28.
• Search of moving vehicles
If the object seized is in inside a closed
package, is it seized in plain view?
An object is in plain view if the object itself is
plainly exposed to sight. Where the object seized
was inside a closed package, the object itself is
not in plain view and therefore cannot be seized
without a warrant.
Caballes v. Court of Appeals
Petitioner was the driver of a passenger jeep
covered with “kakawati” leaves. Upon suspecting
that the jeep was loaded with smuggled goods,
two police officers flagged down such vehicle.
Police officers checked the cargo and discovered
bundles of 3.08 mm aluminum/galvanized
conductor wires exclusively owned by NPC. The
wires were turned over to the Police Station
Commander of Pasanjan, Laguna.
Petitioner’s arguments:
The flagging down of his vehicle merely on
suspicion, does not constitute probable cause
that will justify a warrantless search and seizure.
He insists that he did not give any consent to the
search of the vehicle.
Respondent’s arguments:
A warrantless search of a moving vehicle is
justified on grounds of practicability. It was ruled
that automobiles because of their mobility may
be searched without a warrant upon facts not
justifying warrantless search of a resident or
office.
Issue:
Whether or not the constitutional right of
petitioner was violated when the police officers
searched his vehicle and seized the wires found
therein without a search warrant were admitted
in evidence as basis for his conviction
Ruling:
The constitutional proscription against
warrantless searches and seizures is not
absolute by admits of certain exceptions, namely:
• Warrantless search incidental to a lawful
arrest
• Seizure of evidence in plain view
• Consented warrantless search
• Customs search
• Stop and frisk situations (Terry Search)
• Exigent and emergency circumstances
An object is in plain view if the object itself is
plainly exposed to sight. Where the object seized
was inside a closed package, the object itself is
not in plain view and therefore cannot be seized
without a warrant. If the package is such that an
experienced observer could infer from its
appearance that it contains the prohibited
article, then the article is deemed in plain view.
It is clear from the records that the cable wires
were not exposed to sight because they were
placed in sacks and covered with leaves. The
articles were neither transparent nor
immediately apparent to the police authorities.
They had no clue as to what was hidden
underneath the leaves and branches. As a matter
of fact, they had to ask petitioner what was
loaded in his vehicle. in such a case, it has been
held that the object is not in plain view which
could have justified mere seizure of the articles
without further search.
People vs. Nuevas
PO3 Fami and SPO3 Cabling received
information that a certain male person, with a
tattoo on the upper right hand, and usually
wearing a sando and maong pants would make a
delivery of marijuana dried leaves. While
stationed thereat, they saw a male person who fit
the description, carrying a plastic bag later
identified as Nuevas, they accosted him and
informed him that they are police officers. In
Nuevas’ bid to escape charges, he disclosed
where the two other male persons would make
the delivery of marijuana. The police officers
together with Nuevas approached 2 persons who
were also carrying plastic bags. The officers took
the bag and upon found marijuana packed in
newspaper and wrapped therein.
Petitioner’s arguments:
The instant case is exempted from the
requirement of a judicial warrant as appellants
have waived their right against unreasonable
searches and seizures.
Ruling:
The searches could not be justified under the
plain view doctrine.
An object is in plain view if it is plainly exposed
to sight. Where the object seized was inside a
closed package, the object itself is not in plain
view and therefore cannot be seized without a
warrant. However, if the package proclaims its
contents, whether by its distinctive
configuration, its transparency, or if its contents
are obvious to an observer, then the contents are
in plain view and may be seized. In other words,
if the package is such that an experienced
observer could infer from its appearance that it
contains the prohibited article, then the article is
deemed in plain view. It must be immediately
apparent to the police that the items that they
observe may be evidence of a crime, contraband
or otherwise subject to seizure.
Records show that the dried marijuana leaves
were inside the plastic bags and were not readily
apparent or transparent to the police officers. It
cannot therefore be said that the items were in
plain view, which could have justified mere
seizure of the articles without further search.
29.
Is it possible for a search and seizure to be
invalid if a prior search and seizure was
made pursuant to a lawful search warrant?
Yes, if the articles seized were not indicated in
the warrant and were found only after the
seizure of the articles specifically indicated by
the warrant. Case in point is People v. Salanguit
where the court held inadmissible as evidence
the marijuana taken by the authorities, who
justified their seizure by a warrant specifically
authorizing them to obtain only shabu.
People v. Salanguit
A group of policemen along with one civilian
informer went to the residence of accused-
appellant to serve the warrant which authorized
the seizure of shabu. The officers knocked on the
door but nobody opened it, thus they forced the
door open and entered the house. They found in
12 small heat-sealed transparent plastic bags
and a paper clip box a white crystalline
substance. They also found two bricks of dried
leaves, which appeared to be marijuana wrapped
in newsprint.
Issue:
Whether or not the requisites for the plain-view
doctrine were complied by the authorities in
seizing the marijuana
Ruling:
Under the plain view doctrine, unlawful objects
within the plain view of an officer who has the
right to be in the position to have that view are
subject to seizure and may be presented in
evidence. For this to apply, there must be:
• Prior justification
• Inadvertent discovery of the evidence
