Other References:

• A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC -- dated 25 Jan. 2000 -- procedure in securing SW in heinous crimes
• RA No. 10175 -- Anti-Cyber Crime Prevention Act of 2012

Notable Cases Involving Search, Seizures and

Arrests
Nature of the Proceedings:

• United Laboratories, Inc. versus Isip, 461 SCRA 574

Facts:
Rolando H. Besarra, Special Investigator III of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), filed an application, in the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, for the issuance of a search warrant concerning the first and second floors of the Shalimar Building,
located at No. 1571, Aragon Street (formerly No. 1524, Lacson Avenue, Sta. Cruz, Manila) occupied and/or used by Shalimar
Philippines, owned/operated by Ernesto Isip; and for the seizure for the violation of Section 4(a), in relation to Section 8, of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8203. The Search Warrant is crystal clear: The seizing officers were only authorized to take possession of
"finished or unfinished products of United Laboratories (UNILAB), particularly REVICON Multivitamins, and documents
evidencing the counterfeit nature of said products. 

Issue:
Whether the search conducted by the NBI officers of the first and second floors of the Shalimar building and the seizure of the
sealed boxes which, when opened, contained Disudrin syrup and Inoflox, were valid?

Ruling:
NO. We agree with the petitioner’s contention that a search warrant proceeding is, in no sense, a criminal action 37 or the
commencement of a prosecution.38 The proceeding is not one against any person, but is solely for the discovery and to get
possession of personal property. It is a special and peculiar remedy, drastic in nature, and made necessary because of public
necessity. It resembles in some respect with what is commonly known as John Doe proceedings. 39 While an application for a
search warrant is entitled like a criminal action, it does not make it such an action.

A search warrant is a legal process which has been likened to a writ of discovery employed by the State to procure relevant
evidence of crime.40 It is in the nature of a criminal process, restricted to cases of public prosecutions. 41 A search warrant is a
police weapon, issued under the police power. A search warrant must issue in the name of the State, namely, the People of the
Philippines.42

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. In sum then, the Court finds and so hold that the petitioner and the NBI
failed to prove the essential requirements for the application of the plain view doctrine.

• Chemise Lacoste versus Fernandez, 214 Phil. 332

Facts:
La chemise Lacoste is a French corporation and the actual owner of the trademarks “Lacoste,” “Chemise Lacoste,” “Crocodile
Device” and a composite mark consisting of the word “Lacoste” and a representation of a crocodile/alligator, used on clothings
and other goods sold in many parts of the world and which has been marketed in the Philippines (notably by Rustans) since
1964. In 1975 and 1977, Hemandas Q. Co. was issued certificate of registration for the trademark “Chemise Lacoste and Q
Crocodile Device” both in the supplemental and Principal Registry. In 1980, La Chemise Lacoste SA filed for the registration of
the “Crocodile device” and “Lacoste”. Games and Garments (Gobindram Hemandas, assignee of Hemandas Q.Co.) opposed the
registration of “Lacoste.” In 1983, La Chemise Lacoste filed with the NBI a letter-complaint alleging acts of unfair competition
committed by Hemandas and requesting the agency’s assistance. A search warrant was issued by the trial court. Various goods
and articles were seized upon the execution of the warrants. Hemandas filed motion to quash the warrants, which the court
granted. The search warrants were recalled, and the goods ordered to be returned. La Chemise Lacoste filed a petition for
certiorari.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent Judge erred in issuing the Search Warrant?

HELD:
NO. The records show that the NBI agents at the hearing of the application for the warrants before respondent court presented
three witnesses under oath, sworn statements, and various exhibits in the form of clothing apparels manufactured by Hemandas
but carrying the trademark Lacoste. The respondent court personally interrogated Ramon Esguerra, Samuel Fiji, and Mamerto
Espatero by means of searching questions. After hearing the testimonies and examining the documentary evidence, the respondent
court was convinced that there were good and sufficient reasons for the issuance of the warrant. And it then issued the warrant.

