People vs Raul Nuez y Revilleza / G.R. No.

177148 (Justice Quisumbing)

Facts:
At 6:00 a.m. on April 26, 2001, operatives of the Sta. Cruz, Laguna Police Detectives in
coordination with the Los Baos Police Station (LBPS) and IID Mobile Force conducted a
search in the house of Raul R. Nuez based on reports of drug possession. Before
proceeding to appellants 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. Following the search, SPO1 Ilagan issued a Receipt for
Property Seized and a Certification of Orderly Search which appellant signed. RTC
convicted appellant. The appellate court dismissed appellants defense of frame-up and
upheld the credibility of SPO1 Ilagan and PO2 Ortega. It observed that the
inconsistencies in their testimony were minor at best, and did not relate to the elements
of the crime.
Issue:
Whether or not appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Possession of Regulated
Drugs under the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.
Ruling:
In seizing the said items then, the police officers exercised their own discretion and
determined for themselves which items in appellants residence they believed were
proceeds of the crime or means of committing the offense. This is, in our view, absolutely
impermissible. 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.
Andrew Harvey vs. Miriam Defensor Santiago / G.R. No. 82544 (Justice Melencio-
Herrera)
Facts:
Petitioners Andrew Harvey and John Sherman, 52 and 72 years, respectively, are both
American nationals residing at Pagsanjan, Laguna, while Adriaan Van Elshout, 58 years
old, is a Dutch citizen also residing at Pagsanjan, Laguna. Petitioners were among the
twenty-two (22) suspected alien pedophiles who were apprehended after three months
of close surveillance by CID agents in Pagsanjan, Laguna. Two (2) days after
apprehension, or on 29 February 1988, seventeen (17) of the twenty-two (22) arrested
aliens opted for self-deportation and have left the country. Andrew Harvey filed a
Manifestation/Motion stating that he had "finally agreed to a self-deportation" and
praying that he be "provisionally released for at least 15 days and placed under the
custody of Atty. Asinas before he voluntarily departs the country."
Issue:
Whether or not Respondent violated Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution
prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures since the CID agents were not clothed
with valid Warrants of arrest, search and seizure as required by the said provision.
Ruling:
We reject petitioners' contentions and uphold respondent's official acts ably defended by
the Solicitor General. Under the circumstances the CID agents had reasonable grounds
to believe that petitioners had committed. At any rate, the filing by petitioners of a
petition to be released on bail should be considered as a waiver of any irregularity
attending their arrest and estops them from questioning its validity.
Hortenacia Salazar vs. Hon. Achacoso/ G.R. No. 81510 (Justice Sarmiento)
Facts:
On October 21, 1987, Rosalie Tesoro of 177 Tupaz Street, Leveriza, Pasay City, in a
sworn statement filed with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA
for brevity) charged petitioner Hortencia Salazar. On January 26, 1988 POEA Director
on Licensing and Regulation Atty. Estelita B. Espiritu issued an office order designating
respondents Atty. Marquez, Atty. Jovencio Abara and Atty. Ernesto Vistro as members of
a team tasked to implement Closure and Seizure Order No. 1205. There it was found
that petitioner was operating Hannalie Dance Studio. Before entering the place, the
team served said Closure and Seizure order on a certain Mrs. Flora Salazar who
voluntarily allowed them entry into the premises. The team confiscated assorted
costumes which were duly receipted for by Mrs. Asuncion Maguelan and witnessed by
Mrs. Flora Salazar. On February 2, 1988, the petitioner filed this suit for prohibition.
Issue:
Whether or not the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (or the Secretary of
Labor) validly issue warrants of search and seizure (or arrest) under Article 38 of the
Labor Code
Ruling:
Under the new Constitution, which states: xxx no search warrant or warrant of arrest
shall issue except upon probable cause 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 persons or things
to be seized. it is only a judge who may issue warrants of search and arrest. Neither
may it be done by a mere prosecuting body. We have held that a warrant must identify
clearly the things to be seized, otherwise, it is null and void. The respondents are
ORDERED to return all materials seized as a result of the implementation of Search
and Seizure Order No. 1205.
