Crim Pro Cases search and seizure.docx

7/25/2019 Crim Pro Cases search and seizure.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crim-pro-cases-search-and-seizuredocx 1/45

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 72564 April 15, 1988

PEOPLE OF THE PHLPPNES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.

ANTA CLAU!O " #AGTANG, accused-appellant.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Romeo C. Alinea for accused-appellant.

GUTERRE$, %R., J.:

This is an appeal fo! the decision of the Re"ional Tial #out of Olon"apo #it$, %anch &' findin"

the accused (nita #laudio $ %a"tan" "uilt$ be$ond easonable doubt of violatin" Sec. ), Rep. (ct

No. *)+ (Dangerous Drugs Act of 197 as amended! and sentencing her to ser"e the penalt# of

reclusion perpetua, to pa$ a fine of P +,., and to pa$ the costs.

The info!ation filed a"ainst the accused alle"ed

That on o about the +/st da$ of 0ul$ /12/, in the #it$ of Olon"apo, Philippines and3ithin the 4uisdiction of this Honoable #out, the above-na!ed (##5S6D 3ithout

bein" la3full$ authoi7ed, did then and thee 3ilfull$, unla3full$ and 8no3in"l$

tanspot /./ 8ilos of Mai4uana died leaves, 3hich ae pohibited du"s fo the

pupose of sellin" the sa!e fo! %a"uio #it$ to Olon"apo #it$. 9Rollo, p. /':

The lo3e cout established he "uilt be$ond easonable doubt on the basis of the posecution;s

evidence as follo3s

To pove the "uilt of the accused, the posecution offeed the follo3in" docu!ent and

testi!onial evidence as follo3s 6<hibit =(= >ette e?uest fo 6<a!ination of

suspected !ai4uana died leaves 3ei"hin" appo<i!atel$ /./ 8ilos dated 0ul$ +,/12/@ =%= plastic containe@ =%- /=-!ai4uana contained in the plastic containe@ =%-/-

a=Aanothe plastic containe@ =#=A#he!ist$ Repot No. D-**2-2/@=#-/= Bindin"s

Positive fo !ai4uana@ =D,=,=D-/,= =D-+=and =D-'@ =6= and =6-/= photo"aphs of

accused 3ith Pat. Daniel ObiCa and Pauline Tion"co sho3in" the !ai4uana, =B=A

Victo$ >ine Tic8et No. 2)1&&@==AS3on State!ent of Pat. Daniel ObiCa, =H=

Re?uest fo Bield Test on suspected !ai4uana fo! accused b$ PE>t. (ntonio V.

alindo@=H-/=Adate of of the e?uest@ =>=A#etificate of Bield Test dated 0ul$ ++,



/12/@ =%-+= and =%-+a= additional Fappin" pape@ and the testi!onies of 3itnesses

of the posecution, Theesa (nn %u"a$on"@ Pat. Daniel ObiCo, #pl. Paulino Tion"co,

#pl. 6nesto (bello and S"t. >eoncio %a"an".

Theesa (nn %u"a$on"A++ $eas old, sin"le, Boensic #he!ist and a esident of

// Sa!paloc, Meto Manila testified that she eceived a e?uest fo! the Tas8Boce %a"on" %uha$, Olon"apo #it$, dated 0ul$ +, /12/, on speci!en !ai4uana

sub!itted fo e<a!ination. The speci!en consisted of 1 "a!s of suspected died

!ai4uana flo3ein" tops 3apped in a ne3spape placed in a plastic ba" 3ith a

!a8in" =M% Stoe= 96<h. =%=:.

The e<a!ination conducted b$ he poved to be positive fo !ai4uana. (fte he

e<a!ination, she pepaed #he!ist$ Repot No. D-**2-2/ dated 0ul$ +1,/12/

96<hs. =#= and =#-l=:. She conducted thee eli!inations@ !icoscopic e<a!ination,

the du"uenoi levine test and thidl$, the confi!ato$ e<a!ination of thin la$e

cho!ato"aphic test. The said speci!en 3as sub!itted to the! b$ OI# Danilo

Santia"o, a epesentative of the #(N5, Olon"apo #it$.

The second 3itness fo the posecution 3as Daniel ObiCa, '& $eas old, !aied,

police!an and esidin" at ') #opu7 St., 6ast Tapinac, Olon"apo #it$. ObiCa

testified that he has been a !e!be of the INP, since /1& up to the pesent. He 3as

assi"ned in 0une, /1&+ at the Investi"ation Division as opeative. His 4ob then 3as

a!on" othe thin"s to follo3 up epots in thei office, ecove stolen ite!s and

appehend suspects. On 0ul$ +/,/12/, he 3as on Detached Sevice 3ith the (NTI-

N(R#OTI#S 5nit@ and that on that date, he ca!e fo! %a"uio #it$ and aived in

Olon"apo #it$ at about /' o;cloc8 in the aftenoon havin" left %a"uio at about 2'

o;cloc8 in the !onin". He too8 the Victo$ >ine in "oin" bac8 to Olon"apo #it$. His

fa!il$ lives in %a"uio #it$. On boad the Victo$ >ine, he 3as seated on the secondseat at the bac8. Fhile he 3as thus seated, suspect (nita #laudio boaded the sa!e

bus and too8 the seat in font of hi! afte puttin" a ba" 3hich she 3as ca$in" at the

bac8 of the seat of ObiCa. The ba" placed b$ suspect behind his seat 3as a 3ooven

bui ba" !ade of plastic containin" so!e ve"etables. The act of the accused puttin"

he ba" behind Pat. ObiCa;s seat aoused his suspicion and !ade hi! felt 9sic:

nevous. Fith the feelin" that thee 3as so!e unusual, he had the u"e to seach the

3oven plastic ba". %ut it 3as onl$ at San Benando, Pa!pan"a 3hen he 3as able to

"o to the ba". He inseted one of his fin"es in a plastic ba" located at the botto! of

the 3oven ba" and s!elt !ai4uana. The plastic 3oven ba" appeain" to contain

ca!ote tops on the top has a bi" bundle of plastic of !ai4uana at the botto!. He

could eco"ni7e the s!ell of !ai4uana because he 3as assi"ned at that ti!e at the (NTI-N(R#OTI#S 5nit. He did not, ho3eve, do an$thin" afte he discoveed that

thee 3as !ai4uana inside the plastic ba" of the accused until the$ eached

Olon"apo #it$ and the accused ali"hted fo! the bus in font of the #alte< asoline

Station in Sta. Rita. Ri"ht afte the accused ali"hted fo! the bus, police!an Obina

intecepted he and sho3ed he his Id Identif$in" hi!self as a police!an and told he

he 3ill seach he ba" because of the suspicion that she 3as ca$in" !ai4uana

inside said ba". In epl$, accused told hi!, =Please "o 3ith !e, let us settle this at



ho!e.= Ho3eve, the 3itness did not heed he plea and instead handcuffed he i"ht

hand and 3ith he, boaded a tic$cle i"ht a3a$ and bou"ht the suspect to the

police head?uates 3ith he ba" appeain" to contain ve"etables.

(t the police head?uates Investi"ation Section, the ba" 3as seached in the

pesence of Investi"ato #pl. Tion"co@ Pat. ObiCa, the accused and S"t. >eoncio%a"an". Inside the plastic ba" 3as found a bi" bundle of plastic containin" !ai4uana

3ei"hin" about one 8ilo. Fitness stated that he could detect !ai4uana even befoe

the application of che!icals because of one $ea and a half assi"n!ent 3ith the

#(N5. (fte the !ai4uana 3as ta8en fo! the ba" of the accused, photo"aphs

3ee ta8en of the accused and the !ai4uana confiscated fo! he possession 3ith

Pat. ObiCa and that of Investi"ato Tion"co, accused and hi!self Identified

photo"aphs sho3n to hi! in open #out. 96<hs. =D,= =D-l,= =D-+= and =D-'=:. Fitness

3as li8e3ise sho3n a plastic ba" of !ai4uana contained in a plastic containe 96<hs.

=%,= =%-/= and =%-/ -a=: and Identified it as the one confiscated fo! the accused and

pointed to his initials on the ne3spape 3appin" 3hich also sho3s the date and

ti!e, althou"h the 3appe at the ti!e he testified appeaed to be soiled alead$. The!ai4uana 3as alle"edl$ still fesh 3hen confiscated.

To pove futhe that the accused tanspoted the confiscated !ai4uana fo! %a"uio

#it$ to Olon"apo #it$, 3itness Identified Victo$ >ine Tic8et No. *2)1&& 3hich 3as

confiscated fo! the accused and fo Identification puposes, the 3itness pesented

the bod$ nu!be of the bus he 3ote at the bac8 of the tic8et 3hich is ='1= 96<hs.

=B= and =B-l=:. Re"adin" hi!self, he did not pa$ his fae fo! %a"uio #it$ because

as a police!an, he used his bad"e and a fee ide.

On coss-e<a!ination, 3itness stated that he 3ent to %a"uio #it$ on 0ul$ /,/12/

and unde3ent teat!ent of his heat 3hile he 3as thee. He 3as "iven a fulou"h fo !edical teat!ent. He sta$ed in %a"uio #it$ fo about five da$s and etuned to

Olon"apo #it$ on 0ul$ +/, /12/. Pio to 0ul$ +/, /12/, 3itness neve 8ne3 the

accused, and the fist ti!e he sa3 he 3as in %a"uio 3hen she boaded the sa!e

Victo$ >ine he too8. Fhen the accused 3ho 3as bin"in" 3ith he a 3oven plastic

ba" placed the ba" i"ht behind his seat instead of placin" it in font of he o beside

he seat. Fitness ObiCa beca!e suspicious and his suspicion 3as confi!ed 3hen

the$ eached San Benando, Pa!pan"a, afte he chec8ed the bui ba". The bus

stopped at said to3n to load so!e "asoline. Fitness inseted one of his fin"es

inside the bui ba" and theeafte s!elt !ai4uana. He confi!ed his testi!on$ on

diect that 3hen 3itness confonted accused he 3as invited to "o 3ith he in ode to

settle the !atte to 3hich he efused. (ccused futhe testified that fo! the ti!e theaccused placed he ba" behind his seat fo! %a"uio #it$, he felt so nevous and had

to ta8e his !edicine at the Talac Station. It 3as onl$ afte havin" ta8en his !edicine

that his appehension 3as contained and thus 3as able to inset his i"ht hand inside

the bui ba" in San Benando, Pa!pan"a. His fin"es eached the ve$ botto! of the

ba". He Identified his s3on state!ent e"adin" this incident "iven on 0ul$ +/, /12/

3hich is 6<hibit =.= Fitness li8e3ise Identified accused (nita #laudio in open cout.



Paulino Tion"co, + $eas old, !aied and esident of '/ #anada St., 6ast %a4ac

%a4ac, Olon"apo #it$, testified that as a police!an on the aftenoon of 0ul$ +/, /12/,

he 3as inside the Investi"ation Division of the Police Station, Olon"apo #it$. (s Dut$

Investi"ato, bet3een /) and + o;cloc8 in the aftenoon of the sa!e da$, Pat.

Daniel ObiCa aived at the Police Station 3ith a 3o!an and Identified he in the

coutoo! as (nita #laudio. Pat. ObiCa epoted to hi! that he appehended (nita#laudio inside the Victo$ >ine bus fo possession of !ai4uana died leaves. The

!ai4uana leaves 3ee contained in a bui ba" 3ith so!e ve"etables such as ca!ote

tops, bananas and so!e othe ve"etables. The !ai4uana 3as placed in a plastic

3appe 3ith the na!e National %oo8 Stoe coloed blac8 and 3hite. Fitness

Identified the 3appe 96<h. =%-+=:. The ba" contained the !a8in"s of Pat. ObiCa

3hich ae his initials, 96<hs. =%-+-a=:, and nu!bes +/&2/ epesentin" the date

3hich 3as placed b$ Pat. ObiCa afte #pl. Tion"co e<a!ined the suspected

!ai4uana.

(fte e<a!inin" and seein" the !ai4uana to"ethe 3ith the ve"etables, he

intevie3ed appehendin" office ObiCa and educed his state!ents in 3itin". #pl.Tion"co Identifled the s3on state!ent of ObiCa 96<h. ==:. He also intevie3ed

accused (nita #laudio 3ho 3as all the 3hile inside the Investi"ation oo! seated on

a chai. (fte appaisin" he of he constitutional i"hts, he as8ed the accused

3hethe she 3as 3illin" to "ive he 3itten state!ents to 3hich the accused efused.

Hence, no state!ents 3ee ta8en of he. Ho3eve, pictues 3ee ta8en inside the

investi"ation oo!. 6<hs. =D= and =6,= seies 3hich 3ee alead$ peviousl$ Identified

b$ Pat. ObiCa, Fitness Identified the pesons appeain" in the pictues as that of Pat.

ObiCa and the accused and also of hi!self. Theeafte, the !ai4uana contained in

the plastic ba" 3ee tuned ove to >t. alindo and (nita #laudio 3as detained.

6nesto (bello, )/ $eas old, !aied and esidin" at No. +1 (lba Steet, 6astTapinac, Olon"apo #it$, testified he 3as since Mach /1&+ a police!an and 3as

stationed at Police Station +/, Olon"apo #it$, Metodisco!. Ho3eve, in /12/, he

3as alead$ assi"ned to the #(N5 eneal (nti-N(R#OTI#S 5nit. On 0ul$ ++,

/12/, he epoted fo 3o8 at the #(N5 and eceived fo! >t. alindo !oe than a

8ilo of suspected !ai4uana died leaves. (s e?uested b$ >t. alindo he conducted

a field test on this !ai4uana 3hich he eceived fo! >t. alindo, as evidenced b$ a

e?uest si"ned b$ hi! dated 0ul$ ++,/12/ 96<h. =H=:.

In connection 3ith the field test conducted b$ hi! on the speci!en, he pepaed a

#etificate of Bleld Test dated 0ul$ ++,/12/ 96<hs. =I=:. The #etificate of Bield Test

indicated the pesence of teta-h$docannabinol 9TH#:, an active substance that canbe onl$ be found in !ai4uana, a pohibited du". #pl. (bello Identified a plastic ba"

of !ai4uana eceived fo! >t. alindo 3hich he late "ive to #I# Danilo Santia"o,

the 6vidence #ustodian, fo the latte to bin" the speci!en to the P# #i!e

>aboato$.

The last 3itness fo the posecution 3as >eoncio %a"an", ) $eas old, !aied,

esidin" at No. +& 0ones St., 6ast Tapinac, Olon"apo #it$, a police!an of Olon"apo



#it$, assi"ned 3ith Police Station =+/.= He has been a police!an since /1** up to

the pesent. In 0ul$, /12/, he 3as then assi"ned at the Patol Division and his dut$

3as to patol the cit$ pope fo! Ma"sa$sa$ Dive up to east %a4ac %a4ac.

He naated that on 0ul$ +/,/12/, bet3een the hous of / and + o;cloc8 in the

aftenoon, he 3as at the #alte< asoline Station, 6ast %a4ac %a4ac, Olon"apo #it$alon" Ri7al (venue. He 3as then on dut$ patol usin" a !otoc$cle. Fhile he 3as at

the said place, he sa3 Pat. ObiCa ali"hted fo! the Victo$ >ine bus odein"

so!ebod$ to ali"ht fo! the sa!e bus. Fhen he head Pat. ObiCa he appoached

hi! and as8ed hi! 3hat 3as happenin". Pat. ObiCa told hi! he appehended a

cetain 3o!an possessin" died !ai4uana. The 3o!an 3as still then inside the bus.

Pat. ObiCa then bou"ht the 3o!an to the police depat!ent 3ho 3as bin"in" 3ith

he a bui ba". The$ boaded a tic$cle, the 3o!an idin" inside the tic$cle 3hile

Pat. ObiCa sat behind the dive. He then follo3ed in his !otoc$cle the said tic$cle

to police station. He 3ent inside the Investi"ation Section of the Police Station and

he 3as thee 3hen Pat. ObiCa epoted to #pl. Tion"co his appehension of the

3o!an possessin" !ai4uana. He sa3 the !ai4uana fo the fist ti!e inside theInvesti"ation Section placed in a bui ba" coveed 3ith ne3spape. He 3itnessed the

ta8in" out of the !ai4uana fo! inside the ba" b$ Pat. ObiCa in the pesence of #pl.

Tion"co and the 3o!an o the accused in this case, and hi!self. Police!an %a"an"

Identified the accused in open #out. Fhen as8ed about the natue of the !ai4uana

3hen it 3as bou"ht out fo! the ba", he said that the !ai4uana 3as died but not

3ell died. (side fo! the !ai4uana inside the bui ba", thee 3ee ve"etables and

bananas, Fitness Identified in open #out, the !ai4uana he sa3 found in the bui

ba" of the accused. His !eans of Identification 3as the si"natue of Pat. ObiCa,

96<h. =%-/=:. He li8e3ise Identified a ne3spape 3appin" 3hich 3as alead$ ton.

