CONSTI 2 FEB 7 2017 MOVING VEHICLES But, actually, it was more of a search preceding an arrest.
But, actually, it was more of a search preceding an arrest. The police officers had information
1 PEOPLE v QUEBRAL
The prosecutor of Bulacan charged Zenaida Quebral, Eusebio Quebral, Fernando Lopez, and
Michael Salvador before RTC with violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165 or the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
the prosecution presented PO3 Cecilio Galvez that at 7:00 p.m.,the Chief of the Drug
Enforcement Unit called him and other police officers to a briefing regarding a police informer's
report that two men and a woman on board an owner type jeep with a specific plate number
would deliver shabu, a prohibited drug, on the following day at a Petron Gasoline Station in
Balagtas to Michael Salvador, a drug pusher in the police watch list.
PO3 Galvez and six other police officers went to the North Luzon Expressway Balagtas Exit at
Burol 2nd,watching out for the owner type jeep mentioned.At around 4:00 p.m., such a
jeep,came out of the Balagtas Exit. Galvez identified the two men as accused Eusebio Quebral,
who drove the jeep, and accused-appellant Fernando Lopez and the woman as accused-
appellant Zenaida Quebral. The police trailed the jeep as it proceeded to the town proper of
Balagtas and entered a Petron gas station along the McArthur Highway.
After a few minutes, a Tamaraw FX arrived from which Michael Salvador alighted. He walked
towards the jeep and talked to accused Zenaida Quebral, who then handed a white envelope to
him. PO3 Galvez,signaled his back-up team to move. The police officers alighted from their
vehicles and surrounded the jeep. Galvez took the envelope from Michael, saw five plastic
sachets shabu.
Appellants denied, claiming only that PO3 Galvez and his fellow police officers merely framed
them up.
RTC found all four accused .While CA was reviewing the case Eusebio Quebral died, prompting
it to dismiss the case against him. On February 13, 2008, the CA rendered judgment, 3 entirely
affirming the decision of the RTC.
ISSUE Whether or not the CA erred in not excluding the evidence of the seized shabu on the
ground that, having illegally arrested the accused, the police officers' subsequent search of their
persons incident to such arrest was also illegal
RULING NO
The accused-appellants invoke the rule that a person may be arrested even without a warrant
only a) if he is caught in the act of committing a crime, b) if he has just committed a crime and
the arresting officer pursued him, or c) if he escaped from a legal confinement. But in the first
two instances, the officer must have personal knowledge of the facts underlying the arrest. The
target person's observable acts must clearly spell a crime. If no crime is evident from those
acts, no valid arrest can be made. An informant whispering to the police officer's ear that the
person walking or standing on the street has committed or is committing a crime will not do.
The arresting officer must himself perceive the manifestations of a crime.
The accused-appellants point out that in this case the police officers cannot say that what they
saw from a distance constituted a crime. Two men and a woman arrived on board a jeep at the
gas station. A third man approached the jeep, spoke to the woman and she handed him a folded
white envelope that appeared to contain something. These acts do not constitute a crime per se.
Consequently, their arrest at this point was illegal. The subsequent search of their persons, not
being based on a valid arrest, was itself illegal.
that two men and a woman on board an owner type jeep would arrive in Balagtas and hand
over a consignment of shabu at a gas station in town to a known drug dealer whose name was
on the police watch list. When these things unfolded before their eyes as they watched from a
distance, the police came down on those persons and searched them, resulting in the discovery
and seizure of a quantity of shabu in their possession. In such a case, the search is a valid
search justifying the arrest that came after it.
the law enforcers already had an inkling of the personal circumstances of the persons they were
looking for and the criminal act they were about to commit. That these circumstances played
out in their presence supplied probable cause for the search. The police acted on reasonable
ground of suspicion or belief supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to
warrant a cautious man to believe that a crime has been committed or is about to be
committed. Since the seized shabu resulted from a valid search, it is admissible in evidence
against the accused.
It would have been impractical for the police to apply with the appropriate court for a search
warrant since their suspicion found factual support only at the moment accused Eusebio
Quebral, Fernando Lopez, and Zenaida Quebral rendezvoused(MEET AT PARTICULAR PLACE)
with Michael Salvador at the Petron gas station for the hand over of the drugs. An immediate
search was warranted since they would have gone away by the time the police could apply for a
search warrant.8 The drugs could be easily transported and concealed with impunity.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the appeal and AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals
dated February 13, 2008 and of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos dated March 18, 2004.
