Ogayon vs.

People

DOCTRINE: The courts should indulge every reasonable presumption against

waiver of fundamental constitutional rights. Whenever a protection given by the
Constitution is waived by the person entitled to that protection, the presumption is
always against the waiver. The relinquishment of a constitutional right has to be laid
out convincingly.

FACTS: Petitioner Honesto Ogayon (Ogayon for brevity) was charged with violation
of Sections 11 (Possession of Dangerous Drugs) and 12 (Possession of Equipment,
Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs) of RA 9165,
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. During his
arraignment, he pleaded not guilty.

Facts according to the Prosecution: Police Chief Inspector Elmer Ferrera,

together with the other members of the Albay Provincial Police Office, proceeded to
Ogayon’s house to enforce the search warrant. Upon reaching the house of Ogayon,
the police team notice several persons inside a nipa hut located nearby. Suspecting
that a pot session was about to be held, the police team restrained two of the five
persons and immediately proceeded to Ogayon’s house. SPO4 Caritos informed
Ogayon that they had a warrant to search his place and handed the same to
Ogayon, who allowed the police team to conduct the search. During the search, they
found two (2) small, heat-sealed transparent sachets that the police team suspected
to contain shabu, four (4) disposable lighters, one (1) knife, used aluminum foil, one
(1) roll of aluminum foil and a “Dorco” blade. The aforesaid items were all found in
the comfort room located about five (5) meters away from Ogayon’s house. The
police team thereafter arrested Ogayon and the two (2) other persons who had
earlier been restrained.

Facts according to the Defense: Ogayon disavowed any knowledge of the

prohibited drugs and claimed that he saw the seized items for the first time only
when they were being inventoried. He claimed that the police team did not present
any search warrant before conducting the search, and it was only during the trial that
he saw a copy of the same. He recounted that the police officers, splitting into two
groups, conducted a simultaneous search of his house and the comfort room located
nearby.

The RTC rendered a joint judgment convicting Ogayon of the two criminal charges
against him. Relying on the presumption of regularity, the RTC rejected Ogayon’s
frame-up defense. Ogayon appealed to the CA. He questioned the validity of the
search warrant, claiming it was improperly issued. He argued that the search warrant
was defective for lack of transcript showing that the issuing judge conducted an
examination of the applicant for search warrant and his witnesses. However, the CA
upheld the search warrant’s validity due to Ogayon’s failure to make a timely
objection against the warrant during the trial. The CA affirmed Ogayon’s conviction
for possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia.

ISSUES: 1) Whether or not Petitioner Ogayon waived his right to question the
legality of the search warrant.

2) Whether or not the search warrant had been validly issued.

RULING: (1) NO. The right against unreasonable search and seizures is one of the
fundamental constitutional rights. Given the significance of this right, the courts must
be vigilant in preventing its stealthy encroachment or gradual depreciation and
ensure that the safeguards put in place for its protection are observed. Procedural
rules can neither diminish nor modify substantial rights; their non-compliance should
therefore not serve to validate a warrant that was issued in disregard of the
constitutional requirements. The courts should indulge every reasonable
presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights. The court should not
presume acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights. In People v. Decierdo, the
Court declared that “whenever a protection given by the Constitution is waived by the
person entitled to that protection, the presumption is always against the waiver.” The
relinquishment of a constitutional right has to be laid out convincingly.

In this case, the only evidence that Ogayon waived his constitutional right was his
failure to make a timely motion during the trial to quash the warrant and to suppress
the presentation of the seized items as evidence. This failure alone is not a sufficient
indication that Ogayon clearly, categorically, knowingly, and intelligently made a
waiver.

