PICOP V.

ASUNCION
C. Requisites for issuance
Facts:
Police officer applied for a search warrant for the alleged possession
of firearms, ammunitions explosives which are the subject of the
offense, or used or intended to be used in committing the offense.
Judge Asuncion issued a search warrant against Philippine industries
corp. of the Philippines (P!"P#. Afterwards, the police office came
into effect such warrant and able to sei$ed the alleged firearms,
ammunitions and explosives.
P!"P alleged that the search and sei$ure was illegal, the% filed for
motion to &uash before the trial court.
ssue:
'() the search warrant was valid
*uling:
)o. the search warrant is invalid because (+# the trial court failed to
examine personall% the complainant and the other deponents, (-#
.P"/ !icero 0acolod, who appeared during the hearing for the
issuance of the search warrant, had no personal 1nowledge that
petitioners were not licensed to possess the subject firearms, and (/#
the place to be searched was not described with particularit%.
PEOPLE V. ESTRADA
(1) Concet of ro!a!"e cause in searc# $arrants
(0urgos#
Facts:
2otion for the return of sei$ed goods on the ground that the warrant
was illegal. Further, the sei$ed medicines were found genuine but
were onl% illegall% imported.
*uling:
3ven if the medicines were genuine if the seller has no permit from
the appropriate government agenc%, the drugs or medicines cannot be
returned although the search warrant was declared illegal.
STONE%ILL V. DIO&NO
Search and Seizure General Warrants Abandonment of the
Moncado Doctrine
Facts:
.tonehill et al and the corporation the% form were alleged to have
committed acts in 4violation of !entral 0an1 5aws, 6ariff and
!ustoms 5aws, nternal *evenue (!ode# and *evised Penal !ode.7
0% the strength of this allegation a search warrant was issued against
their persons and their corporation. 6he warrant provides authorit% to
search the persons above8named and(or the premises of their offices,
warehouses and(or residences, and to sei$e and ta1e possession of the
following personal propert% to wit:
40oo1s of accounts, financial records, vouchers, correspondence,
receipts, ledgers, journals, portfolios, credit journals, t%pewriters, and
other documents and(or papers showing all business transactions
including disbursements receipts, balance sheets and profit and loss
statements and 0obbins (cigarette wrappers#.7
6he documents, papers, and things sei$ed under the alleged authorit%
of the warrants in &uestion ma% be split into (-# major groups,
namel%:
(a# those found and sei$ed in the offices of the aforementioned
corporations and
(b# those found sei$ed in the residences of petitioners herein.
.tonehill averred that the warrant is illegal for:
(+# the% do not describe with particularit% the documents, boo1s and
things to be sei$ed,
(-# cash mone%, not mentioned in the warrants, were actuall% sei$ed,
(/# the warrants were issued to fish evidence against the
aforementioned petitioners in deportation cases filed against them,
(9# the searches and sei$ures were made in an illegal manner, and
(:# the documents, papers and cash mone% sei$ed were not delivered
to the courts that issued the warrants, to be disposed of in accordance
with law.
6he prosecution counters, invo1ing the 2oncado doctrine, that the
defects of said warrants, if an%, were cured b% petitioners; consent,
and (/# that, in an% event, the effects sei$ed are admissible in
evidence against them. n short, the criminal cannot be set free just
because the government blunders.
..<3:
'hether or not the search warrant issued is valid.
*uling:
6he .! ruled in favor of .tonehill et al. 6he .! emphasi$ed however
that .tonehill et al cannot assail the validit% of the search warrant
issued against their corporation for .tonehill are not the proper part%
hence has no cause of action. t should be raised b% the officers or
board members of the corporation. 6he constitution protects the
people;s right against unreasonable search and sei$ure.
t provides, (+# that no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause,
to be determined b% the judge in the manner set forth in said
provision, and (-# that the warrant shall particularl% describe the
things to be sei$ed. n the case at bar, none of these are met. 6he
1
warrant was issued from mere allegation that .tonehill et al
committed a 4violation of !entral 0an1 5aws, 6ariff and !ustoms
5aws, nternal *evenue (!ode# and *evised Penal !ode.7 n other
words, no specific offense had been alleged in said applications. 6he
averments thereof with respect to the offense committed were
abstract. As a conse&uence, it was impossible for the judges who
issued the warrants to have found the existence of probable cause, for
the same presupposes the introduction of competent proof that the
part% against whom it is sought has performed particular acts, or
committed specific omissions, violating a given provision of our
criminal laws. As a matter of fact, the applications involved in this
case do not allege an% specific acts performed b% herein petitioners. t
would be a legal heres%, of the highest order, to convict an%bod% of a
4violation of !entral 0an1 5aws, 6ariff and !ustoms 5aws, nternal
*evenue (!ode# and *evised Penal !ode,7 = as alleged in the
aforementioned applications = without reference to an% determinate
provision of said laws or codes. 6he grave violation of the
!onstitution made in the application for the contested search warrants
was compounded b% the description therein made of the effects to be
searched for and sei$ed, to wit:
40oo1s of accounts, financial records, vouchers, journals,
correspondence, receipts, ledgers, portfolios, credit journals,
t%pewriters, and other documents and(or papers showing all business
transactions including disbursement receipts, balance sheets and
related profit and loss statements.7
6hus, the warrants authori$ed the search for and sei$ure of records
pertaining to all business transactions of .tonehill et al, regardless of
whether the transactions were legal or illegal. 6he warrants
sanctioned the sei$ure of all records of .tonehill et al and the
aforementioned corporations, whatever their nature, thus openl%
contravening the explicit command of the 0ill of *ights = that the
things to be sei$ed be particularl% described = as well as tending to
defeat its major objective: the elimination of general warrants. 6he
2oncado doctrine is li1ewise abandoned and the right of the accused
against a defective search warrant is emphasi$ed.
'ICROSO(T CORPORATION V. 'A)ICORP
Intellectual Property Law on opyri!ht Probable ause in
Issuin! Search Warrant
Facts:
n +>>?, @ominador .amiano, an agent of the )ational 0ureau of
nvestigation ()0# conducted a surveillance against 2axicorp nc.
