
&riva*6 on t,e &art o1 t,e em&#o6ees, t,e *om&e##ing state *on*ern #i3e#6 to be met
b6 t,e sear*,, and t,e 2e##!de1ined #imits set 1ort, in t,e #a2 to &ro&er#6 guide
aut,orities in t,e *ondu*t o1 t,e random testing, 2e ,o#d t,at t,e *,a##enged drug
test reFuirement is, under t,e #imited *onteGt o1 t,e *ase, reasonab#e and,ergo,
*onstitutiona#.

7i3e t,eir *ounter&arts in t,e &rivate se*tor, government o11i*ia#s and
em&#o6ees a#so #abor under reasonab#e su&ervision and restri*tions im&osed b6 t,e
%ivi# "ervi*e #a2 and ot,er #a2s on &ub#i* o11i*ers, a## ena*ted to &romote a ,ig,
standard o1 et,i*s in t,e &ub#i* servi*e.
43-5
'nd i1 R' 9165 &asses t,e norm o1
reasonab#eness 1or &rivate em&#o6ees, t,e more reason t,at it s,ou#d &ass t,e test
1or *ivi# servants, 2,o, b6 *onstitutiona# *ommand, are reFuired to be a**ountab#e
at a## times to t,e &eo&#e and to serve t,em 2it, utmost res&onsibi#it6 and
e11i*ien*6.
4385


Petitioner "J"A neGt &osture t,at "e*. 36 o1 R' 9165 is ob)e*tionab#e on t,e
ground o1 undue de#egation o1 &o2er ,ard#6 *ommends itse#1 1or
*on*urren*e. %ontrar6 to its &osition, t,e &rovision in Fuestion is not so
eGtensive#6 dra2n as to give unbrid#ed o&tions to s*,oo#s and em&#o6ers to
determine t,e manner o1 drug testing. "e*. 36 eG&ress#6 &rovides ,o2 drug testing
1or students o1 se*ondar6 and tertiar6 s*,oo#s and o11i*ersEem&#o6ees o1
&ub#i*E&rivate o11i*es s,ou#d be *ondu*ted. ;t enumerates t,e &ersons 2,o s,a##
undergo drug testing. ;n t,e *ase o1 students, t,e testing s,a## be in a**ordan*e 2it,
t,e s*,oo# ru#es as *ontained in t,e student ,andboo3 and 2it, noti*e to &arents.
@n t,e &art o1 o11i*ersEem&#o6ees, t,e testing s,a## ta3e into a**ount t,e *om&an6As
2or3 ru#es. ;n eit,er *ase, t,e random &ro*edure s,a## be observed, meaning t,at
t,e &ersons to be sub)e*ted to drug test s,a## be &i*3ed b6 *,an*e or in an
un&#anned 2a6. 'nd in a## *ases, sa1eguards against misusing and *om&romising
t,e *on1identia#it6 o1 t,e test resu#ts are estab#is,ed.

7est it be over#oo3ed, "e*. 90 o1 R' 9165 *,arges t,e DDI to issue, in
*onsu#tation 2it, t,e D@:, De&artment o1 t,e ;nterior and 7o*a# Government,
De&artment o1 ?du*ation, and De&artment o1 7abor and ?m&#o6ment, among ot,er
agen*ies, t,e ;RR ne*essar6 to en1or*e t,e #a2. ;n net e11e*t t,en, t,e &arti*i&ation
o1 s*,oo#s and o11i*es in t,e drug testing s*,eme s,a## a#2a6s be sub)e*t to t,e ;RR
o1 R' 9165. ;t is, t,ere1ore, in*orre*t to sa6 t,at s*,oo#s and em&#o6ers ,ave
un*,e*3ed dis*retion to determine ,o2 o1ten, under 2,at *onditions, and 2,ere
t,e drug tests s,a## be *ondu*ted.

+,e va#idit6 o1 de#egating #egis#ative &o2er is no2 a Fuiet area in t,e
*onstitutiona# #ands*a&e.
4395
;n t,e 1a*e o1 t,e in*reasing *om&#eGit6 o1 t,e tas3 o1
t,e government and t,e in*reasing inabi#it6 o1 t,e #egis#ature to *o&e dire*t#6 2it,
t,e man6 &rob#ems demanding its attention, resort to de#egation o1 &o2er, or
entrusting to administrative agen*ies t,e &o2er o1 subordinate #egis#ation, ,as
be*ome im&erative, as ,ere.

La&erna Pe#"#"n (Cn&#"#+#"na,"#' $ Sec. 1>AcB, AdB,
A$B, and A!B $ RA C:>;)

Bn#i3e t,e situation *overed b6 "e*. 368*9 and 8d9 o1 R' 9165, t,e %ourt
1inds no va#id )usti1i*ation 1or mandator6 drug testing 1or &ersons a**used o1
*rimes. ;n t,e *ase o1 students, t,e *onstitutiona# viabi#it6 o1 t,e mandator6,
random, and sus&i*ion#ess drug testing 1or students emanates &rimari#6 1rom t,e
2aiver b6 t,e students o1 t,eir rig,t to &riva*6 2,en t,e6 see3 entr6 to t,e s*,oo#,
and 1rom t,eir vo#untari#6 submitting t,eir &ersons to t,e &arenta# aut,orit6 o1
s*,oo# aut,orities. ;n t,e *ase o1 &rivate and &ub#i* em&#o6ees, t,e *onstitutiona#
soundness o1 t,e mandator6, random, and sus&i*ion#ess drug testing &ro*eeds 1rom
t,e reasonab#eness o1 t,e drug test &o#i*6 and reFuirement.

>e 1ind t,e situation entire#6 di11erent in t,e *ase o1 &ersons *,arged be1ore
t,e &ub#i* &rose*utorAs o11i*e 2it, *rimina# o11enses &unis,ab#e 2it, siG 869 6ears
and one 819 da6 im&risonment. +,e o&erative *on*e&ts in t,e mandator6 drug
testing are KrandomnessL and Ksus&i*ion#ess.L ;n t,e *ase o1 &ersons *,arged 2it,
a *rime be1ore t,e &rose*utorAs o11i*e, a mandator6 drug testing *an never be
random or sus&i*ion#ess. +,e ideas o1 randomness and being sus&i*ion#ess are
antit,eti*a# to t,eir being made de1endants in a *rimina# *om&#aint. +,e6 are not
random#6 &i*3edH neit,er are t,e6 be6ond sus&i*ion. >,en &ersons sus&e*ted o1
*ommitting a *rime are *,arged, t,e6 are sing#ed out and are im&#eaded against
t,eir 2i##. +,e &ersons t,us *,arged, b6 t,e bare 1a*t o1 being ,a#ed be1ore t,e
&rose*utorAs o11i*e and &ea*eab#6 submitting t,emse#ves to drug testing, i1 t,at be
t,e *ase, do not ne*essari#6 *onsent to t,e &ro*edure, #et a#one 2aive t,eir rig,t to
&riva*6.
40/5
+o im&ose mandator6 drug testing on t,e a**used is a b#atant attem&t to
,arness a medi*a# test as a too# 1or *rimina# &rose*ution, *ontrar6 to t,e stated
ob)e*tives o1 R' 9165. Drug testing in t,is *ase 2ou#d vio#ate a &ersonsA rig,t to
&riva*6 guaranteed under "e*. ., 'rt. ;;; o1 t,e %onstitution. >orse sti##, t,e
a**used &ersons are veritab#6 1or*ed to in*riminate t,emse#ves.

3HERE4ORE, t,e %ourt reso#ves to GRANT t,e &etition in G.R. No.
161658 and de*#ares Sec. 1>(!) o1 RA C:>; andCOMELEC Re&,+#"n N.
>?=> as 7NCONSTIT7TIONALH and to PARTIALLY GRANT t,e &etition in
G.R. Nos. 15-8-/ and 158633 b6 de*#aring Sec. 1>(c) and (d) o1 RA
C:>; CONSTIT7TIONAL, but de*#aring its Sec.
1>($)7NCONSTIT7TIONAL. '## *on*erned agen*ies are, a**ording#6,
&ermanent#6 en)oined 1rom im&#ementing Sec. 1>($) and (!) o1RA C:>;. No *osts.

SO OR5ERE5.

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
'sso*iate Justi*e



>? %@N%BR9


REYNATO S. P7NO
%,ie1 Justi*e




LEONAR5O A. 87IS7MBING CONS7ELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
'sso*iate Justi*e 'sso*iate Justi*e




ANTONIO T. CARPIO MA. ALICIA A7STRIA-MARTINED
'sso*iate Justi*e 'sso*iate Justi*e




RENATO C. CORONA CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
'sso*iate Justi*e 'sso*iate Justi*e




A5OL4O S. ADC7NA 5ANTE O. TINGA
'sso*iate Justi*e 'sso*iate
Justi*e



MINITA V. CHICO-NADARIO ANTONIO E57AR5O B. NACH7RA
'sso*iate Justi*e 'sso*iate Justi*e









R7BEN T. REYES TERESITA J. LEONAR5O-5E CASTRO
'sso*iate Justi*e 'sso*iate Justi*e




ART7RO 5. BRION
'sso*iate Justi*e



C E R T I 4 I C A T I O N


Pursuant to "e*tion 13, 'rti*#e <;;; o1 t,e %onstitution, ; *erti16 t,at t,e
*on*#usions in t,e above De*ision ,ad been rea*,ed in *onsu#tation be1ore t,e *ase
2as assigned to t,e 2riter o1 t,e o&inion o1 t,e %ourt.




REYNATO S. P7NO
%,ie1 Justi*e

415
Re!e#e*ted as senator in t,e .//0 e#e*tions.

4.5
Rollo 8G.R. No. 1586339, &&. 180!185.

435
:umlao v. CO*?L?C, No. 7!5..05, Januar6 .., 198/, 95 "%R' 39., 0/1.

405
Iernas, +:? 198- %@N"+;+B+;@N @= +:? R?PBI7;% @= +:? P:;7;PP;N?": '
%@((?N+'R 939 8.//39.

455
+on(ales v. %arvasa, G.R. No. 10/835, 'ugust 10, .///, 33- "%R' -33, -0/.

465
-atad v. Se!retary o the :epartment o ?nergy, G.R. Nos. 1.036/ D 1.-86-, November 5, 199-, .81
"%R' 33/, 309H :e +uia v. CO*?L?C, G.R. No. 1/0-1., (a6 6, 199., ./8 "%R' 0./, 0...

4-5
9almer v. 2oard o ?du!ation, .-6 N ... 11 N? .d 88-.

485
%ru$, %@N"+;+B+;@N'7 7'> 0 8.///9.

495
*utu! v. Commission on ?le!tions, No. 7!3.-1-, November .6, 19-/, 36 "%R' ..8, .30.

41/5
5/ P,i#. .59, 3/9 819.-9.

4115
J. Iernas, ".J., +:? 198- %@N"+;+B+;@N @= +:? R?PBI7;% @= +:? P:;7;PP;N?": '
%@((?N+'R 6/0 819969.

41.5
;d.

