Posadas Vs.

CA
188 SCRA 288

Facts: The members of the Integrated National Police (INP) of Davao Metrodiscom were conducting a
surveillance along Magallanes St, Davao City. While they were in the premises of Rizal Memorial College
they spotted the petitioner carrying a buri bag and they notice him to be acting suspiciously. They
approach the petitioners and identified themselves as members of INP. Petitioner attempted to flee but
his attempt was thwarted by the INP withstanding his resistance. As they check the buri bag, they
found 2 kinds of guns and live ammunitions and a smoke grenade.

In the course of investigation, the petitioner failed to show any licenses on the following firearms thus
the petitioner was prosecuted for illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions and found guilty
thereof by the trial court.

Issue: WON theres lawful arrest or search and seizure of items from the petitioners.

Ruling: The arrest and seizure is legal. Not all searches and seizures without warrant are prohibited. The
validity of which must be resolve upon the circumstances. Between inherent right of the state to protect
its existence and promote public welfare or an individuals right against warrantless search which is
reasonably conducted, the former should prevail. In the case at bar, the same was effected on the basis
of probable cause. The probable cause is that when the personacting suspiciously and attempted to flee
with the buri bag there was probable cause that he was concealing something in it.

It is too much indeed to require the police officer to search the bag only after the procurement of search
warrant for such purpose. Such an exercise may prove to be useless, futile and too late.

People Vs. CFI of Rizal
101 SCRA 86

Facts: A week before the supposed delivery, the Regional Anti-Smuggling Action Center (RASAC) was
informed by an undisclosed informer that shipment of highly dutiable goods would be transported to
Manila from Angeles City. Spurred by such lead, an operation was conducted for the apprehension of
such blue Dodge car.

The team stationed themselves on the supposed transportation road and on such confirmation on the
suspected car, they apprehend the same. The team found in it boxes of dutiable goods consisting of
assorted watches and bracelets.

After the investigation, the Commissioner dismissed the evidences by the prosecution for they did not
able to controvert the testimonies of the accused. Meanwhile, a criminal case has been filed in the .RTC.
The RTC judge dismissed the evidences adopting the findings of the Commissioner.

Issue and Ruling: WON the seizure of the merchandise in a moving vehicle by the authorized agent of
the Commissioner breaches the constitutional rights of the accused.

The act of the agents are legal. The searches and seizure without warrant are valid of made upon
probable cause, that is, upon a belief, reasonably arising out of circumstances known to the seizing
officer, that an automobile or other vehicle contains something that which by law is subject to seizure
and destruction.

Issue and Ruling: WON the trial court gravely abused its discretion in affirming the Collectors findings in
dismissing the evidences against the accused in a criminal case filed to it.

Yes. The Collectors final declaration that the articles are not subject for forfeiture does not detract his
findings that untaxed goods were transported in respondents car seized from their possession by
agents of law. Whether criminal liability lurks on the strength of the proof of Tariff and Customs Code
adduced in the information can only be determined in a separate criminal action. Under our penal laws,
criminal responsibility must not be proven by preponderance of evidence but proof beyond reasonable
doubt.

People Vs. Asio
177 SCRA 250

Facts: An information was received by the NARCOM agents of Baguio City. Acting on said report, a buy-
bust operation was planned against the accused. A person was assigned as a buyer. On operation, the
accused shows carrying with him sacks containing the effects. On the chemistry report, the bags found
out to contain marijuana flowering tops. A case was filed against the accused and on trial, he was found
guilty of the crime charged.

Issue and Ruling: WON the scheme of the NARCOM agents was instigation by which the accused is
absolve from criminal liability.

The scheme constitute an entrapment. In an entrapment, ways and means are resorted to for the
purpose of trapping and capturing the law breakers in the execution of their criminal plan; whereas in
instigation, the instigator practically induces the would-be defendant into the commission of the crime
and he becomes a co-principal. Theres no such inducement in the case. In the first place, the police
officers did not know the petitioner beforehand. No reason for the agents to induce accused to violate
the law.

Issue and Ruling: WON the absence of warrant of arrest or search warrant were fatal and rendered the
same illegal.

The search and seizure is legal. The procurement of warrants is not absolute rule. Among such
exceptions are the following: (1) a search incident to an arrest; (2) search of moving vehicle; (3) seizure
of evidence in plain view. Under the Rules of Court, a peace officer or private person may, without
warrant, arrest a person who has committed, is committing or is about to commit offense in his
presence. A search and seizure without warrant is allowed in buy-bust operation, the circumstances
being among those which can be considered exceptional.

People Vs. Mago
22 SCRA 857

Facts: An information was receive by the petitioner that certain delivery of certain shipment, allegedly
misdeclared and undervalued will be release from the customs zone of port of Manila. Acting on such
report, the petitioners conducted surveillance. The alleged trucks were intercepted by them and found
therein numbers of bales of goods.

Prejudiced by such seizure, the private respondents filed a petition for mandamus with restraining order
or preliminary injunction in the CFI of Manila. The respondent judge then approved the petition of the
private respondents and order to release the goods upon payment of the bond.

