Stop and Frisk Rule compliance with the "genuine reason" requirement

and that the search serves the purpose of protecting Question

STOP AND FRISK; GENUINE REASON RULE the public. As stated in Malacat: Was the search and seizure of Terry and the other
The mantle of protection upon one's person and one's men in violation of the Fourth Amendment?
effects through Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution A "stop-and-frisk" serves a two-fold interest:
is essential to allow citizens to evolve their autonomy Conclusion
and, hence, to avail themselves of their right to [1] The general interest of effective crime prevention In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court held that the search
privacy. The alleged compromise with the battle and detection, which underlies the recognition that a undertaken by the officer was reasonable under the
against dangerous drugs is more apparent than real. police officer may, under appropriate circumstances Fourth Amendment and that the weapons seized
Often, the compromise is there because law enforcers and in an appropriate manner, approach a person for could be introduced into evidence against Terry.
neglect to perform what could have been done to purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior Attempting to focus narrowly on the facts of this
uphold the Constitution as they pursue those who even without probable cause; and particular case, the Court found that the officer acted
traffic this scourge of society. (G.R. No. 200334. July on more than a "hunch" and that "a reasonably
30, 2014) prudent man would have been warranted in believing
[2] The more pressing interest of safety and self- [Terry] was armed and thus presented a threat to the
Normally, "stop and frisk" searches do not give the preservation which permit the police officer to take officer's safety while he was investigating his
law enforcer an opportunity to confer with a judge to steps to assure himself that the person with whom he suspicious behavior." The Court found that the
determine probable cause. In Posadas v. Court of deals is not armed with a deadly weapon that could searches undertaken were limited in scope and
Appeals (G.R. No. 89139, August 2, 1990), one of the unexpectedly and fatally be used against the police designed to protect the officer's safety incident to the
earliest cases adopting the "stop and frisk" doctrine in officer. (G.R. No. 200334. July 30, 2014) investigation.
Philippine jurisprudence, the Supreme Court
approximated the suspicious circumstances as The "stop and frisk" searchwas originally limited to POSADAS VS. COURT OF APPEALS
probable cause: outer clothing and for the purpose of detecting
The probable cause is that when the petitioner acted dangerous weapons As in the case of Manalili, Facts: Members of the Integrated National Police
suspiciously and attempted to flee with the buri bag jurisprudence also allows "stop and frisk" for cases (INP) of the Davao Metrodiscom assigned with the
there was a probable cause that he was concealing involving dangerous drugs.There were sufficient facts Intelligence Task Force, Pat. Ursicio Ungab and Pat.
something illegal in the bag and it was the right and observed by the police officers "to stop [the] petitioner Umbra Umpar conducted surveillance along
duty of the police officers to inspect the same. [and] investigate. In Aruta, the Court found that the Magallanes Street, Davao City. While in the vicinity of
For warrantless searches, probable cause was search and seizure conducted was illegal. There were Rizal Memorial Colleges they spotted petitioner
defined as "a reasonable ground of suspicion no suspicious circumstances that preceded Aruta’s carrying a "buri" bag and they noticed him to be acting
supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in arrest and the subsequent search and seizure. It was suspiciously. They approached the petitioner and
themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe that only the informant that prompted the police to identified themselves as members of the INP.
the person accused is guilty of the offense with which apprehend her. Petitioner attempted to flee but his attempt to get
he is charged." (People v. Aruta, 351 Phil. 868, 880) away was unsuccessful. They then checked the "buri"
Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1, 1868 bag of the petitioner where they found one (1) caliber
Malacat v. Court of Appeals clarifies the requirement .38 Smith & Wesson revolver with Serial No. 770196,
further. It does not have to be probable cause, but it Facts of the case two (2) rounds of live ammunition for a .38 caliber
cannot be mere suspicion. It has to be a "genuine Terry and two other men were observed by a plain gun, a smoke (tear gas) grenade, and two (2) live
reason" to serve the purposes of the "stop and frisk" clothes policeman in what the officer believed to be ammunitions for a .22 caliber gun. They brought the
exception. "casing a job, a stick-up." The officer stopped and petitioner to the police station for further investigation.
frisked the three men, and found weapons on two of In the course of the same, the petitioner was asked to
Police officers cannot justify unbridled searches and them. Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed show the necessary license or authority to possess
be shielded by this exception, unless there is weapon and sentenced to three years in jail. firearms and ammunitions found in his possession but
he failed to do so. He was then taken to the Davao acting suspiciously. The policemen approached the FACTS:
Metrodiscom office and the prohibited articles Posadas and identified themselves as members of
recovered from him were indorsed to M/Sgt. Didoy the the INP. Posadas attempted to flee but his attempt to In response to reports of bomb threats, Rodolfo Yu,
officer then on duty. He was prosecuted for illegal get away was thwarted by the two notwithstanding his was on foot patrol with other police officers at Plaza
possession of firearms and ammunitions in the resistance Found inside the “buri” bag were one (1) Miranda. They chanced upon two groups of Muslim-
Regional Trial Court of Davao City. caliber .38 Smith & Wesson revolver, a smoke (tear looking men near the Mercury Drug Store. These men
gas) grenade, and two (2) rounds live ammunitions for were acting suspiciously with their eyes moving very
Issue: Whether or Not the warantless search is valid. a .22 caliber gun. Posadas failed to show the fast. Yu and his companions observed both groups for
necessary license or authority to possess the firearms about thirty minutes.
Held: In justifying the warrantless search of the buri and ammunitions. He was subsequently prosecuted
bag then carried by the petitioner, argues that under for and found guilty of illegal possession of firearms The police officers then approached one group of
Section 12, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court a person and ammunitions. men, who then fled in different directions. As the
lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous policemen gave chase, Yu caught up with and
weapons or anything used as proof of a commission Held: At the time the peace officers identified apprehended petitioner. Upon searching petitioner, a
of an offense without a search warrant. It is further themselves and apprehended the petitioner as he fragmentation grenade was found tucked inside
alleged that the arrest without a warrant of the attempted to flee, they did not know that he had petitioners front waist line.
petitioner was lawful under the circumstances. committed, or was actually committing the offense of
illegal possession of firearm and ammunitions. They Yu did not issue any receipt for the grenade he
in the case at bar, there is no question that, indeed, it just suspected that he was hiding something in the allegedly recovered from petitioner.
is reasonable considering that it was effected on the buri bag. They did not know what its contents were.
basis of a probable cause. The probable cause is that The said circumstances did not justify an arrest Josefino G. Serapio, the investigating officer,
when the petitioner acted suspiciously and attempted without a warrant. conducted the inquest of the two suspects, informing
to flee with the buri bag there was a probable cause them of their rights to remain silent and to be assisted
that he was concealing something illegal in the bag Nevertheless, the search and seizure may still be by competent and independent counsel. Despite
and it was the right and duty of the police officers to justified as akin to a "stop and frisk" situation. When Serapio‘s advice, petitioner and Casan manifested
inspect the same. the petitioner acted suspiciously and attempted to flee their willingness to answer questions even without the
with the buri bag there was a probable cause that he assistance of a lawyer. Serapio then took petitioners
It is too much indeed to require the police officers to was concealing something illegal in the bag and it uncounselled confession, there being no PAO lawyer
search the bag in the possession of the petitioner only was the right and duty of the police officers to inspect available, wherein petitioner admitted possession of
after they shall have obtained a search warrant for the the same. To require the police officers to search the the grenade.
purpose. Such an exercise may prove to be useless, bag only after they had obtained a search warrant
futile and much too late. might prove to be useless, futile and much too late In its decision, the trial court thus found petitioner
under the circumstances. In such a situation, it was guilty of the crime of illegal possession of explosives
Clearly, the search in the case at bar can be reasonable for a police officer to stop a suspicious under Section 3 of P.D. No. 1866.
sustained under the exceptions heretofore discussed, individual briefly in order to determine his identity or to
and hence, the constitutional guarantee against maintain the status quo while obtaining more In his appeal to the CA, petitioner argued that the
unreasonable searches and seizures has not been information, rather than to simply shrug his shoulders warrantless arrest was invalid due to absence of any
violated. and allow a crime to occur. of the conditions provided for in Section 5 of Rule 113
of the Rules of Court, citing People vs. Mengote. As
Posadas v Court of Appeals, MALACAT y MANDAR v. CA and PEOPLE OF THE such, the search was illegal, and the hand grenade
PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 123595. December 12, 1997 seized, inadmissible in evidence.