The respondent court, therefore, complied with the constitutional and statutory requirements for the issuance of a valid search
warrant. At that point in time, it was fully convinced that there existed probable cause. But after hearing the motion to quash and
the oppositions thereto, the respondent court executed a complete turnabout and declared that there was no probable cause to
 justify its earlier issuance of the warrants.

• Santos versus Pryce Gases, GR 165122, 23 Nov. 2007

Facts:
PO2 Vicente D. Demandara, Jr. applied before the RTC of Iloilo City for a warrant to search the premises described as No. 130,
Timawa Avenue, Molo, Iloilo. The application alleged that petitioner was in possession of Pryce LPG tanks, the Pryce logos of
some of which were scraped off and replaced with a Sun Gas, Inc. marking, and other materials used in tampering Pryce gas
tanks.4 It also averred that petitioner was illegally distributing Pryce LPG products without the consent of respondent, in violation
of Section 2 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 623,5 as amended by R.A. No. 5700.

Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash 9 the search warrant on the grounds of lack of probable cause as well as deception and fraud
employed in obtaining evidence in support of the application therefor, in violation of Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution and
Rule 126, Sections 4 and 5 of the Rules of Court. Respondent opposed petitioner’s Motion to Quash.

Respondent elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via a special civil action for certiorari, 14 arguing that the trial court
committed grave abuse of discretion in quashing the search warrant. The petition essentially questioned the quashal of the search
warrant despite a prior finding of probable cause and the failure of petitioner to prove that he bought the seized items from
respondent. It also challenged petitioner’s personality to file the motion to quash.

Issue:
Whether or not CA’s order to return the LPG’s was proper?

Ruling:

NO. The Court of Appeals, however, erred in ordering the return of the seized items to respondent.1âwphi1 Section 4, Rule
12629 of the Revised Criminal Procedure expressly mandates the delivery of the seized items to the judge who issued the search
warrant to be kept in custodia legis in anticipation of the criminal proceedings against petitioner. The delivery of the items seized
to the court which issued the warrant together with a true and accurate inventory thereof, duly verified under oath, is mandatory in
order to preclude the substitution of said items by interested parties. The judge who issued the search warrant is mandated to
ensure compliance with the requirements for (1) the issuance of a detailed receipt for the property received, (2) delivery of the
seized property to the court, together with (3) a verified true inventory of the items seized. Any violation of the foregoing
constitutes contempt of court.

The CIDG operatives properly delivered the seized items to the custody of the trial court which issued the search warrant.
Thereafter, the trial court ordered their return to petitioner after quashing the search warrant. When the Court of Appeals reversed
the trial court’s quashal of the search warrant, it erred in ordering the return of the seized items to respondent because it would
seem that respondent instituted the special civil action for certiorari in order to regain possession of its LPG tanks. This cannot be
countenanced. The seized items should remain in the custody of the trial court which issued the search warrant pending the
institution of criminal action against petitioner.

Who may apply for and who may issue SW:

• Marimla versus People, G.R. No. 158467, 16 Oct. 2009

Facts:
On February 15, 2002, Special Investigator (SI) Ray C. Lagasca of the NBI Anti-Organized Crime Division filed two (2)
applications for search warrant with the RTC of Manila seeking permission to search: (1) petitioners’ house located on RD Reyes
St., Brgy. Sta. Trinidad, Angeles City3 and (2) the premises on Maria Aquino St., Purok V, Brgy. Sta. Cruz, Porac,
Pampanga,4 both for Violation of Section 16, Article III of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6425, as amended. The said applications
uniformly alleged that SI Lagasca’s request for the issuance of the search warrants was founded on his personal knowledge as well
as that of witness Roland D. Fernandez (Fernandez), obtained after a series of surveillance operations and a test buy made at
petitioners’ house. 

Petitioners filed a Motion to Quash Search Warrant on the ground that the application of the SW was filed outside the territorial
jurisdiction and judicial region of the Court. Judge Omar Viola denied the said Motion.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondent court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction in issuing
the assailed Orders dated September 6, 2002 and April 21, 2003, denying petitioners’ Motion to Quash Search Warrant?

