SECTION 2 - SEARCHES AND SEIZURES ● NO, military and police checkpoints DO

NOT violate the right of the people

Valmonte v. General de Villa against unreasonable search and
FACTS: seizures.
● Those which are reasonable are not
● Petitioner: Renato Valmonte forbidden.
● Respondent: General Ricardo De Villa ● A reasonable search is not to be
● 20 January 1987: the National Capital determined by any fixed formula but
Region District Command (NCRDC) is to be resolved according to the facts
was activated of each case.
● Pursuant to Letter of Instruction 02/87 ● Where, for example, the officer merely
of the Philippine General draws aside the curtain of a vacant
Headquarters, AFP vehicle which is parked on the public fair
● With the mission of: grounds, or simply looks into a vehicle,
○ conducting security operations or flashes a light therein, these do not
within its area of responsibility constitute unreasonable search.
and peripheral areas ● The setting up of the questioned
○ for the purpose of establishing checkpoints in Valenzuela may be
an effective territorial defense considered as a security measure to
○ maintaining peace and order enable the NCRDC to pursue its
○ and providing an atmosphere mission of establishing effective
conducive to the social, territorial defense and maintaining
economic and political peace and order for the benefit of the
development of the National public.
Capital Region ● The Court may take judicial notice of the
● As part of its duty to maintain peace and shift to urban centers and their suburbs
order, the NCRDC installed of the insurgency movement, so clearly
checkpoints in various parts of reflected in the increased killings in
Valenzuela, Metro Manila. cities of police and military men by
● Petitioners Atty. Ricardo Valmonte, NPA “sparrow units”
who is a resident of Valenzuela, Metro ● Not to mention the abundance of
Manila, and the Union of Lawyers and unlicensed firearms and the alarming
Advocates For People’s Rights rise in lawlessness and violence in
(ULAP) sought the declaration of such urban centers
checkpoints in Valenzuela, Metro Manila ● Between the inherent right of the state to
and elsewhere as unconstitutional. protect its existence and promote public
● In the alternative, they prayed that welfare and an individual's right against
respondents Renato De Villa and the a warrantless search which is however
National Capital Region District reasonably conducted, the former
Command (NCRDC) be directed to should prevail.
formulate guidelines in the ● The checkpoints during these abnormal
implementation of checkpoints for the times, when conducted within
protection of the people. reasonable limits, are part of the price
● Petitioners contended that the we pay for an orderly society and a
checkpoints gave the respondents peaceful community.
blanket authority to make searches
and seizures without search warrant WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.
or court order in violation of the
Constitution. Guazon v. De Villa
FACTS:
ISSUE: WON military and police checkpoints
violate the right of the people against ● Petitioner: Eddie Guazon
unreasonable search and seizures? ● Respondent: Maj. Gen. Renato De Villa
● This is a petition for prohibition with
HELD: preliminary injunction to prohibit the
 military and police officers represented and that local and foreign media joined
by public respondents from conducting the operation to witness and record such
"Areal Target Zonings" or "Saturation event.
Drives" in Metro Manila.
● The 41 petitioners alleged that the ISSUE: WON the areal target zoning and the
"saturation drive" or "areal target zoning" saturation drive is legal
that were conducted in their place
(Tondo Manila) were unconstitutional. HELD:
● The alleged acts committed during the ● YES. The conduct of areal target zoning
raid are the following: or saturation drive is a valid exercise of
a. Petitioners alleged that there is the military powers of the President.
no specific target house to ● According to the Supreme Court,
search and that there is no everything stated before them
search warrant or warrant of consists only of allegations.
arrest served. ● According to petitioners, more than
b. Most of the policemen are in 3,407 persons were arrested in the
their civilian clothes and saturation drives covered by the petition.
without nameplates or ● Not one of the several thousand persons
identification cards treated in the illegal and inhuman
c. The residents were rudely manner described by the petitioners
roused from their sleep by appears as a petitioner or has come
banging on the walls and before a trial court to present the kind of
windows of their houses. evidence admissible in courts of justice.
d. The residents were at the point ● None of those arrested has apparently
of high-powered guns and been charged and none of those
herded like cows. affected has apparently complained
e. Men were ordered to strip ● The areal target zonings in this petition
down to their briefs for the were intended to flush out
police to examine their tattoo subversives and criminal elements
marks. particularly because of the blatant
f. The residents complained that assassinations of public officers and
their homes were ransacked, police officials by elements supposedly
tossing their belongings and coddled by the communities where the
destroying their valuables. "drives" were conducted.
Some of their money and ● Moreover, there is nothing in the
valuables had disappeared after Constitution which denies the
the operation. authority of the Chief Executive, to
g. The residents also reported order police actions to stop unabated
incidents of maulings, spot- criminality, rising lawlessness, and
beatings, and maltreatment. alarming communist activities.
Those who were detained also ● Where there is large scale mutiny or
suffered mental and physical actual rebellion, the police or military
torture to extract confessions may go in force to the combat areas,
and tactical information. enter affected residences or buildings,
● The respondents said that such round up suspected rebels and
accusations mentioned above were otherwise quell the mutiny or rebellion
total lies. without having to secure search
● Respondents contends that the warrants and without violating the Bill of
Constitution grants to the government Rights.
the power to seek and cripple ● The Constitution grants the
subversive movements for the Government the power to seek and
maintenance of peace in the state. cripple subversive movements which
● Respondents averred that they have would bring down constituted authority
intelligently and carefully planned and substitute a regime where individual
months ahead for the actual operation liberties are suppressed as a matter of
 policy in the name of security of the
State. ISSUE: WON an act of a private individual,
allegedly in violation of appellant's constitutional
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby rights, be invoked against the State?
REMANDED to the Regional Trial Courts of
Manila, Malabon, and Pasay City where the HELD:
petitioners may present evidence supporting ● NO. The Court ruled that in the absence
their allegations and where specific erring of governmental interference, the
parties may be pinpointed and prosecuted. liberties granted by the Constitution
cannot be invoked against the State.
People vs. Andre Marti ● The constitutional right against
FACTS: unreasonable search and seizure refers
to the immunity of one's person, whether
● Petitioner: People citizen or alien, from interference by the
● Respondent: Andre Marti government.
● On August 15, 1987, the appellant ● Its protection is directed only to
Andre Marti, together with his common- governmental action.
law wife Shirley Reyes went to Manila ● This right does not require exclusion
Packing and Export Forwarders to of evidence obtained through a
send four (4) parcels of boxes alleged to search by a private citizen.
contained books, cigars, and gloves for ● In this case, the evidence was primarily
his friend Waltier Fierz living in Zurich, discovered and obtained by a private
Switzerland. person, acting in a private capacity and
● It was received by Anita Reyes (the without the intervention of State
proprietress and no relation to Shirley authorities.
Reyes) and ask if she could inspect the ● Therefore, there is no reason why it
packages. should not be admitted to prosecute
● Shirley refused and eventually him.
convinced Anita to seal the package ● Marti, however, alleged that the NBI
making it ready for shipment. agents made an illegal search and
● Before being sent out for delivery, Job seizure of the evidence.
Reyes, husband of Anita and proprietor ● The Court pointed out that:
of the courier company, conducted an ○ a) It was the proprietor who
inspection of the package as part of made a reasonable search of
standard operating procedures. the packages in compliance with
● Upon opening the package, he noticed SOP AND
a suspicious odor which made him ○ b) the mere presence of the NBI
took sample of the substance he agents did not convert the
found inside. reasonable search effected into
● He reported this to the NBI and invited a warrantless search and
agents to his office to inspect the seizure. Merely to observe and
package. look at that which is in plain
● In the presence of the NBI agents, Job sight is not a search
Reyes opened the suspicious package ● Marti further argued that since the
and found dried-marijuana leaves Constitution expressly declares as
inside. inadmissible any evidence obtained in
● A case was filed against Andre Marti in violation of the constitutional prohibition
violation of R.A. 6425 and was found against illegal search and seizure, it
guilty by the court a quo. matters not whether the evidence was
● Andre filed an appeal in the Supreme procured by police authorities or private
Court claiming that his constitutional individuals.
right of privacy was violated and that ● The Court answered that the
the evidence acquired from his package Constitution, in laying down the
was inadmissible as evidence against principles of the government and
him. fundamental liberties of the people,
 does not govern relationships ● Consequently, the BIR made tax
between individuals. assessments against petitioners based
on the seized documents.
WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction ● Hence, this present petition.
finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime charged is hereby AFFIRMED. No ISSUE: WON petitioners may object against
costs. search and seizure

Bache and Co. v. Ruiz HELD:

FACTS: ● YES. The Court found three (3) defects
in the search warrant issued:
● Petitioner: Bache and Co Inc ○ First, there was no personal
● Respondent: Hon. Judge Vivencio M. examination of the judge.
Ruiz ○ Second, the search warrant
● On 24 February 1970, respondent was issued for more than one
Misael Vera, Commissioner of Internal specific offense.
Revenue, wrote a letter addressed to ○ Third, the search warrant does
respondent Judge Vicencio Ruiz not particularly describe the
requesting the issuance of a search things to be seized.
warrant against petitioners for ● The Court ruled that although it is of the
violation of the National Internal opinion that an officer of a corporation
Revenue Code and authorizing which is charged with a violation of a
respondent de Leon to make and file the statute of the state of its creation,
application for the same. nevertheless, they do not wish to be
● In the afternoon of the following day, de understood as holding a corporation
Leon and his witness, Arturo not entitled to immunity against
Logronio, went to the CFI of Rizal and unreasonable search and seizures.
brought the necessary documents for ● After all, a corporation is an association
the application for search warrant. of individuals under an assumed name
● The Clerk of Court took first their and with a distinct legal entity.
depositions because Judge Ruiz was ● In organizing itself as a collective body,
still conducting a hearing. it waives no constitutional immunities
● But after the session, Judge Ruiz was appropriate to such body.
able to take Logronio’s oath and ● Its property cannot be taken without
signed the application. compensation.
● Thus, the issuance of Search Warrant ● It can only be proceeded against by due
No. 2-M-70. process of law, and is protected under
● Three days after, which was on a the 4th amendment against unlawful
Saturday, the BIR agents served the discrimination.
search warrant at petitioner’s corporate ● In addition, the Court states, citing the
office in Ayala, Makati. case of Stonehill v. Diokno, the implied
● Petitioners’ lawyers protested the recognition on the right of a corporation
search on the ground that no formal to object against unreasonable search
complaint, transcript or testimony was and seizures, to wit:
attached. ○ “It is well settled that the legality
● The agents nevertheless proceeded of a seizure can be contested
with the search and yielded 6 boxes of only by the party whose rights
documents. have been impaired thereby,
● On 03 March 1970, petitioners filed a and that the objection to an
petition with the CFI of Rizal praying that unlawful search and seizure is
the search warrant be quashed and be purely personal and cannot be
considered null and void. availed of by third parties.
● But the respondent Judge dismissed Consequently, petitioners may
the petition. not validly invoke object to the
use as evidence against them of
 the documents, papers and ○ (a) those found and seized in
things seized from the offices the offices of the
and premises of the corporation, aforementioned corporations
since such right belongs and
exclusively to the corporations, ○ (b) those found seized in the
the whom the seized effects residences of petitioners herein.
belong, and may not be invoked ● Petitioners averred that the warrant is
by the corporate officers in null and void for being violative of the
proceedings against them in constitution and the Rules of court by:
their individual capacity.” ○ (1) not describing with
particularity the documents,
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petition is books and things to be seized;
granted. Accordingly, Search Warrant No. 2-M- ○ (2) money not mentioned in the
70 issued by respondent Judge is declared warrants were seized;
null and void; respondents are permanently ○ (3) the warrants were issued to
enjoined from enforcing the said search warrant; fish evidence for deportation
the documents, papers and effects seized cases filed against the
thereunder are ordered to be returned to petitioner;
petitioners ○ (4) the searches and seizures
were made in an illegal manner;
Stonehill v. Diokno and
FACTS: ○ (5) the documents paper and
cash money were not delivered
● Petitioner: Harry Stonehill to the issuing courts for disposal
● Respondent: Hon. Jose Diokno in accordance with law
● Stonehill and the corporations they form ● The prosecution counters that the
were alleged to have committed acts in search warrants are valid and issued
“violation of Central Bank Laws, in accordance with law
Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal ● The defects of said warrants were cured
Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal by petitioners consent; and in any event,
Code.” the effects are admissible regardless of
● Respondents issued, on different dates, the irregularity.
42 search warrants for which they are ● The Court granted the petition and
officers directing peace officers to issued the writ of preliminary injunction.
search the persons of petitioners and ● However, by a resolution, the writ was
premises of their offices, warehouses partially lifted dissolving insofar as paper
and/or residences to search for personal and things seized from the offices of the
properties “books of accounts, corporations.
financial records, vouchers,
correspondence, receipts, ledgers, ISSUE: WON the search warrant issued is valid
journals, portfolios, credit journals,
typewriters, and other documents HELD:
showing all business transactions ● NO, the search warrant is invalid. The
including disbursement receipts, SC ruled in favor of petitioners.
balance sheets and profit and loss ● The constitution protects the
statements and Bobbins(cigarette people’s right against unreasonable
wrappers)” as the subject of the search and seizure.
offense for violations of Central Bank ○ (1) that no warrant shall issue
Act, Tariff and Customs Laws, but upon probable cause, to be
Internal Revenue Code, and Revised determined by the judge in the
Penal Code. manner set forth in said
● The documents, papers, and things provision; and
seized under the alleged authority of the ○ (2) that the warrant shall
warrants in question may be split into particularly describe the things
(2) major groups, namely: to be seized.
 ● In the case at bar, none of these are
met.
● The warrant was issued from mere
allegation that petitioners committed a
“violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff
and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue
(Code) and Revised Penal Code.” SECTION 2 - PROBABLE CAUSE
● In other words, no specific offense
had been alleged in said applications. Alvarez v. CFI
● As a consequence, it was impossible FACTS:
for the judges who issued the
warrants to have found the existence ● Petitioner: Narciso Alvarez
of probable cause, for the same ● Respondent: Court of First Instance of
presupposes the introduction of Tayabas
competent proof that the party against ● Petitioner Alvarez asks that the
whom it is sought has performed warrant issued by Judge Gutierrez
particular acts, or committed specific ordering the search and seizure of
omissions, violating a given provision of certain accounting documents at any
our criminal laws time of day and night as well as the
● The applications involved in this case do order authorizing the agents of the
not allege any specific acts performed Anti-Usury Board to retain the
by herein petitioners. articles seized be declared illegal and
● The petitioners have no cause of set aside and the items be returned to
action to assail the legality of the him.
contested warrants and of the seizures ● Petitioner contends that Agent
made in pursuance thereof, for the Almeda has no personal knowledge
simple reason that said corporations of the facts which was served as the
have their respective personalities, basis for the issuance of the warrant.
separate and distinct from the ● That he got it only from a reliable
personality of herein petitioners, source.
regardless of the amount of shares of ● Thus, the search warrant issued is
stock or of the interest of each of them illegal.
in said corporations, and whatever the ● The articles had not been brought
offices they hold therein may be. immediately to the judge who issued
● Indeed, it is well settled that the legality the search warrant.
of a seizure can be contested only by ● The Anti-Usury Board insinuates in its
the party whose rights have been answer that the petitioner cannot now
impaired thereby and that the objection question the validity of the search
to an unlawful search and seizure is warrant or the proceedings had
purely personal and cannot be availed subsequent to the issuance thereof,
of by third parties. because he has waived his
constitutional rights in proposing a
We hold, therefore, that the doctrine adopted in compromise whereby he agreed to pay
the Moncado case must be, as it is hereby, a fine of P200 for the purpose of
abandoned; that the warrants for the search evading the criminal proceeding or
of three (3) residences of herein petitioners, proceedings.
as specified in the Resolution of June 29,
1962, are null and void; that the searches and ISSUE: WON the search and seizure warrant is
seizures therein made are illegal; and that the valid
petition herein is dismissed and the writs prayed
for denied, as regards the documents, papers HELD:
and other effects seized in the twenty-nine (29) ● NO. In view of the foregoing and under
places, offices and other premises enumerated the above-cited authorities, it appears
in the same Resolution, without special that the affidavit, which served as the
pronouncement as to costs. exclusive basis of the search warrant,
 is insufficient and fatally defective by ○ The judge failed to conduct an
reason of the manner in which the examination under oath or
oath was made affirmation of the applicant
● It is hereby held that the search warrant and his witnesses, as
in question and the subsequent seizure mandated by the above-quoted
of the books, documents, and other constitutional provision as wen
papers are illegal and do not in any way as Sec. 4, Rule 126 of the
warrant the deprivation to which the Rules of Court.
petitioner was subjected. ○ There are two (2) search
● Moreover, Section 101 of General warrants issued but pinpointed
Orders, No. 58 authorizes that the only one place where petitioner
search is made at night when it is Jose Burgos, Jr. was allegedly
positively asserted in the affidavits that keeping and concealing the
the property is on the person or in the articles listed.
place ordered to be searched. ○ That the articles belonging to
● However, as declared, the affidavits his co-petitioners Jose
are insufficient and the warrant Burgos, Sr., Bayani Soriano and
issued exclusively upon it is illegal the J. Burgos Media Services,
● Therefore, the search could not legally Inc. were seized although the
be made at night. warrants were directed
against Jose Burgos, Jr.