Facts: Two policemen were conducting a surveillance, warrantless arrests, warrantless search, bill of rights,
when they spotted Posadas carrying a “buri” bag and illegal possession of explosives The CA affirmed the trial court’s decision.
 palpable violation of Section 12(1) and (3) of Article III
ISSUE: of the Constitution, which provide as follows: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested
has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting
WHETHER THE WARRANTLESS ARREST OF SEC. 12 (1). Any person under investigation for the to commit an offense;
PETITIONER WAS VALID AND LEGAL. commission of an offense shall have the right to be
informed of his right to remain silent and to have (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed,
RULING: competent and independent counsel preferably of his and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating
own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
The Court convinced that the prosecution failed to counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights
establish petitioner’s guilt with moral certainty. cannot be waived except in writing and in the (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who
presence of counsel. has escaped ***
First, serious doubt surrounds the story of police
officer Yu that a grenade was found in and seized xxx A warrantless arrest under the circumstances
from petitioner’s possession. Notably, Yu did not contemplated under Section 5(a) has been
identify, in court, the grenade he allegedly seized. (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation denominated as one “in flagrante delicto,” while that
of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in under Section 5(b) has been described as a “hot
According to him, he turned it over to his commander evidence against him. pursuit” arrest.
after putting an X mark at its bottom; however, the
commander was not presented to corroborate this Serapio conducted the custodial investigation on Turning to valid warrantless searches, they are limited
claim. petitioner the day following his arrest. No lawyer was to the following: (1) customs searches; (2) search of
present and Serapio could not have requested a moving vehicles; (3) seizure of evidence in plain view;
Yu did not, and was not made to, identify the grenade lawyer to assist petitioner as no PAO lawyer was then (4) consent searches; (5) a search incidental to a
examined by Ramilo, the police officer who conducted available. Thus, even if petitioner consented to the lawful arrest; and (6) a “stop and frisk.”
the examination, and the latter did not claim that the investigation and waived his rights to remain silent
grenade he examined was that seized from petitioner. and to counsel, the waiver was invalid as it was not in In the instant petition, the trial court validated the
Plainly, the law enforcement authorities failed to writing, neither was it executed in the presence of warrantless search as a stop and frisk with the
safeguard and preserve the chain of evidence so counsel. seizure of the grenade from the accused [as] an
crucial in cases such as these. appropriate incident to his arrest, hence necessitating
Even granting ex gratia that petitioner was in a brief discussion on the nature of these exceptions to
Second, if indeed petitioner had a grenade with him, possession of a grenade, the arrest and search of the warrant requirement.
then considering that Yu and his three fellow officers petitioner were invalid, as will be discussed below.
were in uniform and therefore easily cognizable as In a search incidental to a lawful arrest, as the
police officers, it was then unnatural and against The general rule as regards arrests, searches and precedent arrest determines the validity of the
common experience that petitioner simply stood there seizures is that a warrant is needed in order to validly incidental search, the legality of the arrest is
in proximity to the police officers. Note that Yu effect the same. The Constitutional prohibition against questioned in a large majority of these cases, e.g.,
observed petitioner for thirty minutes and must have unreasonable arrests, searches and seizures refers to whether an arrest was merely used as a pretext for
been close enough to petitioner in order to discern those effected without a validly issued warrant, conducting a search.
petitioner’s eyes moving very fast. subject to certain exceptions. As regards valid
warrantless arrests, these are found in Section 5, In this instance, the law requires that there first be a
Finally, even assuming that petitioner admitted Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, which reads, in part: lawful arrest before a search can be made — the
possession of the grenade during his custodial Sec. 5. — Arrest, without warrant; when lawful — A process cannot be reversed. At bottom, assuming a
investigation by police officer Serapio, such admission peace officer or a private person may, without a valid arrest, the arresting officer may search the
was inadmissible in evidence for it was taken in warrant, arrest a person: person of the arrestee and the area within which the
latter may reach for a weapon or for evidence to nevertheless holds that mere suspicion or a hunch will was indeed hiding a grenade, could not have been
destroy, and seize any money or property found not validate a “stop and frisk.” A genuine reason must visible to Yu. In fact, as noted by the trial court:
which was used in the commission of the crime, or the exist, in light of the police officer’s experience and
fruit of the crime, or that which may be used as surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the When the policemen approached the accused and his
evidence, or which might furnish the arrestee with the person detained has weapons concealed about him. companions, they were not yet aware that a hand
means of escaping or committing violence. grenade was tucked inside his waistline. They did not
Finally, a “stop-and-frisk” serves a two-fold interest: see any bulging object in [sic] his person.
Here, there could have been no valid in flagrante (1) the general interest of effective crime prevention
delicto or hot pursuit arrest preceding the search in and detection, which underlies the recognition that a What is unequivocal then in this case are blatant
light of the lack of personal knowledge on the part of police officer may, under appropriate circumstances violations of petitioners rights solemnly guaranteed in
Yu, the arresting officer, or an overt physical act, on and in an appropriate manner, approach a person for Sections 2 and 12(1) of Article III of the Constitution.
the part of petitioner, indicating that a crime had just purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior Petitioner SAMMY MALACAT y MANDAR was
been committed, was being committed or was going even without probable cause; and (2) the more ACQUITTED.
to be committed. pressing interest of safety and self-preservation which
permit the police officer to take steps to assure PEOPLE V. MENGOTE [210 SCRA 174; G.R. NO.
Having thus shown the invalidity of the warrantless himself that the person with whom he deals is not 87059; 22 JUN 1992]
arrest in this case, plainly, the search conducted on armed with a deadly weapon that could unexpectedly
petitioner could not have been one incidental to a and fatally be used against the police officer. Facts: The Western Police District received a
lawful arrest. telephone call from an informer that there were three
Here, here are at least three (3) reasons why the suspicious looking persons at the corner of Juan Luna
We now proceed to the justification for and allowable stop-and-frisk was invalid: and North Bay Boulevard in Tondo, Manila. A
scope of a “stop-and-frisk” as a “limited protective surveillance team of plainclothesmen was forthwith
search of outer clothing for weapons,” as laid down in As to Yus claim that petitioner was a member of the dispatched to the place. The patrolmen saw two men
Terry, thus: group which attempted to bomb Plaza Miranda two looking from side to side, one of whom holding his
days earlier, this claim is neither supported by any abdomen. They approached the persons and
We merely hold today that where a police officer police report or record nor corroborated by any other identified themselves as policemen, whereupon the
observes unusual conduct which leads him police officer who allegedly chased that group. two tried to run but unable to escape because the
reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that other lawmen surrounded them. The suspects were
criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons Also, there was nothing in petitioner’s behavior or then searched. One of them the accused-appellant
with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently conduct which could have reasonably elicited even was found with a .38 caliber with live ammunitions in
dangerous, where in the course of investigating this mere suspicion other than that his eyes were moving it, while his companion had a fan knife. The weapons
behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and very fast, an observation which leaves us incredulous were taken from them and they were turned over to
makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the since Yu and his teammates were nowhere near the police headquarters for investigation. An
initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his petitioner and it was already 6:30 p.m., thus information was filed before the RTC convicting the
reasonable fear for his own or others’ safety, he is presumably dusk. accused of illegal possession of firearm arm. A
entitled for the protection of himself and others in the witness testified that the weapon was among the
area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer Lastly, there was at all no ground, probable or articles stolen at his shop, which he reported to the
clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover otherwise, to believe that petitioner was armed with a police including the revolver. For his part, Mengote
weapons which might be used to assault him. Such a deadly weapon. None was visible to Yu, for as he made no effort to prove that he owned the fire arm or
search is a reasonable search under the Fourth admitted, the alleged grenade was discovered inside that he was licensed to possess it but instead, he
Amendment *** the front waistline of petitioner, and from all claimed that the weapon was planted on him at the
Other notable points of Terry are that while probable indications as to the distance between Yu and time of his arrest. He was convicted for violation of
cause is not required to conduct a “stop and frisk,” it petitioner, any telltale bulge, assuming that petitioner P.D.1866 and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
In his appeal he pleads that the weapon was not Facts: On Dec. 13, 1988, P/Lt. Abello was tipped off present in the pursuit of their official duties; (b) the
admissible as evidence against him because it had by his informant that a certain “Aling Rosa” will be evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police
been illegally seized and therefore the fruit of a arriving from Baguio City with a large volume of who had the right to be where they are; (c) the
poisonous tree. marijuana and assembled a team. The next day, at evidence must be immediately apparent, and (d)
the Victory Liner Bus terminal they waited for the bus "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence without
Issue: Whether or not the warrantless search and coming from Baguio, when the informer pointed out further search;
arrest was illegal. who “Aling Rosa” was, the team approached her and
introduced themselves as NARCOM agents. When 3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the
Held: An evidence obtained as a result of an illegal Abello asked “aling Rosa” about the contents of her government, the vehicle's inherent mobility reduces
search and seizure inadmissible in any proceeding for bag, the latter handed it out to the police. They found expectation of privacy especially when its transit in
any purpose as provided by Art. III sec 32 of the dried marijuana leaves packed in a plastic bag public thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable
Constitution. Rule 113 sec.5 of the Rules of Court, marked “cash katutak”. suspicion amounting to probable cause that the
provides arrest without warrant lawful when: (a) the occupant committed a criminal activity;
person to be arrested has committed, is actually Instead of presenting its evidence, the defense filed a
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense, (b) demurrer to evidence alleging the illegality of the 4. Consented warrantless search;
when the offense in fact has just been committed, and search and seizure of the items. In her testimony, the
he has personal knowledge of the facts indicating the accused claimed that she had just come from Choice 5. Customs search;
person arrested has committed it and (c) the person theatre where she watched a movie “Balweg”. While
to be arrested has escaped from a penal about to cross the road an old woman asked her for 6. Stop and Frisk;
establishment or a place where he is serving final help in carrying a shoulder bag, when she was later
judgment or temporarily confined while his case is on arrested by the police. She has no knowledge of 7. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances.