4135
See *on*urring o&inion in +o v. Commision on ?le!tions, G.R. No. 10--01, (a6 1/, .//1, 35- "%R'
-39, -53.
4105
R' 9165, "e*. ..

4155
,ernonia S!hool :istri!t ABJ v. ;!ton, 515 B.". 606 819959, 661.

4165
Ople v. -orres, G.R. No. 1.-685, Ju#6 .3, 1998, .93 "%R' 101, 169H *iting *ore v. *utu!, No. 7!
./38-, Januar6 31, 1968, .. "%R' 0.0, 000!005.

41-5
"e*. .. +,e rig,t o1 t,e &eo&#e to be se*ure in t,eir &ersons, ,ouses, &a&ers, and e11e*ts against
unreasonab#e sear*,es and sei$ures o1 2,atever nature and 1or an6 &ur&ose s,a## be invio#ab#e, and no sear*,
2arrant or 2arrant o1 arrest s,a## issue eG*e&t u&on &robab#e *ause to be determined &ersona##6 b6 t,e )udge a1ter
eGamination under oat, or a11irmation o1 t,e *om&#ainant and t,e 2itnesses ,e ma6 &rodu*e, and &arti*u#ar#6
des*ribing t,e &#a*e to be sear*,ed and t,e &erson or t,ings to be sei$ed.

4185
536 B.". 8.. 8.//.9H *ited in . Iernas, %@N"+;+B+;@N'7 R;G:+" 'ND "@%;'7
D?('ND" ..0!..- 8.//09.

4195
+,e rig,t o1 t,e &eo&#e to be se*ure in t,eir &ersons, ,ouses, &a&ers, and e11e*ts, against unreasonab#e
sear*,es and sei$ures, s,a## not be vio#ated, and no >arrants s,a## issue, but u&on &robab#e *ause, su&&orted b6 @at,
or a11irmation, and &arti*u#ar#6 des*ribing t,e &#a*e to be sear*,ed, and t,e &ersons or t,ings to be sei$ed.

4./5
+,e =ourt, 'mendment is a#most simi#ar to "e*. ., 'rt. ;;; o1 t,e %onstitution, eG*e&t t,at t,e #atter
#imited t,e determination o1 &robab#e *ause to a )udge a1ter an eGamination under oat, o1 t,e *om&#ainant and ,is
2itnesses. :en*e, &ronoun*ements o1 t,e B" =edera# "u&reme %ourt and "tate '&&e##ate %ourt ma6 be *onsidered
do*trina# in t,is )urisdi*tion, un#ess t,e6 are mani1est#6 *ontrar6 to our %onstitution. See :errera, :'NDI@@N
@N 'RR?"+, "?'R%: 'ND "?;RBR? 8 8.//39.

4.15
-olentino v. ;l!on!el, No. 7!630//, (ar*, 18, 1983, 1.1 "%R' 9., 95!96.

4..5
Rollo 8G.R. No. 1586339, &. ./0, res&ondentsA %onso#idated (emorandum.

4.35
Rollo 8G.R. No. 15-8-/9, &. 1/.

4.05
Sec#"n :. No &erson s,a## be de&rived o1 #i1e, #ibert6, or &ro&ert6 2it,out due &ro*ess o1 #a2, nor s,a##
an6 &erson be denied t,e eFua# &rote*tion o1 t,e #a2s.
Sec. 6. +,e rig,t o1 t,e &eo&#e to be se*ure in t,eir &ersons, ,ouses, &a&ers, and e11e*ts against
unreasonab#e sear*,es and sei$ures o1 2,atever nature and 1or an6 &ur&ose s,a## be invio#ab#e, and no sear*,
2arrant or 2arrant o1 arrest s,a## issue eG*e&t u&on &robab#e *ause to be determined &ersona##6 b6 t,e )udge a1ter
eGamination under oat, or a11irmation o1 t,e *om&#ainant and t,e 2itnesses ,e ma6 &rodu*e, and &arti*u#ar#6
des*ribing t,e &#a*e to be sear*,ed and t,e &erson or t,ings to be sei$ed.

4.55
Rollo 8G.R. No. 1586339, &. 9.
4.65
Ople, su&ra note 16, at 153H *iting %oo#e6 on +orts, "e*. 135, <o#. 1, 0t, ed., 4193.5.

4.-5
6. 'm. Jur. .d, 9riva!y, "e*. 1.

4.85
38- B.". 5.3H *ited in . Iernas, su&ra note 18, at .3..

4.95
6. 'm. Jur. .d, 9riva!y, "e*. 1-.
43/5
,ernonia D 2oard o ?du!ation, su&ra notes 15 D 18.

4315
Skinner v. Railway Labor ?7e!utives ;ssn., 089 B.". 6/., 619 819899H *ited in ,ernonia, su&ra.

43.5
"u&ra note 16, at 166 D 169.

4335
Bnder "e*. - 435 o1 t,e D@: ;RR Governing 7i*ensing and '**reditation o1 Drug 7aboratories, a
#aborator6 is reFuired to use do*umented *,ain o1 *ustod6 &ro*edures to maintain *ontro# and *ustod6 o1 s&e*imens.

4305
D@: ;RR Governing 7i*ensing and '**reditation o1 Drug 7aboratories, "e*. - 41/.35 &rovides t,at t,e
origina# *o&6 o1 t,e test resu#ts 1orm s,a## be given to t,e *#ientEdonor, *o&6 1urnis,ed t,e D@: and t,e reFuesting
agen*6.

4355
;d., "e*. - 41/.05.

4365
"e*s. 0- and 08 o1 R' 9165 *,arge t,e De&artment o1 7abor and ?m&#o6ment 2it, t,e dut6 to deve#o&
and &romote a nationa# drug &revention &rogram and t,e ne*essar6 guide#ines in t,e 2or3 &#a*e, 2,i*, s,a## in*#ude
a mandator6 dra1ting and ado&tion o1 &o#i*ies to a*,ieve a drug!1ree 2or3&#a*e.
43-5
%@D? @= %@NDB%+ 'ND ?+:;%'7 "+'ND'RD" =@R PBI7;% @==;%?R" 'ND
?(P7@??", "e*. ..

4385
%@N"+;+B+;@N, 'rt. C;, "e*. 1.

4395
-atad, su&ra note 6, at 351.

