Veroy v. Layague [GR 95630, 18 June 1992] En Banc, Paras (J): 12 concur
Facts: Leopoldo and Ma. Luisa Veroy are husband and wife residing in Davao City. When Veroy was promoted to the position of Assistant Administrator of the Social Security System sometime in June 1988, he and his family transferred to Quezon City. The care and upkeep of their residence in Davao City was left to 2 houseboys, Jimmy Favia and Eric Burgos, who had their assigned quarters at a portion of the premises. The Veroys would occasionally send money to Edna Soquilon for the salary of the said houseboys and other expenses for the upkeep of their house. While the Veroys had the keys to the interior of the house, only the key to the kitchen, where the circuit breakers were located, was entrusted to Edna Soquilon to give her access in case of an emergency. On 12 April 1990, Capt. Reynaldo Obrero of the Talomo Patrol Station, PC/INP raided Veroy’s house in Davao City on information that the said residence was being used as a safehouse of rebel soldiers. They were able to enter the yard with the help of the caretakers but did not enter the house since the owner was not present and they did not have a search warrant. Permission was requested by phone to Ma. Luisa Veroy who consented on the condition that the search be conducted in the presence of Major Macasaet. The following day, Capt. Obrero and Maj. Macasaet met at the Veroy’s house to conduct the search pursuant to the authority granted by Ma. Luisa. Capt. Obrero recovered a .45 cal. handgun with a magazine containing 7 live bullets in a black clutch bag inside an unlocked drawer in the children’s room. 3 half-full jute sacks containing printed materials of RAM-SFP were also found in the children’s room. A search of the children’s recreation and study area revealed a big travelling bag
containing assorted clothing, a small black bag containing a book entitled “Islamic Revolution Future Path of the Nation”, a road map of the Philippines, a telescope, a plastic bag containing assorted medicines and religious pamphlets was found in the master’s bedroom. Inventory and receipt of seized articles were made. The case was referred for preliminary investigation to the Quezon City Assistant Prosecutor , who was designated Acting Provincial Prosecutor for Davao City by the DOJ through Department Order 88 (16 May 1990). In a resolution dated 6 August 1990, the Fiscal recommended the filing of an Information against the Veroys for violation of PD 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunitions in Furtherance of Rebellion). Hence, on 8 August 1990, an Information for the said offense was filed by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Davao City before the RTC Davao City). No bail was recommended by the prosecution. The fiscal’s resolution was received by the Veroys on 13 August 1990. The latter filed a motion for bail on the same day which was denied for being premature, as they have not been arrested yet. The Veroys voluntarily surrendered to Gen. Pantaleon Dumlao, but who refused to receive them o the ground that his office has not received copies of their warrants of arrest. In the meantime, on 15 August 1990, the Veroys were admitted to the St. Luke’s Hospital for various ailments brought about or aggravated by the stress and anxiety caused by the filing of the criminal complaint. On 17 August 1990, Gen. Dumlao granted their request that they be allowed to be confined at the hospital and placed under guard thereat. Upon arraignment on 1 October 1990, the Veroys pleaded not guilty and filed a motion for hospital confinement, which was denied. The court ordered their commitment at the Davao City Rehabilitation Center pending trial on the merits. At the conclusion thereof, the court issued a second order denying their motion for reconsideration. The Veroys were returned to the St. Luke’s Hospital where their physical condition remained erratic. Gen. Dumlao informed the Veroys that he had issued a directive for their transfer from the St. Luke’s Hospital to Camp Crame on the basis of the 2 October 1990
Order. They would proceed with their transfer pursuant to the order of the trial court, unless otherwise restrained by the court. The Veroys filed the petition for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition.
Issue: Whether the permission granted by ma. Luisa Veroy for ascertaining thereat the presence of alleged “rebel soldiers” include the authority to conduct a room to room search once inside the house.
Held: The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures (Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution). However, the rule that searches and seizures must be supported by a valid warrant is not an absolute one. Among the recognized exceptions thereto are: (1) a search incidental to an arrest; (2) a search of a moving vehicle; and (3) seizure of evidence in plain view (People v. Lo Ho Wing). The necessity of the permission obtained from Ma. Luisa underlines the recognition of Capt. Obrero of the need of a search warrant to enter the house. The permission granted by was for the purpose of ascertaining thereat the presence of the alleged “rebel” soldiers. The permission did not include any authority to conduct a room to room search once inside the house. The police officers had ample time to procure a search warrant but did not. Warrantless searches were declared illegal because the officials conducting the search had every opportunity to secure a search warrant. The items taken were, therefore, products of an illegal search, violative of their constitutional rights. As such, they are inadmissible in evidence in the criminal actions instituted against them. The offense of illegal possession of firearms is malum prohibitum but it does not follow that the subject thereof is necessarily illegal per se. Motive is immaterial in mala prohibita but the subjects of this kind of offense may not be summarily seized simply because they are prohibited. A search warrant is still necessary. Hence, the rule having been violated and no exception being applicable, the articles seized were confiscated illegally and are therefore protected by the exclusionary principle. They cannot be used as evidence against the Veroys in the criminal action against them for illegal possession of firearms. Besides, assuming that there was indeed a search warrant, still in mala prohibita, while there is no need of criminal intent, there must be knowledge that the same existed. Without the knowledge or voluntariness there is no crime.