Ae observed that 2icrosoft .oftware ('indows "perating .%stems#
were being produced and pac1aged within the premises of 2axicorp.
.amiano, together with a civilian witness (John 0enedict .acri$# then
bought a computer unit from 2axicorp. 6he unit was pre8installed
with a pirated cop% of 'indows. For their purchase, the% were issued
a receipt, however, the receipt was in the name of a certain 4Joel
@ia$7. .ubse&uentl%, .amiano applied for a search warrant before the
*6!. Ae brought with him .acri$ as witness. Ae also brought the
computer unit the% bought as evidence as well as the receipt. Ae even
added an additional witness (Felixberto Pante#, a computer
technician, who showed the judge that the software in the computer
unit bought b% .amiano from 2axicorp was pirated. 6he *6! judge,
convinced that there is a probable cause for a case of cop%right
infringement and unfair competition committed b% 2axicorp, issued
the corresponding warrant. 2axicorp assailed the legalit% of the
warrant before the !ourt of Appeals. 6he !ourt of Appeals ruled in
favor of 2axicorp and in its decision it highlighted the fact that the
receipt issued was not in .amiano;s or .acri$; name hence the
proceeding in the trial court was infirm from the onset.
..<3:
'hether or not the !ourt of Appeals is correct.
*uling:
)o. 6he testimonies of the two witnesses, coupled with the object and
documentar% evidence the% presented, are sufficient to establish the
existence of probable cause. From what the% have witnessed, there is
reason to believe that 2axicorp engaged in cop%right infringement
and unfair competition to the prejudice of 2icrosoft. 0oth )0 Agent
.amiano and .acri$ were clear and insistent that the counterfeit
software were not onl% displa%ed and sold within 2axicorp;s
premises, the% were also produced, pac1aged and in some cases,
installed there.
6he fact that the receipt issued was not in .amiano;s name nor was it
in .acri$; name does not render the issuance of the warrant void. )o
law or rule states that probable cause re&uires a specific 1ind of
evidence. )o formula or fixed rule for its determination exists.
Probable cause is determined in the light of conditions obtaining in a
given situation.6hus, it was improper for the !ourt of Appeals to
reverse the *6!;s findings simpl% because the sales receipt
evidencing )0 Agent .amiano;s purchase of counterfeit goods is not
in his name.
PEOPLE V. TUAN
(*) Deter+inin, ro!a!"e cause
i) Person Aut#ori-e./ 0#o .eter+ines1
Facts:
"n Januar% -BBB, two informants namel%, 6udlong and 5ad8ing
arrived at the office of !@C (!riminal nvestigation and @etention
Croup# in 0aguio !it%, and reported to .P"- Fernande$, !hief of the
.tation @rug 3nforcement <nit (.@3<#, that a certain D3stela 6uanD
had been selling marijuana at 0aranga% Cabriela .ilang, 0aguio !it%.
.P"- Fernande$ set out to verif% the report of 6udlong and 5ad8ing.
"n the afternoon of the same da%, he gave 6udlong and 5ad8ing
P/BB.BB to bu% marijuana, and accompanied the two informants to
the accused 6uan;s house. 6udlong and 5ad8ing entered the house,
while .P"- Fernande$ waited at the adjacent house. 5ater, 6udlong
and 5ad8ing came out and showed .P"- Fernande$ the marijuana
the% bought. <pon returning to the !@C office, .P"- Fernande$
2
re&uested a laborator% examination on the specimen and %ielded
positive results for marijuana.
.P"- Fernande$, together with the informants, filed the Application
for a .earch 'arrant before Judge luminada !abato8!ortes (Judge
!ortes# of the 2unicipal 6rial !ourt in !ities (26!!#, 0aguio !it%
on Januar% -:, -BBB. 6wo hours later, at around three o;cloc1, Judge
!ortes personall% examined .P"- Fernande$, 6udlong, and 5ad8ing,
after which, she issued a .earch 'arrant, which stated 6uan;s
residence as 4the house of the accused 3stela 6uan at 0rg%. Cabriela
.ilang, 0aguio !it%7
3ven though accused 6uan was not around, the !@C team was
allowed entr% into the house b% 2agno 0aludda (2agno#, accused;s
father, after he was shown a cop% of the .earch 'arrant. .P"-
Fernande$ guarded the surroundings of the house, while .P"+
!arrera and P"- !have$ searched inside. 6he% saw, in the presence
of 2agno, a movable cabinet in 6uan;s room, below of which the%
found a bric1 of marijuana and a firearm. 5ater 6uan arrived and
thereafter, the police officers as1ed 6uan to open a cabinet, in which
the% saw more bric1s of marijuana. 6he defense, on the other hand,
disclaimed ownership of the bric1s and alleged that a .earch 'arrant
was issued for her house because of a &uarrel with her neighbor
named 5ourdes 3stillore (3stillore#. 6he *6! found accused guilt% as
charged. "n appeal, the !A modified b% ac&uitting 6uan of the
charge for illegal possession of firearm but affirming her conviction
for illegal possession of marijuana. 6uan raised the matter to the
.upreme !ourt contending, among others, that the warrant failed to
particularl% describe the place because the house was a two8store%
building composed of several rooms.
ssue:
'hether there was probable cause for the judge to issue a .earch
'arrant and whether the search warrant particularl% described the
place to be searched.
*uling:
'hether there was probable cause for the judge to issue a .earch
'arrant
E3.. 6he validit% of the issuance of a search warrant rests upon the
following factors: (+# it must be issued upon probable cause, (-# the
probable cause must be determined b% the judge himself and not b%
the applicant or an% other person, (/# in the determination of probable
cause, the judge must examine, under oath or affirmation, the
complainant and such witnesses as the latter ma% produce, and (9# the
warrant issued must particularl% describe the place to be searched and
persons or things to be sei$ed.
6he onl% issue is compliance with the first and fourth factors, i.e.,
existence of probable cause, and particular description of the place to
be searched and things to be sei$ed.