40/5
Leona 9asion ,iuda de +ar!ia v. Lo!sin, 65 P,i#. 689, 695 819389H *iting %oo#e6, %@N"+. 7;(. 63/
88t, ed.9.
+oday is +uesday, July 1/, !514
Disini v. The Secretary of Justice, G.+. 9o. =V@@@>- Februar' =VT
W 4ecision- Abad X.Y
W ,oncurring and 4issenting Opinion- Sereno X.Y
W ,oncurring and 4issenting Opinion- ,arpio X.Y
W 4issenting and ,oncurring Opinion- Leonen X.Y
W Separate ,oncurring Opinion- /rion X.Y
<epublic o' the "hilippines
SU6REME COURT
&anila
7# 8;#C
G.R. No. 203339 "e4/u/, 11, 2015
JOSE JESUS M. 3$S$N$, JR., ROWENA S. 3$S$N$, L$ANNE $%# 6. ME3$NA, JANETTE TORAL n! ERNESTO SON$3O,
JR., "etitioners,
vs.
THE SECRETAR# O" JUST$CE, THE SECRETAR# O" THE 3E6ARTMENT O" THE $NTER$OR AN3 LOCAL GO%ERNMENT,
THE E7ECUT$%E 3$RECTOR O" THE $N"ORMAT$ON AN3 COMMUN$CAT$ONS TECHNOLOG# O""$CE, THE CH$E" O" THE
6H$L$66$NE NAT$ONAL 6OL$CE n! THE 3$RECTOR O" THE NAT$ONAL BUREAU O" $N%EST$GAT$ON, <espondents.
9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9
G.R. No. 203299
LOU$S EBARO;E C. B$RAOGO, "etitioner,
vs.
NAT$ONAL BUREAU O" $N%EST$GAT$ON n! 6H$L$66$NE NAT$ONAL 6OL$CE, <espondents.
9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9
G.R. No. 203306
ALAB NG MAMAMAHA#AG @ALAMA, HU;UMAN NG MAMAMA#AN MO%EMENT, $NC., JERR# S. #A6, BERTEN$ ETOTOE
CAUS$NG, HERNAN$ <. CUARE, 6ERC# LA6$3, TRAC# CABRERA, RONAL3O E. RENTA, C$R$LO 6. SABARRE, JR., 3ER%$N
CASTRO, ET AL., "etitioners,
vs.
O""$CE O" THE 6RES$3ENT, /e*/e(en+e! 4, 6/e(&!en+ Ben&-no S&.eon AKu&no $$$, SENATE O" THE 6H$L$66$NES, n!
HOUSE O" RE6RESENTAT$%ES, <espondents.
9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9
G.R. No. 203399
SENATOR TEO"$STO 3L GU$NGONA $$$, "etitioner,
vs.
E7ECUT$%E SECRETAR#, THE SECRETAR# O" JUST$CE, THE SECRETAR# O" THE 3E6ARTMENT O" $NTER$OR AN3
LOCAL GO%ERNMENT, THE CH$E" O" THE 6H$L$66$NE NAT$ONAL 6OL$CE, n! 3$RECTOR O" THE NAT$ONAL BUREAU
O" $N%EST$GAT$ON, <espondents.
9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9
G.R. No. 203372
ALE7AN3ER A3ON$S, ELLEN TOR3ES$LLAS, MA. G$SELA OR3ENES-CASCOLAN, H. HARR# L. RO<UE, JR., ROMEL R.
BAGARES, n! G$LBERT T. AN3RES, "etitioners,
vs.
THE E7ECUT$%E SECRETAR#, THE 3E6ARTMENT O" BU3GET AN3 MANAGEMENT, THE 3E6ARTMENT O" JUST$CE, THE
3E6ARTMENT O" THE $NTER$OR AN3 LOCAL GO%ERNMENT, THE NAT$ONAL BUREAU O" $N%EST$GAT$ON, THE
6H$L$66$NE NAT$ONAL 6OL$CE, AN3 THE $N"ORMAT$ON AN3 COMMUN$CAT$ONS TECHNOLOG# O""$CE-3E6ARTMENT
O" SC$ENCE AN3 TECHNOLOG#, <espondents.
9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9
G.R. No. 203391
HON. RA#MON3 %. 6ALAT$NO, HON. ANTON$O T$N$O, %ENCER MAR$ CR$SOSTOMO O" ANA;BA#AN, MA. ;ATHER$NE
ELONA O" THE 6H$L$66$NE COLLEG$AN, $SABELLE THERESE BAGU$S$ O" THE NAT$ONAL UN$ON O" STU3ENTS O" THE
6H$L$66$NES, ET AL., "etitioners,
vs.
6A<U$TO N. OCHOA, JR., &n '&( )*)&+, ( ELe)u+&:e Se)/e+/, n! 8+e/-e-o o0 6/e(&!en+ Ben&-no S&.eon AKu&no $$$,
LE$LA 3E L$MA &n 'e/ )*)&+, ( Se)/e+/, o0 Ju(+&)e, <espondents.
9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9
G.R. No. 203507
BAGONG AL#ANSANG MA;ABA#AN SECRETAR# GENERAL RENATO M. RE#ES, JR., N+&on8 A/+&(+ B$EN%EN$3O L.
LUMBERA, C'&/*e/(on o0 Con)e/ne! A/+&(+( o0 +'e 6'&8&**&ne(, ELMER C. LABOG, C'&/*e/(on o0 ;&8u(n- M,o Uno,
CR$ST$NA E. 6ALABA#, Se)/e+/, Gene/8 o0 ;/*+n, "ER3$NAN3 R. GA$TE, C'&/*e/(on o0 COURAGE, JOEL B.
MAGLUNSO3, %&)e 6/e(&!en+ o0 AnD*B&( 6/+,-L&(+, LANA R. L$NABAN, Se)/e+/, Gene/8 G4/&e8 Wo.en?( 6/+,,
A3OL"O ARES 6. GUT$ERRE1, n! JUL$US GARC$A MAT$BAG, "etitioners,
vs.
BEN$GNO S$MEON C. A<U$NO $$$, 6/e(&!en+ o0 +'e Re*u48&) o0 +'e 6'&8&**&ne(, 6A<U$TO N. OCHOA, JR., ELe)u+&:e
Se)/e+/,, SENATE O" THE 6H$L$66$NES, /e*/e(en+e! 4, SENATE 6RES$3ENT JUAN 6ONCE ENR$LE, HOUSE O"
RE6RESENTAT$%ES, /e*/e(en+e! 4, S6EA;ER "EL$C$ANO BELMONTE, JR., LE$LA 3E L$MA, Se)/e+/, o0 +'e 3e*/+.en+
o0 Ju(+&)e, LOU$S NA6OLEON C. CASAMBRE, ELe)u+&:e 3&/e)+o/ o0 +'e $n0o/.+&on n! Co..un&)+&on( Te)'no8o-,
O00&)e, NONNATUS CAESAR R. ROJAS, 3&/e)+o/ o0 +'e N+&on8 Bu/eu o0 $n:e(+&-+&on, 3JGEN. N$CANOR A. BARTOLOME,
C'&e0 o0 +'e 6'&8&**&ne N+&on8 6o8&)e, MANUEL A. RO7AS $$, Se)/e+/, o0 +'e 3e*/+.en+ o0 +'e $n+e/&o/ n! Lo)8
Go:e/n.en+,<espondents.
9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9
G.R. No. 203550
MELENC$O S. STA. MAR$A, SE3"RE# M. CAN3ELAR$A, AM6AR$TA STA. MAR$A, RA# 6AOLO J. SANT$AGO, G$LBERT %.
SEMBRANO, n! R#AN JEREM$AH 3. <UAN @88 o0 +'e A+eneo Hu.n R&-'+( Cen+e/A,"etitioners,
vs.
HONORABLE 6A<U$TO OCHOA &n '&( )*)&+, ( ELe)u+&:e Se)/e+/,, HONORABLE LE$LA 3E L$MA &n 'e/ )*)&+, (
Se)/e+/, o0 Ju(+&)e, HONORABLE MANUEL RO7AS &n '&( )*)&+, ( Se)/e+/, o0 +'e 3e*/+.en+ o0 $n+e/&o/ n! Lo)8
Go:e/n.en+, T'e CH$E" o0 +'e 6'&8&**&ne N+&on8 6o8&)e, T'e 3$RECTOR o0 +'e N+&on8 Bu/eu o0 $n:e(+&-+&on @88 o0 +'e
ELe)u+&:e 3e*/+.en+ o0 Go:e/n.en+A,<espondents.
9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9
G.R. No. 203593
NAT$ONAL UN$ON O" JOURNAL$STS O" THE 6H$L$66$NES @NUJ6A, 6H$L$66$NE 6RESS $NST$TUTE @66$A, CENTER "OR
ME3$A "REE3OM AN3 RES6ONS$B$L$T#, ROWENA CARRAN1A 6ARAAN, MEL$N3A <U$NTOS-3E JESUS, JOSE6H ALW#N
ALBURO, AR$EL SEBELL$NO AN3 THE 6ET$T$ONERS $N THE e-6ET$T$ON '++*>JJBBB.nuM*.o/-Jno-+o-/10179J, "etitioners,
vs.
THE E7ECUT$%E SECRETAR#, THE SECRETAR# O" JUST$CE, THE SECRETAR# O" THE $NTER$OR AN3 LOCAL
GO%ERNMENT, THE SECRETAR# O" BU3GET AN3 MANAGEMENT, THE 3$RECTOR GENERAL O" THE 6H$L$66$NE
NAT$ONAL 6OL$CE, THE 3$RECTOR O" THE NAT$ONAL BUREAU O" $N%EST$GAT$ON, THE C#BERCR$ME $N%EST$GAT$ON
AN3 COOR3$NAT$NG CENTER, AN3 ALL AGENC$ES AN3 $NSTRUMENTAL$T$ES O" GO%ERNMENT AN3 ALL 6ERSONS
ACT$NG UN3ER THE$R $NSTRUCT$ONS, OR3ERS, 3$RECT$ON $N RELAT$ON TO THE $M6LEMENTAT$ON O" RE6UBL$C ACT
NO. 10179, <espondents.
9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9
G.R. No. 203595
6AUL CORNEL$US T. CAST$LLO N R#AN 3. AN3RES, "etitioners,
vs.
THE HON. SECRETAR# O" JUST$CE THE HON. SECRETAR# O" $NTER$OR AN3 LOCAL GO%ERNMENT,<espondents.
9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9
G.R. No. 203569
ANTHON# $AN M. CRU1I MARCELO R. LAN3$CHOI BENJAM$N NOEL A. ES6$NAI MARC; RONAL3 C. R$MOR$NI JUL$US 3.
ROCASI OL$%ER R$CHAR3 %. ROB$LLOI AARON ER$C; A. LO1A3AI GERAR3 A3R$AN 6. MAGNA#EI JOSE REG$NAL3 A.
RAMOSI MA. ROSAR$O T. JUANI BREN3AL#N 6. RAM$RE1I MAUREEN A. HERM$TAN$OI ;R$ST$NE JO# S. REMENT$LLAI
MAR$CEL O. GRA#I JUL$US $%AN ". CAB$GONI BENRAL6H S. #UI CEBU BLOGGERS SOC$ET#, $NC. 6RES$3ENT RUBEN B.
L$CERA, JRI n! 6$NO# E76ATJO"W BLOG AWAR3S, $NC. COOR3$NATOR 6E3RO E. RAHONI "etitioners,
vs.
H$S E7CELLENC# BEN$GNO S. A<U$NO $$$, &n '&( )*)&+, ( 6/e(&!en+ o0 +'e Re*u48&) o0 +'e 6'&8&**&ne(I SENATE O" THE
6H$L$66$NES, /e*/e(en+e! 4, HON. JUAN 6ONCE ENR$LE, &n '&( )*)&+, ( Sen+e 6/e(&!en+I HOUSE O"
RE6RESENTAT$%ES, /e*/e(en+e! 4, "EL$C$ANO R. BELMONTE, JR., &n '&( )*)&+, ( S*eDe/ o0 +'e Hou(e o0
Re*/e(en++&:e(I HON. 6A<U$TO N. OCHOA, JR., &n '&( )*)&+, ( ELe)u+&:e Se)/e+/,I HON. LE$LA M. 3E L$MA, &n 'e/
)*)&+, ( Se)/e+/, o0 Ju(+&)eI HON. LOU$S NA6OLEON C. CASAMBRE, &n '&( )*)&+, ( ELe)u+&:e 3&/e)+o/,
$n0o/.+&on n! Co..un&)+&on( Te)'no8o-, O00&)eI HON. NONNATUS CAESAR R. ROJAS, &n '&( )*)&+, ( 3&/e)+o/,
N+&on8 Bu/eu o0 $n:e(+&-+&onI n! 6J3GEN. N$CANOR A. BARTOLOME, &n '&( )*)&+, ( C'&e0, 6'&8&**&ne N+&on8
6o8&)e, <espondents.
9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9
G.R. No. 203901
6H$L$66$NE BAR ASSOC$AT$ON, $NC., "etitioner,
vs.
H$S E7CELLENC# BEN$GNO S. A<U$NO $$$, &n '&( o00&)&8 )*)&+, ( 6/e(&!en+ o0 +'e Re*u48&) o0 +'e 6'&8&**&ne(I HON.
6A<U$TO N. OCHOA, JR., &n '&( o00&)&8 )*)&+, ( ELe)u+&:e Se)/e+/,I HON. LE$LA M. 3E L$MA, &n 'e/ o00&)&8 )*)&+, (
Se)/e+/, o0 Ju(+&)eI LOU$S NA6OLEON C. CASAMBRE, &n '&( o00&)&8 )*)&+, ( ELe)u+&:e 3&/e)+o/, $n0o/.+&on n!
Co..un&)+&on( Te)'no8o-, O00&)eI NONNATUS CAESAR R. ROJAS, &n '&( o00&)&8 )*)&+, ( 3&/e)+o/ o0 +'e N+&on8
Bu/eu o0 $n:e(+&-+&onI n! 3$RECTOR GENERAL N$CANOR A. BARTOLOME, &n '&( o00&)&8 )*)&+, ( C'&e0 o0 +'e
6'&8&**&ne N+&on8 6o8&)e, <espondents.
9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9
G.R. No. 203909
BA#AN MUNA RE6RESENTAT$%E NER$ J. COLMENARES, "etitioner,
vs.
THE E7ECUT$%E SECRETAR# 6A<U$TO OCHOA, JR., <espondent.
