Digested Cases 77 to 89 for Consti II

8/9/2019 Digested Cases 77 to 89 for Consti II

1/24

77PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

CARMELINA TABAR y CARMILOTES and ROMMEL ARRIESGADO y TABAR

Carmelina Tabar y Carmilotes and her nephew, Rommel Arriesgado y Tabar, of Tres de Abril, Punta Princesa,

Cebu City, were charged with the violation of Section 4, Article II of RA!o "4#$, as amended, in an

Information filed by the %ffice of the City &iscal of Cebu City with the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City on '

&ebruary (')', the accusatory portion of which reads a follows*

That on or about the )th day of &ebruary (')', at about +* P- in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within

the .urisdiction of this /onorable Court, the said accused, conniving and confederating together and mutually

helping each other, with deliberate intent, did then and there sell and deliver, without authority of law, Three 0+1

stic2s of mari.uana cigarettes, a 0sic1 prohibited drugs, to a person who posted himself as a buyer, in 3iol of

Sec 4, Art ((, of RA "4#$, as amended, otherwise 2nown as the angerous Act of ('5# (

The case was doc2eted as Criminal Case !o C678(4)"+ and after it was raffled off to 6ranch ($ of the said

court, the accused were forthwith arraigned Carmelina entered a plea of not guilty while Rommel, then

seventeen 0(51 years of age, with the conformity of the prosecution, entered a plea of guilty to the lesser offenseof possession of mari.uana under Section ), Article II of RA !o "4#$, as amended # As a conse9uence of his

plea, the trial court handed down on #4 April (')' an %rder which reads in part as follows*

Therefore this court being satisfied that the accused herein is the same Ramil Tabar described in Anne: (

0Certificate of 6irth1 of the said accused, and it appearing that he is still a minor 0(5 years1, he is entitled to a

suspended sentence of the penalty for possession of mari.uana which is a .ail term of si: 0"1 years and one 0(1

day to twelve 0(#1 years and a fine of Si: Thousand 0P",1 pesos 0Sec ) RA "4#$ as amended of 6P (5',

-arch #, (')#1

;/


2/24

their informant gave them the pre8arranged signal of scratching his head with his right hand that after the

signal, he and his companions immediately approached the young boy and the informant introduced them as

police officers This young boy was about ("8(5 years old, by the name of Rommel Arriesgado y Tabar /e had

earlier pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of mere possession of mari.uana and was, in fact, already convicted

by this court 7pon being shown a P$ bill with the initials written thereon as* @@8)' and bearing S> > &

"+5+'", he identified the same bill as the one given to their informant and mar2ed as aboratory That pursuant to this re9uested analysis, >ieut &ortunato Bui.on of the Police issued a

Certification of &ield Test,


3/24

DAEccused actually employed her nephew, Rommel Arriesgado to sell mari.uana from her store and that she has

been in that illicit business for 9uite sometime now The evidence notwithstanding, tal2s in the community

where the accused lives is rife with accusations 0sic1 that she is indeed engaged with members of the family, in

the sale and distribution of prohibited drugs such as mari.uana 6etween the positive testimony of the arresting

officers, who appear to be more credible than the accusedFs worthless and untrustworthy denials, the court gives

credence to the evidence of the prosecution '

7nable to accept the verdict, Carmelina filed her notice of appeal ( manifesting therein that she is appealingfrom the decision to the Court of Appeals In its %rder of #5 &ebruary (''(, (( the trial court gave due course to

the appeal and directed the cler2 of court ?to submit all the records, evidences 0sic1 and trancripts of this

proceeding to the /on Court of Appeals, for proper disposition? Considering that the penalty imposed

is reclusion perpetua, the Court of Appeals transmitted to this Court the records of the case on (# August

(''( (# In the Resolution of (( September (''(, this Court accepted the appeal

In her AppellantFs 6rief, (+ Carmelina, hereinafter referred to as the appellant, imputes upon the trial court the

commission of the following errors in the appealed decision*

I

I! C%!3ICTI!@ ACC7SA!TS 0sic1 %& 3I%>ATI%! %& S< II,

RIC ACT "4#$ AS A-

II

I! A-ITTI!@ As to the first assigned error, the appellant claims that the prosecution presented no evidence that she sold

mari.uana and since there e:ists no convincing, positive and conclusive proof of conspiracy between her and

her co8accused, Rommel Arriesgado, she cannot be held liable for violation of Section 4, Article II of RA !o

"4#$, as amended

In support of the second assigned error, the appellant maintains that the mari.uana cigarettes seiHed from her are

inadmissible in evidence because they were obtained in violation of the constitutional guarantee against

unreasonable search and seiHure

After a careful perusal of the records and evaluation of the evidence, this Court is inclined to agree with the

appellant that she should not be convicted under Section 4, Article II of RA !o, "4#$ ;e rule, however, that

she is liable under Section ), Article II of the said Act /er conviction by the trial court under Section 4 is

primarily based on its conclusion that the appellant ?actually employed her nephew Rommel Arriesgado to sell

mari.uana from her store and that she had been in that illicit business for 9uite sometime now? This conclusionis based on the trial courtFs sweeping statement that ?tal2s in the community where the accused lives is rife with

accusations that she is indeed engaged with members of the family, in the sale and distribution of prohibited

drugs such as mari.uana? ;e find no evidence on record to sustain this charge It may thus be said that such a

conclusion is not based on established facts but on ?tal2s in the community? If indeed such was the fact, it

would not have been difficult for the prosecution to provide the court with overwhelming evidence et, it

presented only Pat Trangia who, rather unfortunately, did not even testify or volunteer information that the

main target of the busy8bust operation was the appellant /e did not also disclose in his testimony that the

appellant was among the reported ?pushers? in Punta Princesa, Cebu City It may be recalled that the buy8bust

operation on ) &ebruary (')' was conducted because, as he alleged*

A 6efore that time we have already received information from the community of Punta Princesa regarding

mari.uana pushers in that

place

!evertheless, the prosecutor who conducted the direct8e:amination of Trangia did not as2 further as to identity

of the pushers such that it was not proven that the appellant was one of them The Solicitor @eneral, however,

maintains that there was conspiracy, established by circumstancial evidence, between accused Rommel

