was capricious or oppressive& the tate must not be depr depriv ived ed of reaso easona nabl ble e oppo opport rtun unit ity y in prosecuting the accused.
People People v Tee GR No. 140546 140546-47 -47 (Janua (January ry 20, 2003) "r!#$ o% #e a&&u$e' #o $pee'y #ral"
P+P P+P+ + T*+ T*+ P* P*P PP PN+ N+, , Pla Plan# n#/ /-ppell ppellee, ee, v$. +T+ +T+ T TN N y ,, &&u$e'-ppelan# G.R. No. 176066, u!u$# 11, 2010
TP TP Re Reu u$ $# #e$ e$ arran#
%or %or
$$u $$un n! !
$ear $ear& &
T T a&#$ a&#$ /n an anuary 2000& two two informants namely& Tudlong and 1ading arrived at the o3ce of 4I56 (4riminal Investigation and 5etention 6roup) 6roup) in 7aguio 4ity& and reported to 8/2 8/2 9erna ernand ndez ez&& 4hie 4hieff of the the tat tatio ion n 5rug 5rug :nforcement ;nit (5:;)& that a certain <:stela Tuan< Tuan< had been selling marijuana marijuana at 7arangay 6abriela ilang& 7aguio 4ity. 8/2 9ernandez set out to verify the report of Tudlong and 1ading. /n the after afternoo noon n of the the same same day& day& he gave gave Tudlong Tudlong and 1ading 8-00.00 to buy marijuana& marijuana& and and accom accompa panie nied d the two infor informan mants ts to the accu accused sed Tuan=s uan=s house. house. Tudlon udlong g and 1adin 1ading g entered the house& while 8/2 9ernandez waited at the adjacent house. 1ater& Tudlong and 1ad ing came out and showed 8/2 9ernandez the marijuan marijuana a they bought. bought. ;pon returning returning to the 4I56 4I56 o3ce o3ce&& 8/2 8/2 9erna ernand ndez ez re>u re>ues este ted d a laborato laboratory ry e*amina e*amination tion on the specimen specimen and yielded positive results for marijuana. 8/2 8/2 9erna ernand ndez ez&& toge togeth ther er with with the the informa informants& nts& ,led the !pplicat !pplication ion for a earch earch Warrant Warrant before udge Iluminada 4abato4ortes (udge (udge 4ortes) 4ortes) of the ?unicipal ?unicipal Trial 4ourt in 4ities (?T44)& 7aguio 4ity on anuary 2@& 2000. Two Two hours later& at around around three o=clock& udge 4ortes 4ortes personal personally ly e*amine e*amined d 8/2 9erna 9ernande ndez& z& Tudlong& Tudlong& and 1ading& after which& she issued a earch Warrant& Warrant& which stated Tuan=s residence residence as Athe Athe house house of the the accus accused ed :stela :stela Tua Tuan n at 7rgy. 7rgy. 6abriela ilang& 7aguio 4ityB. :ven though accused accused Tuan was not around around&& the 4I56 team was allowed allowed entry entry into into the house house by ?agno ?agno 7aludda (?agno)& accused=s father& after he was show shown n a copy copy of the the ear earch ch Warra arrant nt.. 8/2 8/2 9erna ernand ndez ez guar guarded ded the surr surrou ound nding ings s of the the house house&& while while 8/" 8/" 4arre 4arrera ra and 8/2 4have 4havez z searched inside. They saw& in the presence of ?agno& a movable cabinet in Tuan=s room& below of which they found a brick of marijuana and a ,rearm. ,rearm. 1ater Tuan Tuan arrived and thereafter& thereafter& the police o3cers asked Tuan to open a cabinet& in which they saw more bricks of marijuana. The defen fense& se& on the the other ther hand and& disc isclaim laime ed owne owners rshi hip p of the the bric bricks ks and and alle allege ged d that that a ear earch ch Warra arrant nt was was issu issued ed for for her her hous house e because of a >uarrel with her neighbor named 1our 1ourdes des :still :stillor ore e (:stil (:stillor lore). e). The CT4 foun found d
a&#$ The case involves an automatic review of judgment made against Tee who was convicted for for illeg legal posses ssess sion of mar mariju ijuana ana and and sentence sentenced d to death. death. The defense assailed assailed the decision decision of the court for taking admissible admissible as evidence the marijuana seized from the accused by virtue virtue of allegedl allegedly y general general search search warrant warrant.. They further contend that the accused was deprived of his right to speedy trial by failure of the prosecu prosecution tion to produc produce e their their witness witness who failed failed to appear appear duri during ng the 20 hearin hearing g dates dates thereby slowing down the trial procedure.
$$ue Whethe Whetherr or not not the subst substan antiv tive e right right of the the accused for a speedy trial prejudiced during the hearing of the case.
