SANTOS, SALYMAR Assignment for January 27, 2014 1; ontinuation of Arti!"e ###, Se!tion 2 2$ Ru"es of rimina" %ro!

e&ure, Ru"e 11', Se!tion ( ases) *+en ,arrant"ess arrest -a"i& %eo."e -s$ /-aristo, 210 S RA 4'1 12$R$ No$ 3'4245 67e!$ 11, 13328 *+at is a ."ain -ie, arrest9 #s a ."ain -ie, arrest &es!ri:e& in Ru"e 11', Se!tion(9 ;o, ,as /-aristo arreste&9 *as t+e arrest -a"i&9 *as t+e ,arrant"ess sear!+ of t+e +ouse -a"i&9 Constitutional Law; Search and Seizure; Exceptions to necessity of search warrant; What constitutional provisions prohibit are unreasonable search and seizure.It is to be noted that what the x x x constitutional provisions prohibit are unreasonable searches and seizures. or a search to be reasonable under the law! there "ust! as a rule! be a search warrant validly issued by an appropriate #udicial officer. $et! the rule that searches and seizures "ust be supported by a valid search warrant is not an absolute and inflexible rule! for #urisprudence has reco%nized several exceptions to the search warrant re&uire"ent. '"on% these exceptions is the seizure of evidence in plain view! adopted by this #urisdiction fro" the pronounce"ents of the (nited States Supre"e Court in )arris vs. (.S. and Coolid%e vs. *ew )a"pshire. +hus! it is reco%nized that ob#ects inadvertently fallin% in the plain view of an officer who has the ri%ht to be in the position to have that view! are sub#ect to seizure and "ay be introduced in evidence. +he records in this case show that S%t. ,o"erosa was %ranted per"ission by the appellant Evaristo to enter his house. +he officer-s purpose was to apprehend ,osillo who" he saw had sou%ht refu%e therein. +herefore! it is clear that the search for firear"s was not ,o"erosa-s purpose in enterin% the house! thereby renderin% his discovery of the sub#ect firear"s as inadvertent and even accidental. Cri"inal .rocedure; Warrantless 'rrest. or purposes of the present case! the second circu"stance by which a warrantless arrest "ay be underta/en is applicable. or! as disclosed by the records! the peace officers! while on patrol! heard bursts of %unfire and thus proceeded to investi%ate the "atter. +his incident "ay well be within the 0offense1 envisioned by par. 2 3b4 of ,ule 556! ,ules of Court. 's the Court held in .eople of the .hilippines vs. Sucro! 0an offense is co""itted in the presence or within the view of an officer! within the "eanin% of the rule authorizin% an arrest without a warrant! when the officer sees the offense! althou%h at a distance! or )E',S +)E 7IS+(,8'*CES C,E'+E7 +)E,E8$ '*7 .,9CEE7S '+ 9*CE +9 +)E SCE*E +)E,E9 .1 Cri"inal Law; Ille%al possession of firear"s; .rohibited acts under .res. 7ecree *o. 5:;;.Section 5 of ..7. *o. 5:;; penalizes 0any person who shall unlawfully "anufacture! deal in! ac&uire! dispose! or possess any firear"! .',+ 9 I,E',<! a""unition or "achinery! tool or instru"ent used or intended to be used in the "anufacture of any firear" or a""unition.1 It is clear that the law "a/es no distinction as to serviceable or functional firear"s. Indeed! the possession of even a part of a firear" is sufficient to co"e within the prohibitive a"bit of the statute. (bi lex non distin%uit nec nos distin%uere debe"us. =.eople vs. Evaristo! >5; SC,' ?6535@@>4A %eo."e -s$ A"o"o&, 200 S RA 1(4, 12$R$$ Nos$ 117(00<(75 6Jan$ 7, 13378 *+at is a f"agrante &e"i!to arrest9 #s it an arrest ,it+ a ,arrant9 ;o, ,as A"o"o& arreste&9 *as t+e arrest -a"i&9 Evidence; +esti"ony; Witnesses; ,ecollection of different witnesses with respect to ti"e! place and other circu"stances of a cri"inal event would naturally differ in various details.'fter a careful assess"ent of the evidence! we hold that the inconsistencies alle%ed by the accused are "ore apparent than real! and that there is no co"pellin% reason to disturb the findin%s of the trial court in this re%ard. Witnesses Caa"ic and *obio were consistent in their clai" that the accused %rabbed the blue plastic ba% fro" de Bera and that they wrestled with each other until 'lolod shot the victi" twice because the latter would not yield the ba% to hi". +he inconsistencies if at all are not on "aterial points because they only refer to sli%ht variations in the ti"e and relative positions of the parties when the %un was fired. ,ecollection of different witnesses with respect to ti"e! place and other circu"stances of a cri"inal event would naturally differ in various details. *ot all persons who witness an incident are i"pressed in the sa"e "anner and it is but natural that in relatin% their i"pressions! they disa%ree on the "inor details and that there be contradictions in their testi"onies. Witnesses cannot be expected to recollect with exactitude every "inute detail of an event. +his is especially true when the witnesses testify as to facts which transpired in rapid succession! attended by flurry and excite"ent. +he testi"ony of each witness should not be expected to be identical to and coincidin% with each other. It is enou%h that the principal points covered by their testi"onies are established althou%h they do not dovetail in all detailswhich would even prove wellCrehearsed and studied declarations. If witnesses should a%ree as to every detail of a transaction which occupied a considerable space of ti"e! and should underta/e to tell all that occurred in precisely the sa"e order! each %ivin% the sa"e incident as the other in precisely the sa"e words! that fact would be of itself a suspicious circu"stance. Sa"e; Sa"e; Credibility of Witness; +he fact that Liberato failed to state that he saw the face of the accusedCappellant does not render his testi"ony less credible.+he fact that Liberato failed to state that he saw the face of accusedCappellant does not render his testi"ony less credible. It was difficult for the police"an to see the faces of the "en en%a%ed in the s&uabble fro" an initial distance of ei%hty 3:D4 "eters. It "ust be noted however that when 'lolod ran away fro" the scene leavin% behind the victi" prostrate on the %round! Liberato chased hi" until the latter was apprehended. +he incident happened in broad dayli%ht so that it was easy to note the %eneral appearance of the accused! the color of his clothes! and the fact that he was the person who stopped fi%htin% with the victi"
5

and stood up to flee and elude arrest. When finally apprehended he was holdin% a hand%un which was still s"ellin% of %unpowder. )e also had the blue plastic ba% with the "oney. Sa"e; Sa"e; Sa"e; Contradictions of a witness on "inor details do not destroy the effectiveness of his testi"ony because they are %enerally due to innocent "ista/es and not to deliberate falsehood. ro" the testi"ony of Caa"ic we observed that he was consistent as to the %unshots he heardthe first shot while he was inside the #eep! and the other! while sca"perin% fro" the scene of the cri"e. )e did clai" hearin% additional shots while ne%otiatin% a lon%er distance! but it is &uite possible that Caa"ic "erely i"a%ined two 3>4 or "ore shots because he was nervously runnin% for his life. Contradictions of a witness on "inor details do not destroy the effectiveness of his testi"ony because they are %enerally due to innocent "ista/es and not to deliberate falsehood. .ersons are easily liable to co""it errors in the observation and recollection of "inute details of an i"portant occurrence. 'nd even if it be true! Caa"ic never attributed the additional %unshots to the accused. +hese %unshots "i%ht have co"e fro" so"ebody else-s %un. It still stands however that there were only two 3>4 spent shells in the cha"ber of the %un ta/en fro" 'lolod. Sa"e; Sa"e; Sa"e; ,e%ular .erfor"ance of 7uty; +he police officers have in their favor the presu"ption that official duty has been re%ularly perfor"ed.+he police officers have in their favor the presu"ption that official duty has been re%ularly perfor"ed. +his presu"ption has not been overco"e by the defense. In the li%ht of the physical evidencethe %un that was s"ellin% of %unpowder and the confiscated plastic ba% containin% "oneycontrary oral assertions cannot nor"ally prevail. Ereater credence is %iven to physical evidence as evidence of the hi%hest order because it spea/s "ore elo&uently than a hundred witnesses. Cri"inal .rocedure; Warrantless 'rrest; +he arrest was "ade pursuant to pars. 3a4 and 3b4! Sec. 2 of ,ule 556 of the ,ules of Court which provide that a peace officer "ay effect warrantless arrest when in his presence the person to be arrested has co""itted! is actually co""ittin%! or is atte"ptin% to co""it an offfense or! an offense has #ust in fact been co""itted! and he has personal /nowled%e of the facts indicatin% that the person to be arrested has co""itted it.