Issue and Ruling: WON the respondent judge acted within the jurisdiction in its order for the release of
the goods.

The respondent judge acted outside of its jurisdiction. The Bureau of Customs has the duties, powers
and jurisdiction, among others, (1) to assess and collect all lawful revenues from imported articles, and
all other dues, fees, charges, fines and penalties, accruing under the tariff and customs laws; (2) to
prevent and suppress smuggling and other frauds upon the customs; and (3) to enforce tariff and
customs laws. As long as the importation has not been terminated the imported goods remain under the
jurisdiction of the Bureau of customs. Importation is deemed terminated only upon the payment of the
duties, taxes and other charges upon the articles, or secured to be paid, at the port of entry and the
legal permit for withdrawal shall have been granted. The payment of the duties, taxes, fees and other
charges must be in full. The Court of First Instance of Manila, therefore, could not exercise jurisdiction
over said goods even if the warrant of seizure and detention of the goods for the purposes of the seizure
and forfeiture proceedings had not yet been issued by the Collector of Customs.

Issue and Ruling: WON there is a valid seizure conducted by the police officers without warrant on the
goods in question.

The search and seizure is valid. The petitioners, having been deputized in writing of the Commissioner ,
could, for the purpose of enforcing tariff and customs law, effect searches, seizures and arrest and it was
his duty to make seizure, among others, of any cargo, articles or other movable property when the same
may be subject to forfeiture or liable for any fine imposed under customs and tariff laws.

The Tariff and Customs Code does not require said warrant in the instant case. The Code authorizes
persons having police authority of the Tariff and Customs Code to enter, pass through or search any
land, inclosure, warehouse, store or building, not being a dwelling house; and also to inspect, search and
examine any vessel or aircraft and any trunk, package, or envelope or any person on board, or to stop
and search and examine any vehicle, beast or person suspected of holding or conveying any dutiable or
prohibited article introduced into the Philippines contrary to law, without mentioning the need of a
search warrant in said cases. But in the search of a dwelling house, the Code provides that said "dwelling
house may be entered and searched only upon warrant issued by a judge or justice of the peace. . . .".

People Vs. Ramos
222 SCRA 557

Facts: On the first incident, gun-wielding men barged into the residents of the victims while they where
about to take their supper. They hogtied the victims and ransacked the house and flee loading the
appliances and items to the car which the victims owned. Eight days later, another robbery with the
same scheme of tying the household and fleeing away carrying the appliances and belongings of the
victims, happened. Both of the incidents were reported to the police headquarters.

Days later, a tip from an informer was received by the police for the possible engagement with the
suspects. Accompanied by one of the victims, lawmen reconnoitred in a Miranda Subdivision and
chanced upon Felimon Ramos, the accused. Pointing positively by the victim, they frisked the accused
and yielded from his waistline a 38 mm cal. paltik revolver with 2 live bullets. On the investigation,
Ramos admitted his involvement and identified all his cohorts, one of them is Antonio Contreras.

A criminal case were filed against the two accused. Bothe the accused were found guilty of the crimes
charged such as robbery in band and carnapping. Antonio was promulgated judgment in absentia for he
jumps bail.

Issue and Ruling: WON frisking and seizure of the gun tucked on his waistline were illegal for without
warrant.

It is legal. The rule against unreasonable searches and seizure is enshrined in the Bill of Right. Such a rule
is not without exception. For instance, a warrantless arrest may be validly made as an incident to lawful
arrestor in stop and frisk situation. Another exception is when the accused himself waives his rights
against unreasonable searches and seizure. The evidences clearly discloses that accused voluntarily
allowed himself to be frisked and he gave the gun to the lawmen.

SAMMY MALACAT y MANDAR Vs. CA
G.R. No. 123595 December 12, 1997

Facts: the petitioner was charge in violation of Sec. 3 of PD 1866 for possessing without license a hand
grenade. The perusal of the record shows that in response to bomb threats, the Integrated National
Police of Manila Police Force stationed at Quiapo was patrolling on said premises when they chanced
upon two groups of Muslim-looking men, with each group, comprised of three to four men, posted at
opposite sides of the corner of Quezon Boulevard near the Mercury Drug Store. These men were acting
suspiciously with their eyes moving very fast.

The police officer positioned themselves at strategic points and observed both groups for about thirty
minutes. The police officers then approached one group of men, who then fled in different directions. As
the policemen gave chase, they caught up with and apprehended petitioner. Upon searching petitioner,
they found a fragmentation grenade tucked inside petitioner's front waist line. Another police officer
apprehended Abdul Casan from whom a .38 caliber revolver was recovered.

The trial court convicted the accused as charged in the criminal case.

Issue: WON the arrest and search is valid.

Ruling: Not valid. Warrantless search are limited to the following: (1) customs searches; (2) search of
moving vehicles; (3) seizure of evidence in plain view; (4) consent searches; (5) a search incidental to a
lawful arrest; and (6) a "stop and frisk." In the case at bar, the trial court validated the warrantless
search as a "stop and frisk" with "the seizure of the grenade from the accused [as an appropriate
incident to his arrest. This is unavailing. Stop and Frisk is limited outer search of clothing for weapon.
While probable cause is not required to conduct a "stop and frisk," it nevertheless holds that mere
suspicion or a hunch will not validate a "stop and frisk." 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.