*el' The court ruled that the substantive right of the accu accuse sed d for for a fair fair and and spee speedy dy tria triall was was not not violated. It held that the peedy Trial !ct of "##$ provid provides es that the trial trial period period for the crimina criminall cases should be in general "$0 days. %owever& in determining the right of an accused to speedy trial& courts should do more than a mathematical computation of the number of postponements of the scheduled hearings of the case.The right to a speedy trial is deemed violated only when' (") the proce proceedi eding ngs s are are attend attended ed by ve*a ve*atio tious us&& capricio capricious& us& and oppressi oppressive ve delays+ delays+ or (2) when unjusti, unjusti,ed ed postpone postponement ments s are asked asked for and secured+ or (-) when without cause or justi,able motive a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried. It was shown by the records that the prosecution e*erted eorts in obtaining a warrant to compel the witness to testify. The concept of speedy trial is necessarily relative where several factors are weighed such as the length of time of delay& the reason of such delay& and conduct of prosecution and the accused and the prejudice and damaged caused to the accused of such delay. The court did not ,nd ,nd the 20 days days of delay delayed ed heari hearing ng unre unreaso asonab nable le length length of time time as to consti constitut tute e deprivat deprivation ion of the constitu constitution tional al rights rights of the accused for a speedy trial in addition to the fact that that court court trial trial may be alway always s subje subjecte cted d to postponement for reasonable cause of delay. In the absence of showing that the reason for delay
! magistrate=s determination of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant is paid great deference by a reviewing court& as long as there was substantial basis for that determination. ubstantial basis means that the >uestions of the e*amining judge brought out such facts and circumstances as would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an oense has been committed& and the objects in connection with the oense sought to be seized are in the place sought to be searched.uch substantial basis e*ists in this case. udge 4ortes found probable cause for the issuance of the earch Warrant for Tuan=s residence after said judge=s personal e*amination of 8/2 9ernandez& the applicant+ and 1ading and Tudlong& the informants. 8/2 9ernandez based his !pplication for earch Warrant not only on the information relayed to him by 1ading and Tudlong. %e also arranged for a test buy and conducted surveillance of Tuan. 2. ;+. 'e$&rp#on o% #e pla&e #o 9e $ear&e' $ $u?&en# % #e o?&er $ervn! #e arran# &an, # rea$ona9le e/or#, a$&er#an an' 'en#%y #e pla&e n#en'e' an' '$#n!u$ # %ro< o#er pla&e$ n #e &o<
&lu$on o% all o#er$, an' on nury unerrn!ly lea'$ #e pea&e o?&er$ #o #, $a#$Ae$ #e &on$##u#onal reure
C;7:F 5:1 4!TI11/ v. 8:/81: /9 T%: 8%I1I88IF: 6.C. Fo. "$@"2$& -0 anuary 20"2& T%IC5 5IGII/F (8eralta& .) %aving been established that the assistance of the barangay tanods was sought by the police authorities who eected the searched warrant& the same barangay tanods therefore acted as agents of persons in authority. 8olice /3cers headed by 8/- 7ienvenido ?asnayon went to serve a search warrant from the Cegional Trial 4ourt (CT4) to 8etitioner Cuben 5el 4astillo in search of illegal drugs. ;pon arrival& somebody shouted AraidB which prompted the police o3cers to immediately
accused guilty as charged. /n appeal& the 4! modi,ed by ac>uitting Tuan of the charge for illegal possession of ,rearm but a3rming her conviction for illegal possession of marijuana. Tuan raised the matter to the upreme 4ourt contending& among others& that the warrant failed to particularly describe the place because the house was a twostorey building composed of several rooms. + 1. 8N #ere a$ pro9a9le &au$e %or #e :u'!e #o $$ue a ear& 8arran# an' e#er #e $ear& arran# par#&ularly 'e$&r9e' #e pla&e #o 9e $ear&e'. 2. 8N #e $ear& arran# par#&ularly 'e$&r9e' #e pla&e #o 9e $ear&e'. RNG 1. ;+. Te val'#y o% #e $$uan&e o% a $ear& arran# re$#$ upon #e %ollon! %a&#or$ (1) # a<ne, un'er oa# or a?r
because the one who discovered them was a barangay tanod who is a private individual& the constitutional guaranty against unreasonable searches and seizure being applicable only against government authorities. The contention is devoid of merit. It was testi,ed to during trial by the police o3cers who eected the search warrant that they asked the assistance of the barangay tanods. %aving been established that the assistance of the barangay tanods was sought by the police authorities who eected the search warrant& the same barangay tanods therefore acted as agents of persons in authority. !rticle "@2 of the Cevised 8enal 4ode de,nes persons in authority and agents of persons in authority as Aany person directly vested with jurisdiction& whether as an individual or as a member of some court or governmental corporation& board or commission& shall be deemed a person in authority. ! barangay captain and a barangay chairman shall also be deemed a person in authority. ! person who& by direct provision of law or