+he police officers! particularly S.95 Liberato! appropriately responded to the call of duty by i""ediately chasin% the suspected cri"inal. +here is no persuasive proof that Liberato had any ill "otive in pointin% cri"inal responsibility to the accused. +he arrest was "ade pursuant to pars. 3a4 and 3b4! Sec. 2! of ,ule 556 of the ,ules of Court which provide that a peace officer "ay effect warrantless arrest when in his presence the person to be arrested has co""itted! is actually co""ittin%! or is atte"ptin% to co""it an offense or! an offense has #ust in fact been co""itted! and he has personal /nowled%e of the facts indicatin% that the person to be arrested has co""itted it. Sa"e; Sa"e; +he warrantless arrest bein% le%al! any evidence %athered as a result thereof cannot be considered 0fruit of a poisonous tree1; conse&uently! it is ad"issible.S.95 Liberato arrived when accused 'lolod and victi" ,o"eo de Bera were still wrestlin% with each other. 's the officer approached the" 'lolod ran away so that Liberato had no recourse but pursue hi" until he was arrested. +hat was a le%iti"ate arrest without warrant. 'lolod was actually co""ittin% a cri"e in the presence of the police officer or at least had #ust co""itted it! and the police officer had personal /nowled%e of the facts indicatin% that 'lolod had co""itted the cri"e. In this case! the warrantless arrest bein% le%al! any evidence %athered as a result thereof cannot be considered 0fruit of a poisonous tree1; conse&uently! it is ad"issible. =.eople vs. 'lolod! >;; SC,' 52?35@@F4A %eo."e -s$ Ya., 223 S RA 747, 12$R$ No$ 10'(175 6=e:$ 3, 13348 ;o, ,as Ya. arreste&9 *+at is a :uy<:ust o.eration9 *+o are in-o"-e& in a :uy<:ust o.eration9 *as t+e arrest -a"i&9 Cri"inal .rocedure; Evidence; What is essential in order that an offer of testi"ony "ay be valid is that the witness be called and as/ed appropriate &uestions.In actual practice! there is a difference between presentation or introduction of evidence and offer of such evidence at the trial of a case. +he presentation of evidence consists of puttin% in as evidence the testi"ony of the witnesses or the docu"ents relevant to the issue. 'n offer of evidence! on the other hand! "eans the state"ent "ade by counsel as to what he expects to prove throu%h the witness. +his is what trial lawyers understand by the 0offer of evidence.1 +hus! 0offer of evidence!1 as used in Section 6? of ,ule 56> "ust be understood to include the presentation or introduction of evidence. What is essential in order that an offer of testi"ony "ay be valid! therefore! is that the witness be called and as/ed appropriate &uestions. Cri"inal Law; 7an%erous 7ru%s 'ct; Evidence; ' buyCbust operation is a for" of entrap"ent e"ployed by peace officers to apprehend a "alefactor in fla%rante delicto.' buyCbust operation is a for" of entrap"ent e"ployed by peace officers to apprehend a "alefactor in fla%rante delicto! that is! to catch hi" redChanded while sellin% "ari#uana to a person actin% as a poseurCbuyer. Conse&uently! and contrary to the clai" of the defense! appellants were positively identified by the poseurCbuyer! ,aterta! and S%t. <u%ot! who were undeniably eyewitnesses to the cri"e. Sa"e; Sa"e; Sa"e; Witnesses; indin%s of fact of the trial court on the "atter of credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal! exceptions.'ppellants! as is to be expected! sou%ht to assail the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. 'vailin% of the very sa"e case cited by appellants! we reiterate the doctrine in .eople vs. 8aduya that the findin%s of fact of the trial court on the "atter of credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any showin% that the trial court overloo/ed! "isunderstood or "isapplied so"e fact or circu"stance of wei%ht and substance that would have affected the result of the case. +he exceptions "entioned therein do not obtain and find no application in the case under consideration. Sa"e; Sa"e; Sa"e; +he defense of fra"eCup "ust be proved by clear and convincin% evidence.'side fro" the presu"ption of re%ularity in the dischar%e of their functions! there is no snowin% that the a%ents were actuated by i"proper "otives! hence their testi"onies are entitled to full faith and credit. +he defense of fra"eCup "ust be proved by clear and convincin% evidence. Li/e alibi! it is a wea/ defense that is easy to concoct and difficult to prove. Sa"e; Sa"e; Sa"e; Court has e"phasized that dru% pushers sell their prohibited wares to custo"ers be they stran%ers or not in private as well as in public places.'ppellants invo/e the discredited theory that it is unli/ely for the" to sell prohibited dru%s to an un/nown person li/e ,aterta and in a public place li/e the "ar/et. In a lon% line of cases! the Court has e"phasized that dru% pushers
>

sell their prohibited wares to custo"ers! be they stran%ers or not! in private as well as in public places. If pushers peddle dru%s only to persons /nown to the"! then dru% abuse would not be as ra"pant as it is now and would not pose a serious and %rave threat to society. What actually "atters is not fa"iliarity between the seller and buyer but their a%ree"ent and acts constitutin% the sale and delivery of the vile prohibited dru%s. =.eople vs. $ap! >>@ SC,' F:F35@@?4A %eo."e -s$ 7e Lara, 2'0 S RA 231, 12$R$ No$ 343('5, 6Se.t$ (, 13348 Same as in Ya.$ *+at is >+ot .ursuit? in .o"i!e .ar"an!e9 Cri"inal Law; 7an%erous 7ru%s 'ct; Evidence; 'rrest; )avin% cau%ht the appellant in fla%rante as a result of the buyCbust operation! the police"en were not only authorized but were also under obli%ation to apprehend the dru% pusher even without a warrant of arrest. In the case at bench! appellant was cau%ht redChanded in deliverin% two tin foils of "ari#uana to .at. 9rolfo! Gr.! the poseurCbuyer. 'pplyin% the afore"entioned provision of law! appellant-s arrest was lawfully effected without need of a warrant of arrest. 0)avin% cau%ht the appellant in fla%rante as a result of the buyCbust operation! the police"en were not only authorized but were also under obli%ation to apprehend the dru% pusher even without a warrant of arrest.1 Sa"e; Sa"e; Sa"e; Sa"e; +he arrest that followed the hotpursuit was valid.+he police"en-s entry into the house of appellant without a search warrant was in hotCpursuit of a person cau%ht co""ittin% an offense in fla%rante. +he arrest that followed the hotpursuit was valid. Sa"e; Sa"e; Sa"e; Sa"e; ' conte"poraneous search "ay be conducted upon the person of the arrestee and the i""ediate vicinity where the arrest was "ade.+he seizure of the plastic ba% containin% prohibited dru%s was the result of appellant-s arrest inside his house. ' conte"poraneous search "ay be conducted upon the person of the arrestee and the i""ediate vicinity where the arrest was "ade. Sa"e; Sa"e; Sa"e; Constitutional Law; +he docu"ents are inad"issible in evidence for the reason that there was no showin% that appellant was then assisted by counsel nor his waiver thereto put into writin%.+he said docu"ents are inad"issible in evidence for the reason that there was no showin% that appellant was then assisted by counsel nor his waiver thereto put into writin%. Sa"e; Sa"e; .enalty; Section ?! 'rticle II of the 7an%erous 7ru%s 'ct of 5@F> as a"ended by 8... 8l%. 5F@ was further a"ended by ,.'. *o. F;2@.+he trial court sentenced appellant to suffer the penalty of life i"prison"ent and to pay a fine of .>D!DDD.DD pursuant to Section ?! 'rticle II of the 7an%erous 7ru%s 'ct of 5@F>! as a"ended by 8... 8l%. 5F@. )owever! said law was further a"ended by ,.'. *o. F;2@. Sa"e; Sa"e; Sa"e; 'ppellant is entitled to benefit fro" the reduction of the penalty introduced by ,' *o. F;2@.+he provision of 'rticle >> of the ,evised .enal Code! which states that 0penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the person %uilty of a felony!1 finds "eanin% in this case. 'ppellant is entitled to benefit fro" the reduction of the penalty introduced by ,.'. *o. F;2@. =.eople vs. 7e Lara! >6; SC,' >@535@@?4A Mana"i"i -s$ ourt of A..ea"s, 240 S RA 400, 12$R$ No$ 11'4475 6O!t$ 3, 13378 #m.ortant !ase *+at is >sto. an& fris@9? *+at is .ro:a:"e !ause in a ,arrant"ess arrest9 Constitutional Law; Searches and Seizures; +he search was valid! bein% a/in to a stopCandCfris/; StopCandC ris/; 7efined.We disa%ree with petitioner and hold that the search was valid! bein% a/in to a stopCandCfris/. In the land"ar/ case of +erry vs. 9hio! a stopCandCfris/ was defined as the vernacular desi%nation of the ri%ht of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street! interro%ate hi"! and pat hi" for weapon3s4. Sa"e; Sa"e; Eenerally a search and seizure "ust be validated by a previously secured #udicial warrant; otherwise! such search and seizure is unconstitutional and sub#ect to challen%e.In .hilippine #urisprudence! the %eneral rule is that a search and seizure "ust be validated by a previously secured #udicial warrant; otherwise! such search and seizure is unconstitutional and sub#ect to challen%e. Sa"e; Sa"e; Evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional provision is le%ally inad"issible in evidence.'ny evidence obtained in violation of the "entioned provision is le%ally inad"issible in evidence as a 0fruit of the poisonous tree!1 fallin% under the exclusionary rule. Sa"e; Sa"e; ive ,eco%nized Exceptions to the ,ule '%ainst Warrantless Search and Seizure.