People v. Omaweng [GR 99050, 2 September 1992] Third Division, Davide (J): 3 concur, 1 on leave
Facts: In the morning of 12 September 1988, PC constables with the Mt. Province PC Command put up a checkpoint at the junction of the roads, one going to Sagada and the other to Bontoc. They stopped and checked all vehicles that went through the checkpoint. At 9:15 a.m., they flagged down a cream-colored Ford Fiera (ABT-634) coming from the Bontoc Poblacion and headed towards Baguio. The vehicle was driven by Conway Omaweng and had no passengers. The Constables (Layong, et.al.) asked permission to inspect the vehicle to which Omaweng acceded to. When they peered into the rear of the vehicle, they saw a travelling bag which was partially covered by the rim of a spare tire under the passenger seat on the right side of the vehicle. They asked permission to see the contents of the bag to which Omaweng consented to. When they opened the bag, they found that it contained 41 plastic packets of different sizes containing pulverized substances. The constable gave a packet to his team leader, who, after
sniffing the stuff concluded that it was marijuana. The Constables thereafter boarded the vehicles and proceeded to the Bontoc poblacion to report the incident to the PC Headquarters. The
prohibited drugs were surrendered to the evidence custodian. The PC Forensic Chemist at Camp Dangwa, La Trinidad, Benguet conducted 2 chemistry examinations of the substance contained in the plastic packets taken from appellant and found them to be positive for hashish or
marijuana. Omaweng was indicted for the violation of Section 4, Article II of RA 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), as amended, in a criminal complaint filed with the MTC
Bontoc, Mountain Province on 12 September 1988. Upon his failure to submit counter-affidavits despite the granting of an extension of time to do so, the court declared that he had waived his right to a preliminary investigation and, finding probable cause against Omaweng, ordered the elevation of the case to the proper court. On 14 November 1988, the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Mountain Province filed an Information charging Omaweng with the violation of Section 47 Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended (Crim Case 713). After his motion for reinvestigation was denied by the Provincial Fiscal, Omaweng entered a plea of not guilty during his arraignment on 20 June 1989. During the trial on the merits, the prosecution presented 4 witnesses. Omaweng did not present any evidence other than portions of the Joint Clarificatory Sworn Statement, dated 23 December 1988, of prosecution witnesses Joseph Layong and David Fomocod. On 21 March 1991, the trial court promulgated its Judgment convicting Omaweng of the crime of transporting prohibited drugs (Section 4, Article II of RA 6425, as amended). Omaweng appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issue: Whether Omaweng was subjected to search which violates his Constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Held: Omaweng was not subjected to any search which may be stigmatized as a violation of his Constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures. He willingly gave prior consent to the search and voluntarily agreed to have it conducted on his vehicle and travelling bag. The testimony of the PC Constable (Layung) was not dented on cross-examination or rebutted by Omaweng for he chose not to testify on his own behalf. Omaweng waived his right against unreasonable searches and seizures when he voluntarily submitted to a search or consents to have it made in his person or premises. He is precluded from later complaining thereof right to be secure from unreasonable search may, like every right, be waived and such waiver may be made either expressly or impliedly. Since in the course of the valid search 41 packages of drugs were found, it behooved the officers to seize the same; no warrant was necessary for such seizure. Lopez vs. Commissioner of Customs [GR L-27968, 3 December 1975]
Second Division, Fernando (J): 4 concur, 1 took no part
Facts: M/V Jolo Lema had been under strict surveillance by the combined team of agents of the NBI, PC, RASAC, and City Police of Davao prior to its apprehension at a private wharf in Batjak, Sasa, Davao City. M/V [Jolo Lema] was skippered (sic) by Capt. Aquilino Pantinople and chartered by Mr. Tomas Velasco. During the period from the latter part of August to September 18, 1966, the said vessel was in Indonesian waters where it loaded copra and coffee beans from Taruna, Pitta, and Mangenito, all of Indonesia. In its trip to Indonesia it brought various merchandise from the Philippines which were exchanged and/or bartered for copra and coffee beans and subsequently taken to Davao City. Said vessel passed Marore, Indonesia on 18
September 1966 on its a way to Tahuna, Indonesia before proceeding to Davao City where it was apprehended on 19 September 1966. At about 3:00 p.m. of the said day, when the vessel was searched and after Captain Pantinople informed the team that Velasco, the charterer of the vessel, had other documents showing that vessel came from Indonesia carrying smuggled copra and coffee, a combined team of Constabulary and Regional Anti-Smuggling Center operatives headed by Earl Reynolds, Senior NBI Agent of Davao, proceeded to the Velasco’s room at the Skyroom Hotel in Davao City, to ask for said document. Velasco was not inside the hotel room when they entered the room. There are conficting claims whether the manicurist Teofila Ibañez or whether Velasco’s wife, who was allegedly inside the room at that time, voluntarily allowed the police officers to enter; and whether the police officers “forcibly opened luggages and boxes from which only several documents and papers were found, then seized, confiscated and took away the same,” or whether Mrs. Velasco volunteered to open the suitcases and baggages of Velasco and delivered the documents and things contained therein to Reynolds. The Collector of Customs of Davao seized 1,480 sacks of copra and 86 sacks of coffee from the M/V motor vessel Jolo Lema. The seizure was declared lawful by the Court of Tax Appeals, and its decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court on 29 November 1974 in Nasiad vs. Court of Tax Appeals (GR L-29318, November 29, 1974, 61 SCRA 238). In the present special civil action for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus; the only question left then is whether the search conducted by a party headed by Reynolds without the search warrant for the hotel room of Velasco, who entered into a contract with Jose G. Lopez, the awardee of such Philippine Reparations Commission vessel, for its operation and use ostensibly for fishing, is violative of such constitutional provision.
Issue: Whether there was consent on the part of the person who was the occupant of the hotel room then rented by Velasco.
Held: There was an attempt on the part of Lopez and Velasco to counteract the force of the recital of the written statement of Teofila Ibañez (allegedly wife of Tomas Velasco) by an
affidavit of one Corazon Y. Velasco, who stated that she is the legal wife of Velasco, and another by Velasco himself; reiterating that the person who was present at his hotel room was one
Teofila Ibañez, “a manicurist by occupation.” If such indeed were the case, then it is much more easily understandable why that person, Teofila Ibañez, who could be aptly described as the wrong person at the wrong place and at the wrong time, would have signified her consent readily and immediately. Under the circumstances, that was the most prudent course of action. It would save her and even Velasco himself from any gossip or innuendo. Nor could the officers of the law be blamed if they would act on the appearances. There was a person inside who from all indications was ready to accede to their request. Even common courtesy alone would have precluded them from inquiring too closely as to why she was there. Under all the circumstances, therefore, it can readily be concluded that there was consent sufficient in law to dispense with the need for a search warrant
People vs. Damaso [GR 93516, 12 August 1992] First Division, Medialdea (J): 3 concur
Facts: On 18 June 1988, Lt. Candido Quijardo, a Philippine Constabulary officer connected with the 152nd PC Company at Lingayen, Pangasinan, and some companions were sent to verify the presence of CPP/NPA members in Barangay Catacdang, Arellano-Bani, Dagupan City. In said
place, the group apprehended Gregorio Flameniano, Berlina Aritumba, Revelina Gamboa and Deogracias Mayaoa. When interrogated, the persons apprehended revealed that there was an underground safehouse at Gracia Village in Urdaneta, Pangasinan. After coordinating with the Station Commander of Urdaneta, the group proceeded to the house in Gracia Village. They found subversive documents, a radio, a 1 x 7 caliber .45 firearm and other items. After the raid, the group proceeded to Bonuan, Dagupan City, and put under surveillance the rented apartment of Rosemarie Aritumba, sister of Berlina Aritumba whom they earlier arrested. They interviewed Luzviminda Morados, a visitor of Rosemarie Aritumba. She stated that she worked with Bernie Mendoza/Basilio Damaso. She guided the group to the house rented by Damaso(@Mendoza). When they reached the house, the group found that it had already vacated by the occupants. Since Morados was hesitant to give the new address of Damaso (@Mendoza), the group looked for the Barangay Captain of the place and requested him to point out the new house rented by Damaso (@Mendoza). The group again required Morados to go with them. When they reached the house, the group saw Luz Tanciangco outside. They told her that they already knew that she was a member of the NPA in the area. At first, she denied it, but when she saw Morados she requested the group to go inside the house. Upon entering the house, the group, as well as the Barangay Captain, saw radio sets, pamphlets entitled “Ang Bayan,” xerox copiers and a
computer machine. They also found persons who were companions of Luz Tanciangco (namely, Teresita Calosa, Ricardo Calosa, Marites Calosa, Eric Tanciangco and Luzviminda Morados). The group requested the persons in the house to allow them to look around. When Luz
Tanciangco opened one of the rooms, they saw books used for subversive orientation, one M-14 rifle, bullets and ammunitions, Kenwood radio, artificial beard, maps of the Philippines,
Zambales, Mindoro and Laguna and other items. They confiscated the articles and brought them to their headquarters for final inventory. They likewise brought the persons found in the house to the headquarters for investigation. Said persons revealed that Damaso (@Mendoza) was the lessee of the house and owned the items confiscated therefrom. Thus, Basilio Damaso, was originally charged in an information filed before the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City with violation of Presidential Decree 1866 in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection with the crime of subversion, together with Luzviminda Morados y Galang @ Ka Mel, Teresita Calosa y Macabangon @ Ka Tessie, Ricardo Calosa y Perez @ Ka Ric, Marites Calosa y Evangelista @ Ka Tess, Eric Tanciangco y Capira @ Ka Ric and Luz Tanciangco y Pencial @ Ka Luz. Such information was later amended to exclude all other persons except Damaso from the criminal charge. Upon arraignment, Damaso pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Trial on the merits ensued. The prosecution rested its case and offered its exhibits for admission. The defense
counsel interposed his objections to the admissibility of the prosecution’s evidence on grounds of its being hearsay, immaterial or irrelevant and illegal for lack of a search warrant; and thereafter, manifested that he was not presenting any evidence for the accused. On 17 January 1990, the trial court rendered its decision, finding Damaso guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentencing the latter to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to pay the costs of the proceedings. Damaso appealed.