3


4/24

Arriesgado who was caught in flagrante selling three 0+1 stic2s of handrolled mari.uana to the informant and

accepting the mar2ed money ;e are not persuaded since the evidence for the prosecution does not show that

0a1 the appellant was in the mind of the members of the team when they planned the buy8bust operation and

when they carried out such plan, 0b1 the three 0+1 stic2s of handrolled mari.uana came from the appellant, and

0c1 the appellant used Rommel as her agent to sell the three 0+1 stic2s to the informant -oreover, if indeed the

prosecution truly believed that such conspiracy e:isted, it should not have willingly given its conformity to

RommelFs plea to the lesser offense of illegal possession of prohibited drugs under Section ), Article II of RA

!o "4#$, as amended /aving been caught in flagrante for selling mari.uana, it was not difficult to proveRommelFs culpability under Section 4, Article II of the Act et it readily consented to his offer to plead guilty to

the said lesser offense

It was, however, established beyond any shadow of doubt and, therefore, with moral certainty, that the appellant

2ept in her possession handrolled stic2s of mari.uana placed in empty /ope, Philip -orris and -ar2 cigarrette

pac2s (" She does not have any authority to possess them She may have ac9uired them with the intention to

sell them for profit but without proof of sale, she cannot be held liable under Section 4, Article II of the

angerous rugs Act &or such possession, her liability is covered by Section ) of the said Article which

penaliHes possession or use of prohibited drugs

Appellant, therefore, may specifically be penaliHed under the aforesaid last paragraph of Section ), Article II of

the Act Applying the Indeterminate Sentence >aw, () the penalty of eight 0)1 years as -inimum to twelve 0(#1

years as -a:imum and a fine of P(, may then be imposed upon her

The second assigned error is without merit The evidence for the prosecution discloses that the appellant placed

the pac2s of mari.uana stic2s under the rolled pair of pants which she was then carrying at the time she

hurriedly left her shanty after noticing the arrest of Rommel ;hen she was as2ed to spread it out, which she

voluntary did, the pac2age containing the pac2s of mari.uana stic2s were thus e:posed in plain view to the

member of the team A crime was thus committed in the presence of the policemen Pursuant to Section $, Rule

((+ and Section (# Rule (#" of the Revised Rules of Court, she could lawfully be arrested and searched foranything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense without the corresponding arrest and

search warrants /er own counsel on cross8e:amination of prosecution witness =osephus Trangia further

obtained a affirmation of these facts, thus*

imitations, )th ed, vol I, pages "+(1 The right to be

secure from unreasonable seach may, li2e every right, be waived and such waiver may be made either e:pressly

or impliedly

I! T/< >I@/T %& T/< &%R


5/24

&acts* The appellant, -ari -usa, see2s the reversal of the decision of the RTC of Gamboanga City finding him

guilty of selling 0#1 wrappers containing dried mari.uana leaves in violation of RA !o "4#$ 0angerous

rugs Act of ('5#1

Prosecution evidence shows that in the morning of ecember (+, (')', TSgt 6elarga, leader of a

!ARC%TICS C%--A! 0!ARC%-1 team instructed Sgt Ani to conduct surveillance and test buy on a

certain -ari -usa of Suterville, Gamboanga City

Sgt Ani was able to buy one newspaper8wrapped dried mari.uana for P ( Sgt 6elarga inspected the stuff

turned over to him and found it to be mari.uana

The ne:t day, a buy8bust was planned Sgt Amado Ani was assigned as the poseur buyer for which purpose he

was given P#

Arriving at the target site, Sgt Ani proceeded to the house of -ari -usa, while the rest of the !ARC%- group

positioned themselves at strategic places about ' to ( meters from -ari -usaFs house

TSgt 6elarga could see what went on between Ani and suspect -ari -usa from where he was Ani approached

-ari -usa, who came out of his house, and as2ed Ani what he wanted Ani said he wanted some more stuff

Ani gave -ari -usa the P# mar2ed money After receiving the money, -ari -usa went bac2 to his house

and came bac2 and gave Amado Ani two newspaper wrappers containing dried mari.uana Ani opened the two

wrappers and inspected the contents Convinced that the contents were mari.uana, Ani wal2ed bac2 towards his

companions and raised his right hand The two !ARC%- teams, riding the two civilian vehicles, sped towards

Sgt Ani Ani .oined 6elargaFs team and returned to the house

At the time Sgt Ani first approached -ari -usa, there were four persons inside his house* -ari -usa, another

boy, and two women, one of whom Ani and 6elarga later came to 2now to be -ari -usaFs wife The second

time, Ani with the !ARC%- team returned to -ari -usaFs house, the woman, who was later 2nown as -ari

-usaFs wife, slipped away from the house Sgt 6elarga fris2ed -ari -usa but could not find the P#

mar2ed money with him -ari -usa was then as2ed where the P# was and he told the !ARC%- team he

has given the money to his wife 0who had slipped away1

Sgt 6elarga also found a plastic bag containing dried mari.uana inside it somewhere in the 2itchen -ari -usa

was then placed under arrest and brought to the !ARC%- office

All submitted specimens were e:amined and gave positive results for the presence of mari.uana

According to the version of the defense, on ecember (4, (')', at about (*+ in the afternoon, -ari -usa was

in his house at Suterville, Gamboanga City ;ith him were his wife Ara, his one8year old child, a womanmanicurist, and a male cousin named Abdul -usa About (*+ that afternoon, while he was being manicured at

one hand, his wife was inside the one room of their house, putting their child to sleep