+his ri%ht! however! is not absolute. +he recent case of .eople vs. Lacerna enu"erated five reco%nized exceptions to the rule a%ainst warrantless search and seizure! viz.H 0354 search incidental to a lawful arrest! 3>4 search of "ovin% vehicles! 364 seizure in plain view! 3?4 custo"s search! and 324 waiver by the accused the"selves of their ri%ht a%ainst unreasonable search and seizure.1 Sa"e; Sa"e; 7efinition of .robable Cause.In .eople vs. Encinada! the Court further explained that 0=iAn these cases! the search and seizure "ay be "ade only with probable cause as the essential re&uire"ent. 'lthou%h the ter" eludes exact definition! probable cause for a search is! at best! defined as a reasonable %round of suspicion! supported by circu"stances sufficiently stron% in the"selves to warrant a cautious "an in the belief that the person accused is %uilty of the offense with which he is char%ed; or the existence of such facts and circu"stances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent "an to believe that an offense has been co""itted and that the ite"3s4! article3s4 or ob#ect3s4 sou%ht in connection with said offense or sub#ect to seizure and destruction by law is in the place to be searched.1 Sa"e; Sa"e; StopCandCfris/ adopted as another exception to the %eneral rule a%ainst a search without a warrant.StopCandCfris/ has already been adopted as another exception to the %eneral rule a%ainst a search without a warrant. In .osadas vs. Court of 'ppeals! the Court held that there were "any instances where a search and seizure could be effected without necessarily bein% preceded by an arrest! one of which was stopCandCfris/. In said case! "e"bers of the Inte%rated *ational .olice of 7avao stopped petitioner! who was carryin% a buri ba% and actin% suspiciously. +hey found inside petitioner-s ba% one .6:Ccal. revolver with two rounds of live
6

a""unition! two live a""unitions for a .>>Ccal. %un and a tear %as %renade. In upholdin% the le%ality of the search! the Court said that to re&uire the police officers to search the ba% only after they had obtained a search warrant "i%ht prove to be useless! futile and "uch too late under the circu"stances. In such a situation! it was reasonable for a police officer to stop a suspicious individual briefly in order to deter"ine his identity or to "aintain the status &uo while obtainin% "ore infor"ation! rather than to si"ply shru% his shoulders and allow a cri"e to occur. Sa"e; Sa"e; Court concurs with the Solicitor Eeneral-s contention that petitioner effectively waived the inad"issibility of any evidence ille%ally obtained when he failed to raise this issue or to ob#ect thereto durin% the trial. urther"ore! we concur with the Solicitor Eeneral-s contention that petitioner effectively waived the inad"issibility of any evidence ille%ally obtained when he failed to raise this issue or to ob#ect thereto durin% the trial. ' valid waiver of a ri%ht! "ore particularly of the constitutional ri%ht a%ainst unreasonable search! re&uires the concurrence of the followin% re&uire"entsH 354 the ri%ht to be waived existed; 3>4 the person waivin% it had /nowled%e! actual or constructive! thereof; and 364 he or she had an actual intention to relin&uish the ri%ht. Sa"e; Sa"e; Issues not raised below cannot be pleaded for the first ti"e on appeal.9therwise! the Courts will indul%e every reasonable presu"ption a%ainst waiver of funda"ental safe%uards and will not deduce ac&uiescence fro" the failure to exercise this ele"entary ri%ht. In the present case! however! petitioner is dee"ed to have waived such ri%ht for his failure to raise its violation before the trial court. In petitions under ,ule ?2! as distin%uished fro" an ordinary appeal of cri"inal cases where the whole case is opened for review! the appeal is %enerally li"ited to the errors assi%ned by petitioner. Issues not raised below cannot be pleaded for the first ti"e on appeal. Cri"inal .rocedure; Evidence; Witnesses; Court has ruled that the trial court-s assess"ent of the credibility of witnesses! particularly when affir"ed by the Court of 'ppeals is accorded %reat wei%ht and respect.+i"e and a%ain! this Court has ruled that the trial court-s assess"ent of the credibility of witnesses! particularly when affir"ed by the Court of 'ppeals as in this case! is accorded %reat wei%ht and respect! since it had the opportunity to observe their de"eanor and deport"ent as they testified before it. (nless substantial facts and circu"stances have been overloo/ed or "isappreciated by the trial court which! if considered! would "aterially affect the result of the case! we will not countenance a departure fro" this rule. Cri"inal Law; 7an%erous 7ru%s 'ct; Ele"ents of Ille%al .ossession of <ari#uana.+he ele"ents of ille%al possession of "ari#uana areH 3a4 the accused is in possession of an ite" or ob#ect which is identified to be a prohibited dru%; 3b4 such possession is not authorized by law; and 3c4 the accused freely and consciously possessed the said dru%. Sa"e; Sa"e; Evidence; 7efense of fra"eCup! li/e alibi! is viewed by the Court with disfavor! because it is easy to concoct and fabricate. urther"ore! li/e the trial and the appellate courts! we have not been %iven sufficient %rounds to believe the extortion an%le in this case. .etitioner did not file any ad"inistrative or cri"inal case a%ainst the arrestin% officers or present any evidence other than his bare clai". )is ar%u"ent that he feared for his life was la"e and unbelievable! considerin% that he was released on bail and continued to be on bail as early as 'pril >;! 5@::. Since then! he could have "ade the char%e in relative safety! as he was no lon%er in the custody of the police. )is defense of fra"eCup! li/e alibi! is viewed by this Court with disfavor! because it is easy to concoct and fabricate. =<analili vs. Court of 'ppeals! >:D SC,' ?DD35@@F4A %eo."e -s$ Li:nao, '3( S RA 407, 12$R$ No$ 1'04005 6Jan$ 20, 200'8 ;o, ,as Li:nao arreste&9 *as t+ere a ,arrant9 *+at are t+e instan!es ,+en a ,arrant"ess arrest is -a"i&9 *+en is a sear!+ of a mo-ing -e+i!"e -a"i&9 Constitutional Law; Searches and Seizures; +he constitutional %uarantee e"bodied in 'rticle III! Section > of the 5@:F Constitution is not a blan/et prohibition a%ainst all searches and seizures as it operates only a%ainst 0unreasonable1 searches and seizures.+hese ar%u"ents fail to i"press. +he %eneral rule is that a search "ay be conducted by law enforcers only on the stren%th of a search warrant validly issued by a #ud%e as provided in 'rticle III! Section > of the 5@:F Constitution! thusH 0+he ri%ht of the people to be secure in their persons! houses! papers and effects a%ainst unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable! and no search warrant and warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be deter"ined personally by the #ud%e after exa"ination under oath or affir"ation of the co"plainant and the witnesses he "ay produce! and particularly describin% the place to be searched and the persons or thin%s to be seized.1 +he constitutional %uarantee is not a blan/et prohibition a%ainst all searches and seizures as it operates only a%ainst 0unreasonable1 searches and seizures. Searches and seizures are as a rule unreasonable unless authorized by a validly issued search warrant or warrant of arrest. +hus! the funda"ental protection accorded by the search and seizure clause is that between persons and police "ust stand the protective authority of a "a%istrate clothed with power to issue or refuse to issue search warrants and warrants of arrest. Sa"e; Sa"e; Exceptions to Warrant ,e&uire"ent; Search of <ovin% Behicles; .eace officers in warrantless search of "ovin% vehicles are li"ited to routine chec/s where the exa"ination of the vehicles is li"ited to visual inspection.8e that as it "ay! the re&uire"ent that a #udicial warrant "ust be obtained prior to the carryin% out of a search and seizure is not absolute. +here are certain fa"iliar exceptions to the rule! one of which relates to search of "ovin% vehicles. Warrantless search and seizure of "ovin% vehicles are allowed in reco%nition of the i"practicability of securin% a warrant under said circu"stances as the vehicle can be &uic/ly "oved out of the locality or #urisdiction in which the warrant "ay be sou%ht. .eace officers in such cases! however! are li"ited to routine chec/s where the exa"ination of the vehicle is li"ited to visual inspection. When a vehicle is stopped and sub#ected to an extensive search! such would be constitutionally per"issible only if the officers "ade it upon probable cause! i.e.! upon a belief! reasonably arisin% out of circu"stances /nown to the seizin% officer! that an auto"obile or other vehicle contains as ite"! article or ob#ect which by law is sub#ect to seizure and destruction.
?