Issue: Whether there was waiver on the part of Damaso to allow the warrantless search of his house.
Held: Damaso was singled out as the sole violator of PD 1866, in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection with the crime of subversion. There is no substantial and credible evidence to
establish the fact that the appellant is allegedly the same person as the lessee of the house where the M-14 rifle and other subversive items were found or the owner of the said items. Even assuming for the sake of argument that Damaso is the lessee of the house, the case against him still will not prosper, the reason being that the law enforcers failed to comply with the
requirements of a valid search and seizure proceedings. The constitutional immunity from
unreasonable searches and seizures, being a personal one cannot he waived by anyone except the person whose rights are invaded or one who is expressly authorized to do so in his or her . The records show that Damaso was not in his house at that time Luz Tanciangco and Luz Morados, his alleged helper, allowed the authorities to enter it. There is no evidence that would establish the fact that Luz Morados was indeed Damaso’s helper or if it was true that she was his helper, that Damaso had given her authority to open his house in his absence. The prosecution likewise failed to show if Luz Tanciangco has such an authority. Without this evidence, the authorities’ intrusion into Damaso’s dwelling cannot be given any color of legality. While the power to search and seize is necessary to the public welfare, still it must be exercised and the law enforced without transgressing the constitutional rights of the citizens, for the enforcement of no statute is of sufficient importance to justify indifference to the basic principles of government. As a consequence, the search conducted by the authorities was illegal. It would have been different if the situation here demanded urgency which could have prompted the authorities to dispense with a search warrant. But the record is silent on this point. The fact that they came to Damaso’s house at nighttime, does not grant them the license to go inside his house.
People v. Barros [GR 90640, 29 March 1994] Third Division, Feliciano (J): 3 concur
Facts: On 6 September 1987, M/Sgt. Francis Yag-as and S/Sgt. James Ayan, both members of the P.C. Mountain Province Command, rode the Dangwa Bus bearing Plate ABZ-242 bound for Sabangan, Mountain Province. Upon reaching Chackchakan, Bontoc, Mountain Province, the bus stopped and both M/Sgt. Yag-as and S/Sgt. Ayan, who were seated at the back, saw
Bonifacio Barros carrying a carton, board the bus and seated himself on seat 18 after putting the carton under his seat. Thereafter, the bus continued and upon reaching Sabangan, M/Sgt. Yag-as and S/Sgt. Ayan before they alighted, it being their station, called C2C [Fernando] Bongyao to inspect the carton under seat 18. After C2C Bongyao inspected the carton, he found out that it contained marijuana and he asked the passengers who the owner of the carton was but nobody answered. Thereafter, C2C Bongyao alighted with the carton and S/Sgt. Ayan and C2C Bongyao invited Barros to the detachment for questioning as the latter was the suspected owner of the carton containing marijuana. Upon entering the detachment the carton was opened in the presence of Barros. When Barros denied ownership of the carton of marijuana, the P.C. officers called for the bus conductor who pinpointed to Barros as the owner of the carton of marijuana. Barros was charged with violating Section 4 of RA 6425, as amended (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972). After trial, the trial court convicted Bonifacio Barros of violation of Section 4 of RA 6425 as amended and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P20,000.00. Barros appealed.
Issue: Whether the failure of the carton bearer to object to the search made in the moving vehicle, resulting to his warrantless arrest, constitutes a waiver.
Held: The general rule is that a search and seizure must be carried out through or with a judicial warrant; otherwise such search and seizure becomes “unreasonable” within the meaning of Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. The evidence secured thereby — i.e., the “fruits” of the search and seizure — will be inadmissible in evidence “for any purpose in any
proceeding.” The requirement that a judicial warrant must be obtained prior to the carrying out of a search and seizure is, however, not absolute. There are certain exceptions recognized in our law, one of which relates to the search of moving vehicles. Peace officers may lawfully conduct searches of moving vehicles — automobiles, trucks, etc. — without need of a warrant, it not being practicable to secure a judicial warrant before searching a vehicle, since such vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant may be sought. In carrying out warrantless searches of moving vehicles, however, peace officers are limited to routine checks, that is, the vehicles are neither really searched nor their occupants subjected to physical or body searches, the examination of the vehicles being limited to visual inspection. When, however, a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive search, such a warrantless search would be constitutionally permissible only if the officers conducting the search have reasonable or probable cause to believe, before the search, that either the motorist is a
law-offender or the contents or cargo of the vehicle are or have been instruments or the subject matter or the proceeds of some criminal offense. The Court has in the past found probable cause to conduct without a judicial warrant an extensive search of moving vehicles in situations where (1) there had emanated from a package the distinctive smell of marijuana; (2) agents of the Narcotics Command (”Narcom”) of the Philippine National Police (”PNP”) had received a confidential report from informers that a sizeable volume of marijuana would be transported along the route where the search was conducted; (3) Narcom agents were informed or “tipped off” by an
undercover “deep penetration” agent that prohibited drugs would be brought into the country on a particular airline flight on a given date; (4) Narcom agents had received information that a Caucasian coming from Sagada, Mountain Province, had in his possession prohibited drugs and when the Narcom agents confronted the accused Caucasian, because of a conspicuous bulge in his waistline, he failed to present his passport and other identification papers when requested to do so; and (5) Narcom agents had received confidential information that a woman having the same physical appearance as that of the accused would be transporting marijuana. Herein, there is nothing in the record that any circumstance which constituted or could have reasonably constituted probable cause for the peace officers to search the carton box allegedly owned by Barros. The testimony of the law enforcement officers who had apprehended the accused (M/Sgt. Francis Yag-as and S/Sgt. James Ayan), and who had searched the box in his possession, (C2C Fernando Bongyao), simply did not suggest or indicate the presence of any such probable cause. Further, The accused is not to be presumed to have waived the unlawful search conducted on the occasion of his warrantless arrest “simply because he failed to object.” To constitute a waiver, it must appear first that the right exists; secondly, that the person involved had knowledge, actual or constructive, of the existence of such a right; and lastly, that said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right. The fact that the accused failed to object to the entry into his house does not amount to a permission to make a search therein. As the constitutional quaranty is not dependent upon any affirmative act of the citizen, the courts do not place the citizen in the position of either contesting an officer’s authority by force, or waiving his constitutional rights; but instead they hold that a peaceful submission to a search or seizure is not a consent or an invitation thereto, but is merely a demonstration of regard for the supremacy of the law. Courts indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights and
that we do not presume acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights. Accordingly, the search and seizure of the carton box was equally non-permissible and invalid. The “fruits” of the invalid search and seizure — i.e., the 4) kilos of marijuana — should therefore not have been admitted in evidence against Barros.