pending, or has escaped while being transferred from the identity of the old woman and the woman was
one confinement to another. nowhere to be found. Also, no search warrant was The essential requisite of probable cause must still be
These requirements have not been established in the presented. satisfied before a warrantless search and seizure can
case at bar. At the time of the arrest in question, the be lawfully conducted.
accused appellant was merely looking from side to The trial court convicted the accused in violation of
side and holding his abdomen, according to the the dangerous drugs of 1972 The accused cannot be said to be committing a crime,
arresting officers themselves. There was apparently she was merely crossing the street and was not
no offense that has just been committed or was being acting suspiciously for the Narcom agents to conclude
actually committed or at least being attempt by Issue: Whether or Not the police correctly searched that she was committing a crime. There was no legal
Mengote in their presence. Moreover a person may and seized the drugs from the accused. basis to effect a warrantless arrest of the accused’s
not be stopped and frisked in a broad daylight or on a bag, there was no probable cause and the accused
busy street on unexplained suspicion. was not lawfully arrested.
Judgment is reversed and set aside. Accused- Held: The following cases are specifically provided or
appellant is acquitted. allowed by law: The police had more than 24 hours to procure a
search warrant and they did not do so. The seized
PEOPLE VS. ARUTA [288 SCRA 626; G.R. NO. 1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest marijuana was illegal and inadmissible evidence.
120515; 13 APR 1998] recognized under Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules
Friday, February 06, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic of Court 8 and by prevailing jurisprudence RULE 113, RULES OF COURT
Writes
Labels: Case Digests, Political Law 2. Seizure of evidence in "plain view," the elements of Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A
which are: (a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid peace officer or a private person may, without a
warrantless arrest in which the police are legally warrant, arrest a person:
 inner door or window of a house or any part of a having an imposable penalty of imprisonment of not
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested house or anything therein to execute the warrant or less than 6 years and 1 day
has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting liberate himself or any person lawfully aiding him 3. Random drug testing for secondary and tertiary
to commit an offense; when unlawfully detained therein. school students as well as for officials and employees
(b) When an offense has just been committed, and he of public and private offices
has probable cause to believe based on personal Section 12. Delivery of property and inventory thereof
knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to court; return and proceedings thereon. Are the said provisions of the law constitutional?
to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who (a) The officer must forthwith deliver the property ANSWER: Numbers 1 and 2 are unconstitutional.
has escaped from a penal establishment or place seized to the judge who issued the warrant, together However, the SC upheld the constitutionality of
where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily with a true inventory thereof duly verified under oath. Number 3.
confined while his case is pending, or has escaped (b) Ten (10) days after issuance of the search
while being transferred from one confinement to warrant, the issuing judge shall ascertain if the return In declaring sec. 36(g) unconstitutional, the Court said
another. has been made, and if none, shall summon the that the same “unmistakably requires a candidate for
person to whom the warrant was issued and require senator to be certified illegal-drug clean, obviously as
In cases falling under paragraph (a) and (b) above, him to explain why no return was made. If the return a pre-condition to the validity of a certificate of
the person arrested without a warrant shall be has been made, the judge shall ascertain whether candidacy for senator or, with like effect, a condition
forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail section 11 of this Rule has been complained with and sine qua non to be voted upon and, if proper, be
and shall be proceeded against in accordance with shall require that the property seized be delivered to proclaimed senator-elect,” adding that the assailed
section 7 of Rule 112. him. The judge shall see to it that subsection (a) provision of the law and the COMELEC Resolution
hereof has been complied with. “add another layer to what the 1987 Constitution, at
RULE 126, RULES OF COURT (c) The return on the search warrant shall be filed and the minimum, requires for membership in the Senate.”
kept by the custodian of the log book on search
Section 2. Court where application for search warrant warrants who shall enter therein the date of the The Court also found no valid justification for
shall be filed. — An application for search warrant return, the result, and other actions of the judge. mandatory drug testing for persons accused of
shall be filed with the following: crimes, as required by sec. 36(f) of the law, as a
A violation of this section shall constitute contempt of mandatory drug testing in the case of persons
a) Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a court. charged with a crime before the prosecutor’s office
crime was committed. “can never be random or suspicionless.”
b) For compelling reasons stated in the application, Random Drug Tests
any court within the judicial region where the crime “When persons suspected of committing a crime are
was committed if the place of the commission of the Social Justice Society v Dangerous Drugs Board, GR charged, they are singled out and are impleaded
crime is known, or any court within the judicial region against their will,” said the Court. “To impose
where the warrant shall be enforced. No. 157870, November 3, 2008. mandatory drug testing on the accused is a blatant
Mandatory Drug Testing Case attempt to harness a medical test as a tool for criminal
However, if the criminal action has already been filed, prosecution, contrary to the stated objectives of RA
the application shall only be made in the court where The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 9165. Drug testing in this case would violate a
the criminal action is pending. (RA 9165), contains the following provisions: person’s right to privacy guaranteed under Sec. 2, Art.
III of the Constitution. Worse still, the accused
Section 7. Right to break door or window to effect 1. Mandatory drug testing of all candidates for public persons are veritably forced to incriminate
search. — The officer, if refused admittance to the office whether appointed or elected both in the themselves.” (visit fellester.blogspot.com)
place of directed search after giving notice of his national or local government
purpose and authority, may break open any outer or 2. Mandatory drug testing of all persons charged
before the prosecutor’s office with a criminal offense
On the other hand, the High Court held that sec. 36(c) committing, or is about to commit an offense must been committed is an essential precondition. It is not
and (d) of RA 9165 requiring mandatory drug testing have personal knowledge of that fact. enough to suspect that a crime may have been
of students and officials and employees of public and committed. The fact of the commission of the offense
private offices are constitutional. Facts: Cesar Masamlok personally and voluntarily must be undisputed. The test of reasonable ground
surrendered to the authorities stating that he was applies only to the identity of the perpetrator.