Three !ARC%- agents, who introduced themselves as !ARC%- agents, dressed in civilian clothes, got

inside -ari -usaFs house whose door was open The !ARC%- agents did not as2 permission to enter the

house but simply announced that they were !ARC%- agents The !ARC%- agents searched -ari -usaFs

house and -ari -usa as2ed them if they had a search warrant The !ARC%- agents were .ust silent The

!ARC%- agents found a red plastic bag whose contents, -ari -usa said, he did not 2now -ari -usa, then,

was handcuffed and when -ari -usa as2ed why, the !ARC%- agents told him for clarification

Inside the !ARC%- %ffice, -ari -usa was investigated by one !ARC%- agent which investigation was

reduced into writing The document stated that the mari.uana belonged to -ari -usa and -ari -usa was as2ed

to sign it 6ut -ari -usa refused to sign because the mari.uana did not belong to him -ari -usa said he was

not told that he was entitled to the assistance of counsel, although he himself told the !ARC%- agents he

wanted to be assisted by counsel

5


6/24

-ari -usa said four bullets were then placed between the fingers of his right hand and his fingers were pressed

which felt very painful The !ARC%- agents bo:ed him and -ari -usa lost consciousness The fiscal as2ed

him if the mari.uana was owned by him and he said ?not? After that single 9uestion, -ari -usa was brought to

the City =ail -ari -usa said he did not tell the fiscal that he had been maltreated by the !ARC%- agents

because he was afraid he might be maltreated in the fiscalFs office

-ari -usa denied the !ARC%- agentsF charge that he had sold two wrappers of mari.uana to them that he

had received from them a P# bill which he had given to his wife /e did not sell mari.uana because he wasafraid that was against the law and that the person selling mari.uana was caught by the authorities and he had a

wife and a very small child to support -ari -usa said he had not been arrested for selling mari.uana before

After trial, the trial court found the accused -usa guilty beyond reasonable doubt

In this appeal, the appellant contends that his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and impugns the

credibility of the prosecution witnesses

(st Argument* The appellant claims that the testimony of Sgt Ani is not credible because* 0(1 prior to the buy8

bust operation, neither Sgt Ani nor the other !ARC%- agents were personally 2nown by the appellant or vice8

versa and 0#1 there was no witness to the alleged giving of the two wrappers of mari.uana by the appellant toSgt Ani

The Court finds the testimony of Sgt Ani regarding the buy8bust operation, which resulted in the apprehension,

prosecution and subse9uent conviction of the appellant, to be direct, lucid and forthright

The contention that the appellant could not have transacted with Sgt Ani because they do not 2now each other

is without merit The day before the buy8bust operation, Sgt Ani conducted a test8buy and he successfully

bought a wrapper of mari.uana from the appellant Through this previous transaction, Sgt Ani was able to gain

the appellantFs confidence for the latter to sell more mari.uana to Sgt Ani the following day, during the buy8bust

operation -oreover, the Court has held that what matters is not an e:isting familiarity between the buyer andthe seller, for 9uite often, the parties to the transaction may be strangers, but their agreement and the acts

constituting the sale and delivery of the mari.uana

#nd Argument* The appellant argues that it was impossible for the appellant to sell mari.uana while his wife,

cousin and manicurist were present

6ut the place of the commission of the crime of selling prohibited drugs has been held to be not crucial and the

presence of other people apart from the buyer and seller will not necessarily prevent the consummation of the

illegal sale As the Court observed in People v Paco, these factors may sometimes camouflage the commission

of the crime In the instant case, the fact that the other people inside the appellantFs house are 2nown to the

appellant may have given him some assurance that these people will not report him to the authorities

+rd Argument* The appellant submits that since TSgt 6elarga admitted that he was about ' meters away from

Sgt Ani and the appellant, he could not have possibly witnessed the sale The appellant invo2es People vAle

where the Court observed that from a distance of (8($ meters, a policeman cannot distinguish between

mari.uana cigarette from ordinary ones by the type of rolling done on the cigarette stic2s And since TSgt

6elarga allegedly did not see the sale, the appellant contends that the uncorroborated testimony of Sgt Ani

cannot stand as basis for his conviction

People v Ale does not apply here because the policeman in that case testified that he and his companion were

certain that the appellant therein handed mari.uana cigarettes to the poseur8buyer based on the appearance of thecigarette stic2s The Court re.ected this claim, stating that* This Court cannot give full credit to the testimonies

of the prosecution witnesses mar2ed as they are with contradictions and tainted with inaccuracies

In the case at bar, however, TSgt 6elarga did not positively claim that he saw the appellant hand over

mari.uana to Sgt Ani ;hat he said was that there was an e:change of certain articles between the two

6


7/24

Contrary to the contention of the appellant, it was not impossible for TSgt 6elarga to have seen, from a

distance of '8( meters, Sgt Ani hand to the appellant ?something? and for the latter to give to the former

?something?

!otwithstanding the fact that TSgt 6elarga could not have been certain that what Sgt Ani received from the

appellant was mari.uana because of the distance, his testimony, nevertheless, corroborated the direct evidence,

which the Court earlier ruled to be convincing, presented by Sgt Ani on the following material points* 0(1

TSgt 6elarga instructed Sgt Ani to conduct a surveillance and test8buy operation on the appellant 0#1 later thatsame day, Sgt Ani went bac2 to their office and reported a successful operation and turned over to TSgt

6elarga one wrapper of mari.uana 0+1 TSgt 6elarga then organiHed a team to conduct a buy8bust operation the

following day 041 on ecember (4, (')', TSgt 6elarga led a team of !ARC%- agents who went to

Suterville, Gamboanga City 0$1 TSgt 6elarga gave a P# mar2ed bill to Sgt Ani which was to be used in

the buy8bust operation 0"1 upon the arrival of the !ARC%- agents in Suterville, Gamboanga City, Sgt Ani

proceeded to the house of the appellant while some agents stayed in the vehicles and others positioned

themselves in strategic places the appellant met Sgt Ani and an e:change of articles too2 place