Sa"e; Sa"e; Sa"e; Where the police had been conductin% surveillance operations for three "onths in the area! which surveillance yielded the infor"ation that once a "onth! the two accused transport dru%s in bi% bul/s! and at 5DHDD one ni%ht! the police received a tip that the two will be transportin% dru%s that ni%ht ridin% a tricycle! the two bein% intercepted three hours later! ridin% a tricycle and carryin% a suspiciousCloo/in% blac/ ba%! and when as/ed who owned and what its content was! both beca"e uneasy! the warrantless search and seizure of the ba% was not ille%al.+he warrantless search in the case at bench is not bereft of a probable cause. +he +arlac .olice Intelli%ence 7ivision had been conductin% surveillance operation for three "onths in the area. +he Surveillance yielded the infor"ation that once a "onth! appellant and her coCaccused ,osita *un%a transport dru%s in bi% bul/s. 't 5DHDD p" of 9ctober 5@! 5@@;! the police received a tip that the two will be transportin% dru%s that ni%ht ridin% a tricycle. Surely! the two were intercepted three hours later! ridin% a tricycle and carryin% a suspiciousCloo/in% blac/ ba%! which possibly contained the dru%s in bul/. When they were as/ed who owned it and what its content was! both beca"e uneasy. (nder these circu"stances! the warrantless search and seizure of appellant-s ba% was not ille%al. Sa"e; Sa"e; Warrantless 'rrests; In la%rante 7elicto; 9ne of the instances a police officer is per"itted to carry out a warrantless arrest is when the person to be arrested is cau%ht co""ittin% a cri"e.It is also clear that at the ti"e she was apprehended! she was co""ittin% a cri"inal offense. She was "a/in% a delivery or transportin% prohibited dru%s in violation of 'rticle II! Section ? of ,.'. *o. ;?>2. (nder the ,ules of Court! one of the instances a police officer is per"itted to carry out a warrantless arrest is when the person to be arrested is cau%ht co""ittin% a cri"e in fla%rante delicto. .leadin%s and .ractice; or"al 9ffer of Evidence; Evidence not for"ally offered can be considered by the court as lon% as they have been properly identified by testi"ony duly recorded and they have the"selves been incorporated in the records of the case. 'ppellant then faults the trial court for appreciatin% and ta/in% into account the ob#ect and docu"entary evidence of the prosecution despite the latter-s failure to for"ally offer the". 'bsent any for"al offer! she ar%ues that they a%ain "ust be dee"ed inad"issible. +he contention is untenable. Evidence not for"ally offered can be considered by the court as lon% as they have been properly identified by testi"ony duly recorded and they have the"selves been incorporated in the records of the case. 'll the docu"entary and ob#ect evidence in this case were properly identified! presented and "ar/ed as exhibits in court! includin% the bric/s of "ari#uana. Even without their for"al offer! therefore! the prosecution can still establish the case because witnesses properly identified those exhibits! and their testi"onies are recorded. urther"ore! appellant-s counsel had crossCexa"ined the prosecution witnesses who testified on the exhibits. Cri"inal Law; Witnesses; +esti"onies of witnesses need only corroborate each other on i"portant and relevant details concernin% the principal occurrence.'%ain! appellant-s ar%u"ents lac/ "erit. +he alle%ed inconsistencies she "entions refer only to "inor details and not to "aterial points re%ardin% the basic ele"ents of the cri"e. +hey are inconse&uential that they do not affect the credibility of the witnesses nor detract fro" the established fact that appellant and her coCaccused were transportin% "ari#uana. +esti"onies of witnesses need only corroborate each other on i"portant and relevant details concernin% the principal occurrence. +he identity of the person who opened the ba% is clearly i""aterial to the %uilt of the appellant. 8esides! it is to be expected that the testi"ony of witnesses re%ardin% the sa"e incident "ay be inconsistent in so"e aspects because different persons "ay have different recollections of the sa"e incident. Sa"e; 7an%erous 7ru%s 'ct; 'libis and 7enials; +he defense of denial and alibi has been invariably viewed by the courts with disfavor for it can #ust as easily be concocted and is a co""on and standard defense ploy in "ost cases involvin% violation of the 7an%erous 7ru%s 'ct.'%ainst the credible positive testi"onies of the prosecution witnesses! appellant-s defense of denial and alibi cannot stand. +he defense of denial and alibi has been invariably viewed by the courts with disfavor for it can #ust as easily be concocted and is a co""on and standard defense ploy in "ost cases involvin% violation of the 7an%erous 7ru%s 'ct. It has to be substantiated by clear and convincin% evidence. +he sole proof presented in the lower court by the appellant to support her clai" of denial and alibi was a sworn state"ent! which was not even affir"ed on the witness stand by the affiant. )ence! we re#ect her defense. =.eople vs. Libnao! 6@2 SC,' ?DF3>DD64A %eo."e -s$ So"ayao, 202 S RA 2((, 12$R$ No$ 1132205, 6Se.t$ 20, 13308 ;o, ,as So"ayao arreste&9 *as t+ere a ,arrant of arrest9 *as t+e arrest a >sto. an& fris@? situation9 *+at s+ou"& :e t+e seAuen!e in a ,arrantess arrest B arrest t+en sear!+ or sear!+ t+en arrest9 Cri"inal Law; Ille%al .ossession of irear"; Evidence; Essential ele"ents to prove the cri"e of ille%al possession of firear".+his Court! in the case of .eople v. Lualhati ruled that in cri"es involvin% ille%al possession of firear"! the prosecution has the burden of provin% the ele"ents thereof! vizH 3a4 the existence of the sub#ect firear" and 3b4 the fact that the accused who owned or possessed it does not have the correspondin% license or per"it to possess the sa"e. Sa"e; Sa"e; Sa"e; Search Warrant; +he case at bar constitutes an instance where a search and seizure "ay be effected without first "a/in% an arrest.'s with .osadas! the case at bar constitutes an instance where a search and seizure "ay be effected without first "a/in% an arrest. +here was #ustifiable cause to 0stop and fris/1 accusedCappellant when his co"panions fled upon seein% the %overn"ent a%ents. (nder the circu"stances! the %overn"ent a%ents could not possibly have procured a search warrant first. Sa"e; Sa"e; Sa"e; Sa"e; +here was no violation of the constitutional %uarantee a%ainst unreasonable searches and seizures.+hus! there was no violation of the constitutional %uarantee a%ainst unreasonable searches and seizures. *or was there error on the part of the trial court when it ad"itted the ho"e"ade firear" as evidence. Sa"e; Sa"e; Sa"e; +he absence of license and le%al authority constitutes an essential in%redient of the offense of ille%al possession of firear" and every in%redient or essential ele"ent of an offense "ust be shown by the prosecution by proof beyond reasonable doubt. (ndoubtedly! it is the constitutional presu"ption of innocence that lays such burden upon the prosecution. +he absence of such
2

license and le%al authority constitutes an essential in%redient of the offense of ille%al possession of firear"! and every in%redient or essential ele"ent of an offense "ust be shown by the prosecution by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Sa"e; Sa"e; Sa"e; 'n ad"ission in cri"inal cases is insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt the co""ission of the cri"e char%ed.8y its very nature! an 0ad"ission is the "ere ac/nowled%"ent of a fact or of circu"stances fro" which %uilt "ay be inferred! tendin% to incri"inate the spea/er! but not sufficient of itself to establish his %uilt.1 In other words! it is a 0state"ent by defendant of fact or facts pertinent to issues pendin%! in connection with proof of other facts or circu"stances! to prove %uilt! but which is! of itself! insufficient to authorize conviction.1 ro" the above principles! this Court can infer that an ad"ission in cri"inal cases is insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt the co""ission of the cri"e char%ed. =.eople vs. Solayao! >;> SC,' >2235@@;4A %osa&as -s, ourt of A..ea"s, 144 S RA 244, 12$R$ No$ 431'35 6Aug$ 2, 13308 Same as in So"ayao$ Cri"inal .rocedure; 'rrest; Search and Seizure; Instances when an arrest without a warrant "ay be effected. ro" the fore%oin% provision of law it is clear that an arrest without a warrant "ay be effected by a peace officer or private person! a"on% others! when in his presence the person to be arrested has co""itted! is actually co""ittin%! or is atte"ptin% to co""it an offense; of when an offense has in fact #ust been co""itted! and he has personal /nowled%e of the facts indicatin% that the person arrested has co""itted it. Sa"e; Sa"e; Sa"e; Constitutional Law; +he Istop and searchI without a search warrant at "ilitary or police chec/points is constitutional.)owever! there are "any instances where a warrant and seizure can be effected without necessarily bein% preceded by an arrest! fore"ost of which is the Istop and searchI without a search warrant at "ilitary or police chec/points! the constitutionality or validity of which has been upheld by this Court in Bal"onte vs. de Billa. Sa"e; Sa"e; Sa"e; Sa"e; .robable cause present in the case at bar.+hus! as between a warrantless search and seizure conducted at "ilitary or police chec/points and the search thereat in the case at bar! there is no &uestion that! indeed! the latter is "ore reasonable considerin% that unli/e in the for"er! it was effected on the basis of a probable cause. +he probable cause is that when the petitioner acted suspiciously and atte"pted to flee with the buri ba% there was a probable cause that he was concealin% so"ethin% ille%al in the ba% and it was the ri%ht and duty of the police officers to inspect the sa"e! =.osadas vs. Court of 'ppeals! 5:: SC,' >::35@@D4A %eo."e -s$ anton, '34 S RA 474, 1 2$R$ No$ 14442(5 67e!$ 27, 20028 ;o, ,as anton arreste&9 *as it a -a"i& arrest9 Constitutional Law; Searches and Seizures; +he Constitution bars State intrusions to a person-s body! personal effects or residence except if conducted by virtue of a valid search warrant issued in co"pliance with the procedure outlined in the Constitution and reiterated in the ,ules of Court; Interdiction a%ainst warrantless searches and seizures not absolute! exceptions.What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search in any particular case is a #udicial &uestion! deter"inable fro" a consideration of the circu"stances involved. +he rule is that the Constitution bars State intrusions to a person-s body! personal effects or residence except if conducted by virtue of a valid search warrant issued in co"pliance with the procedure outlined in the Constitution and reiterated in the ,ules of Court. +he interdiction a%ainst warrantless searches and seizures is not absolute. +he reco%nized exceptions established by #urisprudence are 354 search of "ovin% vehicles; 3>4 seizure in plain view; 364 custo"s searches; 3?4 waiver or consented searches; 324 stop and fris/ situations 3+erry search4; and 3;4 search incidental to a lawful arrest. Sa"e; Sa"e; In a search incidental to a lawful arrest! the law re&uires that there be first a lawful arrest before a search can be "ade; the process cannot be reversed.'s pointed out by the appellant! prior to the strip search in the ladies- roo"! the airport security personnel had no /nowled%e yet of what were hidden on S(S'*-s body; hence! they did not /now yet whether a cri"e was bein% co""itted. It was only after the strip search upon the discovery by the police officers of the white crystalline substances inside the pac/a%es! which they believed to be shabu! that S(S'* was arrested. +he search cannot! therefore! be said to have been done incidental to a lawful arrest. In a search incidental to a lawful arrest! the law re&uires that there be first a lawful arrest before a search can be "ade; the process cannot be reversed. Sa"e; Sa"e; 'ppellant-s subse&uent arrest without a warrant was #ustified since it was effected upon the discovery and recovery of shabu in her person fla%rante delicto.+he search conducted on S(S'* resulted in the discovery and recovery of three pac/a%es containin% white crystalline substances! which upon exa"ination yielded positive results for "etha"pheta"ine hydrochloride or shabu. 's discussed earlier! such warrantless search and seizure were le%al. 'r"ed with the /nowled%e that S(S'* was co""ittin% a cri"e! the airport security personnel and police authorities were dutyCbound to arrest her. 's held in .eople v. Gohnson! her subse&uent arrest without a warrant was #ustified! since it was effected upon the discovery and recovery of shabu in her person fla%rante delicto. =.eople vs. Canton! 6@? SC,' ?F:3>DD>4A %a.a -s$Mago, 22 S RA 4(7 1 CNo$ L<27'005 6=e:$ 24, 13048 *+o inter!e.te& Mago9 Dn&er ,+at "a, ,as t+e inter!e.tion Eustifie&9 *as a sear!+ ,arrant nee&e&9 Custo"s laws; 8ureau of Custo"s; 7uties and powers.+he 8ureau of Custo"s has the duties! powers and #urisdiction! a"on% others! 354 to assess and collect all lawful revenues fro" i"ported articles! and all other dues! fees! char%es! fines and penalties! accruin% under the tariff and custo"s laws; 3>4 to prevent and suppress s"u%%lin% and other frauds upon the custo"s; and 364 to enforce tariff and custo"s laws. 's lon% as the i"portation has not been ter"inated the i"ported %oods re"ain under the #urisdiction of the 8ureau of Custo"s.