The Court, taking note of the proliferation of prohibited forcibly recruited by accused Ruben Burgos (D) as
drugs in the country which threaten “the well-being of member of the NPA, threatening him with the use of In this case, the Burgos (D) was arrested on the sole
the people, particularly the youth and school children firearm against his life, if he refused. Pursuant to this basis of Masamlok's verbal report. Masamlok led the
who usually end up as victims,” stated that until a information, PC-INP members went to the house of authorities to suspect that the accused had committed
more effective method is conceptualized and put in the Burgos (D) and saw him plowing his field when a crime. They were still fishing for evidence of a crime
motion, a random drug testing of students in they arrived. One of the arresting offices called not yet ascertained. The subsequent recovery of the
secondary and tertiary schools “is not only acceptable Burgos (D) and asked him about the firearm. At first, subject firearm on the basis of information from the
but may even be necessary if the safety and interest Burgos (D) denied having any firearm, but later, lips of a frightened wife cannot make the arrest lawful.
of the student population, doubtless a legitimate Burgos's (D) wife pointed to a place below their house If an arrest without warrant is unlawful at the moment
concern of the government, are to be promoted and where a gun was buried in the ground. it is made, generally nothing that happened or is
protected.” discovered afterward can make it lawful. The fruit of a
After recovery of said firearm, Burgos (D) pointed to a poisoned tree is necessarily also tainted.
The Court, taking into account the reduced stock pile of cogon where the officers recovered
expectation of privacy on the part of employees, the alleged subversive documents. Burgos (D) further PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
compelling state concern likely to be met by the admitted that the firearm was issued to him by Nestor v. WENCESLAO JAYSON, Accused-Appellant.
search, and the well-defined limits set forth in the law Jimenez, team leader of sparrow unit.
to properly guide authorities in the conduct of random Accused-appellant Wenceslao Jayson was charged
drug testing, held that the challenged drug test Issues: Is the warrantless arrest valid? Is the with violation of P.D. No. 1866 in the Regional Trial
requirement for those employed in public and private warrantless search valid? Court of Davao City. The amended information
offices is, under the limited context of the case, alleged
reasonable and constitutional. (GR No. 157870, Ruling: No. Under Section 6(a) of Rule 113, the officer
Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board and arresting a person who has just committed, is That on or about March 16, 1991, in the City of
PDEA, November 3, 2008) committing, or is about to commit an offense must Davao, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
have personal knowledge of that fact. The offense Honorable Court, the above-mentioned accused
Warrantless Arrests must also be committed in his presence or within his wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously with intent to
People vs. Burgos view. (Sayo vs. Chief of Police, 80 Phil. 859). possess, had in his possession and under his custody
The State (P) vs. Suspect NPA Rebel (D) one (1).38 caliber revolver (Paltik), with Serial
GR L-68955, September 4, 1986 (144 SCRA 1) [T] There is no such personal knowledge in this case. Number 91955 and four (4) live ammunitions inside
Whatever knowledge was possessed by the arresting the chamber of said revolver, without first securing the
Summary: An informant identified a certain person as officers, it came in its entirety from the information necessary license to possess the same.
a member of a subversive group who forcibly furnished by Cesar Masamlok. The location of the
recruited him and based on this information, the firearm was given by the wife of Burgos (D). That the same.38 caliber revolver was used by the
police went to arrest the suspect. At the time of the accused in killing Nelson Jordan on March 16, 1991.
arrest, the suspect was merely plowing his field. In arrests without a warrant under Section 6(b),
however, it is not enough that there is reasonable Contrary to law.
Rule of Law: In a warrantless arrest, the officer ground to believe that the person to be arrested has Davao City, Philippines, July 12, 1991.
arresting a person who has just committed, is committed a crime. A crime must in fact or actually The prosecution evidence shows that in the evening
have been committed first. That a crime has actually of March 16, 1991, accused-appellant, then a bouncer
at the Ihaw-Ihaw nightclub on Bonifacio Street, Davao in the killing of a person (Nelson Jordan) on March Nelson Jordan. Bystanders pointed to accused-
City, shot one Nelson Jordan. He was arrested after 16, 1991. appellant as the one who had shot Jordan. They then
he had been pointed by eyewitnesses as the gunman. arrested accused-appellant. Seized from him was
Recovered from him was a.38 caliber revolver with On June 17, 1993,9 he was found guilty by the a.38 caliber revolver with serial number 91955. The
serial number 91955,1 four live bullets, and one Regional Trial Court and sentenced to 20 years firearm was covered by a mission order and
empty shell.2 The firearm and ammunition were imprisonment. The trial court found accused-appellant memorandum receipt. Considering these facts, we
covered by a memorandum receipt and mission order acted in good faith, believing that the mission order hold that the warrantless arrest and search were
issued by Major Francisco Arquillano, Deputy and memorandum receipt issued to him were valid. valid.
Commander of the Civil-Military Operation and Rule 113, 5(b) of the Revised Rules of Criminal
CAFGU Affairs of the Davao Metropolitan District On appeal, the Court of Appeals10 increased the Procedure provides:
Command.3 The mission order authorized accused- penalty on accused-appellant to reclusion perpetua
appellant to carry the said firearm and twelve rounds and, in accordance with Rule 124, 13 of the Rules on Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace
of ammunition [t]o intensify intel[ligence] coverage Criminal Procedure, certified the case to this Court for officer or private person may, without a warrant, arrest
and was for a three-month duration (from February 8, review. Both accused-appellant and plaintiff-appellee a person:....
1991 to May 8, 1991), subject to the following have filed supplemental briefs.
restrictions:4 (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed,
Accused-appellant maintains that he acted in the and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating
VII. The carrying of firearms is prohibited in places good faith belief that he was authorized to carry the that the person to be arrested has committed it.
where people gather for political, religious, social, firearm by virtue of the mission order and In the case at bar there was a shooting. The
educational, and recreational purposes, such as memorandum receipt issued to him by Major policemen summoned to the scene of the crime found
churches or chapels, carnival grounds or fans, Francisco Arquillano of the Davao Metropolitan the victim. Accused-appellant was pointed to them as
nightclubs, cabarets, dance halls, dancing places District Command. He argues that the failure of the the assailant only moments after the shooting. In fact
during fiestas and other celebrations, bars, liquor prosecution to present as witness the government accused-appellant had not gone very far (only ten
drinking places, theaters or movies, cockpits, race official who had certified that accused-appellant was meters away from the Ihaw-Ihaw), although he was
tracks and the like, except when the personnel not the holder of a firearms license is fatal to the then fleeing. The arresting officers thus acted on the
concerned is on official mission in such places for prosecution of this case. basis of personal knowledge of the death of the victim
which he was authorized to carry firearms. and of facts indicating that accused-appellant was the
I. assailant.
Accused-appellant was initially charged with murder5 Although not raised as an error by the accused- This Court has upheld a warrantless arrest under
in an information filed on March 20, 1991 and appellant, it is pertinent to consider the circumstances analogous circumstances. In People v. Tonog, Jr.,12
docketed as Criminal Case No. 22,456-91 in the surrounding accused-appellants arrest and the the police found the lifeless body of a person with
Regional Trial Court, Branch 18 of Davao City but, seizure from him of the firearm in question several stab wounds. An informer pointed to the
after plea-bargaining, he was allowed to plead guilty considering that both were made without any warrant accused as the person who had killed the victim. That
to the lesser offense of homicide.6 In a decision dated from a court. afternoon, police officers arrested the accused. On
September 24, 1991, the trial court sentenced him to their way to the police station, a policeman noticed
imprisonment of 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor, With respect to the arrest, SPO1 Loreto Tenebro11 bloodstains on the accuseds pants which, when
as minimum, to 12 years and 1 day of reclusion testified that at around 10:00 in the evening of March examined, was found to be the same blood type O
temporal, as maximum.7chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary 16, 1991, while he and Patrolmen Camotes and found on the fatal knife. The Court upheld the
Reinerio Racolas were patrolling in their car, they warrantless arrest and ruled that the blood-stained
On July 15, 1991, he was charged with illegal received a radio message from their camp directing pants, having been seized as an incident of a lawful
possession of firearm.8 The information against him them to proceed to the Ihaw-Ihaw on Bonifacio Street arrest, was admissible in evidence.
was amended on October 8, 1991 in order to allege where there had been a shooting. Accordingly, they
that the firearm subject of the charge had been used proceeded to the place and there saw the victim,
The subsequent search of accused-appellants person As the Court of Appeals held, however, Major such bare assertion. Not only was there no written
and the seizure from him of the firearm was likewise Arquillano, who had issued the mission order in delegation of authority to Major Arquillano, it is even
lawful. Rule 126, 12 states: question, was not authorized to do the same. Neither doubtful whether Col. Calida, who, as commander of
was accused-appellant qualified to have a mission the unit had authority to issue mission orders, could
Sec. 12. Search incident to lawful arrest. A person order. delegate this authority to his deputy.
lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous Admittedly, Major Arquillano was not authorized to
weapons or anything which may be used as proof of issue mission orders to civilian agents of the AFP as Nor was accused-appellant qualified to be issued a
the commission of an offense, without a search he was not any of the following officers mentioned in mission order because he was a mere reserve of the
warrant. the Implementing Rules and Regulations of P.D. No. Citizen Forces Geographical Unit (CAFGU) without
1866, 5(a), to wit: regular monthly compensation. In fact he worked as a
II. (1) The Minister of National Defense and such other bouncer in a nightclub, and it was as a bouncer that
Ministry officials duly designated by him; he used the gun seized from him.