9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9
G.R. No. 203919
NAT$ONAL 6RESS CLUB O" THE 6H$L$66$NES, $NC. /e*/e(en+e! 4, BENN# 3. ANT$6OR3A &n '&( )*)&+, ( 6/e(&!en+
n! &n '&( *e/(on8 )*)&+,, "etitioner,
vs.
O""$CE O" THE 6RES$3ENT, 6RES. BEN$GNO S$MEON A<U$NO $$$, 3E6ARTMENT O" JUST$CE, 3E6ARTMENT O"
$NTER$OR AN3 LOCAL GO%ERNMENT, 6H$L$66$NE NAT$ONAL 6OL$CE, NAT$ONAL BUREAU O" $N%EST$GAT$ON,
3E6ARTMENT O" BU3GET AN3 MANAGEMENT AN3 ALL OTHER GO%ERNMENT $NSTRUMENTAL$T$ES WHO HA%E
HAN3S $N THE 6ASSAGE AN3JOR $M6LEMENTAT$ON O" RE6UBL$C ACT 10179, <espondents.
9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9
G.R. No. 203912
6H$L$66$NE $NTERNET "REE3OM ALL$ANCE, )o.*o(e! o0 3A;$LA-6H$L$66$NE COLLECT$%E "OR MO3ERN HERO$SM,
/e*/e(en+e! 4, Len& %e8()o, 6ART$3O LA;AS NG MASA, /e*/e(en+e! 4, Ce(/ S. Me8en)&o, "RANC$S EUSTON R. ACERO,
MARLON ANTHON# ROMASANTA TONSON, TEO3ORO A. CAS$=O, NOEM$ LAR3$1ABAL-3A3O, $MEL3A ORALES, JAMES
MATTHEW B. M$RA"LOR, JUAN G.M. RAGRAG$O, MAR$A "AT$MA A. %$LLENA, ME3AR3O M. MANR$<UE, JR., LAUREN
3A3O, MARCO %$TTOR$A TOB$AS SUMA#AO, $RENE CH$A, ERASTUS NOEL T. 3EL$1O, CR$ST$NA SARAH E. OSOR$O,
ROMEO "ACTOLER$N, NAOM$ L. TU6AS, ;ENNETH ;ENG, ANA ALE7AN3RA C. CASTRO, "etitioners,
vs.
THE E7ECUT$%E SECRETAR#, THE SECRETAR# O" JUST$CE, THE SECRETAR# O" $NTER$OR AN3 LOCAL GO%ERNMENT,
THE SECRETAR# O" SC$ENCE AN3 TECHNOLOG#, THE E7ECUT$%E 3$RECTOR O" THE $N"ORMAT$ON TECHNOLOG#
O""$CE, THE 3$RECTOR O" THE NAT$ONAL BUREAU O" $N%EST$GAT$ON, THE CH$E", 6H$L$66$NE NAT$ONAL 6OL$CE,
THE HEA3 O" THE 3OJ O""$CE O" C#BERCR$ME, n! THE OTHER MEMBERS O" THE C#BERCR$ME $N%EST$GAT$ON
AN3 COOR3$NAT$NG CENTER, <espondents.
C 7 C : S : 6 #
ABA3, J.:
+hese consolidated petitions seek to declare several provisions o' <epublic ;ct 2<.;.3 1510/, the Cybercri$e "revention ;ct o'
!51!, unconstitutional and void.
+he Facts and the Case
+he cybercri$e la( ai$s to re)ulate access to and use o' the cyberspace. Asin) his laptop or co$puter, a person can connect to the
internet, a syste$ that links hi$ to other co$puters and enable hi$, a$on) other thin)s, to*
1. ;ccess virtual libraries and encyclopedias 'or all kinds o' in'or$ation that he needs 'or research, study,
a$use$ent, upli't$ent, or pure curiosity=
!. "ost billboard-like notices or $essa)es, includin) pictures and videos, 'or the )eneral public or 'or special
audiences like associates, class$ates, or 'riends and read postin)s 'ro$ the$=
. ;dvertise and pro$ote )oods or services and $ake purchases and pay$ents=
4. :nDuire and do business (ith institutional entities like )overn$ent a)encies, banks, stock e9chan)es, trade
houses, credit card co$panies, public utilities, hospitals, and schools= and
/. Co$$unicate in (ritin) or by voice (ith any person throu)h his e-$ail address or telephone.
+his is cyberspace, a syste$ that acco$$odates $illions and billions o' si$ultaneous and on)oin) individual accesses to and uses
o' the internet. +he cyberspace is a boon to the need o' the current )eneration 'or )reater in'or$ation and 'acility o' co$$unication.
8ut all is not (ell (ith the syste$ since it could not 'ilter out a nu$ber o' persons o' ill (ill (ho (ould (ant to use cyberspace
technolo)y 'or $ischie's and cri$es. 6ne o' the$ can, 'or instance, avail hi$sel' o' the syste$ to un>ustly ruin the reputation o'
another or bully the latter by postin) de'a$atory state$ents a)ainst hi$ that people can read.
;nd because linkin) (ith the internet opens up a user to co$$unications 'ro$ others, the ill-$otivated can use the cyberspace 'or
co$$ittin) the't by hackin) into or surreptitiously accessin) his bank account or credit card or de'raudin) hi$ throu)h 'alse
representations. +he (icked can use the cyberspace, too, 'or illicit tra''ickin) in se9 or 'or e9posin) to porno)raphy )uileless children
(ho have access to the internet. For this reason, the )overn$ent has a le)iti$ate ri)ht to re)ulate the use o' cyberspace and
contain and punish (ron)doin)s.
#otably, there are also those (ho (ould (ant, like vandals, to (reak or cause havoc to the co$puter syste$s and net(orks o'
indispensable or hi)hly use'ul institutions as (ell as to the laptop or co$puter pro)ra$s and $e$ories o' innocent individuals. +hey
acco$plish this by sendin) electronic viruses or virtual dyna$ites that destroy those co$puter syste$s, net(orks, pro)ra$s, and
$e$ories. +he )overn$ent certainly has the duty and the ri)ht to prevent these to$'ooleries 'ro$ happenin) and punish their
perpetrators, hence the Cybercri$e "revention ;ct.
8ut petitioners clai$ that the $eans adopted by the cybercri$e la( 'or re)ulatin) undesirable cyberspace activities violate certain o'
their constitutional ri)hts. +he )overn$ent o' course asserts that the la( $erely seeks to reasonably put order into cyberspace
activities, punish (ron)doin)s, and prevent hurt'ul attacks on the syste$.
"endin) hearin) and ad>udication o' the issues presented in these cases, on February /, !51 the Court e9tended the ori)inal 1!5-
day te$porary restrainin) order 2+<63 that it earlier issued on 6ctober 9, !51!, en>oinin) respondent )overn$ent a)encies 'ro$
i$ple$entin) the cybercri$e la( until 'urther orders.
+he :ssues "resented
"etitioners challen)e the constitutionality o' the 'ollo(in) provisions o' the cybercri$e la( that re)ard certain acts as cri$es and
i$pose penalties 'or their co$$ission as (ell as provisions that (ould enable the )overn$ent to track do(n and penalize violators.
+hese provisions are*
a. Section 42a3213 on :lle)al ;ccess=
b. Section 42a323 on Cata :nter'erence=
c. Section 42a3263 on Cyber-sDuattin)=
d. Section 42b323 on :dentity +he't=
e. Section 42c3213 on Cyberse9=
'. Section 42c32!3 on Child "orno)raphy=
). Section 42c323 on Ansolicited Co$$ercial Co$$unications=
h. Section 42c3243 on %ibel=
i. Section / on ;idin) or ;bettin) and ;tte$pt in the Co$$ission o' Cybercri$es=
>. Section 6 on the "enalty o' 6ne Ce)ree ,i)her=
k. Section 0 on the "rosecution under both the <evised "enal Code 2<"C3 and <.;. 1510/=
l. Section J on "enalties=
$. Section 1! on <eal-+i$e Collection o' +ra''ic Cata=
n. Section 1 on "reservation o' Co$puter Cata=
o. Section 14 on Cisclosure o' Co$puter Cata=
p. Section 1/ on Search, Seizure and 79a$ination o' Co$puter Cata=
D. Section 10 on Cestruction o' Co$puter Cata=
r. Section 19 on <estrictin) or 8lockin) ;ccess to Co$puter Cata=
s. Section !5 on 6bstruction o' Justice=
t. Section !4 on Cybercri$e :nvesti)ation and Coordinatin) Center 2C:CC3= and
u. Section !62a3 on C:CCPs "o(ers and Functions.
So$e petitioners also raise the constitutionality o' related ;rticles /, /4, 61, and 6! o' the <"C on the cri$e o' libel.
+he <ulin)s o' the Court
Section 42a3213
Section 42a3213 provides*
Section 4. Cybercri$e 6''enses. Q +he 'ollo(in) acts constitute the o''ense o' cybercri$e punishable under this ;ct*
2a3 6''enses a)ainst the con'identiality, inte)rity and availability o' co$puter data and syste$s*
213 :lle)al ;ccess. Q +he access to the (hole or any part o' a co$puter syste$ (ithout ri)ht.
"etitioners contend that Section 42a3213 'ails to $eet the strict scrutiny standard reDuired o' la(s that inter'ere (ith the 'unda$ental
ri)hts o' the people and should thus be struck do(n.
+he Court has in a (ay 'ound the strict scrutiny standard, an ;$erican constitutional construct,
1
use'ul in deter$inin) the
constitutionality o' la(s that tend to tar)et a class o' thin)s or persons. ;ccordin) to this standard, a le)islative classi'ication that
i$per$issibly inter'eres (ith the e9ercise o' 'unda$ental ri)ht or operates to the peculiar class disadvanta)e o' a suspect class is
presu$ed unconstitutional. +he burden is on the )overn$ent to prove that the classi'ication is necessary to achieve a co$pellin)
state interest and that it is the least restrictive $eans to protect such interest.
!
%ater, the strict scrutiny standard (as used to assess
the validity o' la(s dealin) (ith the re)ulation o' speech, )ender, or race as (ell as other 'unda$ental ri)hts, as e9pansion 'ro$ its
earlier applications to eDual protection.