Fhile in the Investi"ation Division, 3itness %a"an" head the accused;s ans3e to#pl. Tion"co;s ?uestions that she 3as "oin" to delive the !ai4uana to Sta. Rita. He,

ho3eve, did not lin"e lon" at the investi"ation Division. (fte he sa3 the !ai4uana

and head the ans3e of the accused to #pl. Tion"cos ?uestion the place of delive$

of the !ai4uana, he left the police station. Fitness li8e3ise Identified an initial DO-

+/-&-2/ alead$ !a8ed as 6<hibit =%-+.= DO 3hich is an initial, and not a si"natue,

stands fo Daniel ObiCa. (fte the testi!on$ of >eoncio %a"an", the posecution

ested its case. 9Rollo, pp. )+-)&:

(ccused #laudio aised the follo3in" assi"n!ents of eos in this appeal

I

#ONVI#TION 5ND6R S6#TION ), (RT. II OB R.(. *)+ IS IMPROP6R IB ON6

OR SOM6 OB TH6 6>6M6NTS OB TH6 OBB6NS6 IS OR (R6 (%S6NT.

II



#ONVI#TION #(N NOT %6 H(D 5ND6R S6#TION ), (RT. II OB R.(. *)+ IB

TH6 (>>66D %5GM(N F(S NOT PR6S6NT6D TO T6STIBG.

III

(PP6>>(NTS #ONVI#TION BOR D6>IV6RG 9S6#. ), (RT II, OB R.(. *)+): ISFRON %6#(5S6 SOM6 M(T6RI(> B(#TS F6R6 OV6R>OO6D (ND NOT

#ONSID6R6D IN B(VOR OB (PP6>>(NT. 9Rollo, p. 1/:

The accused alle"es that she is onl$ liable, at the !ost, fo possession unde Sec. 2, (t. II of Rep.

(ct No. *)+ and not fo violatin" Sec. ) of the sa!e (ct.

The latte section, Sec. ) povides

Sec. ). Sale$ Administration$ Deli"er# Distri%ution and Transportation of &rohi%ited

Drugs.AThe penalt$ of life i!pison!ent to death and a fine an"in" fo! t3ent$

thousand to thit$ thousand pesos shall be i!posed upon an$ peson 3ho, unlessauthoi7ed b$ la3, shall sell, ad!iniste, delive, "ive a3a$ to anothe, distibute,

dispatch in tansit o tanspot an$ pohibited du", o shall act as a bo8e in an$ of

such tansactions. If the victi! of the offense is a !ino, o should a pohibited du"

involved in an$ offense unde this Section be the po<i!ate cause of the death of a

victi! theeof, the !a<i!u! penalt$ heein povided shall be i!posed.

#laudio contends that thee 3as no delive$ as thee 3as no ecipient of the pohibited du"s.

Theefoe, she !a$ not be convicted unde Sec. ) of Rep. (ct No. *)+.

The contention is 3ithout !eit. ( close peusal of the sub4ect povision sho3s that it is not onl$

delive$ 3hich is penali7ed but also the sale, ad!inistation, distibution and transportation ofpobihited du"s. #laudio 3as cau"ht tanspotin" /./ 8ilos of !ai4uana, thus the lo3e cout did not

e in findin" he "uilt$ of violatin" Sec. ).

The accused also alle"es that befoe the co!pletion of delive$, the intention of the possesso is

un8no3n.

This alle"ation is also unavailin". It is undisputed that #laudio had in he possession /./ 8ilos of

!ai4uana. This is a consideable ?uantit$. (s held in the case of &eople ". Toledo, 9/) S#R( +1,

+*&: =the possession of such consideable ?uantit$ as thee plastic ba"s of !ai4uana leaves and

seeds coupled 3ith the fact that he is not a use of pohibited du"s cannot indicate an$thin" e<cept

the intention of the accused to sell, distibute and delive said !ai4uana.

The accused ne<t contends the 3aantless seach, sei7ue and appehension as unla3ful.

The applicable povisions on this issue ae found in the /12 Rules on #i!inal Pocedue.

Rule //', Sec. 9a: of the said Rules povides



.. ( peace office o a pivate peson !a$, 3ithout a 3aant, aest a peson

9a: Fhen, in his pesence, the peson to be aested has co!!itted, is actuall$

co!!ittin", o is atte!ptin" to co!!it an offense.

<<< <<< <<<

Mean3hile, its Rule /+*, Sec. /+ povides

Section /+. Search incident to la'ful arrest .A ( peson la3full$ aested !a$ be

seached fo dan"eous 3eapons o an$thin" 3hich !a$ be used as poof of the

co!!ission of an offense, 3ithout a seach 3aant. 9/+a:

(ppellant #laudio 3as cau"ht tanspotin" pohibited du"s. Pat. Daniel ObiCa did not need a

3aant to aest #laudio as the latte 3as cau"ht in fla"ante delicto. The 3aantless seach bein"

an incident to a la3ful aest is in itself la3ful. 9Nolasco v. Pano, /)& S#R( 1:. Theefoe, thee

3as no infi!it$ in the sei7ue of the /./ 8ilos of !ai4uana.

The accused ta8es inconsistent positions in he appellant;s bief. (t fist, she does not den$ havin"

had 3ith he !ai4uana at the ti!e of he aest. Instead, she clai!s that she should 4ust be "uilt$ of

possession. In a co!plete tunabout, in the latte potion of said bief, she clai!s that the evidence

a"ainst he 3ee !ee fabications and the !ai4uana alle"edl$ found in he possession 3as onl$

planted.

Fe have caefull$ e<a!ined the ecods of the case and 3e find no "ound to alte the tial cout;s

findin"s and appeciation of the evidence pesented.

#edence is accoded to the posecution;s evidence, !oe so as it consisted !ainl$ of testi!onies of police!en. >a3 enfoces ae pesu!ed to have e"ulal$ pefo!ed thei dut$ in the absence of

poof to the conta$ 9People v. De 0esus, /) S#R( +/:. Fe also find no eason fo! the ecods

3h$ the posecution 3itnesses should fabicate thei testi!onies and i!plicate appellant in such a

seious ci!e 9See People v. %autista, /)& S#R( :.

The accused testified that she 3as not on that bus that ca!e fo! %a"uio #it$ but athe she 3as in

Olon"apo #it$ all that ti!e. She alle"ed that she 3as aested b$ Pat. ObiCa fo no eason at all.

In the case at ba, alibi does not deseve !uch cedit as it 3as established onl$ b$ the accused

heself 9People v. De la #u7, /)2 S#R( 2+:.

Moeove, it is a 3ell-established ule that alibi cannot pevail ove positive testi!on$ 9People v. De

>a #u7,supra:.

FH6R6BOR6, the 4ud"!ent appealed fo! is (BBIRM6D.

SO ORD6R6D.



Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

6N %(N#

G.R. No. 911&7 %'() 19, 1991

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHLPPNES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.M*AEL MALMSTE!T, +defendant-appellant.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.Romulo$ a%anta$ )uena"entura$ Sa#oc * De los Angeles for defendant-appellant.

PA!LLA, J.:

In an info!ation dated / 0une /121, accused-appellant Mi8ael Mal!stedt 9heeinafte efeed toas the accused: 3as cha"ed befoe the Re"ional Tial #out 9RT#: of >a Tinidad, %en"uet, %anch/, in #i!inal #ase No. 21-#R-**', fo violation of Section ), (t. II of Republic (ct *)+, asa!ended, othe3ise 8no3n as the Dan"eous Du"s (ct of /1&+, as a!ended. The factualbac8"ound of the case is as follo3s

(ccused Mi8ael Mal!stedt, a S3edish national, enteed the Philippines fo the thid ti!e inDece!be /122 as a touist. He had visited the count$ so!eti!e in /12+ and /12.

In the evenin" of & Ma$ /121, accused left fo %a"uio #it$. 5pon his aival theeat in the !onin" of

the follo3in" da$, he too8 a bus to Sa"ada and sta$ed in that place fo t3o 9+: da$s.

(t aound & o;cloc8 in the !onin" of // Ma$ /121, accused 3ent to the Nan"ono"an bus stop inSa"ada to catch the fist available tip to %a"uio #it$. Bo! %a"uio #it$, accused planned to ta8e alate aftenoon tip to (n"eles #it$, then poceed to Manila to catch his fli"ht out of the count$,scheduled on /' Ma$ /121. Bo! Sa"ada, accused too8 a S8$line bus 3ith bod$ nu!be 2 andPlate nu!be (V# 1+./

(t about 2 o;cloc8 in the !onin" of that sa!e da$ 9// Ma$ /121:, #aptain (len Vasco, the#o!!andin" Office of the Bist Re"ional #o!!and 9N(R#OM: stationed at #a!p Dan"3a,odeed his !en to set up a te!poa$ chec8point at ilo!ete /), (cop, Tubla$, Mountain Povince,fo the pupose of chec8in" all vehicles co!in" fo! the #odillea Re"ion. The ode to establish a

chec8point in the said aea 3as po!pted b$ pesistent epots that vehicles co!in" fo! Sa"ada3ee tanspotin" !ai4uana and othe pohibited du"s. Moeove, info!ation 3as eceived b$ the#o!!andin" Office of N(R#OM, that sa!e !onin", that a #aucasian co!in" fo! Sa"ada had inhis possession pohibited du"s.+

The "oup co!posed of seven 9&: N(R#OM offices, in coodination 3ith Tubla$ Police Station, setup a chec8point at the desi"nated aea at about / o;cloc8 in the !onin" and inspected allvehicles co!in" fo! the #odillea Re"ion.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_91107_1991.html#rnt1






(t about /' o;cloc8 in the aftenoon, the bus 3hee accused 3as idin" 3as stopped. S"t. Bideand #I# alutan boaded the bus and announced that the$ 3ee !e!bes of the N(R#OM and thatthe$ 3ould conduct an inspection. The t3o 9+: N(R#OM offices stated thei inspection fo! thefont "oin" to3ads the ea of the bus. (ccused 3ho 3as the sole foei"ne idin" the bus 3asseated at the ea theeof.

Duin" the inspection, #I# alutan noticed a bul"e on accused;s 3aist. Suspectin" the bul"e onaccused;s 3aist to be a "un, the office as8ed fo accused;s passpot and othe identification papes.Fhen accused failed to co!pl$, the office e?uied hi! to bin" out 3hateve it 3as that 3as bul"in"on his 3aist. The bul"in" ob4ect tuned out to be a pouch ba" and 3hen accused opened the sa!eba", as odeed, the office noticed fou 9): suspicious-loo8in" ob4ects 3apped in bo3n pac8in"tape, po!ptin" the office to open one of the 3apped ob4ects. The 3apped ob4ects tuned out tocontain hashish, a deivative of !ai4uana.

Theeafte, accused 3as invited outside the bus fo ?uestionin". %ut befoe he ali"hted fo! the bus,accused stopped to "et t3o 9+: tavellin" ba"s fo! the lu""a"e caie.

5pon steppin" out of the bus, the offices "ot the ba"s and opened the!. ( tedd$ bea 3as found in

each ba". Beelin" the tedd$ beas, the office noticed that thee 3ee bul"es inside the sa!e 3hichdid not feel li8e foa! stuffin". It 3as onl$ afte the offices had opened the ba"s that accused finall$pesented his passpot.

(ccused 3as then bou"ht to the head?uates of the N(R#OM at #a!p Dan"3a, >a Tinidad,%en"uet fo futhe investi"ation. (t the investi"ation oo!, the offices opened the tedd$ beas andthe$ 3ee found to also contain hashish. Repesentative sa!ples 3ee ta8en fo! the hashish founda!on" the pesonal effects of accused and the sa!e 3ee bou"ht to the P# #i!e >aboato$ foche!ical anal$sis.

In the che!ist$ epot, it 3as established that the ob4ects e<a!ined 3ee hashish. a pohibited du"3hich is a deivative of !ai4uana. Thus, an info!ation 3as filed a"ainst accused fo violation of theDan"eous Du"s (ct.

Duin" the aai"n!ent, accused enteed a plea of =not "uilt$.= Bo his defense, he aised the issueof ille"al seach of his pesonal effects. He also clai!ed that the hashish 3as planted b$ theN(R#OM offices in his pouch ba" and that the t3o 9+: tavellin" ba"s 3ee not o3ned b$ hi!, but3ee !eel$ entusted to hi! b$ an (ustalian couple 3ho! he !et in Sa"ada. He futhe clai!edthat the (ustalian couple intended to ta8e the sa!e bus 3ith hi! but because thee 3ee no !oeseats available in said bus, the$ decided to ta8e the ne<t ide and as8ed accused to ta8e cha"e ofthe ba"s, and that the$ 3ould !eet each othe at the Dan"3a Station.

>i8e3ise, accused alle"ed that 3hen the N(R#OM offices de!anded fo his passpot and otheIdentification papes, he handed to one of the offices his pouch ba" 3hich 3as han"in" on his nec8containin", a!on" othes, his passpot, etun tic8et to S3eden and othe papes. The office in tun

handed it to his co!panion 3ho bou"ht the ba" outside the bus. Fhen said office ca!e bac8, hecha"ed the accused that thee 3as hashish in the ba". He 3as told to "et off the bus and his pictue3as ta8en 3ith the pouch ba" placed aound his nec8. The tial cout did not "ive cedence toaccused;s defense.

The clai! of the accused that the hashish 3as planted b$ the N(R#OM offices, 3as belied b$ hisfailue to aise such defense at the ealiest oppotunit$. Fhen accused 3as investi"ated at thePovincial Biscal;s Office, he did not info! the Biscal o his la3$e that the hashish 3as planted b$the N(R#OM offices in his ba". It 3as onl$ t3o 9+: !onths afte said investi"ation 3hen he told his



la3$e about said clai!, den$in" o3neship of the t3o 9+: tavellin" ba"s as 3ell as havin" hashishin his pouch ba".

In a decision dated /+ Octobe /121, the tial cout found accused "uilt$ be$ond easonable doubtfo violation of the Dan"eous Du"s (ct, specificall$ Section ), (t. II of R( *)+, as a!ended.' Thedispositive potion of the decision eads as follo3s

FH6R6BOR6, findin" the "uilt of the accused Mi8ael Mal!stedt established be$ondeasonable doubt, this #out finds hi! 5I>TG of violation of Section ), (ticle // of Republic

(ct *)+, as a!ended, and heeb$ sentences hi! to suffe the penalt$ of life i!pison!entand to pa$ a fine of T3ent$ Thousand Pesos 9P+,.:, 3ith subsidia$ i!pison!ent incase of insolvenc$ and to pa$ the costs.

>et the hashish sub4ect of this case be tuned ove to the Bist Nacotics Re"ional 5nit at#a!p %ado@ Dan"3a, >a Tinidad %en"uet fo pope disposition unde Section +, (ticle IVof Republic (ct *)+, as a!ended.

SO ORD6R6D.)

See8in" the evesal of the decision of the tial cout findin" hi! "uilt$ of the ci!e cha"ed, accuseda"ues that the seach of his pesonal effects 3as ille"al because it 3as !ade 3ithout a seach3aant and, theefoe, the pohibited du"s 3hich 3ee discoveed duin" the ille"al seach ae notad!issible as evidence a"ainst hi!.

The #onstitution "uaantees the i"ht of the people to be secue in thei pesons, houses, papesand effects a"ainst uneasonable seaches and sei7ues. Ho3eve, 3hee the seach is !adepusuant to a la3ful aest, thee is no need to obtain a seach 3aant. ( la3ful aest 3ithout a3aant !a$ be !ade b$ a peace office o a pivate peson unde the follo3in" cicu!stances.*

Sec. Arrest 'ithout 'arrant @ 'hen la'ful . ( peace office o a pivate peson !a$,

3ithout a 3aant, aest a peson

9a: Fhen, in his pesence, the peson to be aested has co!!itted is actuall$ co!!ittin", o is atte!ptin" to co!!it an offense@

9b: Fhen an offense has in fact 4ust been co!!itted, and he has pesonal 8no3led"e offacts indicatin" that the peson to be aested has co!!itted it@ and

9c: Fhen the peson to be aested is a pisone 3ho has escaped fo! a penalestablish!ent o place 3hee he is sevin" final 4ud"!ent o te!poail$ confined 3hile hiscase is pendin", o has escaped 3hile bein" tansfeed fo! one confine!ent to anothe.

In cases fallin" unde paa"aphs 9a: and 9b: heeof, the peson aested 3ithout a 3aantshall be foth3ith deliveed to the neaest police station o 4ail, and he shall be poceededa"ainst in accodance 3ith Rule //+, Section &. 9*a /&a:.

(ccused 3as seached and aested 3hile tanspotin" pohibited du"s 9hashish:. ( ci!e 3asactuall$ bein" co!!itted b$ the accused and he 3as cau"ht in flagrante delicto. Thus, the seach!ade upon his pesonal effects falls s?uael$ unde paa"aph 9/: of the foe"oin" povisions of la3,3hich allo3 a 3aantless seach incident to a la3ful aest.&














Fhile it is tue that the N(R#OM offices 3ee not a!ed 3ith a seach 3aant 3hen the seach3as !ade ove the pesonal effects of accused, ho3eve, unde the cicu!stances of the case,thee 3as sufficient pobable cause fo said offices to believe that accused 3as then and theeco!!ittin" a ci!e.