Ruling:
NO. The general rule is that a party is mandated to follow the hierarchy of courts. However, in exceptional cases, the Court, for
compelling reasons or if warranted by the nature of the issues raised, may take cognizance of petitions filed directly before it. 22 In
this case, the Court opts to take cognizance of the petition, as it involves the application of the rules promulgated by this Court in
the exercise of its rule-making power under the Constitution.23

At the heart of the present controversy are A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC, Clarifying the Guidelines on the Application for the
Enforceability of Search Warrants, which was enacted on January 25, 2000; and A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, the Revised Rules on
 Criminal Procedure, which took effect on December 1, 2000, specifically, Section 2, Rule 126 thereof. We quote the pertinent
portions of the two issuances below:

[Administrative Matter No. 99-10-09-SC] Resolution Clarifying the Guidelines on the Application for the Enforceability of Search
Warrants

In the interest of an effective administration of justice and pursuant to the powers vested in the Supreme Court by the Constitution,
the following are authorized to act on all applications for search warrants involving heinous crimes, illegal gambling, dangerous
drugs and illegal possession of firearms.

The Executive Judge and Vice Executive Judges of Regional Trial Courts, Manila and Quezon City filed by the Philippine
National Police (PNP), the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOC-
TF) and the Reaction Against Crime Task Force (REACT-TF) with the Regional Trial Courts of Manila and Quezon City.

The applications shall be personally endorsed by the Heads of the said agencies, for the search of places to be particularly
described therein, and the seizure of property of things as prescribed in the Rules of Court, and to issue the warrants of arrest, if
justified, which may be served in places outside the territorial jurisdiction of said courts.

[TAKE NOTE!!! Gi discuss ni ni Atty. Galgo during class. Take note of AM # 99-10-09-SC as an Exception of Section 2,
Rule 126 ROC]

This Section shall be an exception to Section 2 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. (italics ours)

In sum, we cannot find any irregularity or abuse of discretion on the part of Judge Omar T. Viola for denying petitioners’ Motion
to Quash Search Warrant and to Suppress Evidence Illegally Seized. On the contrary, Judge Guariña III had complied with the
procedural and substantive requirements for issuing the questioned search warrant.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby DISMISSED. The Orders dated September 6, 2002 and April 21, 2003, both
issued by respondent Judge Omar T. Viola of the RTC of Angeles City, Branch 57, are hereby AFFIRMED.

Issuance of SW and Probable Cause:

• Santos versus Pryce Gases, GR 165122, 23 Nov. 2007

(Repeated case pero ang issue is on probable cause)

Facts:
Facts:
PO2 Vicente D. Demandara, Jr. applied before the RTC of Iloilo City for a warrant to search the premises described as No. 130,
Timawa Avenue, Molo, Iloilo. The application alleged that petitioner was in possession of Pryce LPG tanks, the Pryce logos of
some of which were scraped off and replaced with a Sun Gas, Inc. marking, and other materials used in tampering Pryce gas
tanks.4 It also averred that petitioner was illegally distributing Pryce LPG products without the consent of respondent, in violation
of Section 2 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 623,5 as amended by R.A. No. 5700.

Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash 9 the search warrant on the grounds of lack of probable cause as well as deception and fraud
employed in obtaining evidence in support of the application therefor, in violation of Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution and
Rule 126, Sections 4 and 5 of the Rules of Court. Respondent opposed petitioner’s Motion to Quash. RTC granted the motion and
quashed the SW.

Issue:
WON RTC erred in its decision?

Ruling:
YES. Supporting jurisprudence thus outlined the following requisites for a search warrant’s validity, the absence
of even one will cause its downright nullification: (1) it must be issued upon probable cause; (2) the probable
cause must be determined by the judge himself and not by the applicant or any other person; (3) in the
determination of probable cause, the judge must examine, under oath or affirmation, the complainant and such
witnesses as the latter may produce; and (4) the warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be
searched and persons or things to be seized.22

In quashing the search warrant, it would appear that the trial court had raised the standard of probable cause to
whether there was sufficient cause to hold petitioner for trial. In so doing, the trial court committed grave abuse
of discretion.