Probable cause generall% signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion
supported b% circumstances sufficientl% strong in themselves to
warrant a cautious man to believe that the person accused is guilt% of
the offense with which he is charged. t li1ewise refers to the
existence of such facts and circumstances which could lead a
reasonabl% discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has
been committed and that the item(s#, article(s# or object(s# sought in
connection with said offense or subject to sei$ure and destruction b%
law is in the place to be searched.
0efore a search warrant can be issued, it must be shown b%
substantial evidence that the items sought are in fact sei$able b%
virtue of being connected with criminal activit%, and that the items
will be found in the place to be searched.
A magistrate;s determination of probable cause for the issuance of a
search warrant is paid great deference b% a reviewing court, as long
as there was substantial basis for that determination. .ubstantial basis
means that the &uestions of the examining judge brought out such
facts and circumstances as would lead a reasonabl% discreet and
prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed, and the
objects in connection with the offense sought to be sei$ed are in the
place sought to be searched..uch substantial basis exists in this case.
Judge !ortes found probable cause for the issuance of the .earch
'arrant for 6uan;s residence after said judge;s personal examination
of .P"- Fernande$, the applicant, and 5ad8ing and 6udlong, the
informants. .P"- Fernande$ based his Application for .earch
'arrant not onl% on the information rela%ed to him b% 5ad8ing and
6udlong. Ae also arranged for a test bu% and conducted surveillance
of 6uan.
'hether the search warrant particularl% described the place to be
searched.
E3.. A description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the
officer serving the warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and
identif% the place intended and distinguish it from other places in the
communit%. A designation or description that points out the place to
be searched to the exclusion of all others, and on in&uir% unerringl%
leads the peace officers to it, satisfies the constitutional re&uirement
of definiteness. n the case at bar, the address and description of the
place to be searched in the .earch 'arrant was specific enough.
6here was onl% one house located at the stated address, which was
accused8appellant;s residence, consisting of a structure with two
floors and composed of several rooms.
2AC%E V. RUI3
Facts:
.earch and .ei$ure F Personal 3xamination of the Judge
"n -9 Feb +>GB, !ommissioner Hera of nternal *evenue, wrote a
letter addressed to J *ui$ re&uesting the issuance of a search warrant
against petitioners for violation of .ec 9?(a# of the )*!, in relation
to all other pertinent provisions thereof, particularl% .ects :/, G-, G/,
-BI and -B>, and authori$ing *evenue 3xaminer de 5eon ma1e and
file the application for search warrant which was attached to the
letter. 6he next da%, de 5eon and his witnesses went to !F *i$al to
obtain the search warrant. At that time J *ui$ was hearing a certain
case, so, b% means of a note, he instructed his @eput% !ler1 of !ourt
3
to ta1e the depositions of @e 5eon and 5ogronio. After the session
had adjourned, J *ui$ was informed that the depositions had alread%
been ta1en. 6he stenographer read to him her stenographic notes, and
thereafter, J *ui$ as1ed respondent 5ogronio to ta1e the oath and
warned him that if his deposition was found to be false and without
legal basis, he could be charged for perjur%. J *ui$ signed de 5eon;s
application for search warrant and 5ogronio;s deposition. 6he search
was subse&uentl% conducted
ssue:
'hether or not there had been a valid search warrant.
*uling:
6he .! ruled in favor of 0ache on three grounds.
+. J *ui$ failed to personall% examine the complainant and his
witness.
Personal examination b% the judge of the complainant and his
witnesses is necessar% to enable him to determine the existence or
non8existence of a probable cause.
-. 6he search warrant was issued for more than one specific offense.
6he search warrant in &uestion was issued for at least four distinct
offenses under the 6ax !ode. As ruled in .tonehill 4.uch is the
seriousness of the irregularities committed in connection with the
disputed search warrants, that this !ourt deemed it fit to amend
.ection / of *ule +-- of the former *ules of !ourt that Ja search
warrant shall not issue but upon probable cause in connection with
one specific offense.; )ot satisfied with this &ualification, the !ourt
added thereto a paragraph, directing that Jno search warrant shall
issue for more than one specific offense.
/. 6he search warrant does not particularl% describe the things to be
sei$ed.
6he documents, papers and effects sought to be sei$ed are described
in the .earch 'arrant
4<nregistered and private boo1s of accounts (ledgers, journals,
columnars, receipts and disbursements boo1s, customers ledgers#,
receipts for pa%ments received, certificates of stoc1s and securities,
contracts, promissor% notes and deeds of sale, telex and coded
messages, business communications, accounting and business
records, chec1s and chec1 stubs, records of ban1 deposits and
withdrawals, and records of foreign remittances, covering the %ears
+>?? to +>GB.7
6he description does not meet the re&uirement in Art , .ec. +, of
the !onstitution, and of .ec. /, *ule +-? of the *evised *ules of
!ourt, that the warrant should particularl% describe the things to be
sei$ed.
A search warrant ma% be said to particularl% describe the things to be
sei$ed when the description therein is as specific as the circumstances
will ordinaril% allow or when the description expresses a conclusion
of fact not of law b% which the warrant officer ma% be guided in
ma1ing the search and sei$ure or when the things described are
limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the
warrant is being issued.
ROAN V. 4ON3ALES
ii.) Proce.ure/ %o$ is it .eter+ine.1 Persona" e5a+ination !6
searc#in, questions of co+"aint of $itness/
(0ache, Kho, P!"P, 6<A)#
Facts:
6he challenged search warrant was issued b% the respondent judge on
2a% +B, +>I9. 6he petitioner;s house was searched two da%s later
but none of the articles listed in the warrant was discovered.
Aowever, the officers conducting the search found in the premises
one !olt 2agnum revolver and eighteen live bullets which the%
confiscated. 6he% are now the bases of the charge against the
petitioner.