The testimony of the poseur8buyer is sufficient to prove the consummation of the sale of the prohibited drug

-%ST Rego went to the 2itchen

and noticed what TSgt 6elarga described as a ?cellophane colored white and stripe hanging at the corner of the

2itchen? They as2ed the appellant about its contents but failing to get a response, they opened it and found At

the trial, the appellant 9uestioned the admissibility of the plastic bag and the mari.uana it contains but the trial

court issued an %rder ruling that these are admissible in evidence

Issues* (1 Is the trial court correct in ruling that the red plastic bag containing dried mari.uana leaves was

admissible in evidenceJ

#1 If !o, does the inadmissibility have any effect on the innocence of -usaJ

/eld* (1 !o The Constitution declares inadmissible, any evidence obtained in violation of the freedom from

unreasonable searches and seiHures

Rule (#", Section (# of the Rules of Court e:pressly authoriHes a warrantless search and seiHure incident to a

lawful arrest, but the ?plain view? doctrine, which states that ob.ects in the plain view of an officer who has the

right to be in the position to have that view are sub.ect to seiHure without warrant or search and seiHure and may

be presented in evidence, does not apply under the circumstances of the case

0Sec (# Search incident to lawful arrest A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or

anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant1

The plastic bag was not within their ?plain view? when they arrested the appellant as to .ustify its seiHure The

mari.uana contained in the plastic bag was seiHed illegally and cannot be presented in evidence pursuant to

Article III, Section +0#1 of the Constitution because unli2e in Ker v California, where the mari.uana was visible

to the police officerFs eyes, the !ARC%- agents in this case could not have discovered the inculpatory natureof the contents of the bag had they not forcibly opened it


8/24

The ?plain view? doctrine may not, however, be used to launch unbridled searches and indiscriminate seiHures

nor to e:tend a general e:ploratory search made solely to find evidence of defendantFs guilt The ?plain view?

doctrine is usually applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but

nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating ob.ect It may not be used to e:tend a general

e:ploratory search from one ob.ect to another until something incriminating at last emerges

In Ker v California 4# police officers, the admissibility of the pac2age was challenged before the 7S Supreme

Court, which held, after observing that it was not unreasonable for the officer to wal2 to the doorway of thead.acent 2itchen on seeing the defendant wife emerge therefrom, that ?the discovery of the bric2 of mari.uana

did not constitute a search, since the officer merely saw what was placed before him in full view The 7S

Supreme Court ruled that the warrantless seiHure of the mari.uana was legal on the basis of the ?plain view?

doctrine and upheld the admissibility of the seiHed drugs as part of the prosecutionFs evidence

The !ARC%- agents had to move from one portion of the house to another before they sighted the plastic bag

-oreover, when the !ARC%- agents saw the plastic bag hanging in one corner of the 2itchen, they had no

clue as to its contents They had to as2 the appellant what the bag contained ;hen the appellant refused to

respond, they opened it and found the mari.uana

The incriminating nature of the contents of the plastic bag was not immediately apparent from the ?plain view?

of said ob.ect It cannot be claimed that the plastic bag clearly betrayed its contents, whether by its distinctive

configuration, its transprarency, or otherwise, that its contents are obvious to an observer

#1 !one The e:clusion of this particular evidence does not, however, diminish, in any way, the damaging effect

of the other pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution to prove that the appellant sold mari.uana, in

violation of angerous rugs Act of ('5#

The Court holds that by virtue of the testimonies of Sgt Ani and TSgt 6elarga and the two wrappings of

mari.uana sold by the appellant to Sgt Ani, among other pieces of evidence, the guilt of the appellant of the

crime charged has been proved beyond reasonable doubt

Appeal was dismissed

79P'o()' *s. Fa+a#do

,- P/0) &1 G.R. No. L2$7$1 $9 A"3 9485

&acts* The municipal council of baao, camarines sur stating among others that construction of a building, which

will destroy the view of the plaHa, shall not be allowed and therefore be destroyed at the e:pense of the owner,

enacted an ordinance /erein appellant filed a written re9uest with the incumbent municipal mayor for a permit

to construct a building ad.acent to their gasoline station on a parcel of land registered in &a.ardoFs name, located

along the national highway and separated from the public plaHa by a cree2 The re9uest was denied, for the

reason among others that the proposed building would destroy the view or beauty of the public plaHa

efendants reiterated their re9uest for a building permit, but again the mayor turned down the re9uest

;hereupon, appellants proceeded with the construction of the building without a permit, because they needed a

place of residence very badly, their former house having been destroyed by a typhoon and hitherto they had

been living on leased property Thereafter, defendants were charged in violation of the ordinance and

subse9uently convicted /ence this appeal

Issue* ;hether or !ot the ordinance is a valid e:ercise of police power

/eld* !o It is not a valid e:ercise of police power The ordinance is unreasonable and oppressive, in that it

operates to permanently deprive appellants of the right to use their own property hence, it oversteps the bounds

of police power, and amounts to a ta2ing of appellantLs property without .ust compensation ;e do not overloo2

8


9/24

that the modern tendency is to regard the beautification of neighborhoods as conducive to the comfort and

happiness of residents

As the case now stands, every structure that may be erected on appellantsF land, regardless of its own beauty,

stands condemned under the ordinance in 9uestion, because it would interfere with the view of the public plaHa

from the highway The appellants would, in effect, be constrained to let their land remain idle and unused for the

obvious purpose for which it is best suited, being urban in character To legally achieve that result, the

municipality must give appellants .ust compensation and an opportunity to be heard

8-Pa0s vs. Paa#an46 SCRA 6 97

Power of Acting Commissioner of Customs to issue a warrant of seiHure and detention