(2) NO. The Constitution requires the judge to conduct an “examination under oath
or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce,” after which he
determines the existence of probable cause for the issuance of the warrant. Personal
examination by the judge of the applicant and his witnesses is indispensable, and
the examination should be probing and exhaustive, not merely routinary or a rehash
of the affidavits. Apart from the statement in the search warrant itself, the Court
found nothing in the records of the case indicating that the issuing judge personally
and thoroughly examined the applicant and his witnesses. The records bear no
evidence from which the Supreme Court can infer that the requisite examination was
made, and from which the factual basis for probable cause to issue the search
warrant was derived.
People vs. Bronola
Facts:
This is an appeal from the Decision[1] dated 19 May 2014, of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01156 which affirmed the Decision[2] dated 18 April
2013, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 25, Misamis Oriental (RTC), in Criminal
Case No. 2011-671 finding Renante Comprado y Bronola (accused-appellant) guilty
of illegal possession of marijuana.
On 19 July 2011, accused-appellant was charged with violation of Section 11, Article
2 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
Version of the ProsecutionOn 15 July 2011, at 6:30 in the evening, a confidential
informant (CI) sent a text message to Police Inspector Dominador Orate, Jr. (P/Insp.
Orate), then Deputy Station Commander of Police Station 6, Puerto, Cagayan de
Oro City, that an alleged courier of marijuana together with a female companion, was
sighted at Cabanglasan, Bukidnon. The alleged courier had in his possession a
backpack containing marijuana and would be traveling from Bukidnon to Cagayan de
Oro City. At 9:30 in the evening, the CI called P/Insp. Orate to inform him that the
alleged drug courier had boarded a bus with body number .2646 and plate number
KVP 988 bound for Cagayan de Oro City. The CI added that the man would be
carrying a backpack in black and violet colors with the marking "Lowe Alpine." Thus,
at about 9:45 in the evening, the police officers stationed at Police Station 6 put up a
checkpoint in front of the station
Version of the Defense
Accused-appellant denied ownership of the bag and the marijuana. He maintains
that on 15 July 2011, at around 6:30 in the evening, he and his girlfriend went to the
house of a certain Freddie Nacorda in Aglayan, Bukidnon, to collect the latter's debt.
When they were about to leave, Nacorda requested him to carry a bag to Cagayan
de Oro City
The RTC Ruling... the RTC found accused-appellant guilty of illegal possession of
marijuana. It held that accused-appellant's uncorroborated claim that he was merely
requested to bring the bag to Cagayan de Oro City, did not prove his innocence;
mere possession of the illegal substance already consummated the crime and good
faith was not even a defense.
premises considered, this Court finds the accused RENANTE COMPRADO y
BRONOLA GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime defined and
penalized under Section 11, [7], Article II of R.A. No. 9165, as charged in the
Information, and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of LIFE
IMPRISONMENT, and to pay the Fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
[P500,000.00], without subsidiary penalty in case of nonpayment of fine.
The CA Ruling... the CA affirmed the conviction of accused-appellant. It opined that
accused-appellant submitted to the jurisdiction of the court because he raised no
objection as to the irregularity of his arrest before his arraignment
It added that while it was admitted by the arresting police officers that no
representatives from the media and other personalities required by law were present
during the operation and during the taking of the inventory, noncompliance with
Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 was not fatal and would not render
inadmissible accused-appellant's arrest or the items seized from him because the
prosecution was able to show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items had been preserved. The CA disposed the case in this wise
Issues:
I. Whether accused-appellant's arrest was valid;II. Whether the seized items are
admissible in evidence; andIII. Whether accused-appellant is guilty of the crime
charged.
Ruling:
The Bill of Rights requires that a search and seizure must be carried out with a
judicial warrant; otherwise, any evidence obtained from such warrantless search is
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.[14] This proscription, however,
admits of exceptions, namely: 1) Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest; 2)
Search of evidence in plain view; 3) Search of a moving vehicle; 4) Consented
warrantless search; 5) Customs search; 6) Stop and Frisk; and 7) Exigent and
emergency circumstances.[15]
We merely hold today that where a police officer observes unusual conduct which
leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may
be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently
dangerous, where in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as
a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages
of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others' safety, he
is entitled [to] the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully
limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover
weapons which might be used to assault him.
On the other hand, the Court found no sufficient justification in the stop and frisk
committed by the police in People v. Cogaed (Cogaed)[24] In that case, the police
officers received a message from an informant that one Marvin Buya would be
transporting marijuana from Barangay Lun-Oy, San Gabriel, La Union, to the
Poblacion of San Gabriel, La Union.
The circumstances of this case are analogous to People v. Aruta. In that case, an
informant told the police that a certain "Aling Rosa" would be bringing in drugs from
Baguio City by bus. At the bus terminal, the police officers prepared themselves. The
informant pointed at a woman crossing the street and identified her as "Aling Rosa."
The police apprehended "Aling Rosa," and they alleged that she allowed them to
look inside her bag. The bag contained marijuana leaves.
The Court finds that the totality of the circumstances in this case is not sufficient to
incite a genuine reason that would justify a stop-and-frisk search on accused-
appellant. An examination of the records reveals that no overt physical act could be
properly attributed to accused-appellant as to rouse suspicion in the minds of the
arresting officers that he had just committed, was committing, or was about to
commit a crime.
As regards search incidental to a lawful arrest, it is worth emphasizing that a lawful
arrest must precede the search of a person and his belongings; the process cannot
be reversed.[30] Thus, it becomes imperative to determine whether accused-
appellant's warrantless arrest was valid.
Without the confiscated marijuana, no evidence is left to convict accused-appellant.
Thus, an acquittal is warranted, despite accused-appellant's failure to object to the
regularity of his arrest before arraignment. The legality of an arrest affects only the
jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused. A waiver of an illegal,
warrantless arrest does not carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence
seized during an illegal warrantless arrest
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The 19 May 2014 Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01156 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-
appellant Renante Comprado y Bronola is ACQUITTED and ordered RELEASED
from detention unless he is detained for any other lawful cause. The Director of the
Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to IMPLEMENT this Decision and to report to
this Court the action taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt.