---------------

Pobable cause has been defined as such facts and cicu!stances 3hich could lead a easonable,disceet and pudent !an to believe that an offense has been co!!itted, and that the ob4ectssou"ht in connection 3ith the offense ae in the place sou"ht to be seached. 2 The e?uied pobablecause that 3ill 4ustif$ a 3aantless seach and sei7ue is not dete!ined b$ an$ fi<ed fo!ula but isesolved accodin" to the facts of each case. 1

Faantless seach of the pesonal effects of an accused has been declaed b$ this #out as valid,because of e<istence of pobable cause, 3hee the s!ell of !ai4uana e!anated fo! a plastic ba"o3ned b$ the accused,/o 3hee the accused 3as actin" suspiciousl$,// and atte!pted to flee./+

(side fo! the pesistent epots eceived b$ the N(R#OM that vehicles co!in" fo! Sa"ada 3ee

tanspotin" !ai4uana and othe pohibited du"s, thei #o!!andin" Office also eceivedinfo!ation that a #aucasian co!in" fo! Sa"ada on that paticula da$ had pohibited du"s in hispossession. Said info!ation 3as eceived b$ the #o!!andin" Office of N(R#OM the ve$ sa!e!onin" that accused ca!e do3n b$ bus fo! Sa"ada on his 3a$ to %a"uio #it$.

Fhen N(R#OM eceived the info!ation, a fe3 hous befoe the appehension of heein accused,that a #aucasian tavellin" fo! Sa"ada to %a"uio #it$ 3as ca$in" 3ith hi! pohibited du"s, thee3as no ti!e to obtain a seach 3aant. In the Tangli%en case,/' the police authoities conducted asuveillance at the Victo$ >ine Te!inal located at %"$. San Nicolas, San Benando Pa!pan"a,a"ainst pesons en"a"ed in the taffic of dan"eous du"s, based on info!ation supplied b$ so!einfo!es. (ccused Tan"liben 3ho 3as actin" suspiciousl$ and pointed out b$ an info!e 3asappehended and seached b$ the police authoities. It 3as held that 3hen faced 3ith on-the-spotinfo!ation, the police offices had to act ?uic8l$ and thee 3as no ti!e to secue a seach 3aant.

It !ust be obseved that, at fist, the N(R#OM offices !eel$ conducted a outine chec8 of the bus93hee accused 3as idin": and the passen"es theein, and no e<tensive seach 3as initiall$ !ade.It 3as onl$ 3hen one of the offices noticed a bul"e on the 3aist of accused, duin" the couse of theinspection, that accused 3as e?uied to pesent his passpot. The failue of accused to pesent hisidentification papes, 3hen odeed to do so, onl$ !ana"ed to aouse the suspicion of the office thataccused 3as t$in" to hide his identit$. Bo is it not a e"ula no! fo an innocent !an, 3ho hasnothin" to hide fo! the authoities, to eadil$ pesent his identification papes 3hen e?uied to dosoJ

The eceipt of info!ation b$ N(R#OM that a #aucasian co!in" fo! Sa"ada had pohibited du"sin his possession, plus the suspicious failue of the accused to poduce his passpot, ta8en to"ethe

as a 3hole, led the N(R#OM offices to easonabl$ believe that the accused 3as t$in" to hideso!ethin" ille"al fo! the authoities. Bo! these cicu!stances aose a pro%a%le cause 3hich

4ustified the 3aantless seach that 3as !ade on the pesonal effects of the accused. In othe3ods, the acts of the N(R#OM offices in e?uiin" the accused to open his pouch ba" and inopenin" one of the 3apped ob4ects found inside said ba" 93hich 3as discoveed to containhashish: as 3ell as the t3o 9+: tavellin" ba"s containin" t3o 9+: tedd$ beas 3ith hashish stuffedinside the!, 3ee po!pted b$ accused;s o3n atte!pt to hide his identit$ b$ efusin" to pesent hispasspot, and b$ the info!ation eceived b$ the N(R#OM that a #aucasian co!in" fo! Sa"adahad pohibited du"s in his possession. To depive the N(R#OM a"ents of the abilit$ and facilit$ to


















act accodin"l$, includin", to seach even 3ithout 3aant, in the li"ht of such cicu!stances, 3ouldbe to sanction i!potence and ineffectiveness in la3 enfoce!ent, to the deti!ent of societ$.

FH6R6BOR6, pe!ises consideed, the appealed 4ud"!ent of conviction b$ the tial cout isheeb$ (BBIRM6D. #osts a"ainst the accused-appellant.

SO ORD6R6D.

elencio-+errera$ &aras$ ,eliciano$ )idin$ Grio-Auino$ edialdea$ Regalado and Da"ide$ /r.$ //.$concur.Sarmiento$ /.$ is on lea"e.

S)pr-) Opi(io(

NAR/ASA, J., concuin" and dissentin"

The ancient tadition that a !an;s ho!e is his castle, safe fo! intusion even b$ the 8in", has notonl$ found its niche in all ou chates, fo! /1' to the pesent@ it has also eceived unva$in"eco"nition and acceptance in ou case la3./ The pesent #onstitution+ declaes that A

The i"ht of the people to be secue in thei pesons, houses, papes, and effects a"ainstuneasonable seaches and sei7ues of 3hateve natue and fo an$ pupose, shall beinviolable, and no seach 3aant o 3aant of aest shall issue e<cept upon pobablecause to be dete!ined pesonall$ b$ the 4ud"e afte e<a!ination unde oath o affi!ationof the co!plainant and the 3itnesses he !a$ poduce, and paticulal$ descibin" the placeto be seached, and the pesons o thin" to be sei7ed.

It futhe odains that an$ evidence obtained in violation of said i"ht, a!on" othes, =shall beinad!issible fo an$ pupose in an$ poceedin".='

The ule is that no peson !a$ be sub4ected b$ the police o othe "oven!ent authoit$ to a seachof his bod$, o his pesonal effects o belon"in"s, o his esidence e<cept b$ vitue of a seach3aant o on the occasion of a le"iti!ate aest.)

(n aest is le"iti!ate, of couse, if effected b$ vitue of a 3aant of aest. 6ven 3ithout a 3aant,an aest !a$ also be la3full$ !ade b$ a peace office o a pivate peson

9a: 3hen, in his pesence, the peson to be aested has co!!itted is actuall$ co!!ittin", o is atte!ptin" to co!!it an offense@

9b: Fhen an offense has in fact 4ust been co!!itted, and he has pesonal 8no3led"e offacts indicatin" that the peson to be aested has co!!itted it@ and

9c: Fhen the peson to be aested is a pisone 3ho has escaped fo! a penalestablish!ent o place 3hee he is sevin" final 4ud"!ent o te!poail$ confined 3hile hiscase is pendin", o has escaped 3hile bein" tansfeed fo! one confine!ent to anothe.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_91107_1991.html#rnt1n












In cases fallin" unde paa"aphs 9a: and 9b: heeof, the peson aested 3ithout a 3aantshall be foth3ith deliveed to the neaest police station o 4ail, and he shall be poceededa"ainst in accodance 3ith Rule //+, Section &.

In an$ of these instances of a la3ful aest, the peson aested =!a$ be seached fo dan"eous3eapons o an$thin" 3hich !a$ be used as poof of the co!!ission of an offense, 3ithout a seach

3aant.=* (nd it has been held that the seach !a$ e<tend to the aea =3ithin his i!!ediatecontol,= i.e., the aea fo! 3hich said peson aested !i"ht "ain possession of a 3eapon odestuctible evidence.&

(pat fo! =seach incidental to an aest,= a 3aantless seach has also been held to be pope incases of =seach of a !ovin" vehicle, 2 and =sei7ue of evidence in plain vie3.=1 This 3as theponounce!ent in Manipon, 0. v. Sandi"anba$an, /)' S#R( +*&, +&*, 3hich de3 attentionto oreno ". Ago Chi @/ Al"ero ". Di0on$// &apa ". ago$/+ and an (!eican pecedent, Hais v. 5.S./'

If, on the othe, a peson is searched 'ithout a 'arrant$ or under circumstances other than those ustif#ing an arrest 'ithout 'arrant in accordance 'ith la'$ supra$ !eel$ on suspicion that he isen"a"ed in so!e felonious entepise, and in ode to discove if he has indeed co!!itted a ci!e, it

is not onl$ the aest 3hich is ille"al but also, the seach on the occasion theeof, as bein" =the fuitof the poisonous tee./) In that event, an$ evidence ta8en, even if confi!ato$ of the initial suspicion,is inad!issible =fo an$ pupose in an$ poceedin".=/ %ut the i"ht a"ainst an uneasonable seachand sei7ue !a$ be 3aived b$ the peson aested, povided he 8ne3 of such i"ht and 8no3in"l$decided not to invo8e it./*

Thee is unani!it$ a!on" the !e!bes of the #out upon the continuin" validit$ of theseestablished pinciples. Ho3eve, the #out is divided as e"ads the ulti!ate conclusions 3hich !a$popel$ be deived fo! the poven facts and conse?uentl$, the !anne in 3hich the pinciples 4ustcited should appl$ theeto.

The poofs of the posecution and those of the defense ae dia!eticall$ at odds. Fhat is cetain,ho3eve, is that the soldies had no 3aant of aest 3hen the$ conducted a seach of Mal!stedt;speson and the thin"s in his possession at the ti!e. Indeed, the #out a uo ac8no3led"ed that thesoldies could =not be e<pected to be a!ed 3ith a 3aant o aest no a seach 3aant eve$ti!ethe$ establish a te!poa$ chec8point . . . 9and: no 4ud"e 3ould issue the! one considein" thatseachin" ?uestions have to be as8ed befoe a 3aant could be issued.= 6?uall$ plain is that pio tothe seach, a 3aantless aest of Mal!stedt could not validl$ have been in accodance 3ith theno!s of the la3. Bo Mal!stedt had not co!!itted, no 3as he actuall$ co!!ittin" o atte!ptin" toco!!it a ci!e, in the soldies; pesence, no did said soldies have pesonal and co!petent8no3led"e that Mal!stedt had in fact 4ust co!!itted a ci!e. (ll the$ had 3as a suspicion thatMal!stedt !i"ht have so!e pohibited du" on hi! o in his ba"s@ all the$ had 3as, in the 3ods ofthe Tial #out, =the hope of inteceptin" an$ dan"eous du" bein" tanspoted,= o, as the Office ofthe Solicito eneal assets, =info!ation that !ost of the buses co!in" . . . 9fo! the #odillea:3ee tanspotin" !ai4uana and othe pohibited du"s.=

This case, is e!a8abl$ si!ila to &eo. ". Aminnudin, decided on 0ul$ *, /122 also b$ the BistDivision./& Thee, (!innudin 3as aested 3ithout a 3aant b$ P# offices as he 3as dise!ba8in"fo! an inte-island vessel. The offices 3ee 3aitin" fo hi! because he 3as, accodin" to aninfo!e;s epot, then tanspotin" !ai4uana. The seach of (!innudin;s ba" confi!ed theinfo!e;s epot@ the ba" indeed contained !ai4uana. The #out nevetheless held that since theP# offices had failed to pocue a seach 3aant althou"h the$ had sufficient ti!e 9t3o da$s: to doso and theefoe, the case pesented no such u"enc$ as to 4ustif$ a 3aantless seach, the seachof (!innudin;s peson and ba", the sei7ue of the !ai4uana and his subse?uent aest 3ee ille"al@


































and the !ai4uana 3as inad!issible in evidence in the ci!inal action subse?uentl$ instituted a"ainst (!innudin fo violatin" the Dan"eous Du"s (ct.

Thee ae, on the othe hand, othe cases ad4udicated b$ this #out in 3hich appaentl$ diffeentconclusions 3ee eached. It is needful to devote a fe3 3ods to the! so that the elevantconstitutional and le"al popositions ae not !isundestood.

In &eople ". Claudio 9decision po!ul"ated on (pil /, /122:,/2 the accused boaded a =Victo$>ine= passen"e bus "oin" to Olon"apo fo! %a"uio #it$. She placed the plastic ba" she 3asca$in" at the bac8 of the seat then occupied b$ ObiCa, an INP !e!be =on Detached Sevice 3iththe (nti-Nacotics 5nit.= This avo3edl$ aoused ObiCa;s suspicion, and at the fist oppotunit$, and3ithout #laudio;s 8no3led"e, he sueptitiousl$ loo8ed into the plastic ba" and noted that itcontained ca!ote tops as 3ell as a pac8a"e, and that thee e!anated fo! the pac8a"e the s!ell of !ai4uana 3ith 3hich he had beco!e fa!ilia on account of his 3o8. So 3hen the bus stopped atSta. Rita, and #laudio ali"hted, ObiCa accosted he, sho3ed he his ID, identified hi!self as apolice!an, and announced his intention to seach he ba" 3hich he said contained !ai4uanabecause of the distinctive odo detected b$ hi!. I"noin" he plea A =Please "o 3ith !e, let ussettle this at ho!e= A he bou"ht he to the police head?uates., 3hee e<a!ination of the pac8a"e

in #laudio;s ba" confi!ed his suspicion that it indeed contained !ai4uana. The #out held the3aantless aest unde the cicu!stances to be la3ful, the seach 4ustified, and the evidence thusdiscoveed ad!issible in evidence a"ainst the accused.

In &eople ". Tangli%en 9decision po!ul"ated on (pil *, /11:,/1 t3o police offices and a %aranga#tanod 3ee conductin" a =suveillance !ission= at the Victo$ >ine Te!inal at San Nicolas, SanBenando, Pa!pan"a, =ai!ed not onl$ a"ainst pesons 3ho !a$ co!!it !isde!eanos . . . 9thee:but also on pesons 3ho !a$ be en"a"in" in the taffic of dan"eous du"s based on info!ationsupplied b$ info!es@ . . . the$ noticed a peson ca$in" a ed tavellin" ba" . . 3ho 3as actin"suspiciousl$@= the$ as8ed hi! to open the ba"@ the peson did so onl$ afte the$ identifiedthe!selves as peace offices@ found in the ba" 3ee !ai4uana leaves 3apped in plastic 3ei"hin"one 8ilo"a!, !oe o less@ the peson 3as then ta8en to the police head?uates at San Benando,Pa!pan"a, 3hee he 3as investi"ated@ and an info!ation 3as theeafte filed a"ainst that peson,

Tan"liben, cha"in" hi! 3ith a violation of the Dan"eous Du"s (ct of /1&+ 9R( *)+:, asa!ended. 5pon these facts it 3as uled, citing Claudio$ supra, that thee 3as a valid 3aantlessaest and a pope 3aantless seach incident theeto.

The facts in Tangli%en 3ee ponounced to be diffeent fo! those in &eople ". Aminnudin$ supra. =Incontast= to Aminnudin 3hee the #out peceived no u"enc$ as to peclude the application fo andobtention of a seach 3aant, it 3as declaed that the Tangli%en case A

. . . presented urgenc# . . . 9The evidence evealed: that thee 3as an info!e 3ho pointed tothe accused-appellant as ca$in" !ai4uana . . . Baced 3ith such on-the-spot info!ation,the police offices had to act ?uic8l$. Thee 3as not enou"h ti!e to secue a seach 3aant .. . To e?uie seach 3aants duin" on-the-spot appehensions of du" pushes, ille"al

possessos of fiea!s, 4ueten" collectos, s!u""les of contaband "oods, obbe, etc.3ould !a8e it e<te!el$ difficult, if not i!possible to contain the ci!es 3ith 3hich thesepesons ae associated.

In Tangli%en$ theefoe, thee 3as in the #out;s vie3 sufficient evidence on hand to enable the P#offices to secue a seach 3aant, had thee been ti!e. %ut because thee 3as actuall$ no ti!e to"et the 3aant, and thee 3ee =on-the-spot= indications that Tan"liben 3as then actuall$ co!!ittin"a ci!e, the seach of his peson and his effects 3as consideed valid.








T3o othe decisions pesented substantiall$ si!ila cicu!stance instances &osadas ". C.A., et al .,decided on (u"ust +, /11,+ and &eople ". oises aspil$ /r ., et al ., decided on (u"ust +, /11.+/

In the fist case, Posadas 3as seen to be actin" suspiciousl$ b$ t3o !e!bes of the INP, DavaoMetodisco!, and 3hen he 3as accosted b$ the t3o, 3ho identified the!selves as police offices, hesuddenl$ fled. He 3as pusued, oveta8en and, not3ithstandin" his esistance, placed in custod$.

The %uri ba" Posadas 3as then ca$in" 3as found to contain a evolve, fo 3hich he could poduceno license o authoit$ to possess, fou ounds of live a!!unition, and a tea "as "enade. He 3asposecuted fo ille"al possession of fiea!s and a!!unition and convicted afte tial. This #outaffi!ed Posadas; conviction, holdin" that thee 3as, in the pe!ises, pobable cause fo a seach3ithout 3aant, i.e., the appellant 3as actin" suspiciousl$ and atte!pted to flee 3ith the %uri ba" hehad 3ith hi! at the ti!e. The #out cited 3ith appoval the ulin" of the 5.S. Bedeal Supe!e #outin /ohn 2. Terr# ". State of 3hio$++ a /1*2 case, 3hich the Solicito eneal had invo8ed to 4ustif$ theseach.