SO ORDERED.
2 ASUNCION V COURT OF APPEALS
Accused Jose Maria Asuncion y Marfori, also known as Binggoy and/or Vic Vargas, is charged
with violation of Section 16, Article III of Republic Act 6425 in an Information
prosecution shows in compliance with the order of the Malabon Municipal Mayor to intensify
campaign against illegal drugs particularly at Barangay Taong, the Chief of the Malabon Police
Anti-Narcotics Unit ordered his men to conduct patrol on the area with specific instruction to
look for a certain vehicle with a certain plate number and watch out drug pusher named Vic
Vargas., The team OF SPO1 Advincula proceeded to Barangay Taong where they were joined by
their confidential informant and the latter informed them that a gray Nissan car is always parked
selling shabu. While patrolling Leoo Street, the confidential informant pointed the gray Nissan
car. The policemen immediately flagged down the said car ,who turned out to be Asuncion, a
movie actor using the screen name Vic Vargas. Advincula then asked the accused if they can
inspect the vehicle. Advincula conducted a search on the vehicle and he found a plastic packet
containing white substance suspected to be SHABU beneath the drivers seat. The accused told
the policemen that he just borrowed the said car and he is not the owner. However, when he
was frisked by Advincula at the headquarters, the latter groped something from his underwear,
turned out to be a plastic packet containing white substance suspected to be SHABU.
the accused denied.
ISSUE IS ACCUSED GUILTY
RULING YES
After a careful examination, this Court finds no cogent reason to overturn the decision of the
appellate court.
Well-entrenched in this country is the rule that no arrest, search and seizure can be made
without a valid warrant issued by competent judicial authority. So sacred is this right that no
less then the fundamental law of the land ordains it.
the rule that search and seizure must be supported by a valid warrant is not absolute. The
search of a moving vehicle is one of the doctrinally accepted exceptions to the Constitutional
mandate that no search or seizure shall be made except by virtue of a warrant issued by a
judge after personally determining the existence of probable cause. The prevalent circumstances
of the case undoubtedly bear out the fact that the search in question was made as regards a
moving vehicle petitioners vehicle was flagged down by the apprehending officers upon
identification. Therefore, the police authorities were justified in searching the petitioners
automobile without a warrant since the situation demanded immediate action.
The apprehending officers even sought the permission of petitioner to search the car, to which
the latter agreed. As such, since the shabu was discovered by virtue of a valid warrantless
search and the petitioner himself freely gave his consent to said search, the prohibited drugs
found as a result were admissible in evidence. crlwvirtualibrry
In the case at bar, there was no warrant of arrest or search warrant issued by a judge after
personal determination by him of the existence of probable cause. Contrary to the averments of
the government, the accused-appellant was not caught in flagrante nor was a crime about to be
committed or had just been committed to justify the warrantless arrest allowed under Rule 113
of the Rules of Court.
In the many cases where this Court has sustained the warrantless
First of all, even though the police authorities already identified the petitioner as an alleged
shabu dealer and confirmed the area where he allegedly was plying his illegal trade, they were
uncertain as to the time he would show up in the vicinity. Secondly, they were uncertain as to
the type of vehicle petitioner would be in, taking into account reports that petitioner used
different cars in going to and from the area. Finally, there was probable cause as the same
police officers had a previous encounter with the petitioner, who was then able to evade
arrest. As the Solicitor General argued:
. . .With this knowledge and experience, the narcotic operatives had reasonable ground to
believe that the gray Nissan car referred to by their confidential informant was one of the
vehicles being used by their subject so that when the same was pointed to them by their
confidential informant, with the information that the occupant thereof was carrying shabu, the
operatives had to act quickly. Otherwise, they would again lose their subject whom they
reasonably believed to be committing a crime at that instance. There would be no more time for
them to secure a search warrant.16
Thus, when the police officers suddenly sighted petitioners gray Nissan Sentra, they obviously
no longer had the time to apply for a search warrant. The dictates of urgency necessitated the
flagging down of the vehicle.
One final note. Considering the fact that less than one (1) gram of shabu was found in the
possession of petitioner, this Court agrees with the penalty imposed by the appellate court as
this in line with previous decisions on the matter. wvirtualibrry
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
3 PEOPLE V BAGISTA
8:00 in the morning, NARCOM OF Baguio City, received information from one of its regular
informants that a certain woman, 23 years of age, with naturally curly hair, and with a height of
52" or 53", would be transporting marijuana from up north. Sgt. Oscar Parajas AND Sgt.