Veridiano vs. People

Facts:
Petition for Review on Certiorari... assails the Decision... of the Court of Appeal...
which affirmed his conviction for violation of Article II, Section 11 of Republic Act No.
9165
Veridiano was charged with the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
January 15, 2008, in the Municipality of Nagcarlan, Province of Laguna... did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, control and
custody one (1) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 2.72 grams
of dried marijuana leaves, a dangerous drug.
On October 9, 2008, Veridiano was arraigned. He pleaded not guilty to the offense
charged
7:20 a.m. of January 15, 2008, a concerned citizen called a certain PO3 Esteves...
informing him that
Veridiano, was on the way to San Pablo City to obtain illegal drugs
Chief of Police June Urquia instructed PO1 Cabello and PO2 Vergara to set up a
checkpoint at Barangay Taytay, Nagcarlan, Laguna
The police officers at the checkpoint personally knew Veridiano.
At around 10:00 a.m., they chanced upon Veridiano inside a passenger jeepney
coming from San Pablo, Laguna
The police officers recovered from Veridiano "a tea bag containing what appeared to
be marijuana.
PO1 Cabello confiscated the tea bag and marked it with his initials
Veridiano was arrested and apprised of his constitutional rights.
He was then brought to the police station.
At the police station, PO1 Cabello turned over the seized tea bag to PO1 Solano,
who also placed his initials.
PO1 Solano then made a laboratory examination request, which he personally
brought with the seized tea bag to the Philippine National Police Crime
Laboratory.[21] The contents of the tea bag tested positive for marijuana
For his defense, Veridiano testified
Two (2) armed men boarded the jeepney and frisked Veridiano.[28] However, they
found nothing on his person.[29] Still, Veridiano was accosted and brought to the
police station where he was informed that "illegal drug was . . . found in his
possession
Veridiano appealed the decision of the trial court asserting that "he was illegally
arrested."
He argued that the tea bag containing marijuana is "inadmissible in evidence [for]
being the 'fruit of a poisonous tree.'"
On the other hand, the prosecution asserted that
Thus, by entering his plea, Veridiano waived his right to question any irregularity in
his arrest.
the prosecution argued that Veridiano's "submissive deportment at the time of the
search" indicated that he consented to the warrantless search
On November 18, 2011, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision[39] affirming the
guilt of Veridiano.
Issues:
Veridiano was charged with the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs
Veridiano appealed the decision of the trial court asserting that "he was illegally
arrested.
Veridiano further argued that the police officers failed to comply with the rule on
chain of custody.
the prosecution argued that Veridiano's "submissive deportment at the time of the
search" indicated that he consented to the warrantless search
Ruling:
In the Decision dated July 16, 2010,[31] the Regional Trial Court found Veridiano
guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of illegal possession of marijuana.
Accordingly, he was sentenced to suffer a penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12)
years and one (1) day, as minimum, to twenty (20) years, as maximum, and to pay a
fine of P300,000.00.
The Court of Appeals found that "Veridiano was caught in flagrante delicto" of having
marijuana in his possession. Veridiano waived his right to question any irregularity
that may have attended his arrest when he entered his plea and submitted himself to
the jurisdiction of the court.