For the foregoing considerations, the search Alone.
warrant and the seizure of June 3, 1936, and the ○ That real property was seized
orders of the respondent court authorizing the under the disputed warrants like
relation of the books and documents, are machinery, receptacles,
declared illegal and are set aside, and it is instruments, etc.
ordered that the judge presiding over the Court ○ The search warrant was based
of First Instance of Tayabas direct the only on the affidavits of Col.
immediate return to the petitioner of the nineteen Abadilla’s that they conducted
(19) documents surveillance of the premises
could not have provided
Burgos v. Chief of Staff sufficient basis for the finding of
FACTS: a probable cause
● Respondents insinuates that petitioners
● Petitioner: Jose Burgos are estopped by laches that they only
● Respondent: Chief of Staff impugned the search warrant six
● The "Metropolitan Mail" and "We months later.
Forum” newspapers were searched
and its office and printing machines, ISSUE: WON the two warrants were valid to
equipment, paraphernalia, motor justify seizure of the items.
vehicles and other articles used in the
printing, publication and distribution of HELD:
the said newspapers, as well as ● NO. The defect in the indication of the
numerous papers, documents, books same address in the two warrants was
and other written literature alleged to be held by the court as a typographical
in the possession and control of error and immaterial in view of the
petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr. publisher- correct determination of the place
editor of the "We Forum" newspaper, sought to be searched set forth in the
were seized based on the strength of application.
the two [2] search warrants issued by ● The purpose and intent to search two
respondent Judge Ernani Cruz-Pano. distinct premises was evident in the
● Petitioners averred that the search issuance of the two warrant.
warrant should be declared illegal ● As to the issue that the items seized
because: were real properties, the court applied
 the principle in the case of Davao SECTION 2 - PERSONAL DETERMINATION
Sawmill Co. v. Castillo, ruling:
○ “that machinery which is Soliven v. Makasiar
movable by nature becomes FACTS:
immobilized when placed by the
owner of the tenement, property ● Petitioner: Maximo Soliven
or plant, but not so when placed ● Respondent: Hon. Ramon Makasiar
by a tenant, usufructuary, or any ● President Corazon Aquino, the highest
other person having only a official of the Republic and one who
temporary right, unless such enjoys unprecedented public support
person acted as the agent of the asks for the prosecution of a
owner.” newspaper columnist, the publisher
● In the case at bar, petitioners did not and chairman of the editorial board,
claim to be the owners of the land the managing editor, and the
and/or building on which the business manager in a not too
machineries were placed. indubitable a case for alleged libel.
● This being the case, the machineries in ● Petitioner Beltran argues that "the
question, while in fact bolted to the reasons which necessitate
ground remain movable property presidential immunity from suit
susceptible to seizure under a search impose a correlative disability to file
warrant. suit."
● However, the Court declared the two ● He contends that if criminal proceedings
warrants null and void. ensue by virtue of the President's filing
● Probable cause for a search is of her complaint-affidavit, she may
defined as such facts and subsequently have to be a witness for
circumstances which would lead a the prosecution, bringing her under the
reasonably discreet and prudent man to trial court's jurisdiction.
believe that an offense has been ● This, continues Beltran, would in an
committed and that the objects sought in indirect way defeat her privilege of
connection with the offense are in the immunity from suit, as by testifying on
place sought to be searched. the witness stand, she would be
● The Court ruled that the affidavits exposing herself to a possible contempt
submitted for the application of the of court or perjury.
warrant did not satisfy the ● In other words, the President cannot
requirement of probable cause, the sue him because he is immune from
statements of the witnesses having suit and if he does, the President is
been mere generalizations. exposing himself to suit.
● Furthermore, jurisprudence tells of the ● Petitioners also questioned the validity
prohibition on the issuance of general of the warrant of arrest.
warrants. (Stanford vs. State of Texas). ● He averred that respondent RTC judge
● The description and enumeration in the issued a warrant for his arrest
warrant of the items to be searched and without personally examining the
seized did not indicate with specification complainant and the witnesses, if any,
the subversive nature of the said items. to determine probable cause.
● Furthermore, petitioners assert that to
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, Search allow the libel case to proceed would
Warrants Nos. 20-82[a] and 20-82[b] issued by produce a "chilling effect" on press
respondent judge on December 7, 1982 are freedom
hereby declared null and void and are
accordingly set aside. The prayer for a writ of ISSUE:
mandatory injunction for the return of the seized 1. WON the President is allowed to sue the
articles is hereby granted and all articles petitioners
seized thereunder are hereby ordered 2. WON the warrant of arrest was illegally
released to petitioners. No costs. secured
HELD: Silva vs. Presiding Judge of RTC, Negros
FACTS:
● FIRST ISSUE: YES. The privilege of
immunity from suit pertains to the ● Petitioner: Nicomedes Silva
President by virtue of the office and may ● Respondent: Judge Nickarter Ontal
be invoked only by the holder of the (Dumaguete)
office; not by any other person in the ● RTC judge Nickarter Ontal issued a
President's behalf. search warrant filed by M/Sgt. Ranulfo
● Thus, an accused in a criminal case in Villamor, chief of the PC NARCOM
which the President is complainant Detachment in Dumaguete City,
cannot raise the presidential privilege Negros Oriental, to be served against
as a defense to prevent the case from Petitioner Nicomedes Silva.
proceeding against such accused. ● The application was accompanied by
● Moreover, there is nothing in our laws “deposition of witness” executed by
that would prevent the President Arthur Alcoran and Pat. Leon Quindo.
from waiving the privilege. ● The search warrant stated that “You
● Thus, if so minded the President may are hereby commanded to make an
shed the protection afforded by the immediate search at any time of the day
privilege and submit to the court's (night) of the room of Tama Silva
jurisdiction. residence of his father Comedes Silva to
● The choice of whether to exercise the open aparadors, lockers, cabinets,
privilege or to waive it is solely the cartoons, containers, forthwith seize and
President's prerogative. take possession of the following
● It is a decision that cannot be assumed property Marijuana dried leaves,
and imposed by any other person. cigarettes, joint and bring the said
● The President cannot just stand by property to the undersigned to be dealt
helplessly bereft of legal remedies if with as the law directs.”
somebody vilifies or maligns him or her. ● During the raid, the officers seized
● SECOND ISSUE: YES. This money belonging to Antonieta Silva
constitutional provision does not in the amount of P1,231.40.
mandatorily require the judge to ● Petitioners alleged that the
personally examine the complainant enforcement of the search warrant
and her witnesses. was illegal because it was issued on
● Instead, he may opt to personally the sole basis of mimeographed and
evaluate the report and supporting the judge failed to personally examine
documents submitted by the prosecutor the complainant and witness by
or he may disregard the prosecutors searching questions and answers.
report and require the submission of ● Antoinette Silva also filed a motion the
supporting affidavits of witnesses. return of the said amount because her
● Sound policy dictates the procedure name is not included in the search
laid down in Circular No. 12, setting warrant.
down guidelines for the issuance of ● Thus, her belongings shouldn’t be
warrants of arrest, otherwise, judges subject of the warrant.
would be unduly laden with the ● Acting on the said motion to return the
preliminary examination and money, Judge Ontal issued an order
investigation of criminal complaints stating that the court “holds in abeyance
instead of concentrating on hearing and the disposition of the said amount
deciding cases filed before their courts. pending the filing of appropriate charges
in connection with the search warrant
WHEREFORE, finding no grave abuse of ● RTC’s new judge, replacing judge Ontal,
discretion amounting to excess or lack of ruled against petitioners.
jurisdiction on the part of the public respondents, ● MR was likewise denied by Judge Cruz
the Court Resolved to DISMISS the petitions in (new judge).
G. R. Nos. 82585, 82827 and 83979. ● Hence, this special civil action for
certiorari.
 FACTS:
ISSUE: WON the search warrant is validly
issued by then Judge Ontal ● Petitioner: Vicente Lim Sr
● Respondent: Hon. Nemesio Felix
HELD: ● Congressman Moises Espinosa, Sr.,
● NO. Search Warrant No. 1 is invalid together with his security escorts were
due to the failure of the judge to attacked and killed by a lone
examine the witness in the form of assassin at the airport vicinity in
searching questions and answers. Masbate.
● The questions asked were leading as ● Dante Siblante another security escort
they are answerable by mere yes or no. of Congressman Espinosa, Sr. survived
● Such questions are not sufficiently the assassination plot, although, he
searching to establish probable cause. himself suffered a gunshot wound.
● The questions were already ● Herein petitioners were alleged to be
mimeographed and all the witness had behind the crime of multiple murder
to do was fill in their answers on the and frustrated murder in connection with
blanks provided. the airport incident.
● Judge Ontal is guilty of grave abuse ● After conducting the preliminary
of discretion when he rejected the investigation, the court issued an order
motion of Antonieta Silva seeking the finding probable cause for the
return of her money. issuance of a warrant of arrest of
● The officers who implemented the herein petitioners.
search warrant clearly abused their ● In the same Order, the court ordered
authority when they seized the the arrest of the petitioners and
money of Antonieta Silva. recommended the amount of
● The warrant did not indicate the seizure P200,000.00 as bail for the provisional
of money but only for marijuana leaves, liberty of each of the accused.
cigarettes..etc. ● Respondent Acting Fiscal Antonio C.
● Search Warrant No. 1 is declared null Alfane was designated to review the
and void. case containing 261 pages.
● Sec 4 Rule 126 Rules of Court ● Fiscal Alfane issued a Resolution
○ Examination of the complainant, which affirmed the finding of a prima
record -the judge before issuing facie case against the petitioners but
the warrant, personally examine differed in the designation of the crime in
in the form of searching that the ruled that ". . . all of the accused
questions and answers, in should not only be charged with Multiple
writing and under oath the Murder With Frustrated Murder" but for
complainant and any witness he a case of MURDER for each of the
may produce the facts killing of the four victims and a physical
personally known to them and injuries case for inflicting gunshot wound
attach to the record their sworn on the buttocks of Dante Siblante."
statements together with their ● MR’s of the petitioner’s Lim was also
affidavits denied.
● Fiscal Alfane filed with the Regional
WHEREFORE, the petition is granted. Search Trial Court of Masbate, four (4)
Warrant No. 1 is hereby declared null and void. separate information of murder
Respondent Judge of the Regional Trial Court of against the twelve (12) accused with a
Negros Oriental, Branch XXXIII is directed to recommendation of no bail.
order the return to petitioner Antonieta Silva of ● Petitioners Vicente Lim, Sr. and
the amount of P1,231.40 which had earlier been Susana Lim filed with us a verified
seized from her by virtue of the illegal search petition for change of venue and was
warrant. This decision is immediately executory. granted to avoid a miscarriage of
No costs. justice. (from Masbate to Makati RTC)

Lim v. Felix
 ● The cases were raffled to Branch 56
presided by respondent Judge WHEREFORE, the instant petitions are hereby
Nemesio S. Felix. GRANTED. The questioned Order of respondent
● Petitioners questioned the validity of Judge Nemesio S. Felix of Branch 56, Regional
the warrant of arrest because it was Trial Court of Makati dated July 5, 1990 is
not personally determined by the declared NULL and VOID and SET ASIDE.
judge as he relied solely on the
certification or recommendation of a Mata v. Bayona
prosecutor that a probable cause FACTS:
exists.
● RTC dismissed their petition upholding ● Petitioner: Soriano Mata
the validity of the arrest warrants. ● Respondent: Hon. Josephine Bayona
(Ormoc)
ISSUE: WON a judge may issue a warrant of ● Petitioner is accused under PD 810, as
arrest without bail by simply relying on the amended by PD 1306:
prosecution's certification and recommendation ○ "AN ACT GRANTING THE
that a probable cause exists. PHILIPPINE JAI-ALAI AND
AMUSEMENT CORPORATION
HELD: A FRANCHISE TO OPERATE,
● NO. If a Judge relies solely on the CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN
certification of the Prosecutor as in this A FRONTON FOR BASQUE
case where all the records of the PELOTA AND SIMILAR
investigation are in Masbate, he or she GAMES OF SKILL IN THE
has not personally determined GREATER MANILA AREA".
probable cause. ● The information against herein petitioner
● The determination is made by the alleged that he offered, took and
Provincial Prosecutor. arranged bets on the Jai Alai game by
● The constitutional requirement has selling illegal tickets known as
not been satisfied. ‘Masiao tickets’
● The Judge commits a grave abuse of ● Without any authority from the
discretion. Philippine Jai Alai & Amusement
● The records of the preliminary Corporation or from the government
investigation conducted by the Municipal authorities concerned.
Court of Masbate and reviewed by the ● During the hearing of the case, the
respondent Fiscal were still in Masbate search warrant and other pertinent
when the respondent Fiscal issued the papers connected to the issuance of
warrants of arrest against the the warrant is missing from the
petitioners. records of the case.
● There was no basis for the ● This led petitioner to file a motion to
respondent Judge to make his own quash and annul the search warrant
personal determination regarding the and for the return of the articles seized
existence of a probable cause for the ● The court dismissed his motion stating
issuance of a warrant of arrest as that the court has made a thorough
mandated by the Constitution. investigation and examination under
● He could not possibly have known what oath of Bernardo U. Goles and
transpired in Masbate as he had nothing Reynaldo T. Mayote, members of the
but a certification. Intelligence Section of 352nd PC
● Significantly, the respondent Judge Co./Police District II INP
denied the petitioners' motion for the ● The court made a certification that the
transmittal of the records on the ground documents were not attached
that the mere certification and immediately and that there’s nowhere in
recommendation of the respondent the rules which specify when these
Fiscal that a probable cause exists is documents are to be attached to the
sufficient for him to issue a warrant of records.
arrest. ● Petitioner’s MR was also denied
 ● Hence, this petition praying, among SECTION 2 - PARTICULARITY OF
others, that this Court declare the DESCRIPTION
search warrant to be invalid and all the
articles confiscated under such warrant 20th Century Fox Film Corp. v. CA
as inadmissible as evidence in the case, FACTS:
or in any proceedings on the matter.
● Petitioner: 20th Century Foc
ISSUE: WON the search warrant is valid ● Respondent: Court of Appeals
● 20th Century Fox Film Corporation
HELD: through counsel sought the National
● NO. The search warrant is tainted with Bureau of Investigation's (NBI)
illegality for being violative of the assistance in the conduct of
Constitution and the Rules of Court. searches and seizures in connection
● Mere affidavits of the complainant and with the latter's anti-film piracy
his witnesses are thus not sufficient. campaign.
● The examining Judge has to take ● The letter-complaint alleged that
depositions in writing of the complainant certain videotape outlets all over
and the witnesses he may produce and Metro Manila are engaged in the
to attach them to the record. unauthorized sale and renting out of
● Such written deposition is necessary copyrighted films in videotape form
in order that the Judge may be able which constitute a flagrant violation of
to properly determine the existence Presidential Decree No. 49 (otherwise
or non-existence of the probable known as the Decree on the Protection
cause, to hold liable for perjury the of Intellectual Property).
person giving it if it will be found later ● NBI conducted surveillance and
that his declarations are false. investigation of the outlets pinpointed
● We, therefore, hold that the search by the petitioner and subsequently filed
warrant is tainted with illegality by three (3) applications for search
the failure of the Judge to conform warrants against the video outlets
with the essential requisites of taking the owned by the private respondents.
depositions in writing and attaching ● Lower court issued the desired search
them to the record, rendering the search warrants.
warrant invalid ● Armed with the search warrants, the
● The return of the things seized cannot NBI accompanied by the petitioner's
be ordered. agents, raided the video outlets and
● In Castro v. Pabalan, it was held that the seized the items described therein.
illegality of the search warrant does not ● An inventory of the items seized was
call for the return of the things seized, made and left with the private
the possession of which is prohibited. respondents
● Private respondents filed a motion to lift
WHEREFORE, the writ of certiorari is granted search warrants and release seized
and the order of March 1, 1979 denying the properties which the lower court
motion to annul the search warrant as well as granted.
the order of March 21, 1979 denying the motion
for reconsideration are hereby reversed, the ISSUE: WON the judge properly lifted the
search warrant, being declared herein as illegal. search warrants he issued earlier upon the
Notwithstanding such illegality, the things seized application of the NBI on the basis of the
under such warrant, such as stock of "masiao" complaint filed by the petitioner
tickets; "masiao" issue tickets; bet money;
control pad or "masiao" numbers; stamping pad HELD:
with rubber stamp marked Ormoc City Jai-Alai," ● YES, the judge properly lifted the search
cannot be returned as sought by petitioner. No warrants he issued earlier.
costs. ● The lower court lifted the three (3)
questioned search warrants in the
 absence of probable cause that the ● This linkage of the copyrighted films to
private respondents violated P.D. 49. the pirated films must be established to
● NBI agents who acted as witnesses satisfy the requirements of probable
during the application for search warrant cause.
did not have personal knowledge of ● Mere allegations as to the existence of
the subject matter of their testimony, the copyrighted films cannot serve as
which was the alleged commission of basis for the issuance of a search
the offense of piracy by the private warrant.
respondents.
● Only the petitioner’s counsel who WHEREFORE, the instant petition is
was also a witness during the DISMISSED. The questioned decision and
application stated that he had resolution of the Court of Appeals are
personal knowledge that the AFFIRMED.
confiscated tapes owned by the private
respondents were pirated tapes taken Nolasco v. Cruz Paño
from master tapes belonging to the FACTS:
petitioner.