Godofredo Fider and a civilian NARCOM agent proceeded to Km. 16, Acop, Tublay, Benguet.
Upon arriving they established a checkpoint and flagged down all vehicles, both private and
public,
the NARCOM agents stopped a Dangwa Tranco bus with Plate No. AVD 938 and body number
428, which came from Lepanto, Benguet. Sgts. Parajas and Fider boarded the bus and
thereupon Sgt. Parajas announced to the passengers that they were NARCOM agents and that
they were going to search their baggages. Sgt. Parajas then proceeded to the rear of the bus
while Sgt. Fider began inspecting the bags in the front.
While at the back, Sgt. Parajas noticed a woman with curly hair seated at the right ,Sgt. Parajas
inspected the bag and discovered three (3) bundles of marijuana leaves covered by assorted
clothing. The bag and the contents thereof were confiscated and the woman arrested.
In convicting accused-appellant, the trial court found the testimony of Sgt. Parajas credible.
Said the court a quo:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
". . . The testimony of Sgt. Oscar Parajas was direct and straightforward as he gave all the
requisite details of the entrapment operation they conducted based on an information provided
by a coordinating individual. His testimony reveals that the bag containing the marijuana leaves
was found on the lap of the accused. There is nothing in the record to suggest that Sgt. Parajas
was moved by any motive than simply the carrying out of his official mission or duty. Where
there is no evidence and nothing to indicate that the principal witness for the prosecution was
actuated by improper motives, the presumption is that he was not so actuated and his
testimony is entitled to full faith and credit (People v. Francia, L-69253, September 30, 1987,
154 SCRA 495)." 9
ISSUE WHETHER court a quo erred (1) in not finding the warrantless search conducted by the
NARCOM agents as illegal and unconstitutional, and (2) in admitting the illegally obtained
evidences and convicting her on the basis of said evidences.
RULING NO
The constitutional proscription against warrantless searches and seizures admits of certain
exceptions. Aside from a search incident to a lawful arrest, a warrantless search had been
upheld in cases of a moving vehicle, and the seizure of evidence in plain view.
With regard to the search of moving vehicles, this had been justified on the ground that the
mobility of motor vehicles makes it possible for the vehicle to be searched to move out of the
locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought.
however, gives the police officers unlimited discretion to conduct warrantless searches of
automobiles in the absence of probable cause. When a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an
extensive search, such a warrantless search has been held to be valid only as long as the
officers conducting the search have reasonable or probable cause to believe before the search
that they will find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime, in the vehicle to be
searched.
The NARCOM officers in the case at bar had probable cause to stop and search all vehicles
coming from the north at Acop, Tublay, Benguet in view of the confidential information they
received from their regular informant that a woman having the same appearance as that of
accused-appellant would be bringing marijuana from up north. They likewise have probable
cause to search accused-appellants belongings since she fits the description given by the
NARCOM informant.
Since there was a valid warrantless search by the NARCOM agents, any evidence obtained
during the course of said search is admissible against Accused-Appellant.chanrobles virtual
lawlibrary
 Upon inspection, the bag was found to contain dried marijuana leaves packed in a plastic bag
The prosecution had shown, primarily through the positive testimony of Sgt. Parajas, that the marked Cash Katutak. The team confiscated the bag together with the Victory Liner bus ticket to
bag containing the dried marijuana leaves was taken from accused-appellants possession. which Lt. Domingo affixed his signature.

She denies this fact and contends that the bag in question was actually taken from the luggage
carrier above the passenger seats and not from her.
Moreover, Accused-appellants defense was weakened by the fact that her witness Nestor
Yangkin contradicted her on the matter of the 10 sacks of vegetables appellant claims to have
brought with her at the time of her arrest. Appellant claims she loaded the sacks of vegetables
on the bus and tried to pay for its fare, but that conductor Yangkin, put her off. Yangkin claims
otherwise: the sacks of vegetables were loaded by a man who told him that the fare for the
sacks will be paid upon arrival in Baguio City, and that no one on the bus offered to pay for the
same.cralawnad
After the prosecution made a formal offer of evidence, the defense filed a Comment and/or
Objection to Prosecutions Formal Offer of Evidence contesting the admissibility of the items
seized as they were allegedly a product of an unreasonable search and seizure.