*espondent Judge said that when P! !apt. 2auro P. Luinosa
personall% filed his application for a search warrant on 2a% +B, +>I9,
he appeared before him in the compan% of his two (-# witnesses,
3smael 2orada and Jesus 6ohilida, both of whom li1ewise presented
to him their respective affidavits ta1en b% Pat. Josue H. 5ining, a
police investigator. As the application was not %et subscribed and
sworn to, he proceeded to examine !aptain Luillosa on the contents
thereof to ascertain, among others, if he 1new and understood the
same. Afterwards, he subscribed and swore to the same before him.
ssue:
'hether the *espondent Judge failed to compl% with the proper
procedure in issuing the .earch 'arrant.
*uling:
Ees, mere affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are thus not
sufficient. 6he examining Judge has to ta1e depositions in writing of
the complainant and the witnesses he ma% produce and attach them to
the record. .uch written deposition is necessar% in order that the
Judge ma% be able to properl% determine the existence or non8
existence of the probable cause, to hold liable for perjur% the person
giving it if it will be found later that his declarations are false.
'e, therefore, hold that the search warrant is tainted with illegalit% b%
the failure of the Judge to conform with the essential re&uisites of
ta1ing the depositions in writing and attaching them to the record,
rendering the search warrant invalid. (.ee *ule +-?, .ec 9#
6he respondent judge also declared that he 4saw no need to have
applicant Luillosa;s deposition ta1en considering that he was
appl%ing for a search warrant on the basis of the information
provided b% the witnesses whose depositions had alread% been ta1en
b% the undersigned.
4
n other words, the applicant was as1ing for the issuance of the
search warrant on the basis of mere hearsa% and not of information
personall% 1nown to him, as re&uired b% settled jurisprudence.
(7) Descrition of t#in,s to !e sei-e.
(0ache#
Descrition of "ace to !e searc#e.
(*oan, P!"P, 3strada#
2UR4OS V. C%IE( O( STA((
T#in,s t#at +a6 !e sei-e.
Facts:
Petitioners &uestion the issuance of the two search warrants on the
premises of 42etropolitan 2ail7 and 4'e Forum7 newspapers and
the sei$ure of office and printing machines, e&uipment, paraphernalia,
motor vehicles and other articles used in the printing, publication and
distribution of the said newspapers, as well as numerous papers,
documents, boo1s and other written literature alleged to have been
used in subversive activities.
t is contended b% petitioners that the documents necessitating the
issuance of the subject warrants could not have provided sufficient
basis for the finding of a probable cause upon which a warrant ma%
validl% issue in accordance with .ection /, Article H of the +>G/
!onstitution which provides:
4.3!. /. x x x and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue
except upon probable cause to be determined b% the judge, or such
other responsible officer as ma% be authori$ed b% law, after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he ma% produce, and particularl% describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be sei$ed.7
ssue:
'hether the warrants were validl% issued
*uling:
)o. Probable cause for a search is defined as such facts and
circumstances which would lead a reasonabl% discreet and prudent
man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the
objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought
to be searched. And when the search warrant applied for is directed
against a newspaper publisher or editor in connection with the
publication of subversive materials, as in the case at bar, the
application and(or its supporting affidavits must contain a
specification, stating with particularit% the alleged subversive
material he has published or is intending to publish. 2ere
generali$ation will not suffice. 6hus, the broad statement in !ol.
Abadilla;s application that petitioner 4is in possession or has in his
control printing e&uipment and other paraphernalia, news
publications and other documents which were used and are all
continuousl% being used as a means of committing the offense of
subversion punishable under Presidential @ecree II:, as amended x x
x7 is a mere conclusion of law and does not satisf% the re&uirements
of probable cause. 0ereft of such particulars as would justif% a
rinding of the existence of probable cause, said allegation cannot
serve as basis for the issuance of a search warrant and it was a grave
error for respondent judge to have done so.
3&uall% insufficient as basis for the determination of probable cause
is the statement contained in the joint affidavit of Alejandro 2.
Cutierre$ and Pedro <. 6ango, 4that the evidence gathered and
collated b% our unit clearl% shows that the premises above8 mentioned
and the articles and things above8described were used and are
continuousl% being used for subversive activities in conspirac% with,
and to promote the objective of, illegal organi$ations such as the
5ight8a8Fire 2ovement, 2ovement for Free Philippines, and April ?
2ovement.7
n mandating that 4no warrant shall issue except upon probable cause
to be determined b% the judge, x x x after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he ma% produce, the
!onstitution re&uires no less than personal 1nowledge b% the
complainant or his witnesses of the facts upon which the issuance of
a search warrant ma% be justified. n Alvare$ vs. !ourt of First
nstance, this !ourt ruled that 4the oath re&uired must refer to the
truth of the facts within the personal 1nowledge of the petitioner or
his witnesses, because the purpose thereof is to convince the
committing magistrate, not the individual ma1ing the affidavit and
see1ing the issuance of the warrant, of the existence of probable
cause.7 As couched, the &uoted averment in said joint affidavit filed
before respondent judge hardl% meets the test of sufficienc%
established b% this !ourt in Alvare$ case.
Another factor which ma1es the search warrants under consideration
constitutionall% objectionable is that the% are in the nature of general
warrants.
PEOPLE V. U'ANITO
Ru"es on DNA E8i.ence
Facts:
6he instant case involved a charge of rape. 6he accused *ufino
<manito was found b% the *6! guilt% be%ond reasonable doubt of
the crime of rape.
6he alleged +>I> rape of the private complainant, AAA, had resulted
in her pregnanc% and the birth of a child hereinafter identified as
D000.D n view of that fact, as well as the defense of alibi raised b%
<manito, the !ourt deemed uncovering whether or not <manito is
the father of 000.
'ith the advance in genetics and the availabilit% of new technolog%,
it can now be determined with reasonable certaint% whether appellant
is the father of AAAMs child. 6he @)A test result shall be
simultaneousl% disclosed to the parties in !ourt. 6he N)0O is,
5
therefore, enjoined not to disclose to the parties in advance the @)A
test results.
6he N)0O is further enjoined to observe the confidentialit% of the
@)A profiles and all results or other information obtained from @)A
testing and is hereb% ordered to preserve the evidence until such time
as the accused has been ac&uitted or served his sentence.