:n the cases be'ore it, the Court 'inds nothin) in Section 42a3213 that calls 'or the application o' the strict scrutiny standard since no
'unda$ental 'reedo$, like speech, is involved in punishin) (hat is essentially a conde$nable act Q accessin) the co$puter syste$
o' another (ithout ri)ht. :t is a universally conde$ned conduct.
4
"etitioners o' course 'ear that this section (ill >eopardize the (ork o' ethical hackers, pro'essionals (ho e$ploy tools and techniDues
used by cri$inal hackers but (ould neither da$a)e the tar)et syste$s nor steal in'or$ation. 7thical hackers evaluate the tar)et
syste$Ps security and report back to the o(ners the vulnerabilities they 'ound in it and )ive instructions 'or ho( these can be
re$edied. 7thical hackers are the eDuivalent o' independent auditors (ho co$e into an or)anization to veri'y its bookkeepin)
records.
/
8esides, a clientPs en)a)e$ent o' an ethical hacker reDuires an a)ree$ent bet(een the$ as to the e9tent o' the search, the
$ethods to be used, and the syste$s to be tested. +his is re'erred to as the E)et out o' >ail 'ree card.E
6
Since the ethical hacker does
his >ob (ith prior per$ission 'ro$ the client, such per$ission (ould insulate hi$ 'ro$ the covera)e o' Section 42a3213.
Section 42a323 o' the Cybercri$e %a(
Section 42a323 provides*
Section 4. Cybercri$e 6''enses. Q +he 'ollo(in) acts constitute the o''ense o' cybercri$e punishable under this ;ct*
2a3 6''enses a)ainst the con'identiality, inte)rity and availability o' co$puter data and syste$s*
9 9 9 9
23 Cata :nter'erence. Q +he intentional or reckless alteration, da$a)in), deletion or deterioration o' co$puter data, electronic
docu$ent, or electronic data $essa)e, (ithout ri)ht, includin) the introduction or trans$ission o' viruses.
"etitioners clai$ that Section 42a323 su''ers 'ro$ overbreadth in that, (hile it seeks to discoura)e data inter'erence, it intrudes into
the area o' protected speech and e9pression, creatin) a chillin) and deterrent e''ect on these )uaranteed 'reedo$s.
Ander the overbreadth doctrine, a proper )overn$ental purpose, constitutionally sub>ect to state re)ulation, $ay not be achieved by
$eans that unnecessarily s(eep its sub>ect broadly, thereby invadin) the area o' protected 'reedo$s.
0
8ut Section 42a323 does not
encroach on these 'reedo$s at all. :t si$ply punishes (hat essentially is a 'or$ o' vandalis$,
J
the act o' (ill'ully destroyin) (ithout
ri)ht the thin)s that belon) to others, in this case their co$puter data, electronic docu$ent, or electronic data $essa)e. Such act
has no connection to )uaranteed 'reedo$s. +here is no 'reedo$ to destroy other peoplePs co$puter syste$s and private
docu$ents.
;ll penal la(s, like the cybercri$e la(, have o' course an inherent chillin) e''ect, an in terrore$ e''ect
9
or the 'ear o' possible
prosecution that han)s on the heads o' citizens (ho are $inded to step beyond the boundaries o' (hat is proper. 8ut to prevent the
State 'ro$ le)islatin) cri$inal la(s because they instill such kind o' 'ear is to render the state po(erless in addressin) and
penalizin) socially har$'ul conduct.
15
,ere, the chillin) e''ect that results in paralysis is an illusion since Section 42a323 clearly
describes the evil that it seeks to punish and creates no tendency to inti$idate the 'ree e9ercise o' onePs constitutional ri)hts.
8esides, the overbreadth challen)e places on petitioners the heavy burden o' provin) that under no set o' circu$stances (ill Section
42a323 be valid.
11
"etitioner has 'ailed to dischar)e this burden.
Section 42a3263 o' the Cybercri$e %a(
Section 42a3263 provides*
Section 4. Cybercri$e 6''enses. Q +he 'ollo(in) acts constitute the o''ense o' cybercri$e punishable under this ;ct*
2a3 6''enses a)ainst the con'identiality, inte)rity and availability o' co$puter data and syste$s*
9 9 9 9
263 Cyber-sDuattin). Q +he acDuisition o' do$ain na$e over the internet in bad 'aith to pro'it, $islead, destroy the reputation, and
deprive others 'ro$ re)isterin) the sa$e, i' such a do$ain na$e is*
2i3 Si$ilar, identical, or con'usin)ly si$ilar to an e9istin) trade$ark re)istered (ith the appropriate )overn$ent
a)ency at the ti$e o' the do$ain na$e re)istration=
2ii3 :dentical or in any (ay si$ilar (ith the na$e o' a person other than the re)istrant, in case o' a personal na$e=
and
2iii3 ;cDuired (ithout ri)ht or (ith intellectual property interests in it.
"etitioners clai$ that Section 42a3263 or cyber-sDuattin) violates the eDual protection clause
1!
in that, not bein) narro(ly tailored, it
(ill cause a user usin) his real na$e to su''er the sa$e 'ate as those (ho use aliases or take the na$e o' another in satire, parody,
or any other literary device. For e9a$ple, supposin) there e9ists a (ell kno(n billionaire-philanthropist na$ed EJulio @andol'o,E the
la( (ould punish 'or cyber-sDuattin) both the person (ho re)isters such na$e because he clai$s it to be his pseudo-na$e and
another (ho re)isters the na$e because it happens to be his real na$e. "etitioners clai$ that, considerin) the substantial distinction
bet(een the t(o, the la( should reco)nize the di''erence.
8ut there is no real di''erence (hether he uses EJulio @andol'oE (hich happens to be his real na$e or use it as a pseudo-na$e 'or it
is the evil purpose 'or (hich he uses the na$e that the la( conde$ns. +he la( is reasonable in penalizin) hi$ 'or acDuirin) the
do$ain na$e in bad 'aith to pro'it, $islead, destroy reputation, or deprive others (ho are not ill-$otivated o' the ri)ht'ul opportunity
o' re)isterin) the sa$e. +he challen)e to the constitutionality o' Section 42a3263 on )round o' denial o' eDual protection is baseless.
Section 42b323 o' the Cybercri$e %a(
Section 42b323 provides*
Section 4. Cybercri$e 6''enses. Q +he 'ollo(in) acts constitute the o''ense o' cybercri$e punishable under this ;ct*
9 9 9 9
b3 Co$puter-related 6''enses*
9 9 9 9
23 Co$puter-related :dentity +he't. Q +he intentional acDuisition, use, $isuse, trans'er, possession, alteration, or deletion o'
identi'yin) in'or$ation belon)in) to another, (hether natural or >uridical, (ithout ri)ht* "rovided* that i' no da$a)e has yet been
caused, the penalty i$posable shall be one 213 de)ree lo(er.
"etitioners clai$ that Section 42b323 violates the constitutional ri)hts to due process and to privacy and correspondence, and
trans)resses the 'reedo$ o' the press.
+he ri)ht to privacy, or the ri)ht to be let alone, (as institutionalized in the 19J0 Constitution as a 'acet o' the ri)ht protected by the
)uarantee a)ainst unreasonable searches and seizures.
1
8ut the Court ackno(led)ed its e9istence as early as 196J in &or'e v.
&utuc,
14
it ruled that the ri)ht to privacy e9ists independently o' its identi'ication (ith liberty= it is in itsel' 'ully deservin) o'
constitutional protection.
<elevant to any discussion o' the ri)ht to privacy is the concept kno(n as the ERones o' "rivacy.E +he Court e9plained in E:n the
&atter o' the "etition 'or :ssuance o' Writ o' ,abeas Corpus o' Sabio v. Senator @ordonE
1/
the relevance o' these zones to the ri)ht to
privacy*
Rones o' privacy are reco)nized and protected in our la(s. Within these zones, any 'or$ o' intrusion is i$per$issible unless
e9cused by la( and in accordance (ith custo$ary le)al process. +he $eticulous re)ard (e accord to these zones arises not only
'ro$ our conviction that the ri)ht to privacy is a Econstitutional ri)htE and Ethe ri)ht $ost valued by civilized $en,E but also 'ro$ our
adherence to the Aniversal Ceclaration o' ,u$an <i)hts (hich $andates that, Eno one shall be sub>ected to arbitrary inter'erence
(ith his privacyE and Eeveryone has the ri)ht to the protection o' the la( a)ainst such inter'erence or attacks.E
+(o constitutional )uarantees create these zones o' privacy* 2a3 the ri)ht a)ainst unreasonable searches
16
and seizures, (hich is the
basis o' the ri)ht to be let alone, and 2b3 the ri)ht to privacy o' co$$unication and correspondence.
10
:n assessin) the challen)e that
the State has i$per$issibly intruded into these zones o' privacy, a court $ust deter$ine (hether a person has e9hibited a
reasonable e9pectation o' privacy and, i' so, (hether that e9pectation has been violated by unreasonable )overn$ent intrusion.
1J
+he usual identi'yin) in'or$ation re)ardin) a person includes his na$e, his citizenship, his residence address, his contact nu$ber,
his place and date o' birth, the na$e o' his spouse i' any, his occupation, and si$ilar data.
19
+he la( punishes those (ho acDuire or
use such identi'yin) in'or$ation (ithout ri)ht, i$plicitly to cause da$a)e. "etitioners si$ply 'ail to sho( ho( )overn$ent e''ort to
curb co$puter-related identity the't violates the ri)ht to privacy and correspondence as (ell as the ri)ht to due process o' la(.
;lso, the char)e o' invalidity o' this section based on the overbreadth doctrine (ill not hold (ater since the speci'ic conducts
proscribed do not intrude into )uaranteed 'reedo$s like speech. Clearly, (hat this section re)ulates are speci'ic actions* the
acDuisition, use, $isuse or deletion o' personal identi'yin) data o' another. +here is no 'unda$ental ri)ht to acDuire anotherPs
personal data.
Further, petitioners 'ear that Section 42b323 violates the 'reedo$ o' the press in that >ournalists (ould be hindered 'ro$ accessin)
the unrestricted user account o' a person in the ne(s to secure in'or$ation about hi$ that could be published. 8ut this is not the
essence o' identity the't that the la( seeks to prohibit and punish. 7vidently, the the't o' identity in'or$ation $ust be intended 'or an
ille)iti$ate purpose. &oreover, acDuirin) and disse$inatin) in'or$ation $ade public by the user hi$sel' cannot be re)arded as a
'or$ o' the't.
+he Court has de'ined intent to )ain as an internal act (hich can be established throu)h the overt acts o' the o''ender, and it $ay be
presu$ed 'ro$ the 'urtive takin) o' use'ul property pertainin) to another, unless special circu$stances reveal a di''erent intent on the
part o' the perpetrator.
!5
;s such, the press, (hether in Duest o' ne(s reportin) or social investi)ation, has nothin) to 'ear since a
special circu$stance is present to ne)ate intent to )ain (hich is reDuired by this Section.
Section 42c3213 o' the Cybercri$e %a(
Section 42c3213 provides*
Sec. 4. Cybercri$e 6''enses.Q +he 'ollo(in) acts constitute the o''ense o' cybercri$e punishable under this ;ct*
9 9 9 9
2c3 Content-related 6''enses*
213 Cyberse9.Q +he (ill'ul en)a)e$ent, $aintenance, control, or operation, directly or indirectly, o' any lascivious e9hibition o' se9ual
or)ans or se9ual activity, (ith the aid o' a co$puter syste$, 'or 'avor or consideration.
"etitioners clai$ that the above violates the 'reedo$ o' e9pression clause o' the Constitution.
!1
+hey e9press 'ear that private
co$$unications o' se9ual character bet(een husband and (i'e or consentin) adults, (hich are not re)arded as cri$es under the
penal code, (ould no( be re)arded as cri$es (hen done E'or 'avorE in cyberspace. :n co$$on usa)e, the ter$ E'avorE includes
E)racious kindness,E Ea special privile)e or ri)ht )ranted or conceded,E or Ea token o' love 2as a ribbon3 usually (orn
conspicuously.E
!!
+his $eanin) )iven to the ter$ E'avorE e$braces socially tolerated trysts. +he la( as (ritten (ould invite la(
en'orce$ent a)encies into the bedroo$s o' $arried couples or consentin) individuals.
8ut the deliberations o' the 8ica$eral Co$$ittee o' Con)ress on this section o' the Cybercri$e "revention ;ct )ive a proper
perspective on the issue. +hese deliberations sho( a lack o' intent to penalize a Eprivate sho(in) 9 9 9 bet(een and a$on) t(o
private persons 9 9 9 althou)h that $ay be a 'or$ o' obscenity to so$e.E
!
+he understandin) o' those (ho dre( up the cybercri$e
la( is that the ele$ent o' Een)a)in) in a businessE is necessary to constitute the ille)al cyberse9.
!4
+he ;ct actually seeks to punish
cyber prostitution, (hite slave trade, and porno)raphy 'or 'avor and consideration. +his includes interactive prostitution and
porno)raphy, i.e., by (ebca$.
!/
+he sub>ect o' Section 42c3213Hlascivious e9hibition o' se9ual or)ans or se9ual activityHis not novel. ;rticle !51 o' the <"C
punishes Eobscene publications and e9hibitions and indecent sho(s.E +he ;nti-+ra''ickin) in "ersons ;ct o' !55 penalizes those
(ho E$aintain or hire a person to en)a)e in prostitution or porno)raphy.E
!6
+he la( de'ines prostitution as any act, transaction,
sche$e, or desi)n involvin) the use o' a person by another, 'or se9ual intercourse or lascivious conduct in e9chan)e 'or $oney,
pro'it, or any other consideration.
!0
+he case o' #o)ales v. "eople!J sho(s the e9tent to (hich the State can re)ulate $aterials that serve no other purpose than satis'y
the $arket 'or violence, lust, or porno)raphy.
!9
+he Court (ei)hed the property ri)hts o' individuals a)ainst the public (el'are. "rivate
property, i' containin) porno)raphic $aterials, $ay be 'or'eited and destroyed. %ike(ise, en)a)in) in se9ual acts privately throu)h
internet connection, perceived by so$e as a ri)ht, has to be balanced (ith the $andate o' the State to eradicate (hite slavery and
the e9ploitation o' (o$en.
:n any event, consentin) adults are protected by the (ealth o' >urisprudence delineatin) the bounds o' obscenity.
5
+he Court (ill not
declare Section 42c3213 unconstitutional (here it stands a construction that $akes it apply only to persons en)a)ed in the business o'
$aintainin), controllin), or operatin), directly or indirectly, the lascivious e9hibition o' se9ual or)ans or se9ual activity (ith the aid o'
a co$puter syste$ as Con)ress has intended.
Section 42c32!3 o' the Cybercri$e %a(
Section 42c32!3 provides*
Sec. 4. Cybercri$e 6''enses. Q +he 'ollo(in) acts constitute the o''ense o' cybercri$e punishable under this ;ct*
9 9 9 9
2c3 Content-related 6''enses*
9 9 9 9
2!3 Child "orno)raphy. H +he unla('ul or prohibited acts de'ined and punishable by <epublic ;ct #o. 900/ or the ;nti-Child
"orno)raphy ;ct o' !559, co$$itted throu)h a co$puter syste$* "rovided, +hat the penalty to be i$posed shall be 213 one de)ree
hi)her than that provided 'or in <epublic ;ct #o. 900/.
:t see$s that the above $erely e9pands the scope o' the ;nti-Child "orno)raphy ;ct o' !559
1
2;C";3 to cover identical activities in
cyberspace. :n theory, nothin) prevents the )overn$ent 'ro$ invokin) the ;C"; (hen prosecutin) persons (ho co$$it child
porno)raphy usin) a co$puter syste$. ;ctually, ;C";Ps de'inition o' child porno)raphy already e$braces the use o' Eelectronic,
$echanical, di)ital, optical, $a)netic or any other $eans.E #otably, no one has Duestioned this ;C"; provision.
6' course, the la( $akes the penalty hi)her by one de)ree (hen the cri$e is co$$itted in cyberspace. 8ut no one can co$plain
since the intensity or duration o' penalty is a le)islative prero)ative and there is rational basis 'or such hi)her penalty.
!
+he potential
'or uncontrolled proli'eration o' a particular piece o' child porno)raphy (hen uploaded in the cyberspace is incalculable.
"etitioners point out that the provision o' ;C"; that $akes it unla('ul 'or any person to Eproduce, direct, $anu'acture or create any
'or$ o' child porno)raphyE