Eduardo Quintero vs The National Bureau of Investigation / G.R. No. L-35149
(Justice Padilla)
Facts:
On 19 May 1972, petitioner Eduardo Quintero, delegate of the first district of Leyte to
the 1971 Constitutional Convention (Con-Con, for short) delivered a privilege speech at
a plenary session of the Con-Con. In his speech, Delegate Quintero disclosed that, on
different occasions, certain persons had distributed money to some delegates of the
Con-Con, apparently in an effort to influence the delegates in the discharge of their
functions. However, pressure mounted on Delegate Quintero to reveal the Identities of
the people behind the "payola" scheme. Said application was accompanied by an
affidavit of the complainant, Congressman Artemio Mate, whose affidavit was allegedly
made also before the respondent judge. The interrogations conducted by the
respondent judge, upon the applicant NBI agent Samuel Castro, showed that the latter
knew nothing, of his own personal knowledge, to show that Mr. Quintero had committed
any offense.
Issue: Whether or not the search warrant was valid
Ruling: Search Warrant No. 7 was NULL AND VOID
It was not shown by any competent evidence that the document supposedly inside "he
folder-whatever it was was actually signed by Quintero. There was no showing by
competent evidence that the money supposedly given to Quintero was the payment for
the signing by Quintero of the statement whatever it was given to him inside a
folder by the two persons. Disregarding for a moment the absence of "probable cause,"
the search itself that was conducted by the NBI agents who raided the house of
petitioner, pursuant to the questioned search warrant, was highly irregular.
Vlason Enterprise Corp. vs. Court of Appeals / G.R. No. 121662 (Justice
Panganiban)
Facts:
A civil action for for the recovery of possession of two pieces of salvaged bronze
propellers of a sunken vessel was instituted by Sosuan, as buyer, against the seller, Lo
Bu and against all persons from which Lo Bu purchased the propeller.
Issue:
Whether or not the absence of a criminal prosecution in the court receiving or issuing a
search warrant makes the filing of a civil suit necessary.
Ruling:
Yes. It does not itself furnish basis for or warrant the transfer of possession from one
party to the other in the civil action. The theory that the act of one branch of a Court of
First Instance may be deemed to be the act of another branch of the same court is,
upon its face, absurd. It flies in the teeth of the all too familiar actuality that each branch
is a distinct and separate court, exercising jurisdiction over the cases assigned to it to
the exclusion of all other branches.
(Sorry. This case is long, confusing and difficult. This is pretty much the essence
though.)
PDEA vs. Richard Brodett / G.R. No. 196390 (Justice Bersamin)
Facts:
Richard Brodett and Jorge Joseph were charged with a violation of Sec. 5 in relation to
Sec. 26 (b), of RA 9165. Brodett later filed a motion to return non-drug evidence. He
averred that during the arrest, the PDEA had seized several personal non-drug effects
from him including a car. PDEA refused to return his personal effects. The Office of the
Prosecutor objected to the return of the car because it appeared to be the instrument in
the commission of the violation due to its being the vehicle used in the transaction and
sale of dangerous drugs.
Issue:
Whether or not the seizure of personal effects is lawful
Ruling:
Yes. Personal property may be seized in connection with a criminal offense either by the
authority of a search warrant or as a product of a search incident to a lawful arrest. The
personal effects of Brodett are in custodia legis. To release it before the judgment would
be to deprive the trial court and the parties access to it as evidence.
(Isa pa tong case. Mahaba at mahirap. Again, just took the essence of the case.)
Padilla vs Court of Appeals / G.R. No. 121917 (Justice Francisco)
Facts: High-powered firearms with live ammunitions were found in the possession of
petitioner Robin Padilla.