● The lower court lifted the warrants, ● Petitioner: Cynthia Nolasco
declaring that the testimony of ● Respondent: Hon. Ernani Cruz Paño
petitioner’s counsel did not have much ● Milagros Aguilar-Roque was arrested
credence because the master tapes of together with Cynthia Nolasco by the
the allegedly pirated tapes were not Constabulary Security Group (CSG).
shown to the court during the ● Milagros had been wanted as a high
application. ranking officer of the CPP.
● The presentation of the master tapes of ● The arrest took place at 11:30 a.m. of
the copyrighted films, from which the August 6, 1984.
pirated films were allegedly copied, was ● At noon of the same day, her premises
necessary for the validity of search were searched and 428 documents, a
warrants against those who have in portable typewriter and 2 boxes were
their possession the pirated films. seized.
● The petitioner's argument to the effect ● Earlier that day, Judge Cruz Paño
that the presentation of the master tapes issued a search warrant to be served
at the time of application may not be at Aguilar-Roque’s leased residence
necessary as these would be merely allegedly an underground house of
evidentiary in nature and not the CPP/NPA.
determinative of whether or not a ● On the basis of the documents seized,
probable cause exists to justify the charges of subversion and rebellion
issuance of the search warrants is not by the CSG were filed by but the
meritorious. fiscal’s office merely charged her and
● The court cannot presume that duplicate Nolasco with illegal possession of
or copied tapes were necessarily subversive materials.
reproduced from master tapes that it ● Aguilar-Roque asked for suppression
owns. of the evidence on the ground that it
● The essence of a copyright was illegally obtained and that the
infringement is the similarity or at search warrant is void because it is a
least substantial similarity of the general warrant since it does not
purported pirated works to the sufficiently describe with particularity
copyrighted work. the things subject of the search and
● Hence, the applicant must present to seizure, and that probable cause has
the court the copyrighted films to not been properly established for lack
compare them with the purchased of searching questions propounded to
evidence of the video tapes allegedly the applicant’s witness.
pirated to determine whether the latter is
an unauthorized reproduction of the ISSUE: WON the search warrant was valid
former.
HELD:
● NO. Section 3, Article IV of the SECTION 2 - VALID WARRANTLESS
Constitution, guarantees the right of the SEARCHES
people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers and effects against People v. Malmstedt
unreasonable searches and seizures of FACTS:
whatever nature and for any purpose.
● It also specifically provides that no ● Petitioner: People
Search Warrant shall issue except ● Respondent: Mikael Malmstedt
upon probable cause to be ● Accused-appellant Mikael Malmstedt
determined by the Judge or such is a Swedish National who’s a
other responsible officer as may be returning tourist and has been in the
authorized by law, after examination Philippines for three times now.
under oath or affirmation of the ● In the evening of 7 May 1989, accused
complainant and the witnesses he may left for Baguio City.
produce, and particularly describing the ● Accused went to the Nangonogan bus
place to be searched and the things to stop in Sagada to catch the first
be seized. available trip to Baguio City where he’s
● It is at once evident that the foregoing planning to take another bus to
Search Warrant authorizes the seizure Manila to catch his flight out of the
of personal properties vaguely country, scheduled on 13 May 1989.
described and not particularized. ● Captain Alen Vasco, the Commanding
● It is an all- embracing description which Officer of the First Regional Command
includes everything conceivable (NARCOM) stationed at Camp Dangwa,
regarding the Communist Party of the ordered his men to set up a temporary
Philippines and the National Democratic checkpoint at Kilometer 14, Acop,
Front. Tublay, Mountain Province, for the
● It does not specify what the purpose of checking all vehicles coming
subversive books and instructions from the Cordillera Region.
are; what the manuals not otherwise ● The order to establish a checkpoint in
available to the public contain to the said area was prompted by
make them subversive or to enable persistent reports that vehicles coming
them to be used for the crime of from Sagada were transporting
rebellion. marijuana and other prohibited
● There is absent a definite guideline to drugs.
the searching team as to what items ● Moreover, information was received by
might be lawfully seized thus giving the Commanding Officer of NARCOM,
the officers of the law discretion that same morning, that a Caucasian
regarding what articles they should coming from Sagada had in his
seize as, in fact, taken also were a possession prohibited drugs.
portable typewriter and 2 wooden boxes ● Sgt. Fider and CIC Galutan boarded
● It is thus in the nature of a general the bus and announced that they
warrant and infringes on the were members of the NARCOM and
constitutional mandate requiring that they would conduct an
particular description of the things to be inspection.
seized. ● During the inspection, CIC Galutan
● In the recent rulings of this Court, noticed a bulge on accused's waist.
search warrants of similar description ● Suspecting the bulge on accused's
were considered null and void for being waist to be a gun, the officer asked for
too general. accused's passport and other
identification papers.
WHEREFORE, while Search Warrant No. 80-84 ● The bulging object turned out to be a
issued on August 6, 1984 by respondent pouch bag and when accused opened
Executive Judge Ernani Cruz Paño is hereby the same bag, as ordered, the officer
annulled and set aside noticed four (4) suspicious-looking
 objects wrapped in brown packing ● The trial court found accused guilty
tape, prompting the officer to open one beyond reasonable doubt for violation of
of the wrapped objects. the Dangerous Drugs Act, specifically
● The wrapped objects turned out to Section 4, Art. II of RA 6425, as
contain hashish, a derivative of amended
marijuana.
● Upon stepping out of the bus, the ISSUE: WON the search was illegally done
officers got the bags and opened them.
A teddy bear was found in each bag. HELD:
● Feeling the teddy bears, the officer ● NO. The search was validly done.
noticed that there were bulges inside ● The Constitution guarantees the right of
the same which did not feel like foam the people to be secure in their persons,
stuffing. houses, papers, and effects against
● It was only after the officers had opened unreasonable searches and seizures.
the bags that accused finally presented ● However, where the search is made
his passport. pursuant to a lawful arrest, there is no
● Accused was then brought to the need to obtain a search warrant.
headquarters of the NARCOM at Camp ● A lawful arrest without a warrant may
Dangwa, La Trinidad, Benguet for be made by a peace officer or a
further investigation. private person under the
● At the investigation room, the officers circumstance laid down in the Rules
opened the teddy bears and they were of Court, Sec. 5. Rule 113.
found to also contain hashish. ● A crime was actually being committed
● l In the chemistry report, it was by the accused and he was caught in
established that the objects examined flagrante delicto.
were hashish. a prohibited drug which is ● Thus, the search made upon his
a derivative of marijuana. personal effects falls squarely under
● Thus, an information was filed against paragraph (1) of the foregoing
accused of violation of the Dangerous provisions of law, which allow a
Drugs Act. warrantless search incident to a lawful
● Accused raised the issue of the arrest.
illegal search of his personal effects. ● To deprive the NARCOM agents of the
● He also claimed that the hashish was ability and facility to act accordingly,
planted by the NARCOM officers in including, to search even without a
his pouch bag and that the two (2) warrant, in the light of such
traveling bags were not owned by circumstances, would be to sanction
him, but were merely entrusted to impotence and ineffectiveness in law
him by an Australian couple whom he enforcement, to the detriment of society.
met in Sagada.
● He further claimed that the Australian WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
couple intended to take the same bus appealed judgment of conviction by the trial
with him but because there were no court is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against the
more seats available in said bus, they accused-appellant.
decided to take the next ride and
asked accused to take charge of the Nolasco v. Cruz Paño (1987)
bags, and that they would meet each FACTS:
other at the Dangwa Station.
● He did not inform the Fiscal or his ● The case at bar is a question on the
lawyer that the hashish was planted by validity of the search warrant and
the NARCOM officers in his bag. arrest of the petitioner charged for
● It was only two (2) months after said the crime of rebellion.
investigation when he told his lawyer ● The CA decision holds the search
about said claim, denying ownership of warrant as null and void but the
the two (2) traveling bags as well as articles seized shall be retained.
having hashish in his pouch bag.
 ● Petitioners contend that a lawful search ● From his position, Belarga could see
would only be justified by a lawful what was going on.
arrest therefore with the court ruling ● Musa came out of the house and asked
that the arrest was illegal the articles Ani what he wanted.
seized should also be returned to ● Ani said he wanted more marijuana
them. and gave Musa the P20.00 marked
● Respondents assert that although the money.
search warrant was null and void the ● Musa went into the house and came
arrest was not. back, giving Ani two newspaper
wrappers containing dried marijuana.
ISSUE: WON the personalities that were seized ● Ani opened and inspected it.
by an illegal search warrant should be returned. ● He raised his right hand as a signal to
the other NARCOM agents, and the
HELD: latter moved in and arrested Musa
● Yes, it should be returned. inside the house.
● The court used the dissenting opinion of ● Belarga frisked Musa in the living room
Justice Teehankee invoking the but did not find the marked money (gave
Constitutional provision from the Bill of it to his wife who slipped away).
Rights that mandates the right of the ● T/Sgt. Belarga and Sgt. Lego went to
people to be secure in their persons, the kitchen and found a ‘cellophane
houses, papers and effects against colored white and stripe hanging at the
unreasonable searches and seizures. corner of the kitchen.’
● Any evidence obtained in violation of ● They asked Musa about its contents but
this Constitutional mandate shall be failed to get a response.
inadmissible for any purpose or ● So they opened it and found dried
proceedings. marijuana leaves inside.
● Musa was then placed under arrest.
SECTION 2 - PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE CASES
ISSUE: WON the seizure of the plastic bag and
People v. Musa the marijuana inside it is unreasonable, hence,
FACTS: inadmissible as evidence.

● Petitioner: People HELD:

● Respondent: Mari Musa y Hantatalu ● YES. It constituted unreasonable search
● A civilian informer gave the and seizure thus it may not be admitted
information that Mari Musa was as evidence.
engaged in selling marijuana in ● The warrantless search and seizure, as
Suterville, Zamboanga City. an incident to a suspect’s lawful arrest,
● Sgt. Ani was ordered by NARCOM may extend beyond the person of the
leader T/Sgt. Belarga, to conduct a one arrested to include the premises
surveillance and test buy on Musa. or surroundings under his immediate
● The civilian informer guided Ani to control.
Musa’s house and gave the description ● Objects in the ‘plain view’ of an officer
of Musa. who has the right to be in the position to
● Ani was able to buy one newspaper- have that view are subject to seizure
wrapped dried marijuana for P10.00. and may be presented as evidence.
● The next day, a buy-bust was planned. ● The ‘plain view’ doctrine is usually
● Ani was to raise his right hand if he applied where a police officer is not
successfully buys marijuana from searching for evidence against the
Musa. accused, but nonetheless
● As Ani proceeded to the house, the inadvertently comes across an
NARCOM team positioned incriminating object.
themselves about 90 to 100 meters ● It will not justify the seizure of the object
away. where the incriminating nature of the
 object is not apparent from the ‘plain Katz, the third guy who joined them
view’ of the object. lately.
● In the case at bar, the plastic bag was ● Later on, a police wagon came after the
not in the ‘plain view’ of the police. store owner called for help and took all
● They arrested the accused in the living three men to the station, where Chilton
room and moved into the kitchen in and Terry were formally charged with
search for other evidences where they carrying concealed weapons.
found the plastic bag. ● Judge Bernard Friedman found the
● Furthermore, the marijuana inside the men guilty and ruled that, given the
plastic bag was not immediately suspicious nature of their behavior
apparent from the ‘plain view’ of said and McFadden’s concern for his
object. safety, the decision to frisk was
● Therefore, the ‘plain view’ does not permissible.
apply.
● The plastic bag was seized illegally ISSUE: WON the search and seizure were
and cannot be presented in evidence validly done in accordance with the 4 th
pursuant to Article III Section 3 (2) of amendment.
the Constitution.
HELD:
SECTION 2 - STOP AND FRISK CASES ● YES. The search is valid.
● Under the Fourth Amendment, it
Terry v. Ohio provides that "the right of the people
FACTS: to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against
● One night, while Officer McFadden was unreasonable searches and seizures,
patrolling on plain clothes, he observed shall not be violated. . . ."
two suspicious looking men who ● The Court held that the search
kept on looking back at the windows undertaken by the officer was
of a store. reasonable under the Fourth
● The police officer suspect that this Amendment because it is the duty of
might be a “casing job or a stick up”. an officer to investigate suspicious
● After 10 to 12 minutes of observing behavior and prevent crime.
them, the police officer finally ● The Court found that the officer acted on
approached the two men and one more than a "hunch" and that "a
man who joined them later. reasonably prudent man would have
● The officer asked for their identifications been warranted in believing [Terry] was
but when one of them mumbled armed and thus presented a threat to
something, police officer McFadden the officer's safety while he was
grabbed herein petitioner Terry, spun investigating his suspicious behavior."
him around so that they were facing the ● Moreover, this case does not provide
other two, with Terry between blanket authority to intrude on an
McFadden and the others, and patted individual’s right to be left alone, nor
down the outside of his clothing. does it allow such intrusion based on a
● The patting was done outside a store police offers inarticulate hunch that a
named Zucker. crime is about to occur or is in progress.
● During the frisking, the officer felt a ● However, it does radically expand
pistol. police authority to investigate crimes
● Therefore, the officer ordered them to where there is a reasonable basis for
go inside the store and to face the wall suspicion.
with their hands raised. ● The Supreme Court affirmed the
● Did and there patted their outside conviction and set a precedent that
clothing for concealed weapons. allows police officers to interrogate
● The officer confiscated 2 guns from and frisk suspicious individuals
Terry and Chilton but no weapons for without probable cause for an arrest,
 providing that the officer can articulate a claimed that he did not know his
reasonable basis for the stop and frisk. companions.

People v. Solayao ISSUE: WON the trial court erred in admitting

FACTS: the subject firearm in evidence as it was the
product of an unlawful warrantless search.
● Petitioner: People
● Respondent: Nilo Solayao HELD:
● SPO3 Niño and his team of CAFGU ● NO. There was no error on the part of
went to Brgy. Caulangohan, Caibiran, the trial court when it admitted the
Biliran to conduct an investigation homemade firearm as evidence nor
regarding reports on the presence of violation of the constitutional
armed men roaming around guarantee against unreasonable
barangays of Caibiran. searches and seizures.
● Upon arriving in Brgy. Onion, the ● The SC ruled that the search and
agents became suspicious to the seizure conducted in this case be
group of Solayao because the likened to the Posadas case where the
accused-appellant himself is drunk suspicious conduct of Posadas himself
and wearing a camouflage uniform or can be likened to a "stop and frisk"
a jungle suit. situation.
● What’s more suspicious is when they ● There was a probable cause to conduct
noticed the team of SPO3 Niño, the a search even before an arrest could be
group fled leaving behind Solayao, made.
herein accused-appellant. ● In the present case, after SPO3 Nino
● According to Solayao, he’s not aware told accused-appellant not to run away,
that he is carrying a “latong” (49-inch the former identified himself as a
firearm) wrapped in dried coconut government agent.
leaves. ● The peace officers did not know that he
● He thought that it’s only a torch which had committed, or was actually
Hermogenes Cenining gave to him committing, the offense of illegal
and that he is not aware that there’s a possession of firearm.
concealed weapon inside. ● Tasked with verifying the report that
● He further claimed that this was the third there were armed men roaming around
torch handed to him after the others had in the barangays surrounding Caibiran,
been used up. their attention was understandably
● Accused-appellant Nilo Solayao was drawn to the group that had aroused
charged before the RTC of Biliran, their suspicion.
with the crime of illegal possession ● They could not have known that the
of firearm and ammunition defined object wrapped in coconut leaves which
and penalized under PD No. 1866. accused-appellant was carrying hid a
● The lower court found that accused- firearm.
appellant did not contest the fact that ● As with Posadas, the case at bar
SPO3 Nino confiscated the firearm from constitutes an instance where a
him and that he had no permit or search and seizure may be effected
license to possess the same. without first making an arrest. There
● It hardly found credible accused- was justifiable cause to "stop and
appellant's submission that he was in frisk" accused-appellant when his
possession of the firearm only by companions fled upon seeing the
accident and that upon reaching government agents.
Barangay Onion, he followed four ● Under the circumstances, the
persons, namely, Hermogenes government agents could not possibly
Cenining, Antonio Sevillano, Willie Regir have procured a search warrant first.
and Jovenito Jaro when he earlier ● However, the prosecution failed to
produce evidence that the accused-
 appellant has no license to carry the ● Upon searching petitioner, Yu found
firearm by merely relying on the lone a fragmentation grenade tucked
witness’ (SPO3 Nio) testimony that inside petitioners front waistline.
accused-appellant admitted to them ● Yu’s companion, police officer Rogelio
during the time he was apprehended Malibiran, apprehended Abdul Casan
that he has no license to carry such from whom a .38 caliber revolver was
weapon. recovered.
● The prosecution should have ● Petitioner and Casan were then brought
presented a certification from the to Police Station No. 3 where Yu placed
Firearms and Explosives Unit of the an X mark at the bottom of the grenade
Philippine National Police that and thereafter gave it to his commander.
accused-appellant was not a licensee of ● On cross-examination, Yu declared
a firearm of any kind or caliber would that:
have sufficed for the prosecution to ○ they conducted the foot patrol
prove beyond reasonable doubt the due to a report that a group of
second element of the crime of illegal Muslims was going to explode a
possession of firearm. grenade somewhere in the
vicinity of Plaza Miranda.