;

Sa"e; Sa"e; I"portation; When dee"ed ter"inated; Case at bar.I"portation is dee"ed ter"inated only upon the pay"ent of the duties! taxes and other char%es upon the articles! or secured to be paid! at the port of entry and the le%al per"it for withdrawal shall have been %ranted. +he pay"ent of the duties! taxes! fees and other char%es "ust be in full. In the case at bar! the record shows that the duties! taxes and other char%es had not been paid in full. <erchandise! the i"portation of which is effected contrary to law! is sub#ect to forfeiture! and %oods released contrary to law are sub#ect to seizure and forfeiture. Sa"e; I"portation; (nderdeclaration of &uantity of i"portation; Effect.+he record shows that the &uantity of the %oods were underdeclared! presu"ably to avoid the pay"ent of duties thereon. +he articles in &uestion were! therefore! sub#ect to forfeiture under Section >26D! pars. e and "! 354! 364! 3?4! and 324 of the +ariff and Custo"s Code. 'nd this Court has held that "erchandise! the i"portation of which is effected contrary to law! is sub#ect to forfeiture! and that %oods released contrary to law are sub#ect to seizure and forfeiture. Sa"e; 8ureau of Custo"s; Gurisdiction; Where %oods had been brou%ht out of custo"s area; Effect; Case at bar.Even if the %oods in &uestion had been brou%ht out of the custo"s area and that the 8ureau of Custo"s had lost #urisdiction over the sa"e! nevertheless! when said %oods were intercepted at the '%rifina Circle by "e"bers of the <anila .olice 7epart"ent actin% under directions and orders of their chief who had been for"ally deputized by the Co""issioner of Custo"s! the 8ureau of Custo"s had re%ained #urisdiction and custody of the %oods. Sa"e; Sa"e; Sa"e; Seizure and forfeiture of i"portations; Where no warrant of seizure or detention was issued by collector of custo"s in seizure proceedin%s; Case at bar.It is the settled rule! therefore! that the 8ureau of Custo"s ac&uires exclusive #urisdiction over i"ported %oods! for the purposes of enforce"ent of the custo"s laws! fro" the "o"ent the %oods are actually in its possession or control! even if no warrant of seizure or detention had previously been issued by the Collector of Custo"s in connection with seizure and forfeiture proceedin%s. In the present case! the 8ureau of Custo"s ac&uired #urisdiction over the %oods for the purposes of the enforce"ent of the tariff and custo"s laws! to the exclusion of the re%ular courts. <uch less then would the Court of irst Instance of <anila have #urisdiction over the %oods in &uestion after the Collector of Custo"s had issued the warrant of seizure and detention of Ganuary 5>! 5@;F. Sa"e; Sa"e; Sa"e; Sa"e; ,eason for the rule.I+o per"it recourse to the Court of irst Instance in cases of seizure of i"ported %oods would in effect render ineffective the power of the Custo"s authorities under the +ariff Code and deprive the Court of +ax 'ppeals of one of its exclusive appellate #urisdictions. 's this Court had ruled in .acis v. 'veria! LC>>2>;! *ov. >D! 5@;;! ,epublic 'cts 5@6F and 55>2 vest #urisdiction over seizure and forfeiture proceedin%s exclusively upon the 8ureau of Custo"s and the Court of +ax 'ppeals. Such law bein% special in nature while the Gudiciary 'ct definin% the #urisdiction of Courts of irst Instance is a %eneral le%islation! not to "ention that the for"er are later enact"ents! the Court of irst Instance should yield to the #urisdiction of the Custo"s authorities.I 37e Goya v. Lantin! LC>?D6F! 'pril >F! 5@;F4. Sa"e; Search and seizure by police authorities; Search warrant not necessary; Case at bar.+he +ariff and Custo"s Code does not re&uire any search warrant issued by a co"petent court before police authorities can effect the seizure. 8ut the Code re&uires it in the search of a dwellin% house. +herefore! except in the case of the search of a dwellin% house! persons exercisin% police authority under the custo"s laws "ay effect search and seizure without a search warrant in the enforce"ent of custo"s laws. +he seizure "ade by 'la%ao and his co"panion police"en is in accordance with law. =.apa vs. <a%o! >> SC,' :2F35@;:4A #n-a"i& ,arrant"ess sear!+ %eo."e -s La!erna, 274 S RA (01 12$R$ No$ F1032(0 ;o, ,as La!erna arreste&9 7i& t+e .o"i!e offi!ers +as .ro:a:"e !ause to sear!+ t+e "uggage of La!erna9 *sa t+ere a sear!+ ,arrant9 Cri"inal Law; 7an%erous 7ru%s 'ct; Constitutional Law; 'rrests and Seizures; ive %enerally accepted exceptions to the rule a%ainst warrantless arrest. ive %enerally accepted exceptions to the rule a%ainst warrantless arrest have also been #udicially for"ulated as followsH 354 search incidental to a lawful arrest! 3>4 search of "ovin% vehicles! 364 seizure in plain view! 3?4 custo"s searches! and 324 waiver by the accused the"selves of their ri%ht a%ainst unreasonable search and seizure. Search and seizure relevant to "ovin% vehicles are allowed in reco%nition of the i"practicability of securin% a warrant under said circu"stances. In such cases! however! the search and seizure "ay be "ade only upon probable cause! i.e.! upon a belief! reasonably arisin% out of circu"stances /nown to the seizin% officer! that an auto"obile or other vehicle contains an ite"! article or ob#ect which by law is sub#ect to seizure and destruction. <ilitary or police chec/points have also been declared to be not ille%al per se as lon% as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants sub#ected to body search! and the inspection of the vehicle is "erely visual. Sa"e; Sa"e; Sa"e; Sa"e; ' search of the lu%%a%e inside the vehicle would re&uire the existence of probable cause.In the case at bar! the taxicab occupied by appellant was validly stopped at the police chec/point by .96 Balenzuela. It should be stressed as a caveat that the search which is nor"ally per"issible in this instance is li"ited to routine chec/svisual inspection or flashin% a li%ht inside the car! without the occupants bein% sub#ected to physical or body searches. ' search of the lu%%a%e inside the vehicle would re&uire the existence of probable cause. Sa"e; Sa"e; Sa"e; Sa"e; Court held that there was probable cause in the followin% instances.In applicable earlier 7ecisions! this Court held that there was probable cause in the followin% instancesH 3a4 where the distinctive odor of "ari#uana e"anated fro" the plastic ba% carried by the accused; 3b4 where an infor"er positively identified the accused who was observed to have been actin% suspiciously; 3c4 where the accused fled when accosted by police"en; 3d4 where the accused who were ridin% a #eepney were stopped and searched by police"en who had earlier received confidential reports that said accused would transport a lar%e &uantity of
F

"ari#uana; and 3e4 where the "ovin% vehicle was stopped and searched on the basis of intelli%ence infor"ation and clandestine reports by a deep penetration a%ent or spyone who participated in the dru% s"u%%lin% activities of the syndicate to which the accused belon%edthat said accused were brin%in% prohibited dru%s into the country. Sa"e; Sa"e; Sa"e; Sa"e; Case at hand! probable cause is not evident.In the case at hand! however! probable cause is not evident. irst! the radio co""unication fro" Eeneral *azareno! which the arrestin% officers received and which they were i"ple"entin% at that ti"e! concerned possible cases of robbery and holdups in their area. Second! *oriel Lacerna-s suspicious reactions of hidin% his face and slouchin% in his seat when .96 Balenzuela-s car passed alon%side the taxicab "i%ht have annoyed the latter! or any other law enforcer! and "i%ht have caused hi" to suspect that so"ethin% was a"iss. 8ut these bare acts do not constitute probable cause to #ustify the search and seizure of appellant-s person and ba%%a%e. urther"ore! the Claudio rulin% cannot be applied to this case because the "ari#uana was securely pac/ed inside an airti%ht plastic ba% and no evidence! e.%.! a distinctive "ari#uana odor! was offered by the prosecution. Sa"e; Sa"e; .ossession of "ari#uana is absorbed in the sale thereof! exceptions.+he prevailin% doctrine is that possession of "ari#uana is absorbed in the sale thereof! except where the seller is further apprehended in possession of another &uantity of the prohibited dru%s not covered by or included in the sale and which are probably intended for so"e future dealin%s or use by the seller. Sa"e; Sa"e; .ossession is a necessary ele"ent in a prosecution for ille%al sale of prohibited dru%s..ossession is a necessary ele"ent in a prosecution for ille%al sale of prohibited dru%s. It is indispensable that the prohibited dru% sub#ect of the sale be identified and presented in court. +hat the corpus delicti of ille%al sale could not be established without a showin% that the accused possessed! sold and delivered a prohibited dru% clearly indicates that possession is an ele"ent of the for"er. +he sa"e rule is applicable in cases of delivery of prohibited dru%s and %ivin% the" away to another. Sa"e; Sa"e; Court identified the ele"ents of ille%al sale of prohibited dru%s in .eople vs. <anzano.In .eople vs. <anzano! the Court identified the ele"ents of ille%al sale of prohibited dru%s! as followsH 354 the accused sold and delivered a prohibited dru% to another! and 3>4 he /new that what he had sold and delivered was a dan%erous dru%. 