• Immediate apparent illegality of the
evidence before the police
Because the location of the shabu was indicated
in the warrant and thus known to the police
operatives, it is reasonable to assume that the
police found the packets of shabu first. Once the
valid portion of the search warrant has been
executed, the plain view doctrine can no longer
provide any basis for admitting the other items
subsequently found.
Moreover, the marijuana bricks were wrapped in
newsprint. There was no apparent illegality to
justify their seizure. Not being in a transparent
container, the contents wrapped in newsprint
could not have been readily discernible as
marijuana.
30.
Inquire into the case of United Laboratories v.
Isip. 1 Expound the requirement of
inadvertence and the ‘immediately apparent’
test explained by the Supreme Court in said
case.
1 G.R. No. 163858, 28 June 2005.
 United Laboratories v. Isip
UNILAB hired a private investigator to
investigate a place purported to be
manufacturing fake UNILAB products, especially
Revicon multivitamins. The agent took
photographs where the clandestine
manufacturing operation was taking place.
UNILAB then sought the help of the NBI, which
thereafter filed an application for the issuance of
a search warrant. The court issued a search
warrant directing the police to seize “finished or
unfinished products of UNILAB, particularly
REVICON multivitamins.” No fake Revicon was
however found; instead, the authorities seized
sealed boxes, which contained Disudrin and
Inoflox.
Petitioner’s arguments:
Seizure of the items was justified by the plain
view doctrine
Respondent’s arguments:
Items seized were contained in boxes at the time
of the seizure and were not apparently
incriminating on plain view. Moreover, the items
were not those described and itemized in the
search warrant application nor the warrant
issued by the court.
Ruling:
Objects, articles or papers not described in the
warrant but on plain view of the executing
officer may be seized by him. However, the
seizure by the officer of the
objects/articles/papers not described in the
warrant cannot be presumed as plain view. The
state must adduce testimonial or documentary
evidence to prove the confluence of the essential
requirements for the doctrine to apply, namely:
• The executing law enforcement officer
has prior justification for an initial
intrusion
• The officer must discover
incriminating evidence inadvertently
• It must be immediately apparent to the
police they the items they observe may
be evidence of a crime, contraband, or
otherwise subject to seizure
Requirement of Inadvertence
This means that the officer must not have known
in advance the location of the evidence and
intend to seize it. Discovery is not anticipated.
Immediately Apparent
The immediate requirement means that the
executing officer can, at the time of the
discovery, determine probable cause of the
object’s incriminating evidence. To be
immediate, probable cause must be the direct
result of the officer’s instantaneous sensory
perception of the object. The object is apparent if
the executing officer had probable cause to
connect the object to criminal activity. The
incriminating nature of the evidence becomes
apparent in the course of the search, without the
benefit of any unlawful search or seizure. It must
be apparent at the moment of seizure.
STOP AND FRISK OR TERRY SEARCH
31.
Suppose a police officer is on a routine patrol
duty and he observes two people outside a
variety store. Both his experience and
training tell him that their acts are consistent
with acts of people with criminal designs
although he has no concrete facts showing
probable cause that a crime has been
committed or that it is actually being
committed. He knows that mere suspicion is
not sufficient to make a valid arrest, but his
instincts honed by years of experience in the
streets tell him something untoward is
imminent. May he briefly stop the persons,
ask them questions and engage in a
protective search for a concealed weapon
short of a full-scale arrest?
Yes. As held in Terry v. Ohio, where a police
officer observes unusual conduct which leads
him reasonably to conclude in light of his
experience that a criminal activity may be afoot
and that the persons with whom he is dealing
with 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 for 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.
Terry v. Ohio
The officer noticed the Petitioner talking with
another individual on a street corner while
repeatedly walking up and down the same street.
The men would periodically peer into a store
window and then talk some more. The men also
spoke to a third man whom they eventually
followed up the street. The officer believed that
the Petitioner and the other men were “casing” a
store for a potential robbery. The officer decided
to approach the men for questioning, and given
the nature of the behavior the officer decided to
perform a quick search of the men before
questioning. A quick frisking of the Petitioner
produced a concealed weapon and the Petitioner
was charged with carrying a concealed weapon.
Issue: Was the gun seized from Terry admissible
in evidence against him and thus his conviction
of carrying concealed weapon was proper?
Ruling:
In assessing the reasonableness of stop-and-frisk
as a valid form of warrantless search, the Court
held that there is the more immediate interest of
the police officer in taking steps to assure
himself that the person with whom he is dealing
is not armed with a weapon that could
unexpectedly and fatally be used against him.
When an officer is justified in believing that the
individual whose suspicious behavior he is
investigating at close range is armed and
presently dangerous to the officer or to others, it
would appear to be clearly unreasonable to deny
the officer the power to take necessary measures
to determine whether the person is in fact
carrying a weapon and to neutralize the threat of
physical harm.
A search for weapons in the absence of probable
cause to arrest, however, must be strictly
circumscribed by the exigencies, which justify its
initiation. Thus, it must be limited to that which