WHEREFORE, the assailed judgment of the ○ Yu recognized petitioner as
court a quo is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. the previous Saturday, 25
Accused-appellant Nilo Solayao is hereby August 1990, likewise, at Plaza
ACQUITTED for insufficiency of evidence and Miranda, Yu saw petitioner and
ordered immediately released unless there are 2 others attempt to detonate a
other legal grounds for his continued detention, grenade.
with cost de oficio. ○ The attempt was aborted when
Yu and other policemen chased
Malacat v. Court of Appeals petitioner and his companions;
FACTS: however, the former was unable
to catch any of the latter.
● Petitioner: Sammy Malacat y Mandar ○ Yu did not issue any receipt for
● Respondent: Court of Appeals the grenade he allegedly
● Police officer Rodolfu Yu, in response recovered from petitioner.
to bomb threats reported seven days ○ Also, officer Serapio, took
earlier, was on foot patrol with three petitioner’s confession
other police officers (all of them in without a counsel during the
uniform) along Quezon Boulevard, inquest.
Quiapo, Manila, near the Mercury Drug ● Petitioner as the lone witness denied all
store at Plaza Miranda. the allegations against him and asserted
● They chanced upon two groups of that he was just strolling in Plaza
Muslim-looking men, with each group, Miranda to catch a breath of fresh air
comprised of three to four men, posted and that he was surprisingly
on opposite sides of the corner of apprehended by the police with the
Quezon Boulevard near the Mercury allegation that he shoots him and he
Drug Store. saw the grenade only in court when it
● These men were acting suspiciously was presented.
with their eyes moving very fast. ● The RTC emphasized that Yu and his
● Yu and his companions positioned companions were confronted with an
themselves at strategic points and emergency, in which the delay
observed both groups for about thirty necessary to obtain a warrant, threatens
minutes. the destruction of evidence and the
● The police officers then approached one officers had to act in haste, as petitioner
group of men, who then fled in different and his companions were acting
directions. suspiciously, considering the time, place
● As the policemen gave chase, Yu and reported cases of bombing.
caught up with and apprehended ● Further, petitioners group suddenly ran
petitioner. away in different directions as they saw
 the arresting officers approach, thus it is necessitating a brief discussion on the
reasonable for an officer to conduct a nature of these exceptions to the
limited search, the purpose of which is warrant requirement.
not necessarily to discover evidence of ● Here, there could have been no valid
a crime but to allow the officer to pursue in flagrante delicto or hot pursuit
his investigation without fear of violence. arrest preceding the search in light of
● The trial court then ruled that the the lack of personal knowledge on
seizure of the grenade from petitioner the part of Yu, the arresting officer, or
was incidental to a lawful arrest, and an overt physical act, on the part of
since petitioner later voluntarily admitted petitioner, indicating that a crime had
such fact to the police investigator for just been committed, was being
the purpose of bombing the Mercury committed or was going to be
Drug Store, concluded that sufficient committed.
evidence existed to establish petitioners ● Having thus shown the invalidity of the
guilt beyond reasonable doubt. warrantless arrest in this case, plainly,
the search conducted on petitioner could
ISSUE: WON the warrantless arrest was valid not have been one incidental to a lawful
arrest.
HELD: ● In the case at bar, at least three (3)
● NO. The warrantless arrest is illegal. reasons why the stop-and-frisk was
● According to the SC, the prosecution invalid:
failed to establish petitioners guilt ○ First, we harbor grave doubts
with moral certainty. as to Yus claim that petitioner
● The general rule as regards arrests, was a member of the group
searches and seizures are that a which attempted to bomb Plaza
warrant is needed in order to validly Miranda two days earlier. This
effect the same. claim is neither supported by
● As regards valid warrantless arrests, any police report or record nor
these are found in Section 5, Rule 113 corroborated by any other police
of the Rules of Court, which reads, in officer who allegedly chased
part: that group.
○ A warrantless arrest under the ○ Second, there was nothing in
circumstances contemplated petitioners behavior or conduct
under Section 5(a) has been which could have reasonably
denominated as one "in elicited even mere suspicion
flagrante delicto," while that other than that his eyes were
under Section 5(b) has been moving very fast an observation
described as a "hot pursuit" which leaves us incredulous
arrest. since Yu and his teammates
● Turning to valid warrantless were nowhere near petitioner
searches, they are limited to the and it was already 6:30 p.m.,
following: thus presumably dusk.
○ (1) customs searches; Petitioner and his companions
○ (2) the search of moving were merely standing at the
vehicles; corner and were not creating
○ (3) seizure of evidence in any commotion or trouble.
plain view; ○ Third, there was at all no
○ (4) consent searches; ground, probable or otherwise,
○ (5) a search incidental to a to believe that petitioner was
lawful arrest; and armed with a deadly weapon.
○ (6) a "stop and frisk." None was visible to Yu, for as
● In the instant petition, the trial court he admitted, the alleged
validated the warrantless search as a grenade was discovered inside
stop and frisk with the seizure of the the front waistline of the
grenade from the accused as an petitioner, and from all
appropriate incident to his arrest, hence
 indications as to the distance of Manila a petition “for mandamus
between Yu and petitioner, any with restraining order.
telltale bulge, assuming that ● That the goods were seized by
petitioner was indeed hiding a members of the Manila Police
grenade, could not have been Department without search warrant
visible to Yu. issued by a competent court;
● Respondent Judge Hilarion Jarencio
Hence, petitioner is acquitted of the crime under issued an order ex parte restraining the
Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1866 (IPF) petitioners from opening the nine
bales in question, and at the same
SECTION 2 - SEARCH OF MOVING time set the hearing of the petition for
VEHICLES preliminary injunction on November
16, 1966.
Papa v. Mago ● However, when the restraining order
FACTS: was received by herein petitioners,
some bales had already been opened
● Petitioner: Hon. Ricardo Papa (Chief of by the examiners of the Bureau of
Police of Manila) Customs in the presence of officials of
● Respondent: Remedios Mago the Manila Police Department, an
● Petitioner Martin Alagao, head of the assistant city fiscal and a representative
counter-intelligence unit of the Manila of herein respondent Remedios Mago.
Police Department, acting upon a
reliable information received on ISSUE: Whether a warrant issued by a
November 3, 1966 to the effect that a competent court is required to search and seize
certain shipment of personal effects, a moving cargo or vehicle
allegedly misdeclared and
undervalued, would be released the HELD:
following day from the customs zone ● NO, The Tariff and Customs Code
of the port of Manila and loaded on does not require said warrant in the
two trucks, instant case.
● Upon orders of petitioner Ricardo ● The Code authorizes persons having
Papa, Chief of Police of Manila and a police authority under Section 2203
duly deputized agent of the Bureau of of the Tariff and Customs Code to
Customs, conducted surveillance at enter, pass through or search any land,
gate No. 1 of the customs zone. enclosure, warehouse, store or building,
● When the trucks left gate No. 1 at about not being a dwelling house; and also to
4:30 in the afternoon of November 4, inspect, search and examine any vessel
1966, elements of the counter- or aircraft and any trunk, package, or
intelligence unit went after the trucks envelope or any person on board, or to
and intercepted them at the Agrifina stop and search and examine any
Circle, Ermita, Manila. vehicle, beast or person suspected of
● The load of the two trucks consisting of holding or conveying any dutiable or
nine bales of goods, and the two prohibited article introduced into the
trucks, were seized on instructions of Philippines contrary to law, without
the Chief of Police. mentioning the need of a search warrant
● Upon investigation, a person claimed in said cases.
ownership of the goods and showed to ● But in the search of a dwelling house,
the policemen a “Statement and the Code provides that said “dwelling
Receipts of Duties Collected in house may be entered and searched
Informal Entry No. 147-5501”, issued only upon warrant issued by a judge
by the Bureau of Customs in the name or justice of the peace.
of a certain Bienvenido Naguit. ● The court view, therefor, that except in
● Claiming to have been prejudiced by the the case of the search of a dwelling
seizure and detention of the two trucks house, persons exercising police
and their cargo, Private Respondents authority under the customs law may
filed with the Court of First Instance effect search and seizure without a
 search warrant in the enforcement of ● Respondent: Bernardo Tuazon Y
customs laws. Nicolas
● The court defined the difference made ● March 7, 1999, in Antipolo City,
as to the necessity for a search warrant Bernardo Tuazon have in his
between goods subject to forfeiture, possession seven (7) heat-sealed
when concealed in a dwelling house of transparent plastic bags of
similar place, and like goods in course methylamphetamine hydrochloride
of transportation and concealed in a also known as shabu for a total weight
movable vessel, where readily they of 250.74 grams..
could be put out of reach of a search ● The prosecutions version of the case
warrant. relied heavily on the testimony of PO3
● In the instant case, we note that Glenon Bueno.
petitioner Martin Alagao and his ● In the Joint Affidavit executed by PO3
companion policemen did not have to Bueno and PO1 Padlan, it was stated
make any search before they seized that when they frisked appellant, they
the two trucks and their cargo. discovered 2 big plastic bags and 5
● In their original petition, and amended medium size plastics and a 9 mm.
petition, in the court below Remedios pistol marked Parabellum bearing
Mago and Valentin Lanopa did not even serial number C-9890 with one loaded
allege that there was a search. magazine with eleven ammunition.
● But even if there was a search, there ● The trial court found the evidence
is still authority to the effect that no presented by the prosecution
search warrant would be needed sufficient to support a guilty verdict
under the circumstances obtaining in and imposed upon appellant the penalty
the instant case. of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine
● The guaranty of freedom from of P500,000.00.
unreasonable searches and seizures ● On September 17, 2003, the Court
is construed as recognizing a resolved to accept the appeal interposed
necessary difference between a by appellant and required the parties to
search of a dwelling house or other file their respective briefs.
structure in respect of which a search ● In addition to the required brief,
warrant may readily be obtained and a appellant filed a supplementary
search of a ship, motorboat, wagon, or pleading in which he questioned the
automobile for contraband goods, where validity of his arrest and the
it is not practicable to secure a warrant admissibility of the evidence
because the vehicle can be quickly presented against him.
moved out of the locality or jurisdiction ● He contends that at the time of his
in which the warrant must be sought. warrantless arrest, he was merely
driving within Marville Subdivision.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, as ● He had not committed, was not
follows: committing, and was not about to
commit any crime which could have
Declaring null and void, for having been issued justified his apprehension.
without jurisdiction, the order of respondent ● Appellant claims that as the confidential
Judge Hilarion U. Jarencio, dated March 7, informant had been cooperating with the
1967, in Civil Code No. 67496 of the Court of police for three weeks prior to his arrest,
First Instance of Manila; the authorities were already informed of
his identity and his alleged illegal
Ordering the private respondent, Remedios activities.
Mago, to pay the costs. ● They should have conducted a prior
surveillance and then sought a search
People vs Tuazon warrant from the court.
FACTS: ● Absent said warrant, the shabu seized
from him should be excluded from
● Petitioner: People evidence.
ISSUES: to be determined personally
1. Was the search of Tuazon’s vehicle by the judge after
valid? examination under oath or
2. Are the shabu sachets found from affirmation of the complainant
Tuazon’s car admissible in evidence? and the witnesses he may
produce, and particularly
HELD: describing the place to be
● FIRST ISSUE: Yes. The court held searched and the persons or
that the police had probable cause to things to be seized.
effect the warrantless search of the ● It is recognized, however, that these
Gemini car driven by appellant. constitutional provisions against
● A confidential informer tipped them off warrantless searches and seizures
that said car was going to deliver shabu admit of certain exceptions, as follows:
at Marville Subdivision. ○ (1) warrantless search incidental
● Pursuing said lead, the Antipolo City to a lawful arrest recognized
police sent a team to Marville under Section 12, Rule 126 of
Subdivision to monitor said vehicle. the Rules of Court and by
● The information provided by the prevailing jurisprudence;
informer turned out to be correct as, ○ (2) seizure of evidence in plain
indeed, the Gemini car was spotted in view;
the place where it was said to be ○ (3) search of a moving vehicle;
bringing shabu. ○ (4) consented warrantless
● When they stopped the car, they saw a search;
gun tucked in appellant’s waist. ○ (5) customs search;
● Appellant did not have any document ○ (6) stop and frisk; and
to support his possession of said
○ (7) exigent and emergency
firearm which all the more
circumstances.
strengthened the police officers’
● Thus, the sachets of marijuana found
suspicion.
on Tuazon’s car were obtained
● After he was told to step out of the car,
lawfully, making it admissible in
they found on the driver’s seat plastic
evidence.
sachets containing white powdery
substance.
● These circumstances, taken together,
are sufficient to establish probable SECTION 2 - EMERGENCY
cause for the warrantless search of the CIRCUMSTANCES
Gemini car.
● SECOND ISSUE: Yes, our People v. De Gracia
Constitution recognizes the right of FACTS:
the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers and effects ● Petitioner: People
against unreasonable searches and ● Respondent: Rolando De Gracia
seizures. ● Reform the Armed Forces Movement-
● This right is encapsulated in Article III, Soldiers of the Filipino People (RAM-
Section 2 of the Constitution which SFP) staged coup d’état in December
states: 1989 against the Government.
○ SEC. 2. The right of the ● Efren Soria of Intelligence Division,
people to be secure in their NCR Defense Command, together with
persons, houses, papers, and his team, conducted a surveillance of
effects against unreasonable the Eurocar Sales Office in EDSA, QC
searches and seizures of on early morning of December 1,
whatever nature and for any 1989, which surveillance actually started
purpose shall be inviolable, November 30, 1989 at around 10:00
and no search warrant or PM.
warrant of arrest shall issue ● Such surveillance was conducted
except upon probable cause pursuant to an intelligence report that
 the said establishment was being ● Prior to the raid, there was a
occupied by the elements of the surveillance conducted on the
RAM-SFP as communication premises wherein the surveillance
command post. team was fired at by a group of men
● Near the Eurocar office, there were coming from the Eurocar building.
crowd watching the on-going ● When the military operatives raided the
bombardment near Camp Aguinaldo place, the occupants thereof refused to
when a group of 5 men disengaged open the door despite requests for them
themselves and walked towards their to do so, thereby compelling the former
surveillance car. to break into the office
● Maj. Soria ordered the driver to start the ● The Eurocar Sales Office is obviously
car and leave the area. not a gun store and it is definitely not
● However, as they passed the area, then an armory or arsenal which are the
5 men drew their guns and fired at them, usual depositories for explosives and
which resulted to the wounding of the ammunition.
driver. ● It is primarily and solely engaged in the
● Nobody in the surveillance team sale of automobiles.
retaliated for they were afraid that ● The presence of an unusual quantity of
civilians might be caught in the crossfire. high-powered firearms and explosives
● Thereafter, on the morning of could not be justifiably or even colorably
December 5, 1989, a search team explained.
raided the Eurocar Sales Office and ● In addition, there was general chaos
confiscated 6 cartons of M-16 and disorder at that time because of
ammunition, 5 bundles of C-4 simultaneous and intense firing
dynamites, M-shells of different within the vicinity of the office and in
calibers, and molotov. the nearby Camp Aguinaldo which
● Obenia, who first entered the was under attack by rebel forces.
establishment, found De Gracia in the ● The courts in the surrounding areas
office of a certain Col. Matillano, holding were obviously closed and, for that
a C-4 and suspiciously peeping though matter, the building and houses therein
door. were deserted.
● No search warrant was secured by ● SC considered that the instant case falls
the raiding team because, according under one of the exceptions to the
to them, there was so much disorder prohibition against a warrantless search.
considering that the nearby Camp ● In the first place, the military operatives,
Aguinaldo was being mopped up by taking into account the facts obtaining in
the rebel forces and there was this case, had reasonable ground to
simultaneous firing within the vicinity believe that a crime was being
of the Eurocar office, aside from the committed.
fact that the courts were ● There was consequently more than
consequently closed. sufficient probable cause to warrant their
action.
ISSUE: Whether there was a valid search and ● Furthermore, in the prevailing situation,
seizure in this case. the raiding team had no opportunity to
apply for and secure a search warrant
HELD: from the courts.