&ACTS* Respondent Ricardo Santos is the owner of a -ercury automobile, model ('$5, brought into the

country without payment of customs duty and ta:es because its original owner, onald =ames /atch, was ta:8e:empt Santos later on paid P+(( for customs duty and ta:es

%n =uly ##, ('"4, Acting Collector of Customs Pedro Pacis was informed by

the @eneral Affairs Administration of the epartment of !ational efense that the automobile was a Mhot carN

6y virtue thereof, Pacis, through his subordinates, loo2ed into the records of his office and found that

although the amount of P+(( was already paid for customs duty,the amount collectible on the said car should

be P#,$, more or less

6ased on such discrepancy, he instituted seiHure proceedings and issued a warrant of seiHure and detention The

automobile was also ta2en by the epartment of !ational efense agents and brought to

the @eneral AffairsAdministration for compound

In answer, Santos filed a criminal complaint against Pacis for usurpation of .udicial functions with the City

&iscal of -anila, -anuel Pamaran, alleging that Pacis did not have authority to issue such warrant of seiHure

and detention

ISS7


10/24

espite failing to obtain a warrant, the team proceeded to barangay 6agonbon and arrived at the residence of

accused8appellant in the early morning of =uly (+, (''$ SP%4 3illamor 2noc2ed at the gate and called out for

the accused8appellant ;hat happened thereafter is sub.ect to conflicting accounts The prosecution contends

that the accused8appellant opened the gate and permitted them to come in /e was immediately as2ed by SP%4

3illamor about the suspected mari.uana plants and he admitted that he planted and cultivated the same for the

use of his wife who was suffering from migraine The operatives then uprooted the suspected mari.uana plants

Accused8appellantLs version of what transpired is that around one8thirty in the early morning of =uly (+, (''$while he and his family were sleeping, he heard somebody 2noc2ing outside his house /e went down bringing

with him a flashlight After he opened the gate, four 041 persons who he thought were members of the military,

entered the premises then went inside the house It was dar2 so he could not count the others who entered the

house as the same was lit only by a 2erosene lamp %ne of the four men told him to sit in the living room

Some of the men went upstairs while the others went around the house !one of them as2ed for his permission

to search his house and the premises

ISS7


11/24

%n direct appeal before this Court is the ecision of the Regional Trial Court of -anila, 6ranch 4(, in Criminal

Case !o ''8(544+' finding appellant 6enny @o guilty of violating Section (", Article III in relation to Section

# 0e8#1, Article I of Republic Act !o "4#$, as amended, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion

perpetua and to pay a fine of P(,,

The Information filed against appellant charged as follows*

That on or about =une (4, (''', in the City of -anila, Philippines, the said accused without being authoriHed by

law to possess or use any regulated drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and 2nowingly have in his

possession and under his custody and control one 0(1 2not tied transparent plastic bag containing T;%

/7!Runa Street,


12/24

In the course of the search of the premises which too2 place from "* to ((* in the evening, Kagawad >aHaro

and P%# Abulencia recovered Mone 2not tied transparent plastic bag containing white crystalline

substanceNfrom the drawer of a cabinet

Also seiHed from the residence of appellant were the following* 0a1 Mone plastic bag containing yellowish

substanceN found by SP%( Ser9ueOa 0b1 a weighing scale discovered by SP%( &ernandeH 0c1 assorted

documents 0d1 passports 0e1 ban2 boo2s 0f1 chec2s 0g1 a typewriter 0h1 a chec2 writer 0i1 several dry seals

and 0.1 stamp pads 021 Chinese and Philippine currency 0l1 and appellantLs Toyota Corolla @>I car 0the car1

;ith the e:ception of the car, all the seiHed items were brought to the dining table on the ground floor of

appellantLs house for inventory

After the inventory had been ta2en, SP%( &ernandeH prepared a handwritten Inventory Receipt and a document

captioned MAffidavit of %rderly Search,N the contents of which he read to appellant %n instruction of SP%(

&ernandeH, =ac2 @o also e:plained the contents of the documents to appellant who then signed them as

did 2agawads -analo and >aHaro and =ac2 @o as witnesses

Appellant was detained while the others were eventually released The arresting officers .ointly prepared an

Affidavit of Arrest dated =une ($, (''' which, among other things, contained an enumeration of the seiHeditems identical to that in the handwritten Inventory Receipt And SP%( &ernandeH prepared a Return of Search

;arrant ''8+) dated =une (), (''' and a referral paper M(st IndorsementN with the same enumeration of

seiHed items

Also on =une ($, (''', SP%( Ser9ueOa brought the plastic bag containing the white crystalline substance

0


13/24

;hen appellantLs wife arrived at around 5*+ pm, SP%( &ernandeH ordered her to open the safe 0M2aha de

yeroN1 inside appellantLs room where the police officers seiHed money, passports, ban2boo2s, Chinese currency

and pieces of .ewelry

The seiHed items were placed on appellantLs table on the first floor of the house where they were inventoried by

SP%( &ernandeH during which the barangay 2agawads did not see either

RARIT I! T/< P6ASA!T %! =7!< (4, (''' 6AST/< TRIA> C%7RT T

%& I>> P%SSPI%! P


14/24

As appellant 9uestions the legality of the search of his residence, the actions of the police officers, as agents of

the State, must be carefully considered in light of appellantLs right against unreasonable searches and seiHures

guaranteed by Sections # and +, Article III of the Constitution

;hat constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search or seiHure is a purely .udicial 9uestion determinable from

a consideration of the attendant circumstances including the purpose of the search, the presence or absence of

probable cause, the manner in which the search and seiHure was made, the place or thing searched, and the

character of the articles procured

Since no presumption of regularity may be invo2ed by an officer to .ustify an encroachment of rights secured by

the Constitution, courts must cautiously weigh the evidence before them As early as in the ('+5 case of People

v 3eloso, this Court held*

A search warrant must conform strictly to the re9uirements of the constitutional and statutory provisions under

which it is issued %therwise, it is void The proceedings upon search warrants, it has rightly been held, must

be absolutely legal, Mfor there is not a description of process 2nown to law, the e:ecution of which is more

distressing to the citiHen Perhaps there is none which e:cites such intense feeling in conse9uence of its

humiliating and degrading effectN The warrant will always be construed strictly without, however, going the

full length of re9uiring technical accuracy !o presumptions of regularity are to be invo2ed in aid of the

process when an officer underta2es to .ustify under it 01aw enforcers are presumed to have regularly performed their official duty, in the absence of the evidence to

the contrary : : : ;e see no valid obstacle to the application of the ruling in People vs Capulong, 0(" SCRA