is necessary for the discovery of weapons which
might be used to harm the officer or others
nearby, and may realistically be characterized as
something less than a full search, even though it
remains a serious intrusion.
Further, on the distinction between protective
search for weapons under stop-and-frisk on one
hand, and arrest (and the search incidental
thereof) on the other hand, it was declared that:
An arrest is intended to vindicate society’s
interest in having its laws obeyed, and it is
inevitably accompanied by future interference
with the individual’s freedom of movement. The
protective search for weapons on the other hand
constitutes a brief intrusion upon the sanctity of
the person. It does not follow that because an
officer may lawfully arrest a person only when
he is apprised of facts sufficient to warrant a
belief that the person has committed or is
committing a crime, the officer is equally
unjustified, absent that kind of evidence, in
making any intrusions short of an arrest.
There must be a narrowly drawn authority to
permit a reasonable search for weapons for the
protection of the police officer, where he has
reason to believe that he is dealing with an
armed and dangerous individual, regardless of
whether he has probable cause to arrest the
individual for a crime.
32.
People v. Chua
SPO2 Mario Nulud and PO2 Emmeraldo Nunag
received a report that Chua distributes illegal
drugs in different karaoke bars in Angeles City
and was about to deliver one at the Thunder Inn
Hotel. The informer pointed to a car driven by
Chua to which he alighted, carrying a sealed
Zest-O juice box. The officers hurriedly accosted
him and introduced themselves as police officers.
As Chua pulled out his wallet, a small
transparent plastic bag with a crystalline
substance protruded from his right back pocket.
Forthwith, the authorities subjected him to a
body search, which yielded 20 pieces of live
bullets and crystalline substance in the Zest-O
box.
Issue: Whether or not the warrantless arrest,
search and seizure made upon Chua is valid
Ruling: The Court ruled that neither the in
flagrante delicto nor the stop and frisk principles
are applicable to justify the warrantless arrest
and consequent search and seizure. In acquitting
the accused, the court noted the following
circumstances: the appellant was first arrested
before the search and seizure of the alleged
illegal items found in his possession; at the time
of the arrest, accused did not exhibit manifest
unusual or suspicious conduct; the arrest of the
accused was not a product of an “on the spot” tip
which may excuse them from obtaining a
warrant of arrest.
Esquillo v. People
On the basis of an informant’s tip, PO1 Cruzin
together with PO2 Aguas conducted surveillance
on the activities of an alleged notorious snatcher
operating in the area. However, as PO1 Cruzin
alighted from the vehicle, he glanced at the
direction of petitioner who was standing three
meters away and seen placing inside a yellow
cigarette case what appeared to be a small hear-
sealed rtansparent plastic sachet containing
white substance. PO1 Cruz became suspicious
when petitioner started acting strangely as he
began to approach her. He introduced himself as
a police officer and inquired about the plastic
sachet she was placing inside her cigarette case.
In stead of replying, petitioner attempted to flee
to her house nearby but was timely restrinaed by
PO1 Cruzin who requested her to take out the
transpaarent plastic sachet from the cigarette
case. Both the trial and the appellate courts
found herein petitioner guilty. Hence, the instant
petition.
Issue: Whether or not the stop and frisk
principle in light of PO1 Cruzin’s failure to justify
his suspicion that a crime was committed be
invoked
Ruling:
What is essential is that a genuine reason msut
exist, in light of police officer’s experience and
surrounding conditions to warrant the belief that
the person who manifests unsual suspircious
conduct has weapons or contraband concealed
about him. From these standards, the Court finds
that the questioned act of the police officers
constituted a valid stop and frisk operation. The
search/seizure of the suspected shabu initially
noticed in petitioner’s possession – later
voluntarily exhibited to the police operative –
was undertaken after she was interrogated on
what she placed inside a cigarette case, and after
PO1 introduced himself to petitioenr as a police
officer. And, at the time of her arrest, petitioner
was exhibiting suspicious behavior and in fact
attempted to flee after the police officer had
identified himself.
What is/are the difference/s between a
search incidental to a lawful arrest and a
terry search or a stop and frisk?
These two types of warrantless searches differ in
terms of the requisite quantum of proof before
they may be validly effected and in their
allowable Scope.
In a search incidental to a lawful arrest, the law
requires that the first be arrest before a search
can be made- the process cannot be reversed.
Assuming the a valid arrest, the arresting officer
may search the person of the arrestee and the
area within which the latter may reach for a
weapon or for evidence to destroy, and seize any
money or property found which was used in the
commission of the crime, or the fruit of the
crime, or that which may be used as evidence, or
which might furnish the arrestee with the means
of escaping or committing violence.
On the other hand, in a stop and frisk, the
apprehending police officer must have a genuine
reason, in accordance with the police officer’s
experience and the surrounding conditions, to
warrant the belief that the person to be held has
weapons (or contraband) concealed about him.
It should therefore be emphasized that a search
and seizure should precede the arrest for this
principle to apply. A stop and frisk is the act of a
police officer to stop a citizen on the street,
interrogate him, and pat him for weapon(s) or
contraband. The police officer should properly
introduce himself and make initial inquiries,
approach and restrain a person who manifests
unusual and suspicious conduct, in order to
check the latter’s outer clothing for possibly
concealed weapons.