● YES, there was a valid search and ● The trial judge himself manifested
seizure in this case that on December 5, 1989 when the
● It is admitted that the raiding team was raid was conducted, his court was
not armed with a search warrant at that closed.
time. ● Under such urgency and exigency of
● It was actually precipitated by the moment, a search warrant could
intelligence reports that said office was lawfully be dispensed with
being used as headquarters by the
RAM. SECTION 2 - CHECKPOINTS
Valmonte v. De Villa ● In this connection, the Court may take
FACTS: judicial notice of the shift to urban
centers and their suburbs of the
● Petitioner Valmonte and ULAP insurgency movement, so clearly
Assocation filed for prohibition with reflected in the increased killings in
preliminary injunction and/or temporary cities of police and military men by NPA
restraining order, seeking the "sparrow units”
declaration of checkpoints in ● True, the manning of checkpoints by the
Valenzuela, Metro Manila or elsewhere, military is susceptible of abuse by the
as unconstitutional and the dismantling men in uniform, in the same manner,
and banning of the same or, in the that all governmental power is
alternative, to direct the respondents to susceptible to abuse.
formulate guidelines in the ● But, at the cost of occasional
implementation of checkpoints, for the inconvenience, discomfort and even
protection of the people. irritation to the citizen, the checkpoints
● According to Petitioners, they filed the during these abnormal times, when
petition because they were subjected conducted within reasonable limits,
to searches and seizures without the are part of the price we pay for an
benefit of a warrant. orderly society and a peaceful
● The petitioners averred that there’s a community.
recent incident happened, where a ● Furthermore, the Court stressed that
certain Benjamin Parpoon, was the constitutional right against
allegedly killed in cold blood by the unreasonable searches and seizures
members of the NCRDC manning the is a personal right invocable only by
checkpoint along McArthur Highway those whose rights have been
at Malinta, Valenzuela, for ignoring infringed, or threatened to be
and/or refusing to submit himself to the infringed.
checkpoint and for continuing to speed ● Petitioner Valmonte's general allegation
off inspire of warning shots fired in the to the effect that he had been stopped
air. and searched without a search warrant
by the military manning the checkpoints,
ISSUE: WON the installations of the checkpoints without more, i.e., without stating the
violated their constitutional right against illegal details of the incidents which amount to
search and seizures. a violation of his right against unlawful
search and seizure, is not sufficient to
HELD: enable the Court to determine
● NO. Not all searches and seizures are whether there was a violation of
prohibited. Valmonte's right against unlawful
● Those which are reasonable are not search and seizure.
forbidden.
● A reasonable search is not to be Hence, petition dismissed.
determined by any fixed formula but
is to be resolved according to the Aniag v. Comelec, 237 SCRA 424 (1994)
facts of each case. FACTS:
● In the case at bar, the setting up of the
questioned checkpoints in Valenzuela ● In preparation for the synchronized
(and probably in other areas) may be national and local elections, the
considered as a security measure to COMELEC issued Resolution No.
enable the NCRDC to pursue its mission 2323, “Gun Ban”, promulgating rules
of establishing an effective territorial and regulations on bearing, carrying and
defense and maintaining peace and transporting of firearm or other deadly
order for the benefit of the public. weapons on security personnel or
● Checkpoints may also be regarded as bodyguards, on bearing arms by
measures to thwart plots to destabilize members of security agencies or police
the government, in the interest of public organizations, and organization or
security.
 maintenance of reaction forces during firearms issued to him on the basis of the
the election period. evidence gathered from the warrant less search
● COMELEC also issued Resolution No. of his car
2327 providing for the summary
disqualification of candidates engaged HELD:
in gunrunning, using and transporting of
firearms, organizing special strike ● NO. It was an invalid warrantless
forces, and establishing spot search conducted by the PNP.
checkpoints. ● A valid search must be authorized by a
● Pursuant to the “Gun Ban”, Mr. Serrapio search warrant issued by an appropriate
Taccad, Sergeant at Arms of the House authority.
of Representatives, wrote petitioner for ● However, a warrantless search is not
the return of the two firearms issued to violative of the Constitution for as
him by the House of Representatives. long as the vehicle is neither
● Petitioner then instructed his driver, searched nor its occupants subjected
Arellano, to pick up the firearms from to a body search, and the inspection
petitioner’s house and return them to of the vehicle is merely limited to a
Congress. visual search.
● The PNP set up a checkpoint. ● In the case at bar, the guns were not
● When the car driven by Arellano tucked in Arellano’s waist nor placed
approached the checkpoint, the PNP within his reach, as they were neatly
searched the car and found the packed in gun cases and placed
firearms. inside a bag at the back of the car.
● Arellano was apprehended and ● Given these circumstances, the PNP
detained. He then explained the order of could not have thoroughly searched
petitioner. the car lawfully as well as the
● Petitioner also explained that Arellano package without violating the
was only complying with the firearms constitutional injunction.
ban, and that he was not a security ● Absent any justifying circumstance
officer or a bodyguard. specifically pointing to the culpability of
● Later, COMELEC issued Resolution petitioner and Arellano, the search could
No.92-0829 directing the filing of not have been valid.
information against petitioner and ● Consequently, the firearms obtained
Arellano for violation of the Omnibus from the warrantless search cannot be
Election Code, and for petitioner to admitted for any purpose in any
show cause why he should not be proceeding.
disqualified from running for an elective ● It was also shown in the facts that the
position. PNP had not informed the public of the
● Petitioner then questions the purpose of setting up the checkpoint.
constitutionality of Resolution No. 2327. ● Petitioner was also not among those
● He argues that “gunrunning, using or charged by the PNP with violation of the
transporting firearms or similar Omnibus Election Code.
weapons” and other acts mentioned in ● He was not informed by the City
the resolution are not within the Prosecutor that he was a respondent in
provisions of the Omnibus Election the preliminary investigation.
Code. ● Such constituted a violation of his right
● Thus, according to petitioner, to due process.
Resolution No. 2327 is ● Hence, it cannot be contended that
unconstitutional. The issue on the petitioner was fully given the opportunity
disqualification of petitioner from running to meet the accusation against him as
in the elections was rendered moot he was not informed that he was himself
when he lost his bid for a seat in a respondent in the case.
Congress in the elections. ● Thus, the warrantless search
conducted by the PNP is declared
ISSUE: Whether or Not petitioner can be validly illegal and the firearms seized during
prosecuted for instructing his driver to return the the search cannot be used as
 evidence in any proceeding against the illegal trade of drugs within the area of
petitioner. Zamora and Pandacan Streets, Manila.
● Resolution No. 92-0829 is ● The police officer saw petitioner handing
unconstitutional, and therefore, set over something to an alleged buyer.
aside. ● After the buyer left, they searched him
and discovered two pieces of cellophane
SECTION 2 - WARRANTLESS ARRESTS of marijuana. His arrest was, therefore,
lawful and the two cellophane bags of
Espano v. Court of Appeals marijuana seized were admissible in
FACTS: evidence, being the fruits of the crime.
● As for the ten cellophane bags of
● The accused was caught in flagrante marijuana found at petitioners
by herein police officers selling residence, however, the same are
Marijuana near Zamora and Pandacan inadmissible in evidence.
Streets, where they are conducting an ● The 1987 Constitution guarantees
investigation in the area reported being freedom against unreasonable
rampant of drug pushing. searches and seizures under Article
● The agents frisked the accused after III, Section 2 which provides:
he completed his transaction to a ○ The right of the people to be
buyer and there found with him 2 tea secure in their persons, houses,
bags of Marijuana. papers, and effects against
● Accused was asked by the police unreasonable searches and
officers whether he has some more of seizures of whatever nature and
the marijuana and told them he got for any purpose shall be
more at his house. inviolable,
● They went to the accused house and ○ And no search warrant or
found 10 more teabags of Marijuana. warrant of arrest shall issue
● During the trial, accused denied all the except upon probable cause to
allegations against him and made an be determined personally by the
alibi that he was in his house judge after examination under
sleeping when the police officer went oath or affirmation of the
to his house looking for his brother in complainant and the witnesses
law and instead handcuffed him to he may produce
take his part for allegedly having in ○ And particularly describing the
his possession 10 teabags of place to be searched and the
Marijuana. persons or things to be seized.
● The trial court did not believe his alibi ● An exception to the said rule is a
and found him guilty of violation of warrantless search incidental to a
Article II, Section 8 of Republic Act lawful arrest for dangerous weapons
No. 6425, as amended, otherwise or anything which may be used as
known as the Dangerous Drugs Act. proof of the commission of an
● Accused appealed and said that the offense.
arrest was illegally done and the search ● It may extend beyond the person of the
of his house is deemed a violation of his one arrested to include the premises or
constitutional right. surroundings under his immediate
control.
ISSUE: WON the warrantless arrest is valid. ● In this case, the ten cellophane bags of
marijuana seized at petitioners house
HELD: after his arrest at Pandacan and Zamora
● YES. Petitioner’s arrest falls squarely Streets do not fall under the said
under the aforecited rule Rule 113 exceptions.
Section 5(a) of the Rules of Court
● He was caught in flagranti as a result of WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby
a buy-bust operation conducted by DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals in
police officers on the basis of C.A.-G.R. CR No. 13976 dated January 16,
information received regarding the 1995 is AFFIRMED
 testimony of the poseur-buyer, there is
People vs. Del Rosario no convincing evidence to show that
FACTS: appellant sold marijuana.
● The testimonies of the rest of the
● Normando del Rosario was charged buy-bust operation are hearsay in
before Branch 17 of the Regional Trial view of the fact that the poseur-
Court of the Fourth Judicial Region buyer, was never presented at the
stationed in Cavite City with Illegal trial.
Possession of Firearm and ● There was even no testimony that when
Ammunitions in Criminal Case No. the accused-appellant handed the stuff
236-91 and Illegal Sale of Regulated to the poseur-buyer that the latter in turn
Drugs particularly methamphetamine handed the marked money.
or shabu. ● The failure of the prosecution to present
● Upon arraignment, accused-appellant the alleged buyer of the marijuana was a
pleaded not guilty to both charges, fatal flaw in the case against the
and after joint trial of the two cases, accused.
the court a quo rendered a decision,
the dispositive portion of which ISSUE: Whether or Not the seizure of the
reads: firearms was proper.
○ WHEREFORE, in view of the
foregoing, the Court finds the HELD:
accused Normando del Rosario ● No. Neither can accused-appellant be
y Lopez convicted of illegal possession of
○ Guilty beyond reasonable doubt firearm and ammunition.
in the above-entitled cases and ● The search warrant implemented by
he is hereby sentenced to the raiding party authorized only the
undergo imprisonment: in Crim. search and seizure of ". . . the
Case No. 236-91 for Violation of described quantity of
P.D. 1866 of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride
○ Seventeen (17) years, Four (4) commonly known as shabu and its
months and One (1) day of paraphernalia
reclusion temporal, as minimum ● Thus, the raiding party was authorized
to Twenty (20) years of to seize only shabu and paraphernalia
reclusion temporal, as maximum for the use thereof and no other.
and in Crim. Case No. 237-91 ● A search warrant is not a sweeping
for a violation of Section 15, authority empowering a raiding party to
Article III of Republic Act 6425, undertake a finishing expedition to seize
as amended of life and confiscate any and all kinds of
imprisonment and to pay a fine evidence or articles relating to a crime.
of P30,000.00, without ● The Constitution itself (Section 2,
subsidiary imprisonment in case Article III) and the Rules of Court
of insolvency and to pay the (Section 3, Rule 126) specifically
costs in both cases. The shabu, mandate that the search warrant
the One Hundred Peso bill and must particularly describe the things
other paraphernalia are hereby to be seized.
ordered confiscated in favor of ● Thus, the search warrant was no
the government. authority for the police officers to seize
● The prosecution's version of the case: the firearm which was not mentioned,
The trial court gave much weight to the much less described with particularity, in
testimonies of the police members of the the search warrant.
buy-bust operation. ● Neither may it be maintained that the
● However, the prosecution did not gun was seized in the course of an
present as witness the supposed arrest, for as earlier observed, accused-
poseur-buyer. appellant's arrest was far from regular
● Such omission casts serious doubt on and legal. Said firearm, having been
appellant's guilt because without the illegally seized, the same is not
 admissible in evidence (Stonehill vs. Court of Caloocan City an information
Diokno, 20 SCRA 383 [1967]). charging Rolando Dural alias Ronnie
● The Constitution expressly ordains the Javelon with the crime of “Double
exclusion in evidence of illegally seized Murder with Assault Upon Agents of
articles. Persons in Authority.”
● Any evidence obtained in violation of  The case was docketed therein as
this or the preceding section shall be Criminal Case No. C-30112 and no bail
inadmissible for any purpose in any was recommended.
proceeding.  15 February 1988: the information was
● (Section 3[2], Article III, Constitution of amended to include, as defendant,
the Republic of the Philippines). With Bernardo Itucal, Jr. who, at the filing of
the exclusion in evidence of the illegally the original information, was still
seized firearm, there is, therefore, a total unidentified.
absence of evidence to support the  As to Rolando Dural, it clearly appears
charge of illegal possession of firearm, that he was not arrested while in the
against accused-appellant. act of shooting the two (2) CAPCOM
soldiers aforementioned.
Umil vs Ramos  Nor was he arrested just after the
FACTS: commission of the said offense for his
arrest came a day after the said
 Petitioner: Roberto Umil shooting incident.
 Respondent: Fidel Ramos  Seemingly, his arrest without warrant
 1 February 1988: the Regional is unjustified.
Intelligence Operations Unit of the  However, Rolando Dural was arrested
Capital Command (RIOU-CAPCOM) for being a member of the New
received confidential information about a Peoples Army (NPA), an outlawed
member of the NPA Sparrow Unit subversive organization.
(liquidation squad) being treated for a  Subversion being a continuing offense,
gunshot wound at the St. Agnes the arrest of Rolando Dural without
Hospital in Roosevelt Avenue, warrant is justified as it can be said
Quezon City. that he was committing an offense
 It was found that the wounded when arrested.
person, who was listed in the  The crimes of rebellion, subversion,
hospital records as Ronnie Javelon, conspiracy or proposal to commit such
is actually Rolando Dural, a member crimes, and crimes or offenses
of the NPA liquidation squad committed in furtherance thereof or in
 He was responsible for the killing of connection therewith constitute direct
two (2) CAPCOM soldiers the day assaults against the State and are in
before, or on 31 January 1988, in the nature of continuing crimes.
Macanining Street, Bagong Barrio,
Caloocan City. ISSUE: Whether an arrest and search warrant is
 Rolando Dural was transferred to the required for the crimes of rebellion, subversion,
Regional Medical Services of the conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes,
CAPCOM, for security reasons. and crimes or offenses committed in furtherance
 4 February 1988: Rolando Dural was thereof or in connection therewith constitute
positively identified by eyewitnesses direct assaults against the State.
as the gunman who went on top of the
hood of the CAPCOM mobile patrol HELD:
car, and fired at the two (2) CAPCOM
soldiers seated inside the car.  NO. The claim of the petitioners that
 As a consequence of this positive they were initially arrested illegally is,
identification, Rolando Dural was therefore, without basis in law and in
referred to the Caloocan City Fiscal fact.
who conducted an inquest and  The crimes of insurrection or rebellion,
thereafter filed with the Regional Trial subversion, conspiracy or proposal to
 commit such crimes, and other crimes WHEREFORE, the petitions are hereby
and offenses committed in the DISMISSED, except that in
furtherance, on the occasion thereof, or G.R.  No. 85727 (Espiritu vs. Lim), the bail bond
incident thereto, or in connection for petitioner's provisional liberty is hereby
therewith under Presidential ordered reduced from P60,000.00 to
Proclamation No. 2045, are all in the P10,000.00. No costs.
nature of continuing offenses which
set them apart from the common Webb vs De Leon
offenses, aside from their essentially FACTS:
involving a massive conspiracy of
nationwide magnitude.  Petitioner: Hubert Webb
 Clearly then, the arrest of the herein  Respondent: Hon. Raul De Leon
detainees was well within the bounds  June 19, 1994: the National Bureau of
of the law and existing jurisprudence Investigation filed with the DOJ a
in our jurisdiction. letter-complaint charging petitioners
 The arrest of persons involved in the Hubert Webb, Michael Gatchalian,
rebellion whether as its fighting armed Antonio J. Lejano and 6 other persons
elements, or for committing non-violent with the crime of Rape and Homicide
acts but in furtherance of the rebellion, of Carmela N. Vizconde, her mother
is more an act of capturing them in Estrellita Nicolas-Vizconde, and her
the course of an armed conflict, to sister Anne Marie Jennifer in their
quell the rebellion, than for the home at Number 80 W. Vinzons, St., BF
purpose of immediately prosecuting Homes, Paranaque, Metro Manila on
them in court for a statutory offense. June 30, 1991.
 The arrest, therefore, need not follow  The DOJ formed a panel of prosecutors
the usual procedure in the headed by Asst Chief State
prosecution of offenses. Prosecutor Jovencio R. Zuno to
 The arrest or capture is thus impelled conduct the preliminary
by the exigencies of the situation that investigation.  
involves the very survival of society  During the preliminary investigation, the
and its government and duly NBI presented the following:
constituted authorities. o (1) the sworn statement dated
 In this case, whatever may be said May 22, 1995 of their principal
about the manner of his arrest, the fact witness, Maria Jessica M.
remains that the defendant was Alfaro who allegedly saw the
actually in court in the custody of the commission of the crime;
law on March 29, when a complaint o (2) the sworn statements of
sufficient in form and substance was
two of the former housemaids
read to him.
of the Webb family in the
 To this he pleaded not guilty.
persons of Nerissa E. Rosales
 The trial followed, in which, and in the
and Mila S. Gaviola;
judgment of guilty pronounced by the
o (3) the sworn-statement of
court, we find no error.
Carlos J. Cristobal who
 Whether, if there were irregularities in
alleged that on March 9, 1991
bringing him personally before the court,
he was a passenger of United
he could have been released on a writ
Airlines Flight No. 808 bound
of habeas corpus or now has a civil
for New York and who
action for damages against the person
expressed doubt on whether
who arrested him we need not inquire.
petitioner Webb was his co-
 It is enough to say that such
passenger in the trip;
irregularities are not sufficient to set
o (4)  the sworn statement of
aside a valid judgment rendered
upon a sufficient complaint and after Lolita Birrer, a former live-in
a trial free from error. partner of Gerardo Biong, who
narrated the manner of how
 Biong investigated and tried to  Judge Raul de Leon (J.Escano’s pairing
cover up the crime at bar; judge) issued the warrants of arrest
o (5) the sworn statements of against the petitioners.