• Manly Sportwear versus Dadodette Enterprises, 470 SCRA 384

Facts:

Issue:
Ruling:

• Sketchers USA versus Inter Pacific Industrial Trading, 509 SCRA 395

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

• People versus Estela Tuan, GR 176066, 11 Aug. 2010

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

• Josefino Roan versus Hon. Romulo Gonzales, GR 71410, 25 Nov. 1986

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

• Yao Sr. versus People, GR 168306, 19 June 2007

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

• Elidad Kho versus Hon. Enrico Lanzanas, 489 SCRA 445

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

• People versus Olive Mamaril, GR 171980, 06 Oct. 2010

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

• Central Bank versus Morfe, 20 SCRA 507, L-20119, 30 June 1967

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

• United Laboratories, Inc. versus Isip, 461 SCRA 574

Facts:
Issue:

Ruling:

• Bernard Nala versus Judge Barroso, Jr., GR 153087, 07 Aug. 2003 &

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

• Bernardo Betoy Sr. versus Mamerto Coliflores, MTJ-05-1608, 28 Feb. 2006

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

• Frank Uy versus Bureau of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 129651, 20 Oct. 2000

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:
Description of person or place to be searched and items that may be seized:

• People versus Raul Nunez, GR 177148, 30 June 2009

Facts:
Before proceeding to appellant’s residence in Barangay San Antonio, the group summoned
Barangay Captain Mario Mundin and Chief Tanod Alfredo Joaquin to assist them in serving the
search warrant. Upon arriving at appellant’s house, Mundin called on appellant to come out.
Thereafter, Commanding Officer Pagkalinawan showed Nuñez the warrant. SPO1 Ilagan and PO2
Crisostomo then surveyed appellant’s room in his presence while his family, PO2 Ortega and the
two barangay officials remained in the living room. SPO1 Ilagan found thirty-one (31) packets of
shabu, lighters, improvised burners, tooters, and aluminum foil with shabu residue and a lady’s
wallet containing ₱4,610 inside appellant’s dresser. The group also confiscated a component,
camera, electric planer, grinder, drill, jigsaw, electric tester, and assorted carpentry tools on
suspicion that they were acquired in exchange for shabu. Following the search, SPO1 Ilagan
issued a Receipt for Property Seized6 and a Certification of Orderly Search7 which appellant
signed.

Appellant insists that the shabu found in his room was planted. More importantly, appellant assails
the validity of the search warrant as it did not indicate his exact address but only the barangay
and street of his residence. He maintains that none of the occupants witnessed the search as
they were all kept in the living room. Finally, appellant questions why the prosecution did not call
the barangay officials as witnesses to shed light on the details of the search.

Issue:
Whether or not the search may be considered invalid for the reason that it did not indicate the
exact address?

Whether or not the authorities have properly confiscated the things described in the SW?

Ruling:
1. NO. As a rule, the warrant must sufficiently describe the premises to be searched
so that the officer executing the warrant may, with reasonable effort, ascertain
and identify the place intended.

2. As a rule, only the personal properties described in the search warrant may be seized by the
authorities.23 In the case at bar, Search Warrant No. 4224 specifically authorized the taking of
methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) and paraphernalia(s) only. By the principle
of ejusdem generis, where a statute describes things of a particular class or kind accompanied
by words of a generic character, the generic word will usually be limited to things of a similar
nature with those particularly enumerated, unless there be something in the context of the
statement which would repel such inference. 25

Thus, we are here constrained to point out an irregularity in the search conducted. Certainly,
the lady’s wallet, cash, grinder, camera, component, speakers, electric planer, jigsaw, electric
tester, saws, hammer, drill, and bolo were not encompassed by the word paraphernalia as they
bear no relation to the use or manufacture of drugs. In seizing the said items then, the police
officers exercised their own discretion and determined for themselves which items in
appellant’s residence they believed were "proceeds of the crime" or "means of committing the
offense." This is, in our view, absolutely impermissible. 26