People v. Ramos [GR 85401-02, 4 June 1990]
Third Division, Gutierrez Jr. (J): 3 concur, 1 took no part
Facts: On 29 November 1982, a civilian informer came to the Narcotics Command Office in Olongapo City and reported that a cigarette vendor by the name of “Mama Rose” (Rosalinda Ramos) was selling marijuana at the corner of 3rd Street and Rizal Avenue in Olongapo City. Tests buys were made using marked money. The Narcotics Command (NARCOM) team proceeded to the place where appellant was selling cigarettes, and arrested the latter for illegal peddling of marijuana. Ramos was requested to take out the contents of her wallet. The four marked five-peso bills used in the test buys were found among her possessions and were
confiscated after the serial numbers were confirmed. Search of Ramos’ stall yielded 20 sticks of marijuana cigarettes in a trash can placed under the small table where Ramos displayed the wares she was selling. Ramos was thereafter brought to the station. At the station, Ramos executed a statement confessing to her crimes which she swore to before Assistant City Fiscal. The
marijuana sticks confiscated were sent to the Philippine Constabulary Crime Laboratory (PCCL) for analysis, and thereafter were confirmed to be marijuana. The defense contends however that she assented to the invitation of the NARCOM operatives for investigation, after search of her buri bags (which she stores the fruits that she sells) were fruitless. She claimed that she was forced to affix her signature on the four 5-peso bills by one Sgt. Sudiacal, purportedly to be the same money which was used to buy marijuana from her, but which she insists was her money being saved for the rentals. She was later brought to the Fiscal’s Office after investigation, where she signed a document. She claimed she was not assisted by any counsel during the
investigation, neither during the time she signed the document at the Fiscal’s Office. Two informations were filed against Ramos, one for sale (Criminal Case 5991) and the other for possession of marijuana (Criminal Case 5990). After trial, the RTC Olongapo City (Branch 73) found her guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case 5990 for violating Section 8 of RA 6425 and sentenced her to imprisonment of 6 years and 1 day and a fine of P6,000. She was likewise found guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case 5991 for violating Section 4 of RA 6425 and was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of P20,000. Ramos sought reversal of the decisions with the Supreme Court.
Issue: Whether Ramos waived her right against the warrantless search of the trash can, where illegal drugs were found, under her control.
Held: The trash can (where the contraband were found) was found under the table where her legitimate wares were being sold. Ramos he was the only person who had access to the trash can. The same was under her immediate physical control. She had complete charge of the contents of the trash can under the table to the exclusion of all other persons. In law, actual possession exists when the thing is in the immediate occupancy and control of the party. But this is not to say that the law requires actual possession. In criminal law, possession necessary for conviction of the offense of possession of controlled substances with intent to distribute may be constructive as
well as actual. It is only necessary that the defendant must have dominion and control over the contraband. These requirements are present in the situation described, where the prohibited drugs were found inside the trash can placed under the stall owned by Ramos. In fact, the NARCOM agents who conducted the search testified that they had to ask Ramps to stand so that they could look inside the trash can under Ramos’ papag. The trash can was positioned in such a way that it was difficult for another person to use the trash can. The trash can was obviously not for use by her customers. Therefore, the twenty sticks of marijuana are admissible in evidence and the trial court’s finding that Ramos is guilty of possession is correct.
People vs. Correa [GR 119246, 30 January 1998] En Banc, Martinez (J): 12 concur
Facts: A week before 18 June 1994, Leonardo Dulay was placed under surveillance by the Police Operatives from the Drug Enforcement Unit of the Western Police District Command (DEU-WPDC) on account of confidential and intelligence reports received in said Unit about his drug trafficking around Bambang Street, Tondo, Manila. The police surveillance brought forth positive results and confirmed Dulay’s illegal drug trade. On 17 June 1994, operatives were alerted that Dulay would transport and deliver a certain quantity of drugs that night on board a owner-type jeep (FMR948). Thereafter, the operatives, together with the informer proceeded to A. Bonifacio Street on board 3 vehicles, and inconspicuously parked along the side of North Cemetery and waited for the suspect. The police informant spotted Dulay’s vehicle at 3:00 am. The operatives tailed the subject jeepney until they reached Bambang extension and Jose Abad Santos Avenue, where they accosted the passengers of said jeepney. The team inspected a cylindrical tin can of El Cielo Vegetable Cooking Lard, about two feet high, loaded in the vehicle of the appellants. The can contained 8 bundles of suspected dried marijuana flowering tops wrapped in pieces of paper and plastic tapes. The team seized the suspected contrabands and marked each bundle consecutively. The 3 suspects were brought to the police headquarters at DEU-WPDC for investigation. The packages of suspected marijuana were submitted to the NBI for laboratory analysis to determine their chemical composition. The tests confirmed that the confiscated stuff were positive for marijuana and weighed 16.1789 kilograms. The defense, however, contends that the 3 accused were arrested without warrant in Camarin D, Caloocan City, enroute to Dulay’s house to get the things of his child allegedly rushed previously to the Metropolitan Hospital, for an alleged charge of trafficking on ’shabu,’ and were brought to the WPDC headquarters at U.N. Avenue, where they were detained. On 12 July 1994, an
Information was filed with the RTC Manila (Branch 35) indicting Antonio Correa y Cayton @ “Boyet,” Rito Gunida y Sesante @ “Dodong,” and Leonardo Dulay y Santos @ “Boy Kuba” for having violated Section 4, Article II of RA 6425, as amended. When arraigned, the 3 accused pleaded not guilty. After trial and on 3 March 1995, the lower court found the appellants guilty as charged and were sentenced to death and a fine of P10 million.
Issue: Whether the accused are precluded from assailing the warrantless search and seizure, due to waiver on their part.
Held: Antonio Correa y Cayton @ “Boyet,” Rito Gunida y Sesante @ “Dodong,” and Leonardo Dulay y Santos @ “Boy Kuba” are precluded from assailing the warrantless search and seizure when they voluntarily submitted to it as shown by their actuation during the search and seizure.
They never protested when the police officer opened the tin can loaded in their vehicle, nor when he opened one of the bundles, nor when they, together with their cargo of drugs and their vehicle, were brought to the police station for investigation and subsequent prosecution. When one
voluntarily submits to a search or consents to have it made on his person or premises, he is precluded from later complaining thereof The right to be secure from unreasonable search may, like every right, be waived and such waiver may be made either expressly or impliedly.” Further, they effectively waived their constitutional right against the search and seizure by their voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the trial court, when they entered a plea of not guilty upon arraignment and by participating in the trial.