Belen Dometita and Teofilo  Judge Amelita Tolentino who issued
Minoza, two of the Vizconde new warrants of arrest against the
maids, and the sworn petitioners and their co-accused
statements of Normal White, a because Judge Escano inhibited himself
security guard and Manciano to the case.
Gatmaitan, an engineer. The  Webb, Lejano and Gatchalian
autopsy reports of the victims voluntary surrendered to the police
were also submitted and they authorities.
showed that Carmela had nine  Petitioners fault the DOJ Panel for its
(9) stab wounds, Estrellita finding of probable cause.
twelve (12) and Jennifer  They insist that the May 22, 1995 sworn
nineteen (19). The genital statement of Jessica Alfaro is
examination of Carmela inherently weak and uncorroborated.
confirmed the presence of  They assail her credibility for her
spermatozoa. misdescription of petitioner Webb's hair
 Petitioner Webb filed with the DOJ as semi-blonde.
Panel a Motion for Production And  They also criticize the procedure
Examination of Evidence and followed by the DOJ Panel when it
Documents for the NBI to produce the did not examine witnesses to clarify
documents he’s asking. the alleged incredulities and
 The motion was granted by the DOJ inconsistencies in the sworn statements
Panel and the NBI submitted of the witnesses for the NBI.
photocopies of the documents.
 Petitioner Webb claimed during the ISSUE:
preliminary investigation that he did
not commit the crime at bar as he 1. WON Respondent Judges de Leon and
went to the United States on March 1, Tolentino gravely abused their discretion
1991 and returned to the Philippines on
when they failed to conduct a
October 27, 1992.
 To further support his defense, he preliminary examination before issuing
submitted documentary evidence warrants of arrest against them:
that he bought a bicycle and a 1986 2. WON the DOJ Panel likewise gravely
Toyota car. abused its discretion in holding that
 While in the United States on said dates there is probable cause to charge them
he was issued by the State of with the crime of rape with homicide;
California Driver's License No. 3. WON the DOJ Panel denied them their
A8818707 on June 14, 1991.
constitutional right to due process during
 Petitioner Webb likewise submitted the
letter dated July 25, 1995 of Mr. their preliminary investigation; and
Robert Heafner, Legal Attache of the 4. WON the DOJ Panel unlawfully intruded
US Embassy, citing certain records into judicial prerogative when it failed to
tending to confirm, among others, his charge Jessica Alfaro in the Information
arrival at San Francisco, California on as an accused.
March 9, 1991 as a passenger in United
Airlines Flight No. 808. HELD:
 On August 8, 1995, the DOJ Panel
issued a 26-page Resolution "finding  FIRST ISSUE: NO. What the
probable cause to hold respondents Constitution underscores is the
for trial" and recommending that an exclusive and personal
Information for rape with homicide be responsibility of the issuing judge to
filed against petitioners and their co- satisfy himself of the existence of
respondents.
probable cause.
 In satisfying himself of the existence of held back vital information due to her
probable cause for the issuance of a natural reaction of mistrust.
warrant of arrest, the judge is not  The DOJ Panel did not gravely abuse
required to personally examine the its discretion when it found probable
complainant and his witnesses. cause against the petitioners.
 Following established doctrine and  A finding of probable cause needs only
procedure, he shall: to rest on evidence showing that
o (1) personally evaluate the more likely than not a crime has been
report and the documents committed and was committed by the
submitted by the fiscal suspects.
regarding the existence of  THIRD ISSUE: NO. The records will
probable cause and, on the show that the DOJ Panel did not
basis thereof, issue a warrant; conduct the preliminary investigation
or with indecent haste.
o (2) if on the basis thereof he  Petitioners were given fair opportunity to
finds no probable cause, he prove lack of probable cause against
may disregard the fiscal's them.
report and require the  It must also be pointed out that despite
submission of supporting the declaration by the DOJ Panel that
affidavits of witnesses to aid the preliminary investigation was to
him in arriving at a conclusions be terminated after the hearing held
as to the existence of probable on July 14, 1995, the panel continued
cause. to conduct further proceedings.
 They also reject petitioners' contention  The DOJ Panel precisely allowed the
that a judge must first issue an order of parties to adduce more evidence in
arrest before issuing a warrant of arrest. their behalf and for the panel to study
 There is no law or rule requiring the the evidence submitted more fully.
issuance of an Order of Arrest prior  During the period of twenty-seven (27)
to a warrant of arrest. days, the petitioners were free to
 SECOND ISSUE: NO. The DOJ Panel adduce and present additional
did not gravely abuse its discretion evidence before the DOJ Panel.
when it found probable cause against  Verily, petitioners cannot now assert that
the petitioners. they were denied due process during
 Petitioners belittle the truthfulness of the conduct of the preliminary
Alfaro on two (2) grounds: investigation simply because the DOJ
o (a) she allegedly erroneously Panel promulgated the adverse
resolution and filed the Information in
described petitioner Webb's hair
court against them.
as semi-blond and
o (b) she committed material  FOURTH ISSUE: NO. The non-
inclusion of Alfaro is anchored on
inconsistencies in her two (2)
Republic Act No. 6981, entitled "An
sworn statement.
Act Providing For A Witness
 The DOJ Panel ruled that these alleged
Protection, Security And Benefit
misdescription and inconsistencies
Program And For Other
did not erode the credibility of Alfaro.
Purposes" enacted on April 24, 1991
 Complainant reasoned out that Alfaro
 Alfaro qualified under its Section 10.
was then having reservations when she
 The argument is based on Section 9,
first executed the first statement and
Rule 11938 which gives the court the
 prerogative to approve the discharge of Ronnie Macabante, was transacting
an accused to be a state witness. with appellant.
 Petitioner's argument lacks appeal for it  At that point, the team of P/Lt. Seraspi
proceeded to the area and while the
lies on the faulty assumption that the
police officers were at the Youth Hostel
decision whom to prosecute is a judicial at Maagma St., Pat. Fulgencio told
function, the sole prerogative of courts P/Lt. Seraspi to intercept Macabante
and beyond executive and legislative and appellant. P/Lt. Seraspi and his
interference. team caught up with Macabante at the
crossing of Mabini and Maagma Sts. in
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petitions are front of the Aklan Medical Center.
dismissed for lack of showing of grave abuse of  Upon seeing the police, Macabante
discretion on the part of the respondents. Costs threw something to the ground which
against petitioners. turned out to be a tea bag of
marijuana.
People vs Sucro  When confronted, Macabante readily
FACTS: admitted that he bought the same
from appellant (Edison Sucro) in front
 Petitioner: People of the chapel.
 Respondent: Edison Sucro  The police team was able to overtake
 On March 21, 1989, Pat. Roy and arrest appellant at the corner of
Fulgencio, a member of the INP, Kalibo, C. Quimpo and Veterans Sts.
Aklan, was instructed by P/Lt. Vicente  The police recovered 19 sticks and 4
Seraspi, Jr. (Station Commander of teabags of marijuana from the cart
the INP Kalibo, Aklan) to monitor the inside the chapel and another teabag
activities of appellant Edison Sucro, from Macabante,
because of information gathered by  The teabags of marijuana were sent to
Seraspi that Sucro was selling the PC-INP Crime Laboratory Service,
marijuana. at Camp Delgado, Iloilo City for analysis.
 As planned, at about 5:00 P.M. on said  The specimens were all found positive
date, Pat. Fulgencio Positioned of marijuana.
himself under the house of a certain
Arlie Regalado at C. Quimpo Street. ISSUE: Whether the police officer can arrest
 Adjacent to the house of Regalado, the accused without any arrest and search
about 2 meters away, was a chapel. warrant when the latter committed the crime in
 Thereafter, Pat. Fulgencio saw front of the former.
appellant enter the chapel, taking
something which turned out later to be HELD:
marijuana from the compartment of a  YES, Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules
cart found inside the chapel, and then on Criminal Procedure provides for
return to the street where he handed the instances where arrest without
the same to a buyer, Aldie Borromeo. warrant is considered lawful.
 After a while appellant went back to  The rule states that arrest without
the chapel and again came out with warrant, when lawful, is when a peace
marijuana which he gave to a group of officer or private person may, without
persons. warrant, arrest a person
 It was at this instance that Pat. o (a) When in his presence, the
Fulgencio radioed P/Lt. Seraspi and person to be arrested has
reported the activity going on. committed, is actually
 P/Lt. Seraspi instructed Pat. Fulgencio committing, or is attempting
to continue monitoring to commit an offense;
developments. o (b) When an offense has in
 At about 6:30 P.M., Pat. Fulgencio fact just been committed, and
again called up Seraspi to report that he has personal knowledge of
a third buyer later Identified as facts indicating that the
 person to be arrested has  Thereafter, Taduran returned to the
committed it; headquarters and made a report
o (c) When an offense is regarding his said purchase of
committed in the presence or marijuana.
within the view of an officer,  Based on that information, they
within the meaning of the rule apprehended the accused without a
authorizing an arrest without a warrant of arrest.
warrant,  Thereafter, NARCOM agents raided
o (d) When the officer sees the without a search warrant the house of
offense, although at a the father (Jovencio Rodrigueza) of
distance, or hears the herein accused appellant.
disturbances created thereby  During the raid, they were able to
and proceeds at once to the confiscate dried marijuana leaves
scene thereof. and a plastic syringe, among others.
 The records show that Fulgencio went  The next 2 days, the father was
to Arlie Regalado’s house at C. released and Don and co-accused
Quimpo Street to monitor the remained.
activities of the accused who was  The three accused (Don, Segovia,
earlier reported to be selling Lonceras) presented different versions
marijuana at a chapel two (2) meters of their alleged participation.
away from Regalado’s house.  RTC found Don Rodrigueza guilty
 Fulgencio, within a distance of two beyond reasonable doubt of violating
meters saw Sucro conduct his Section 4, Article II of the Dangerous
nefarious activity. Drugs Act of 1972 (Republic Act No.
6425, as amended) while the two co-
accused were acquitted.
People vs Rodrigueza  Hence, this appeal raising the issue of
FACTS: the legality of his arrest.

 Petitioner: People ISSUE: WON the warrantless arrest was in

 Respondent: Don Rodrigueza consonance to his constitutional right
 The police officers of Ibalon, Legaspi
City, received a confidential information HELD:
regarding an ongoing illegal traffic of  NO. The arrest and seizure were
prohibited drugs in Tagas, Daraga, illegally conducted.
Albay.  As provided in the present Constitution,
 The police officer (Taduran) acted as a search, to be valid, must generally be
a poseur-buyer. authorized by a search warrant duly
 He was told by the informant to look for issued by the proper government
a certain Don, the alleged seller of authority.
prohibited drugs.  True, in some instances, this Court
 Taduran went to Tagas alone and, while has allowed government authorities
along the road, he met Samuel to conduct searches and seizures
Segovia. even without a search warrant.
 He asked Segovia where be could find o When the owner of the premises
Don and where he could buy marijuana. waives his right against such
 Segovia left for a while and when be incursion;
returned, he was accompanied by a o When the search is incidental to
man who was later on introduced to a lawful arrest; 
him as Don, herein appellant. o When it is made on vessels and
 After agreeing on the price (P200.00) aircraft for violation of customs
for 100 grams of marijuana, Don left laws;
Taduran and Segovia and when he o When it is made on automobiles
came back, he’s already bringing with for the purpose of preventing
him a plastic containing Marijuana.
 violations of smuggling or  This being the case, appellant should
immigration laws; not be allowed to suffer for unwarranted
o When it involves prohibited and imaginary imputations against him.
articles in plain view;
o In cases of inspection of WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction of the
buildings and other premises for court below is hereby REVERSED and SET
the enforcement of fire, sanitary ASIDE and accused-appellant Don Rodrigueza
and building regulations, is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged. It
 In the case at bar, however, the raid is hereby ordered that he be immediately
conducted by the NARCOM agents in released from custody unless he is otherwise
the house of Jovencio Rodrigueza detained for some other lawful cause.
was not authorized by any search
warrant. Go vs CA
 It does not appear, either, that the FACTS:
situation falls under any of the  Petitioner: Rolito Go y Tambunting
aforementioned cases above.  Respondent: CA
 Hence, appellant's right against  The incident happen along Wilson
unreasonable search and seizure was Street, San Juan, Metro Manila where
clearly violated. the car of Rolito Go bumped the car
 The NARCOM agents could not have of Eldon Maguan while the Go was
justified their act by invoking the traversing a one-way “wrong
urgency and necessity of the direction” road.
situation because the testimonies of  Petitioner alighted from his car, walked
the prosecution witnesses reveal that over and shot Maguan inside his car.
the place had already been put under  Petitioner then boarded his car and left
surveillance for quite some time. the scene.
 Had it been their intention to conduct the  A security guard at a nearby restaurant
raid, then they should, because they was able to take down petitioner's car
easily could, have first secured a plate number.
search warrant during that time.  The police arrived shortly thereafter at
 The Court further notes the the scene of the shooting and there
confusion and ambiguity in the retrieved an empty shell and one
identification of the confiscated round of live ammunition for a 9 mm
marijuana leaves and other prohibited caliber pistol.
drug paraphernalia presented as  Verification at the Land Transportation
evidence against appellant. Office showed that the car was
 From the records of the case, Taduran registered to one Elsa Ang Go.
(poseur-buyer) bought 100 grams of  The police returned to the scene of the
marijuana from Don but the evidence shooting to find out where the suspect
presented were the prohibited had come from.
articles were among those  The police were informed that petitioner
confiscated during the so-called had dined at Cravings Bake Shop
follow-up raid in the house of shortly before the shooting.
Jovencio Rodrigueza.  The security guard of the bake shop was
 The unanswered question then arises shown a picture of petitioner and he
as to the identity of the marijuana leaves positively identified him as the same
that became the basis of appellant's person who had shot Maguan.
conviction.  Having established that the assailant
 As clearly shown by the evidence, the was probably the petitioner, the police
prosecution has failed to establish its launched a manhunt for petitioner.
cause.  7 days after the shooting incident,
 It has not overcome the presumption of petitioner presented himself before
innocence accorded to appellant. the San Juan Police Station to verify
news reports that he was being
 hunted by the police; he was  However, the respondent judge
accompanied by two (2) lawyers. issued an order on July 17, 1991,
 The police promptly filed a complaint recalling his bail, the leave to
for frustrated homicide against conduct P.I, and his omnibus for
petitioner with the Office of the immediate release.
Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal.  Likewise, the judge ordered the
 First Assistant Provincial Prosecutor petitioner to surrender within 48 hours.
Dennis Villa Ignacio ("Prosecutor")  Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari,
informed petitioner, in the presence of prohibition and mandamus before the
his lawyers, that he could avail himself Supreme Court assailing the 17 July
of his right to a preliminary investigation 1991 Order.
but that he must first sign a waiver of  Petitioner contends that the
the provisions of Article 125 of the information was null and void
Revised Penal Code. because no preliminary investigation
 Petitioner refused to execute any such had been previously conducted, in
waiver. violation of his right to due process.
 2 days after and before the prosecutor  Petitioner also moved for suspension of
filed the information in court, Eldon all proceedings in the case pending
Maguan died of gunshot wounds. resolution by the Supreme Court of his
 Accordingly, instead of filing an petition; this motion was, however,
information for frustrated denied by respondent Judge.
homicide, the prosecutor filed an  Petitioner argues that he was not
information for murder before the lawfully arrested without a warrant
RTC. No bail was recommended. because he went to the police station six
 At the bottom of the information, the (6) days after the shooting which he had
Prosecutor certified that no preliminary allegedly perpetrated.
investigation had been conducted  Thus, petitioner argues, the crime had
because the accused did not execute not been “just committed” at the time
and sign a waiver of the provisions of that he was arrested.
Article 125 of the Revised Penal  Moreover, none of the police officers
Code. who arrested him had been an
 Counsel for petitioner filed with the eyewitness to the shooting of Maguan
Prosecutor an omnibus motion for and accordingly, none had the “personal
immediate release and proper knowledge” required for the lawfulness
preliminary investigation, alleging that of a warrantless arrest.
the warrantless arrest of petitioner  Since there had been no lawful
was unlawful and that no preliminary warrantless arrest, Section 7, Rule
investigation had been conducted 112 of the Rules of Court which
before the information was filed. establishes the only exception to the
 The prosecutor stated that petitioner right to a preliminary investigation,
had filed before the Office of the could not apply in respect of
Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal an petitioner.
omnibus motion for immediate
release and preliminary investigation, ISSUE:
which motion had been granted by 1. WON the warrantless arrest of petitioner
Provincial Prosecutor Mauro Castro, was lawful
who also agreed to recommend cash 2. WON petitioner effectively waived his
bail of P100,000.00.
right to preliminary investigation.
 The trial court issued an Order granting
leave to conduct preliminary
investigation and cancelling the HELD:
arraignment set for 15 August 1991  FIRST ISSUE: NO. The arrest was
until after the prosecution shall have invalid.
concluded its preliminary  First, the trial court’s reliance in the case
investigation. of Umil v. Ramos is incorrect.