The purpose of the constitutional requirement that the articles to be seized be particularly
described in the warrant is to limit the things to be taken to those, and only those particularly
described in the search warrant -- to leave the officers of the law with no discretion regarding
 what articles they should seize. A search warrant is not a sweeping authority empowering a
raiding party to undertake a fishing expedition to confiscate any and all kinds of evidence or
articles relating to a crime.27 Accordingly, the objects taken which were not specified in the
search warrant should be restored to appellant. 1avvphi1

• Frank Uy versus Bureau of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 129651, 20 Oct. 2000

Facts:
On 30 September 1993, a certain Rodrigo Abos reported to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR)
that petitioners Unifish Packing Corporation and Uy Chin Ho alias Frank Uy were engaged in
activities constituting violations of the National Internal Revenue Code. Nestor N. Labaria,
Assistant Chief of the Special Investigation Branch of the BIR, applied for search warrants from
Branch 28 of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu. The application sought permission to search the
premises of Unifish. Thus, three (3) search warrants were issued for three different violations.

On the strength of these warrants, agents of the BIR, accompanied by members of the Philippine
National Police, on 2 October 1993, searched the premises of the Unifish Packing Corporation.
They seized, among other things, the records and documents of petitioner corporation. A return of
said search was duly made by Nestor Labaria with the RTC of Cebu , Branch 28.

On 31 March 1995, petitioners filed motions to quash the subject search warrants with Branch 28
of the Cebu RTC. The RTC, however, denied petitioners' motions to quash as well as their
subsequent motion for reconsideration.

Petitioners claim there was no probable cause for Judge Gozo-Dadole to issue the subject search
warrants and that two warrants were issued for one time for one crime and for one place.

Issue:
WON the SWs are valid?

Ruling:
YES. A search warrant may be said to particularly describe the things to be seized when the
description therein is as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow (People vs. Rubio, 57
Phil, 384); or when the description expresses a conclusion of fact - not of law - by which the
warrant officer may be guided in making the search and seizure (idem., dissent of Abad
Santos, J.,); or when the things described are limited to those which bear direct relation to the
offense for which the warrant is being issued (Sec. 2, Rule 126, Revised Rules of Court).

• People versus Modesto Tee, G.R. Nos. 140546-47, 20 Jan. 2003

Facts:

Appellant is a Chinese national in his forties, a businessman, and a resident of Baguio City. A raid
conducted by operatives of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and Philippine National
Police Narcotics Command (PNP NARCOM) at premises allegedly leased by appellant and at his
residence yielded huge quantities of marijuana.

On July 20, 1998, appellant moved to quash the search warrant on the ground that it was too
general and that the NBI had not complied with the requirements for the issuance of a valid search
warrant. The pendency of said motion, however, did not stop the filing of the appropriate charges
against appellant.

Appellant initially contends that the warrant, which directed the peace officers to search for and
seize "an undetermined amount of marijuana," was too general and hence, void for vagueness. He
insists that Abratique could already estimate the amount of marijuana supposed to be found at
appellant’s residence since Abratique helped to transport the same.

Issue:
WON the SW issued is valid?

Ruling:
YES. The search warrant in the present case, given its nearly similar wording, "undetermined
amount of marijuana or Indian hemp," in our view, has satisfied the Constitution’s requirements on
particularity of description. The description therein is: (1) as specific as the circumstances will
ordinarily allow; (2) expresses a conclusion of fact – not of law – by which the peace officers may
be guided in making the search and seizure; and (3) limits the things to be seized to those which
bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. 40 Said warrant imposes a
meaningful restriction upon the objects to be seized by the officers serving the warrant. Thus, it
prevents exploratory searches, which might be violative of the Bill of Rights.