What is the justification for allowing a terry

search?

A terry search serves a two-fold interest: (1) the

general interest of effective crime prevention
and detection, which underlies the recognition
that a police officer may, under appropriate
circumstances and in an appropriate manner,
approach a person for purpose of investigating
possible criminal behavior even without
probable cause; and (2) the more pressing
interest of safety and self-preservation which
permit the police officer to take steps to assure
himself that the person with whom he deals is
not armed with a deadly weapon that could
unexpectedly and fatally be used against the
police officer.

What is the allowable scope of a stop and

frisk?

The scope of a stop and frisk is considered as a

“limited protective search of outer clothing for
weapons,” as laid down in Terry v. Ohio.

Is ‘probable cause’ similar with ‘genuine

reason?’ What is required in order to
properly carry out a terry search?

No. A probable cause refers to the actual

knowledge of apparent facts and circumstances
antecedent to the issuance of a warrant that are
in themselves strong enough to justify a
reasonable man in the belief that he was acting
in lawful grounds for prosecuting a defendant.

Genuine reason on the other hand is dependent

on the police officer’s experience and
surrounding conditions to warrant the belief that
the person who manifests unusual suspicious
conduct has weapons or contraband concealed
about him. Such requisite quantum of proof is
essential in order to properly carry out a terry
search.