6he @)A anal%sis on the 0uccal .wabs and 0lood stained on F6A
paper ta1en from NAAAO, N000O, and <manito, to determine whether
or not <manito is the biological father of N000O, showed that there is
a !omplete 2atch in all of the +: loci tested between the alleles of
<manito and N000O, 6hat based on the above findings, there is a
>>.>>>>P probabilit% of paternit% that <manito is the biological
father of 000. 6he defense admitted that if the value of the
Probabilit% of Paternit% is >>.>P or higher, there shall be a disputable
presumption of paternit%.
ssue:
'hether <manito is the biological father of N000O.
*uling:
!ourt resolved, for the ver% first time, to appl% the then recentl%
promulgated )ew *ules on @)A 3vidence (@)A *ules#. 6he @)A
testing has evinced a contrar% conclusion, and that as testified to b%
AAA, <manito had fathered the child she gave birth to on : April
+>>B, nine months after the da% she said she was raped b% <manito.
@isputable presumptions are satisfactor% if uncontradicted but ma%
be contradicted and overcome b% other evidence (*ule +/+, .ection
/#.6he disputable presumption that was established as a result of the
@)A testing was not contradicted and overcome b% other evidence
considering that the accused did not object to the admission of the
results of the @)A testing (3xhibits DAD and D0D inclusive of sub8
mar1ings# nor presented evidence to rebut the same.
0% filing 2otion to 'ithdraw Appeal, <manito is deemed to have
acceded to the rulings of the *6! and the !ourt of Appeals finding
him guilt% of the crime of rape, and sentencing him to suffer the
penalt% of reclusion perpetua and the indemnification of the private
complainant in the sum of P:B,BBB.BB.
Civen that the results of the !ourt8ordered @)A testing conforms
with the conclusions of the lower courts, and that no cause is
presented for us to deviate from the penalties imposed below, the
!ourt sees no reason to den% <manito;s 2otion to 'ithdraw Appeal.
6he instant case is now !5".3@ and 63*2)A63@
(or+ an. content of $arrant9 "ifeti+e:
(0ache#
'USTAN4 LU'2ER V. CA
A search warrant has a lifetime of "# days$ It could be ser%ed at any
time within "# days$ If its ob&ect or purpose cannot be accomplished
in " day' the same may be continued the followin! day or days until
completed' pro%ided it is within the "# day period$
Facts:
"n + April +>>B, .pecial Actions and nvestigation @ivision (.A@#,
acting on information that a huge pile of narra flitches, shorts, and
slabs were seen inside the lumber%ard of 2ustang 5umber,
conducted a surveillance at 2ustang lumber%ard. 6he team saw a
truc1 loaded with lauan and almaciga lumber coming out of the
lumber%ard. .ince the driver could not produce the re&uired invoices
and transport documents, the team sei$ed the truc1 together with its
cargo and impounded them at @3)* compound. "n / April +>>B,
*6! Halen$uela issued a search warrant. "n same da%, the team
sei$ed from the lumber%ard narra shorts, trimmings and slabs, narra
lumber, and various species of lumber and shorts. "n 9 April +>>B,
team returned to lumber%ard and placed under administrative sei$ure
(owner retains ph%sical possession of sei$ed articles, onl% an
inventor% is ta1en# the remaining lumber because 2ustang 5umber
failed to produce re&uired documents upon demand. <pon
recommendation of .A@ !hief *obles, @3)* .ec Factoran
suspended 2ustang 5umber;s permit and confiscated in favor of the
gov;t the sei$ed articles. 2ustang 5umber filed for a 6*" against
Factoran and *obles, and &uestioned the validit% of the April + and 9
sei$ure. *6! held that the warrantless sei$ure on April + is valid as it
comes within the exceptions where warrantless sei$ure is justified
(search of a moving vehicle#, and April 9 sei$ure was also valid
pursuant to the search warrant issued on April /. !A affirmed.
2ustang lumber filed a petition for review on certiorari.
ssue:
'") the search and sei$ure on April 9 was valid.
*uling:
Ees. 6he search and sei$ures made on April +, /, 9 were all valid.
valid. (+# April + search was conducted on a moving vehicle, which
could be lawfull% conducted without a search warrant. (-Q# 6he
search on April 9 was a continuation of the search on April / done
under and b% virtue of the search warrant issued on / April +>>B b%
3xec Judge "sorio. <nder *"! *ule +-? .ec >, a search warrant
ahs a lifetime of +B da%s. Aence, it could be served at an% time
within the said period, and if its object or purpose cannot be
accomplished in + da%, the same ma% be continued the following da%
or da%s until completed, provided it is still within the +B8da% period.
@.P".6H3: Petition is denied. !A did not commit an% reversible
error in affirming *6! judgment. .earch and sei$ure done was valid.

6
Va"i.it6 of $arrant
(3strada#
II. 0ARRANTLESS SEARC% ; SEI3URE
PEOPLE V. 'OLINA
Searc# inci.enta" to "a$fu" arrest
4.R. No. 177<1= (e!ruar6 1<: *>>1
Reliable information alone, absent any overt act
indicative of a felonious enterprise in the presence of
and within the view of the arresting ofcers, are not
sufcient to constitute probable cause that would
justify an in fagrante delicto arrest (Herrera)
Facts:
A 2ember of the Philippine )ational Police (P)P# .P"+
2arino Paguidopon receives an information regarding the
presence of an alleged marijuana pusher. (in davao#
6he informant pointed out 2olina and 2ula as the alleged
pushers.
6hereafter, .P"+ Paguidopon dispatched his member on
the said area where the% would wait for the alleged pusher
to pass b%.
"n the same occasion, a trisi1ad passing b% carr%ing
2olina has been pointed out b% .P"+ Paguidopon, then the
P)P team boarded the trisi1ad and accosted 2olina and
2ula.
A blac1 bag possessed b% them were ordered b% the Police
officers to open its contents, at first the% (the petitioners#
as1 if the% can settle the matters, but the police officers
denied the re&uest and insisted it to be open and reveals
dried marijuana leaves.