clearly relates to the prosecution o' persons (ho aid and abet the core o''enses that ;C"; seeks to
punish.
4
"etitioners are (ary that a person (ho $erely doodles on paper and i$a)ines a se9ual abuse o' a 16-year-old is not
cri$inally liable 'or producin) child porno)raphy but one (ho 'or$ulates the idea on his laptop (ould be. Further, i' the author
bounces o'' his ideas on +(itter, anyone (ho replies to the t(eet could be considered aidin) and abettin) a cybercri$e.
+he Duestion o' aidin) and abettin) the o''ense by si$ply co$$entin) on it (ill be discussed else(here belo(. For no( the Court
$ust hold that the constitutionality o' Section 42c32!3 is not success'ully challen)ed.
Section 42c323 o' the Cybercri$e %a(
Section 42c323 provides*
Sec. 4. Cybercri$e 6''enses. Q +he 'ollo(in) acts constitute the o''ense o' cybercri$e punishable under this ;ct*
9 9 9 9
2c3 Content-related 6''enses*
9 9 9 9
23 Ansolicited Co$$ercial Co$$unications. Q +he trans$ission o' co$$ercial electronic co$$unication (ith the use o' co$puter
syste$ (hich seeks to advertise, sell, or o''er 'or sale products and services are prohibited unless*
2i3 +here is prior a''ir$ative consent 'ro$ the recipient= or
2ii3 +he pri$ary intent o' the co$$unication is 'or service andBor ad$inistrative announce$ents 'ro$ the sender to its
e9istin) users, subscribers or custo$ers= or
2iii3 +he 'ollo(in) conditions are present*
2aa3 +he co$$ercial electronic co$$unication contains a si$ple, valid, and reliable (ay 'or the recipient to
re>ect receipt o' 'urther co$$ercial electronic $essa)es 2opt-out3 'ro$ the sa$e source=
2bb3 +he co$$ercial electronic co$$unication does not purposely dis)uise the source o' the electronic
$essa)e= and
2cc3 +he co$$ercial electronic co$$unication does not purposely include $isleadin) in'or$ation in any part
o' the $essa)e in order to induce the recipients to read the $essa)e.
+he above penalizes the trans$ission o' unsolicited co$$ercial co$$unications, also kno(n as Espa$.E +he ter$ Espa$E sur'aced
in early internet chat roo$s and interactive 'antasy )a$es. 6ne (ho repeats the sa$e sentence or co$$ent (as said to be $akin)
a Espa$.E +he ter$ re'erred to a &onty "ythonPs Flyin) Circus scene in (hich actors (ould keep sayin) ESpa$, Spa$, Spa$, and
Spa$E (hen readin) options 'ro$ a $enu.
/
+he @overn$ent, represented by the Solicitor @eneral, points out that unsolicited co$$ercial co$$unications or spa$s are a
nuisance that (astes the stora)e and net(ork capacities o' internet service providers, reduces the e''iciency o' co$$erce and
technolo)y, and inter'eres (ith the o(nerPs peace'ul en>oy$ent o' his property. +rans$ittin) spa$s a$ounts to trespass to onePs
privacy since the person sendin) out spa$s enters the recipientPs do$ain (ithout prior per$ission. +he 6S@ contends that
co$$ercial speech en>oys less protection in la(.
8ut, 'irstly, the )overn$ent presents no basis 'or holdin) that unsolicited electronic ads reduce the Ee''iciency o' co$puters.E
Secondly, people, be'ore the arrival o' the a)e o' co$puters, have already been receivin) such unsolicited ads by $ail. +hese have
never been outla(ed as nuisance since people $i)ht have interest in such ads. What $atters is that the recipient has the option o'
not openin) or readin) these $ail ads. +hat is true (ith spa$s. +heir recipients al(ays have the option to delete or not to read the$.
+o prohibit the trans$ission o' unsolicited ads (ould deny a person the ri)ht to read his e$ails, even unsolicited co$$ercial ads
addressed to hi$. Co$$ercial speech is a separate cate)ory o' speech (hich is not accorded the sa$e level o' protection as that
)iven to other constitutionally )uaranteed 'or$s o' e9pression but is nonetheless entitled to protection.
6
+he State cannot rob hi$ o'
this ri)ht (ithout violatin) the constitutionally )uaranteed 'reedo$ o' e9pression. Ansolicited advertise$ents are le)iti$ate 'or$s o'
e9pression.
;rticles /, /4, and // o' the "enal Code
Section 42c3243 o' the Cyber Cri$e %a(
"etitioners dispute the constitutionality o' both the penal code provisions on libel as (ell as Section 42c3243 o' the Cybercri$e
"revention ;ct on cyberlibel.
+he <"C provisions on libel read*
;rt. /. Ce'inition o' libel. H ; libel is public and $alicious i$putation o' a cri$e, or o' a vice or de'ect, real or i$a)inary, or any act,
o$ission, condition, status, or circu$stance tendin) to cause the dishonor, discredit, or conte$pt o' a natural or >uridical person, or
to blacken the $e$ory o' one (ho is dead.
;rt. /4. <eDuire$ent 'or publicity. H 7very de'a$atory i$putation is presu$ed to be $alicious, even i' it be true, i' no )ood
intention and >usti'iable $otive 'or $akin) it is sho(n, e9cept in the 'ollo(in) cases*
1. ; private co$$unication $ade by any person to another in the per'or$ance o' any le)al, $oral or social duty= and
!. ; 'air and true report, $ade in )ood 'aith, (ithout any co$$ents or re$arks, o' any >udicial, le)islative or other
o''icial proceedin)s (hich are not o' con'idential nature, or o' any state$ent, report or speech delivered in said
proceedin)s, or o' any other act per'or$ed by public o''icers in the e9ercise o' their 'unctions.
;rt. //. %ibel $eans by (ritin)s or si$ilar $eans. H ; libel co$$itted by $eans o' (ritin), printin), litho)raphy, en)ravin), radio,
phono)raph, paintin), theatrical e9hibition, cine$ato)raphic e9hibition, or any si$ilar $eans, shall be punished by prision
correccional in its $ini$u$ and $ediu$ periods or a 'ine ran)in) 'ro$ !55 to 6,555 pesos, or both, in addition to the civil action
(hich $ay be brou)ht by the o''ended party.
+he libel provision o' the cybercri$e la(, on the other hand, $erely incorporates to 'or$ part o' it the provisions o' the <"C on libel.
+hus Section 42c3243 reads*
Sec. 4. Cybercri$e 6''enses. H +he 'ollo(in) acts constitute the o''ense o' cybercri$e punishable under this ;ct*
9 9 9 9
2c3 Content-related 6''enses*
9 9 9 9
243 %ibel. H +he unla('ul or prohibited acts o' libel as de'ined in ;rticle // o' the <evised "enal Code, as a$ended, co$$itted
throu)h a co$puter syste$ or any other si$ilar $eans (hich $ay be devised in the 'uture.
"etitioners la$ent that libel provisions o' the penal code
0
and, in e''ect, the libel provisions o' the cybercri$e la( carry (ith the$ the
reDuire$ent o' Epresu$ed $aliceE even (hen the latest >urisprudence already replaces it (ith the hi)her standard o' Eactual $aliceE
as a basis 'or conviction.
J
"etitioners ar)ue that in'errin) Epresu$ed $aliceE 'ro$ the accusedPs de'a$atory state$ent by virtue o'
;rticle /4 o' the penal code in'rin)es on his constitutionally )uaranteed 'reedo$ o' e9pression.
"etitioners (ould )o 'urther. +hey contend that the la(s on libel should be stricken do(n as unconstitutional 'or other(ise )ood
>urisprudence reDuirin) Eactual $aliceE could easily be overturned as the Court has done in Fer$in v. "eople
9
even (here the
o''ended parties happened to be public 'i)ures.
+he ele$ents o' libel are* 2a3 the alle)ation o' a discreditable act or condition concernin) another= 2b3 publication o' the char)e= 2c3
identity o' the person de'a$ed= and 2d3 e9istence o' $alice.
45
+here is Eactual $aliceE or $alice in 'act
41
(hen the o''ender $akes the de'a$atory state$ent (ith the kno(led)e that it is 'alse or
(ith reckless disre)ard o' (hether it (as 'alse or not.
4!
+he reckless disre)ard standard used here reDuires a hi)h de)ree o'
a(areness o' probable 'alsity. +here $ust be su''icient evidence to per$it the conclusion that the accused in 'act entertained serious
doubts as to the truth o' the state$ent he published. @ross or even e9tre$e ne)li)ence is not su''icient to establish actual $alice.
4
+he prosecution bears the burden o' provin) the presence o' actual $alice in instances (here such ele$ent is reDuired to establish
)uilt. +he de'ense o' absence o' actual $alice, even (hen the state$ent turns out to be 'alse, is available (here the o''ended party
is a public o''icial or a public 'i)ure, as in the cases o' ?asDuez 2a baran)ay o''icial3 and 8or>al 2the 79ecutive Cirector, First #ational
Con'erence on %and +ransportation3. Since the penal code and i$plicitly, the cybercri$e la(, $ainly tar)et libel a)ainst private
persons, the Court reco)nizes that these la(s i$ply a stricter standard o' E$aliceE to convict the author o' a de'a$atory state$ent
(here the o''ended party is a public 'i)ure. SocietyPs interest and the $aintenance o' )ood )overn$ent de$and a 'ull discussion o'
public a''airs.
44
"arenthetically, the Court cannot accept the proposition that its rulin) in Fer$in disre)arded the hi)her standard o' actual $alice or
$alice in 'act (hen it 'ound Cristinelli Fer$in )uilty o' co$$ittin) libel a)ainst co$plainants (ho (ere public 'i)ures. ;ctually, the
Court 'ound the presence o' $alice in 'act in that case. +hus*