$++ Q('))1 that credence is accorded to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who are law enforcers for

it is presumed that they have regularly performed their duty in the absence of convincing proof to the

contrary The appellant has not shown that the prosecution witnesses were motivated by any improper motive

other than that of accomplishing their missionN 0People of the Philippines, Plaintiff8appellee, vs Said Sariol

-uhamading, accused8appellant, (54 SCRA #+)1 0aHaro Such

14


15/24

Affidavit of %rderly Search coupled with the testimonies of the police officers have clearly established the

propriety and validity of the searchN 0


16/24

prevented from actually observing and monitoring the search of the premises, violates both the spirit and letter

of the law*

&urthermore, the claim of the accused8appellant that the mari.uana was planted is strengthened by the manner in

which the search was conducted by the police authorities The accused8appellant was seated at the sala together

with Sgt te when they heard someone in the 2itchen uttered Mito naN Apparently, the search of the accused8

appellantLs house was conducted in violation of Section 5, Rule (#" of the Rules of Court which specifically

provides that no search of a house, room or any other premise shall be made e:cept in the presence of the lawfuloccupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the latter, in the presence of two 0#1 witnesses

of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality This re9uirement is mandatory to ensure regularity

in the e:ecution of the search warrant 3iolation of said rule is in fact punishable under Article (+ of the

Revised Penal Code

That the raiding party summoned two barangay 2agawads to witness the search at the second floor is of no

moment The Rules of Court clearly and e:plicitly establishes a hierarchy among the witnesses in whose

presence the search of the premises must be conducted Thus, Section ), Rule (#" provides that the search

should be witnessed by Mtwo witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same localityN only in the

absence of either the lawful occupant of the premises or any member of his family Thus, the search ofappellantLs residence clearly should have been witnessed by his son =ac2 @o who was present at the time The

police officers were without discretion to substitute their choice of witnesses for those prescribed by the law

The claim of SP%( &ernandeH and P%# Abulencia that =ac2 @o voluntarily waived his right to witness the

search, allegedly because there would be no one left in the sala and anyway barangay officials were present,

cannot be accepted To be valid, a waiver must be made voluntarily, 2nowingly and intelligently &urthermore,

the presumption is always against the waiver of a constitutionally protected right

;hile =ac2 @o was present from the time the raiding team entered the premises until after the search was

completed, he was, however, handcuffed to a chair in the sala All alone and confronted by five police officers

who had deprived him of his liberty, he cannot thus be considered to have Mvoluntarily, 2nowingly and

intelligentlyN waived his right to witness the search of the house MConsentN given under such intimidating,

coercive circumstances is no consent within the purview of the constitutional guaranty

The search conducted by the police officers of appellantLs residence is essentially no different from that

in People v el Rosario where this Court observed*

;e thus entertain serious doubts that the shabu contained in a small canister was actually seiHed or confiscated

at the residence of accused8appellant In conse9uence, the manner the police officers conducted the subse9uent

and much8delayed search is highly irregular 7pon barging into the residence of accused8appellant, the police

officers found him lying down and they immediately arrested and detained him in the living room while theysearched the other parts of the house Although they fetched two persons to witness the search, the witnesses

were called in only after the policemen had already entered accused8appellantLs residence 0pp ##8#+, tsn,

ecember ((, (''(1, and, therefore, the policemen had more than ample time to plant the shabu Corollary to

the Constitutional precept that, in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the

contrary is proved 0Sec (4 0#1, Article III, Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines1 is the rule that in

order to convict an accused the circumstances of the case must e:clude all and each and every hypothesis

consistent with his innocence 0People vs Tanchoco, 5" Phil 4"+ D('4"E People vs Constante, (# SCRA "$+

D('"4EPeople vs =ara, (44 SCRA $(" D(')"E1 The facts of the case do not rule out the hypothesis that

accused8appellant is innocent 0


17/24

In particular, 6arangay Kagawads >aHaro and -analo, the two witnesses to the search chosen by the police

officers in substitution of =ac2 @o, both categorically testified under oath that no shabu was recovered from

appellantLs residence by the police Thus, Kagawad >aHaro testified that the plastic bag containing white

crystalline granules, later found positive for shabu, was not recovered from the room of =ac2 @o*

Atty Reyes*

ou were shown a while ago by the prosecution of 0sic1 an Inventory Receipt allegedly prepared by %fficer

&ernandeH which includes the list of the items seiHed from the premises of 6enny @o, now, you said that thereLs

no white crystalline granules included in that list which you signed during the inventoryJ

The foregoing e:planations are improbable and far from persuasive Considering that a weighing scale was

among the items particularly described in Search ;arrant !o ''8+), it would be e:pected that the police

officers would be actively searching for it and, if found, they would ta2e care to include it in the inventory and

the return of the search warrant 6ut while numerous seals, stamps, chec2s and documents not described in the

search warrant were seiHed and carefully inventoried by the raiding team, none of the five police officers

bothered to point out that the weighing scale had not been included in the inventory

The implausibility of the story put forward by the police officers leads to no other conclusion than that theweighing scale was introduced as an afterthought in order to bolster the case against appellant