Appellant voluntarily surrendered item no. 3. and a black bag containing two additional
long magazines and one short magazine.

PNP Chief Espino, Record Branch of the Firearms and Explosives Office issued a
Certification which stated that the three firearms confiscated from appellant, an M-16
Baby armalite rifle SN-RP 131280, a .357 caliber revolver Smith and Wesson SN 32919
and a .380 Pietro Beretta SN-A35720, were not registered in the name of Robin C.
Padilla. A second Certification stated that the three firearms were not also registered in
the name of Robinhood C. Padilla.
.
Issue: Whether or not the evidence obtained is valid
Ruling: No. There is no dispute that no warrant was issued for the arrest of petitioner,
but that per se did not make his apprehension at the Abacan bridge illegal.
Even assuming that the firearms and ammunitions were products of an active search
done by the authorities on the person and vehicle of petitioner, their seizure without a
search warrant nonetheless can still be justified under a search incidental to a lawful
arrest (first instance). Once the lawful arrest was effected, the police may undertake a
protective search of the passenger compartment and containers in the vehicle which are
within petitioner's grabbing distance regardless of the nature of the offense.
Court of Appeals sustaining petitioner's conviction by the lower court of the crime of
simple illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions is AFFIRMED.
People vs De Guzman / G.R. No. 117952-53 (Justice Ynares-Santiago)
Facts:
SPO1 Arnel Cuevas spotted Danilo de Guzman at the Villamar Beach Resort, but the
latter stayed for only thirty (30) minutes. Subsequently, he learned that De Guzman was
engaged in a drug sale that day and reported the same to headquarters. Pursuant to his
report, the Chief of Intelligence of their station, SPO2 Rowell Tendero, instructed him to
continue his surveillance of said beach resort with the hope of catching Danilo de
Guzman.The police officers were without warrants of arrest or search warrants at the
time of the arrests and seizure of evidence. As the operation was conducted largely
during nighttime, the police officers were unable to secure the necessary warrants for
fear of leaving the place of surveillance. Subsequent forensic examination by Felicisima
Francisco of the National Bureau of Investigation showed that the substance seized was
indeed methampetamine hydrochloride or shabu weighing 299.5 grams.
Issue: Whether or not the evidence obtained is admissible
Ruling:
Yes. A close scrutiny of the records reveals that the police officers manner of conducting
the accused-appellants arrest was not tainted with any constitutional infirmity. Despite
word from their fellow officer, SPO1 Cuevas, that he saw accused-appellant sniff shabu,
they resisted the first impulse to storm the rented cottage which could have caused
them to seriously disregard constitutional safeguards. Instead, the police officers waited
for the needed opening to validly arrest the accused. To their minds, it would be the
arrival of drug buyers. As the situation would have it, the arrest was necessitated by the
presence of accused-appellant with a gun obviously tucked in his pants.
People vs. Musa / G.R. No. 96177 (Justice Romero)
Facts:
Prosecution evidence shows that in the morning of December 13, 1989, T/Sgt. Jesus
Belarga, leader of a NARCOTICS COMMAND (NARCOM) team based at Calarian,
Zamboanga City, instructed Sgt. Amado Ani to conduct surveillance and test buy on a
certain Mari Musa of Suterville, Zamboanga City. Information received from civilian
informer was that this Mari Musa was engaged in selling marijuana in said place. So
Sgt. Amado Ani, another NARCOM agent, proceeded to Suterville, to the house of Mari
Musa to which house the civilian informer had guided him. They conducted buy bust
operation Sgt. Belarga frisked Mari Musa but could not find the P20.00 marked money
with him. Mari Musa was then asked where the P20.00 was and he told the NARCOM
team he has given the money to his wife (who had slipped away). Sgt. Belarga also
found a plastic bag containing dried marijuana inside it somewhere in the kitchen. Mari
Musa was then placed under arrest and brought to the NARCOM office.