We now come to the main question of accused- (2) The Chief of Staff, AFP;
appellants liability for illegal possession of firearm. Even assuming that the issuance to accused-
There is no dispute that accused-appellant was in (3) Chief of the General/Special/Technical and appellant of the mission order was valid, it is clear
possession of the gun in this case. His defense is that Personal Staffs of GHQ AFP; that, in carrying the firearm inside the nightclub where
the gun is covered by a memorandum receipt and (4) Commanders of the AFP Major Services including he was working as a bouncer, accused-appellant
mission order issued by Major Francisco Arquillano, the Chiefs of their respective violated the restrictions in the mission order. These
then Deputy Commander of the Civil-Military General/Special/Technical and Personal Staffs; restrictions prohibited him from carrying firearms in
Operation and CAFGU Affairs of the Davao (5) Commanders and Chiefs of Staffs of AFPWSSU places where people converge unless on official
Metropolitan District Command. mission. Accused-appellants claim that he had been
The issuance of mission orders is governed by and major commands/units of the AFP and the Major told by Major Arquillano that he could carry the
Memorandum Circular No. 8 dated October 16, 1986 Services; firearm anywhere in Davao City19 was flatly denied
of the then Ministry of Justice, which in pertinent part (6) Commanders of battalions and higher units and by Major Arquillano who testified that precisely he
states: their equivalent in the Philippine Air Force and called accused-appellants attention to the
.. It is unlawful for any person or office to issue a Philippine Navy; restrictions.20cräläwvirtualibräry
mission order authorizing the carrying of firearms by
(7) Commanders of AFP intelligence units from GHQ
any person unless the following conditions are met: Nevertheless, it is argued that the prosecution failed
1. That the AFP officer is authorized by the law to AFP down to regional command levels; to prove accused-appellants guilt beyond reasonable
issue the mission order; (8) Provincial Commanders, METRODISCOM doubt because the prosecution did not present SPO4
2. That the recipient or addressee of the mission Commanders, company commanders and their Welliejado S. Sim of the FAS/Explosive NCO Davao
order is also authorized by the law to have a mission equivalent in the Philippine Air Force and Philippine Metropolitan District Command, who had certified that
order, i.e., he must be an organic member of the Navy; and per records on file [in] this Command Mr. Wenceslao
command/unit of the AFP officer issuing the mission Jayson does not exist/appear in the list of license
(9) Detachment commanders in remote areas whose
order. If mission orders are issued to civilians (not holders as of this date. Accused-appellant claims that
members of the uniformed service), they must be higher commanders are not easily available to issue the prosecution merely presented as Exhibit H the
civilian agents included in the regular plantilla of the such orders. certification without calling the issuing authority to
government agency involved in law enforcement and testify so that he could be cross-examined with regard
are receiving regular compensation for the services Major Arquillano claimed, however, that Colonel to his certification.
they are rendering. (In this case, the agency head or Franco Calida, had authorized him (Major Arquillano)
officials so designated by the law shall issue the to exercise this function so that people would not be Objection based on this ground must be deemed
mission order.).... swarming [in Calidas] office.18 As the appellate court waived in view of accused-appellants failure to object
well stated, full faith and credit cannot be given to to the presentation of the evidence. The certification
in question was marked when the parties entered into ammunition: Provided, That no other crime was Arnel as his companion to buy marijuana worth
a stipulation of facts,21 but accused-appellants committed. P10.00 from the two accused, Juan de la Cruz and
counsel did not object. Neither did counsel object Reynaldo Beltran. At the scene, it was Juan de la
when the certification was offered in evidence by the If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an Cruz whom Arcoy first negotiated (with) on the
prosecution.22cräläwvirtualibräry unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm purchase and when Arcoy told De la Cruz that he was
shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. buying P10.00 worth of marijuana, De la Cruz
In any event, accused-appellant does not claim to be (Emphasis added) instructed Reynaldo Beltran to give one aluminum foil
the holder of a regular license but only of a mission of marijuana which Beltran got from his pants’ pocket
order and memorandum receipt. Considering the Apparently, even though the penalty for illegal and delivered it to Arcoy. After ascertaining that the
invalidity of these documents, both the Regional Trial possession of firearm has been reduced in the new foil of suspected marijuana was really marijuana,
Court and Court of Appeals correctly held accused- law, the latter cannot be applied in this case so as to Arcoy gave the prearranged signal to his teammates
appellant liable under P.D. No. 1866. favor accused-appellant in view of the proviso in 1 by scratching his head and his teammates who were
that the first paragraph, providing for lighter penalty, strategically positioned in the vicinity, converged at
Nor can accused-appellant claim to have acted in the does not apply to cases where another crime has the place, identified themselves as NARCOM agents
good faith belief that the documents issued to him been committed. Nor can the third paragraph be and effected the arrest of De la Cruz and Beltran. The
sufficed as legal authority for him to carry the firearm. applied by considering the illegal possession of P10.00 marked bill used by Arcoy was found in the
As the Court of Appeals pointed out, good faith and firearm as a mere aggravating circumstance because, possession of Juan de la Cruz together with two
absence of criminal intent are not valid defenses although the gun seized was used in the commission aluminum foils and containing marijuana, Appellant
because the offense committed is malum prohibitum of a crime, this case concerns solely the charge of assails, unconstitutional, the manner in which the so-
punishable by special illegal possession of firearm. The criminal case for called buy-bust operation is conducted in order to
law.23chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary homicide is not before us for consideration. enforce the Dangerous Drugs Act. He stigmatizes it
as no different from seizure of evidence from one’s
III. Consequently, this case must be decided in person or abode without a search warrant. He argues
accordance with the ruling in People v. Quijada,26 that this procedure is pregnant with opportunities, and
It remains for us to determine whether the provisions that a person who kills another with the use of an gives rise to situations, for corrupting our law
of the recently enacted R.A. No. 8294, amending P.D. unlicensed firearm is guilty of homicide or murder as enforcers
No. 1866,24 can be applied to this case on the theory the case may be under the Revised Penal Code and
that it is more favorable to accused-appellant.25 R.A. aggravated illegal possession of firearm under P.D. Issue: Whether the buy-bust operation, the seizure of
No. 8294, provides in pertinent part: No. 1866, 1, par. 2. WHEREFORE, the decision of evidence from one’s person without a search warrant
the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.SO ORDERED. is unconstitutional
1. Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition,
Disposition or Possession of Firearms or ammunition People vs. de la Cruz G.R. 83260, April 18, 1990 Held: No, that a buy-bust operation is the method
or Instruments Used or Intended to be Used in the employed by peace officers to trap and catch a
Manufacture of Firearms or Ammunition. - The Facts: That after receiving a confidential report from malefactor in flagrante delicto. It is essentially a form
penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period Arnel, their informant, a “buy-bust” operation was of entrapment since the peace officer neither
and a fine of not less than Fifteen thousand pesos conducted by the 13th Narcotics Regional Unit instigates nor induces the accused to commit a crime.