by election or by appointment by competent authority& is charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life and property& such as barrio councilman& barrio policeman and barangay leader& and any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority& shall be deemed an agent of a person in authority.B The 1ocal 6overnment 4ode also contains a provision which describes the function of a barangay tanod as an agent of persons in authority. ection -$$ of the 1ocal 6overnment 4ode reads' A9or purposes of the Cevised 8enal 4ode& the punong barangay& sangguniang barangay members& and members of the lupong tagapamayapa in each barangay shall be deemed as persons in authority in their jurisdictions& while other barangay o3cials and members who may be designated by law or ordinance and charged with the maintenance of public order& protection and security of life and property& or the maintenance of a desirable and balanced environment& and any barangay member who comes to the aid of persons in authority& shall be deemed agents of persons in authority. 7y virtue of the above provisions& the police o3cers& as well as the barangay tanods were acting as agents of a person in authority during the conduct of the search. Thus& the search conducted was unreasonable and the con,scated items are inadmissible in evidence. P+P+ T*+ P*PPN+ v$ NR+ BRT G.R. No. C1561 January 1C, 1DD1 T
disembark from the jeep they were riding and go directly to 5el 4astillo=s house and cordoned it o. 8olice men found nothing incriminating in 5el 4astillo=s residence& but one of the barangay tanods was able to con,scate from the hut several articles including four (H) plastic packs of methamphetamine hydrochloride& or shabu. !n Information was ,led before CT4 against 5el 4astillo& charging him with violation of ection "E& !rticle III of C.!. EH2@ (The 5angerous 5rugs !ct of "#2). 5uring the arraignment& 5el 4astillo pleaded not guilty. The CT4 found 5el 4astillo guilty beyond reasonable of the charge against him in the information. The 4ourt of !ppeals (4!) a3rmed the decision. 5el 4astillo appealed his case to the 4!& insisting that there was a violation of his constitutional guaranty against unreasonable searches and seizure. /n the contrary& the /3ce of the olicitor 6eneral argued that the constitutional guaranty against unreasonable searches and seizure is applicable only against government authorities. %ence& assuming that the items seized were found in another place not designated in the search warrant& the same items should still be admissible as evidence because the one who discovered them was a barangay tanod who is a private individual. I;:' Whether or not there was a violation of 5el 4astillo=s right against unreasonable searches and seizure %:15' 8etition 6C!FT:5. It must be remembered that the warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized in order for it to be valid. ! designation or description that points out the place to be searched to the e*clusion of all others& and on in>uiry unerringly leads the peace o3cers to it& satis,es the constitutional re>uirement of de,niteness. In the present case& the search warrant speci,cally designates or describes the residence of the petitioner as the place to be searched. Incidentally& the items were seized by a barangay tanod in a nipa hut& 20 meters away from the residence of the 5el 4astillo. The con,scated items& having been found in a place other than the one described in the search warrant& can be considered as fruits of an invalid ;T 1aw Ceview& Gol. 1GII Fo. "& Fovember 20"2 warrantless search& the presentation of which as an evidence is a violation of 5el 4astillo=s constitutional guaranty against unreasonable searches and seizure. The /6 argued that& assuming that the items seized were found in another place not designated in the search warrant& the same items should still be admissible as evidence
T N+RTN F Ceadily foreclose the proportion that F7I agents conducted an illegal search and seizure of the prohibited merchandise& clearly that the F7I agents made no search and seizure much less an illegal one& contrary to the postulate of accused N appellant. *8 v$ TT+& having observed that which is open& where no trespass has been committed in aid thereof
RG*T The protection of fundamental liberties in the essence of constitutional democracy& protection against whom& protection against the T!T:.
!ugust "H& "#@& the appellant and his common law wife& herly Ceyes& went to the booth of the A?anila 8acking and :*port 9orwardersB carrying 9our (H) wrapped packages. The appellant informed !nita Ceyes that he was sending the packages to a friend in Jurich& witzerland. !nita Ceyes asked if she could e*amine and inspect the packages. he refused and assures her that the packages simply contained books& cigars& and gloves. 7efore the delivery of appellant=s bo* to the 7ureau of 4ustoms and 7ureau of 8osts& ?r. ob Ceyes (8roprietor)& following the standard operating procedure& opened the bo*es for ,nal inspection. ! peculiar odor emitted from the bo* and that the gloves contain dried leaves. %e prepared a letter and reported to the F7I and re>uesting a laboratory e*aminations. The dried marijuana leaves were found to have contained inside the cellophane wrappers.