'lthou%h it did not expressly state it! the Court stressed delivery! which i"plies prior possession of the prohibited dru%s. Sale of a prohibited dru% can never be proven without seizure and identification of the prohibited dru%! affir"in% that possession is a condition sine &ua non. Sa"e; Sa"e; Ele"ents of Ille%al .ossession of .rohibited 7ru%s. ro" the penal provision under consideration and fro" the cases ad#udicated! the ele"ents of ille%al possession of prohibited dru%s are as followsH 3a4 the accused is in possession of an ite" or ob#ect which is identified to be a prohibited dru%; 3b4 such possession is not authorized by law; and 3c4 the accused freely and consciously possessed the prohibited dru%. Sa"e; Sa"e; Evidence; Credibility of Witnesses; It is axio"atic that appellate courts accord the hi%hest respect to the assess"ent of witnesses- credibility by the trial court. urther! the trial court did not %ive credence to appellant-s denial. It is axio"atic that appellate courts accord the hi%hest respect to the assess"ent of witnesses- credibility by the trial court! because the latter was in a better position to observe their de"eanor and deport"ent on the witness stand. +he defense failed to present sufficient reasons showin% that the trial court had overloo/ed or "isconstrued any evidence of substance that would #ustify the reversal of its re#ection of appellant-s defense of denial. =.eople vs. Lacerna! >F: SC,' 2;535@@F4A %eo."e -s$ Go"asa, '21 S RA 4(3, 12$R, No$ 12(7(45 67e!$ 22, 13308 *as Go"asa arreste& un&er t+e >."ain -ie, &o!rineH? *as t+e arrest -a"i&9 *as t+e sear!+ -a"i&9 Cri"inal Law; Searches and Seizures; +he State cannot in a cavalier fashion intrude into the persons of its citizens as well as into their houses! papers and effects.+he State cannot in a cavalier fashion intrude into the persons of its citizens as well as into their houses! papers and effects. +he constitutional provision sheathes the private individual with an i"penetrable ar"or a%ainst unreasonable searches and seizures. It protects the privacy and sanctity of the person hi"self a%ainst unlawful arrests and other for"s of restraint! and prevents hi" fro" bein% irreversibly 0cut off fro" that do"estic security which renders the lives of the "ost unhappy in so"e "easure a%reeable.1 Sa"e; Sa"e; Balid Warrantless Searches. or sure! this constitutional %uarantee is not a blan/et prohibition a%ainst all searches and seizures as it obviously operates only a%ainst searches and seizures that are 0unreasonable.1 +hus! arrests and seizures in the followin% instances are not dee"ed 0unreasonable1 and are thus allowed even in the absence of a warrant5. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest 3Sec. 5>! ,ule 5>; of the ,ules of Court and prevailin% #urisprudence4; >. Search of evidence in 0plain view.1 +he ele"ents areH 3a4 a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are le%ally present in the pursuit of their official duties; 3b4 the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have the ri%ht to be where they are; 3c4 the evidence "ust be i""ediately apparent; and! 3d4 0plain view1 #ustified "ere seizure of evidence without further search; 6. Search of a "ovin% vehicle. )i%hly re%ulated by the %overn"ent! the vehicle-s inherent "obility reduces expectation of privacy especially when its transit in public thorou%hfares furnishes a hi%hly reasonable suspicion a"ountin% to probable cause that the occupant co""itted a cri"inal activity; ?. Consented warrantless search; 2. Custo"s search; ;. Stop and ris/; and F. Exi%ent and e"er%ency circu"stances. Sa"e; Sa"e; Balid Warrantless 'rrests.'n arrest is lawful even in the absence of a warrantH 3a4 when the person to be arrested has co""itted! is actually co""ittin%! or is about to co""it an offense in his presence; 3b4 when an offense has in fact been co""itted and he has reasonable %round to believe that the person to be arrested has co""itted it; and! 3c4 when the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped fro" a penal establish"ent or place where he is servin% final #ud%"ent or te"porarily confined while his case is pendin%! or has escaped while bein% transferred fro" one confine"ent to another. ' person char%ed with an offense "ay be searched for dan%erous weapons or anythin% which "ay be used as proof of the co""ission of the offense.
:

Sa"e; Sa"e; .lain Biew 7octrine; 9b#ects could not be considered to have been seized in plain view where there was no valid intrusion and the evidence was not inadvertently discovered.*either can it be said that the ob#ects were seized in plain view. irst! there was no valid intrusion. 's already discussed! accusedCappellants were ille%ally arrested. Second! the evidence! i.e.! the tea ba%s later on found to contain "ari#uana! was not inadvertently discovered. +he police officers intentionally peeped first throu%h the window before they saw and ascertained the activities of accusedCappellants inside the roo". In li/e "anner! the search cannot be cate%orized as a search of a "ovin% vehicle! a consented warrantless search! a custo"s search! or a stop and fris/; it cannot even fall under exi%ent and e"er%ency circu"stances! for the evidence at hand is bereft of any such showin%. Sa"e; Sa"e; Where the arrest is ille%al ab initio! the acco"panyin% search is li/ewise ille%al.It indicates that the apprehendin% officers should have conducted first a surveillance considerin% that the identities and address of the suspected culprits were already ascertained. 'fter conductin% the surveillance and deter"inin% the existence of probable cause for arrestin% accusedCappellants! they should have secured a search warrant prior to effectin% a valid arrest and seizure. +he arrest bein% ille%al ab initio! the acco"panyin% search was li/ewise ille%al. Every evidence thus obtained durin% the ille%al search cannot be used a%ainst accusedCappellants; hence! their ac&uittal "ust follow in faithful obeisance to the funda"ental law. =.eople vs. 8olasa! 6>5 SC,' ?2@35@@@4A %eo."e -s$ Sara., '33 S RA (0', 12,R$ No$ 1'210(5 6Mar!+ 20$ 200'8 Same as Go"asa Constitutional Law; Searches and Seizures; Instances where warrantless searches and seizures "ay be "ade without a warrant; In warrantless search cases! probable cause "ust only be based on reasonable %round of suspicion or belief that a cri"e has been co""itted or is about to be co""itted.' search "ay be conducted by law enforcers only on the stren%th of a warrant validly issued by a #ud%e as provided in 'rticle III! Section > of the Constitution. 'rticles which are the product of unreasonable searches and seizures are inad"issible as evidence! pursuant to 'rticle III! Section 6 3>4 of the Constitution. Warrantless searches and seizures "ay be "ade without a warrant in the followin% instancesH 354 search incident to a lawful arrest! 3>4 search of a "ovin% "otor vehicle! 364 search in violation of custo" laws! 3?4 seizure of the evidence in plain view! 324 when the accused hi"self waives his ri%ht a%ainst unreasonable searches and seizures! 3;4 stop and fris/ and 3F4 exi%ent and e"er%ency circu"stances. +hese instances! however do not dispense with the re&uisite of probable cause before a warrantless search and seizure can be lawfully conducted. In warrantless search cases! probable cause "ust only be based on reasonable %round of suspicion or belief that a cri"e has been co""itted or is about to be co""itted. Sa"e; Sa"e; +he search "ust be incidental to a lawful arrest in order that the search itself "ay li/ewise be considered le%al.+he 8an%a .olice could not effect a warrantless search and seizure since there was no probable cause and Sarap was not lawfully arrested. +he law re&uires that the search "ust be incidental to a lawful arrest in order that the search itself "ay li/ewise be considered le%al. Sa"e; Sa"e; .lain Biew 7octrine; Conditions in order for the doctrine to apply.Contrary to the findin% of the trial court! the instant case did not co"e within the purview of the plain view doctrine. In order for the doctrine to apply! the followin% conditions "ust be presentH 3a4 a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are le%ally present in the pursuit of their official duties; 3b4 the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the ri%ht to be where they are; 3c4 the evidence "ust be i""ediately apparent; and 3d4 0plain view1 #ustified "ere seizure of evidence without further search. Sa"e; Sa"e; 'n ille%al search cannot be underta/en and then an arrest effected on the stren%th of the evidence yielded by the search for bein% a fruit of a poisonous tree.Without the ille%ally seized prohibited dru%! the appellant-s conviction cannot stand. +here is si"ply no sufficient evidence to convict her. +hat the search disclosed "ari#uana fruitin% tops in appellant-s possession! and thus confir"ed the police officers- initial infor"ation and suspicion! did not cure its patent ille%ality. 'n ille%al search cannot be underta/en and then an arrest effected on the stren%th of the evidence yielded by the search for bein% a fruit of a poisonous tree. =.eople vs. Sarap! 