Not convinced with her version of the incident, the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City
convicted accused-appellant of transporting eight (8) kilos and five hundred (500) grams of
marijuana from Baguio City to Olongapo City

Given the discrepancy on this point, the trial court correctly disregarded the corroborative ISSUE WHETHER Aruta is guilty
testimony of Nestor Yangkin. The matter of the ownership of the 10 sacks of vegetables is
material since appellants reason for being on the bus was to deliver these sacks to Baguio City. RULING NO
If the sacks of vegetables are not hers, then the only conclusion that can be drawn is that she
was on her way to Baguio City to sell the marijuana found in her possession.
The following cases are specifically provided or allowed by law:
As to the alleged discrepancies in the prosecutions case, such as the color of the stripes of the
bag which contained the marijuana and whether the items seized from accused-appellant were
marijuana leaves or marijuana fruit tops, these are minor in character and do not detract from 1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section 12, Rule 126 of the
the prosecutions case since it was shown by the Receipt of Property Seized, which was signed Rules of Court8 and by prevailing jurisprudence;
by accused-appellant, that these were the very items taken from her at the time of her arrest.

WHEREFORE, finding no error in the decision appealed from, the same is hereby AFFIRMED in 2. Seizure of evidence in plain view, the elements of which are:
toto. Costs against Accused-Appellant.
(a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally
SO ORDERED. present in the pursuit of their official duties;

4 PEOPLE V ARUTA (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they
are;

Accused-appellant Rosa Aruta y Menguin was arrested and charged with violating Section 4, (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent, and
Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 or the Dangerous Drugs Act.

1988, P/Lt. Abello was tipped off by his informant, known only as Benjie, that a certain Aling (d) plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search;
Rosa would be arriving from Baguio City the following day, December 14, 1988, with a large
volume of marijuana. Acting on said tip, P/Lt. Abello assembled a team.
3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the government, the vehicles inherent
mobility reduces expectation of privacy especially when its transit in public thoroughfares
Said team proceeded to West Bajac-Bajac, Olongapo City and deployed themselves near the furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause that the occupant
Philippine National Bank (PNB) building along Rizal Avenue and the Caltex gasoline station. committed a criminal activity;
Dividing themselves into two groups, one group, made up of P/Lt. Abello, P/Lt. Domingo and the
informant posted themselves near the PNB building while the other group waited near the Caltex
4. Consented warrantless search;
gasoline station.

5. Customs search;9crlwvirtualibrry
positioned, a Victory Liner Bus stopped in front of the PNB building where two females and a
male got off. It was at this stage that the informant pointed out to the team Aling Rosa who was
then carrying a travelling bag. 6. Stop and Frisk;10 and

Having ascertained, the team approached her and introduced themselves as NARCOM agents.
When P/Lt. Abello asked Aling Rosa about the contents of her bag, the latter handed it to the
former.
7. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances.11crlwvirtualibrry
The essential requisite of probable cause must still be satisfied before a warrantless search and
seizure can be lawfully conducted.
In searches and seizures effected without a warrant, it is necessary for probable cause to be
present. Absent any probable cause, the article(s) seized could not be admitted and used as
evidence against the person arrested. Probable cause, in these cases, must only be based on
reasonable ground of suspicion or belief that a crime has been committed or is about to be
committed.
In our jurisprudence, there are instances where information has become a sufficient probable
cause to effect a warrantless search and seizure.
In instant case, the apprehending officers already had prior knowledge from their informant
regarding Arutas alleged activities. In instant case, there is no single indication that Aruta was
acting suspiciously
In present case, the police officers had reasonable time within which to secure a search warrant.
Second, Arutas identity was priorly ascertained. Third, Aruta was not acting suspiciously. Fourth,
Malmstedt(other case) was searched aboard a moving vehicle, a legally accepted exception to
the warrant requirement. Aruta, on the other hand, was searched while about to cross a street.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 73,
Olongapo City, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. For lack of evidence to establish her guilt
beyond reasonable doubt, accused-appellant ROSA ARUTA Y MENGUIN is hereby ACQUITTED
and ordered RELEASED from confinement unless she is being held for some other legal grounds.
No costs.SO ORDERED
5 PEOPLE V VALDEZ
1994, SPO1 Bernardo Mariano was in the Municipality of Banaue, Ifugao waiting for a ride to
report for work. A civilian asset approached him and intimated that an Ilocano person was ready
to transport marijuana. This asset described to him the physical appearance of the suspect as
thin and possessing a green bag. Mr. Mariano invited the asset . There they alighted and
stopped and ordinary Dangwa passenger bus bound for Baguio City. Aboard on this bus, they
did not find the person concerned and reaching Barangay Pitawan, Hingyon, Ifugao, they
stepped out of the vehicle and waited for the air conditioned Dangwa bus bound for Manila.