8:/81: G ?!CTI People o% #e Plppne$ v$. n're Bar# G.R. No. C1561, January 1C 1DD1 a&#$ The appellant and his common law wife& hirley Ceyes& went to the booth of the ?anila 8acking and :*port 9orwarders in the 8istang 9ilipino 4omple* :rmita& ?anila carrying with them four gift wrapped packages to be sent in Jurich witzerland. The proprietress& !nita Ceyes (not related to hirley Ceyes) then asked the appellant if he could e*amine and e*pect the packages however appellant refused& assuring her that the packages simply contained books& cigars& and gloves and were just gifts to a friend. !nita no longer insisted. 7efore delivery of appellant=s bo* to the bureau of 4ustoms and or bureau of 8ost& ?r. ob Ceyes& proprietor and husband of !nita& following standard procedure opened the bo*es for ,nal inspection. When he opened a peculiar odor emitted therefrom. %e s>ueezed one of the bundles allegedly containing gloves and felt dried leaves inside. ob prepared a letter reporting the shipment to the F7I and re>uesting laboratory e*amination sample he e*tracted from the cellophane. Therefore& job and three F7I agents and a photographer went to the Ceyes= o3ce at :rmita. ob brought out the bo* in which appellants= packages were places and in the presence of the F7I agents& open the top Daps& removed the tyrofoam and took out the cellophane wrappers from inside the gloves. 5ried marijuana leaves are found inside the cellophane. $$ue
The accused K appellant assigns the following errors' The lower court erred in admitting in evidence the illegality of search and seized objects contained in the four (H) parcels. + Whether or not the seizing of illegal objects is legalL *+ Mes& appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt. RTN+ r#&le , e&#on$ on$##u#on
2
an'
3,
1DC7
Bapp v$ o, e>&lu$onary rule #onell v$ oEno, declared as inadmissible any evidence obtained by virtue of a defective search warrant& abandoning in the process the ruling earlier adopted in ?ercado vs 8eople=s 4ourt. The case at the bar assumes a peculiar character since the evidence sought to be e*cluded was primarily discovered and obtained by a private person& acting in a private capacity and without the intervention and participation of state authorities. ;nder the circumstances& can accused N appellant validly claim that his constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure. The contraband in this case at bar having come into possession of the government without the latter transgressing appellants rights against unreasonable search and seizure& the 4ourt sees no cogent reason whty the same should not be admitted.
decided to approach the men for >uestioning& and given the nature of the behavior the o3cer decided to perform a >uick search of the men before >uestioning. ! >uick frisking of the 8etitioner produced a concealed weapon and the 8etitioner was charged with carrying a concealed weapon. $$ue. Whether a search for weapons without probable cause for arrest is an unreasonable search under the 9ourth !mendment to the ;nited tates 4onstitution (A4onstitutionB)L *el'. The upreme 4ourt of the ;nited tates (Aupreme 4ourtB) held that it is a reasonable search when an o3cer performs a >uick seizure and a limited search for weapons on a person that the o3cer reasonably believes could be armed. ! typical beat o3cer would be unduly burdened by being prohibited from searching individuals that the o3cer suspects to be armed. $$en#. ustice William 5ouglas (A. 5ouglasB) dissented& reasoning that the majority=s holding would grant powers to o3cers to authorize a search and seizure that even a magistrate would not possess. on&urren&e. ustice ohn %arlan (A. %arlanB) agreed with the majority& but he emphasized an additional necessity of the reasonableness of the stop to investigate the crime. ustice 7yron White (A. WhiteB) agreed with the majority& but he emphasized that the particular facts of the case& that there was suspicion of a violent act& merit the forcible stop and frisk. $&u$$on. The facts of the case are important to understand the upreme 4ourt=s willingness to allow the search. The suspicious activity was a violent crime& armed robbery& and if the o3cer=s suspicions were correct then he would be in a dangerous position to approach the men for >uestioning without searching them. The o3cer also did not detain the men for a long period of time to constitute an arrest without probable cause. 8:/81: G. M 4%;! O-#E 4C! E@+ 6.C. Fo."-E0EEE+ H 9eb 200-P Wednesday& 9ebruary 0H& 200# 4oeeholic Writes 1abels' 4ase 5igests& 8olitical 1aw
8osted
by
a&#$ !ccusedappellant 7inad y 4hua was charged with violation of ection "E& !rticle III of C.!. EH2@& as amended by C.!. E@#& and for Illegal 8ossession of !mmunitions and Illegal
Whether or not there is violation of appellant=s constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure. Ruln! The upreme 4ourt held that it is not the F7I who made the search. Cecords of the case clearly indicate that it was ?r. ob who made search and inspection of the said packages. aid inspection was reasonable and a standard operating procedure on the part of ?r. ob as a precautionary measure before delivery of packages to the 7ureau of 4ustom or 8ost. If the search is made upon the re>uest of law enforces& a warrant must generally must be secured ,rst if it to pass the test of constitutionality. %owever& if the search is made in the behest or initiative of the proprietor of a private establishment for its own and private purpose& as in the case at bar& and without the intervention of the police authorities& the right against unreasonable search and seizure cannot be invoked for only the act of private individual& not the law enforcer& is involved. In sum& the protection against unreasonable search and seizure cannot be e*tended to acts committed by private individual as to bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the government. The alleged violation against unreasonable search and seizure may only invoked against the tate by an individual unjustly traduced by the e*ercise by the sovereign authority. #a#on. -#2 ;.. "& $$ . 4t. "$E$& 20 1. :d. 2d $$# ("#E$) :F5 4IT!TI/F re% a&# u<uestioning and decided to search him ,rst. ynop$$ o% Rule o% a. !n o3cer may perform a search for weapons without a warrant& even without probable cause& when the o3cer reasonably believes that the person may be armed and dangerous. a&#$. The o3cer noticed the 8etitioner talking with another individual on a street corner while repeatedly walking up and down the same street. The men would periodically peer into a store window and then talk some more. The men also spoke to a third man whom they eventually followed up the street. The o3cer believed that the 8etitioner and the other men were AcasingB a store for a potential robbery. The o3cer
him away from his car in a nearby bank& while the others searched his car. Thereafter& he was brought to a police station and was held inside a bathroom for about ,fteen minutes until 4ol. 6uttierez arrived& who ordered his men to call the media. In the presence of reporters& 4ol. 6uttierez opened the bo* and accusedappellant was made to hold the bo* while pictures were being taken. The lower court ac>uitted y 4hua for the Illegal 8ossession of !mmunitions& yet convicted him for Illegal 8ossession of "&#@@.$"@ grams of shabu. %ence& this appeal to the 4ourt.