In the case of aspil$ et al ., a chec8point 3as set up b$ ele!ents of the Bist Nacotics Re"ional 5nitof the Nacotics #o!!and at Sa$an"an, (to8, %en"uet, to !onito, inspect and scutini7e vehicleson the hi"h3a$ "oin" to3ads %a"uio #it$. This 3as done because of a confidential epot b$

info!es that Maspil and anothe peson, %a"8in", 3ould be tanspotin" a la"e ?uantit$ of!ai4uana to %a"uio #it$. In fact, the info!es 3ee 3ith the police!en !annin" the chec8point. (se<pected, at about + o;cloc8 in the eal$ !onin" of Nove!be /, /12*, a 4eepne$ appoached thechec8point, diven b$ Maspil, 3ith %a"8in" as passen"e. The offices stopped the vehicle and sa3that on it 3ee loaded + plastic sac8s, a 4ute sac8, and ' bi" ound tin cans. Fhen opened, the sac8sand cans 3ee seen to contain 3hat appeaed to be !ai4uana leaves. The police!en theeuponplaced Maspil and %a"8in" unde aest, and confiscated the leaves 3hich, upon scientifice<a!ination, 3ee veified to be !ai4uana leaves. The #out upheld the validit$ of the seach thusconducted, as bein" incidental to a la3ful 3aantless aest,+' and declaed that, as in Tangli%en$supra, Maspil and %a"8in" had been cau"ht in flagrante delicto tanspotin" pohibited du"s at theti!e of thei aest. ("ain, the #out too8 occasion to distin"uish the case fo! Aminnudin+) in 3hich,as afoestated, it appeaed that the police offices 3ee a3ae of (!innudin;s identit$, his po4ectedci!inal entepise and the vessel on 3hich he 3ould be aivin", and, e?uall$ as i!potantl$, had

sufficient ti!e and oppotunit$ to obtain a seach 3aant. In the case of Maspil and %a"8in", the#out found that the offices concened had no e<act desciption of the vehicle the fo!e 3ould beusin" to tanspot !ai4uana, and no in8lin" of the definite ti!e of the suspects; aival, and pointedout that a 4eepne$ on the oad is not the sa!e as a passen"e boat on the hi"h seas 3hose outeand ti!e of aival ae !oe o less cetain, and 3hich odinail$ cannot deviate fo! o othe3isealte its couse, o select anothe destination.+

The !ost ecent decision teatin" of 3aantless seach and sei7ue appeas to be &eople ". 4o +o2ing5 et al ., .R. No. 22/&, decided on 0anua$ +/, /11/ 9pe anca$co, / .:. In that case, anundecove o =deep penetation= a"ent, Tia, !ana"ed so!eho3 to "ain acceptance into a "oup ofsuspected du" s!u""les, 3hich included Pete >o and >i! #hin" Huat. Tia acco!panied Pete >oto uan"7hou, #hina, 3hee he sa3 hi! and othe peson e!pt$ the contents of si< 9*: tins of teaand eplace the! 3ith 3hite po3de. On thei etun to Manila 3ith the cans of substituted =tea,= the$3ee !et at the aipot b$ >i!. (s the$ 3ee leavin" the aipot in sepaate vehicles, the$ 3eeintecepted b$ offices and opeatives of the Nacotics #o!!and 9N(R#OM:, 3ho had ealie beentipped off b$ Tia, and placed unde aest. (s seach of the lu""a"e bou"ht in b$ Tia and Pete >o,loaded on the "oup;s vehicles, ?uic8l$ disclosed the si< 9*: tin cans containin" fift$-si< 9*: ba"s of3hite c$stalline po3de 3hich, upon anal$sis, 3as identified as !eta!pheta!ine. Tia, >o and >i!3ee indicted fo violation of the Dan"eous Du"s (ct of /1&+. Tia 3as discha"ed as state 3itness.>o and >i! 3ee subse?uentl$ convicted and sentenced to life i!pison!ent. One of the ?uestionsaised b$ the! in this #out on appeal 3as 3hethe the 3aantless seach of thei vehicles andpesonal effects 3as le"al. The #out, citinganipon$ /r. ". Sandigan%a#an$ /)' S#R( +*&
















9/12*:,+* held le"al the seach of the appellants; !ovin" vehicles and the sei7ue theefo! of thedan"eous du", considein" that thee 3as intelli"ence info!ation, includin" clandestine epots b$a planted sp$ actuall$ paticipatin" in the activit$, that the appellants 3ee bin"in" pohibited du"sinto the count$@ that the e?uie!ent of obtainin" a seach 3aant =bodes on the i!possible in thecase of s!u""lin" effected b$ the use of a !ovin" vehicle that can tanspot contaband fo! oneplace to anothe 3ith i!punit$,= and =it is not pacticable to secue a 3aant because the vehicle can

be ?uic8l$ !oved out of the localit$ o 4uisdiction in 3hich the 3aant !ust be sou"ht.+&

In all five cases, Claudio$ Tangli%en$ &osadas$ aspil$ and 4o +o 2ing$ facts e<isted 3hich 3eefound b$ the #out as 4ustif$in" 3aantless aests. In Claudio$ the aestin" office had secetl$ascetained that the 3o!an he 3as aestin" 3as in fact in possession of !ai4uana@ he hadpesonall$ seen that he ba" contained not onl$ ve"etables but also a pac8a"e e!ittin" the odo of!ai4uana. In Tangli%en$ the peson aested and seached 3as actin" suspiciousl$, and had beenpositivel$ pointed to as ca$in" !ai4uana. (nd in both cases, the accused 3ee about to boadpassen"e buses, !a8in" it u"ent fo the police offices concened to ta8e ?uic8 and decisiveaction. In &osadas$ the peson aested and seached 3as actin" suspiciousl$, too, and 3henaccosted had atte!pted to flee fo! the police offices. (nd in aspil and 4o +o 2ing$ thee 3asdefinite info!ation of the pecise identit$ of the pesons en"a"ed in tanspotin" pohibited du"s ata paticula ti!e and place.

No3, as e"ads the pecise issue at hand, 3hethe o not the facts in the case at ba !a8e out ale"iti!ate instance of a 3aantless seach and sei7ue, thee is, as ealie pointed out, a e"ettabledive"ence of vie3s a!on" the !e!bes of the #out.

#onta$ to the conclusion eached b$ the !a4oit$, I believe that the appellant should be absolvedon easonable doubt. Thee 3as in this case no confidential epot fo!, o positive identification b$an info!e@ no atte!pt to flee@ no ba" o pac8a"e e!ittin" tell-tale odos@ no othe easonabl$pesuasive indications that Mal!stedt 3as at the ti!e in pocess of pepetatin" the offense fo3hich he 3as subse?uentl$ posecuted. Hence, 3hen the soldies seached Mal!stedt;s pouch andthe ba"s in his possession, the$ 3ee si!pl$ =fishin"= fo evidence. It !attes not that the seachdisclosed that the ba"s contained pohibited substances, confi!in" thei initial info!ation and

suspicion. The seach 3as not !ade b$ vitue of a 3aant o as an incident of a la3ful 3aantlessaest, i.e., unde cicu!stances sufficient to en"ende a easonable belief that so!e ci!e 3asbein" o about to be co!!itted, o ad4ust been co!!itted. Thee 3as no intelli"ent and intentional3aive of the i"ht a"ainst uneasonable seaches and sei7ue. The seach 3as theefoe ille"al,since the la3 e?uies that thee fist be a la3ful aest of an individual befoe a seach of his bod$and his belon"in"s !a$ licitl$ be !ade. The pocess cannot be evesed, i.e., a seach be fistundeta8en, and then an aest effected, on the sten"th of the evidence $ielded b$ the seach. (naest !ade in that case 3ould be unla3ful, and the seach undeta8en as an incident of such anunla3ful aest, also unla3ful.

The fact that 3hen investi"ated at the head?uates of the Nacotic #o!!and at #a!p Dan"3a, >aTinidad, Mal!stedt had, it is said, 3illin"l$ ad!itted that thee 3ee 3as hashish inside the =tedd$

beas= in the lu""a"e found in his possession A an ad!ission subse?uentl$ confi!ed b$ laboato$e<a!ination A does not help the cause of the posecution one bit. Nothin" in the ecod evene!otel$ su""ests that Mal!stedt 3as accoded the i"hts "uaanteed b$ the #onstitution to allpesons unde custodial investi"ation.+2 He 3as not info!ed, pio to bein" inteo"ated, that he hadthe =i"ht to e!ain silent and to have co!petent and independent counsel pefeabl$ of his o3nchoice,= and that if he could not affod the sevices of counsel, he 3ould be povided 3ith one@ notdoes it appea at all that he 3aived those i"hts =in 3itin" and in the pesence of counsel.= Thesoldies and the police offices si!pl$ 3ent ahead 3ith the investi"ation of Mal!stedt, 3ithout










counsel. The ad!issions elicited fo! Mal!stedt unde these cicu!stances, as the #onstitutioncleal$ states, ae =inad!issible in evidence a"ainst hi!. +1

The pohibited du"s supposedl$ discoveed in Mal!stedt;s ba"s, havin" been ta8en in violation ofthe constitutional i"ht a"ainst uneasonable seaches and sei7ues, ae inad!issible a"ainst hi!=fo an$ pupose in an$ poceedin".= (lso ponounced as inco!petent evidence a"ainst hi! ae the

ad!issions supposedl$ !ade b$ hi! 3ithout his fist bein" accoded the constitutional i"hts ofpesons unde custodial investi"ation. Fithout such ob4ect evidence and ad!issions, nothin"e!ains of the case a"ainst Mal!stedt.

It !a$ be conceded that, as the Tial #out points out, the evidence pesented b$ Mal!stedt in hisdefense is feeble, un3oth$ of cedence. This is beside the point@ fo confo!abl$ to the fa!iliaa<io!, the State !ust el$ on the sten"th of its evidence and not on the 3ea8ness of the defense.The unfotunate fact is that althou"h the e<istence of the hashish is an ob4ective ph$sical ealit$ thatcannot but be conceded, thee is in la3 no evidence to de!onstate 3ith an$ de"ee of pesuasion,!uch less be$ond easonable doubt, that Mal!stedt 3as en"a"ed in a ci!inal activit$. This is thepaado< ceated b$ the dise"ad of the applicable constitutional safe"uads. The tan"ible benefit isthat the hashish in ?uestion has been coectl$ confiscated and thus effectivel$ 3ithda3n fo!

pivate use.

Fhat is hee said should not b$ an$ !eans be ta8en as a disappoval o a dispaa"e!ent of theeffots of the police and !ilita$ authoities to dete and detect offenses, 3hethe the$ be possessionof and taffic in pohibited du"s, o so!e othe. Those effots obviousl$ !eit the suppot andco!!endation of the #outs and indeed of eve$ esponsible citi7en. %ut those effots !ust ta8eaccount of the basic i"hts "anted b$ the #onstitution and the la3 to pesons 3ho !a$ fall undesuspicion of en"a"in" in ci!inal acts. Dise"ad of those i"hts !a$ not be 4ustified b$ the ob4ectiveof feetin" out and punishin" ci!e, no !atte ho3 e!inentl$ desiable attain!ent of that ob4ective!i"ht be. Dise"ad of those i"hts, as this #out has ealie stessed, !a$ esult in the escape ofthe "uilt$, and all because the =constable has blundeed,= endein" the evidence inad!issible evenif tuthful o othe3ise cedible.'

I theefoe vote to evese the Tial #out;s 4ud"!ent of Octobe /+, /121 and to ac?uit the appellanton easonable doubt.

CRU$, J., dissentin"

I 4oin M. 0ustice (ndes R. Navasa in his dissent, 3hich I believe epesents the coect applicationto the facts of this case of the povisions of the %ill of Ri"hts and the Rules of #out on seaches andsei7ues. It is consistent 3ith !$ ponencia in People v. (!innudin, /*' S#R( )+, and also 3ith (lihv. #asto, // S#R( +&1, the latte bein" a unani!ous decision of the #out en %anc , and !$

dissents in 5!il v. Ra!os 9on 3aantless aests, /2& S#R( '//, Val!onte v. De Villa 9onchec8points:, /&2, S#R( +//, /2 S#R( **, and ua7on v. De Villa 9on =7onas=:, /2/ S#R( *+'.

I 3ite this sepaate opinion !eel$ to e!a8 on an obsevation !ade duin" the delibeation on thiscase that so!e !e!bes of the #out see! to be coddlin" ci!inals instead of e<tendin" itspotection to societ$, 3hich deseves ou hi"he concen. The infeence is that because of ou 3on"pioities, ci!inals ae bein" i!pudentl$ let fee, to violate ou la3s a"ain@ and it is all ou fault.







%elievin" !$self to be a!on" those alluded to, I 3ill sa$ 3ithout apolo"$ that I do not conside apeson a ci!inal, until he is convicted b$ final 4ud"!ent afte a fai tial b$ a co!petent and i!patialcout. 5ntil then, the #onstitution bids us to pesu!e hi! innocent. He !a$ see! booish o spea8cudel$ o spot tattoos o dess 3eidl$ o othe3ise fall shot of ou o3n standads of popiet$ anddecou!. None of these !a8es hi! a ci!inal althou"h he !a$ loo6 li8e a ci!inal.

It is so eas$ to conde!n a peson on the basis of his appeaance but it is also so 3on".

On the ?uestion befoe us, it see!s to be the inclination of so!e 4ud"es to 3in8 at an ille"al seachand sei7ue as lon" as the suspect has been actuall$ found in possession of a pohibited aticle Thatfact 3ill etoactivel$ validate the violation of the %ill of Ri"hts fo afte all, as the$ 3ould ationali7e,the suspect is a ci!inal. Fhat !attes to the! is the fact of ille"al possession, not the fact of ille"alseach and sei7ue.

This 8ind of thin8in" ta8es us bac8 to the intoleant da$s of Moncado v. People;s #out, 2 Phil. /,3hich 3as discedited in Stonehill v. Dio8no, + S#R( '2', even befoe it 3as definitel$ e4ected b$an e<pess povision in the /1&' #onstitution. That povision, 3hich has been etained in the pesent#onstitution, a"ain e<plicitl$ declaes that an$ evidence ille"all$ obtained =shall be inad!issible fo

an$ pupose in an$ poceedin".=

The fuit of the poisonous tee should not be allo3ed to poison ou s$ste! of ci!inal 4ustice. 1'phi1 In thecase at ba, the seach 3as !ade at a chec8point established fo the peposteous eason that theoute 3as bein" used b$ !ai4uana deales and on an individual 3ho had so!ethin" bul"in" at his3aist that e<cited the soldie;s suspicion. Fas that pobable causeJ The ponencia notes that the!ilita$ had advance info!ation that a #aucasian 3as co!in" fo! the Sa"ada 3ith pohibiteddu"s in his possession. This is 3hat the !ilita$ sa$s no3, after the fact, to 4ustif$ the 3aantlessseach. It is so eas$ to !a8e such a clai!, and I a! supised that the !a4oit$ should eadil$ acceptit.

The conclusion that thee 3as pobable cause !a$ have been influenced b$ the subse?uentdiscove$ that the accused 3as ca$in" a pohibited du". This is supposed to 4ustif$ the soldie;ssuspicion. In othe 3ods, it 3as the fact of ille"al possession that retroacti"el# established thepobable cause that validated the ille"al seach and sei7ue. It 3as the fuit of the poisonous teethat 3ashed clean the tee itself.

In Ol!stead v. 5.S., +&& 5.S. )'2, 0ustice Hol!es said si<t$-fou $eas a"o

. . . It is desiable that ci!inals should be detected, and to that end that all availableevidence should be used. 1a""phi1 It is also desiable that the "oven!ent should not itself foste andpa$ fo othe ci!es, 3hen the$ ae the !eans b$ 3hich the evidence is to be obtained. If itpa$s its offices fo havin" "ot evidence b$ ci!e, I do not see 3h$ it !a$ not as 3ell pa$the! fo "ettin" it in the sa!e 3a$, and I can attach no i!potance to potestations ofdisappoval if it 8no3in"l$ accepts and pa$s and announces that in the futue it 3ill pa$ fo

the fuits. Fe have to choose, and fo !$ pat I thin8 it a less evil that so!e ci!inals shouldescape than that the "oven!ent should pla$ an i"noble pat.

If b$ detein" the "oven!ent fo! pla$in" =an i"noble pat,= I a! =coddlin" ci!inals,= I 3elco!ethe accusation and ta8e pide in it. I 3ould athe e in favo of the accused 3ho is i!paled 3ithoutla3ed evidence than e<alt ode at the pice of libet$.




SUPREME COURT

Manila

BIRST DIVISION

G.R.No. 74869 %'l0 6, 1988


vs.

!EL AMNNU!N 0 AHN, defendant-appellant.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

+erminio T. 4lari0a counsel de-officio for defendant-appellant.