When this bus arrived, Mariano boarded the aircon bus and looked for that person from among
the passengers and noticed him holding the green bag. He immediately ordered the person to
get out of the bus. This fellow followed holding the bag. Once outside, he further ordered the
suspect to open the bag and saw a water jug colored red and white and a lunch box. He told this
man to open the jug and the lunch box and when opened, he saw marijuana leaves as contents.
At this time, suspect revealed his name to be Samuel Yu Valdez.
ISSUE WHETHER VALDEZ IS GUILTY
RULING YES
Appellant contends that the marijuana allegedly seized from him was a product of an unlawful
search, hence, inadmissible in evidence.
Settled is the rule that no arrest, search and seizure can be made without a valid warrant issued
by a competent judicial authority. The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and
seizures. It further decrees that any evidence obtained in violation of said rights shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. crlwvirtualibrry
Nevertheless, the constitutional proscription against warrantless searches and seizures admits of
certain legal and judicial exceptions, as follows: (1) warrantless search incidental to a lawful
arrest recognized under Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court and by prevailing
jurisprudence; (2) seizure 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.10crlwvirtualibrry
On the other hand, a lawful arrest without a warrant may be made by a peace officer or a
private person under the following circumstances:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or
is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) 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; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or
place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or
has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.11
In this case, appellant was caught in flagrante since he was carrying marijuana at the time of
his arrest. A crime was actually being committed by the appellant, thus, the search made upon
his personal effects falls squarely under paragraph (a) of the foregoing provisions of law, which
allow a warrantless search incident to lawful arrest. While it is true that SPO1 Mariano was not
armed with a search warrant when the search was conducted over the personal effects of
appellant, nevertheless, under the circumstances of the case, there was sufficient probable
cause for said police officer to believe that appellant was then and there committing a crime.
Our jurisprudence is replete with instances where tipped information has become a sufficient
probable cause to effect a warrantless search and seizure.
As in the instant case, police officer Mariano was tipped off by a civilian asset that a thin Ilocano
person with a green bag was about to transport marijuana from Banaue, Ifugao. Said
information was received by SPO1 Mariano the very same morning he was waiting for a ride in
Banaue to report for work in Lagawe, the capital town of Ifugao province. Thus, face with such
on-the-spot information, the law enforcer had to respond quickly to the call of duty. Obviously,
there was not enough time to secure a search warrant considering the time involved in the
process. In fact, in view of the urgency of the case, SPO1 Mariano together with the civilian
asset proceeded immediately to Hingyon, Ifugao to pursue the drug trafficker. In Hingyon, he
flagged down buses bound for Baguio City and Manila, and looked for the person described by
the informant. It must be noted that the target of the pursuit was just the thin Ilocano person
with a green bag and no other. And so, when SPO1 Mariano inspected the bus bound for Manila,
he just singled out the passenger with the green bag. Evidently, there was definite information
of the identity of the person engaged in transporting prohibited drugs at a particular time and
place. SPO1 Mariano had already an inkling of the identity of the person he was looking for. As a
matter of fact, no search at all was conducted on the baggages of other passengers. Hence,
appellants claim that the arresting officer was only fishing for evidence of a crime has no factual
basis.
Clearly, SPO1 Mariano had probable cause to stop and search the buses coming from Banaue in
view of the information he got from the civilian asset that somebody having the same
appearance as that of appellant and with a green bag would be transporting marijuana from
Banaue. He likewise had probable cause to search appellants belongings since he fits the
description given by the civilian asset. Since there was a valid warrantless search by the police
officer, any evidence obtained during the course of said search is admissible against appellant.
Appellant likewise asserts that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
He claims that when SPO1 Mariano apprehended him, he was not in possession of the green bag
as the same was under the seat before him.