$$ue$ (") Whether or Fot the arrest of accused appellant was lawful+ and (2) W/F the search of his person and the subse>uent con,scation of shabu allegedly found on him were conducted in a lawful and valid manner.
*el' The lower court believed that since the police received information that the accused will distribute illegal drugs that evening at the Thunder Inn %otel and its vicinities. The police o3cer had to act >uickly and there was no more time to secure a search warrant. The search is valid being akin to a Astop and friskB. The trial court confused the concepts of a Astop andfriskB and of a search incidental to a lawful arrest. These two types of warrantless searches dier in terms of the re>uisite >uantum of proof before they may be validly eected and in their allowable scope. In a search incidental to a lawful arrest& as the precedent arrest determines the validity of the incidental search& the legality of the arrest is >uestioned& e.g.& whether an arrest was merely used as a prete*t for conducting a search. In this instance& the law re>uires that there ,rst be arrest before a search can be madeQthe process cannot be reversed. !ccordingly& for this e*ception to apply& two elements must concur' (") the person to be arrested must e*ecute an overt act indicating that he has just committed& is actually committing& or is attempting to commit a crime+ and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting o3cer. We ,nd the two aforementioned elements lacking in the case at bar. !ccusedappellant did not act in a suspicious manner. 9or all intents and purposes& there was no overt manifestation
8ossession of Informations.
5rugs
in
two
separate
8/2 Fulud and 8/2 Funag received a report from their con,dential informant that accused appellant was about to deliver drugs that night at the Thunder Inn %otel in 7alibago& !ngeles 4ity. o& the 8F8 4hief formed a team of operatives. The group positioned themselves across ?c!rthur %ighway near 7ali %ai Cestaurant& fronting the hotel. The other group acted as their back up. !fterwards& their informer pointed to a car driven by accusedappellant which just arrived and parked near the entrance of the hotel. !fter accusedappellant alighted from the car carrying a sealed Jest/ juice bo*& 8/2 Fulud and 8/2 Funag hurriedly accosted him and introduced themselves as police o3cers. !s accused appellant pulled out his wallet& a small transparent plastic bag with a crystalline substance protruded from his right back pocket. 9orthwith& 8/2 Fulud subjected him to a body search which yielded twenty (20) pieces of live . 22 caliber ,rearm bullets from his left back pocket. When 8/2 Funag peeked into the contents of the Jest/ bo*& he saw that it contained a crystalline substance. 8/2 Fulud instantly con,scated the small transparent plastic bag& the Jest/ juice bo*& the twenty (20) pieces of .22 caliber ,rearm bullets and the car used by accusedappellant. 8/2 Fulud and the other police operatives who arrived at the scene brought the con,scated items to the o3ce of 4ol. 6uttierez at the 8F8 %ead>uarters in 4amp 8epito& !ngeles 4ity. !ccusedappellant vehemently denied the accusation against him and narrated a dierent version of the incident. !ccusedappellant alleged that he was driving the car of his wife to follow her and his son to ?anila. %e felt sleepy& so he decided to take the old route along ?c!rthur %ighway. %e stopped in front of a small store near Thunder Inn %otel to buy cigarettes and candies. While at the store& he noticed a man approaches and e*amines the inside of his car. When he called the attention of the onlooker& the man immediately pulled out a . H@ caliber gun and made him face his car with raised hands. The man later on identi,ed himself as a policeman. 5uring the course of the arrest& the policeman took out his wallet and instructed him to open his car. %e refused& so the policeman took his car keys and proceeded to search his car. !t this time& the police o3cer=s companions arrived at the scene in two cars. 8/2 Fulud& who just arrived at the scene& pulled