CRU$, J.:

The accused-appellant clai!ed his business 3as sellin" 3atches but he 3as nonetheless aested,

tied and found "uilt$ of i lle"all$ tanspotin" !ai4uana. The tial cout, disbelievin" hi!, held it 3as

hi"h ti!e to put hi! a3a$ and sentenced hi! to life i!pison!ent plus a fine of P+,.. 1

Idel (!innudin 3as aested on 0une +, /12), shotl$ afte dise!ba8in" fo! the MEV Filcon 1 at

about 2' in the evenin", in Iloilo #it$. The P# offices 3ho 3ee in fact 3aitin" fo hi! si!pl$accosted hi!, inspected his ba" and findin" 3hat loo8ed li8ed !ai4uana leaves too8 hi! to thei

head?uates fo investi"ation. The t3o bundles of suspect aticles 3ee confiscated fo! hi! and

late ta8en to the N%I laboato$ fo e<a!ination. Fhen the$ 3ee veified as !ai4uana leaves, an

info!ation fo violation of the Dan"eous Du"s (ct 3as filed a"ainst hi!. 2 >ate, the info!ation 3as

a!ended to include Baida (li $ Hassen, 3ho had also been aested 3ith hi! that sa!e evenin" and

li8e3ise investi"ated. %oth 3ee aai"ned and pleaded not "uilt$. 4 Subse?uentl$, the fiscal filed a

!otion to dis!iss the cha"e a"ainst (li on the basis of a s3on state!ent of the aestin" offices

absolvin" he afte a ;thoou"h investi"ation.= 5 The !otion 3as "anted, and tial poceeded onl$ a"ainst

the accused-appellant, 3ho 3as eventuall$ convicted . 6

(ccodin" to the posecution, the P# offices had ealie eceived a tip fo! one of thei info!es

that the accused-appellant 3as on boad a vessel bound fo Iloilo #it$ and 3as ca$in"

!ai4uana. 7 He 3as Identified b$ na!e. 8 (ctin" on this tip, the$ 3aited fo hi! in the evenin" of 0une +,

/12), and appoached hi! as he descended fo! the "an"plan8 afte the info!e had pointed to

hi!. 9 The$ detained hi! and inspected the ba" he 3as ca$in". It 3as found to contain thee 8ilos of

3hat 3ee late anal$7ed as !ai4uana leaves b$ an N%I foensic e<a!ine, 1& 3ho testified that she

conducted !icoscopic, che!ical and cho!ato"aphic tests on the!. On the basis of this findin", the

coespondin" cha"e 3as then filed a"ainst (!innudin.



In his defense, (!innudin disclai!ed the !ai4uana, avein" that all he had in his ba" 3as his

clothin" consistin" of a 4ac8et, t3o shits and t3o pais of pants. 11 He alle"ed that he 3as abitail$

aested and i!!ediatel$ handcuffed. His ba" 3as confiscated 3ithout a seach 3aant. (t the P#

head?uates, he 3as !anhandled to foce hi! to ad!it he 3as ca$in" the !ai4uana, the investi"ato

hittin" hi! 3ith a piece of 3ood in the chest and a!s even as he paied the blo3s 3hile he 3as still

handcuffed. 12 He insisted he did not even 8no3 3hat !ai4uana loo8ed li8e and that his business 3as

sellin" 3atches and so!eti!es ci"aettes. 1 He also a"ued that the !ai4uana he 3as alle"ed to have

been ca$in" 3as not popel$ Identified and could have been an$ of seveal bundles 8ept in the stoc8

oo! of the P# head?uates. 14

The tial cout 3as unconvinced, notin" fo! its o3n e<a!ination of the accused that he clai!ed to

have co!e to Iloilo #it$ to sell 3atches but caied onl$ t3o 3atches at the ti!e, tavelin" fo! 0olo

fo that pupose and spendin" P/&. fo fae, not to !ention his othe e<penses. 15 (!innudin

testified that he 8ept the t3o 3atches in a secet poc8et belo3 his belt but, stan"el$, the$ 3ee not

discoveed 3hen he 3as bodil$ seached b$ the aestin" offices no 3ee the$ da!a"ed as a esult of

his !anhandlin". 16 He also said he sold one of the 3atches fo P). and "ave a3a$ the othe,

althou"h the 3atches belon"ed not to hi! but to his cousin, 17 to a fiend 3hose full na!e he said did not

even 8no3. 18 The tial cout also e4ected his alle"ations of !alteat!ent, obsevin" that he had notsufficientl$ poved the in4uies sustained b$ hi!. 19

Thee is no 4ustification to evese these factual findin"s, considein" that it 3as the tial 4ud"e 3ho

had i!!ediate access to the testi!on$ of the 3itnesses and had the oppotunit$ to 3ei"h thei

cedibilit$ on the stand. Nuances of tone o voice, !eanin"ful pauses and hesitation, flush of face

and dat of e$es, 3hich !a$ eveal the tuth o e<pose the lie, ae not descibed in the i!pesonal

ecod. %ut the tial 4ud"e sees all of this, discovein" fo hi!self the tuant fact a!idst the falsities.

The onl$ e<ception 3e !a$ !a8e in this case is the tial cout;s conclusion that the accused-

appellant 3as not eall$ beaten up because he did not co!plain about it late no did he sub!it to a

!edical e<a!ination. That is hadl$ fai o ealistic. It is possible (!innudin neve had thatoppotunit$ as he 3as at that ti!e unde detention b$ the P# authoities and in fact has neve been

set fee since he 3as aested in /12) and up to the pesent. No bail has been allo3ed fo his

elease.

Thee is one point that deseves close e<a!ination, ho3eve, and it is (!innudin;s clai! that he

3as aested and seached 3ithout 3aant, !a8in" the !ai4uana alle"edl$ found in his possession

inad!issible in evidence a"ainst hi! unde the %ill of Ri"hts. The decision did not even discuss this

point. Bo his pat, the Solicito eneal dis!issed this afte an all-too-shot a"u!ent that the aest

of (!innudin 3as valid because it ca!e unde Rule //', Section *9b: of the Rules of #out on

3aantless aests. This !ade the seach also valid as incidental to a la3ful aest.

It is not disputed, and in fact it is ad!itted b$ the P# offices 3ho testified fo the posecution, that

the$ had no 3aant 3hen the$ aested (!innudin and sei7ed the ba" he 3as ca$in". Thei onl$

4ustification 3as the tip the$ had ealie eceived fo! a eliable and e"ula info!e 3ho epoted to

the! that (!innudin 3as aivin" in Iloilo b$ boat 3ith !ai4uana. Thei testi!on$ vaies as to the

ti!e the$ eceived the tip, one sa$in" it 3as t3o da$s befoe the aest, 2& anothe t3o 3ee8s 21 and a

thid =3ee8s befoe 0une +.= 22 On this !atte, 3e !a$ pefe the declaation of the chief of the aestin"

tea!, >t. #ipiano Kueol, 0., 3ho testified as follo3s



K Gou !entioned an intelli"ence epot, $ou !ean 3ith espect to the

co!in" of Idel (!innudin on 0une +, /12)J

( Ges, si.

K Fhen did $ou eceive this intelli"ence epotJ

( T3o da$s befoe 0une +, /12) and it 3as suppoted b$ eliable

souces.

K Fee $ou info!ed of the co!in" of the Filcon 1 and the possible

taffic8in" of !ai4uana leaves on that dateJ

( Ges, si, t3o da$s befoe 0une +, /12) 3hen 3e eceived this

info!ation fo! that paticula info!e, pio to 0une +, /12) 3e

have alead$ epots of the paticula opeation 3hich 3as bein"

paticipated b$ Idel (!innudin.

K Gou said $ou eceived an intelli"ence epot t3o da$s befoe 0une

+, /12) 3ith espect to the co!in" of Filcon 1J

( Ges, si.

K Did $ou eceive an$ othe epot aside fo! this intelli"ence epotJ

( Fell, I have eceived also othe epots but not petainin" to the

co!in" of Filcon 1. Bo instance, epot of ille"al "a!blin" opeation.

#O5RT

K Pevious to that paticula info!ation 3hich $ou said t3o da$s

befoe 0une +, /12), did $ou also eceive dail$ epot e"adin" the

activities of Idel (!innudin

( Pevious to 0une +, /12) 3e eceived epots on the activities of

Idel (!innudin.

K Fhat 3ee those activitiesJ

( Puel$ !ai4uana taffic8in".

K Bo! 3ho! did $ou "et that info!ationJ

( It ca!e to !$ hand 3hich 3as 3itten in a e?uied sheet of

info!ation, !a$be fo secuit$ eason and 3e cannot Identif$ the

peson.



K %ut $ou eceived it fo! $ou e"ula info!eJ

( Ges, si.

(TTG. >>(RIL(

K Pevious to 0une +, /12), $ou 3ee !oe o less sue that Idel

(!innudin is co!in" 3ith du"sJ

( Mai4uana, si.

K (nd this info!ation espectin" Idel (!innudin;s co!in" to Iloilo

3ith !ai4uana 3as eceived b$ $ou !an$ da$s befoe $ou eceived

the intelli"ence epot in 3itin"J

( Not a epot of the paticula co!in" of (!innudin but his activities.

K Gou onl$ 8ne3 that he 3as co!in" on 0une +,/12) t3o da$s

befoeJ

( Ges, si.

K Gou !ean that befoe 0une +', /12) $ou did not 8no3 that

!innudin 3as co!in"J

( %efoe 0une +',/12), I, in !$ capacit$, did not 8no3 that he 3as

co!in" but on 0une +', /12) that 3as the ti!e 3hen I eceived the

info!ation that he 3as co!in". Re"adin" the epots on hisactivities, 3e have epots that he 3as alead$ consu!!ated the act

of sellin" and shippin" !ai4uana stuff.

#O5RT

K (nd as a esult of that epot, $ou put hi! unde suveillanceJ

( Ges, si.

K In the intelli"ence epot, onl$ the na!e of Idel (!innudin 3as

!entionedJ

( Ges, si.

K (e $ou sue of thatJ

( On the +'d he 3ill be co!in" 3ith the 3o!an.



K So that even befoe $ou eceived the official epot on 0une +',

/12), $ou had alead$ "atheed info!ation to the effect that Idel

(!innudin 3as co!in" to Iloilo on 0une +, /12)J

( Onl$ on the +'d of 0une.

K Gou did not t$ to secue a seach 3aant fo the sei7ue o seach

of the sub4ect !entioned in $ou intelli"ence epotJ

( No, !oe.

K Fh$ notJ

( %ecause 3e 3ee ve$ ve$ sue that ou opeation 3ill $ield

positive esult.

K Is that $ou pocedue that 3heneve it 3ill $ield positive esult $oudo not need a seach 3aant an$!oeJ

( Seach 3aant is not necessa$. 2

That last ans3e is a cavalie ponounce!ent, especiall$ as it co!es fo! a !ee lieutenant of the

P#. The Supe!e #out cannot countenance such a state!ent. This is still a "oven!ent of la3s

and not of !en.

The !andate of the %ill of Ri"hts is clea

Sec. +. The i"ht of the people to be secue in thei pesons, houses, papes andeffects a"ainst uneasonable seaches and sei7ues of 3hateve natue and fo an$

pupose shall be inviolable, and no seach 3aant o 3aant of aest shall issue

e<cept upon pobable cause to be dete!ined pesonall$ b$ the 4ud"e afte

e<a!ination unde oath o affi!ation of the co!plainant and the 3itnesses he !a$

poduce, and paticulal$ descibin" the place to be seached and the pesons o

thin"s to be sei7ed.

In the case at ba, thee 3as no 3aant of aest o seach 3aant issued b$ a 4ud"e afte pesonal

dete!ination b$ hi! of the e<istence of pobable cause. Co(-rr0 -o -) 3)r)(- o -)

o3)r()(-, -) ')pp)ll(- : (o- '- in flagrante (or : ri) ;o'- -o ;)

oi--) or <'- ;))( oi--) -o <'-i0 -) :rr(-l) rr)- llo:) '()r R'l)11 o -) R'l) o Co'r-. E3)( )=p)i)(0 o'l (o- ;) i(3o>) -o ip)() :i- -)

o;-)(-io( o -) :rr(- as in the case of Roldan v. (ca, 24 fo e<a!ple. Hee it 3as held that

vessels and aicaft ae sub4ect to 3aantless seaches and sei7ues fo violation of the custo!s la3

because these vehicles !a$ be ?uic8l$ !oved out of the localit$ o 4uisdiction befoe the 3aant can be

secued.



The pesent case pesented no such u"enc$. Bo! the conflictin" declaations of the P# 3itnesses,

it is clea that the$ had at least t3o da$s 3ithin 3hich the$ could have obtained a 3aant to aest

and seach (!innudin 3ho 3as co!in" to Iloilo on the MEV Filcon 1. His na!e 3as 8no3n. The

vehicle 3as Identified. The date of its aival 3as cetain. (nd fo! the info!ation the$ had

eceived, the$ could have pesuaded a 4ud"e that thee 3as pobable cause, indeed, to 4ustif$ the

issuance of a 3aant. ")- -)0 i (o-i(. No )or- : ) -o opl0 :i- -) l:. T) #illo Ri- : i(or) l-o)-)r ;)') -) PC li)'-)((- :o : -) ) o -)

rr)-i( -), )-)ri() o( i o:( '-ori-0 -- ?)r :rr(- : (o-

())r0.?

In the !an$ cases 3hee this #out has sustained the 3aantless aest of violatos of the

Dan"eous Du"s (ct, it has al3a$s been sho3n that the$ 3ee cau"ht ed-handed, as a esult of

3hat ae populal$ called =bu$-bust= opeations of the nacotics a"ents. 25 Rule //' 3as cleal$

applicable because at the pecise ti!e of aest the accused 3as in the act of sellin" the pohibited du".

In the case at ba, the accused-appellant 3as not, at the !o!ent of his aest, co!!ittin" a ci!e

no 3as it sho3n that he 3as about to do so o that he had 4ust done so. Fhat he 3as doin" 3asdescendin" the "an"plan8 of the MEV Filcon 1 and thee 3as no out3ad indication that called fo

his aest. To all appeaances, he 3as li8e an$ of the othe passen"es innocentl$ dise!ba8in" fo!

the vessel. It 3as onl$ 3hen the info!e pointed to hi! as the caie of the !ai4uana that he

suddenl$ beca!e suspect and so sub4ect to appehension. It 3as the futive fin"e that ti""eed his

aest. The Identification b$ the info!e 3as the pobable cause as dete!ined b$ the offices 9and

not a 4ud"e: that authoi7ed the! to pounce upon (!innudin and i!!ediatel$ aest hi!.

No3 that 3e have succeeded in estoin" de!ocac$ in ou count$ afte fouteen $eas of the

despised dictatoship, 3hen an$ one could be pic8ed up at 3ill, detained 3ithout cha"es and

punished 3ithout tial, 3e 3ill have onl$ ouselves to bla!e if that 8ind of abitainess is allo3ed to

etun, to once !oe flaunt its disdain of the #onstitution and the individual libeties its %ill of Ri"hts"uaantees.

Fhile this is not to sa$ that the accused-appellant is innocent, fo indeed his ve$ o3n 3ods

su""est that he is l$in", that fact alone does not 4ustif$ a findin" that he is "uilt$. The constitutional

pesu!ption is that he is innocent, and he 3ill be so declaed even if his defense is 3ea8 as lon" as

the posecution is not ston" enou"h to convict hi!.

Fithout the evidence of the !ai4uana alle"edl$ sei7ed fo! (!innudin, the case of the posecution

!ust fall. That evidence cannot be ad!itted, and should neve have been consideed b$ the tial

cout fo the si!ple fact is that the !ai4uana 3as sei7ed ille"all$. It is the fuit of the poisonous tee,

to use 0ustice Hol!es; felicitous phase. T) )r : (o- ( i(i)(- o l:'l rr)-;)') -)r) : (o :rr(- o rr)- ( -) :rr(-l) rr)- i (o- o) '()r -)

)=)p-io( llo:) ;0 -) R'l) o Co'r-. Hence, the 3aantless seach 3as also ille"al and the

evidence obtained theeb$ 3as inad!issible.

The #out ston"l$ suppots the ca!pai"n of the "oven!ent a"ainst du" addiction and co!!ends

the effots of ou la3-enfoce!ent offices a"ainst those 3ho 3ould inflict this !alediction upon ou

people, especiall$ the susceptible $outh. %ut as de!andin" as this ca!pai"n !a$ be, it cannot be



!oe so than the co!pulsions of the %ill of Ri"hts fo the potection of the libet$ of eve$ individual

in the eal!, includin" the basest of ci!inals. The #onstitution coves 3ith the !antle of its

potection the innocent and the "uilt$ ali8e a"ainst an$ !anne of hi"h- handedness fo! the

authoities, ho3eve paise3oth$ thei intentions.

Those 3ho ae supposed to enfoce the la3 ae not 4ustified in dise"adin" the i"hts of theindividual in the na!e of ode. Ode is too hi"h a pice fo the loss of libet$. (s 0ustice Hol!es,

a"ain, said, =I thin8 it a less evil that so!e ci!inals should escape than that the "oven!ent should

pla$ an i"noble pat.= It is si!pl$ not allo3ed in the fee societ$ to violate a la3 to enfoce anothe,

especiall$ if the la3 violated is the #onstitution itself.