:t can be )leaned 'ro$ her testi$ony that petitioner had the $otive to $ake de'a$atory i$putations a)ainst co$plainants. +hus,
petitioner cannot, by si$ply $akin) a )eneral denial, convince us that there (as no $alice on her part. ?erily, not only (as there
$alice in la(, the article bein) $alicious in itsel', but there (as also $alice in 'act, as there (as $otive to talk ill a)ainst
co$plainants durin) the electoral ca$pai)n. 27$phasis ours3
:ndeed, the Court took into account the relatively (ide lee(ay )iven to utterances a)ainst public 'i)ures in the above case, cine$a
and television personalities, (hen it $odi'ied the penalty o' i$prison$ent to >ust a 'ine o'"6,555.55.
8ut, (here the o''ended party is a private individual, the prosecution need not prove the presence o' $alice. +he la( e9plicitly
presu$es its e9istence 2$alice in la(3 'ro$ the de'a$atory character o' the assailed state$ent.
4/
For his de'ense, the accused $ust
sho( that he has a >usti'iable reason 'or the de'a$atory state$ent even i' it (as in 'act true.
46
"etitioners peddle the vie( that both the penal code and the Cybercri$e "revention ;ct violate the countryPs obli)ations under the
:nternational Covenant o' Civil and "olitical <i)hts 2:CC"<3. +hey point out that in ;donis v. <epublic o' the "hilippines,
40
the Anited
#ations ,u$an <i)hts Co$$ittee 2A#,<C3 cited its @eneral Co$$ent 4 to the e''ect that penal de'a$ation la(s should include
the de'ense o' truth.
8ut @eneral Co$$ent 4 does not say that the truth o' the de'a$atory state$ent should constitute an all-enco$passin) de'ense. ;s
it happens, ;rticle 61 reco)nizes truth as a de'ense but under the condition that the accused has been pro$pted in $akin) the
state$ent by )ood $otives and 'or >usti'iable ends. +hus*
;rt. 61. "roo' o' the truth. H :n every cri$inal prosecution 'or libel, the truth $ay be )iven in evidence to the court and i' it appears
that the $atter char)ed as libelous is true, and, $oreover, that it (as published (ith )ood $otives and 'or >usti'iable ends, the
de'endants shall be acDuitted.
"roo' o' the truth o' an i$putation o' an act or o$ission not constitutin) a cri$e shall not be ad$itted, unless the i$putation shall
have been $ade a)ainst @overn$ent e$ployees (ith respect to 'acts related to the dischar)e o' their o''icial duties.
:n such cases i' the de'endant proves the truth o' the i$putation $ade by hi$, he shall be acDuitted.
8esides, the A#,<C did not actually en>oin the "hilippines, as petitioners ur)e, to decri$inalize libel. :t si$ply su))ested that
de'a$ation la(s be cra'ted (ith care to ensure that they do not sti'le 'reedo$ o' e9pression.
4J
:ndeed, the :CC"< states that althou)h
everyone should en>oy 'reedo$ o' e9pression, its e9ercise carries (ith it special duties and responsibilities. Free speech is not
absolute. :t is sub>ect to certain restrictions, as $ay be necessary and as $ay be provided by la(.
49
+he Court a)rees (ith the Solicitor @eneral that libel is not a constitutionally protected speech and that the )overn$ent has an
obli)ation to protect private individuals 'ro$ de'a$ation. :ndeed, cyberlibel is actually not a ne( cri$e since ;rticle /, in relation to
;rticle // o' the penal code, already punishes it. :n e''ect, Section 42c3243 above $erely a''ir$s that online de'a$ation constitutes
Esi$ilar $eansE 'or co$$ittin) libel.
8ut the CourtPs acDuiescence )oes only inso'ar as the cybercri$e la( penalizes the author o' the libelous state$ent or article.
Cyberlibel brin)s (ith it certain intricacies, unheard o' (hen the penal code provisions on libel (ere enacted. +he culture associated
(ith internet $edia is distinct 'ro$ that o' print.
+he internet is characterized as encoura)in) a 'ree(heelin), anythin)-)oes (ritin) style.
/5
:n a sense, they are a (orld apart in ter$s
o' Duickness o' the readerPs reaction to de'a$atory state$ents posted in cyberspace, 'acilitated by one-click reply options o''ered by
the net(orkin) site as (ell as by the speed (ith (hich such reactions are disse$inated do(n the line to other internet users.
Whether these reactions to de'a$atory state$ent posted on the internet constitute aidin) and abettin) libel, acts that Section / o' the
cybercri$e la( punishes, is another $atter that the Court (ill deal (ith ne9t in relation to Section / o' the la(.
Section / o' the Cybercri$e %a(
Section / provides*
Sec. /. 6ther 6''enses. H +he 'ollo(in) acts shall also constitute an o''ense*
2a3 ;idin) or ;bettin) in the Co$$ission o' Cybercri$e. Q ;ny person (ho (ill'ully abets or aids in the co$$ission o'
any o' the o''enses enu$erated in this ;ct shall be held liable.
2b3 ;tte$pt in the Co$$ission o' Cybercri$e. H ;ny person (ho (ill'ully atte$pts to co$$it any o' the o''enses
enu$erated in this ;ct shall be held liable.
"etitioners assail the constitutionality o' Section / that renders cri$inally liable any person (ho (ill'ully abets or aids in the
co$$ission or atte$pts to co$$it any o' the o''enses enu$erated as cybercri$es. :t su''ers 'ro$ overbreadth, creatin) a chillin)
and deterrent e''ect on protected e9pression.
+he Solicitor @eneral contends, ho(ever, that the current body o' >urisprudence and la(s on aidin) and abettin) su''iciently protects
the 'reedo$ o' e9pression o' Enetizens,E the $ultitude that avail the$selves o' the services o' the internet. ,e points out that e9istin)
la(s and >urisprudence su''iciently delineate the $eanin) o' Eaidin) or abettin)E a cri$e as to protect the innocent. +he Solicitor
@eneral ar)ues that plain, ordinary, and co$$on usa)e is at ti$es su''icient to )uide la( en'orce$ent a)encies in en'orcin) the
la(.
/1
+he le)islature is not reDuired to de'ine every sin)le (ord contained in the la(s they cra't.
;idin) or abettin) has o' course (ell-de'ined $eanin) and application in e9istin) la(s. When a person aids or abets another in
destroyin) a 'orest,
/!
s$u))lin) $erchandise into the country,
/
or inter'erin) in the peace'ul picketin) o' laborers,
/4
his action is
essentially physical and so is susceptible to easy assess$ent as cri$inal in character. +hese 'or$s o' aidin) or abettin) lend
the$selves to the tests o' co$$on sense and hu$an e9perience.
8ut, (hen it co$es to certain cybercri$es, the (aters are $uddier and the line o' si)ht is so$e(hat blurred. +he idea o' Eaidin) or
abettin)E (ron)doin)s online threatens the hereto'ore popular and unchallen)ed do)$as o' cyberspace use.
;ccordin) to the !511 Southeast ;sia Ci)ital Consu$er <eport, \ o' Filipinos have accessed the internet (ithin a year, translatin)
to about 1 $illion users.
//
8ased on a recent survey, the "hilippines ranks 6th in the top 15 $ost en)a)ed countries 'or social
net(orkin).
/6
Social net(orkin) sites build social relations a$on) people (ho, 'or e9a$ple, share interests, activities, back)rounds,
or real-li'e connections.
/0
+(o o' the $ost popular o' these sites are Facebook and +(itter. ;s o' late !51!, 1.! billion people (ith shared interests use
Facebook to )et in touch.
/J
Asers re)ister at this site, create a personal pro'ile or an open book o' (ho they are, add other users as
'riends, and e9chan)e $essa)es, includin) auto$atic noti'ications (hen they update their pro'ile.
/9
; user can post a state$ent, a
photo, or a video on Facebook, (hich can be $ade visible to anyone, dependin) on the userPs privacy settin)s.
:' the post is $ade available to the public, $eanin) to everyone and not only to his 'riends, anyone on Facebook can react to the
postin), clickin) any o' several buttons o' pre'erences on the pro)ra$Ps screen such as E%ike,E ECo$$ent,E or EShare.E E%ikeE
si)ni'ies that the reader likes the postin) (hile ECo$$entE enables hi$ to post online his 'eelin)s or vie(s about the sa$e, such as
E+his is )reatOE When a Facebook user ESharesE a postin), the ori)inal Epostin)E (ill appear on his o(n Facebook pro'ile,
conseDuently $akin) it visible to his do(n-line Facebook Friends.
+(itter, on the other hand, is an internet social net(orkin) and $icroblo))in) service that enables its users to send and read short
te9t-based $essa)es o' up to 145 characters. +hese are kno(n as E+(eets.E &icroblo))in) is the practice o' postin) s$all pieces o'
di)ital contentH(hich could be in the 'or$ o' te9t, pictures, links, short videos, or other $ediaHon the internet. :nstead o' 'riends, a
+(itter user has EFollo(ers,E those (ho subscribe to this particular userPs posts, enablin) the$ to read the sa$e, and EFollo(in),E
those (ho$ this particular user is subscribed to, enablin) hi$ to read their posts. %ike Facebook, a +(itter user can $ake his t(eets
available only to his Follo(ers, or to the )eneral public. :' a post is available to the public, any +(itter user can E<et(eetE a )iven
postin). <et(eetin) is >ust repostin) or republishin) another personPs t(eet (ithout the need o' copyin) and pastin) it.
:n the cyber(orld, there are $any actors* a3 the blo))er (ho ori)inates the assailed state$ent= b3 the blo) service provider like