• Andy Quelnan versus People, G.R. No. 166061, 06 July 2007

Facts:
On 27 August 1996, a team from the Police Assistance and Reaction Against Crime (PARAC) of
the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), composed of Chief Inspector Carlos
Acosta, SPO4 Isagani Ilas, SPO2 Manubay, SPO2 Sanggalang, SPO2 Teodoro Sinag, SPO2
Mario Magno, SPO2 de Leon, SPO2 Cecil Fajardo, SPO3 Marcelo Alcancia, SPO3 Dennis Zarcal,
and PO1 Eraldo Lectura,6 was formed to implement a search warrant issued by the RTC of Manila
on 26 August 1996.

At around 3:00 p.m., the team proceeded to the Cityland Condominium in South Superhighway,
Makati. Upon arrival, they went directly to the Security Office of said building to seek assistance in
serving the warrant. Security Officer Celedonio Punsaran (Punsaran) accompanied the group and
they proceeded to Unit 615.

That on or about the 27th day of August, [sic] 1996, in the City of Makati, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control
27.7458 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu), a regulated drug.

Meanwhile, the group also went to Unit 418 of the same building to serve the warrant and search
the place. The police operatives did not find any occupant in the room.

Issue:
Whether the search warrant was properly enforced?

Ruling:
YES. Section 4, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides for the requisites
for the issuance of search warrant, to wit:

SEC. 4. Requisites for issuing search warrant. — A search warrant shall not issue except upon
probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be determined personally by the judge
after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce,
and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized which may be
anywhere in the Philippines.

Nowhere in said rule or any other provision in the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure is it
required that the search warrant must name the person who occupies the described premises.
• Pangandaman versus Casar, GR 71782, 14 Apr. 1988

Facts:
On July 27, 1985, a shooting incident occurred in Pantao, Masiu, Lanao del Sur, which left at least
five persons dead and two others wounded. What in fact transpired is still unclear. According to
one version, armed men had attacked a residence in Pantao, Masiu, with both attackers and
defenders suffering casualties.   Another version has it that a group that was on its way to another
4

place, Lalabuan, also in Masiu, had been ambushed.

The petitioners further assert that the respondent Judge conducted the preliminary investigation of
the charges "... in total disregard of the Provincial Fiscal ..." who, as said respondent well knew,
had already taken cognizance of the matter twelve (12) days earlier and was poised to conduct his
own investigation of the same;   and that issuance of a warrant of arrest against fifty (50) "John
17

Does" transgressed the Constitutional provision requiring that such warrants should particularly
describe the persons or things to be seized. 18

Issue:
WON the said seizure is valid?

Ruling:
NO. Upon the facts and the law, therefore, the warrant of arrest in question validly issued against
the petitioners, such issuance having been ordered after proceedings, to which no irregularity has
been shown to attach, in which the respondent Judge found sufficient cause to commit the
petitioners to answer for the crime complained of.

Insofar, however, as said warrant is issued against fifty (50) "John Does" not one of whom the
witnesses to the complaint could or would Identify, it is of the nature of a general warrant, one of a
class of writs long proscribed as unconstitutional and once anathematized as "totally subversive of
the liberty of the subject."   Clearly violative of the constitutional injunction that warrants of arrest
30

should particularly describe the person or persons to be seized,   the warrant must, as regards its
31

unidentified subjects, be voided.

• People versus Veloso, 48 Phil. 169

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

• Uy Kheytin versus Villareal, 42 Phil. 886*

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

• Stonehill versus Diokno, GR 19550, 19 June 1957 &

Facts:

Issue:
 Ruling:

• Twentieth Century Fox versus CA, 164 SCRA 655 &

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

• Columbia Pictures CA, 262 SCRA 219 (cf. 20th Centrury Fox Case!!!)