People v. Che Chun Ting [GR 130568-69, 21 March 2000] En Banc, Bellosillo (J): 14 concur
Facts: Following a series of buy-bust operations, the elements of the Special Operation Unit, Narcotics Command, apprehended a suspected drug courier, Mabel Cheung Mei Po, after she delivered a transparent plastic bag containing a white crystalline substance to an informant, in full view of NARCOM agents. When questioned, Mabel Cheung Mei Po cooperated with the government agents and revealed the name of Che Chun Ting as the source of the drugs. On 27 June 1996 NARCOM deployed a team of agents for the entrapment and arrest of Che Chun Ting. At 7:00 am they proceeded to the Roxas Seafront Garden in Pasay City where Che Chun Ting was and had the place under surveillance. When they moved to the McDonald’s parking lot, Mabel called Che Chun Ting through her cellular phone and spoke to him in Chinese, ordering one (1) kilo of shabu. At 10:30 am Mabel receive a call from the accused. Mabel, along with NARCOM agents, proceeded to the Roxas Seafront Garden. Mabel honked twice upon arriving at the said place and went to Unit 122. NARCOM agents parked 2 meters away saw the door of the unit open as a man went out to hand Mabel a transparent plastic bag containing a white crystalline substance. The NARCOM agents immediately alighted and arrested the surprised man who was positively identified by Mabel as Che Chun Ting. Unit 122 was searched by the agents, where a black bag with several plastic bags containing a white crystalline substance in an open cabinet in the second floor was seized. The bag was examined in the presence of Maj. Garbo, the accused and his girlfriend. The accused and the evidence were brought to Camp Crame. The contents of the bank were tested and found positive for shabu. The Defense alleged otherwise. It alleged that it was Noli Ortiz, the brother of Che Chun Ting’s girlfriend who rang the doorbell of Unit 122. When Nimfa opened the door, 2 NARCOM officers suddenly forced their way inside and searched the premises. Noli alleged that he did not see any black bag seized but saw his sister’s video camera being carted away by the NARCOM agents. He claimed that his sister was frightened and crying during the conduct of the search while Che Chun Ting was asleep at the second floor. Defense further contends that Unit 122 is owned by Nimfa Ortiz and that Che Chun Ting lived at 1001 Domingo Poblete St., BF Homes, Parañaque. Che Chun Ting was found guilty by the trial court on 22 August 1997 of delivering, distributing and dispatching in transit 999.48 grams of shabu; and, having in his custody, possession and control 5,578.68 grams of the same regulated drug. He was meted two (2) death sentences, one for violation of Sec. 15 and the other for violation of Sec. 16, both of Art. III, of RA 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended). He was likewise ordered to pay a fine of P1,000,000.00 in the first case, and
Issue: Whether the search of Unit 122 is within the purview of the warrantless search incidental to an arrest.
Held: The 1987 Constitution ordains that no arrest, search or seizure can be made without a valid warrant issued by a competent judicial authority. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose, shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. The right is not absolute and admits of certain well-recognized exceptions. A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense, without a search warrant. The search may extend beyond the person of the one arrested to include the permissible area or surroundings within his immediate control. The lawful arrest being the sole justification for the validity of the warrantless search under the exception, the same must be limited to and circumscribed by the subject, time and place of the arrest. As to subject, the warrantless search is sanctioned only with respect to the person of the suspect, and things that may be seized from him are limited to “dangerous weapons” or “anything which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense.” With respect to the time and place of the warrantless search, it must be contemporaneous with the lawful arrest. Stated otherwise, to be valid, the search must have been conducted at about the time of the arrest or immediately thereafter and only at the place where the suspect was arrested, or the premises or surroundings under his immediate control. Herein, although the case falls within the exception, Che Chun Ting was admittedly outside unit 122, which was not his residence but a sojourner thereof, and in the act of delivering to Mabel Cheung Mei Po a bag of shabu when he was arrested by the
NARCOM operatives. The inner portion of the house can hadly be said to constitute a
permissible area within his reach or immediate control, to justify a warrantless search therein. The search in Unit 122 and the seizure therein of some 5,578.68 grams of shabu were illegal for being violative of one’s basic constitutional right and guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures, and thus are inadmissible in evidence under the exclusionary rule. The
inadmissibility of such however does not totally exonerate the accused. The illegal search in Unit 122 was preceded by a valid arrest. The accused was caught in flagrante delicto as a result of an entrapment conducted by NARCOM operatives on the basis of the information provided by Mabel Cheung Mei Po regarding the accused’s illegal trade. NARCOM agents P/Insp. Santiago and SPO3 Campanilla saw him handing over a bag of white crystalline substance to Mabel Cheung Mei Po. His arrest was lawful and the seized bag of shabu weighing 999.43 grams was admissible in evidence, being the fruit of the crime.
People vs. Tangliben [GR L-63630, 6 April 1990] Third Division, Gutierrez Jr. (J): 4 concur
Facts: In the late evening of 2 March 1982, Patrolmen Silverio Quevedo and Romeo L. Punzalan of the San Fernando Police Station, together with Barangay Tanod Macario Sacdalan, were conducting surveillance mission at the Victory Liner Terminal compound located at Barangay San Nicolas, San Fernando, Pampanga. The surveillance mission was aimed not only against persons who may commit misdemeanors at the said place but also on persons who may be
engaging in the traffic of dangerous drugs based on informations supplied by informers. Around 9:30 p.m., said Patrolmen noticed a person carrying a red traveling bag who was acting
suspiciously and they confronted him. The person was requested by Patrolmen Quevedo and Punzalan to open the red traveling bag but the person refused, only to accede later on when the patrolmen identified themselves. Found inside the bag were marijuana leaves wrapped in a plastic wrapper and weighing one kilo, more or less. The person was asked of his name and the reason why he was at the said place and he gave his name as Medel Tangliben and explained that he was waiting for a ride to Olongapo City to deliver the marijuana leaves. The accused was taken to the police headquarters at San Fernando, Pampanga, for further investigation; and that Pat. Silverio Quevedo submitted to his Station Commander his Investigator’s Report. The Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, Third Judicial Region at San Fernando, Pampanga, found Medel Tangliben y Bernardino guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 as amended) and sentenced him to life imprisonment, to pay a fine of P20,000 and to pay the costs. Tangliben appealed.
Issue: Whether the warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest, even in light of the Court’s ruling in People vs. Aminnudin.