Fe find that 3ith the e<clusion of the ille"all$ sei7ed !ai4uana as evidence a"ainst the accused-

appellant, his "uilt has not been poved be$ond easonable doubt and he !ust theefoe be

discha"ed on the pesu!ption that he is innocent.

(##ORDIN>G, the decision of the tial cout is R6V6RS6D and the accused-appellant is

(#K5ITT6D. It is so odeed.

8ar"asa$ Ganca#co and edialdea$ //.$ concur.


SUPREME COURT

Manila

BIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 9828 !));)r 11, 1992


vs.

SANTAGO E/ARSTO ( NOL CARLLO, accused-appellants.

PA!LLA, J .@

This is an appeal fo! the decision of the Re"ional Tial #out of Tece Maties, #avite, + in #i!inal

#ase No. N#-+*&, entitled =People of the Philippines v. Santia"o 6vaisto and Noli #aillo,= findin"

the accused "uilt$ of ille"al possession of fiea!s in violation of Pesidential Decee No. /2** and

accodin"l$ sentencin" the! to the penalt$ of life i!pison!ent.

The info!ation indictin" the accused-appellants 9heeinafte efeed to as the appellants: eads



The undesi"ned (ssistant Povincial Biscal accuses S(NTI(O 6V(RISTO (ND

NO>I #(RI>>O of the ci!e of VIO>(TION of P.D. /2**, co!!itted as follo3s

That on o about the +'d. da$ of (u"ust /122, in the Municipalit$ of Mende7,

Povince of #avite, Philippines and 3ithin the 4uisdiction of this Honoable #out, the

above-na!ed accused bein" pivate pesons not authoi7ed b$ la3 did then andthee, 3illfull$, unla3full$ and feloniousl$ !anufactue, epai and 8ept 9sic : in thei

possession, custod$ and contol one 9/: calibe '2 evolve 9palti8: 3ith t3o live

a!!unition and one 9/: e!pt$ shell of said calibe, t3o 9+: /+ "au"e ho!e !ade

shot "uns, one 9/: calibe ++ evolve 9su!pa8: and t3o 9+: vise "ips and one 9/:

plie use 9sic : in the !anufactue and epai of said fiea!s 3ithout an$ pe!it o

license fo! co!petent 9sic : authoit$.

#ONTR(TRG 9sic : TO >(F.

#avite #it$, (u"ust ', /122. 1

(ppellants havin" enteed a plead of not "uilt$, tial theeupon co!!enced, 3ith the posecution and

the defense pesentin" thei espective 3itnesses and evidence to suppot thei dive"ent vesions

of the events leadin" to the aest of the appellants.

( caeful evie3 of the ecods and the testi!on$ of the posecution 3itnesses, S"t. 6ladio

Ro!eoso and #I# 6d"ado Vallata of the Philippine #onstabula$, indicates that on the da$ in

?uestion, a contin"ent co!posed of Ro!eoso and Vallata, to"ethe 3ith a S"t. Daniel Mali"a$a,

also of the Philippine #onstabula$, and t3o 9+: !e!bes of the Inte"ated National Police, 3ee on

outine patol dut$ in %aan"a$ III, Mende7, #avite. (t o about in the aftenoon, successive

busts of "unfie 3ee head in the vicinit$. Poceedin" to the appo<i!ate souce of the sa!e, the$

ca!e upon one %ae?uiel Rosillo 3ho 3as fiin" a "un into the ai.

Seein" the patol, Rosillo an to the neab$ house of appellant 6vaisto po!ptin" the la3!en to

pusue hi!. 5pon appoachin" the i!!ediate pei!ete of the house, specificall$ a ce!ent

pave!ent o poch leadin" to the sa!e, the patol chanced upon the sli"htl$ inebiated appellants,

6vaisto and #aillo. In?uiin" as to the 3heeabouts of Rosillo, the police patol !e!bes 3ee told

that he had alead$ escaped thou"h a 3indo3 of the house. S"t. Vallata i!!ediatel$ obseved a

noticeable bul"e aound the 3aist of #aillo 3ho, upon bein" fis8ed, ad!itted the sa!e to be a .'2

evolve. (fte ascetainin" that #aillo 3as neithe a !e!be of the !ilita$ no had a valid license

to possess the said fiea!, the "un 3as confiscated and #aillo invited fo ?uestionin".

(s the patol 3as still in pusuit of Rosillo, S"t. Ro!eoso sou"ht 6vaisto;s pe!ission to scouthou"h the house, 3hich 3as "anted. In the sala, he found, not Rosillo, but a nu!be of fiea!s

and paaphenalia supposedl$ used in the epai and !anufactue of fiea!s, all of 3hich,

theeafte, beca!e the basis fo the pesent indict!ent a"ainst 6vaisto.

Bo thei pat, the appellants dispute the above naation of the events in ?uestion, alle"in" that the$

3ee focibl$ ta8en into custod$ b$ the police offices and even sub4ected to ph$sical and !ental

indi"nities. The$ denied o3neship o 8no3led"e of an$ of the fiea!s pesented in evidence,



contendin" that these 3ee puposel$ planted in thei possession b$ the posecution 3itnesses and

othe police authoities.

(fte evaluation of all the evidence, the tial cout endeed the no3-assailed decision dated /2 (pil

/11, the dispositive potion of 3hich eads

Fheefoe, fo havin" possessed fiea!s in violation of P.D. No. /2**, accused

Santia"o 6vaisto and Noli #aillo ae heeb$ sentenced to seve the penalt$

povided fo unde Sec. / theeof. The full peiod of thei peventive i!pison!ent

shall be deducted fo! the afoe!entioned penalt$.

Fith costs de oficio.

SO ORD6R6D. 2

Hence, this petition, assi"nin" the follo3in" as eos of the tial cout

/. The lo3e cout "avel$ eed in ad!ittin" 6<hibits =%= to =B= in evidence

considein" that those ae ille"all$ sei7ed evidence@

+. The lo3e cout "avel$ eed in findin" that said ille"all$ sei7ed evidence ae

fiea!s as conte!plated in Pesidential Decee No. /2**@ and

'. The lo3e cout "avel$ eed in "ivin" cedence to the aestin" office;s

testi!onies 3hich ae patentl$ contadicto$ and half tuths 9sic : testi!onies.

Bist, on the issue of ille"al seach. The petinent ule on the !atte is (ticle III of the #onstitution,

the elevant potion of 3hich povides

Sec. +. The i"ht of the people to be secue in thei pesons, houses, papes and

effects a"ainst uneasonable seaches and sei7ues of 3hateve natue and fo an$

pupose shall be inviolable, and no seach 3aant o 3aant of aest shall issue

e<cept upon pobable cause to be dete!ined unde oath o affi!ation of the

co!plainant and the 3itnesses he !a$ poduce, and paticulal$ descibin" the place

to be seached and the pesons o thin"s to be sei7ed.

Sec. '. 9/: . . . .

9+: (n$ evidence obtained in violation of this o the pecedin" section shall beinad!issible fo an$ pupose in an$ poceedin".

It is to be noted that 3hat the above constitutional povisions pohibit ae unreasona%le seaches

and sei7ues. Bo a seach to be easonable unde the la3, thee !ust, as a ule, be a seach

3aant validl$ issued b$ an appopiate 4udicial office. Get, the ule that seaches and sei7ues !ust

be suppoted b$ a valid seach 3aant is not an absolute and infle<ible ule, fo 4uispudence has

eco"ni7ed seveal e<ceptions to the seach 3aant e?uie!ent. (!on"



these e<ceptions is the sei0ure of e"idence in plain "ie' , adopted b$ this 4uisdiction fo! the

ponounce!ents of the 5nited States Supe!e Court in +arris "s. .S. 4 and Coolidge "s. 8e'

+ampshire. 5 Thus, it is eco"ni7ed that ob4ects inadvetentl$ fallin" in the plain vie3 of an office 3ho has

the i"ht to be in the position to have that vie3, ae sub4ect to sei7ue and !a$ be intoduced in

evidence. 6

The ecods in this case sho3 that S"t. Ro!eosa 3as "anted pe!ission b$ the appellant 6vaisto

to ente his house. The office;s pupose 3as to appehend Rosillo 3ho! he sa3 had sou"ht efu"e

theein. Theefoe, it is clea that the seach fo fiea!s 3as not Ro!eosa;s pupose in entein" the

house, theeb$ endein" his discove$ of the sub4ect fiea!s as inadvetent and even accidental.

SE$E! FREARMS FROM CARLLO

Fith espect to the fiea!s sei7ed fo! the appellant #aillo, the #out sustains the validl$ of the

fiea!;s sei7ue and ad!issibilit$ in evidence, based on the ule on authoi7ed 3aantless aests.

Section , Rule //' of the /12 Rules on #i!inal Pocedue povides

Sec. . Arrest 'ithout 'arrant5 'hen la'ful . A ( peace office o a pivate peson

!a$, 3ithout a 3aant, aest a peson


co!!ittin", o is atte!ptin" to co!!it an offense@

9b: Fhen an offense has in fact 4ust been co!!itted, and he has pesonal

8no3led"e of facts indicatin" that the peson to be aested has co!!itted it@ and

9c: Fhen the peson to be aested is a pisone 3ho has escaped fo! a penal

establish!ent o place 3hee he is sevin" final 4ud"!ent o te!poail$ confined

3hile his case is pendin", o has escaped 3hile bein" tansfeed fo! one

confine!ent to anothe.

Bo puposes of the pesent case, the second cicu!stance b$ 3hich a 3aantless aest !a$ be

undeta8en is applicable. Bo, as disclosed b$ the ecods, the peace offices, 3hile on patol, head

busts of "unfie and this poceeded to investi"ate the !atte. This incident !a$ 3ell be 3ithin the

=offense= envisioned b$ pa. 9b: of Rule //', Rules of #out. (s the #out held in People of the

Philippines v . Sucro, 7 =an offense is co!!itted in the pesence o 3ithin the vie3 of an office, 3ithin

the !eanin" of the ule authoi7in" an aest 3ithout a 3aant, 3hen the office sees the offense,

althou"h at a distance, o H6(RS TH6 DIST5R%(N#6S #R6(T6D TH6R6%G (ND PRO#66DS (T

ON#6 TO TH6 S#6N6 TH6R6OB.= 8

The ne<t in?ui$ is addessed to the e<istence of pesonal 8no3led"e on the pat of the peace office

of facts pointin" to the peson to be aested as the pepetato of the offense. ("ain, efeence to

the ecods esolves said ?ue$.

ivin" chase to Rosillo, the peace offices ca!e upon the t3o 9+: appellants 3ho 3ee then as8ed

concenin" Rosillo;s 3heeabouts. (t that point, S"t. Vallata discened the bul"e on the 3aist of



#aillo. This 3i'l o;)r3-io( alon" 3ith the ealie epot of "unfie, as 3ell as the peace office;s

pofessional instincts, ae !oe than sufficient to pass the test of the Rules. #onse?uentl$, unde the

facts, the fiea! ta8en fo! #aillo can be said to have been sei7ed incidental to a la3ful and valid

aest.

The ne<t aea to be addessed is the alle"ation of the appellants that the statute;s covea"e does note<tend to fiea!s that ae not functional o seviceable. The #out does not a"ee.

Section / of P.D. No. /2** penali7es =an$ peson 3ho shall unla3full$ !anufactue, deal in, ac?uie,

dispose, o possess an$ fiea!s, P(RT OB BIR6(RM, a!!unition o !achine$, tool o instu!ent

used o intended to be used in the !anufactue of an$ fiea! o a!!unition.= 9 It is clea that the la3

!a8es no distinction as to seviceable o functional fiea!s. Indeed, the possession of even a pat of a

fiea! is sufficient to co!e 3ithin the pohibitive a!bit of the statute.%i le: non distinguit nec nos

distinguere de%emus.

>astl$, the appellants challen"e the veacit$ of the testi!onies of the posecution 3itnesses,

!aintainin" that these 3ee inconsistent 3ith each othe, theeb$ "ivin" ise to the conclusion that

the entie incident 3as a contivance on thei pat. Specificall$, the$ point to the appaent conflict in

the state!ent of the posecution 3itnesses that thee 3ee onl$ thee 9': individuals in the vicinit$

9aside fo! the peace offices: as opposed to the testi!on$ of anothe peace office, testif$in" as a

hostile 3itness, that aside fo! the appellants, and Rosillo, thee 3ee also othe people in the

vicinit$, such as 6vaisto;s !othe, bothe and othe fa!es.

The #out sees no such conflict. ( ecouse to the tial cout poceedin"s easil$ sho3s that the t3o

9+: posecution 3itnesses, S"t. Ro!eosa and #I# Vallata, testified in a stai"htfo3ad and candid

!anne, cate"oicall$ identif$in" the appellants as the t3o 9+: individuals the$ had appehended and

cleal$ naatin" the cicu!stances of such appehension. The defense has "iven no possible

eason o !otivation fo these peace offices to !a8e false accusations a"ainst the appellants.

(bsent the pesentation of such defense evidence, the testi!on$ of the peace offices should

deseve full cedence.

FH6R6BOR6, the 4ud"!ent of the tial cout of Tece Maties, #avite in #i!inal #ase No. N#-+*&

findin" the accused Santia"o 6vaisto and Noel #aillo "uilt$ be$ond easonable doubt fo Ille"al

Possession of Biea!s as defined in Pesidential Decee No. /2**, is heeb$ (BBIRM6D.

The #out odes the fofeitue of the fiea!s and othe incidental paaphenalia found in the

possession of the appellants, in favo of the Philippine National Police 9PNP: to be disposed of in

accodance 3ith la3.

No ponounce!ent as to costs.

SO ORD6R6D.

Grio-Auino and )ellosillo$ //.$ concur.




SUPREME COURT

Manila

6N %(N#

G.R. No. 8988 S)p-);)r 29, 1989

RCAR!O C. /ALMONTE AN! UNON OF LA"ERS AN! A!/OCATES FOR PEOPLEBS

RGHTS ULAPD,petitiones,

vs.

GEN. RENATO !E /LLA AN! NATONAL CAPTAL REGON !STRCT

COMMAN!, espondents.

Ricardo C. ;almonte for himself and his co-petitioners.

PA!LLA, J.:

This is a petition fo pohibition 3ith peli!ina$ in4unction andEo te!poa$ estainin" ode,

see8in" the declaation of chec8points in Valen7uela, Meto Manila o else3hee, as unconstitutional

and the dis!antlin" and bannin" of the sa!e o, in the altenative, to diect the espondents to

fo!ulate "uidelines in the i!ple!entation of chec8points, fo the potection of the people.

Petitione Ricado #. Val!onte sues in his capacit$ as citi7en of the Republic, ta<pa$e, !e!be of

the Inte"ated %a of the Philippines 9I%P:, and esident of Valen7uela, Meto Manila@ 3hile petitione

5nion of >a3$es and (dvocates fo People;s Ri"hts 95>(P: sues in its capacit$ as an association3hose !e!bes ae all !e!bes of the I%P.

The factual bac8"ound of the case is as follo3s

On + 0anua$ /12&, the National #apital Re"ion Distict #o!!and 9N#RD#: 3as activated

pusuant to >ette of Instuction +E2& of the Philippine eneal Head?uates, (BP, 3ith the !ission

of conductin" secuit$ opeations 3ithin its aea of esponsibilit$ and peipheal aeas, fo the

pupose of establishin" an effective teitoial defense, !aintainin" peace and ode, and povidin"

an at!osphee conducive to the social, econo!ic and political develop!ent of the National #apital

Re"ion. 1 (s pat of its dut$ to !aintain peace and ode, the N#RD# installed chec8points in vaious

pats of Valen7uela, Meto Manila.

Petitiones ave that, because of the installation of said chec8points, the esidents of Valen7uela ae

3oied of bein" haassed and of thei safet$ bein" placed at the abita$, capicious and 3hi!sical

disposition of the !ilita$ !annin" the chec8points, considein" that thei cas and vehicles ae

bein" sub4ected to e"ula seaches and chec8-ups, especiall$ at ni"ht o at da3n, 3ithout the

benefit of a seach 3aant andEo cout ode. Thei alle"ed fea fo thei safet$ inceased 3hen, at

da3n of 1 0ul$ /122, %en4a!in Papon, a suppl$ office of the Municipalit$ of Valen7uela, %ulacan,



3as "unned do3n alle"edl$ in cold blood b$ the !e!bes of the N#RD# !annin" the chec8point

alon" Mc(thu Hi"h3a$ at Malinta, Valen7uela, fo i"noin" andEo efusin" to sub!it hi!self to the

chec8point and fo continuin" to speed off inspie of 3anin" shots fied in the ai. Petitione

Val!onte also clai!s that, on seveal occasions, he had "one thu these chec8points 3hee he 3as

stopped and his ca sub4ected to seachEchec8-up 3ithout a cout ode o seach 3aant.

Petitiones futhe contend that the said chec8points "ive the espondents a blan8et authoit$ to

!a8e seaches andEo sei7ues 3ithout seach 3aant o cout ode in violation of the

#onstitution@ 2 and, instances have occued 3hee a citi7en, 3hile not 8illed, had been haassed.