Intelligence Fetwork who informed him that a baggage of marijuana had been loaded in a passenger jeepney that was about to leave for the poblacion. The agent mentioned - bags and " plastic bag. 9urther& the agent described a backpack bag with /.R. marking. 8/2 8allayoc boarded the said jeepney and positioned himself on top thereof. %e found bricks of marijuana wrapped in newspapers. %e them asked the other passengers about the owner of the bag& but no one know. When the jeepney reached the poblacion& 8/2 8allayoc alighted together with other passengers. ;nfortunately& he did not noticed who took the black backpack from atop the jeepney. %e only realized a few moments later that the said bag and - other bags were already being carried away by two (2) women. %e caught up with the women and introduced himself as a policeman. %e told them that they were under arrest& but on the women got away. 5/4TCIF:' !CTI41: III& :4TI/F 2 /9 T%: 8%I1I88IF: 4/FTIT;TI/F 8C/GI5:' The right of the 8eople to be secure in their persons& houses& papers& and eects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable& and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue e*cept upon probable cause to be determined personally by the udge after e*amination under oath or a3rmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce& and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. 8urpose' ?/GIF6 G:%I41: (W!CC!FT1: :!C4%) " This has been justi,ed on the ground that the mobility of motor vehicles makes it possible for the vehicle to be searched to move out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. 2 This is no way& however& gives the police o3cers unlimited discretion to conduct warrantless searches of automobiles in the absence of probable cause when a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an e*tension search& such a warrantless search has been held to be valid only as long as o3cers conducting the search have reasonable or probable cause to believe before the search that they will ,nd the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime& in the vehicle to be searched.
that accusedappellant has just committed& is actually committing& or is attempting to commit a crime. ACeliable informationB alone& absent any overt act indicative of a felonious enterprise in the presence and within the view of the arresting o3cers& is not su3cient to constitute probable cause that would justify an in Dagrante delicto arrest. With regard to the concept of Astopand friskB' mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a AstopandfriskB. ! genuine reason must e*ist& in light of the police o3cer=s e*perience and surrounding conditions& to warrant the belief that the person detained has weapons concealed about him. 9inally& a AstopandfriskB serves a twofold interest' (") the general interest of eective crime prevention and detection for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior even without probable cause+ and (2) the interest of safety and selfpreservation which permit the police o3cer to take steps to assure himself that the person with whom he deals is not armed with a deadly weapon that could une*pectedly and fatally be used against the police o3cer. ! stopandfrisk was de,ned as the act of a police o3cer to stop a citizen on the street& interrogate him& and pat him for weapon(s) or contraband. It should also be emphasized that a search and seizure should precede the arrest for this principle to apply. The foregoing circumstances do not obtain in the case at bar. To reiterate& accusedappellant was ,rst arrested before the search and seizure of the alleged illegal items found in his possession. The apprehending police operative failed to make any initial in>uiry into accusedappellant=s business in the vicinity or the contents of the Jest/ juice bo* he was carrying. The apprehending police o3cers only introduced themselves when they already had custody of accusedappellant. In the case at bar& neither the in Dagrante delicto nor the Astop and friskB principles is applicable to justify the warrantless arrest and conse>uent search and seizure made by the police operatives on accusedappellant. Wherefore& accusedappellant 7inad y 4hua is hereby !c>uitted. P+P+ T*+ P*PPN+ BR 6C F/. "$$E"" une "E 20"0
v$ ++N
9!4T' /ctober 2& 200@ in 7rgy 7albalayang& 8/2 8allayoc met with secret agent of the 7arangay
the jeepney reached the poblacion& 8/2 8allayoc alighted together with the other passengers. ;nfortunately& he did not notice who took the black backpack from atop the jeepney. %e only realized a few moments later that the said bag and three (-) other bags& including a blue plastic bag& were already being carried away by two (2)
?!1;? 8C/%I7IT;? When an accused is charged with illegal possession or transportation of prohibited drugs& the ownership thereof is immaterial. 4onse>uently& proof of ownership of the con,scated marijuana is not necessary. !ppellant=s alleged lack of knowledge does not constitute a valid defence. 1ack of criminal intent and good faith are not e*empting circumstances where the crime charge is malum prohibitum
women. %e caught up with the women and introduced himself as a policeman. %e told them
8:/81: G. ?!CI!4/ 6.C. F/. "$$E""& "E ;F:
that they were under arrest& but one of the
20"0
women got away. 8/2 8allayoc brought the woman& who was later identi,ed as accused appellant 7elen ?ariacos& and the bags to the police station.