From the foregoing testimony, it can be gleamed that when appellant was asked to get off the
bus and bring his bag, appellant brought with him said bag. If, indeed, the bag was not his, he
should not have taken it with him in alighting from the bus. Besides, denial, like alibi, if not
substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative and self-serving evidence bearing no
weight in law. tualibrry
Appellant further avers that the civilian asset should have been presented in court to shed light
on how he managed to get his information. This argument is not tenable. The settled rule is that
the presentation of an informant in illegal drugs case is not essential for conviction nor is it
indispensable for a successful prosecution because his testimony would be merely corroborative
and cumulative. tualibrry
Based on the foregoing, this Court is convinced that the guilt of appellant has been proven
beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence on record.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The judgment of the lower court finding appellant
guilty of the crime illegal transport of marijuana and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and
to pay fine of P500,000.00 is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against appellant.
SO ORDERED.
6 PEOPLE V GONZALES
PO1 Reggie Pedroso in the evening of August 29, 1993, the Chief of Police of Dueas, Iloilo and
other policemen on duty including himself, received information that a woman with long hair,
wearing maongpants and jacket, and Ray Ban sunglasses would be transporting marijuana
along the national highway. According to the tipped information, the woman would bring a black
traveling bag and would ride a trisikad. Based on this information, the Chief of Police, that same
evening, instructed his men to conduct mobile patrol in the poblacion of Dueas and along the
national highway.
According to PO1 Pedroso, They made the rounds on board a mobile car. 6:45 A.M., they passed
by a woman who fitted the informers description. She was standing along the national highway
holding a black traveling bag in a trisikad. The law enforcers were one meter away from her
when they spotted her. The woman denied ownership of the bag. When PO1 Pedroso inquired
from the trisikad driver, later identified as Isaac Lamera, about the ownership of the bag, the
latter pointed to the woman as the owner of the said bag. Believing that the bag contained
marijuana per tipped information, the policemen brought appellant, Lamera and the bag to the
police station. Inside the bag, they found wrapped in newspaper ten (10) bricks of dried
marijuana leaves. Later on, the woman was asked about her personal circumstances. She
identified herself as Erlinda Gonzales, herein appellant
Appellant denied her involvement in the drug transport.
ISSUE WHETHER appellants warrantless arrest legal, thereby making the bricks of marijuana
leaves allegedly seized from her admissible in evidence
RULING YES
Basic is the rule that no arrest, search or seizure can be made without a valid warrant issued by
a competent judicial authority. The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure
in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Any
evidence obtained in violation of said right shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding. crlwvirtualibrry
Nevertheless, the constitutional proscription against warrantless searches and seizures admits of
certain legal and judicial exceptions, as follows: (1) warrantless search incidental to a lawful
arrest recognized under Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court and by prevailing
jurisprudence; (2) seizure 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. crlwvirtualibrry
Moreover, a lawful arrest without a warrant may be made by a peace officer or a private person
under the following circumstances:
a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on
personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it;
and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or
place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or
has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall
be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in
accordance with Section 7 of Rule 112. crlwvirtualibrry
In this case, the trial court found and held that appellant was caught in flagrante carrying
marijuana leaves and fruiting tops at the time of her arrest. A crime was actually being
committed by the appellant; thus, her arrest and the search of her black traveling bag fall
squarely under paragraph (a) of the aforecited provisions of the Rules allowing a warrantless
search incident to lawful arrest. On this score, we are in agreement with the trial court. While it
is true that the apprehending officers were not armed with a search warrant when the search
was conducted over the personal effects of appellant, nevertheless under the circumstances of
the case, there was sufficient probable cause for said police officers to believe that appellant
was then and there committing a crime.
In the case at bar, the police officers were tipped off only on the evening of August 29, 1993.
The contraband was to be transported early in the morning of the following day. Certainly, the
law enforcers had no time to secure the needed warrants. The only recourse left to the police
was to arrest the courier in flagrante. There was a description about the identity of the person
engaged in transporting prohibited drugs at a particular time and place. The law enforcers
already had an inkling of the personal circumstances of the person they were looking for.
Accordingly, when the police officers saw the woman who fitted the tipped description given
earlier and who was later identified as the appellant, standing near a trisikad, along the national
highway holding the handle of a black traveling bag on a trisikad, they had probable cause to
apprehend appellant.
 In our view, appellants arrest was legal and the search of her bag conducted by the police was
not illegal. Consequently, the marijuana bricks seized from appellant during the search is
admissible in evidence against her since they were taken incidental to a lawful arrest.

WHEREFORE , the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 39, in Criminal Case
No. 42441, finding appellant ERLINDA GONZALES Y EVANGELISTA, guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of illegal transport of marijuana is AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that appellant is
hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetuaand to pay the fine of Twenty
Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) and the costs.

SO ORDERED.