;ith the persistence of nagging doubts surrounding the alleged discovery and seiHure of the shabu, it is evident

that the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proof and overcome the constitutional presumption of

innocence It is thus not only the accusedLs right to be freed it is, even more, this CourtLs constitutional duty to

ac9uit him Apropos is the ruling in People v Aminnudin, viH*

The Court strongly supports the campaign of the government against drug addiction and commends the efforts

of our law enforcement officers against those who would inflict this malediction upon our people, especially the

susceptible youth 6ut as demanding as this campaign may be, it cannot be more so than the compulsions of the6ill of Rights for the protection of liberty of every individual in the realm, including the basest of

criminals The Constitution covers with the mantle of its protection the innocent and the guilty ali2e against

any manner of high8handedness from the authorities, however praiseworthy their intentions

Those who are supposed to enforce the law are not .ustified in disregarding the right of the individual in the

name of order %rder is too high a price for the loss of liberty As =ustice /olmes, again, said MI thin2 it is less

evil that some criminals should escape than that the government should play an ignoble partN It is simply not

allowed in the free society to violate a law to enforce another, especially if the law violated is the Constitution

itself

Return of SeiHed Property !ot escribed in the Search ;arrant

Turning now to the -otion for Return of Personal ocuments, 3ehicle and Paraphernalia, the general rule is

that only the personal properties particularly described in the search warrant may be seiHed by the

authorities Thus, inTambasen v People, this Court held*

There are, however, several well8recogniHed e:ceptions to the foregoing rule Thus, evidence obtained through

a warrantless search and seiHure may be admissible under the following circumstances* 0(1 search incident to a

lawful arrest 0#1 search of a moving motor vehicle 0+1 search in violation of customs laws 041 seiHure of

evidence in plain view and 0$1 when the accused himself waives his right against unreasonable searches and

seiHures

To be valid, therefore, the seiHure of the items enumerated in appellantLs -otion for Return of Personal

ocuments, 3ehicle and Paraphernalia must fall within the ambit of Search ;arrant !o ''8+) or under any

of the foregoing recogniHed e:ceptions to the search warrant re9uirement

In sum, the circumstances attendant to the case at bar do not warrant the application of the Mplain viewN doctrine

to .ustify the seiHure and retention of the 9uestioned seiHed items The things belonging to appellant not

17


18/24

specifically mentioned in the warrants, li2e those not particularly described, must thus be ordered returned to

him

6e that as it may, considering that the two 0#1 dry seals and eight 0)1 of the rubber stamps have been certified to

be counterfeit by the 6ureau of Immigration and eportation, they may not be returned and are hereby declared

confiscated in favor of the State to be disposed of according to law -oreover, the various ban2boo2s and

passports not belonging to appellant may not be ordered returned in the instant proceedings The legality of a

seiHure can be contested only by the party whose rights have been impaired thereby, and the ob.ection to anunlawful search and seiHure is purely personal and cannot be availed of by third parties

;/The two 0#1 dry seals and eight 0)1 of the rubber stamps certified to be counterfeit by the 6ureau of Immigration

and eportation are li2ewise %R


19/24

and seiHure orders violated his right to privacy and the articles seiHed should therefore be considered

inadmissible

ISS7I!@* IS-ISS


20/24

building near P TuaHon Street, SSgt /enry A9uino had earlier alighted from the car to conduct his surveillance

on foot A crowd was then gathered near the t 3irgilio 6abao as

team leader, -Sgt >acdao, Sgt -agallion, Sgt Patricio Pacatang, and elements of the ("th Infantry 6attalion

under one Col delos Santos raided the


21/24

$ ecember (')' when the raid was conducted, his court was closed 7nder such urgency and e:igency of the

moment, a search warrant could lawfully be dispensed with

84SEARCHES SEIURES A#;. III% S' $ S;o( and F#0s=

P'o()' o> ;/' P/0) vs. M'n3o;' !"n' $$% 99$)

&acts* Rogelio -engote was convicted of illegal possession of firearms on the strength mainly of the stolen

pistol found on his person at the moment of his warrantless arrest /e pleads that the weapon was not

admissible as evidence against him because it had been illegally seiHed and was therefore the fruit of the

poisonous tree %n August ), (')5, after the ;estern Police istrict received a telephone call from an informer

that there were three suspicious8loo2ing persons at Tondo, they there saw two men ?loo2ing from side to side,?

one of whom was holding his abdomen They approached these persons and identified themselves as

policemen, whereupon the two tried to run away but were unable to escape because the other lawmen had

surrounded them The suspects were then searched -engote was found with a revolver and his companion had

a fan 2nife anganan identified the sub.ect weapon as among the articles stolen from him during the robbery

in his house in -alabon and pointed to -engote as one of the robbers

Issue* ;hether the arrest was lawful whether the revolver is admissible as evidence

Ruling* A person can be arrested without warrant after he has committed or while he is actually committing or is

at least attempting to commit an offense or in the presence of the arresting officer These re9uirements have not

been established in the case at bar At the time of the arrest in 9uestion, -engote was merely ?loo2ing from side

to side? and ?holding his abdomen,? according to the arresting officers themselves There was apparently no

offense that had .ust been committed or was being actually committed or at least being attempted by -engote in

their presence ;ithout the evidence of the firearm ta2en from him at the time of his illegal arrest, the

prosecution has lost its most important e:hibit and must therefore fail The testimonial evidence against