9acts' /n /ctober 200@ the an 6abriel 8olice tation of 1a ;nion& conducted a checkpoint& composed of The 4hief of 8olice& 8/2 8allayoc& and other
The CT4 promulgated a decision ,nding ?ariacos
policemen& near the
intercept
poblacion
to the 4! arguing that the search conducted on
transportation
the bag& assuming it was hers& without a search
7albalayang& 1a ;nion. When the checkpoint did
warrant
not yield any suspect or marijuana& the 4hief of
of
marijuana
a
at the
guilty as charged. he appealed her conviction
and with no permission from her&
to
police station
from
suspected 7arangay
against
8olice instructed 8/2 8allayoc to proceed to
dismissed
7arangay 7albalayang to conduct surveillance
appellant=s appeal and a3rmed the CT4 decision
operation. There 8/2 8allayoc met with a secret
in toto ruling that ?ariacos was caught in
agent of the 7arangay Intelligence Fetwork who
Dagrante delicto of
informed him that a baggage of marijuana had
bag that contained the illegal drugs& and thus
been loaded on a passenger jeepney that was
held that appellant=s warrantless arrest was
about to leave for the poblacion. The agent
valid.
mentioned three (-) bags and one (") blue
violates
heer
warrantless
constitutional search.
The
rights 4!
plastic bag. 9urther& the agent described a Issue'
backpack bag with an
Whether the warrantless search conducted on
8allayoc then boarded the said jeepney and
the bag of a moving vehicle was valid
positioned himself on top thereof. While the vehicle was in motion& he found the black
%eld' M:. ?ariacos= main argument centered on the inadmissibility of the evidence used against her. !mong the instances when a warrantless search is valid& is search of a moving vehicle. !ccording to jurisprudence& this had been justi,ed on the
backpack with an
In this case&
the
vehicle
that carried the
ground that the mobility of motor vehicles
contraband or prohibited drugs was about to
makes it possible for the vehicle to be searched
leave. 8/2 8allayoc had to make a >uick
to move out of the locality or jurisdiction in
decision and act fast. It would be unreasonable
which the warrant must be sought. %owever&
to re>uire him to procure a warrant before
such a warrantless search has been held to be
conducting the search under the circumstances.
valid only as long as the o3cers conducting the
Time was of the essence in this case. The
search have reasonable or probable cause to
searching o3cer had no time to obtain a
believe before the search that they will ,nd the
warrant. Indeed& he only had enough time to
instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a
board the vehicle before the same left for its
crime& in the vehicle to be searched. The
destination.
essential re>uisite of probable cause must be satis,ed before a warrantless search and seizure
It is well to remember that on /ctober 2E& 200@&
can be lawfully conducted.
the night before appellant=s arrest& the police received information that marijuana was to be
8robable cause is de,ned as a reasonable
transported from 7arangay 7albalayang& and
ground of suspicion supported by circumstances
had set up a checkpoint around the area to
su3ciently strong in themselves to induce a
intercept the suspects. !t dawn of /ctober 2&
cautious man to believe that the person accused
200@& 8/2 8allayoc met the secret agent from
is guilty of the oense charged. It refers to the
the
who
e*istence of such facts and circumstances that
informed him that a baggage of marijuana was
can lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man
loaded on a passenger jeepney about to leave
to believe that an oense has been committed&
for the poblacion. Thus&
8/2 8allayoc had
and that the items& articles or objects sought in
probable cause to search the packages allegedly
connection with said oense or subject to
containing illegal drugs.
seizure and destruction by law are in the place
7arangay
Intelligence
Fetwork&
to be searched. W%:C:9/C:& considered&
the the
foregoing
appeal
is
premises
5I?I:5.
The
The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when&
5ecision of the 4ourt of !ppeals in 4!6.C. 4C
in the absence of actual belief of the arresting
%4 Fo. 02"$ is !99IC?:5.
o3cers& the suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the
8:/81: G. T;!F 6.C. F/. "E0EE& "" !;6;T 20"0
oense is based on actual facts& i.e.& supported by
anuary
su3ciently
strong
in
themselves to create the probable cause of guilt
9acts' /n
circumstances
2000&
two
informants
namely&
Tudlong and 1ading arrived at the o3ce of 4I56
of the person to be arrested. ! reasonable suspicion
therefore
must
be
founded
on
(4riminal Investigation and 5etention 6roup) in
probable cause& coupled with good faith on the
7aguio 4ity& and reported to 8/2 9ernandez&
part of the peace o3cers making the arrest.
,rearm. 1ater Tuan arrived and thereafter& the
4hief of the tation 5rug :nforcement ;nit
police o3cers asked Tuan to open a cabinet& in
(5:;)& that a certain <:stela Tuan< had been
which they saw more bricks of marijuana. The
selling marijuana at 7arangay 6abriela ilang&
defense&
disclaimed
7aguio 4ity. 8/2 9ernandez set out to verify the
ownership of the bricks and alleged that a
report of Tudlong and 1ading. /n the afternoon
earch Warrant was
house
of the same day& he gave Tudlong and 1ading
because of a >uarrel with her neighbor named
8-00.00 to buy marijuana& and accompanied the
1ourdes :stillore
found
two informants to the accused Tuan=s house.
accused guilty as charged. /n appeal& the 4!