6he% were found guilt% of violation of the @angerous
@rugs Act. 6he% !ontended that such evidence is
inadmissible for having been obtained in violation of their
constitutional right against unlawful searches and sei$ures.
ssue:
'() 2ula and 2olina manifested outward indication that
would justif% their arrest, and the sei$ure of the prohibited
drugs.
*uling:
)o, 2ula and 2olina in carr%ing a bag on a trisi1ad could
not be said to be committing, attempting to commit or have
committed a crime.
2oreover such attempt to settle the matters b% the
petitioners is an e&uivocal statement which standing alone
will not constitute probable cause to effect and in flagrante
delicto arrest. Aence the search conducted on their person
was li1ewise illegal.
PEOPLE V. ARUTA
.earch and .ei$ure F nformer;s 6ip
Facts:
n the morning of +/ @ec +>II, the law enforcement officers received
information from an informant named 40enjie7 that a certain 4Aling
*osa7 would be leaving for 0aguio !it% on +9 @ec +>II and would
be bac1 in the afternoon of the same da% carr%ing with her a large
volume of marijuana, At ?:/B in the evening of +9 @ec +>II, Aruta
alighted from a Hictor% 5iner 0us carr%ing a travelling bag even as
the informant pointed her out to the law enforcement officers,
)A*!"2 officers approached her and introduced themselves as
)A*!"2 agents, 'hen as1ed b% 5t. Abello about the contents of
her travelling bag, she gave the same to him, 'hen the% opened the
same, the% found dried marijuana leaves, Aruta was then brought to
the )A*!"2 office for investigation.
ssue:
'hether or not the conducted search and sei$ure is constitutional.
*uling:
6he .! ruled in favor of Aruta and has noted that some drug
traffic1ers are being freed due to technicalities. Aruta cannot be said
to be committing a crime. )either was she about to commit one nor
had she just committed a crime. Aruta was merel% crossing the street
and was not acting in an% manner that would engender a reasonable
ground for the )A*!"2 agents to suspect and conclude that she
was committing a crime. t was onl% when the informant pointed to
Aruta and identified her to the agents as the carrier of the marijuana
that she was singled out as the suspect. 6he )A*!"2 agents would
not have apprehended Aruta were it not for the furtive finger of the
informant because, as clearl% illustrated b% the evidence on record,
there was no reason whatsoever for them to suspect that accused8
appellant was committing a crime, except for the pointing finger of
the informant. 6he .! could neither sanction nor tolerate as it is a
clear violation of the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable
search and sei$ure. )either was there an% semblance of an%
compliance with the rigid re&uirements of probable cause and
warrantless arrests. !onse&uentl%, there was no legal basis for the
)A*!"2 agents to effect a warrantless search of Aruta;s bag, there
being no probable cause and the accused8appellant not having been
lawfull% arrested. .tated otherwise, the arrest being incipientl%
illegal, it logicall% follows that the subse&uent search was similarl%
illegal, it being not incidental to a lawful arrest. 6he constitutional
guarantee against unreasonable search and sei$ure must perforce
operate in favor of accused8appellant. As such, the articles sei$ed
could not be used as evidence against accused8appellant for these are
4fruits of a poisoned tree7 and, therefore, must be rejected, pursuant
to Article , .ec. /(-# of the !onstitution.
7
PEOPLE V. 'ALASI4UI
!onsented .earch
Facts:
"n 2arch :, +>/:, 6an 'h%, a !hinese merchant, a resident of
!otabato, a victim of robber% was found l%ing on the ground, with
several wounds in the head, on a path leading to the barrio of !arcar,
!otabato. .hortl% before the victim;s death he was able to mention
the appellant;s first name, 4Kagui7, when he was as1ed about
assailant.
Appellant was later searched b% the investigating police, without
opposition or protest on his part, and it was discovered that he also
had the victim;s poc1etboo1, containing P>- in bills, the victim;s
identification card and a memorandum of amounts with some
!hinese characters. n one of the poc1ets of his pants was found
some change, ma1ing the total amount of mone% found in his
possession P>-.?I. 6he said search was conducted after the appellant
had voluntaril% produced the bracelets 3xhibit A and placed them on
5ieutenant JacariaMs table, because, upon being as1ed if he had
an%thing, he tremblingl% answered in the negative.
6he appellant testified at the trial that 5ieutenant Jacaria and .ergeant
<rangut had forcibl% and through intimidation ta1en from him the
bracelets the poc1etboo1 and all the mone% which he and that, but for
the printing thereon, the identification card found in the poc1etboo1
then was blan1 and there was no memorandum of the 1ind, in 6an
'h%Ms handwriting, inside the poc1etboo1, thereb%, insinuating that it
was 5ieutenant Jacaria who t%ped or caused to be t%pewritten on the
card 6an 'h%Ms name and personal data and who placed the
memorandum in the poc1etboo1.
ssue:
'") the search and sei$ure conducted on the accused legalR
*uling:
Ees. 6he .! held that 'hen the search of the person detained or
arrested and the sei$ure of the effects found in his possession are
incidental to an arrest made in conformit% with the law, the% cannot
be considered unreasonable, much less unlawful. 6o hold that no
criminal can, in an% case, be arrested and searched for the evidence
and to1ens of his crime without a warrant, would be to leave societ%,
to a large extent, at the merc% of the shrewdest, the most expert, and
the most depraved of criminals, facilitating their escape in man%
instances.
Ees. 6he .! held that 'hen the search of the person detained or
arrested and the sei$ure of the effects found in his possession are
incidental to an arrest made in conformit% with the law, the% cannot
be considered unreasonable, much less unlawful. 6o hold that no
criminal can, in an% case, be arrested and searched for the evidence
and to1ens of his crime without a warrant, would be to leave societ%,
to a large extent, at the merc% of the shrewdest, the most expert, and
the most depraved of criminals, facilitating their escape in man%
instances.