 Herein, appellant was charged with  Accordingly, we cannot reasonably
murder while in Umil, the accused was imply waiver of a preliminary
charged with subversion, a continuing investigation on the part of petitioner.
offense.  In fact, when the Prosecutor filed a
 The petitioner’s appearance to the motion in court asking for leave to
police station did not mean he was conduct a preliminary investigation, he
arrested at all. clearly implied to recognized that
 Petitioner neither expressed surrender petitioner's claim to the preliminary
nor any statement that he was or was investigation was a legitimate one.
not guilty of any crime.
 Second, the instant case did not fall Posadas vs. Court of Appeals
within the terms of Section 5 of Rule 113 FACTS:
of the 1985 Rules on Criminal
Procedure. ● Members of the Integrated National
 Petitioner's "arrest" took place six (6) Police (INP) of the Davao Metrodiscom
days after the shooting of Maguan. assigned with the Intelligence Task
 The "arresting" officers obviously Force, Pat. Ursicio Ungab and Pat.
were not present, within the meaning Umbra Umpar conducted surveillance
of Section 5(a), at the time petitioner along Magallanes Street, Davao City.
had allegedly shot Maguan. ● While in the vicinity of Rizal Memorial
 Neither could the "arrest" effected six (6) Colleges they spotted petitioner carrying
days after the shooting be reasonably a "buri" bag and they noticed him to be
regarded as effected "when [the acting suspiciously.
shooting had] in fact just been ● They approached the petitioner and
committed" within the meaning of identified themselves as members of the
Section 5(b). INP. Petitioner attempted to flee but his
 None of the "arresting" officers had any attempt to get away was unsuccessful.
"personal knowledge" of facts indicating ● They then checked the "buri" bag of the
that petitioner was the gunman who had petitioner where they found one (1)
shot Maguan. Caliber .38 Smith & Wesson revolver
with Serial No. 770196, (2) Rounds of
 SECOND ISSUE: NO. Petitioner did
live ammunition for a .38 caliber gun, a
not waive his right to P.I.
smoke (tear gas) grenade, and (3) Live
 Petitioner had from the very beginning
ammunitions for a .22 caliber gun.
demanded that a preliminary
● They brought the petitioner to the police
investigation be conducted.
station for further investigation.
 As earlier pointed out, on the same day ● In the course of the same, the petitioner
that the information for murder was filed was asked to show the necessary
with the RTC, petitioner filed with the license or authority to possess firearms
Prosecutor an omnibus motion for and ammunitions found in his
immediate release and preliminary possession but he failed to do so.
investigation. ● He was then taken to the Davao
 Moreover, the Court does not believe Metrodiscom office and the prohibited
that by posting bail petitioner had articles recovered from him were
waived his right to preliminary indorsed to M/Sgt. Didoy the officer then
investigation. on duty.
 Petitioner Go asked for release on ● He was prosecuted for illegal
recognizance or on bail and for possession of firearms and ammunitions
preliminary investigation in one omnibus in the Regional Trial Court of Davao
motion. City.
 He had thus claimed his right to
preliminary investigation before ISSUE: Whether or Not the warrantless
respondent Judge approved the cash search is valid.
bond posted by petitioner and ordered
his release on 12 July 1991. HELD:
 ● In justifying the warrantless search of were unable to escape because the
the buri bag then carried by the other lawmen had surrounded them.
petitioner, argues that under Section 12, ● The suspects were then searched. One
Rule 136 of the Rules of Court. A of them, who turned out to be the
person lawfully arrested may be accused-appellant, was found with a .38
searched for dangerous weapons or caliber Smith and Wesson revolver with
anything used as proof of a commission six live bullets in the chamber.
of an offense without a search warrant. ● His companion, later identified as
● It is further alleged that the arrest Nicanor Morellos, had a fan knife
without a warrant of the petitioner was secreted in his front right pants pocket.
lawful under the circumstances. ● The weapons were taken from them.
● In the case at bar, there is no question ● Mengote and Morellos were then turned
that, indeed, it is reasonable considering over to police headquarters for
that it was effected on the basis of a investigation by the Intelligence Division.
probable cause. ● One other witness presented by the
● The probable cause is that when the prosecution was Rigoberto Danganan,
petitioner acted suspiciously and who identified the subject weapon as
attempted to flee with the buri bag there among the articles stolen from him
was a probable cause that he was during the robbery in his house in
concealing something illegal in the bag Malabon on June 13, 1987.
and it was the right and duty of the ● He pointed to Mengote as one of the
police officers to inspect the same. robbers.
● It is too much indeed to require the ● He had duly reported the robbery to the
police officers to search the bag in the police, indicating the articles stolen from
possession of the petitioner only after him, including the revolver.
they shall have obtained a search ● Mengote made no effort to prove that he
warrant for the purpose. owned the firearm or that he was
● Such an exercise may prove to be licensed to possess it and claimed
useless, futile and much too late. instead that the weapon had been
● Clearly, the search in the case at bar "Planted" on him at the time of his
can be sustained under the exceptions arrest.
heretofore discussed, and hence, the ● It is submitted in the Appellant's Brief
constitutional guarantee against that the revolver should not have been
unreasonable searches and seizures admitted in evidence because of its
has not been violated. illegal seizure.
● No warrant therefor having been
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED with previously obtained.
costs against petitioner. ● Neither could it have been seized as an
incident of a lawful arrest because the
People v. Mengote arrest of Mengote was itself unlawful,
FACTS: having been also effected without a
● Western Police District received a warrant.
telephone call from an informer that ● The defense also contends that the
there were three suspicious-looking testimony regarding the alleged robbery
persons at the corner of Juan Luna and in Danganan's house was irrelevant and
North Bay Boulevard in Tondo, Manila. should also have been disregarded by
● A surveillance team of plainclothesmen the trial court.
was forthwith dispatched to the place.
● Patrolmen Rolando Mercado and ISSUE: WON the arrest was lawful
Alberto Juan narrated that they saw two
men "looking from side to side," one of HELD:
whom was holding his abdomen. ● NO. The Supreme court held that
● They approached these persons and par(a) section 5 Rule 113 of rules of
identified themselves as policemen, court requires that a person be
whereupon the two tried to run away but arrested after he has committed or
while he is actually committing or is
 at least attempting to commit an ● It was only later after Danganan had
offense in the presence of the appeared at the Police headquarters,
arresting officer. that they learned of the robbery in his
● These requirements have not been house and of Mengote's supposed
established in the case at bar. involvement therein.
● At the time of the arrest in question, the ● As for the illegal possession of the
accused was merely “looking from side firearm found on Mengote's person, the
to side” and “holding his abdomen”. policemen discovered this only after he
● There was apparently no offense that had been searched and the investigation
has just been committed or was being conducted later revealed that he was not
actually committed or at least being its owners nor was he licensed to
attempted by Mengote in their presence. possess it.
● The Court takes note that there was ● Before these events, the Peace officers
nothing to support the arresting officers' had no knowledge even of Mengote'
suspicion other than Mengote's darting identity, let alone the fact (or suspicion)
eyes and his hand on his abdomen. that he was unlawfully carrying a firearm
● By no stretch of the imagination could it or that he was involved in the robbery of
have been inferred from these acts that Danganan's house.
an offense had just been committed, or
was actually being committed, or was at People vs. Aminnudin
least being attempted in their presence. FACTS:
● This case is similar to People v.
Aminnudin, where the Court held that ● Idel Aminnudin was arrested on June
the warrantless arrest of the accused 25, 1984, shortly after disembarking
was unconstitutional. from the M/V Wilcon 9 at about 8:30 in
● This was effected while be was coming the evening, in Iloilo City.
down a vessel, to all appearances no ● The PC officers who were in fact waiting
less innocent than the other for him simply accosted him, inspected
disembarking passengers. his bag and finding what looked like
● He had not committed nor was he marijuana leaves took him to their
actually committing or attempting to headquarters for investigation.
commit an offense in the presence of ● Later on, the information was amended
the arresting officers. to include Farida Ali y Hassen and both
● He was not even acting suspiciously. In were charged for Illegal Transportation
short, there was no probable cause that, of Prohibited Drugs.
as the prosecution incorrectly ● The fiscal absolved Ali after a thorough
suggested, dispensed with the investigation.
constitutional requirement of a warrant. ● Then trial proceeded only against the
● Par. (b) is no less applicable because its accused-appellant, who was eventually
no less stringent requirements have also convicted.
not been satisfied. ● This defense,
● The prosecution has not shown that at ● Aminnudin disclaimed the marijuana,
the time of Mengote's arrest an offense averring that all he had in his bag was
had in fact just been committed and that his clothing consisting of a jacket, two
the arresting officers had personal shirts and two pairs of pants.
knowledge of facts indicating that ● He alleged that he was arbitrarily
Mengote had committed it. arrested and immediately handcuffed.
● All they had was hearsay information ● His bag was confiscated without a
from the telephone caller, and about a search warrant.
crime that had yet to be committed. ● At the PC headquarters, he was
● The truth is that they did not know then manhandled to force him to admit he
what offense if at all, had been was carrying the marijuana, the
committed and neither were they aware investigator hitting him with a piece of
of the participation therein of the wood in the chest and arms even as he
accused-appellant. parried the blows while he was still
handcuffed.
 ● He insisted he did not even know what arrest allowed under Rule 113 of the
marijuana looked like and that his Rules of Court.
business was selling watches and ● However, the present case presented no
sometimes cigarettes. such urgency unlike the case of Roldan
● He also argued that the marijuana he v. Arca.
was alleged to have been carrying was ● Based on the conflicting declarations of
not properly identified and could have the PC witnesses, it is clear that they
been any of several bundles kept in the had at least two days within which they
stock room of the PC headquarters. could have obtained a warrant to arrest
● The trial court was unconvinced, noting and search Aminnudin who was coming
from its own examination of the accused to Iloilo on the M/V Wilcon 9.
that he claimed to have come to Iloilo ● His name was known. The vehicle was
City to sell watches but carried only two Identified. The date of its arrival was
watches at the time, traveling from Jolo certain. And from the information they
for that purpose and spending P107.00 had received, they could have
for fare, not to mention his other persuaded a judge that there was
expenses. probable cause, indeed, to justify the
● Aminnudin testified that he kept the two issuance of a warrant. Yet they did
watches in a secret pocket below his nothing.
belt but, strangely, they were not ● No effort was made to comply with the
discovered when he was bodily law.
searched by the arresting officers nor ● The Bill of Rights was ignored altogether
were they damaged as a result of his because the PC lieutenant who was the
manhandling. head of the arresting team, had
● l He also said he sold one of the determined on his own authority that a
watches for P400.00 and gave away the "search warrant was not necessary."
other, although the watches belonged ● In the many cases where this Court has
not to him but to his cousin, to a friend sustained the warrantless arrest of
whose full name he said did not even violators of the Dangerous Drugs Act, it
know. has always been shown that they were
● The trial court also rejected his caught red-handed, as a result of what
allegations of maltreatment, observing are popularly called "buy-bust"
that he had not sufficiently proved the operations of the narcotics agents.
injuries sustained by him. ● Rule 113 was clearly applicable
● On appeal, the Court finds it necessary because at the precise time of arrest the
to answer the legality of his arrest accused was in the act of selling the
without warrant. prohibited drug.
● In the case at bar, the accused-
ISSUE: WON the warrantless arrest is valid appellant was not, at the moment of his
arrest, committing a crime nor was it
HELD: shown that he was about to do so or that
● NO. Aminuddin was arrested illegally. he had just done so.
● The mandate of the Constitution is clear ● What he was doing was descending the
that a valid search or arrest warrant gangplank of the M/V Wilcon 9 and
shall be served first before the there was no outward indication that
authorities can check his personal called for his arrest.
properties or deprived him of his liberty. ● It was only when the informer pointed to
● In the case at bar, there was no warrant him as the carrier of the marijuana that
of arrest or search warrant issued by a he suddenly became suspect and so
judge after a personal determination by subject to apprehension.
him of the existence of probable cause. ● The Identification by the informer was
● Contrary to the averments of the the probable cause as determined by
government, the accused-appellant was the officers (and not a judge) that
not caught in flagrante nor was a crime authorized them to pounce upon
about to be committed or had just been Aminnudin and immediately arrest him.
committed to justify the warrantless
 ● As to the Court’s exclusion of the on Certiorari with this Court, which
illegally seized marijuana as evidence forthwith referred the case to the CA.
against the accused-appellant  Respondent CA declared the RTC’s
● His guilt has not been proved beyond order null and void, and holding that
reasonable doubt and he must, the allegations sufficiently constitute
therefore, be discharged on the an offense punishable under Section
presumption that he is innocent 1 of R.A. 4200.
 Petitioner filed a MR which the CA
SECTION 3 - PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION denied. Hence, the instant petition.
AND CORRESPONDENCE CASES
ISSUE: Whether the recording of a “Private
Ramirez vs. Court of Appeals Conversation” without the consent of both of the
FACTS: party is a violation of R.A. 4200.

 Petitioner: Socorro Ramirez HELD:

 Respondent: CA  Yes, Section 1 of R.A. 4200 entitled, ”
 A civil case damages was filed by An Act to Prohibit and Penalized Wire
petitioner in the RTC alleging that the Tapping and Other Related Violations
private respondent in a confrontation of Private Communication and Other
in the latter’s office, allegedly vexed, Purposes,” provides that it shall be
insulted and humiliated her in a unlawful for any person, not being
“hostile and furious mood” and in a authorized by all the parties to any
manner offensive to petitioner’s private communication or spoken word,
dignity and personality,” contrary to to tap any wire or cable, or by using any
morals, good customs and public other device or arrangement, to secretly
policy.” overhear, intercept, or record such
 In support of her claim, petitioner communication or spoken word by using
produced a verbatim transcript of the a device commonly known as a
event and sought moral damages, dictaphone or dictagraph or
attorney’s fees and other expenses of detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape
litigation in the amount of recorder, or however otherwise
P610,000.00, in addition to costs, described.
interests and other reliefs awardable at  The aforestated provision clearly and
the trial court’s discretion. unequivocally makes it illegal for any
 The transcript on which the civil case person, not authorized by all the
was based was culled from a tape parties to any private communication
recording of the confrontation made to secretly record such
by petitioner. communication by means of a tape
 As a result of petitioner’s recording of recorder.
the event and alleging that the said act  The law makes no distinction as to
of secretly taping the confrontation was whether the party sought to be
illegal, private respondent filed a penalized by the statute ought to be a
criminal case before the Regional party other than or different from
Trial Court of Pasay City for violation those involved in the private
of Republic Act 4200, entitled “An Act communication.
to prohibit and penalize wire tapping  The statute’s intent to penalize all
and other related violations of private persons unauthorized to make such
communication, and other purposes. recording is underscored by the use of
 Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the the qualifier “any”.
Information on the ground that the facts  Consequently, as respondent Court of
charged do not constitute an offense, Appeals correctly concluded, “even a
particularly a violation of R.A. 4200. (person) privy to a communication
The RTC granted the Motion. who records his private conversation
 From the RTC’s order, the private with another without the knowledge
respondent filed a Petition for Review of the latter (will) qualify as a violator.
  The unambiguity of the express words  NO.  Indeed the documents and
of the provision, therefore plainly papers in question are inadmissible
supports the view held by the in evidence.
respondent court that the provision  The constitutional injunction declaring
seeks to penalize even those privy to "the privacy of communication and
the private communications. correspondence [to be] inviolable" is
 Where the law makes no distinctions, no less applicable simply because it
one does not distinguish. is the wife (who thinks herself
aggrieved by her husband's infidelity)
WHEREFORE, because the law, as applied to who is the party against whom the
the case at bench is clear and unambiguous and constitutional provision is to be
leaves us with no discretion, the instant petition enforced.
is hereby DENIED. The decision appealed from  The only exception to the prohibition in
is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. the Constitution is if there is a "lawful
order [from a] court or when public
Zulueta vs. Court of Appeals safety or order requires otherwise, as
FACTS: prescribed by law."  
 Any violation of this provision
 Petitioner: Cecilia Zulueta renders the evidence obtained
 Respondent: CA inadmissible "for any purpose in any
 This is a petition to review the decision proceeding."
of the Court of Appeals, affirming the  The intimacies between husband and
decision of the Regional Trial Court of wife do not justify any one of them in
Manila (Branch X) which ordered breaking the drawers and cabinets of
petitioner to return documents and the other and in ransacking them for any
papers taken by her from private telltale evidence of marital infidelity.
respondent's clinic without the  A person, by contracting marriage,
latter's knowledge and consent. does not shed his/her integrity or his
right to privacy as an individual and
 Petitioner Cecilia Zulueta is the wife the constitutional protection is ever
of private respondent Alfredo Martin. available to him or to her.
 On March 26, 1982, petitioner entered  The law insures absolute freedom of
the clinic of her husband, a doctor of communication between the spouses by
medicine, and in the presence of her making it privileged.
mother, a driver and private  Freedom of communication; quite
respondent's secretary, forcibly another is a compulsion for each one to
opened the drawers and cabinet in share what one knows with the other.
her husband's clinic and took 157 And this has nothing to do with the duty
documents consisting of private of fidelity that each owes to the other.
correspondence between Dr. Martin
and his alleged paramours, greetings WHEREFORE, the petition for review is
cards, cancelled checks, diaries, Dr. DENIED for lack of merit.