Issue: Whether or not evidence obtained is admissible evidence
Ruling:
No. In the case at bar, the NARCOM agents searched the person of the appellant after
arresting him in his house but found nothing. They then searched the entire house and,
in the kitchen, found and seized a plastic bag hanging in a corner. The warrantless
search and seizure, as an incident to a suspect's lawful arrest, may extend beyond the
person of the one arrested to include the premises or surroundings under his immediate
control. Objects in 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 as evidence. Therefore,
hold that under the circumstances of the case, the "plain view" doctrine does not apply
and the marijuana contained in the plastic bag was seized illegally and cannot be
presented in evidence pursuant to Article III, Section 3(2) of the Constitution.
People vs. Pablo Rodriguez / G.R. No. 79965 (Justice Quiason)
Facts:
On July 21, 1981, at about 3:00 o'clock (sic) in the afternoon, the Tabaco Police Station
received a report from an unidentified telephone caller that somebody was selling
marijuana inside the Wonder Dog Circus. In his brief, the Solicitor General agreed with
appellant's posture that the prosecution failed to establish the act of unlawfully selling,
distributing and delivering marijuana as alleged in the Information. But he claimed that
the prosecution's evidence indubitably established that appellant, having been caught in
flagrante delicto in possession of marijuana committed the crime of illegal possession of
marijuana under Section 8, Article II of R.A. No. 6425, as amended.
Issue: Whether or not appellant can be considered guilty of possession of marijuana
Ruling:
No. Admittedly, Pat. Gonzales searched appellant without a warrant. It is contended
however that the warrantless search was incidental to a lawful arrest. The arrest of
appellant itself was also made without a warrant of arrest. In such a case, the arrest can
be justified only if there was a crime committed in the presence of the arresting officers.
The marijuana supposedly confiscated from appellant is therefore inadmissible in
evidence for having been taken in violation of his constitutional right against
unreasonable searches and seizures.
People vs. Usana / G.R. No. 129756-58 (Justice Davide Jr.)
Facts:
On the 5th of April 1995 and during a COMELEC gun ban, some law enforcers of the
Makati Police, namely, PO3 Eduardo P. Suba, PO3 Bernabe Nonato, SPO4 Juan de los
Santos, and Inspector Ernesto Guico, were manning a checkpoint at the corner of
Senator Gil Puyat Ave. and the South Luzon Expressway (SLEX). They were checking
the cars going to Pasay City, stopping those they found suspicious, and imposing
merely a running stop on the others. At about past midnight, they stopped a Kia Pride
car with Plate No. TBH 493. PO3 Suba saw a long firearm on the lap of the person
seated at the passenger seat, who was later identified as Virgilio Usana. Upon reaching
the precinct, Nonato turned over the key to the desk officer. Since SPO4 de los Santos
was suspicious of the vehicle, he requested Escao to open the trunk. Escao readily
agreed and opened the trunk himself using his key. They noticed a blue bag inside it,
which they asked Escao to open. The bag contained a parcel wrapped in tape, which,
upon examination by National Bureau of Investigation Forensic Chemist Emilia A.
Rosaldos, was found positive for hashish weighing 3.3143 kilograms. A certification was
issued by the Firearms and Explosive Office of the National Police Commission
(NAPOLCOM) to the effect that Escao was not a licensed/registered firearms holder of
any kind and caliber.
Issue: Whether or not this was an illegal search or seizure
Ruling:
The facts adduced do not constitute a ground for a violation of the constitutional rights
of the accused against illegal search and seizure. Their having been with Escao in the
latters car before the "finding" of the hashish sometime after the lapse of an appreciable
time and without their presence left much to be desired to implicate them to the offense
of selling, distributing, or transporting the prohibited drug. In fact, there was no showing
that Usana and Lopez knew of the presence of hashish in the trunk of the car or that
they saw the same before it was seized.