6@@ SC,' 2D63>DD64A %eo."e -s O"aes, 144 S RA 31, 12$R$ No$ 70(475 6Ju"y '0, 13308 #n-a"i& ,arrant"ess arrest in Guy<Gust o.eration; %o"i!e &i& not ,itness a!tua" :uy<:ust o.eration; informant ,+o ma&e t+e :uy<:ust o.eration must :e .resente& in !ourt Constitutional Law; Extra#udicial Confession; While the ri%hts of a person under custodial investi%ation "ay be waived! nonetheless the waiver "ust be "ade not only voluntarily! /nowin%ly and intelli%ently but in the presence and with the assistance of counsel. +he extra#udicial confession executed by appellant on Gune 52! 5@FF is inad"issible in evidence. 'n exa"ination thereof shows that he was infor"ed of his constitutional ri%hts to re"ain silent and to be assisted by counsel durin% said investi%ation. )e was also as/ed if he was waivin% his ri%ht to be assisted by counsel and he answered in the affir"ative. )owever! while the ri%hts of a person under custodial investi%ation "ay be waived! nonetheless the waiver "ust be "ade not only voluntarily! /nowin%ly and intelli%ently but in the presence and with the assistance of counsel. Cri"inal Law; 7an%erous 7ru%s 'ct of 5@F>; Evidence; Court stressed in .eople vs. ,a"os that where the alle%ed infor"ant and poseurCbuyer was one and the sa"e person! without the testi"ony of said poseurCbuyer there is no convincin% evidence pointin% to the accused as havin% sold "ari#uana.+his case exe"plifies the instance where the nonCpresentation of the supposed poseurCbuyer is fatal to the prosecutionJs case. +he records show that the alle%ed sales transaction too/ place inside the house of appellant. In other words! the transaction was supposedly witnessed only by the poseurCbuyer! <anuelito 8ernardo. 9nly he has personal /nowled%e of such transaction which is the sub#ect "atter of this prosecution. In .eople vs. ,a"os! where the alle%ed infor"ant and poseurCbuyer was one and the sa"e person! we stressed that without the testi"ony of said poseurCbuyer! there is no convincin% evidence pointin% to the accused as havin% sold "ari#uana. In this case! the police officers did not see the actual sale of "ari#uana. or the culprit to be
@

convicted! the ele"ent of sale "ust be une&uivocably established. $et! the alle%ed poseurCbuyer in the IbuyCbustI operation! the only one who alle%edly dealt directly with appellant in the purchase of "ari#uana! was not presented at all at the trial. (nder such circu"stances! we have repeatedly held that the failure of the prosecution to present the alle%ed buyer was a fatal blow to the case a%ainst the accused. Sa"e; Sa"e; Sa"e; Sa"e; Without the testi"ony of the supposed poseurCbuyer provin% the alle%ed sale of "ari#uana inside appellantJs house! the unlawful intrusion into the sanctity of appellantJs abode and the unreasonable search and seizure proscribed by the Constitution are clearly established.We also do not lose si%ht of the fact that without the testi"ony of the supposed poseurCbuyer provin% the alle%ed sale of "ari#uana inside appellantJs house! the unlawful intrusion into the sanctity of appellantJs abode and the unreasonable search and seizure proscribed by the Constitution are clearly established. It is undisputed that the police operatives did not have either a search warrant or a warrant of arrest. +he searches on the person of appellant and of his house were not also incidental to a lawful arrest. +he police officers ad"ittedly did not have personal /nowled%e at all of what actually transpired inside the appellantJs house. +hey only learned of the alle%ed consu""ation of the illicit transaction when they were supposedly %iven a si%nal by their soCcalled poseurCbuyer after the latter left appellantJs house. =.eople vs. 9laes! 5:: SC,' @535@@D4A 2o -s$ ourt of A..ea"s, 200 S RA 1'4, 12$R$ No$ 1014'75 6=e:$ 11, 13328 *as 2o arreste& ,it+ a ,arrantH *as t+e arrest -a"i&9 *+y9 ;o, &i& t+e %o"i!e Eustify t+e arrest of 2o9 #m.ortant !ase Constitutional Law; Warrant of 'rrest; ,eliance of both petitioner and the Solicitor Eeneral upon ("il v. ,a"os is in the circu"stances of this case! "isplaced.+he reliance of both petitioner and the Solicitor Eeneral upon ("il v. ,a"os is! in the circu"stances of this case! "isplaced. In ("il v. ,a"os! by an ei%htCtoCsix vote! the Court sustained the le%ality of the warrantless arrests of petitioners "ade fro" one 354 to fourteen 35?4 days after the actual co""ission of the offenses! upon the %round that such offenses constituted 0continuin% cri"es.1 +hose offenses were subversion! "e"bership in an outlawed or%anization li/e the *ew .eoples 'r"y! etc. In the instant case! the offense for which petitioner was arrested was "urder! an offense which was obviously co""enced and co"pleted at one definite location in ti"e and space. *o one had pretended that the fatal shootin% of <a%uan was a 0continuin% cri"e.1 Sa"e; Sa"e; Court does not believe that the warrantless arrest or detention of petitioner in the instant case falls within the ter"s of Section 2 of ,ule 556 of the 5@:2 ,ules on Cri"inal .rocedure.Secondly! we do not believe that the warrantless 0arrest1 or detention of petitioner in the instant case falls within the ter"s of Section 2 of ,ule 556 of the 5@:2 ,ules on Cri"inal .rocedure. Sa"e; Sa"e; Sa"e; +hat the infor"ation upon which the police acted had been denied fro" state"ents "ade by alle%ed eyewitnesses to the shootin% did not however constitute personal /nowled%e..etitioner-s 0arrest1 too/ place six 3;4 days after the shootin% of <a%uan. +he 0arrestin%1 officers obviously were not present! within the "eanin% of Section 23a4! at the ti"e petitioner had alle%edly shot <a%uan. *either could the 0arrest1 effected six 3;4 days after the shootin% be reasonably re%arded as effected 0when =the shootin% hadA in fact #ust been co""itted1 within the "eanin% of Section 23b4. <oreover! none of the 0arrestin%1 officers had any 0personal /nowled%e1 of facts indicatin% that petitioner was the %un"an who had shot <a%uan. +he infor"ation upon which the police acted had been derived fro" state"ents "ade by alle%ed eyewitnesses to the shootin%one stated that petitioner was the %un"an; another was able to ta/e down the alle%ed %un"an-s car-s plate nu"ber which turned out to be re%istered in petitioner-s wife-s na"e. +hat infor"ation did not! however! constitute 0personal /nowled%e.1 Sa"e; Sa"e; Sa"e; +here was no lawful warrantless arrest of petitioner within the "eanin% of Section 2 of ,ule 556; Section F of ,ule 55> is not also applicable.It is thus clear to the Court that there was no lawful warrantless arrest of petitioner within the "eanin% of Section 2 of ,ule 556. It is clear too that Section F of ,ule 55> is also not applicable. Sa"e; Sa"e; Sa"e; Sa"e; Since petitioner had not been arrested with or without a warrant! he was also entitled to be released forthwith sub#ect only to his appearin% at the preli"inary investi%ation.Indeed! petitioner was not arrested at all. When he wal/ed into the San Guan .olice Station! acco"panied by two 3>4 lawyers! he in fact placed hi"self at the disposal of the police authorities. )e did not state that he was 0surrenderin%1 hi"self! in all probability to avoid the i"plication he was ad"ittin% that he had slain Eldon <a%uan or that he was otherwise %uilty of a cri"e. When the police filed a co"plaint for frustrated ho"icide with the .rosecutor! the latter should have i""ediately scheduled a preli"inary investi%ation to deter"ine whether there was probable cause for char%in% petitioner in court for the /illin% of Eldon <a%uan. Instead! as noted earlier! the .rosecutor proceeded under the erroneous supposition that Section F of ,ule 55> was applicable and re&uired petitioner to waive the provisions of 'rticle 5>2 of the ,evised .enal Code as a condition for carryin% out a preli"inary investi%ation. +his was substantive error! for petitioner was entitled to a preli"inary investi%ation and that ri%ht should have been accorded hi" without any conditions. <oreover! since petitioner had not been arrested! with or without a warrant! he was also entitled to be released forthwith sub#ect only to his appearin% at the preli"inary investi%ation. Sa"e; .reli"inary Investi%ation; Court concludes that petitioner-s o"nibus "otion was in effect filed with the trial court. *onetheless! since petitioner in his o"nibus "otion was as/in% for preli"inary investi%ation and not for a reCinvesti%ation 3Crespo v. <o%ul involved a reCinvesti%ation4! and since the .rosecutor hi"self did file with the trial court! on the 2th day after filin% the infor"ation for "urder! a "otion for leave to conduct preli"inary investi%ation 3attachin% to his "otion a copy of petitioner-s o"nibus "otion4! we conclude that petitioner-s o"nibus "otion was in effect filed with the trial court. What was crystal clear was that petitioner did as/ for a preli"inary investi%ation on the very day that the infor"ation was filed without such preli"inary investi%ation! and that the trial court was five 324 days later apprised of the desire of the petitioner for such preli"inary investi%ation. inally! the trial court did in fact %rant the .rosecutor-s prayer for leave to conduct preli"inary investi%ation. +hus! even on the 3"ista/en4 supposition apparently "ade by the .rosecutor that Section F of ,ule 55> of the ,evised ,ules of Court was applicable! the 2Cday re%le"entary period on Section F! ,ule 55> "ust be held to have been substantially co"plied with.