Petitiones; concen fo thei safet$ and appehension at bein" haassed b$ the !ilita$ !annin" the

chec8points ae not sufficient "ounds to declae the chec8points as pe se ille"al. No poof has

been pesented befoe the #out to sho3 that, in the couse of thei outine chec8s, the !ilita$

indeed co!!itted specific violations of petitiones; i"ht a"ainst unla3ful seach and sei7ue o othe

i"hts

-----------------

In a case filed b$ the sa!e petitione o"ani7ation, nion of 4a'#ers and Ad"ocates for &eople<s

Right (4A&! "s. =ntegrated 8ational &olice, it 3as held that individual petitiones 3ho do not alle"e

that an$ of thei i"hts 3ee violated ae not ?ualified to bin" the action, as eal paties in inteest.

The constitutional i"ht a"ainst uneasonable seaches and sei7ues is a pesonal i"ht invocable

onl$ b$ those 3hose i"hts have been infin"ed, 4 o theatened to be infin"ed. Fhat constitutes a

easonable o uneasonable seach and sei7ue in an$ particular case is puel$ a 4udicial ?uestion,

dete!inable fo! a consideation of the cicu!stances involved. 5

Petitione Val!onte;s "eneal alle"ation to the effect that he had been stopped and seached 3ithout

a seach 3aant b$ the !ilita$ !annin" the chec8points, 3ithout !oe, i.e., 3ithout statin" the

details of the incidents 3hich a!ount to a violation of his i"ht a"ainst unla3ful seach and sei7ue,

is not sufficient to enable the #out to dete!ine 3hethe thee 3as a violation of Val!onte;s i"ht

a"ainst unla3ful seach and sei7ue. Not all seaches and sei7ues ae pohibited. Those 3hich ae

easonable ae not fobidden. ( easonable seach is not to be dete!ined b$ an$ fi<ed fo!ula but

is to be esolved accodin" to the facts of each case. 6

Fhee, fo e<a!ple, the office !eel$ da3s aside the cutain of a vacant vehicle 3hich is pa8ed

on the public fai "ounds, 7 o si!pl$ loo8s into a vehicle, 8 o flashes a li"ht theein, 9 these do not

constitute uneasonable seach.

The settin" up of the ?uestioned chec8points in Valen7uela 9and pobabl$ in othe aeas: !a$ be

consideed as a secuit$ !easue to enable the N#RD# to pusue its !ission of establishin"

effective teitoial defense and !aintainin" peace and ode fo the benefit of the public.

#hec8points !a$ also be e"aded as !easues to th3at plots to destabili7e the "oven!ent, in the

inteest of public secuit$. In this connection, the #out !a$ ta8e 4udicial notice of the shift to uban

centes and thei sububs of the insu"enc$ !ove!ent, so cleal$ eflected in the inceased 8illin"s

in cities of police and !ilita$ !en b$ NP( =spao3 units,= not to !ention the abundance of



unlicensed fiea!s and the ala!in" ise in la3lessness and violence in such uban centes, not all

of 3hich ae epoted in !edia, !ost li8el$ bou"ht about b$ deteioatin" econo!ic conditions A

3hich all su! up to 3hat one can i"htl$ conside, at the ve$ least, as abno!al ti!es. %et3een the

inheent i"ht of the state to potect its e<istence and po!ote public 3elfae and an individual;s i"ht

a"ainst a 3aantless seach 3hich is ho3eve reasona%l# conducted, the fo!e should pevail.

Tue, the !annin" of chec8points b$ the !ilita$ is susceptible of abuse b$ the !en in unifo!, in the

sa!e !anne that all "oven!ental po3e is susceptible of abuse. %ut, at the cost of occasional

inconvenience, disco!fot and even iitation to the citi7en, the chec8points duin" these abno!al

ti!es, 3hen conducted 3ithin easonable li!its, ae pat of the pice 3e pa$ fo an odel$ societ$

and a peaceful co!!unit$.

Binall$, on /& 0ul$ /122, !ilita$ and police chec8points in Meto Manila 3ee te!poail$ lifted and a

evie3 and efine!ent of the ules in the conduct of the police and !ilita$ !annin" the chec8points

3as odeed b$ the National #apital Re"ional #o!!and #hief and the Metopolitan Police

Diecto. 1&

FH6R6BOR6, the petition is DISMISS6D.

SO ORD6R6D.

,ernan$ C./.$ 8ar"asa$ elencio-+errera$ Gutierre0$ /r.$ &aras$ ,eliciano$ Ganca#co$ )idin$ Cortes$

Grio-Auino$ edialdea and Regalado$ //.$ concur.

6N %(N#

G.R. No. 12595. !));)r 12, 1997

SAMM" MALACAT 0 MAN!AR, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS,

( PEOPLE OF THE PHLPPNES, respondents.

! E C S O N

!A/!E, %R., J .@

In an Info!ation/ filed on ' (u"ust /11, in #i!inal #ase No. 1-2*&)2

befoe the Re"ional Tial #out 9RT#: of Manila, %anch , petitione Sa!!$

Malacat $ Manda 3as cha"ed 3ith violatin" Section ' of Pesidential Decee

No. /2**,+ as follo3s

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/dec1997/123595.htm#_edn1






That on or about August 27, 1990, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused

did then and there willfully, unlawfully and nowingly eep, possess and!or ac"uire a

hand grenade, without first securing the necessary license and!or per#it therefor fro#

the proper authorities$

(t aai"n!ent' on 1 Octobe /11, petitione, assisted b$ counsel de

oficio, enteed a plea of not "uilt$.

(t pe-tial on // Mach /11/, petitione ad!itted the e<istence of 6<hibits

(, (-/, and (-+,) 3hile the posecution ad!itted that the police authoities

3ee not a!ed 3ith a seach 3aant no 3aant of aest at the ti!e the$

aested petitione.

(t tial on the !eits, the posecution pesented the follo3in" policeoffices as its 3itnesses Rodolfo Gu, the aestin" office@ 0osefino . Seapio,

the investi"atin" office@ and Olando Ra!ilo, 3ho e<a!ined the "enade.

Rodolfo Gu of the Festen Police Distict, Metopolitan Police Boce of the

Inte"ated National Police, Police Station No. ', Kuiapo, Manila, testified that

on +& (u"ust /11, at about *' p.!., in esponse to bo!b theats epoted

seven da$s ealie, he 3as on foot patol 3ith thee othe police offices 9all of

the! in unifo!: alon" Kue7on %oulevad, Kuiapo, Manila, nea the Mecu$

Du" stoe at Pla7a Mianda. The$ chanced upon t3o "oups of Musli!-loo8in" !en, 3ith each "oup, co!pised of thee to fou !en, posted at

opposite sides of the cone of Kue7on %oulevad nea the Mecu$ Du"

Stoe. These !en 3ee actin" suspiciousl$ 3ith thei e$es !ovin" ve$ fast. *

Gu and his co!panions positioned the!selves at state"ic points and

obseved both "oups fo about thit$ !inutes. The police offices then

appoached one "oup of !en, 3ho then fled in diffeent diections. (s the

police!en "ave chase, Gu cau"ht up 3ith and appehended petitione. 5pon

seachin" petitione, Gu found a fa"!entation "enade tuc8ed insidepetitiones font 3aist line.& Gus co!panion, police office Ro"elio Malibian,

appehended (bdul #asan fo! 3ho! a .'2 calibe evolve 3as

ecoveed. Petitione and #asan 3ee then bou"ht to Police Station No. '

3hee Gu placed an !a8 at the botto! of the "enade and theeafte "ave

it to his co!!ande.2















On coss-e<a!ination, Gu declaed that the$ conducted the foot patol due

to a epot that a "oup of Musli!s 3as "oin" to e<plode a "enade

so!e3hee in the vicinit$ of Pla7a Mianda. Gu eco"ni7ed petitione as the

pevious Satuda$, + (u"ust /11, li8e3ise at Pla7a Mianda, Gu sa3

petitione and + othes atte!pt to detonate a "enade. The atte!pt 3asaboted 3hen Gu and othe police!en chased petitione and his co!panions@

ho3eve, the fo!e 3ee unable to catch an$ of the latte. Gu futhe ad!itted

that petitione and #asan 3ee !eel$ standin" on the cone of Kue7on

%oulevad 3hen Gu sa3 the! on +& (u"ust /11. (lthou"h the$ 3ee not

ceatin" a co!!otion, since the$ 3ee supposedl$ actin" suspiciousl$, Gu and

his co!panions appoached the!. Gu did not issue an$ eceipt fo the

"enade he alle"edl$ ecoveed fo! petitione.1

0osefino . Seapio declaed that at about 1 a.!. of +2 (u"ust /11,petitione and a cetain (bdul #asan 3ee bou"ht in b$ S"t. Sa?uilla / fo

investi"ation.Both3ith, Seapio conducted the in?uest of the t3o suspects,

info!in" the! of thei i"hts to e!ain silent and to be assisted b$ co!petent

and independent counsel.Despite Seapios advice, petitione and #asan

!anifested thei 3illin"ness to ans3e ?uestions even 3ithout the assistance

of a la3$e. Seapio then too8 petitiones uncounselled confession 96<h. 6:,

thee bein" no P(O la3$e available, 3heein petitione ad!itted possession

of the "enade. Theeafte, Seapio pepaed the affidavit of aest andboo8in" sheet of petitione and #asan. >ate, Seapio tuned ove the "enade

to the Intelli"ence and Special (ction Division 9IS(D: of the 6<plosive

Odnance Disposal 5nit fo e<a!ination.//

On coss-e<a!ination, Seapio ad!itted that he too8 petitiones

confession 8no3in" it 3as inad!issible in evidence./+

Olando Ra!ilo, a !e!be of the %o!b Disposal 5nit, 3hose pincipal

duties included, a!on" othe thin"s, the e<a!ination of e<plosive devices,testified that on ++ Mach /11/, he eceived a e?uest dated /1 Mach /11/

fo! >t. 6duado #abea and PO Diosdado Dioto$ fo e<a!ination of a

"enade. Ra!ilo then affi<ed an oan"e ta" on the sub4ect "enade detailin"

his na!e, the date and ti!e he eceived the speci!en. Duin" the peli!ina$

e<a!ination of the "enade, he found that the !a4o co!ponents consistin"

of a hi"h fille and fuse asse!bl$ 3ee all pesent, and concluded that the











"enade 3as live and capable of e<plodin". On even date, he issued a

cetification statin" his findin"s, a cop$ of 3hich he fo3aded to Dioto$ on //

(u"ust /11/./'

Petitione 3as the lone defense 3itness. He declaed that he aived inManila on ++ 0ul$ /11 and esided at the Musli! #ente in Kuiapo,

Manila. (t aound *' in the evenin" of +& (u"ust /11, he 3ent to Pla7a

Mianda to catch a beath of fesh ai. Shotl$ afte, seveal police!en aived

and odeed all !ales to stand aside.The police!en seached petitione and

t3o othe !en, but found nothin" in thei possession. Ho3eve, he 3as

aested 3ith t3o othes, bou"ht to and detained at Pecinct No. ', 3hee he

3as accused of havin" shot a police office. The office sho3ed the "unshot

3ounds he alle"edl$ sustained and shouted at petitione >i?to ang tama mo sa

a6in. This office then inseted the !u77le of his "un into petitiones !outhand said, >#?ou are the one 'ho shot me. Petitione denied the cha"es and

e<plained that he onl$ ecentl$ aived in Manila. Ho3eve, seveal othe

police offices !auled hi!, hittin" hi! 3ith benches and "uns. Petitione 3as

once a"ain seached, but nothin" 3as found on hi!. He sa3 the "enade onl$

in cout 3hen it 3as pesented./)

The tial cout uled that the 3aantless seach and sei7ue of petitione

3as a8in to a stop and fis8, 3hee a 3aant and sei7ue can be effected

3ithout necessail$ bein" peceded b$ an aest and 3hose ob4ect is eithe to

!aintain the status uo !o!entail$ 3hile the police office see8s to obtain

!oe info!ation./Pobable cause 3as not e?uied as it 3as not cetain that

a ci!e had been co!!itted, ho3eve, the situation called fo an

investi"ation, hence to e?uie pobable cause 3ould have been pe!atue./* The RT# e!phasi7ed that Gu and his co!panions 3ee confonted 3ith an

e!e"enc$, in 3hich the dela$ necessa$ to obtain a 3aant, theatens the

destuction of evidence/& and the offices had to act in haste, as petitione

and his co!panions 3ee actin" suspiciousl$, considein" the ti!e, place andepoted cases of bo!bin". Buthe, petitiones "oup suddenl$ an a3a$ in

diffeent diections as the$ sa3 the aestin" offices appoach, thus it is

easonable fo an office to conduct a li!ited seach, the pupose of 3hich is

not necessail$ to discove evidence of a ci!e, but to allo3 the office to

pusue his investi"ation 3ithout fea of violence./2















The tial cout then uled that the sei7ue of the "enade fo! petitione

3as incidental to a la3ful aest, and since petitione late voluntail$

ad!itted such fact to the police investi"ato fo the pupose of bo!bin" the

Mecu$ Du" Stoe, concluded that sufficient evidence e<isted to establish

petitiones "uilt be$ond easonable doubt.

In its decision/1 dated / Bebua$ /11) but po!ul"ated on / Bebua$

/11), the tial cout thus found petitione "uilt$ of the ci!e of ille"al

possession of e<plosives unde Section ' of P.D. No. /2**, and sentenced

hi! to suffe

%T&he penalty of not less than '()(*T((* +17 -(A.', /. + M*T3' A*4

*( +1 4A- / RECLUSION TEMPORAL, as #ini#u#, and not #ore than

T35.T- +60 -(A.' / RECLUSION PERPETUA, as #ai#u#$

On /2 Bebua$ /11), petitione filed a notice of appeal + indicatin" that he

3as appealin" to this #out. Ho3eve, the ecod of the case 3as fo3aded to

the #out of (ppeals 3hich doc8eted it as #(-.R. #R No. /122 and issued

a notice to file biefs.+/

In his (ppellants %ief ++ filed 3ith the #out of (ppeals, petitione asseted

that

/. TH6 >OF6R #O5RT 6RR6D IN HO>DIN TH(T TH6 S6(R#H 5PON TH6

P6RSON OB (##5S6D-(PP6>>(NT (ND TH6 S6IL5R6 OB TH6 (>>66D

H(NDR6N(D6 BROM HIM F(S (N (PPROPRI(T6 IN#ID6NT TO HIS

(RR6ST.

+. TH6 >OF6R #O5RT 6RR6D IN (DMITTIN (S 6VID6N#6 ((INST (##5S6D-

(PP6>>(NT TH6 H(NDR6N(D6 (>>66D>G S6IL6D BROM HIM (S IT F(S

( PROD5#T OB (N 5NR6(SON(%>6 (ND I>>6(> S6(R#H.

In su!, petitione a"ued that the 3aantless aest 3as invalid due to

absence of an$ of the conditions povided fo in Section of Rule //' of the

Rules of #out, citin" &eople "s. engote.+' (s such, the seach 3as ille"al,

and the hand "enade sei7ed, inad!issible in evidence.

In its %ief fo the (ppellee, the Office of the Solicito eneal a"eed 3ith

the tial cout and pa$ed that its decision be affi!ed in toto.+)















In its decision of +) 0anua$ /11*, + the #out of (ppeals affi!ed the tial

cout, notin", fist, that petitione abandoned his oi"inal theo$ befoe the

cout a uothat the "enade 3as planted b$ the police offices@ and second,

the factual findin" of the tial cout that the "enade 3as sei7ed fo!

petitiones possession 3as not aised as an issue. Buthe, espondent coutfocused on the ad!issibilit$ in evidence of 6<hibit D, the hand "enade sei7ed

fo! petitione. Meetin" the issue s?uael$, the #out of (ppeals uled that the

aest 3as la3ful on the "ound that thee 3as pobable cause fo the aest

as petitione 3as atte!ptin" to co!!it an offense, thus

8e are at a loss to understand how a #an, who was in possession of a lie grenade

and in the co#pany of other suspicious character%s& with unlicensed firear#%s& luring

in Pla:a Miranda at a ti#e when political tension ha%d& been enindling a series of

terroristic actiities, %can& clai# that he was not atte#pting to co##it an offense$ 8e

need not #ention that Pla:a Miranda is historically notorious for being a faorite

bo#b site especially during ti#es of political upheaal$ As the #ere possession of an

unlicensed grenade is by itself an offense, Malacats posture is si#ply too preposterous

to inspire belief$

In so doin", the #out of (ppeals too8 into account petitiones failue to

ebut the testi!on$ of the posecution 3itnesses that the$ eceived

intelli"ence epots of a bo!b theat at Pla7a Mianda@ the fact that PO Gu

chased petitione t3o da$s pio to the lattes aest, o on +& (u"ust /11@

and that petitione and his co!panions acted suspiciousl$, the accu!ulation

of 3hich 3as !oe than sufficient to convince a easonable !an that an

offense 3as about to be co!!itted. Moeove, the #out of (ppeals obseved

The police officers in such a olatile situation would be guilty of gross negligence and

dereliction of duty, not to #ention of gross inco#petence, if they %would& first wait for

Malacat to hurl the grenade, and ill seeral innocent persons while #ai#ing

nu#erous others, before arriing at what would then be an assured but #oot

conclusion that there was indeed probable cause for an arrest$ 8e are in agree#ent

with the lower court in saying that the probable cause in such a situation should not be

the ind of proof necessary to conict, but rather the practical considerations of

eeryday life on which a reasonable and prudent #ind, and not legal technicians, will

ordinarily act$





Binall$, the #out of (ppeals held that the ule laid do3n in People v.