Held: One of the exceptions to the general rule requiring a search warrant is a search incident to a lawful arrest. Thus, Section 12 (Search incident to a lawful arrest) of Rule 126 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that “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 warrant.” Meanwhile, Rule 113, Sec. 5(a) provides that “A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.” Tangliben was caught in flagrante, since he was carrying marijuana at the time of his arrest. This case therefore falls squarely within the exception. The warrantless search was incident to a lawful arrest and is consequently valid. The Court is not unmindful of its decision in People v. Aminnudin (163 SCRA 402 [1988]). In that case the PC officers had earlier received a tip from an informer that accused-appellant was on board a vessel bound for Iloilo City and was carrying marijuana. Acting on this tip, they waited for him one evening, approached him as he descended from the gangplank, detained him and inspected the bag he was carrying. Said bag contained marijuana leaves. The Court held that the marijuana could not be admitted in evidence since it was seized illegally, as there was lack of urgency, and thus a search warrant can still be procured. However, herein, the case presented urgency. Although the trial court’s decision did not mention it, the transcript of stenographic notes reveals that there was an informer who pointed to
Tangliben as carrying marijuana. Faced with such on-the-spot information, the police officers had to act quickly. There was not enough time to secure a search warrant. The Court cannot therefore apply the ruling in Aminnudin herein. To require search warrants during on-the-spot apprehensions of drug pushers, illegal possessors of firearms, jueteng collectors, smugglers of contraband goods, robbers, etc. would make it extremely difficult, if not impossible to contain the crimes with which these persons are associated.
Espano vs. Court of Appeals [GR 120431, 1 April 1998] Third Division, Romero (J): 3 concur
Facts: On 14 July 1991, at about 12:30 a.m., Pat. Romeo Pagilagan and other police officers, namely, Pat. Wilfredo Aquilino, Simplicio Rivera, and Erlindo Lumboy of the Western Police District (WPD), Narcotics Division went to Zamora and Pandacan Streets, Manila to confirm reports of drug pushing in the area. They saw Rodolfo Espano selling “something” to another person. After the alleged buyer left, they approached Espano, identified themselves as
policemen, and frisked him. The search yielded two plastic cellophane tea bags of marijuana . When asked if he had more marijuana, he replied that there was more in his house. The policemen went to his residence where they found ten more cellophane tea bags of marijuana. Espano was brought to the police headquarters where he was charged with possession of prohibited drugs. On 24 July 1991, Espano posted bail and the trial court issued his order of release on 29 July 1991. On 14 August 1992, the trial court rendered a decision, convicting Espano of the crime charged. Espano appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court, however, on 15 January 1995 affirmed the decision of the trial court in toto. Espano filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court.
Issue: Whether the search of Espano’s home after his arrest does not violate against his right against unreasonable search and seizure.
Held: Espano’s arrest falls squarely under Rule 113 Section 5(a) of the Rules of Court. He was caught in flagranti as a result of a buy-bust operation conducted by police officers on the basis of information received regarding the illegal trade of drugs within the area of Zamora and Pandacan Streets, Manila. The police officer saw Espano handing over something to an alleged buyer. After the buyer left, they searched him and discovered two cellophanes of marijuana. His arrest was, therefore, lawful and the two cellophane bags of marijuana seized were admissible in evidence, being the fruits of the crime. As for the 10 cellophane bags of marijuana found at Espano’s residence, however, the same inadmissible in evidence. The articles seized from Espano during his arrest were valid under the doctrine of search made incidental to a lawful arrest. The warrantless search made in his house, however, which yielded ten cellophane bags of marijuana became unlawful since the police officers were not armed with a search warrant at the time. Moreover, it was beyond the reach and control of Espano. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purposes shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.” An exception to the said rule is a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense. It may extend beyond the person of the one arrested to include the premises or surroundings under his
immediate control. Herein, the ten cellophane bags of marijuana seized at petitioner’s house after his arrest at Pandacan and Zamora Streets do not fall under the said exceptions.
People v. Malmstedt [GR 91107, 19 June 1991] En Banc, Padilla (J): 8 concur, 1 on leave
Facts: Mikael Malmstedt, a Swedish national, entered the Philippines for the 3rd time in December 1988 as a tourist. He had visited the country sometime in 1982 and 1985. In the
evening of 7 May 1989, Malmstedt left for Baguio City. Upon his arrival thereat in the morning of the following day, he took a bus to Sagada and stayed in that place for 2 days. On 11 May 1989, Capt. Alen Vasco of NARCOM, stationed at Camp Dangwa, ordered his men to set up a temporary checkpoint at Kilometer 14, Acop, Tublay, Mountain Province, for the purpose of checking all vehicles coming from the Cordillera Region. The order to establish a checkpoint in the said area was prompted by persistent reports that vehicles coming from Sagada were
transporting marijuana and other prohibited drugs. Moreover, information was received by the Commanding Officer of NARCOM, that same morning, that a Caucasian coming from Sagada had in his possession prohibited drugs. At about 1:30 pm, the bus where Malmstedt was riding was stopped. Sgt. Fider and CIC Galutan boarded the bus and announced that they were members of the NARCOM and that they would conduct an inspection. During the inspection, CIC Galutan noticed a bulge on Malmstedt’s waist. Suspecting the bulge on Malmstedt’s waist to be a gun, the officer asked for Malmstedt’s passport and other identification papers. When Malmstedt failed to comply, the officer required him to bring out whatever it was that was bulging on his waist, which was a pouch bag. When Malmstedt opened the same bag, as ordered, the officer noticed 4 suspicious-looking objects wrapped in brown packing tape, which turned out to contain hashish, a derivative of marijuana, when opened. Malmstedt stopped to get 2 travelling bags from the luggage carrier, each containing a teddy bear, when he was invited outside the bus for questioning. It was observed that there were also bulges inside the teddy bears which did not feel like foam stuffing. Malmstedt was then brought to the headquarters of the NARCOM at Camp Dangwa for further investigation. At the investigation room, the officers opened the teddy bears and they were found to also contain hashish. Representative samples were taken from the hashish found among the personal effects of Malmstedt and the same were brought to the PC Crime Laboratory for chemical analysis, which established the objects
examined as hashish. Malmstedt claimed that the hashish was planted by the NARCOM officers in his pouch bag and that the 2 travelling bags were not owned by him, but were merely
entrusted to him by an Australian couple whom he met in Sagada. He further claimed that the Australian couple intended to take the same bus with him but because there were no more seats available in said bus, they decided to take the next ride and asked Malmstedt to take charge of the bags, and that they would meet each other at the Dangwa Station. An information was filed against Malmstedt for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. During the arraignment, Malmstedt entered a plea of “not guilty.” After trial and on 12 October 1989, the trial court found
Malmstedt guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 4, Article II of RA 6425 and sentenced him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P20,000. Malmstedt sought reversal of the decision of the trial court.
Issue: Whether the personal effects of Malmstedt may be searched without an issued warrant. Held: The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, where the search is made pursuant to a lawful arrest, there is no need to obtain a search warrant. A lawful arrest without a warrant may be made by a peace officer or a private person under the following circumstances. Section 5 provides that “a peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested
has committed it; and (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail, and he shall be proceeded against in accordance with Rule 112, Section 7.” Herein, Malmstedt was caught in flagrante delicto, when he was transporting prohibited drugs. Thus, the search made upon his personal effects falls squarely under paragraph (1) of the foregoing provisions of law, which allow a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest.