Martin's passport, and photographs.
 The documents and papers were seized Navarro vs. Court of Appeals
for use in evidence in a case for legal FACTS:
separation and for disqualification from
the practice of medicine which petitioner  Petitioner: Felipe Navarro
had filed against her husband.  Respondent: CA
 Two local media men, Stanley
ISSUE: Whether or not the documents and Jalbuena, Enrique Lingan, in Lucena
papers in question are inadmissible in evidence City went to the police station to report
alledged indecent show in one of the
HELD: night establishment shows in the City.
 At the station, a heated confrontation
followed between victim Lingan and
 accused policeman Navarro who was  The provocation must be sufficient and
then having drinks outside the must immediately precede the act; and
headquarters, lead to fisticuffs. in order to be sufficient, it must be
 The victim was hit with the handle of adequate to excite a person to commit
the accused's gun below the left the wrong, which must be accordingly
eyebrow, followed by a fist blow, proportionate in gravity. 
resulted the victim to fell and died  The mitigating circumstance of lack of
under treatment. intention to commit so grave a wrong
 The exchange of words was recorded must also be considered.
on tape, specifically the frantic  The exclamations made by Navarro
exclamations made by Navarro after the after the scuffle that it was Lingan who
altercation that it was the victim who provoked him showed that he had no
provoked the fight. intent to kill the latter.
 During the trial, Jalbuena, the other
media man testified. WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of
 Presented in evidence to confirm his Appeals is AFFIRMED with the modification that
testimony was a voice recording he had petitioner Felipe Navarro is hereby
made of the heated discussion at the SENTENCED to suffer a prison terms of 18
police station between the accused years of  prision mayor, as minimum, to 14 years
police officer Navarro and the deceased, and 8 months of reclusion temporal, as
Lingan, which was taken without the maximum.
knowledge of the two.
Ople vs. Torres
ISSUE: FACTS:
 Whether or not the voice recording is
admissible in evidence in view of RA  Petitioner: Blas Ople
4200, which prohibits wiretapping.  Respondent: Ruben Torres
 Whether the mitigating circumstances of  The petitioner seek the attention of the
sufficient provocation or threat on the court to prevent the shrinking of the right
part of the offended party and lack of to privacy
intention to commit so grave a wrong  Petitioner prays that the court  invalidate
may be appreciated in favor of the Administrative Order No. 308 entitled
accused. “Adoption of a National
Computerized Identification
HELD: Reference System” on two important
 FIRST ISSUE: YES. The tape is constitutional grounds:
admissible in view of RA 4200, which o one, it is a usurpation of the
prohibits wire tapping. Jalbuena's power of Congress to legislate,
testimony is confirmed by the voice and
recording he had made. o two, it impermissibly intrudes on
 The law prohibits the overhearing, our citizenry’s protected zone of
intercepting, or recording of private privacy
communications 
 SInce the exchange between petitioner ISSUE: Whether the implementation of AO No.
Navarro and Lingan was not private, its 308 violates the Rights to Privacy enshrined in
tape recording is not prohibited. the constitution?
 SECOND ISSUE: YES. The remarks of
Lingan, which immediately preceded HELD:
the acts of the accused, constituted  YES, A.O. No. 308 cannot pass
sufficient provocation. constitutional muster as an
administrative legislation because
 Provocation is said to be any unjust or
facially it violates the right to privacy.
improper conduct of the offended party
 The essence of privacy is the “right to be
capable of exciting, annoying or irritating
let alone.”
someone.
 The right to privacy as such is
accorded recognition independently
 of its identification with liberty; in to and being used by the petitioner,
itself, it is fully deserving of numbering about 40 to 42
constitutional protection. documents, were draft pleadings or
 The potential for misuse of the data to letters in connection with
be gathered under A.O. No. 308 cannot administrative cases in the CSC and
be underplayed. other tribunals.
 The right to privacy is one of the  Chairperson David issued the Show-
most threatened rights of man living Cause Order, requiring the petitioner,
in a mass society. who had gone on extended leave, to
 In the case at bar, the threat comes submit his explanation or counter-
from the executive branch of affidavit within five days from notice.
government which by issuing A.O.  In his Comment, petitioner denied the
No. 308 pressures the people to accusations against him and accused
surrender their privacy by giving the CSC Officials of “fishing
information about themselves on the expedition” when they unlawfully
pretext that it will facilitate delivery of copied and printed personal files in
basic services. his computer.
 Given the record-keeping power of the  He was charged of violating R.A. No.
computer, only the indifferent fail to 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical
perceive the danger that A.O. No. 308 Standards for Public Officials and
gives the government the power to Employees).
compile a devastating dossier against  He assailed the formal charge and filed
unsuspecting citizens. an Omnibus Motion ((For
 We close with the statement that the Reconsideration, to Dismiss and/or to
right to privacy was not engraved in our Defer) assailing the formal charge as
Constitution for flattery.  without basis having proceeded from an
illegal search which is beyond the
authority of the CSC Chairman, such
power pertaining solely to the court.
Pollo vs. Constantino- David
FACTS:  The petitioner was dismissed from
service.
 Petitioner: Briccio “Ricky” Pollo  He filed a petition to the CA which was
 Respondent: Chairperson Karina dismissed by the latter on the ground
Constantino-David that it found no grave abuse of
 Respondent CSC Chair Constantino- discretion on the part of the
David received an anonymous letter respondents.
complaint alleging of an anomaly  He filed a motion for reconsideration
taking place in the Regional Office of which was further denied by the
the CSC. appellate court. Hence, this petition.
 The respondent then formed a team and
ISSUE: WON the search conducted by the CSC
issued a memo directing the team “to
on the computer of the petitioner constituted an
back up all the files in the computers
illegal search and was a violation of his
found in the Mamamayan Muna
constitutional right to privacy
(PALD) and Legal divisions.”
 Several diskettes containing the back-up HELD:
files sourced from the hard disk of PALD
 NO. The search conducted on his
and LSD computers were turned over to
office computer and the copying of
Chairperson David.
his personal files was lawful and did
 The contents of the diskettes were
not violate his constitutional right.
examined by the CSC’s Office for
 In this case, the Court had the chance to
Legal Affairs (OLA).
present the cases illustrative of the issue
 It was found that most of the files in raised by the petitioner.
the 17 diskettes containing files
copied from the computer assigned
 Katz v. United States 389 U.S. 437 cause nor the warrant
(1967): requirement, which are related
o the US Supreme Court held that to law enforcement.
the act of FBI agents in  Social Justice Society (SJS) v.
electronically recording a Dangerous Drugs Board G.R. Nos.
conversation made by petitioner 157870, 158633 and 161658,
in an enclosed public telephone November 3, 2008, 570 SCRA 410,
booth violated his right to 427, (citing Ople v. Torres, G.R. No.
privacy and constituted a 127685, July 23, 1998, 293 SCRA 141,
“search and seizure”.   169);
 Because the petitioner had a reasonable o recognized the fact that there
expectation of privacy in using the may be such legitimate intrusion
enclosed booth to make a personal of privacy in the workplace.
telephone call, the protection of the  The Court ruled that the petitioner did
Fourth Amendment extends to such not have a reasonable expectation of
area. privacy in his office and computer
 More so, the concurring opinion of Mr. files.
Justice Harlan noted that the existence  The search authorized by the CSC
of privacy right under prior decisions Chair, the copying of the contents of the
involved a two-fold requirement: hard drive on petitioner’s computer
o first, that a person has exhibited reasonable in its inception and scope.
an actual (subjective)  The Court noted that unlike in the case
expectation of privacy; and of Anonymous Letter-Complaint against
o second, that the expectation be Atty. Miguel Morales, Clerk of Court,
one that society is prepared to Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila A.M.
recognize as reasonable Nos. P-08-2519 and P-08-2520,
(objective). November 19, 2008, 571 SCRA
 Mancusi v. DeForte 392 U.S. 364, 88 361, the case at bar involves the
S.Ct. 2120, 20 L.Ed2d 1154 (1968): computer from which the personal
o Thus “recognized that files of the petitioner were retrieved is
employees may have a a government-issued computer,
reasonable expectation of hence government property the use
privacy against intrusions by of which the CSC has absolute right
police.” to regulate and monitor
 O’Connor v. Ortega 480 U.S. 709
(1987): WHEREFORE, the petition  for review on
o the Court categorically declared certiorari is DENIED. The Decision dated
that “[i]ndividuals do not lose October 11, 2007 and Resolution dated February
Fourth Amendment rights 29, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP
merely because they work for No. 98224 are AFFIRMED.
the government instead of a
private employer.” Vivares vs. St. Theresa’s College
o In O’Connor the Court FACTS:
recognized that “special needs”
authorize warrantless searches  Petitioner: Rhonda Vivares
involving public employees for  Respondent: St Theresa’s College
work-related reasons.  Julia and Julienne , both minors,
o The Court thus laid down a were, during the period material,
balancing test under which graduating high school students at
government interests are STC.
weighed against the employee’s  January 2012, while changing into their
reasonable expectation of swimsuits for a beach party they were
privacy. about to attend, Julia and Julienne,
o This reasonableness test along with several others, took digital
implicates neither probable
 pictures of themselves clad only in substance, the RTC  issued the writ
their undergarments. of habeas data.
 These pictures were then uploaded by
Angela on her Facebook profile. ISSUE:
 Escudero, a computer teacher at  Whether a writ of habeas data should be
STC’s high school department, issued given the factual milieu?
learned from her students that some  Whether the Respondents violated the
seniors at STC posted pictures right to privacy in the life, liberty, or
online, depicting themselves from the security of the minors involved in this
waist up, dressed only in brassieres. case.
 Escudero reported the matter and,
through one of her student’s Facebook HELD:
page, showed the photos to Kristine  FIRST ISSUE: NO,  The writ of habeas
Rose Tigol (Tigol), STC’s Discipline- data is a remedy available to any
in-Charge, for appropriate action. person whose right to privacy in life,
 Thereafter, following an investigation, liberty or security is violated or
STC found the identified students to threatened by an unlawful act or
have deported themselves in a omission of a public official or
manner proscribed by the school’s employee, or of a private individual or
Student Handbook. entity engaged in the gathering,
 On March 1, 2012, Julia, Julienne, collecting or storing of data or
Angela, and the other students in the information regarding the person,
pictures in question, reported, as family, home and correspondence of
required, to the office Sr. Purisima, the aggrieved party.
STC’s high school principal and they  The provision conveys the idea that
claimed that during the meeting, they habeas data is a protection against
were castigated and informed their unlawful acts or omissions of public
parents the following day that, as officials and of private individuals or
part of their penalty, they are barred entities engaged in gathering,
from joining the commencement collecting, or storing data about the
exercises scheduled on March 30, aggrieved party and his or her
2012. correspondences, or about his or her
 March 23, 2012, Angela’s mother, Dr. family.
Armenia M. Tan (Tan), filed a Petition  Such individual or entity need not be in
for Injunction and Damages before the business of collecting or storing
the RTC and command the respondent data.
not to implement the said sanction  To “engage” means “to do or take part in
which the RTC issued a temporary something.”
restraining order (TRO) allowing the  It does not necessarily mean that the
students to attend the graduation activity must be done in pursuit of a
ceremony, to which STC filed a motion business.
for reconsideration.  What matters is that the person or entity
 Despite the issuance of the TRO, STC, must be gathering, collecting or storing
nevertheless, barred the sanctioned said data or information about the
students from participating in the aggrieved party or his or her family.
graduation rites, arguing that, on the  Whether such undertaking carries the
date of the commencement element of regularity, as when one
exercises, its adverted motion for pursues a business, and is in the nature
reconsideration on the issuance of of a personal Endeavour, for any other
the TRO remained unresolved. reason or even for no reason at all, is
 Thereafter, petitioners filed before the immaterial and such will not prevent the
RTC a Petition for the Issuance of a writ from getting to said person or entity.
Writ of Habeas Data, Finding the to agree with the argument of the
petition sufficient in form and petitioners, would mean unduly limiting
 the reach of the writ to a very small WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
group petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated
 SECOND ISSUE: NO, the July 27, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court,
respondents failed to established Branch 14 in Cebu City in SP. Proc. No. 19251-
that the uploading or showing the CEB is hereby AFFIRMED.
photos to Tigol constitute a violation
of their privacy. Alejano vs. Cabuay
 The showing of the said photo to Tigol FACTS:
disproves their allegation that the
photos were viewable only by the five  Petitioner: Gary Alejano
of them.  Respondent: Gen Pedro Cabuay
 Without any evidence to corroborate  Early morning of 27 July 2003, some
their statement that the images were 321 armed soldiers, led by the now
visible only to the five of them, and detained junior officers, entered and
without their challenging Escudero’s took control of the Oakwood Premier
claim that the other students were able Luxury Apartments (“Oakwood”).
to view the photos, their statements  The soldiers disarmed the security
are, at best, self-serving, thus officers of Oakwood and planted
deserving scant consideration. explosive devices in its immediate
 It is well to note that not one of surroundings.
petitioners disputed Escudero’s sworn  The junior officers publicly
account that her students, who are the renounced their support for the
minors’ Facebook “friends,” showed her administration and called for the
the photos using their own Facebook resignation of President Gloria
accounts. Macapagal-Arroyo and several
 This only goes to show that no special cabinet members.
means to be able to view the  Around 7:00 p.m. of the same date, the
allegedly private posts were ever soldiers voluntarily surrendered to
resorted to by Escudero’s students, the authorities after several
and that it is reasonable to assume, negotiations with government
therefore, that the photos were, in emissaries.
reality, viewable either by (1) their  The soldiers later defused the explosive
Facebook friends, or (2) by the public at devices they had earlier planted.
large.  The soldiers then returned to their
 Considering that the default setting for barracks. Gen. Abaya, as the Chief of
Facebook posts is “Public,” it can be Staff of the AFP, issued a directive to
surmised that the photographs in all the Major Service Commanders to
question were viewable to everyone on turn over custody of ten junior
Facebook, absent any proof that officers to the ISAFP Detention
petitioners’ children positively limited the Center.
disclosure of the photograph.  The transfer took place while military
 If such were the case, they cannot and civilian authorities were
invoke the protection attached to the investigating the soldiers’ involvement in
right to informational privacy. the Oakwood incident.
 That the photos are viewable by “friends  Government prosecutors filed an
only” does not necessarily bolster the Information for coup d’etat with the RTC
petitioners’ contention. against the soldiers involved in the
 It is well to emphasize at this point that Oakwood incident. the CA rendered its
setting a post’s or profile detail’s privacy decision ordered Gen. Cabuay, who was
to “Friends” is no assurance that it can in charge of implementing the
no longer be viewed by another user regulations in the ISAFP Detention
who is not Facebook friends with the Center, to uphold faithfully the rights of
source of the content. the detainees in accordance with
Standing Operations Procedure No.
0263-04.
  The appellate court directed Gen.  The right to privacy of those detained is
Cabuay to adhere to his commitment subject to Section 4 of RA 7438, as well
made in court regarding visiting hours as to the limitations inherent in lawful
and the detainees’ right to exercise for detention or imprisonment.
two hours a day.  By the very fact of their detention, pre-
 The appellate court declared that while trial detainees and convicted prisoners
the opening and reading of Trillanes’ have a diminished expectation of privacy
letter is an abhorrent violation of his rights.
right to privacy of communication, this  The detainees in the present case are
does not justify the issuance of a writ of junior officers accused of leading 300
habeas corpus. soldiers in committing coup d’etat, a
 The violation does not amount to illegal crime punishable with reclusion
restraint, which is the proper subject of perpetua.
habeas corpus proceedings.  The junior officers are not ordinary
detainees but visible leaders of the
ISSUE: Whether the opening, inspection and Oakwood incident involving an armed
reading of the letter of the detainees is an takeover of a civilian building in the
infringement of a citizen’s privacy rights. heart of the financial district of the
country.
HELD:  As members of the military armed
 NO, the SC do not agree with the CA forces, the detainees are subject to the
that the opening and reading of the Articles of War.
detainees’ letters violated the  Moreover, the junior officers are
detainees’ right to privacy of detained with other high-risk persons
communication. from the Abu Sayyaf and the NPA.
 The letters were not in a sealed  Thus, we must give the military
envelope. custodian a wider range of deference in
 The inspection of the folded letters is implementing the regulations in the
a valid measure as it serves the same ISAFP Detention Center.
purpose as the opening of sealed  The military custodian is in a better
letters for the inspection of position to know the security risks
contraband. involved in detaining the junior officers,
 The letters alleged to have been read by together with the suspected Abu Sayyaf
the ISAFP authorities were not and NPA members.
confidential letters between the  Since the appropriate regulations
detainees and their lawyers. depend largely on the security risks
 The petitioner who received the letters involved, we should defer to the
from detainees Trillanes and regulations adopted by the military
Maestrecampo was merely acting as the custodian in the absence of patent
detainees’ personal courier and not as arbitrariness.
their counsel when he received the
letters for mailing. WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition.
 In the present case, since the letters We AFFIRM the Decision of the Court of
were not confidential communication Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 78545.
between the detainees and their
lawyers, the officials of the ISAFP
Detention Center could read the letters.
 If the letters are marked confidential
communication between the
detainees and their lawyers, the
detention officials should not read
the letters but only open the
envelopes for inspection in the
presence of the detainees.