Abelita III vs. People

Facts:
Petitioner (Judge Abelita) filed a complaint for damages under Art. 32(4) and (9) of
the Civil Code against Respondents (Doria and Ramirez). Petitioner alleged that he
and his wife was on their home when the respondents accompanied by 10
unidentified police officers,requested them to proceed to the PNP headquarters.
Petitioner alleged that he would proceed to to the PNP HQ after he had brought his
wife home. Petitoner alleged that when she parked his car in front of their house,
SPO3 Ramirez grabbed him and took his car keys, bared into the vehicle and
conducted as search without a warrant. The search resulted to the seizure of a
licensed shotgun and a unlicensed .45 caliber pistol allegedly found inside the
vehicle.

However, the respondent has a different version of the case. Doria alleged that they
received a telephone call from a relative of Rosa Sia about a shooting incident. He
dispatched a team headed by Ramirez to investigate the incident. Ramirez reported
that a certain William Sia is wounded while Petitioner and his wife just left the place
of the incident. Doria looked for the petitioner and when he found him, he informed
him about the incident, he requested Petitioner to go with him in the PNP HQ but the
petitioner suddenly sped up his vehicle and proceeded to his residence, they caught
up with petitioner as he was about to run towards his house. The police offices saw a
gun in the form seat and a shotgun at the back. They confiscated the firearms and
charged Petitioner for illegal possession of firearms and frustrated murder and an
administrative case.

Issue:
Whether or not the arrest and seizure was valid.
Whether or not the Respondents are liable for damages.
Whether the findings in the administrative case against petitioner is conclusive in this
case.

Ruling:
Yes, the seizure was valid under plain view doctrine, objects falling in the plain view
of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to
seizure and may be presented as evidence. The requisites of plain view are:

1. the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification
for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area;
2. the discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and
3. it is immediately apparent to the police officers that the firearm may be an
evidence of a crime.
Hence, they were justified in seizing the firearms.

No, the court did not agree that petitioner was framed-up and that the respondents
were presumed to be performing their duties in accordance with law. They should
not be held liable for damages.

While the present case and the administrative case are based on the same essential
facts and circumstances, the doctrine of res judicata will not apply. The requisites of
res judicata are:

1. the former judgment must be final;

2. it must be a judgment or order on the merits, that is, it was rendered after a
consideration of the evidence or stipulation submitted by the parties at the trial
of the case;
3. it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject
matter and the parties;
4. there must be, between the first and second actions, identity of the parties, of
subject matter, and cause of action; this requisite is satisfied f the two actions
are substantially between the same parties.

A administrative case deals with the administrative liability which may be incurred by
the respondent for the commission of the acts complained of. This case deals with
the civil liability for damages of the police officers. There is no identity of causes of
action in the cases. While identity of causes of action is not required in the
application of res judicata in the concept of conclusiveness of judgment, it is required
that there must always be identity of parties in the first and second cases. There is
no identity of parties since the administrative case was filed by Bejamin Sia Lao
against petitioner and Benjamin is not a party to this case.

Padilla vs. Court of Appeals

GR 121917, March 12, 1997 (269 SCRA

[T][T]
414)

Summary: In response to a hit-and-run accident reported by an eyewitness, the

police was able to catch up with and apprehend the driver fleeing the scene and
discovered several firearms in the vehicle in plain view.

Rule of Law: A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
person when an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal
knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it.
Objects whose possession are prohibited by law inadvertently found in plain view are
subject to seizure even without a warrant.
Facts: At 8:00pm, Maranarag and his companion witnessed a hit-and-run accident
involving the Mitsubishi Pajero of Robin Padilla (D), who was the unknown driver at
the time. As a member of a civic group, Maranarag decided to report the incident to
the police via VHF radio. Mobile patrols responded and chased the fleeing Pajero to
the north. They finally caught up with the Padilla (D) and found several firearms in
the vehicle and in his person.

Issues: Is the warrantless arrest valid? Is the warrantless search valid?

Ruling: Yes. The Court acknowledges police authority to make the forcible stop
since they had more than mere "reasonable and articulable" suspicion that the
occupant of the vehicle has been engaged in criminal activity after the hit-and-run
incident was reported to them. Thus, the warrantless arrest was proper as Padilla (D)
was caught in flagrante delicto with possession of unlicensed firearms and
ammunition.