People v. Kalubiran [GR 84079, 6 May 1991] First Division, Cruz (J): 4 concur
Facts: Nestor Kalubiran was arrested on 12 July 1985, in Dumaguete City, by Narcotics Command (NARCOM) elements. His arrest was the result of a “buy-bust” operation in which Pat. Leon Quindo acted as the buyer while the other team members lay in wait to arrest
Kalubiran at the pre-arranged signal. Quindo approached the accused-appellant, who was with a group of friends in front of the Gamo Memorial Clinic, and asked if he could “score,” the jargon for buying marijuana. Kalubiran immediately produced two sticks of marijuana, for which Quindo paid him a previously marked P5.00 bill. Quindo then gave the signal and Cpl. Levi Dorado approached and arrested Kalubiran. Dorado frisked the accused-appellant. He recovered the marked money and found 17 more sticks of marijuana on Kalubiran’s person. The other team members, namely M/Sgt. Ranulfo Villamor and Sgt. Ruben Laddaran, came later in a jeep, where they boarded Kalubiran to take him to the police station. The 19 sticks of marijuana were marked and then taken to the PC Crime Laboratory, where they were analyzed, with positive results. Kalubiran contended however that one Quindo approached and frisk him on the same night, and found nothing on him. However, he was called back by one Villamor, who told him at gun point to board the jeep and taken to PC headquarters, then to the police station. He was released the following day with the help of a lawyer. After trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Dumaguete City found Kalubiran guilty as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment plus a P20,000 fine. Kalubiran appealed.
Issue: Whether Kalubiran should be made to answer for the 19 sticks of marijuana found in his possession during his arrest.
Held: Kalubiran was arrested in flagrante delicto as a result of the entrapment and so came under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, authorizing a warrantless arrest of any person actually committing a crime. The search was made as an incident of a lawful arrest and so was also lawful under Section 12 of Rule 116. In addition to the Rules, there is abundant jurisprudence justifying warrantless searches and seizures under the conditions established in the case.
However, Kalubiran was accused only of selling the two sticks of marijuana under Section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Act when he should also have been charged with possession of the 17 other sticks found on his person at the time of his arrest. It is unfortunate that he cannot be held to answer for the second offense because he has not been impleaded in a separate information for violation of Section 8 of the said law.
People vs. dela Cruz [GR 83260, 18 April 1990] Second Division, Regalado (J): 4 concur
Facts: After receiving a confidential report from Arnel, their informant, a “buy-bust” operation was conducted by the 13th Narcotics Regional Unit through a team composed of T/Sgt. Jaime Raposas as Team Leader, S/Sgt. Rodelito Oblice, Sgt. Dante Yang, Sgt. Vicente Jimenez, P/Pfc. Adolfo Arcoy as poseur-buyer and Pat. Deogracias Gorgonia at Maliclic St., Tondo, Manila at around 2:30 p.m. of 4 May 1987 to catch the pusher/s. P/Pfc. Adolfo Arcoy acted as the poseur-buyer with Arnel as his companion to buy marijuana worth P10.00 from the two accused, Juan de la Cruz and Reynaldo Beltran. At the scene, it was Juan de la Cruz whom Arcoy first negotiated with on the purchase and when Arcoy told De la Cruz that he was buying P10.00 worth of marijuana, De la Cruz instructed Reynaldo Beltran to give one aluminum foil of
marijuana which Beltran got from his pants’ pocket and delivered it to Arcoy. After ascertaining that the foil of suspected marijuana was really marijuana, Arcoy gave the prearranged signal to his teammates by scratching his head and his teammates who were strategically positioned in the vicinity, converged at the place, identified themselves as NARCOM agents and effected the arrest of De la Cruz and Beltran. The P10.00 marked bill used by Arcoy was found in the possession of Juan de la Cruz together with two aluminum foils and containing marijuana. Juan de la Cruz y Gonzales and Reynaldo Beltran y Aniban were charged in Criminal Case 87-54417 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila with violation of Section 4, Art. II, in relation to Section 21, Article IV of Republic Act 6425, as amended. The court, on 15 March 1988, found Dela Cruz and Beltran guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with the accessory penalties provided by law; to pay a fine of P20,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and each to pay one-half of the costs. From this decision, de la Cruz and Beltran appealed. In a letter of the Warden, Manila City Jail, dated 3 March 1989, the Court was informed of the death of de la Cruz on 21 February 1989. Thus, the criminal case against de la Cruz was dismissed in the Supreme Court resolution of 25 September 1989. The present appellate proceeding is limited only to Beltran.
Issue: Whether the warrantless seizure incidental to the buy-bust operation violates Beltran’s constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure.
Held: A buy-bust operation is the method employed by peace officers to trap and catch a malefactor in flagrante delicto. It is essentially a form of entrapment since the peace officer neither instigates nor induces the accused to commit a crime. Entrapment is the employment of such ways and means for the purpose of trapping or capturing a lawbreaker from whose mind the criminal intent originated. Oftentimes, it is the only effective way of apprehending a criminal in the act of the commission of the offense. While it is conceded that in a buy-bust operation, there is seizure of evidence from one’s person without a search warrant, needless to state a search warrant is not necessary, the search being incident to a lawful arrest. A peace officer may,
without a warrant, arrest a person when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing or is attempting to commit an offense. It is a matter of judicial experience that in the arrest of violators of the Dangerous Drugs Act in a buy-bust operation, the malefactors were invariably caught red-handed. There being no violation of the constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure, the confiscated articles are admissible in evidence.
People vs. Tudtud [GR 144037, 26 September 2003]
Second Division, Tinga (J): 3 concur, 1 filed a separate dissenting opinion
Facts: Sometime during the months of July and August 1999, the Toril Police Station, Davao City received a report from a “civilian asset” named Bobong Solier about a certain Noel Tudtud. Solier related that his neighbors have been complaining about Tudtud, who was allegedly responsible for the proliferation of marijuana in their area. Reacting to the report, PO1 Ronald Desierto, PO1 Ramil Floreta and their superior, SPO1 Villalonghan, all members of the
Intelligence Section of the Toril Police Station, conducted surveillance in Solier’s neighborhood in Sapa, Toril, Davao City. For 5 days, they gathered information and learned that Tudtud was involved in illegal drugs. According to his neighbors, Tudtud was engaged in selling marijuana. On 1 August 1999, Solier informed the police that Tudtud had headed to Cotabato and would be back later that day with new stocks of marijuana. Solier described Tudtud as big-bodied and short, and usually wore a hat. At around 4:00 p.m. that same day, a team composed of PO1 Desierto, PO1 Floreta and SPO1 Villalonghan posted themselves at the corner of Saipon and McArthur Highway to await Tudtud’s arrival. All wore civilian clothes. About 8:00 p.m., 2 men disembarked from a bus and helped each other carry a carton marked “King Flakes.” Standing some 5 feet away from the men, PO1 Desierto and PO1 Floreta observed that one of the men fit Tudtud’s description. The same man also toted a plastic bag. PO1 Floreta and PO1 Desierto then approached the suspects and identified themselves as police officers. PO1 Desierto informed them that the police had received information that stocks of illegal drugs would be arriving that night. The man who resembled Tudtud’s description denied that he was carrying any drugs. PO1 Desierto asked him if he could see the contents of the box. Tudtud obliged, saying, “it was alright.” Tudtud opened the box himself as his companion looked on. The box yielded pieces of dried fish, beneath which were two bundles, one wrapped in a striped plastic bag and another in newspapers. PO1 Desierto asked Tudtud to unwrap the packages. They contained what seemed to the police officers as marijuana leaves. The police thus arrested Tudtud and his companion, informed them of their rights and brought them to the police station. The two did not resist. The confiscated items were turned over to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory for examination. Forensic tests on specimens taken from the confiscated items confirmed the police officers’ suspicion. The plastic bag contained 3,200 grams of marijuana leaves while the
newspapers contained another 890 grams. Noel Tudtud and his companion, Dindo Bulong, were subsequently charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City with illegal
possession of prohibited drugs. Upon arraignment, both accused pleaded not guilty. The defense, however, reserved their right to question the validity of their arrest and the seizure of the
evidence against them. Trial ensued thereafter. Tudtud, denying the charges against them, cried frame-up. Swayed by the prosecution’s evidence beyond reasonable doubt, the RTC rendered judgment convicting both accused as charged and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P500,000.00. On appeal, Noel Tudtud and Dindo Bolong assign, among other errors, the admission in evidence of the marijuana leaves, which they claim were seized in violation of their right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Issue: Whether the Tudtud’s implied acquiescence (Tudtud’s statement of “it’s all right” when the police officers requested that the box be opened) be considered a waiver.