5D

Sa"e; Sa"e; +he ri%ht to have a preli"inary investi%ation conducted before bein% bound over to trial for a cri"inal offense and hence for"ally at ris/ of incarceration or so"e other penalty is not a "ere for"al or technical ri%ht; it is a substantial ri%ht.We believe and so hold that petitioner did not waive his ri%ht to a preli"inary investi%ation. While that ri%ht is statutory rather than constitutional in its funda"ent! since it has in fact been established by statute! it is a co"ponent part of due process in cri"inal #ustice. +he ri%ht to have a preli"inary investi%ation conducted before bein% bound over to trial for a cri"inal offense and hence for"ally at ris/ of incarceration or so"e other penalty! is not a "ere for"al or technical ri%ht; it is a substantive ri%ht. +he accused in a cri"inal trial is inevitably exposed to prolon%ed anxiety! a%%ravation! hu"iliation! not to spea/ of expense; the ri%ht to an opportunity to avoid a process painful to any one save! perhaps! to hardened cri"inals! is a valuable ri%ht. +o deny petitioner-s clai" to a preli"inary investi%ation would be to deprive hi" of the full "easure of his ri%ht to due process. Sa"e; Sa"e; Sa"e; +he rule is that the ri%ht to preli"inary investi%ation is waived when the accused fails to invo/e it before or at the ti"e of enterin% a plea at arrai%n"ent.+he &uestion "ay be raised whether petitioner still retains his ri%ht to a preli"inary investi%ation in the instant case considerin% that he was already arrai%ned on >6 'u%ust 5@@5. +he rule is that the ri%ht to preli"inary investi%ation is waived when the accused fails to invo/e it before or at the ti"e of enterin% a plea at arrai%n"ent. In the instant case! petitioner Eo had vi%orously insisted on his ri%ht to preli"inary investi%ation before his arrai%n"ent. 't the ti"e of his arrai%n"ent! petitioner was already before the Court of 'ppeals on certiorari! prohibition and "anda"us precisely as/in% for a preli"inary investi%ation before bein% forced to stand trial. Sa"e; Sa"e; Sa"e; Sa"e; Court does not believe that by postin% bail! petitioner had waived his ri%ht to preli"inary investi%ation. '%ain! in the circu"stances of this case! we do not believe that by postin% bail! petitioner had waived his ri%ht to preli"inary investi%ation. In .eople v. Selfaison! we did hold that appellants there had waived their ri%ht to preli"inary investi%ation because i""ediately after their arrest! they filed bail and proceeded to trial 0without previously clai"in% that they did not have the benefit of a preli"inary investi%ation.1 In the instant case! petitioner Eo as/ed for release on reco%nizance or on bail and for preli"inary investi%ation in one o"nibus "otion. )e had thus clai"ed his ri%ht to preli"inary investi%ation before respondent Gud%e approved the cash bond posted by petitioner and ordered his release on 5> Guly 5@@5. 'ccordin%ly! we cannot reasonably i"ply waiver of preli"inary investi%ation on the part of petitioner. Sa"e; Sa"e; Contrary to petitioner-s contention! the failure to accord preli"inary investi%ation did not i"pair the validity of the infor"ation for "urder nor affect the #urisdiction of the trial court.We would clarify! however! that contrary to petitioner-s contention the failure to accord preli"inary investi%ation! while constitutin% a denial of the appropriate and full "easure of the statutory process of cri"inal #ustice! did not i"pair the validity of the infor"ation for "urder nor affect the #urisdiction of the trial court. C,(K! G.! Concurrin% opinionH Constitutional Law; Warrant of arrest; +he trial court has been "oved by a desire to cater to public opinion to the detri"ent of the i"partial ad"inistration of #ustice.It appears that the trial court has been "oved by a desire to cater to public opinion to the detri"ent of the i"partial ad"inistration of #ustice. +he petitioner as portrayed by the "edia is not exactly a popular person. *evertheless! the trial court should not have been influenced by this irrelevant consideration! re"e"berin% instead that its only %uide was the "andate of the law. =Eo vs. Court of 'ppeals! >D; SC,' 56:35@@>4A %eo."e -s$ 7i!+oso, 22' S RA 174, 12$R$ No$ 101210<145 6June 4, 133'8 #s it ne!essary t+at t+e .ro.erty to :e sear!+e& 6an& :e seiIe&8 :e o,ne& :y t+e .erson against ,+om t+e ,arrant is issue&9 *it+ ,arrant B o,ners+i. of ."a!e sear!+ not signifi!ant; Re!or& of !ustomers &is!o-ere& &uring sear!+ ina&missi:"e as it ,as not &es!ri:e& in t+e sear!+ ,arrant$ Cri"inal Law; 7an%erous 7ru%s 'ct of 5@F>; +he 7an%erous 7ru%s 'ct of 5@F> is a special law that deals specifically with dan%erous dru%s which are subsu"ed into 0prohibited1 and 0re%ulated1 dru%s and defines and penalizes cate%ories of offenses which are closely related or which belon% to the sa"e class or species.'ppellant-s contention that the search warrant in &uestion was issued for "ore than one 354 offense! hence! in violation of Section 6! ,ule 5>; of the ,ules of Court! is unpersuasive. )e en%a%es in se"antic #u%%lin% by su%%estin% that since ille%al possession of shabu! ille%al possession of "ari#uana and ille%al possession of paraphernalia are covered by different articles and sections of the 7an%erous 7ru%s 'ct of 5@F>! the search warrant is clearly for "ore than one 354 specific offense. In short! followin% this theory! there should have been three 364 separate search warrants! one for ille%al possession of shabu! the second for ille%al possession of "ari#uana and the third for ille%al possession of paraphernalia. +his ar%u"ent is pedantic. +he 7an%erous 7ru%s 'ct of 5@F> is a special law that deals specifically with dan%erous dru%s which are subsu"ed into 0prohibited1 and 0re%ulated1 dru%s and defines and penalizes cate%ories of offense which are closely related or which belon% to the sa"e class or species. 'ccordin%ly! one 354 search warrant "ay thus be validly issued for the said violations of the 7an%erous 7ru%s 'ct. ,e"edial Law; Evidence; ,e%ular perfor"ance of duty; +he defense of fra"eCup re&uires stron% and convincin% evidence because of the presu"ption that the law enforce"ent a%ents acted in the re%ular perfor"ance of their official duties. ra"eCupH +his Court re#ects the appellant-s clai" that he was fra"ed. +his defense re&uires stron% and convincin% evidence because of the presu"ption that the law enforce"ent a%ents acted in the re%ular perfor"ance of their official duties. 'ppellant failed to rebut this presu"ption. )e did not even atte"pt to prove that the *',C9< a%ents who obtained the search warrant! conducted the search and recovered the prohibited dru%s had "otives other than to enforce the law and ste" the "enace of dru% addiction and traffic/in% which has already
55

reached an alar"in% level and has spawned a networ/ of incorri%ible! cunnin% and dan%erous operations. It "ay be stressed here that the defense of fra"eCup can be easily fabricated and the accused in dru%s cases al"ost always ta/e refu%e in such a defense. Sa"e; Sa"e; Search and Seizure; 9wnership of the house searched; It is not necessary that the property to be searched or seized should be owned by the person a%ainst who" the search warrant is issued! it is sufficient that the property is under his control or possession.9wnership of the )ouse SearchedH +he view of the appellant that the search was ille%al and the articles seized thereby cannot be used a%ainst hi" in evidence since he does not own the nipa house searched or the lot wherein it was built! is un"eritorious. It is not necessary that the property to be searched or seized should be owned by the person a%ainst who" the search warrant is issued; it is sufficient that the property is under his control or possession. It was established! even by the defense-s own evidence! that the appellant and his spouse have been usin% the said nipa house. )e ad"itted that the nipa house is actually part of and ad#acent to the bi% or "ain house in the 7ichoso residential co"pound! and that he and his fa"ily have been usin% the nipa house as a restin% place even before the search. =.eople vs. 7ichoso! >>6 SC,' 5F?35@@64A o<<<oOo<<<o

5>