(P15,000) shall be imposed upon any person who through a team composed of T/Sgt. Jaime Raposas Entrapment is the employment of such ways and
shall unlawfully manufacture, deal in, acquire, as Team Leader, S/Sgt. Rodelito Oblice, Sgt. Dante means for the purpose of trapping or capturing a
dispose, or possess any low powered firearm, such Yang, Sgt. Vicente Jimenez, P/Pfc. Adolfo Arcoy as lawbreaker from whose mind the criminal intent
as rimfire handgun,.380 or.32 and other firearm of poseur-buyer and Pat. Deogracias Gorgonia at originated. Oftentimes, it is the only effective way of
similar firepower, part of firearm, ammunition, or Maliclic St., Tondo, Manila at around 2:30 o’clock in apprehending a criminal in the act of the commission
machinery, tool or instrument used or intended to be the afternoon of May 4, 1987 to catch the pusher/s. of the offense. While it is conceded that in a buy-bust
used in the manufacture of any firearm or P/Pfc. Adolfo Arcoy acted as the poseur-buyer with operation, there is seizure of evidence from one’s
person without a search warrant, needless to state a his associate. SPO1 Badua asked “Neneth” about the The warrantless arrest of accused-appellant Doria is
search warrant is not necessary, the search being P1,600.00 as PO3 Manlangit looked over “Neneth’s” not unlawful. Warrantless arrests are allowed in three
incident to a lawful arrest. A peace officer may, house. Standing by the door, PO3 Manlangit noticed instances as provided by Section 5 of Rule 113 of the
without a warrant, arrest a person when, in his a carton box under the dining table. He saw that one 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, to wit:
presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is of the box’s flaps was open and inside the box was
actually committing or is attempting to commit an something wrapped in plastic. The plastic wrapper “Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A
offense. It is a matter of judicial experience that in the and its contents appeared similar to the marijuana peace officer or a private person may, without a
arrest of violators of the Dangerous Drugs Act in a earlier “sold” to him by “Jun.” His suspicion aroused, warrant, arrest a person:
buy-bust operation, the malefactors were invariably PO3 Manlangit entered “Neneth’s” house and took
caught red-handed. There being no violation of the hold of the box. He peeked inside the box and found (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested
constitutional right against unreasonable search and that it contained 10 bricks of what appeared to be has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting
seizure, the confiscated articles are admissible in dried marijuana leaves. to commit an offense;
evidence.
The prosecution story was denied by accused- (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed,
PEOPLE vs. DORIA G.R. No. 125299. January 22, appellants. and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating
1999 Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, Warrantless that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
Arrests, Search and Seizure, Plain View Doctrine Gaddao testified that inside her house were her co-
OCTOBER 26, 2017 accused Doria and three (3) other persons. They (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who
FACTS: asked her about a box on top of the table. This was escaped from a penal establishment or place where
the first time she saw the box. The box was closed he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined
Accused-appellants Florencio Doria and Violeta and tied with a piece of green straw. The men opened while his case is pending, or has escaped while being
Gaddao were charged with violation of Section 4, in the box and showed her its contents. She said she did transferred from one confinement to another.
relation to Section 21 of the Dangerous Drugs Act of not know anything about the box and its contents.
1972. x x x.”
She denied the charge against her and Doria and the
Members of PNP Narcotics Command (Narcom), allegation that marked bills were found in her person. Under Section 5 (a), as above-quoted, a person may
received information from two civilian informants (CI) The RTC convicted the accused-appellants. be arrested without a warrant if he “has committed, is
that one “Jun” who was later identified to be Florencio actually committing, or is attempting to commit an
Doria was engaged in illegal drug activities and offense.” Appellant Doria was caught in the act of
decided to entrap and arrest “Jun” in a buy-bust committing an offense. When an accused is
operation. ISSUES: apprehended in flagrante delicto as a result of a buy-
During the buy-bust operation”Jun” took out from his bust operation, the police are not only authorized but
bag an object wrapped in plastic and gave it to PO3 (1) the validity of the buy-bust operation in the duty-bound to arrest him even without a warrant.
Manlangit. PO3 Manlangit forthwith arrested “Jun” as apprehension of accused-appellant Doria;
SPO1 Badua rushed to help in the arrest. They (2) the validity of the warrantless arrest of accused- The warrantless arrest of appellant Gaddao, the
frisked “Jun” but did not find the marked bills on him. appellant Gaddao, the search of her person and search of her person and residence, and the seizure
Upon inquiry, “Jun” revealed that he left the money at house, and the admissibility of the pieces of evidence of the box of marijuana and marked bills are different
the house of his associate named “Neneth” (Violeta obtained therefrom. matters.
Gaddao) “Jun” led the police team to “Neneth’s”
house. Our Constitution proscribes search and seizure
without a judicial warrant and any evidence obtained
The team found the door of “Neneth’s” house open RULING: without such warrant is inadmissible for any purpose
and a woman inside. “Jun” identified the woman as in any proceeding. The rule is, however, not absolute.
Search and seizure may be made without a warrant strong in themselves to create the probable cause of Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a
and the evidence obtained therefrom may be guilt of the person to be arrested. A reasonable right to be in the position to have that view are subject
admissible in the following instances:(1) search suspicion therefore must be founded on probable to seizure even without a search warrant and may be
incident to a lawful arrest; (2) search of a moving cause, coupled with good faith on the part of the introduced in evidence.
motor vehicle; (3) search in violation of customs laws; peace officers making the arrest.
(4) seizure of evidence in plain view; (5) when the The “plain view” doctrine applies when the following
accused himself waives his right against requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement officer in
unreasonable searches and seizures. search of the evidence has a prior justification for an
Accused-appellant Gaddao was arrested solely on the intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a
The prosecution admits that appellant Gaddao was basis of the alleged identification made by her co- particular area; (b) the discovery of the evidence in
arrested without a warrant of arrest and the search accused. PO3 Manlangit, however, declared in his plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately apparent
and seizure of the box of marijuana and the marked direct examination that appellant Doria named his co- to the officer that the item he observes may be
bills were likewise made without a search warrant. It accused in response to his (PO3 Manlangit’s) query evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject
is claimed, however, that the warrants were not as to where the marked money was. Appellant Doria to seizure. The law enforcement officer must lawfully
necessary because the arrest was made in “hot did not point to appellant Gaddao as his associate in make an initial intrusion or properly be in a position
pursuit” and the search was an incident to her lawful the drug business, but as the person with whom he from which he can particularly view the area. In the
arrest. left the marked bills. This identification does not course of such lawful intrusion, he came inadvertently
necessarily lead to the conclusion that appellant across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused.
To be lawful, the warrantless arrest of appellant Gaddao conspired with her co-accused in pushing The object must be open to eye and hand and its
Gaddao must fall under any of the three (3) instances drugs. Appellant Doria may have left the money in her discovery inadvertent.
enumerated in Section 5 of Rule 113 of the 1985 house,
Rules on Criminal Procedure as aforequoted. with or without her knowledge, with or without any It is clear that an object is in plain view if the object
conspiracy. Save for accused-appellant Doria’s word, itself is plainly exposed to sight. The difficulty arises
Accused-appellant Gaddao was not caught red- the Narcom agents had no reasonable grounds to when the object is inside a closed container. Where
handed during the buy-bust operation to give ground believe that she was engaged in drug pushing. If the object seized was inside a closed package, the
for her arrest under Section 5 (a) of Rule 113. She there is no showing that the person who effected the object itself is not in plain view and therefore cannot
was not committing any crime. Contrary to the finding warrantless arrest had, in his own right, knowledge of be seized without a warrant. However, if the package
of the trial court, there was no occasion at all for facts implicating the person arrested to the proclaims its contents, whether by its distinctive
appellant Gaddao to flee from the policemen to justify perpetration of a criminal offense, the arrest is legally configuration, its transparency, or if its contents are
her arrest in “hot pursuit.” In fact, she was going about objectionable. obvious to an observer, then the contents are in plain
her daily chores when the policemen pounced on her. view and may be seized. In other words, if the
2. package is such that an experienced observer could
Neither could the arrest of appellant Gaddao be infer from its appearance that it contains the
justified under the second instance of Rule 113. Since the warrantless arrest of accused-appellant prohibited article, then the article is deemed in plain
“Personal knowledge” of facts in arrests without Gaddao was illegal, it follows that the search of her view. It must be immediately apparent to the police
warrant under Section 5 (b) of Rule 113 must be person and home and the subsequent seizure of the that the items that they observe may be evidence of a
based upon “probable cause” which means an “actual marked bills and marijuana cannot be deemed legal crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.
belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion.” The as an incident to her arrest. This brings us to the
grounds of suspicion are reasonable when, in the question of whether the trial court correctly found that PO3 Manlangit and the police team were at appellant
absence of actual belief of the arresting officers, the the box of marijuana was in plain view, making its Gaddao’s house because they were led there by
suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably warrantless seizure valid. appellant Doria. The Narcom agents testified that they
guilty of committing the offense, is based on actual had no information on appellant Gaddao until
facts, i.e., supported by circumstances sufficiently appellant Doria named her and led them to her.