Held: The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is secured by Section 2, Article III of the Constitution. The RTC justified the warrantless search of appellants’ belongings under the first exception, as a search incident to a lawful arrest. A search incidental to a lawful arrest is sanctioned by the Rules of Court. It is significant to note that the search in question preceded the arrest. Recent jurisprudence holds that the arrest must precede the search; the process cannot be reversed. Nevertheless, a search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the arrest if the police have probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of the search. The question, therefore, is whether the police herein had probable cause to arrest Tudtud, et. al. The long-standing rule in this jurisdiction, applied with a great degree of consistency, is that “reliable information” alone is not sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest under Section 5 (a), Rule 113. The rule requires, in addition, that the accused perform some overt act that would indicate that he “has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.” For the
exception in Section 5 (a), Rule 113 to apply, this Court ruled, two elements must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. Reliable information alone is insufficient. Thus, herein, in no sense can the knowledge of the arresting officers that Tudtud was in possession of
marijuana be described as “personal,” having learned the same only from their informant Solier. Solier, for his part, testified that he obtained his information only from his neighbors and the friends of Tudtud. Solier’s information is hearsay. Confronted with such a dubious informant, the police perhaps felt it necessary to conduct their own “surveillance.” This “surveillance,” it turns out, did not actually consist of staking out Tudtud to catch him in the act of plying his illegal trade, but of a mere “gathering of information from the assets there.” The police officers who conducted such “surveillance” did not identify who these “assets” were or the basis of the latter’s information. Clearly, such information is also hearsay, not of personal knowledge. Finally, there is an effective waiver of rights against unreasonable searches and seizures only if the following requisites are present: (1) It must appear that the rights exist; (2) The person involved had knowledge, actual or constructive, of the existence of such right; (3) Said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right. Here, the prosecution failed to establish the second and third requisites. Records disclose that when the police officers introduced themselves as such and requested Tudtud that they see the contents of the carton box supposedly containing the
marijuana, Tudtud said “it was alright.” He did not resist and opened the box himself. Tudtud’s implied acquiescence, if at all, could not have been more than mere passive conformity given under coercive or intimidating circumstances and is, thus, considered no consent at all within the purview of the constitutional guarantee. Consequently, Tudtud’s lack of objection to the search and seizure is not tantamount to a waiver of his constitutional right or a voluntary submission to the warrantless search and seizure. As the search of Tudtud’s box does not come under the recognized exceptions to a valid warrantless search, the marijuana leaves obtained thereby are inadmissible in evidence. And as there is no evidence other than the hearsay testimony of the arresting officers and their informant, the conviction of Tudtud, et. al. cannot be sustained. People vs. Asis [GR 142531, 15 October 2002]
En Banc, Panganiban (J): 7 concur, 6 on official leave
Facts: Danilo Asis y Fonperada and Gilbert Formento y Saricon were charged in an Information dated 18 February 1998; the information stating “That on or about February 10, 1998, in the City
of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping each other, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to gain and by means of force and violence upon person, to wit: by then and there stabbing one YU HING GUAN @ ROY CHING with a bladed instrument on the different parts of the body thereafter take, rob and carry away the following, to wit: Cash money in the amount of P20,000.00; one (1) wristwatch’ one (1) gold necklace; and undetermined items; or all in the total amount of P20,000.00 more or less, belonging to said YU HING GUAN @ ROY CHING against his will, to the damage and prejudice of the said owner in the aforesaid amount more or less of P20,000.00, Philippine Currency, and as a result thereof, he sustained mortal stab wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his death.” When arraigned on 9 July 1998, both accused pleaded not guilty. Found to be deaf-mutes, they were assisted, not only by a counsel de oficio, but also by an interpreter from the Calvary Baptist Church. The prosecution presented 9 witnesses. Although none of them had actually seen the crime committed, strong and substantial circumstantial evidence presented by them attempted to link both accused to the crime. After due trial, both accused were found guilty and sentenced to death. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila (Branch 54; Criminal Case 98-163090), on 8 March 2000, held that the “crime charged and proved is robbery with homicide under Article 294, No. 1 of the Revised Penal Code,” ruled that “although no witnesses to the actual killing and robbery were presented, the circumstantial evidence including the recovery of bloodstained clothing from both accused definitely proved that the two (2) x x x committed the crime,” and appreciated the aggravating circumstances of abuse of confidence, superior strength and treachery and thus sentenced both accused to the supreme penalty of death. Hence, the automatic review before the Supreme Court. Both the accused do not question the legality of their arrest, as they made no objection thereto before the arraignment, but object to the introduction of the bloodstained pair of shorts allegedly recovered from the bag of Formento; arguing that the search was illegally done, making the obtainment of the pair of shorts illegal and taints them as inadmissible. The prosecution, on the other hand, contends that it was Formento’s wife who voluntarily surrendered the bag that contained the bloodstained trousers of the victim, and thus claims that her act constituted a valid consent to the search without a warrant.
Issue: Whether Formento, a deaf-mute, has given consent to the recovery of the bloodstained pair of short, in his possession during the warrantless search.
Held: Primarily, the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures, being a personal one, cannot be waived by anyone except the person whose rights are invaded or who is expressly authorized to do so on his or her behalf. In the present case, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses show that at the time the bloodstained pair of shorts was recovered, Formento, together with his wife and mother, was present. Being the very subject of the search, necessarily, he himself should have given consent. Since he was physically present, the waiver could not have come from any other person. Lopez vs. Commissioner of Customs does not apply as the accused therein was not present when the search was made. Further, to constitute a valid waiver, it must be shown that first, the right exists; second, the person involved had knowledge, actual or constructive, of the existence of such a right; and third, the person had an actual intention to relinquish the right. Herein, Formento could not have consented to a warrantless search when, in the first place, he did not understand what was happening at that moment. There was no interpreter to assist him — a deaf-mute — during the arrest, search and seizure. The point