-ahoo= c3 the internet service provider like "%C+, S$art, @lobe, or Sun= d3 the internet ca'] that $ay have provided the co$puter
used 'or postin) the blo)= e3 the person (ho $akes a 'avorable co$$ent on the blo)= and '3 the person (ho posts a link to the blo)
site.
65
#o(, suppose &aria 2a blo))er3 $aintains a blo) on Word"ress.co$ 2blo) service provider3. She needs the internet to access
her blo) so she subscribes to Sun 8roadband 2:nternet Service "rovider3.
6ne day, &aria posts on her internet account the state$ent that a certain $arried public o''icial has an illicit a''air (ith a $ovie star.
%inda, one o' &ariaPs 'riends (ho sees this post, co$$ents online, E-es, this is so trueO +hey are so i$$oral.E &ariaPs ori)inal post is
then $ultiplied by her 'riends and the latterPs 'riends, and do(n the line to 'riends o' 'riends al$ost ad in'initu$. #ena, (ho is a
stran)er to both &aria and %inda, co$es across this blo), 'inds it interestin) and so shares the link to this apparently de'a$atory
blo) on her +(itter account. #enaPs EFollo(ersE then E<et(eetE the link to that blo) site.
"a$ela, a +(itter user, stu$bles upon a rando$ personPs E<et(eetE o' #enaPs ori)inal t(eet and posts this on her Facebook
account. :$$ediately, "a$elaPs Facebook Friends start %ikin) and $akin) Co$$ents on the assailed postin). ; lot o' the$ even
press the Share button, resultin) in the 'urther spread o' the ori)inal postin) into tens, hundreds, thousands, and )reater postin)s.
+he Duestion is* are online postin)s such as E%ikin)E an openly de'a$atory state$ent, ECo$$entin)E on it, or ESharin)E it (ith
others, to be re)arded as Eaidin) or abettin)IE :n libel in the physical (orld, i' #estor places on the o''ice bulletin board a s$all
poster that says, E;r$and is a thie'O,E he could certainly be char)ed (ith libel. :' <o)er, seein) the poster, (rites on it, E: like thisO,E
that could not be libel since he did not author the poster. :' ;rthur, passin) by and noticin) the poster, (rites on it, ECorrectO,E (ould
that be libelI #o, 'or he $erely e9presses a)ree$ent (ith the state$ent on the poster. ,e still is not its author. 8esides, it is not
clear i' aidin) or abettin) libel in the physical (orld is a cri$e.
8ut suppose #estor posts the blo), E;r$and is a thie'OE on a social net(orkin) site. Would a reader and his Friends or Follo(ers,
availin) the$selves o' any o' the E%ike,E ECo$$ent,E and EShareE reactions, be )uilty o' aidin) or abettin) libelI ;nd, in the co$ple9
(orld o' cyberspace e9pressions o' thou)hts, (hen (ill one be liable 'or aidin) or abettin) cybercri$esI Where is the venue o' the
cri$eI
79cept 'or the ori)inal author o' the assailed state$ent, the rest 2those (ho pressed %ike, Co$$ent and Share3 are essentially knee-
>erk senti$ents o' readers (ho $ay think little or haphazardly o' their response to the ori)inal postin). Will they be liable 'or aidin) or
abettin)I ;nd, considerin) the inherent i$possibility o' >oinin) hundreds or thousands o' respondin) EFriendsE or EFollo(ersE in the
cri$inal char)e to be 'iled in court, (ho (ill $ake a choice as to (ho should )o to >ail 'or the outbreak o' the challen)ed postin)I
+he old para$eters 'or en'orcin) the traditional 'or$ o' libel (ould be a sDuare pe) in a round hole (hen applied to cyberspace libel.
Anless the le)islature cra'ts a cyber libel la( that takes into account its uniDue circu$stances and culture, such la( (ill tend to
create a chillin) e''ect on the $illions that use this ne( $ediu$ o' co$$unication in violation o' their constitutionally-)uaranteed
ri)ht to 'reedo$ o' e9pression.
+he Anited States Supre$e Court 'aced the sa$e issue in <eno v. ;$erican Civil %iberties Anion,
61
a case involvin) the
constitutionality o' the Co$$unications Cecency ;ct o' 1996. +he la( prohibited 213 the kno(in) trans$ission, by $eans o' a
teleco$$unications device, o'
Eobscene or indecentE co$$unications to any recipient under 1J years o' a)e= and 2!3 the kno(in) use o' an interactive co$puter
service to send to a speci'ic person or persons under 1J years o' a)e or to display in a $anner available to a person under 1J years
o' a)e co$$unications that, in conte9t, depict or describe, in ter$s Epatently o''ensiveE as $easured by conte$porary co$$unity
standards, se9ual or e9cretory activities or or)ans.
+hose (ho challen)ed the ;ct clai$ that the la( violated the First ;$end$entPs )uarantee o' 'reedo$ o' speech 'or bein)
overbroad. +he A.S. Supre$e Court a)reed and ruled*
+he va)ueness o' the Co$$unications Cecency ;ct o' 1996 2CC;3, 40 A.S.C.S. U!!, is a $atter o' special concern 'or t(o
reasons. First, the CC; is a content-based re)ulation o' speech. +he va)ueness o' such a re)ulation raises special A.S. Const.
a$end. : concerns because o' its obvious chillin) e''ect on 'ree speech. Second, the CC; is a cri$inal statute. :n addition to the
opprobriu$ and sti)$a o' a cri$inal conviction, the CC; threatens violators (ith penalties includin) up to t(o years in prison 'or
each act o' violation. +he severity o' cri$inal sanctions $ay (ell cause speakers to re$ain silent rather than co$$unicate even
ar)uably unla('ul (ords, ideas, and i$a)es. ;s a practical $atter, this increased deterrent e''ect, coupled (ith the risk o'
discri$inatory en'orce$ent o' va)ue re)ulations, poses )reater A.S. Const. a$end. : concerns than those i$plicated by certain civil
re)ulations.
9 9 9 9
+he Co$$unications Cecency ;ct o' 1996 2CC;3, 40 A.S.C.S. U !!, presents a )reat threat o' censorin) speech that, in 'act, 'alls
outside the statute1s scope. @iven the va)ue contours o' the covera)e o' the statute, it unDuestionably silences so$e speakers
(hose $essa)es (ould be entitled to constitutional protection. +hat dan)er provides 'urther reason 'or insistin) that the statute not
be overly broad. +he CC;Ps burden on protected speech cannot be >usti'ied i' it could be avoided by a $ore care'ully dra'ted statute.
27$phasis ours3
%ibel in the cyberspace can o' course stain a personPs i$a)e (ith >ust one click o' the $ouse. Scurrilous state$ents can spread and
travel 'ast across the )lobe like bad ne(s. &oreover, cyberlibel o'ten )oes hand in hand (ith cyberbullyin) that oppresses the victi$,
his relatives, and 'riends, evokin) 'ro$ $ild to disastrous reactions. Still, a )overn$ental purpose, (hich seeks to re)ulate the use o'
this cyberspace co$$unication technolo)y to protect a personPs reputation and peace o' $ind, cannot adopt $eans that (ill
unnecessarily and broadly s(eep, invadin) the area o' protected 'reedo$s.
6!
:' such $eans are adopted, sel'-inhibition borne o' 'ear o' (hat sinister predica$ents a(ait internet users (ill suppress other(ise
robust discussion o' public issues. Ce$ocracy (ill be threatened and (ith it, all liberties. "enal la(s should provide reasonably clear
)uidelines 'or la( en'orce$ent o''icials and triers o' 'acts to prevent arbitrary and discri$inatory en'orce$ent.
6
+he ter$s Eaidin) or
abettin)E constitute broad s(eep that )enerates chillin) e''ect on those (ho e9press the$selves throu)h cyberspace posts,
co$$ents, and other $essa)es.
64
,ence, Section / o' the cybercri$e la( that punishes Eaidin) or abettin)E libel on the cyberspace
is a nullity.
When a penal statute encroaches upon the 'reedo$ o' speech, a 'acial challen)e )rounded on the void-'or-va)ueness doctrine is
acceptable. +he inapplicability o' the doctrine $ust be care'ully delineated. ;s Justice ;ntonio +. Carpio e9plained in his dissent in
<o$ualdez v. Co$$ission on 7lections,
6/
E(e $ust vie( these state$ents o' the Court on the inapplicability o' the overbreadth and
va)ueness doctrines to penal statutes as appropriate only inso'ar as these doctrines are used to $ount ^'acialP challen)es to penal
statutes not involvin) 'ree speech.E
:n an Eas appliedE challen)e, the petitioner (ho clai$s a violation o' his constitutional ri)ht can raise any constitutional )round Q
absence o' due process, lack o' 'air notice, lack o' ascertainable standards, overbreadth, or va)ueness. ,ere, one can challen)e the
constitutionality o' a statute only i' he asserts a violation o' his o(n ri)hts. :t prohibits one 'ro$ assailin) the constitutionality o' the
statute based solely on the violation o' the ri)hts o' third persons not be'ore the court. +his rule is also kno(n as the prohibition
a)ainst third-party standin).
66
8ut this rule ad$its o' e9ceptions. ; petitioner $ay 'or instance $ount a E'acialE challen)e to the constitutionality o' a statute even i'
he clai$s no violation o' his o(n ri)hts under the assailed statute (here it involves 'ree speech on )rounds o' overbreadth or
va)ueness o' the statute.
+he rationale 'or this e9ception is to counter the Echillin) e''ectE on protected speech that co$es 'ro$ statutes violatin) 'ree speech.
; person (ho does not kno( (hether his speech constitutes a cri$e under an overbroad or va)ue la( $ay