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

• Yao Sr. versus People, 525 SCRA 108, GR 168306, 19 June 2007

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

• Kho versus Makalintal, 306 SCRA 70

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

Issuance, Form and Implementation of the Search Warrant:

• People versus Court of Appeals, 291 SCRA 400

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

• People versus Court of Appeals, 347 SCRA 453

Facts:
 Issue:

Ruling:

• Panuncio versus People, GR 165678, 17 July 2009

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

• Santos versus Pryce Gases, GR 165122, 23 Nov. 2007

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

Objections to the Issuance or Implementation of Search Warrant

• Buenaventura versus People, 529 SCRA 500, 08 Aug. 2007

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

• People versus Macatingag, GR No. 181037, 19 Jan. 2009

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

• Santos versus Pryce Gases, GR 165122, 23 Nov. 2007

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

• Ruben Castillo versus People, G.R. No. 185128, 30 Jan. 2012

Facts:
 Issue:

Ruling:

Search Incident to Arrest:

• Adams versus Williams, 47 U.S. 143

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

• Nolasco versus Pano, 139 SCRA 152 (Note: Study also dissenting
opinion & the Resolution to the MFR) &

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

• Espano versus Court of Appeals, 288 SCRA 588

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

• People versus Leangsiri, 252 SCRA 213

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

• People versus Cubcubin Jr., 360 SCRA 690

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

• People versus Estella, 395 SCRA 553

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

• Valeroso versus Court of Appeals, GR 164815, 03 Sept. 2009 &&

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:
Search at Checkpoints and of Moving Vehicles:

• Valmonte versus de Villa, GR 83988, 24 May 1990

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

• People versus Mikael Malmstedt, GR 91107, 19 June 1991

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

• People versus Tuazon, 532 SCRA 152, 03 Sept. 2007

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

• People versus Vinecario, GR 141137, 20 Jan. 2004

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

• Abenes versus Court of Appeals, GR 156320, 14 Feb. 2007

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

Buy-Bust Operations:

• People versus Doria, 301 SCRA 668 &

Facts:
Issue:

Ruling:

• People versus Lim, GR No. 187503, 11 Sept. 2009

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

• People versus Victorio Pagkalinawan, GR 184805, 03 Mar. 2010

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

• People versus Ramos, GR 180508, 04 Sept. 2009

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

• People versus Joey Tion, GR 172092, 16 Dec. 2009

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

• People versus Sembrano, GR 185848, 16 Aug. 2010

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

• People versus Araneta, GR 191064, 20 Oct. 2010

Facts:

Issue:
Ruling:

• People versus Feliciano, GR 190179, 20 Oct. 2010

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

• People versus Naquita, GR 180511, 28 July 2008

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

• People versus Amarillo, G.R. No. 194721, August 15, 2012

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

• People versus Agulay, GR 181747, 26 Sept. 2008

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

• People versus Bohol, GR 171729, 28 July 2008

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

• People versus Elizabeth Marcelino, GR 189278, 26 July 2010

Facts:

Issue:
 Ruling:

• People versus SPO3 Sangki Ara, GR 185011, 23 Dec. 2009 (Surveillance)

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

• People versus Concepcion, GR 178876, 27 June 2008 (Surveillance)

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

• People versus Hernandez, GR 184804, 18 June 2009 (Blotter not reqired)

Plain View:

• Judge Felimon Abelita versus PSupt. Doria, GR 170672, 14 Aug. 2009 &

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

• Zalameda versus People, GR 183656, Sept. 2009

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

• People versus Nuevas, 516 SCRA 463, GR 170233, 22 Feb. 2007

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

"Stop and Frisk" Rule (The 'Terry Doctrine')

• Terry versus Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20L. Ed. 2nd 889 (1968) or Read This
• Esquillo versus People, GR 182010, 25 Aug. 2010

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

• Valdez versus People, 538 SCRA 611, 23 Nov. 2007

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

• Malacat versus Court of Appeals, 283 SCRA 159 &

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

• People versus Chua, GR 128222, 17 June 1999, 396 SCRA 660 &

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

• Epie Jr. versus Ulat-Marredo, 518 SCRA 641, 22 Mar. 2007

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

• Summerville General Merchandising versus Court of Appeals, 529 SCRA 602,

26 June 2007

Facts:

Issue:

Ruling: