RULE 122-125 CASES marked money from Leonila and likewise seized

the accused's vehicle, ignition key, and

AUSTRIA v. AAA cellphones. Joseph and Leonila were charged
and convicted of illegal sale of dangerous drug.
FACTS: CA affirmed. Only Leonila appealed to the
Supreme Court.
This case originated from the conviction of
Mamerto Austria, a school teacher, by the ISSUE: Whether the accused Joseph Libre be
Regional Trial Court (RTC) in 2006 for five acquitted despite his no appeal.
counts of acts of lasciviousness against two 11-
year-old female students, herein referred to as RULING: Yes, While it is true that it was only
AAA and BBB. Following the conviction, Leonila who successfully perfected her appeal,
Austria filed a motion for reconsideration. The the rule is that an appeal in a criminal proceeding
new presiding judge, in throws the entire case out in the open, including
2008, acquitted Austria in a Joint Order which those not raised by the parties. Considering that,
substantially repeated the arguments under Sec 11 (a), Rule122 of the RRCP as
presented in Austria’s motion for reconsideration above-quoted, a favorable judgment - as in this
and memoranda without delving into an case - shall benefit the co-accused who did not
analysis of the evidence or legal principles appeal or those who appealed from their
involved. Private complainants AAA and BBB judgments of conviction but for one reason or
filed a special civil action for certiorari before the another, the conviction became final and
Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the presiding executory, Leonila's acquittal for the crime
judge committed grave abuse of discretion by charged is likewise applicable to Joseph.
failing to provide a factual and legal basis for the
acquittal, violating the constitutional requirement
for decisions to express clearly and distinctly the YU v. SAMSON-TATAD
facts and legal basis on which they are made.
FACTS:
ISSUE: . Whether the private offended parties
(AAA and BBB) have the legal standing to On the complaint of Spouses Sergio and Cristina
question the acquittal of Mamerto Austria before Casaclang, an information for estafa against the
the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. petitioner was filed with the RTC.The RTC
convicted the petitioner as charged. It imposed
RULING: Yes, The complainant has an interest on her a penalty of three (3) months of
in the civil aspect of the case so he may file such imprisonment (arresto mayor), a fine of
special civil action questioning the decision or ₱3,800,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment, and
action of the respondent court on jurisdictional the payment of an indemnity to the Spouses
grounds. In criminal proceedings, the legal Casaclang in the same amount as the fine. The
standing to appeal judgments or orders involving petitioner filed a notice of appeal with the RTC,
the criminal aspect of the case resides alleging that pursuant to our ruling in Neypes v.
exclusively with the State through the Office of Court of Appeals, she had a "fresh period" of 15
the Solicitor General. Private offended parties days from November 3, 2005, the receipt of the
may only appeal or file a petition for certiorari denial of her motion for new trial, or up to
that relates solely to the civil aspect of the case, November 18, 2005, within which to file a notice
unless such appeal or petition is made with the of appeal.
conformity or participation of the Office of the
Solicitor General. ISSUE: Whether the "fresh period rule"
enunciated in Neypes applies to appeals in
criminal cases.
PEOPLE v. LIBRE
RULING: Yes, The Court categorically set a
FACTS: fresh period of 15 days from a denial of a motion
for reconsideration within which to appeal. To
The prosecution alleged that on June 5, 2012, standardize the appeal periods provided in the
the Regional Anti-Illegal Drug Special Operations Rules and to afford litigants fair opportunity to
Task Group 7 (RAIDSOTG-7), Cebu City appeal their cases, the Court deems it practical
received a report from a confidential informant to allow a fresh period of 15 days within which to
that Leonila and a cohort, later identified as file the notice of appeal in the Regional Trial
Joseph, were engaged in selling shabu in Cebu Court, counted from receipt of the order
City and neighboring cities and municipalities. dismissing a motion for a new trial or motion for
After the meeting, PO1 Codilla reported the reconsideration. Thus, the 15-day period to
agreement to their office and a buy-bust appeal is no longer interrupted by the filing of a
operation was consequently organized in motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration;
coordination with the Philippine Drug litigants today need not concern themselves with
Enforcement Agency, Regional Office VII. Later counting the balance of the 15-day period to
in the evening, the buy-bust team arrested appeal since the 15-day period is now counted
Leonilla and Joseph. The team recovered the from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for
new trial or motion for reconsideration or any designated Acting Presiding Judge of Branch 58
final order or resolution. and she assumed office on 1 April 2009.

NOTES: ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner correctly

filed a petition for certiorari to RTC as proper
Section 39 of BP 129, as amended, provides: remedy.

SEC. 39. Appeals. – The period for appeal from RULING: NO, It has been consistently held that
final orders, resolutions, awards, judgments, or where appeal is available to the aggrieved party,
decisions of any court in all cases shall be fifteen the special civil action of certiorari will not be
(15) days counted from the notice of the final entertained - remedies of appeal and certiorari
order, resolution, award, judgment, or decision are mutually exclusive, not: alternative or
appealed from: Provided, however, That in successive. The proper remedy to obtain a
habeas corpus cases, the period for appeal shall reversal of judgment on the merits, final order or
be forty-eight (48) hours from the notice of the resolution is appeal. Even if a petition for
judgment appealed from. certiorari is the correct remedy, petitioner failed
to comply with the requirement of a prior motion
Section 3, Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil for reconsideration. As a general rule, a motion
Procedure states: for reconsideration is a prerequisite for the
availment of a petition for certiorari under Rule
SEC. 3. Period of ordinary appeal. ― The appeal 65.Petitioner was not able to establish his
shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice allegation of grave abuse of discretion on the
of the judgment or final order appealed from. part of the MeTC.
Where a record on appeal is required, the
appellant shall file a notice of appeal and a
record on appeal within thirty (30) days from
notice of the judgment or final order.