Standing by the door of appellant Gaddao’s house, attestation of certain witnesses: that about 5:00 dismiss the case. Case against Espiritu (Criminal
PO3 Manlangit had a view of the interior of said o'clock in the afternoon of 22 November 1988, at the Case No. 88-68385) has been provisionally dismissed
house. Two and a half meters away was the dining corner of Magsaysay Boulevard and Velencia St., Sta. and his bail bond cancelled. FERNAN, C.J.,
table and underneath it was a carton box. The box Mesa, Manila, Espiritu spoke at a gathering of drivers concurring and dissenting:
was partially open and revealed something wrapped and sympathizers, where he said, among other
in plastic. things: After a deep and thorough reexamination of the
decision of Julv 9, 1990 and an exhaustive evaluation
He did not know exactly what the box contained that Bukas tuloy ang welga natin . . . hanggang sa of the motions for reconsideration of the said decision,
he had to ask appellant Gaddao about its contents. It magkagulona. 27 (Emphasis supplied) I am inclined to agree with the, majority's resolution
was not immediately apparent to PO3 Manlangit that on said motions for reconsideration except for the
the content of the box was marijuana. The marijuana and that the police authorities were present during the legality of the warrantless arrests of petitioner
was not in plain view and its seizure without the press conference held at the National Press Club Deogracias Espiritu for the crime of inciting to sedition
requisite search warrant was in violation of the law (NPC) on 22 November 1988 where Espiritu called for and petitioner Alfredo Nazareno for the crime of
and the Constitution. It was fruit of the poisonous tree a nationwide strike (of jeepney and bus drivers) on 23 murder.
and should have been excluded and never November 1988. 28 Espiritu was arrested without
considered by the trial court. warrant, not for subversion or any "continuing In the words of the resolution, Espiritu "was arrested
offense," but for uttering the above-quoted language without warrant, not for subversion or any 'continuing
The fact that the box containing about six (6) kilos of which, in the perception of the arresting officers, was offense,' but for uttering" the following: "Bukas tuloy
marijuana was found in the house of accused- inciting to sedition. ang welga natin . . . hanggang sa magkagulo na."
appellant Gaddao does not justify a finding that she Apparently, such statement was, in the perception of
herself is guilty of the crime charged. Many persons may differ as to the validity of such the arresting officers, inciting to sedition. While not
perception and regard the language as falling within conceding the validity of such perception, realizing
In every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous free speech guaranteed by the Constitution. But, then, that it is indeed possible that Espiritu was merely
drugs, what is material is the submission of proof that Espiritu had not lost the right to insist, during the pre- exercising his right to free speech, the resolution
the sale took place between the poseur-buyer and the trial or trial on the merits, that he was just exercising nonetheless supports the authority of peace officers
seller thereof and the presentation of the drug, i.e., his right to free speech regardless of the charged "only for purposes of the arrest."
the corpus delicti, as evidence in court.The atmosphere in which it was uttered. But, the authority
prosecution has clearly established the fact that in of the peace officers to make the arrest, without I find this position to be adverse to the very essence
consideration of P1,600.00 which he received, warrant, at the time the words were uttered, or soon of the resolution which sanctions warrantless arrests
accused-appellant Doria sold and delivered nine thereafter, is still another thing. In the balancing of provided they are made in accordance with law. In the
hundred seventy (970) grams of marijuana to PO3 authority and freedom, which obviously becomes first place, Espiritu mav not be considered as having
Manlangit, the poseur-buyer. The prosecution, difficult at times, the Court has, in this case, tilted the "just committed" the crime charged. He allegedly first
however, has failed to prove that accused-appellant scale in favor of authority but only for purposes of the uttered seditious remarks at the National Press Club
Gaddao conspired with accused-appellant Doria in arrest (not conviction). Let it be noted that the Court in the afternoon of November 12, 1988. The second
the sale of said drug. has ordered the bail for Espiritu's release to be allegedly seditious remark aforequoted was made at
reduced from P60,000.00 to P10,000.00. around 5:00 o'clock in the same afternoon (Decision,
1. Accused-appellant Florencio Doria is sentenced to pp. 23-24). Under these circumstances, the law
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua Let it also be noted that supervening events have enforcement agents had time, short though it might
made the Espiritu case moot and academic. For seem, to secure a warrant for his arrest. Espiritu's
2. Accused-appellant Violeta Gaddao is acquitted. Espiritu had before arraignment asked the court a quo apprehension may not therefore be considered as
for re-investigation, the peace officers did not appear. covered by Section 5(b) of Rule 113 which allows
G.R. No. 85727, Espiritu, on 23 November 1988, Because of this development, the defense asked the warrantless arrests "when an offense has in fact just
was arrested without warrant, on the basis of the court a quo at the resumption of the hearings to been committed."
Umil vs. Ramos G.R. No. 81567, July 9, 1990 Rolando Dural without warrant is justified as it can be capturing persons committing overt acts of violence
said that he was committing an offense when against government forces, or any other milder acts
Facts: on 1 February 1988, the Regional Intelligence arrested. The crimes of rebellion, subversion, but equally in pursuance of the rebellious movement.
Operations Unit of the Capital Command (RIOU- conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and The arrest or capture is thus impelled by the
CAPCOM) received confidential information about a crimes or offenses committed in furtherance thereof exigencies of the situation that involves the very
member of the NPA Sparrow Unit (liquidation squad) or in connection therewith constitute direct assaults survival of society and its government and duly
being treated for a gunshot wound at the St. Agnes against the State and are in the nature of continuing constituted authorities. If killing and other acts of
Hospital in Roosevelt Avenue, Quezon City. Upon crimes. violence against the rebels find justification in the
verification, it was found that the wounded person, exigencies of armed hostilities which is of the essence
who was listed in the hospital records as Ronnie Issue: Whether an arrest and search warrant is of waging a rebellion or insurrection, most assuredly
Javelon, is actually Rolando Dural, a member of the required for the crimes of rebellion, subversion, so in case of invasion, merely seizing their persons
NPA liquidation squad, responsible for the killing of conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and and detaining them while any of these contingencies
two (2) CAPCOM soldiers the day before, or on 31 crimes or offenses committed in furtherance thereof continues cannot be less justified. In this case,
January 1988, in Macanining Street, Bagong Barrio, or in connection therewith constitute direct assaults whatever may be said about the manner of his arrest,
Caloocan City. In view of this verification, Rolando against the State. the fact remains that the defendant was actually in
Dural was transferred to the Regional Medical court in the custody of the law on March 29, when a
Services of the CAPCOM, for security reasons. While Held: No, the claim of the petitioners that they were complaint sufficient in form and substance was read
confined thereat, or on 4 February 1988, Rolando initially arrested illegally is, therefore, without basis in to him. To this he pleaded not guilty. The trial
Dural was positively identified by eyewitnesses as the law and in fact. The crimes of insurrection or rebellion, followed, in which, and in the judgment of guilty
gunman who went on top of the hood of the CAPCOM subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such pronounced by the court, we find no error. Whether, if
mobile patrol car, and fired at the two (2) CAPCOM crimes, and other crimes and offenses committed in there were irregularities in bringing him personally
soldiers seated inside the car. As a consequence of the furtherance, on the occasion thereof, or incident before the court, he could have been released on a
this positive identification, Rolando Dural was referred thereto, or in connection therewith under Presidential writ of habeas corpus or now has a civil action for
to the Caloocan City Fiscal who conducted an inquest Proclamation No. 2045, are all in the nature of damages against the person who arrested him we
and thereafter filed with the Regional Trial Court of continuing offenses which set them apart from the need not inquire. It is enough to say that such
Caloocan City an information charging Rolando Dural common offenses, aside from their essentially irregularities are not sufficient to set aside a valid
alias Ronnie Javelon with the crime of “Double involving a massive conspiracy of nationwide judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint and
Murder with Assault Upon Agents of Persons in magnitude. Clearly then, the arrest of the herein after a trial free from error.
Authority.” The case was docketed therein as Criminal detainees was well within the bounds of the law and
Case No. C-30112 and no bail was recommended. existing jurisprudence in our jurisdiction. The arrest of GO VS. COURT OF APPEALS [206 SCRA 138; G.R.