Men"ote, +* 3hich petitione elied upon, 3as inapplicable in li"ht of cucial

diffeences, to 3it

%5n Mengote& the police officers neer receied any intelligence report that so#eone%at& the corner of a busy street %would& be in possession of a prohibited article$ 3ere

the police officers were responding to a %sic& public cla#or to put a chec on the

series of terroristic bo#bings in the Metropolis, and, after receiing intelligence

reports about a bo#b threat ai#ed at the icinity of the historically notorious Pla:a

Miranda, they conducted foot patrols for about seen days to obsere suspicious

#oe#ents in the area$ /urther#ore, in Mengote, the police officers %had& no personal

nowledge that the person arrested has co##itted, is actually co##itting, or is

atte#pting to co##it an offense$ 3ere, P6 -u %had& personal nowledge of the fact

that he chased Malacat in Pla:a Miranda two days before he finally succeeded inapprehending hi#$

5nable to accept his conviction, petitione foth3ith filed the instant petition

and assi"ns the follo3in" eos

/. TH6 R6SPOND6NT #O5RT 6RR6D IN (BBIRMIN TH6 BINDIN OB TH6 TRI(>

#O5RT TH(T TH6 F(RR(NT>6SS (RR6ST OB P6TITION6R F(S V(>ID (ND

>6(>.

+. TH6 R6SPOND6NT #O5RT 6RR6D IN HO>DIN TH(T TH6 R5>IN

IN P6OP>6 VS. M6NOT6 DO6S NOT BIND (PP>I#(TION IN TH6 INST(NT

#(S6.

In suppot theeof, petitione !eel$ estates his a"u!ents belo3 e"adin"

the validit$ of the 3aantless aest and seach, then disa"ees 3ith the

findin" of the #out of (ppeals that he 3as atte!ptin" to co!!it a ci!e, as

the evidence fo the posecution !eel$ disclosed that he 3as standin" at the

cone of Pla7a Mianda and Kue7on %oulevad 3ith his e$es !ovin" ve$

fast and loo8in" at eve$ peson that co!e 9sic: neae 9sic: to the!. Binall$,petitione points out the factual si!ilaities bet3een his case and that

of &eople ". engote to de!onstate that the #out of (ppeals

!isco!pehended the latte.





In its #o!!ent, the Office of the Solicito eneal pa$s that 3e affi! the

challen"ed decision.

Bo bein" i!pessed 3ith !eit, 3e esolved to "ive due couse to the

petition.

The challen"ed decision !ust i!!ediatel$ fall on 4uisdictional

"ounds. To epeat, the penalt$ i!posed b$ the tial cout 3as

%*&ot less than '()(*T((* +17 -(A.', /. + M*T3' A*4 *( +1

4A- / RECLUSION TEMPORAL, as #ini#u#, and not #ore than T35.T-

+60 -(A.' / RECLUSION PERPETUA, as #ai#u#$

The penalt$ povided b$ Section ' of P.D. No. /2** upon an$ peson 3ho

shall unla3full$ possess "enades is reclusion temporal in its !a<i!u! peiod

to reclusion perpetua.

Bo puposes of dete!inin" appellate 4uisdiction in ci!inal cases, the

!a<i!u! of the penalt$, and not the !ini!u!, is ta8en into account. Since

the !a<i!u! of the penalt$ is reclusion perpetua, the appeal theefo!

should have been to us, and not the #out of (ppeals, pusuant to Section

19': of the 0udicia$ Reo"ani7ation (ct of /12 9%.P. %l". /+1:,+& in elation to

Section /& of the 0udicia$ (ct of /1)2,+2

Section 9+: of (ticle VIII of the#onstitution+1 and Section '9c: of Rule /++ of the Rules of #out. ' The te!

life i!pison!ent as used in Section 1 of %.P. %l". /+1, the 0udicia$ (ct of

/1)2, and Section ' of Rule /++ !ust be dee!ed to

includereclusion perpetua in vie3 of Section 9+: of (ticle VIII of the

#onstitution.

Petitiones Notice of (ppeal indicated that he 3as appealin" fo! the tial

couts decision to this #out, $et the tial cout tans!itted the ecod to the

#out of (ppeals and the latte poceeded to esolve the appeal.

Fe then set aside the decision of the #out of (ppeals fo havin" been

endeed 3ithout 4uisdiction, and conside the appeal as havin" been diectl$

bou"ht to us, 3ith the petition fo evie3 as petitiones %ief fo the (ppellant,











the co!!ent theeon b$ the Office of the Solicito eneal as the %ief fo the

(ppellee and the !e!oanda of the paties as thei Supple!ental %iefs.

Delibeatin" on the foe"oin" pleadin"s, 3e find ouselves convinced that

the posecution failed to establish petitiones "uilt 3ith !oal cetaint$.

Bist, seious doubt suounds the sto$ of police office Gu that a "enade

3as found in and sei7ed fo! petitiones possession. Notabl$, Gu did not

identif$, in cout, the "enade he alle"edl$ sei7ed. (ccodin" to hi!, he tuned

it ove to his co!!ande afte puttin" an !a8 at its botto!@ ho3eve, the

co!!ande 3as not pesented to cooboate this clai!. On the othe hand,

the "enade pesented in cout and identified b$ police office Ra!ilo efeed

to 3hat the latte eceived fo! >t. 6duado #abea and police office Dioto$

not i!!ediatel$ afte petitiones aest, but neal$ seven 9&: !onths late, o on /1 Mach /11/@ futhe, thee 3as no evidence 3hatsoeve that 3hat

Ra!ilo eceived 3as the ve$ sa!e "enade sei7ed fo! petitione. In his

testi!on$, Gu neve declaed that the "enade passed on to Ra!ilo 3as the

"enade the fo!e confiscated fo! petitione. Gu did not, and 3as not !ade

to, identif$ the "enade e<a!ined b$ Ra!ilo, and the latte did not clai! that

the "enade he e<a!ined 3as that sei7ed fo! petitione. Plainl$, the la3

enfoce!ent authoities failed to safe"uad and peseve the chain of

evidence so cucial in cases such as these.

Second, if indeed petitione had a "enade 3ith hi!, and that t3o da$s

ealie he 3as 3ith a "oup about to detonate an e<plosive at Pla7a Mianda,

and Gu and his fello3 offices chased, but failed to aest the!, then

considein" that Gu and his thee fello3 offices 3ee in unifo! and theefoe

easil$ co"ni7able as police offices, it 3as then unnatual and a"ainst

co!!on e<peience that petitione si!pl$ stood thee in po<i!it$ to the

police offices. Note that Gu obseved petitione fo thit$ !inutes and !ust

have been close enou"h to petitione in ode to discen petitiones e$es!ovin" ve$ fast.

Binall$, even assu!in" that petitione ad!itted possession of the "enade

duin" his custodial investi"ation b$ police office Seapio, such ad!ission

3as inad!issible in evidence fo it 3as ta8en in palpable violation of Section

/+9/: and 9': of (ticle III of the #onstitution, 3hich povide as follo3s



'(C$ 12 +1$ Any person under inestigation for the co##ission of an offense shall

hae the right to be infor#ed of his right to re#ain silent and to hae co#petent and

independent counsel preferably of his own choice$ 5f the person cannot afford the

serices of counsel, he #ust be proided with one$ These rights cannot be waied

ecept in writing and in the presence of counsel$

< < <

9': (n$ confession o ad!ission obtained in violation of this o Section /& heeof shall

be inad!issible in evidence a"ainst hi!.

Seapio conducted the custodial investi"ation on petitione the da$ follo3in"

his aest. No la3$e 3as pesent and Seapio could not have e?uested a

la3$e to assist petitione as no P(O la3$e 3as then available. Thus, even if

petitione consented to the investi"ation and 3aived his i"hts to e!ain silent

and to counsel, the 3aive 3as invalid as it 3as not in 3itin", neithe 3as it

e<ecuted in the pesence of counsel.

6ven "antin" e: gratia that petitione 3as in possession of a "enade, the

aest and seach of petitione 3ee invalid, as 3ill be discussed belo3.

The "eneal ule as e"ads aests, seaches and sei7ues is that a

3aant is needed in ode to validl$ effect the sa!e.'/ The #onstitutional

pohibition a"ainst uneasonable aests, seaches and sei7ues efes to

those effected 3ithout a validl$ issued 3aant,'+ sub4ect to cetain

e<ceptions. (s e"ads valid 3aantless aests, these ae found in Section ,

Rule //' of the Rules of #out, 3hich eads, in pat

'ec$ ;$ << Arrest, without warrant= when lawful << A peace officer or a priate person

#ay, without a warrant, arrest a person>


co!!ittin", o is atte!ptin" to co!!it an offense@

9b: Fhen an offense has in fact 4ust been co!!itted, and he has pesonal 8no3led"e

of facts indicatin" that the peson to be aested has co!!itted it@ and

9c: Fhen the peson to be aested is a pisone 3ho has escaped







( 3aantless aest unde the cicu!stances conte!plated unde Section

9a: has been deno!inated as one =in flagrante delicto,= 3hile that unde

Section 9b: has been descibed as a =hot pusuit= aest.

Tunin" to valid 3aantless seaches, the$ ae li!ited to the follo3in" 9/:custo!s seaches@ 9+: seach of !ovin" vehicles@ 9': sei7ue of evidence in

plain vie3@9): consent seaches@'' 9: a seach incidental to a la3ful aest@') and 9*: a =stop and fis8.='

In the instant petition, the tial cout validated the 3aantless seach as a

stop and fis8 3ith the sei7ue of the "enade fo! the accused as an

appopiate incident to his aest, hence necessitatin" a bief discussion on

the natue of these e<ceptions to the 3aant e?uie!ent.

(t the outset, 3e note that the tial cout confused the concepts of a =stop-

and-fis8= and of a seach incidental to a la3ful aest. These t3o t$pes of

3aantless seaches diffe in te!s of the e?uisite ?uantu! of poof befoe

the$ !a$ be validl$ effected and in thei allo3able scope.

In a seach incidental to a la3ful aest, as the pecedent aest

dete!ines the validit$ of the incidental seach, the le"alit$ of the aest is

?uestioned in a la"e !a4oit$ of these cases, e."., 3hethe an aest 3as

!eel$ used as a pete<t fo conductin" a seach.'*

In this instance, the la3e?uies that thee fist be a la3ful aest befoe a seach can be !ade -- the

pocess cannot be evesed.'& (t botto!, assu!in" a valid aest, the

aestin" office !a$ seach the peson of the aestee and the aea 3ithin

3hich the latte !a$ each fo a 3eapon o fo evidence to desto$, and sei7e

an$ !one$ o popet$ found 3hich 3as used in the co!!ission of the ci!e,

o the fuit of the ci!e, o that 3hich !a$ be used as evidence, o 3hich

!i"ht funish the aestee 3ith the !eans of escapin" o co!!ittin" violence.'2

MNOR

Hee, thee could have been no valid in flagrante delicto o hot pusuit

aest pecedin" the seach in li"ht of the lac8 of pesonal 8no3led"e on the

pat of Gu, the aestin" office, o an ovet ph$sical act, on the pat of















petitione, indicatin" that a ci!e had 4ust been co!!itted, 3as bein"

co!!itted o 3as "oin" to be co!!itted.

Havin" thus sho3n the invalidit$ of the 3aantless aest in this case,

plainl$, the seach conducted on petitione could not have been one incidentalto a la3ful aest.

Fe no3 poceed to the 4ustification fo and allo3able scope of a =stop-

and-fis8= as a =li!ited potective seach of oute clothin" fo 3eapons,= as

laid do3n in Terr# , thus

8e #erely hold today that where a police officer obseres unusual conduct which

leads hi# reasonably to conclude in light of his eperience that cri#inal actiity

#ay be afoot and that the persons with who# he is dealing #ay be ar#ed and presently dangerous, where in the course of inestigating this behaior he

identifies hi#self as a police#an and #aes reasonable in"uiries, and where

nothing in the initial stages of the encounter seres to dispel his reasonable fear

for his own or others? safety, he is entitled for the protection of hi#self and others

in the area to conduct a carefully li#ited search of the outer clothing of such

persons in an atte#pt to discoer weapons which #ight be used to assault

hi#$ 'uch a search is a reasonable search under the /ourth A#end#ent @@@%69&

Othe notable points of Te$ ae that 3hile pobable cause is not e?uied toconduct a =stop and fis8,=) it nevetheless holds that !ee suspicion o a

hunch 3ill not validate a =stop and fis8.= ( "enuine eason !ust e<ist, in li"ht

of the police office;s e<peience and suoundin" conditions, to 3aant the

belief that the peson detained has 3eapons concealed about hi!. )/ Binall$, a

=stop-and-fis8= seves a t3o-fold inteest 9/: the "eneal inteest of effective

ci!e pevention and detection, 3hich undelies the eco"nition that a police

office !a$, unde appopiate cicu!stances and in an appopiate !anne,

appoach a peson fo puposes of investi"atin" possible ci!inal behavio

even 3ithout pobable cause@ and 9+: the !oe pessin" inteest of safet$ and

self-pesevation 3hich pe!it the police office to ta8e steps to assue hi!self

that the peson 3ith 3ho! he deals is not a!ed 3ith a deadl$ 3eapon that

could une<pectedl$ and fatall$ be used a"ainst the police office.










Hee, hee ae at least thee 9': easons 3h$ the stop-and-fis8 3as

invalid

Bist, 3e habo "ave doubts as to Gus clai! that petitione 3as a

!e!be of the "oup 3hich atte!pted to bo!b Pla7a Mianda t3o da$sealie. This clai! is neithe suppoted b$ an$ police epot o ecod no

cooboated b$ an$ othe police office 3ho alle"edl$ chased that

"oup. (side fo! i!paiin" Gu;s cedibilit$ as a 3itness, this li8e3ise

di!inishes the pobabilit$ that a "enuine eason e<isted so as to aest and

seach petitione. If onl$ to futhe tanish the cedibilit$ of Gu;s testi!on$,

conta$ to his clai! that petitione and his co!panions had to be chased

befoe bein" appehended, the affidavit of aest 96<h. =(=: e<pessl$ declaes

othe3ise, i.e., upon aival of five 9: othe police offices, petitione and his

co!panions 3ee =i!!ediatel$ collaed.=

Second, thee 3as nothin" in petitiones behavio o conduct 3hich could

have easonabl$ elicited even !ee suspicion othe than that his e$es 3ee

!ovin" ve$ fast an obsevation 3hich leaves us incedulous since Gu and his

tea!!ates 3ee no3hee nea petitione and it 3as alead$ *' p.!., thus

pesu!abl$ dus8.Petitione and his co!panions 3ee !eel$ standin" at the

cone and 3ee not ceatin" an$ co!!otion o touble, as Gu e<plicitl$

declaed on coss-e<a!ination

K (nd 3hat 3ee the$ doin"J

( The$ 3ee !eel$ standin".

K Gou ae sue of thatJ

( Ges, si.

K (nd 3hen $ou sa3 the! standin", thee 3ee nothin" o the$ did not ceate an$

co!!otionJ

( None, si.

K Neithe did $ou see the! ceate co!!otionJ

( None, si .)+






Thid, thee 3as at all no "ound, pobable o othe3ise, to believe that

petitione 3as a!ed 3ith a deadl$ 3eapon. None 3as visible to Gu, fo as he

ad!itted, the alle"ed "enade 3as discoveed inside the font 3aistline of

petitione, and fo! all indications as to the distance bet3een Gu and

petitione, an$ telltale bul"e, assu!in" that petitione 3as indeed hidin" a"enade, could not have been visible to Gu. In fact, as noted b$ the tial cout

8hen the police#en approached the accused and his co#panions, they were not yet

aware that a handgrenade was tuced inside his waistline$ They did not see any

bulging obect in %sic& his person$%6&

Fhat is une?uivocal then in this case ae blatant violations of petitiones

i"hts sole!nl$ "uaanteed in Sections + and /+9/: of (ticle III of the

#onstitution.

HEREFORE, the challen"ed decision of the Seventeenth Division of the

#out of (ppeals in #(-.R. #R No. /122 is S6T (SID6 fo lac8 of

4uisdiction on the pat of said #out and, on "ound of easonable doubt, the

decision of / Bebua$ /11) of %anch of the Re"ional Tial #out of Manila

is R6V6RS6D and petitione S(MMG M(>(#(T $ M(ND(R is heeb$

(#K5ITT6D and ORD6R6D i!!ediatel$ eleased fo! detention, unless his

futhe detention is 4ustified fo an$ othe la3ful cause.

#osts de oficio.

SO OR!ERE!.

8ar"asa$ C./.$ Regalado$ Romero$ )ellosillo$ elo$ &uno$ ;itug$ @apunan$

endo0a$ ,rancisco$ and artine0$ // ., concu.



Documents

Crim Pro Cases search and seizure.docx