PEOPLE V. CUI3ON
Facts:
!ui$on and his wife arrived from Aong Kong, at the arrival area the%
allegedl% handed four (9# bags to Paul 5ee and .teve Pua who
boarded a taxi immediatel% after the event. 6he )0 agents were
observing the activities because of the earlier tip given to them.
0ecause of some uncontrolled event the% were not able to apprehend
5ee and Pua so the% decided to pursue them, based on the tips given
to them the two (-# will be sta%ing at 2anila Peninsula Aotel. 6he%
apprehended 5ee and Pua inside their hotel room confiscating the
four bags and was opened in the presence of !ol. *egino Arellano,
!hief securit% of the hotel. !onse&uentl%, !ui$on was also
apprehended in his house at !aloocan that same da%. 6he% were
brought to the )0 head&uarters and subse&uentl% referred to the
prosecution division of the @"J for n&uest. An was charged in court
violationg .ection +: of *A ?9-:, otherwise 1nown as the @angerous
@rug Act of +>G-. Appellant !uis$on challenges the validit% and
legalit% of his warrantless arrest and the search and sei$ure incidental
thereto.ssue:
..<3:
'() the accused were caught in flagrante delicto, justif%ing the
search without a warrant.
.*uling:
6he .! did not agree that the accused were caught in flagrante
delicto. 6he re&uirements stated in .ection : of *ule ++/ of the *ules
of !ourt on lawful arrest without warrant are not present in the case
at bar, for at the time of their arrest, appellants Pua and 5ee were
merel% resting in the hotel room, and appellant !ui$on for his part
was in bed resting with his wife and child. )o offense had just been
committed or being actuall% committed or being attempted b% an% of
the accused in the presenc eof the lawmen. t is well entrenched in
this countr% is the rule that no arrest, search and sei$ure can be made
without a valid warrant issued b% a competent judicial authorit%,
guaranteed b% section -, Article of the +>IG !onstituiton.
t is evident and clear that the )0 agents gravel% mishandled the
drug bust operation and in the process violated the constitutional
guarantees against unlawful arrests and illegal searches and sei$ures
4ARCIA V. LOCSIN
(1)Peacefu" su!+ission not consent to searc#.
Facts:
An agent from the Anti8<sur% 0oard obtained a search warrant
commanding an% officer of the law to search the person, house, or
store of a woman at Hictoria, 6arlac, for 4certain boo1s, lists, chits,
receipts, documents and other papers relating to her activities as
usurer.7 6he search warrant was issued b% a judge based on the
8
affidavit of the same agent who believed that this woman conducts
activities in violation of the Anti8<sur% law and 1eeps evidence of
these activities in her home and store.
6he same da% the warrant was issued, the agent went to the store. 6he
woman was not present because she was sic1 and confined at home.
*egardless of this fact, the agent and police officer showed the search
warrant to the woman;s boo11eeper and began to search the
premises. 6wo pac1ages of records and a loc1ed filing cabinet
containing several papers and documents were sei$ed and a receipt
issued to the boo11eeper.
.ix cases were filed in court for violation of the Anti8<sur% 5aw.
Pending decision, the woman demanded several times from the Anti8
<sur% 0oard to return all the documents sei$ed. 6he legalit% of the
search warrant was also &uestioned. 6he lower court refused to return
the documents sei$ed. 'hile it found the search warrant to be illegal,
it upheld the search on the basis that there was a waiver on the right
against warrantless searches and sei$ures.
*uling:
6he .upreme !ourt (.!# upheld the illegalit% of the search warrant
but ruled that no such waiver or consent was given to warrant a
warrantless search. t explained the concept of a consented
warrantless searches, one of the exceptions to the rule on
unreasonable searches and sei$ures 8
NtOhe constitutional immunit% against unreasonable searches and
sei$ures is a personal right which ma% be waived. 6he waiver ma% be
either express or implied. )o express waiver has been made in the
case before us . . . t is well8settled that to constitute a waiver of a
constitutional right, it must appear, first, that the right exists,
secondl%, that the persons involved had 1nowledge, either actual or
constructive, of the existence of such right, and, lastl%, that said
person had an actual intention to relin&uish the right . . . !ertainl%,
the constitutional immunit% from unreasonable searches and sei$ures,
being a personal one, cannot be waived b% an%one except the person
whose rights are invaded or one who is expressl% authori$ed to do so
in his or her behalf.
6he .! also declared that no implied waiver was present under the
circumstances 8
NFOailure to resist or object to the execution of the warrant does not
constitute an implied waiver of constitutional right. t is but a
submission to the authorit% of the law. As the constitutional guarant%
is not dependent upon an% affirmative act of the citi$en, the courts do
not place the citi$en in the position of either contesting an officer;s
authorit% b% force, or waiving his constitutional rights, but instead
the% hold that a peaceful submission to a search or sei$ure is not a
consent or an invitation thereto, but is merel% a demonstration of
regard for the supremac% of the law.
5astl%, the !ourt recogni$ed that even though the woman did not
immediatel% demand the return of her documents upon sei$ure, she
demanded their return on four different occassions before and
pending criminal action. t held that 4in the light of these
circumstances, we find that the petitioner did not waive her
constitutional right. 6he dela% in ma1ing demand for the return of the
documents sei$ed is not such as to result in waiver b% implication7
0ritten Consent (*oan#
PEOPLE V. A42OT
(*) Effect of 8o"untar6 surren.er
PEOPLE V. 2INAD C%UA
(C) Sto an. fris?: roa.!"oc?s ; c#ec?oints: an. ot#er "ess
intrusi8e searc#es
Sto an. (ris?
Facts:
Accused8appellant 0inad .% !hua was charged with violation of
.ection +?, Article of *.A. ?9-:, as amended b% *.A. G?:>, and
for llegal Possession of Ammunitions and llegal Possession of
@rugs in two separate nformations.
.P"- )ulud and P"- )unag received a report from their confidential
informant that accused8appellant was about to deliver drugs that night
at the 6hunder nn Aotel in 0alibago, Angeles !it%. .o, the P)P
!hief formed a team of operatives. 6he group positioned themselves
across 2cArthur Aighwa% near 0ali Aai *estaurant, fronting the
hotel. 6he other group acted as their bac1 up.