On 15 February 1988, the information was amended persons involved in the rebellion whether as its NO. 101837; 11 FEB 1992]
to include, as defendant, Bernardo Itucal, Jr. who, at fighting armed elements, or for committing non-violent
the filing of the original information, was still acts but in furtherance of the rebellion, is more an act Facts: Petitioner, while traveling in the wrong direction
unidentified. As to Rolando Dural, it clearly appears of capturing them in the course of an armed conflict, on a one-way street, almost had a collision with
that he was not arrested while in the act of shooting to quell the rebellion, than for the purpose of another vehicle. Petitioner thereafter got out of his
the two (2) CAPCOM soldiers aforementioned. Nor immediately prosecuting them in court for a statutory car, shot the driver of the other vehicle, and drove off.
was he arrested just after the commission of the said offense. The arrest, therefore, need not follow the An eyewitness of the incident was able to take down
offense for his arrest came a day after the said usual procedure in the prosecution of offenses which petitioner’s plate number and reported the same to
shooting incident. Seemingly, his arrest without requires the determination by a judge of the existence the police, who subsequently ordered a manhunt for
warrant is unjustified. However, Rolando Dural was of probable cause before the issuance of a judicial petitioner. 6 days after the shooting, petitioner
arrested for being a member of the New Peoples warrant of arrest and the granting of bail if the offense presented himself in the police station, accompanied
Army (NPA), an outlawed subversive organization. is bailable. Obviously, the absence of a judicial by 2 lawyers, the police detained him. Subsequently a
Subversion being a continuing offense, the arrest of warrant is no legal impediment to arresting or criminal charge was brought against him. Petitioner
posted bail, the prosecutor filed the case to the lower petitioner is ordered released upon posting a bail People v. Sucro G.R. No. 93239 March 18, 1991 195
court, setting and commencing trial without bond. SCRA 388 (1991)
preliminary investigation. Prosecutor reasons that the
petitioner has waived his right to preliminary PEOPLE vs MANLULU Facts: On March 21, 1989, Pat. Roy Fulgencio, a
investigation as bail has been posted and that such FACTS: member of the INP, Kalibo, Aklan, was instructed by
situation, that petitioner has been arrested without a Alfaro, a NARCOM agent, was stabbed and P/Lt. Vicente Seraspi, Jr. (Station Commander of the
warrant lawfully, falls under Section 5, Rule 113 and shot in a drinking spree. His drinking companions, INP Kalibo, Aklan) to monitor the activities of
Section 7, Rule 112 of The 1985 Rules of Criminal Manlulu and Samson were arrested nineteen hours appellant Edison Sucro, because of information
Procedure which provides for the rules and procedure after the incident. Patrolman Perez arrested Manlulu gathered by Seraspi that Sucro was selling marijuana.
pertaining to situations of lawful warrantless arrests. on the information given by Manlapaz, who was also As planned, at about 5:00 P.M. on said date, Pat.
Petitioner in his petition for certiorari assails such drinking with the accused and the victim. Patrolman Fulgencio Positioned himself under the house of a
procedure and actions undertaken and files for a Perez seized from Manlulu the .45 cal. Pistol and certain Arlie Regalado at C. Quimpo Street. Adjacent
preliminary investigation. Casio wristwatch said to belong to Alfaro, without a to the house of Regalado, about 2 meters away, was
warrant and without informing Manlulu of his right to a chapel. Thereafter, Pat. Fulgencio saw appellant
Issues: counsel. enter the chapel, taking something which turned out
(1) WON warrantless arrest of petitioner was lawful. ISSUE: Whether or not the arrest and seizure of the later to be marijuana from the compartment of a cart
(2) WON petitioner effectively waived his right to gun and the watch was valid. found inside the chapel, and then return to the street
preliminary investigation. HELD: where he handed the same to a buyer, Aldie
The warrantless arrest was invalid. The Borromeo. After a while appellant went back to the
Held: Petitioner and prosecutor err in relying on Umil killing took place at one o’clock in the morning. The chapel and again came out with marijuana which he
v. Ramos, wherein the Court upheld the warrantless arrest and the consequent search and seizure came gave to a group of persons. It was at this instance that
arrest as valid effected 1 to 14 days from actual at around seven o’clock that evening, some nineteen Pat. Fulgencio radioed P/Lt. Seraspi and reported the
commission of the offenses, which however hours later. This instance cannot come within the activity going on. P/Lt. Seraspi instructed Pat.
constituted “continuing crimes,” i.e. subversion, purview of a valid warrantless arrest. Paragraph (b) Fulgencio to continue monitoring developments. At
membership in an outlawed organization, etc. There Sec. 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal about 6:30 P.M., Pat. Fulgencio again called up
was no lawful warrantless arrest under Section 5, Procedure provides that the arresting officer must Seraspi to report that a third buyer later Identified as
Rule 113. This is because the arresting officers were have “personal knowledge” nor was the offense “in Ronnie Macabante, was transacting with appellant. At
not actually there during the incident, thus they had fact just been committed.” While Pat. Perez may that point, the team of P/Lt. Seraspi proceeded to the
no personal knowledge and their information have personally gathered the information which led to area and while the police officers were at the Youth
regarding petitioner were derived from other sources. the arrest of Manlulu, that is not enough. The law Hostel at Maagma St., Pat. Fulgencio told P/Lt.
Further, Section 7, Rule 112, does not apply. requires “personal knowledge”. Obviously, “personal Seraspi to intercept Macabante and appellant. P/Lt.
Petitioner was not arrested at all, as when he walked gathering of information” is different from personal Seraspi and his team caught up with Macabante at
in the police station, he neither expressed surrender knowledge. The rule requires that the arrest the crossing of Mabini and Maagma Sts. in front of the
nor any statement that he was or was not guilty of any immediately follows the commission of the offense, Aklan Medical Center. Upon seeing the police,
crime. When a complaint was filed to the prosecutor, not some nineteen hours later. However, the flaw, Macabante threw something to the ground which
preliminary investigation should have been scheduled fatal as it may be, becomes moot in view of the turned out to be a tea bag of marijuana. When
to determine probable cause. Prosecutor made a eyewitness account of Manlapaz which the Court confronted, Macabante readily admitted that he
substantive error, petitioner is entitled to preliminary found credible. In spite of the nullification of the arrest bought the same from appellant (Edison Sucro) in
investigation, necessarily in a criminal charge, where of accused Manlulu, and the exclusion of real front of the chapel. The police team was able to
the same is required appear thereat. Petition granted, evidence, as well as his extra-judicial confession overtake and arrest appellant at the corner of C.
prosecutor is ordered to conduct preliminary which was taken in violation of the Constitution, still Quimpo and Veterans Sts. The police recovered 19
investigation, trial for the criminal case is suspended the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the sticks and 4 teabags of marijuana from the cart inside
pending result from preliminary investigation, accused beyond reasonable doubt. the chapel and another teabag from Macabante, The
teabags of marijuana were sent to the PC-INP Crime
Laboratory Service, at Camp Delgado, Iloilo City for
analysis. The specimens were all found positive of
marijuana.

Issue: Whether the police officer can arrest the

accused without any arrest and search warrant when
the latter committed the crime in front of the former.

Held: Yes, Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules on

Criminal Procedure provides for the instances where
arrest without warrant is considered lawful. The rule
states that arrest without warrant, when lawful. Is
when a peace officer or private person may, without
warrant, arrest a person (a)When in his presence, the
person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b)
When an offense has in fact just been committed, and
he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the
person to be arrested has committed it; When an
offense is committed in the presence or within the
view of an officer, within the meaning of the rule
authorizing an arrest without a warrant, when the
officer sees the offense, although at a distance, or
hears the disturbances created thereby and proceeds
at once to the scene thereof.

The records show that Fulgencio went to Arlie

Regalado’s house at C. Quimpo Street to monitor the
activities of the accused who was earlier reported to
be selling marijuana at a chapel two (2) meters away
from Regalado’s house. Fulgencio, within a distance
of two meters saw Sucro conduct his nefarious
activity. He saw Sucro talk to some persons, go inside
the chapel, and return to them and exchange some
things. These, Sucro did three times during the time
that he was being monitored. Fulgencio would then
relay the on-going transaction to P/Lt. Seraspi.