CHUA v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

Petitioner was thus charged with four (4) counts

of violation of B.P. Blg. 22. The cases were
raffled to Branch 58, then presided by Judge
Castro. On 16 September 2004, petitioner
pleaded "not guilty." After mediation and pre-trial
conference, trial ensued before Pairing Judge
Santos as Judge Castro was promoted to the
RTC of Quezon City. On 25 July 2007, Judge
Labastida was appointed Presiding Judge of
Branch 58 and took over trial proceedings. Since
petitioner failed to present evidence, the cases
were submitted for decision and promulgation of
judgment was set on 30 September 2008.
Sometime in December 2008, Judge Labastida
died. On 20 February 2009, Judge Caldona was
 RULES 126 for a warrant to search three (3) caves located
CASES inside the Laud Compound in Purok 3,
Barangay Ma-a, Davao City,where the alleged
Re: Report on the Preliminary remains of the victims summarily executed
Results of Spot Audit in the RTC by the so-called "Davao Death Squad" may be
Branch 170 A.M. No. 16-05-142- found. .In support of the application, a certain
RTC, 5 September 2017 Ernesto Avasola (Avasola) was presented to the
RTC and there testified that he personally
witnessed the killing of six(6) persons in
December 2005. Judge William Simon P.Peralta,
Points to Remember: acting as Vice Executive Judge of the Manila-
RTC, found probable cause for the issuance of a
. The absence of a statement of compelling search warrant, and thus, issued Search Warrant
reasons, however, is not a ground for the outright which was later enforced by the elements of
denial of a search warrant application, since it is the PNP-Criminal nvestigation and Detection
not one of the requisites for the issuance of a Group. The search of the Laud Compound caves
search warrant. yielded positive results for the presence of
human remains.Herein petitioner, retired SPO4
. In other words, the statement of compelling Bienvenido Laud (Laud),filed an Urgent
reasons is only a mandatory requirement in so Motion to Quash and to Suppress Illegally
far as the proper venue for the filing of search Seized Evidence premised on the ground that
warrant application is concerned. It cannot be among others,that the Manila-RTC had no
viewed as an additional requisite for the issuance jurisdiction to issue Search Warrant which was to
of a search warrant. be enforced in DavaoCity. Manila-RTC granted
the motion. CA granted the Respondent's
. The absence of a statement of compelling petition, Hence this petition to SC
reasons in an application for a search warrant
does not involve a question of jurisdiction over ISSUE:WON RTC Manila had jurisdiction to
the subject matter, as the power to issue search issue thesaid warrant despite non-compliance
warrants is inherent in all courts. Thus, the trial with the compelling reasons requirement under
court may only take cognizance of such issue if it Section 2, Rule126 of the Rules of Court
is raised in a timely motion to quash the search
warrant. RULING: YES. Section 12, Chapter V of
A.M.No. 03-8-02-SC states the requirements
The determination of the existence of compelling for the issuance of search warrants in special
reasons under Section 2(b) of Rule 126 is a criminal cases by the RTCs of Manila and
matter squarely addressed to the sound Quezon City. These special criminal cases
discretion of the court where such application is pertain to those "involving heinous crimes,
filed, subject to review by an appellate court in illegal gambling, illegal possession of
case of grave abuse of discretion amounting to firearms ammunition, as well as violations of the
excess or lack of jurisdiction. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,
the Intellectual Property Code, the Anti-Money
RULING: Laundering Act of 2001, the Tariff and
Customs Code, as amended, and other
The Court did not agree with the OCA's findings relevant laws that may hereafter be enacted by
that Judge Docena and Judge Magsino violated Congress,and included herein by the
Section 2 of Rule 126 by simply issuing search Supreme Court." Search warrant applications
warrants involving crimes committed outside the for such cases may befiled by "the National
territorial jurisdiction of the RTC of Malabon City Bureau of Investigation (NBI), the Philippine
where: a) there is no compelling reason to take National Police(PNP) and the Anti-Crime Task
cognizance of the applications; and b) the Force(ACTAF)," and "personally endorsed by the
compelling reasons alleged in the applications heads of such agencies." As in ordinary
appear to be unmeritorious. search warrant applications, they "shall
particularly describe therein the places to be
. The Court find sufficient evidence to hold Judge searched and/or the propNerty or things to
Docena administratively liable for gross neglect beseized as prescribed in the Rules of
of duty for the serious mismanagement of search Court." "The Executive Judges [of these RTCs]
warrant applications in Branch 170. and,whenever they areon official leave of
absence or are not physically present in the
station, the Vice-Executive Judges" are
authorizedto act on such applications and "shall
LAUD v. PEOPLE issue the warrants,if justified, which may be
served in places outside theterritorial jurisdiction
FACTS: of the said courts."As the records would
show, the search warrantapplication was filed
PNP, through Police Senior Superintendent before the Manila-RTC by the PNP and was
Roberto B. Fajardo, applied with the RTC Manila endorsed by its head, PNP Chief Jesus
Ame Versosa,particularly describing the
place to be searched and the things to be ISSUE:
seized in connection withthe heinous crime of
Murder.Finding probable cause therefor, Judge Whether the “Plain View Doctrine” may be
Peralta, in his capacity as 2nd Vice-Executive applied in the seizure of the recovered items not
Judge, issued Search Warrant which, as the stated in the Search Warrant.
rules state, may be served in places outside the
territorial jurisdiction of the said RTC. Notably, RULING:
the fact that a search warrant application
involves a "special criminal case" excludes it No, despite the fact that the issuance of Search
from the compelling reason requirement under Warrant No. 10-11 is valid, petitioners are correct
Section 2, Rule126 of the Rules of Court. The that most items listed in the Return on the
rule on search warrantapplications before the Search Warrant are inadmissible in evidence.
Manila and Quezon City RTCsfor the above- Since only 2 items were particularly described on
mentioned special criminal cases "shall bean the face of the search warrant.
exception to Section 2 of Rule 126 of the Rules
ofCourt." Perceptibly, the fact that a search For the “plain view doctrine” to apply, it is
warrant isbeing applied for in connection with a required that the following requisites are present:
special criminal case as above-classified already (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the
presumes the existence of a compelling reason; evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion
hence, any statement to this effect would be or is in a position from which he can view a
super fluous and therefore should be dispensed particular area; (b) the discovery of evidence in
with. plain view is inadvertent; and (c) it is immediately
apparent to the officer that the item he observes
may be evidence of a crime, contraband or
DIMAL and CASTILLO v. PEOPLE otherwise subject to seizure.