Tudlong and 1ading entered the house& while
modi,ed by ac>uitting Tuan of the charge for
8/2 9ernandez waited at the adjacent house.
illegal possession of ,rearm but a3rming her
1ater& Tudlong and
conviction for illegal possession of marijuana.
showed 8/2 9ernandez the marijuana they
Tuan raised the matter to the upreme 4ourt
bought. ;pon returning to the 4I56 o3ce& 8/2
contending& among others& that the warrant
9ernandez re>uested a laboratory e*amination
failed to particularly describe the place because
on the specimen and yielded positive results for
the house was a twostorey building composed
marijuana.
on
the
other
hand&
issued for
her
(:stillore). The CT4
1ading
came out
and
of several rooms. 8/2 9ernandez& together with the informants& #@
,led the !pplication for a earch Warrant before udge Iluminada 4abato4ortes (udge 4ortes) of
Issue' Whether there was probable cause for the judge to issue a earch Warrant and whether the search warrant particularly described the place to be searched.
around three o=clock& udge 4ortes personally
ing& after which& she issued a earch Warrant&
Whether there was probable cause for the judge issue
a
earch
Warrant
M:. The validity of the issuance of a search warrant rests upon the following factors' (") it must be issued upon probable cause+ (2) the probable cause must be determined by the judge himself and not by the applicant or any other
4ity on anuary 2@& 2000. Two hours later& at
e*amined 8/2 9ernandez& Tudlong& and 1ad
%eld'
to
the ?unicipal Trial 4ourt in 4ities (?T44)& 7aguio
person+
(-)
in the
determination
of
probable cause& the judge must e*amine& under oath or a3rmation& the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may produce+ and (H) the warrant issued must particularly describe the
which stated Tuan=s residence as Athe house of the accused :stela Tuan at 7rgy. 6abriela ilang& 7aguio 4ityB :ven though accused Tuan was not around& the 4I56 team was allowed entry into the house by ?agno 7aludda (?agno)& accused=s father& after he was shown a copy of the earch Warrant. 8/2 9ernandez guarded the surroundings of the house& while 8/" 4arrera and 8/2 4havez searched inside. They saw& in the presence of ?agno& a movable cabinet in Tuan=s room& below of which they found a brick of marijuana and a
substantial basis e*ists in this case. udge 4ortes
place to be searched and persons or things to be
found probable cause for the issuance of the
seized.
earch Warrant for Tuan=s residence after said judge=s
personal
9ernandez&
the
e*amination
applicant+
and
of
8/2
1ading
and
Tudlong& the informants. 8/2 9ernandez based his !pplication for earch Warrant not only on the information relayed to him by 1ading and Tudlong. %e also arranged for a test buy and
The only issue is compliance with the ,rst and fourth factors& i.e.& e*istence of probable cause+ and particular description of the place to be searched
and
things
to
be
seized.
8robable cause generally signi,es a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances su3ciently strong in themselves to warrant a
conducted surveillance of Tuan
cautious man to believe that the person accused Issue' Whether
is guilty of the oense with which he is charged. the
search
warrant
particularly
described the place to be searched.
It likewise refers to the e*istence of such facts and
circumstances
which
could
lead
a
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe %eld'
that an oense has been committed and that
M:. ! description of the place to be searched is su3cient if the o3cer serving the warrant can& with reasonable eort& ascertain and identify the place intended and distinguish it from other
the item(s)& article(s) or object(s) sought in connection with said oense or subject to seizure and destruction by law is in the place to be searched.
places in the community. ! designation or description that points out the place to be
7efore a search warrant can be issued& it must
searched to the e*clusion of all others& and on
be shown by substantial evidence that the items
in>uiry unerringly leads the peace o3cers to it&
sought are in fact seizable by virtue of being
satis,es
connected with criminal activity& and that the
the
constitutional
re>uirement
of
de,niteness. In the case at bar& the address and
items will be found in the place to be searched.
description of the place to be searched in the earch Warrant was speci,c enough. There was only one house located at the stated address& which
was
accusedappellant=s
residence&
consisting of a structure with two Doors and composed of several rooms.
! magistrate=s determination of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant is paid great deference by a reviewing court& as long as there was substantial basis for that determination. ubstantial basis means that the >uestions of the e*amining judge brought out such facts and
#E
circumstances
as would
lead a
reasonably
discreet and prudent man to believe that an W%:C:9/C:& premises considered& the 5ecision dated eptember 2"& 200E of the 4ourt of !ppeals in 4!6.C. 4C.%.4. Fo. 00-$"& is hereby !99IC?:5 in toto. Fo costs.
oense has been committed& and the objects in connection with the oense sought to be seized are in the place sought to be searched.uch