Afterwards, their informer pointed to a car driven b% accused8
appellant which just arrived and par1ed near the entrance of the hotel.
After accused8appellant alighted from the car carr%ing a sealed Sest8
" juice box, .P"- )ulud and P"- )unag hurriedl% accosted him and
introduced themselves as police officers. As accused8appellant pulled
out his wallet, a small transparent plastic bag with a cr%stalline
substance protruded from his right bac1 poc1et. Forthwith, .P"-
)ulud subjected him to a bod% search which %ielded twent% (-B#
pieces of live .-- caliber firearm bullets from his left bac1 poc1et.
'hen .P"- )unag pee1ed into the contents of the Sest8" box, he
saw that it contained a cr%stalline substance. .P"- )ulud instantl%
confiscated the small transparent plastic bag, the Sest8" juice box,
the twent% (-B# pieces of .-- caliber firearm bullets and the car used
b% accused8appellant. .P"- )ulud and the other police operatives
who arrived at the scene brought the confiscated items to the office of
!ol. Cuttiere$ at the P)P Aead&uarters in !amp Pepito, Angeles
!it%.
Accused8appellant vehementl% denied the accusation against him and
narrated a different version of the incident.
Accused8appellant alleged that he was driving the car of his wife to
follow her and his son to 2anila. Ae felt sleep%, so he decided to ta1e
the old route along 2cArthur Aighwa%. Ae stopped in front of a
small store near 6hunder nn Aotel to bu% cigarettes and candies.
'hile at the store, he noticed a man approaches and examines the
inside of his car. 'hen he called the attention of the onloo1er, the
man immediatel% pulled out a .9: caliber gun and made him face his
9
car with raised hands. 6he man later on identified himself as a
policeman. @uring the course of the arrest, the policeman too1 out his
wallet and instructed him to open his car. Ae refused, so the
policeman too1 his car 1e%s and proceeded to search his car. At this
time, the police officer;s companions arrived at the scene in two cars.
P"- )ulud, who just arrived at the scene, pulled him awa% from his
car in a nearb% ban1, while the others searched his car.
6hereafter, he was brought to a police station and was held inside a
bathroom for about fifteen minutes until !ol. Cuttiere$ arrived, who
ordered his men to call the media. n the presence of reporters, !ol.
Cuttiere$ opened the box and accused8appellant was made to hold the
box while pictures were being ta1en.
6he lower court ac&uitted .% !hua for the llegal Possession of
Ammunitions, %et convicted him for llegal Possession of +,>::.I+:
grams of shabu. Aence, this appeal to the !ourt.
ssues:
(+# 'hether or )ot the arrest of accused8appellant was lawful, and
(-# '") the search of his person and the subse&uent confiscation of
shabu allegedl% found on him were conducted in a lawful and valid
manner.
*uling:
6he lower court believed that since the police received information
that the accused will distribute illegal drugs that evening at the
6hunder nn Aotel and its vicinities. 6he police officer had to act
&uic1l% and there was no more time to secure a search warrant. 6he
search is valid being a1in to a 4stop and fris17.
6he trial court confused the concepts of a 4stop8and8fris17 and of a
search incidental to a lawful arrest. 6hese two t%pes of warrantless
searches differ in terms of the re&uisite &uantum of proof before the%
ma% be validl% effected and in their allowable scope.
n a search incidental to a lawful arrest, as the precedent arrest
determines the validit% of the incidental search, the legalit% of the
arrest is &uestioned, e.g., whether an arrest was merel% used as a
pretext for conducting a search. n this instance, the law re&uires that
there first be arrest before a search can be made=the process cannot
be reversed. Accordingl%, for this exception to appl%, two elements
must concur: (+# the person to be arrested must execute an overt act
indicating that he has just committed, is actuall% committing, or is
attempting to commit a crime, and (-# such overt act is done in the
presence or within the view of the arresting officer.
'e find the two aforementioned elements lac1ing in the case at bar.
Accused8appellant did not act in a suspicious manner. For all intents
and purposes, there was no overt manifestation that accused8appellant
has just committed, is actuall% committing, or is attempting to
commit a crime. 4*eliable information7 alone, absent an% overt act
indicative of a felonious enterprise in the presence and within the
view of the arresting officers, is not sufficient to constitute probable
cause that would justif% an in flagrante delicto arrest.
'ith regard to the concept of 4stop8and fris17: mere suspicion or a
hunch will not validate a 4stop8and8fris17. A genuine reason must
exist, in light of the police officer;s experience and surrounding
conditions, to warrant the belief that the person detained has weapons
concealed about him. Finall%, a 4stop8and8fris17 serves a two8fold
interest: (+# the general interest of effective crime prevention and
detection for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior
even without probable cause, and (-# the interest of safet% and self8
preservation which permit the police officer to ta1e steps to assure
himself that the person with whom he deals is not armed with a
deadl% weapon that could unexpectedl% and fatall% be used against
the police officer.
A stop8and8fris1 was defined as the act of a police officer to stop a
citi$en on the street, interrogate him, and pat him for weapon(s# or
contraband. t should also be emphasi$ed that a search and sei$ure
should precede the arrest for this principle to appl%. 6he foregoing
circumstances do not obtain in the case at bar. 6o reiterate, accused8
appellant was first arrested before the search and sei$ure of the
alleged illegal items found in his possession. 6he apprehending
police operative failed to ma1e an% initial in&uir% into accused8
appellant;s business in the vicinit% or the contents of the Sest8" juice
box he was carr%ing. 6he apprehending police officers onl%
introduced themselves when the% alread% had custod% of accused8
appellant.
n the case at bar, neither the in flagrante delicto nor the 4stop and
fris17 principles is applicable to justif% the warrantless arrest and
conse&uent search and sei$ure made b% the police operatives on
accused8appellant.
'herefore, accused8appellant 0inad .% !hua is hereb% Ac&uitted.
10