-engote 0which is based on the said firearm1 is not sufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the

crime imputed to him The appealed decision is R


22/24

ISS7I!@* The Court held in the negative

The Court e:plains that the Constitution bars State intrusions to a personFs body, personal effects or residence

e:cept if conducted by virtue of a valid of a valid search warrant issued in accordance with the Rules /owever,

warrantless searches may be permitted in the following cases, to wit*

search of moving vehicles,

seiHure in plain view,

customs searches,

waiver or consent searches,

stop and fris2 situations 0Terry search1, and

search incidental to a lawful arrest

It is re9uired in cases of in flagrante delicto that the arresting officer must have personal 2nowledge of such

facts or circumstances convincingly indicative or constitutive of probable cause Probable cause means a

reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant acautious manFs belief that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged In the case at bar,

there are no facts on record reasonably suggestive or demonstrative of C/7AFs participation in on going

criminal enterprise that could have spurred police officers from conducting the obtrusive search C/7A was not

identified as a drug courier by a police informer or agent The fact that the vessel that ferried him to shore bore

no resemblance to the fishing boats of the area did not automatically mar2 him as in the process of perpetrating

an offense ;ith these, the Court held that there was no probable cause to .ustify a search incidental to a lawful

arrest

The Court li2ewise did not appreciate the contention of the Prosecution that there was a waiver or consented

search If C/7A could not understand what was orally articulated to him, how could he understand the policeFs?sign languageJ? -ore importantly, it cannot logically be inferred from his alleged cogniHance of the ?sign

language? that he deliberately, intelligently, and consciously waived his right against such an intrusive search

&inally, being a forbidden fruit, the sub.ect regulated substance was held to be inadmissible in evidence

/ence, the accused was ac9uitted as the evidence was not sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt

87PEOPLE *S DELA CRU

88PEOPLE vs PPO TRESTIA $-

%n Arrest 888 %b.ection to warrantless arrest must be raised before plea otherwise, ob.ection is waived

Illegality arrest does not set aside .udgment of conviction if there was sufficient evidence to hold accused

guilty

Any ob.ection to the procedure followed in the matter of the ac9uisition by a court of .urisdiction over the

person of the accused 0through his warrantless arrest1 must be opportunely raised before he enters his plea

otherwise, the ob.ection is deemed waived

The accused in this case was arrested for two crimes * 2idnapping with ransom and illegal possession of

firearms The illegal possession of firearms case was heard first and the accused fully participated therein /e

could not now ob.ect to the ac9uisition of .urisdiction over his person by the court in the 2idnapping with

ransom case

22


23/24

Also, the illegal arrest of an accused is not sufficient cause for setting aside a valid .udgment rendered upon a

sufficient complaint after a trial free from error The fatal flaw of an invalid warrantless arrest becomes moot in

view of a credible eyewitness account

%mbudsmanLs @rant of Immunity

89G.R. No. 8-4$ !an"a#y -% $-

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. NG :I BUN% O AI CHENG% CHANG CHAUN SHI%CHUA SHILOU HAN% AN SHUN MIN% AND RA:MOND S. TAN

T%PIC* ;arrantless Arrest 0In &lagrante elicto U Plain 3iew octrine1

octrine* ;hen a police officer sees the offense, although at a distance, or hears the disturbances created

thereby, and proceeds at once to the scene, he may effect an arrest without a warrant on the basis of Sec $0a1,

Rule ((+ of the Rules of Court, as the offense is deemed committed in his presence or within his view 0Plan

3iew octrine1

&ACTS*

The accused, conspiring together, transported, delivered and distributed twenty8five 0#$1 heat8sealed transparent

plastic bags containing -ethamphetamine /ydrochloride 0shabu1

Capt anilo Ibon of Tas2 &orce Aduana received information from an operative that there was an ongoing

shipment of contraband

Capt Ibon and his team spotted si: Chinese8loo2ing men loading bags containing a white substance into a white

van

Capt Ibon as2ed accused8appellant Chua Shilou /wan 0/wan1 what they were loading on the van

/wan replied that it was shabu and pointed, when probed further, to accused8appellant Raymond Tan as the

leader

A total of (5# bags of suspected shabu were then confiscated 6undles of noodles 0bihon1 were also found on

the premises

An information for violation of RA "4#$ was filed against accused8appellants, who entered a plea of not guilty

upon re8arraignment

RTC* convicted accused8appellants of the crimed charged

In 9uestioning the RTC ecision, accused8appellants raised the lone issue of*

whether the trial court erred in ruling that there was a valid search and arrest despite the absence of a warrant

CA* affirmed RTC decision

Accused8appellants were caught in flagrante delicto loading transparent plastic bags containing white crystalline

substance into an >8+ van which, thus, .ustified their arrests and the seiHure of the contraband

ISS7


24/24

0a1 ;hen, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to

commit an offense

The foregoing proviso refers to arrest in flagrante delicto In the instant case, contrary to accused8appellantsL

contention, there was indeed a valid warrantless arrest in flagrante delicto Consider the circumstances

immediately prior to and surrounding the arrest of accused8appellants* 0(1 the police officers received

information from an operative about an ongoing shipment of contraband 0#1 the police officers, with the

operative, proceeded to 3illa 3icenta Resort in 6arangay 6ignay II, Sariaya, BueHon 0+1 they observed thegoings8on at the resort from a distance of around $ meters and 041 they spotted the si: accused8appellants

loading transparent bags containing a white substance into a white >8+ van

8+ van, shabu, a prohibited drug under RA "4#$,

as amendedis valid

In People v Alunday, we held that when a police officer sees the offense, although at a distance, or hears the

disturbances created thereby, and proceeds at once to the scene, he may effect an arrest without a warrant on the

basis of Sec $0a1, Rule ((+ of the Rules of Court, as the offense is deemed committed in his presence or within

his view In the instant case, it can plausibly be argued that accused8appellants were committing the offense of

possessing shabu and were in the act of loading them in a white van when the police officers arrested them As

aptly noted by the appellate court, the crime was committed in the presence of the police officers with the

contraband, inside transparent plastic containers, in plain view and duly observed by the arresting officers

And to write finis to the issue of any irregularity in their warrantless arrest, the Court notes, as it has

consistently held, that accused8appellants are deemed to have waived their ob.ections to their arrest for not

raising the issue before entering their plea

Documents

Digested Cases 77 to 89 for Consti II