Here, there are at least three (3) reasons why the "stop-and-frisk" was invalid:
First, the Court harbor grave doubts as to the claim that petitioner was a member of the group which
attempted to bomb Plaza Miranda two days earlier. This claim is neither supported by any police report
or record nor corroborated by any other police officer who allegedly chased that group and there was at
all no ground, probable or otherwise, to believe that petitioner was armed with a deadly weapon. None
was visible, for as he admitted, the alleged grenade was "discovered" "inside the front waistline" of
petitioner, and from all indications as to the distance between officer and petitioner, any telltale bulge,
assuming that petitioner was indeed hiding a grenade, could not have been visible to him.

People Vs. De Gracia
G. R. Nos. 102009-10 July 6, 1994

Facts: Accused-appellant Rolando de Gracia was charged in two separate informations for illegal
possession of ammunition and explosives in furtherance of rebellion, and for attempted homicide. Thw
accused was convicted for illegal possession of firearms in furtherance of rebellion, but was acquitted of
attempted homicide.

The records show that Maj. Soria of the Intelligence Division, National Capital Region Defense
Command, was on board a brown Toyota car conducting a surveillance of the Eurocar Sales Office
together with his team composed. The surveillance, which actually started on the night at around 10:00
P.M., was conducted pursuant to an intelligence report received by the division that said establishment
was being occupied by elements of the RAM-SFP as a communication command post.

As they were watching the place, crowds gather to the Eurocar office watching the on-going
bombardment near at Camp Aguinaldo. Men approached them and drew a gun and fired at them. They
flew away and as they return to the place, they brought with them a searching team without a search
warrant for the court that time was closed. They searched the Eurocar office and found in it box of guns
and bundles of explosives and live ammunitions. On such raid, they caught the accused. The case was
filed and the trial court convicted the accused.

Issue: WON the searches and seizure is valid without a warrant.

Ruling: It is valid. It is admitted that the military operatives who raided the Eurocar Sales Office were not
armed with a search warrant at that time. 15 The raid was actually precipitated by intelligence reports
that said office was being used as headquarters by the RAM. 16 Prior to the raid, there was a
surveillance conducted on the premises wherein the surveillance team was fired at by a group of men
coming from the Eurocar building. The Eurocar Sales Office is obviously not a gun store and it is
definitely not an armory or arsenal which are the usual depositories for explosives and ammunition. It is
primarily and solely engaged in the sale of automobiles. The presence of an unusual quantity of high-
powered firearms and explosives could not be justifiably or even colorably explained. Under the
foregoing circumstances, the instant case falls under one of the exceptions to the prohibition against a
warrantless search. In the first place, the military operatives, taking into account the facts obtaining in
this case, had reasonable ground to believe that a crime was being committed. There was consequently
more than sufficient probable cause to warrant their action. Furthermore, under the situation then
prevailing, the raiding team had no opportunity to apply for and secure a search warrant from the
courts. The trial judge himself manifested when the raid was conducted, his court was closed. Under
such urgency and exigency of the moment, a search warrant could lawfully be dispensed with.

People Vs. CA
G.R. No. 126379 June 26, 1998

Facts: S/Insp PNP James Brillantes applied for search warrant before RTC of Quezon City against the
accused, who had allegedly in his possession firearms and explosives at Abigail Variety Store. The
following day, Search Warrant was issued not at Abigail Variety Store but at Apt. No. 1, immediately
adjacent to Abigail Variety Store resulting in the arrest of four Pakistani nationals and in the seizure of
their personal belongings, papers and effects. Included allegedly are one piece of dynamite stick; two
pieces of plastic explosives C-4 type and one fragmentation grenade. Also three Ingram machine pistols;
(b) four (4) gmm pistol; (c) blasting caps; (d) fuse; (e) assorted chemical ingredients for explosives; and
(f) assorted magazine assg and ammunitions.

Three days after the warrant was served, a return was made without mentioning the personal
belongings, papers and effects including cash belonging to the private respondents. There was no
showing that lawful occupants were made to witness the search. Consequently, the accused move to
quashed the warrants which the trial court granted in view of violation surrounding the execution of
this.

Issue: WON the search warrant invalid.

Ruling: the Warrant is invalid. What is material in determining the validity of a search is the place stated
in the warrant itself. The place to be searched, as set out in the warrant, cannot be amplified or
modified by the officers' own personal knowledge of the premises, or the evidence they adduced in
support of their application for the warrant. Such a change is proscribed by the Constitution which
requires inter alia the search warrant to particularly describe the place to be searched as well as the
persons or things to be seized. It would open wide the door to abuse of the search process, and grant to
officers executing a search warrant that discretion which the Constitution has precisely removed from
them. It does not suffice, for a search warrant to be deemed valid, that it be based on probable cause,
personally determined by the judge after examination under oath, or affirmation of the complainant and
the witnesses he may produce; it is essential, too, that it particularly describe the place to be searched,
the manifest intention being that the search be confined strictly to the place so described.