FACTS: What the ‘plain view’ cases have in common is

that the police officer in each of them had a prior
Unable to locate his relatives, Edison went to the justification for an intrusion in the course of which
police station in Alicia, Isabela, to report that they he came inadvertently across a piece of
were missing, then proceeded to seek assistance evidence incriminating the accused.
from the police station in Echague.
PEOPLE v. PASTRA and ABAD
Thereafter, Edison was escorted by two
policemen to Dimal’s compound, where they FACTS:
allegedly stayed and observed the premises in
the absence of Dimal until September 7, 2010. SI Gaerlan alleged that he received confidential
On even date at around 5:30 a.m., Edison and information that respondents were engaged in a
the two policemen supposedly searched without scheme to defraud foreign investors. Some of
a warrant Dimal’s compound, but found no their employees would call prospective clients
evidence linking him to the disappearances. abroad whom they convince to invest in a
foreign-based company by purchasing shares of
On October 8, 2010, Police Inspector (P/lnsp.) stocks. Those who agreed to buy stocks were
Roy Michael S. Malixi, a commissioned officer of instructed to make a transfer for the payment
the Philippine National Police assigned with the thereof. No shares of stock, however, were
Police Anti-Crime and Emergency Response in actualy purchased. SI Gaerlan averred that the
Camp Crame Quezon City, filed an Application svheme not only constituted estafa under Article
for the Issuance of a Search Warrant before the 315 of the RPC but also a violation of RA No.
R TC Ilagan, Isabela, Branch 17, in connection 8799 or the Securities Regulation Code.
with the kidnapping and multiple murder of Lucio,
Rosemarie and Gemma. On March 26 2001, Judge Salvador Jr. of the
RTC, Branch 63 of Makati City issued Search
The RTC ruled that a perusal of the application Warrant No. 01-118.
for search warrant reveals that it was issued by
the RTC of Ilagan, Isabela, after conducting ISSUE: Whether or not Search Warrant N. 01-
searching and probing questions upon the 118 is null and void because it violates the
persons of the applicant P/Insp. Malixi, and his requirement that a search warrant must be
witnesses Edison, Shaira Mae and more issued in connection with one specific offense
particularly Villador, and finding probable cause only.
based on their personal knowledge.
RULING:
With the RTC’s denial of their motion for
reconsideration, petitioners filed a petition for Yes, Search Warrant No. 01-118 is null and void
certiorari before the CA. The CA dismissed the because it violates the requirement that a search
petition and ruled that the subject search warrant warrant must be issued in connection with one
was validly issued. specific offense only.
 The placed to be searched, as set out in
One of the constitutional requirement for the thewarrant, cannot be amplified or modified by
validity of a search warrant is that it must be the officers’ own personal knowledge of the
issued based on the probable cause which, premises, or the evidence they adduced in
under the Rules, must be in connection with one support of their appliaction for the warrant. Such
specific offense to prevent the issuance of a change is proscribed by the Constitution which
scattershot warrant. The one-specific-offense requires inter alia the search warrant to
requirement reinforeces the constitutional particularly describe the place to be searched as
requirement that a search warrant should issue well as the persons or things to be siezed. It
only on the basis of probable cause. Since the would concede to police officers the power of
primary objective of applying for a search warrant choosing the place to be searched, even if it not
is to obtain evidence to be used in a subsequent be that delineated in the warrant. The
proseecution for an offense for which the search particularization of the description of the place to
warrant was applied, a judge issuing a particular be searched may properly be done only be the
warrant must satisfy himself that the evidence judge, and only in the warrant itself; it cannot be
presented by the applicant establishes the facts left to the discretion of the police officers
and circumstances relating to this specific conducting the search.
offense for which the warrant is sought and
issued. PEOPLE v. ESTRADA

In this case, the Search warrant No. 01-118 was FACTS:

issued for violation of R.A nO. 8799 and for
estafa. Atty. Cabanlas, Chief of the Legal, Information
and Compliance Division (LICD)of BFAD filed an
application for the issuance of a search warrant
against AidenLanuza (private respondent).
PEOPLE v. COURT OF APPEALS However, the application ended with a statement
that thewarrant is to search the premises of
FACTS: another person at a different address.

S/Insp PNP James Brillantes applied for search Respondent Judge issued search warrant 958 on
warrant before Branch 261, RTC of Quezon City June 27, 1995 which wasserved the next day.
against Mr. Hussain, who had alledgedly in his The present petition stated that, during the
possession firearms and explosives at Abagail search, the team discovered that said address
Variety store, Apt. 1207 Area F, Bagong Buhay (516 xx) was actually a 5,000-metercompound
Avenue, Sapang Palay, San Jose Bulacan. containing at least 15 structures. The policemen
Search Warrabt No. 1068 against Mr. Hussain proceeded tosearch the residence of private
was issued not at Abigail Variety Store but at respondent Lanuza at Lot 41 of said
Apt. No. 1, immediately adjacent to Abigail address.Failure to find any drug products
Variety Store resulting in the arrest of 4 Pakistani prompted the policemen to proceed to search a
nationals and in the seizure of their personal nearby warehouse at Lot 38 which yielded 52
belongings, papers, and effects which were cartons of assorted drug products.
never mentioned in the warrant.
On August 22, 1995, private respondent Lanuza
Three days after the warrant was served, a filed a motion to quash the search warrant on the
return was made without mentioning the personla ground that the search warrant is illegal and null
belongings, papers, and effects including cash and void.
belonging to the private respondents. There was
no showing that lawful occupants were made to Respondent judge granted Lanuza’s motion to
witness the search. quash the search warrant anddenied petitioner’s
motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE:

Whether or not the particular placed to be search ISSUE: Whether or not the Search Warrant is
has been specifically described in the warrant. valid?

RULING: RULING: NO, Firstly, the court cannot fault the

respondent Judge for nullifying the search
NO, the police oficers did not intend a search of warrant as she was not convinced that there was
all five places, but of only one residential units at probable cause for its issuance due to the failure
the rear of Abigail Variety Store. However, of the applicant to present documentary proof
despite having personal and direct knowledge of indicating that private respondent Aiden Lanuza
the physical configuration of the store and the had no license to sell drugs. The facts and
apartments behind the sotre, the police officers circumstances that would show probable cause
failed to make Judge Bacalla understand the must be the bestevidence that could be obtained
need to pinpoint Apt. 1 in the warrant. under the circumstances.
 But if the best evidence could not be secured at RULING: No, the CA did not act with grave
the time of application, the applicant must show a abuse of discretion in ordering the removal and
justifiable reason therefore during the destruction of the hard disks containing the
examination by the judge. The necessity of pornographic and obscene materials.
requiring stringent procedural safeguards before
a search warrant can be issued is to give Clearly, the provision of PD No. 969 directs the
meaning to the constitutional right of a person to forfieture of all materials involved in violation of
the privacy of his home and personalities. the subject law. The CA wa lenient with
petitoners in modifying the ruling of the RTC in
In the case at bar, the best evidence procurable that the CPUs and softwares, which were initially
under the circumstances to prove-that private ordered to retained by the NBI, should be
respondent Aiden Lanuza had no license to sell released in their favor with only the hard disk
drugs is the certification to that effect from the removed from the CPUs and destroyed. If the
Department of Health. softwares are determined to be violative of Article
201 of the RPC, they should also be forfeited and
Secondly, the place sought to be searched had destroyed in the manner allowed by law. To
not been described with sufficient particularity in stress, PD No. 969 mandates the forfieture and
the questioned search warrant. This Court has destruction of pornographic materials involved in
held that the applicant should particularly the violation of Article 201 of the RPC, even if
describe the place to be searched and the the accused was acquitted
person or things to be seized, wherever and
whenever it is feasible.
DABON v. PEOPLE

NOGALES v. PEOPLE FACTS:

FACTS: On July 26, 2003, P/Insp Mallari and other CIDG

team proceeded to an apartment unit where the
Special investigator Menez, an NBI agent applied residence of Dabon is situated. Upon reaching
for a search warrant from RTCto authorize him the apartment, the CIDG operatives requested
and his fellow NBI Agents to (1) search the Brgy. Kagawad Angalot, City Councilor Angalot,
premises of petitioner Phil-Pacific Outsourcing SK Chairman Angalot, media
Services Corporation and (2) to confiscate those representativeResponte and DOJ Castro to
items enumerated in the said search warrant. witness the search. The group entered the
The basis for such search warrant was that house, together with some of the witness they
petitioner allegedly had in their possession went to the second floor where Dabon and his
equipement and materials which they used for family resided. They found Dumaluan in the living
the creation and for the selling of their room while Dabon was inside one of the
pornographic website. The search warrant was bedrooms.P/Insp. Mallari handed the copy of the
acted upon by a certain Judge Alisuag. A hearing search warrant to Dabon, the CIDG operatives
would be conducted where Menez alongside two searched the kitchen where they found, in the
other witnesses were asked searching questions presence of Brgy.Kagawad Angalot, drug
in order to serve as evidence for the granting of paraphernalia.The police officers then frisked
the search warrant. The application for the Dumaluan and recovered from his pocket, a coin
search warrant would be granted on the same purse, a lighter,a metal clip, three empty decks of
day of the hearing. suspected shabu two pieces of blade and
crumpled tin foil.The police officers proceeded to
The petitioner filed a Motion to Quash search search one of the bedrooms where they found
warrant and Return siezed properties. The three plastic sachets containing suspected
aformentioned was based on the supposed shabu. They also recovered the drug
ground on irregularity in the issuance and paraphernalia.
enforcement of the search warrant. Judge
Alisuag only granted the return of the monitor ISSUE: Whether the evidence obtained against
sets but ruled that the seized CPUs and Dabon admissible?
softwares shall remain in the custody of the NBI.
The CA would affirm such ruling with modification HELD: NO
that the CPUs and softwares shall be returned; It must be clarified that a search warrant issued
provided that the hard disk be removed from the in accordance with the provisions of the Revised
CPUs and be destroyed. Rules of Criminal Procedure does not give the
authorities limitless discretion in implementing
the same as the same Rules provide parameters
ISSUE: Whether or not there was a grave abuse in the proper conduct of a search.
of discretion on the part of the CA in ordering the
removal and destruction of the hard disks In this case, it is undisputed that Dabon and his
containing the pornographic and obscene wife were actually present in their residence
materials. when the police officers conducted the search in
the bedroom where the drugs and drug
paraphernalia were found.It was ruled that warrant’s validity, especially if the grounds
although the lawful occupants were present therefor are not immediately apparent.
during the search, the fact that they were not
allowed to witness the search of the premises
violates the mandatory requirement.In VAPOROSO and TULILIK v. PEOPLE
Bulauitan v. People,We decided for the acquittal
of the accused because of failure to comply with FACTS:
the aforequoted rule, which rendered the
evidence against him inadmissible. Police Officer Torculas was Patrolling a highway
when he saw two persons namely Vaporosoand
Tulilik, who ride a motorcycle. The Police Officer
OGAYON v. PEOPLE doubted that the Accused-Appellants werea thief
of a stolen bar from a nearby car where the
FACTS: officer saw the two. Not Long Enough, TheOwner
of the car approached Police Office Torculas
Police Chief Inspector Elmer Ferrera together about the incident. Torculas tried to chasedthe
with other members of the police, proceeded to two accused-appellants and called for backed-
Ogayon’s house to enforce a search warrant for up when he reach the dar secluded area.
the seizure of shabu and other paraphernalia. On HoursLater, The Suspects came out of
the way, the police team noticed several persons the area, however, they fled. When the
inside a nipa hut. They were suspecting that a Police OfficersApprehended the Acused-
pot session was about to be held and restrained Appelants, they conducted an initial body search
2 out of 5 persons and immediately proceeded to but found nothing.Upon arrival at the police
Ogayon’s station, The Police Officers conducted another
house. After presenting the warrant, they search and found somesachets of shabu.
proceeded to search and found in the comfort
room a paper which contained 2 small, heat- ISSUE: W/N there was a justifiable search
sealed transparent plastics with a substance that incidental to a valid warrantless arrest.
the team suspected to be shabu. In the same
comfort room, theyalso found drug paraphernalia RULING: NO. There is a valid arrest but the
such as disposable lighters, aluminum foil, and search was invalid.
others. Although the CA found no evidence in the
records showing compliance with this In warrantless arrests, it is required that at the
requirement, it nevertheless upheld the search time of the arrest, an offense had in fact just
warrant’s validity due to Ogayon’s failure to make been committed and the arresting officer had
a timely objection against the warrant during the personal knowledge of facts indicating that the
trial accused had committed it. It is essential that the
element of personal knowledge must be coupled
ISSUE: WON the evidence was admissible with the element of immediacy; otherwise, the
arrest may be nullified and the item yeilded
RULING: NO. The judge’s determination for through the search incidental thereto will be
probable cause must have a substantial basis. rendered inadmissible. From the foregoing the
Affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses Court concludes that the police officers validly
are insufficient to establish the factual basis. concluded a hot pursuit warrantless-arrest on
Because the judge failed to comply with the petitioners.
requirements, the search warrant was invalid
thus rendering the search illegal.CA said that The court notes that two searches was made;
even if the judge failed to comply with the First, at the time of apprehension, Second, at the
requirements, search was still valid because police station where the drugs were recovered.
Ogayon failed to make a timely objection. This
argument is untenable because fundamental 1. The First search was valid because it was
constitutional rights are presumed to not have done contemporaneous to their arrest and at the
been waived. place of apprehension. On the other hadn, the
same cannot be said of the second search which
In fact, the police officer who served the search yielded the drugs subject of this case,
warrant testified that he did not know who considering that a substantial amount of time had
applied for the search warrant. The records, already elapsed from the time of the arrest to the
therefore, bear no evidence from which it can be time of the second search.
inferred that the requisite examination was made,
and from which the factual basis for probable -The purpose of allowing a warrantless search
cause to issue the search warrant was derived. and seizure incident to a lawful arrest is to
protect the arresting officer from being harmed
The right against unreasonable searches and by the person arrested, who might be armed with
seizures is a constitutional right. It outweighs any a conceled weapon, and to prevent the latter
procedural rule. Further, the Rule does not intend from destroying evidence with reach. The phrase
to preclude belated objections against a search “within the area of his immediate control” means
the area from within which he might gain
possession of a weapon or destructible evidence. was justtransporting the bag in favor of Marvin, a
Warrantless search cannot be made in a place barriomate. Cogaed subsequently opened the
other than the place of arrest. bag revealing the bricks of marijuana inside. He
was then arrested by the police officers.

SANCHEZ v. PEOPLE ISSUE:Whether there was a valid search and

seizure; and, whether the marijuana confiscated
FACTS: is admissible as evidence.

Around 2:50 pm of March 19, 2003, acting on the RULING: NO. There is no valid search and
information that Jacinta Marciano, aka seizure; thus, the marijuana confiscated shall not
"Intang,"was selling drugs to tricycle drivers, a be admissible as evidence.
group of police officers was dispatched to
Barangay Alapan1-B, Imus, Cavite to conduct an The search involved in this case was initially a
operation. While at the place, the group waited “stop and frisk” search, but it did not
for a tricycle goingto, and coming from, the comply with all the requirements of reasonability
house of Jacinta. After a few minutes, they required by the Constitution.
spotted a tricycle carrying Rizaldy Sanchez
coming out of the house. The group chased the “Stop and frisk” searches (sometimes referred to
tricycle. After catching up with it, they requested as Terry searches) are necessary for law
Rizaldy to alight. It was then that they noticed enforcement. That is, law enforcers should be
Rizaldy holding a match box. given the legal arsenal to preventthe commission
of offenses. However, this should be balanced
An officer asked Rizaldy if he could see the with the need to protect the privacy of citizens in
contents of the match box. Rizaldy agreed. While accordance with Article III, Section 2 of the
examining it, the officer found a small transparent Constitution. The balance lies in the concept of
plastic sachet which contained a white crystalline “suspiciousness” present in the situation where
substance. Suspecting that the substance was a the police officer finds himself or herself in. This
regulated drug, the group accosted Rizaldy and may be undoubtedly based on the experience of
the tricycle driver. The group brought the two to the police officer. It does not have to be probable
the police station. cause, but it cannot be mere suspicion. It has to
be a “genuine reason toserve the purposes of the
ISSUE: Is the warrantless arrest and search on “stop and frisk” exception.
the accused valid?
There was not a single suspicious circumstance
RULING: No. In a search incidental to a lawful in this case, and there was noapproximation for
arrest, the law requires that there first be a lawful the probable cause requirement for warrantless
arrest before a search can be made -- the arrest. The personsearched was not even the
process cannot be reversed. At bottom, person mentioned by the informant. The
assuming a validarrest, the arresting officer may informant gavethe name of Marvin Buya, and the
search the person of the arrestee and the area person searched was Victor Cogaed. Even if
within which thelatter may reach for a weapon or itwas true that Cogaed responded by saying that
for evidence to destroy, and seize. In the case, he was transporting the bag to MarvinBuya, this
the search preceded the arrest of Sanchez. still remained only as one circumstance. This
There was no arrest prior to the conduct of the should not have beenenough reason to search
search. No arrest waseffected by the police Cogaed and his belongings without a valid
operatives upon the person of Sanchez before search warrant.
conducting the search onhim. The arrest of
Sanchez was made only after the discovery of
the shabu inside the match box.Evidently, what PEOPLE v. COMPRADO y BRONOLA
happened in this case was that a search was first
undertaken and then later anarrest was effected FACTS:
based on the evidence produced by the search.
. At 9:30 in the evening, the CI called P/Insp.
Orate to inform him that the alleged drug
PEOPLE v. COGAED courier had boarded a bus with body number
2646 and plate number KVP 988 bound for
FACTS: Cagayan de Oro City. The CI added that the man
would be carrying a backpack in black and violet
Victor Cogaed was riding a jeepney with a bag colors with the marking "Lowe Alpine." Thus, at
from Barangay Lun-Oy and during a checkpoint, about 9:45 in the evening, the police officers
the driver of the jeepney he rode made a signal stationed at Police Station 6 put up a checkpoint
to the police telling that Cogaed was carrying in front of the station.At 11:00 o'clock in the
marijuana inside Cogaed’s bag; the police officer evening, the policemen stopped the bus bearing
then approached Cogaed and asked the accused the said body and plate numbers. Senior Police
about the contents of his bags.Cogaed replied Officer 1 Benjamin Jay Reycitez (SPO1
that he did not know what was inside and that he Reycitez), and PO1 Rexie Tenio (PO1 Tenio)
boarded the bus and saw a man matching the
description given to them by the CI. The Buco then requestedpetitioner to board the bus
man was seated at the back of the bus with and open the bag. Petitioner obliged and the bag
a backpack placed on his lap. After P/Insp. revealed thefollowing contents: (1) an improvised
Orate asked the man to open the bag, the .30 caliber carbine bearing serial number 64702;
police officers saw a transparent cellophane (2)one magazine with three live ammunitions; (3)
containing dried marijuana leaves. one cacao-type hand grenade; and (4) aten-inch
hunting knife. SCAA Buco then asked petitioner
ISSUE: Whether accused-appellant's arrest was to produce proof of his authorityto carry firearms
valid and the seized items are admissible in and explosives. Unable to show any, petitioner
evidence was immediately arrestedand informed of his
rights by SCAA Buco.
RULING: NO, The Bill of Rights requires that a
search and seizure must be carried out with a ISSUE: Whether or not the search was illegal
judicial warrant; otherwise, any evidence
obtained from such warrantless search is RULING: No. In the present case, the
inadmissible for any purpose in any prosecution proved the negative fact that
proceeding.The Court finds that the totality of appellant has nolicense or permit to own or
the circumstances in this case is not possess the firearm, ammunition and explosive.
sufficient to incite a genuine reason that would The courtruled that either the testimony of a
justify a stop-and-frisk search on accused- representative of, or a certification from, the
appellant.An examination of the records reveals PNPFirearms and Explosive Office attesting that
that no overt physical act could be properly a person is not a licensee of any firearm would
attributed to accused-appellant as to rouse suffice to prove beyond reasonable doubt the
suspicion in the minds of the arresting officers second element of possession of illegal firearms.
that he had just committed, was committing, or The prosecution more than complied when it
was about to commit a crime. presented both.

As regards search incidental to a lawful A reasonable search arises from a reduced

arrest, it is worth emphasizing that a lawful expectation of privacy, for which reason Section
arrest must precede the search of a person and 2, Article III of the Constitution finds no
his belongings; the process cannot be reversed. application. Examples include searches done at
Thus, it becomes imperative to determine airports, seaports, bus terminals, malls, and
whether accused-appellant's warrantless arrest similar public ·places. In contrast, a warrantless
was valid. search is presumably an "unreasonable search,"
but for reasons of practicality, a search warrant
Any evidence obtained in violation of the right can be dispensed with. Examples include search
against unreasonable searches and seizures incidental to a lawful arrest, search of evidence in
shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any plain view, consented search, and extensive
proceeding.This exclusionary rule instructs search of a private moving vehicle. The
that evidence obtained and confiscated on the inspection of passengers and their effects prior to
occasion of such unreasonable searches and entry at the bus terminal and the search of the
seizures are deemed tainted and should be bus while in transit must also satisfy the following
excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a conditions to qualify as a valid reasonable
poisonous tree. In other words, evidence search.
obtained from unreasonable searches and PEOPLE v. MANAGO Y ACUT
seizures shall be inadmissible in evidence for
any purpose in any proceeding. FACTS:

March 15, 2007, 9:30 PM: PO3 Din of PNP

SALUDAY v. PEOPLE Mobile Patrol Group was waiting to get a haircut
at Jonas Borces Beauty Parlor when 2 persons
FACTS: entered and declared a hold-up. PO3 Din
identified himself as a police officer and
Bus No. 66 of Davao Metro Shuttle was flagged exchanged gun shots with the two suspects.
down by Task Force Davao of thePhilippine After the shootout, one of the suspects boarded
Army at a checkpoint near the Tefasco Wharf in a motorcycle, while the other boarded a red
Ilang, Davao City. SCAAJunbert M. Buco (Buco), Toyota Corolla. Further, upon verification of the
a member of the Task Force, requested all male getaway vehicles with the LTO, the police
passengers todisembark from the vehicle while officers found out that the motorcycle was
allowing the female passengers to remain inside. registered in Manago's name, while the red
Toyota Corolla was registered in the name of
Buco checked all the baggage and personal Zest-O Corporation, where Manago worked as a
effects of the passengers, but a small, gray-black District Sales Manager
pack bag on the seat at the rear of the bus
caught his attention. He lifted the bagand found it 9:30 PM: The red Toyota Corolla (driven by
too heavy for its small size. Manago) passed through the checkpoint. The
police officers ordered Manago to stop & denied the charges against him and maintained
disembark, and thereafter, conducted a thorough that the seized marijuana plants are inadmissible
search of the vehicle. As the search produced no in evidence as the “plain view” doctrine is not
contraband, the police officers then frisked applicable since the discovery was not
Manago, resulting in the discovery o one (1) inadvertent.
plastic sachet containing a white crystalline
substance suspected to be shabu. ISSUE: Whether or not the discovery of the
marijuana plants were “inadvertent”
CA then affirmed Manago's conviction in toto. It
held that the police officers conducted a valid hot RULING: No, Acosta argues that the second
pursuit operation against Manago, considering requisite of the plain view doctrine is absent
that PO3 Din personally identified him as the one since the discovery of the police officers of the
driving the red Toyota Corolla vehicle used. As marijuana plants not inadvertent as it was
such, the CA concluded that the warrantless prompted by Salucana.
arrest conducted against Manago was valid, and
consequently, the plastic sachet seized rom Thus, when the police officers proceeded to
him containing shabu is admissible in evidence Acosta’s abode, they already alerted to the fact
as it was done incidental to a lawful arrest. that there could possibly be marijuana plants in
Manago moved for reconsideration, which was the area. Armed with such knowledge, they
denied. would naturally be more circumspect in their
observations. In effect, they proceeded to
ISSUE: WoN Manago's warrantless arrest was Acosta’s abode, not only to arrest him in mauling
valid due to the presence of the element of incident, but also to verify Salucana’s report that
personal knowledge. Acosta was illegally plantingmarijuana. Thus, the
second requisite for the plain view doctrine is
RULING: No, valid warrantless even though absent.
personal knowledge was present. The required
element of immediacy was not met. COMERCIANTE v. PEOPLE

The information the police officers had gathered FACTS:

therefrom would have been enough for them to
secure the necessary warrants against the Agen t Radan and PO3 Calag were on a
robbery suspects. However, they opted to motorcycle patroling the area on their way to visit
conduct a "hot pursuit" operation which — their friend. On their way to visit their friend,
considering the lack of immediacy — crusing at a speed of 30 km/hr along private
unfortunately failed to meet the legal rode, they spottedat a distance of ten (10)
requirements therefore. meters, 2 men in front of a jeepney were
standing and showing “improper nand
The clincher in the element of "personal unpleasant movements”. One of them was
knowledge of facts or circumstances" is the handling plastic sachets to the other. At 5
required element of immediacy within which meters, PO3 Calag introduced himself as a
these facts or circumstances should be gathered. police officer and arrested the two men,
This required time element acts as a safeguard confiscating two small plastic sachets containing
to ensure that the police officers have gathered shabu. The CA affirmed the ruling of the trial
the facts or perceived the circumstances within a court of the conviction of Comerciante.
very limited time frame. This guarantees that the
police officers would have no me to base their ISSUE: Whether or not CA correctly affirmed
probable cause finding on facts or circumstances Comerciante’s conviction.
obtained after an exhaustive investigation.
RULING: NO, The evidence against
Comerciante is inadmissible as it was procured
PEOPLE v. ACOSTA through an unlaful search. The same should
result in his acquittal. The SC held that there was
FACTS: no lawful arrest because it is highly implausible
that PO3 Calag, even assuming that he has
The prosecution alleged that Salucana went to perfect vision, would be able to ao identify from
the Ginoog City Police Station to report a 10 meters, while moving at a speed of 30 km/hr
mauling incident where Acosta purportedly hit on the motorcycle,miniscule amounts of shabu
him with a piece of wood. He also reported that inside 2 very small plastic sachets as held by
Acosta was illegally planting marijuana. Comerciante.There is no overt act that could lead
Salucana’s foregoing reports prompted the be properly attributed to Comerciante as to rouse
authorities to proceed to Acosta’s home. The suspicion in the mind of PO3 Calag that the
police officers then run towards Acosta and former had just committed, was currently
arrested him. Upon seeing the marijuana, the committing, or was about to commit a crime.
officer called immediately the Brgy. Captain and
three others witnesses uprooting of the
suspected marijuana plant. In defense, Acosta PEOPLE v. FATALLO Y ALECARTE
FACTS:

Fatallo was charged for violation of

Sections 5 and 15, Article II of R.A.
9165, under theinformations dated March 2,
2004. Criminal cases nos. 10471 and 10473
were filed respectively for illegal sale and illegal
use of dangerous drugs.

Aggrieved, Fatallo appealed to the CA. In his

appeal, Fatallo raised the following grounds: (1)
thenon-presentation of the poseur buyer as a
witness is fatal to the case; (2) the police officers
failed tocomply with the requirements under
Section 21 of R.A. 9165; and (3) the chain of
custody of theconfiscated drugs was not
established.In the assailed decision, the CA
sustained Fatallo’s conviction.

ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC and CA erred in

convicting Fatallo of the crimes charged.

RULING: Yes. The Court resolves to acquit

Fatallo as the prosecution utterly failed to prove
that the buy-bust team complied with the
mandatory requirements of Section 21 of R.A.
9165 and for its failure to establish the unbroken
chain of custody of the seized drugs. The
requirements of this provision are thefollowing:

(1) the seized items be inventoried and

photographed immediately after the seizure
orconfiscation;
(2) the physical inventory and photographing
must be done in the presence of
(a) theaccused or his/her representative or
counsel,
(b) an elected public official,
(c) a representative from themedia, and
(d) a representative from the Department of
Justice (DOJ), all of whom shall be required
tosign the copies of the inventory and be given a
copy thereof.

Under the last paragraph of Section 21 (a),

Article II of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165, a
savingmechanism has been provided to ensure
that not every case of non-compliance with the
procedures forthe preservation of the chain of
custody will irretrievably prejudice the
Prosecutions’s case against theaccused. To
warrant the application of this saving mechanism,
however, the Prosecution must recognizethe
lapse or lapses, and justify or explain them. Yet,
the prosecution did not concede such lapses,
anddid not even tender any token justification or
explanation for them. The failure to justify or
explainunderscored the doubt and suspicion
about the integrity of the evidence of the corpus
delicti. With thechain of custody having been
compromised, the accused deserves acquittal.