People vs.

Aruta
288 SCRA 626 him, inspected his bag and finding what looked liked marijuana
G.R. No. 120515
April 13, 1998 leaves took him to their headquarters for investigation. The
Facts:
two bundles of suspect articles were confiscated from him and later
On Dec. 13, 1988, P/Lt. Abello was tipped off by his informant that a taken to the NBI laboratory for examination. It was found to contain
certain Aling Rosa will be arriving from Baguio City with a large
volume of marijuana and assembled a team. The next day, at the three kilos of what were later analyzed as marijuana leaves by an NBI
Victory Liner Bus terminal they waited for the bus coming from
Baguio, when the informer pointed out who Aling Rosa was, the forensic examiner. An information for violation of the Dangerous
team approached her and introduced themselves as NARCOM
agents. When Abello asked aling Rosa about the contents of her Drugs Act was filed against him. Later, the information was amended
bag, the latter handed it out to the police. They found dried marijuana
leaves packed in a plastic bag marked cash katutak. to include Farida Ali y Hassen, who had also been arrested with him

Instead of presenting its evidence, the defense filed a demurrer to that same evening and likewise investigated. Both were arraigned and
evidence alleging the illegality of the search and seizure of the items.
pleaded not guilty. Subsequently, the fiscal filed a motion to dismiss
In her testimony, the accused claimed that she had just come from
Choice theatre where she watched a movie Balweg. While about to the charge against Ali on the basis of a sworn statement of the
cross the road an old woman asked her for help in carrying a shoulder
bag, when she was later on arrested by the police. She has no arresting officers absolving her after a 'thorough investigation." The
knowledge of the identity of the old woman and the woman was
nowhere to be found. motion was granted, and trial proceeded only against the accused-

Also, no search warrant was presented. appellant, who was eventually convicted . In his defense, Aminnudin

The trial court convicted the accused in violation of the dangerous disclaimed the marijuana, averring that all he had in his bag was his
drugs of 1972
clothing consisting of a jacket, two shirts and two pairs of pants.
Issue: Whether or Not the police correctly searched and seized the He allegedthat he was arbitrarily arrested and immediately
drugs from the accused.
handcuffed. His bag was confiscated without a search warrant. At the
Held: The following cases are specifically provided or allowed by
law: PC headquarters, he was manhandled to force him to admit he was

1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under carrying the marijuana,the investigator hitting him with a piece of
Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court 8 and by prevailing
jurisprudence wood in the chest and arms even as he parried the blows while he was
2. Seizure of evidence in "plain view," the elements of which are: (a) a
prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the still handcuffed. He insisted he did not even know what marijuana
police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties; (b) the
looked like and that his business was selling watches and
evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the
right to be where they are; (c) the evidence must be immediately sometimes cigarettes. However the RTC rejected his allegations.
apparent, and (d) "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence
without further search; Saying that he only has two watches during that time and that he did
3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the government, the
vehicle's inherent mobility reduces expectation of privacy especially not sufficiently proved the injuries allegedly sustained.
when its transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable
suspicion amounting to probable cause that the occupant committed a
criminal activity;
4. Consented warrantless search; Issue:
5. Customs search;
Whether or not search of defendants bag is legal.
6. Stop and Frisk;
7. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances.

The essential requisite of probable cause must still be satisfied before Held: The search was illegal. Defendant was not caught in flagrante
a warrantless search and seizure can be lawfully conducted.
delicto, which could allow warrantless arrest or search. At the
The accused cannot be said to be committing a crime, she was
merely crossing the street and was not acting suspiciously for the moment of his arrest, he was not committing a crime. Nor was he
Narcom agents to conclude that she was committing a crime.
There was no legal basis to effect a warrantless arrest of the about to do so or had just done so. To all appearances, he was like
accuseds bag, there was no probable cause and the accused was
not lawfully arrested. any of the other passengers innocently disembarking from the vessel.

The said marijuana therefore could not be appreciated as evidence

The police had more than 24 hours to procure a search warrant against the defendant, and furthermore he is acquitted of the crime as
and they did not do so. The seized marijuana was illegal and
inadmissible evidence. charged.

PEOPLE VS. AMMINUDIN [163 SCRA 402; G.R. L-74869; 6 Jul People vs. Salanguit
356 SCRA 683
1988]
G.R. Nos. 133254-55
April 19, 2001

Facts:

Idel Aminnudin, accused-appellant was arrested on June 25, 1984, FACTS:

shortly after disembarking from the M/V Wilcon 9 at about 8:30 in

A search warrant was shown to the accused-appellant and the police
the evening, in Iloilo City. The PC officers who were in fact waiting
operatives started searching the house. They found heat-sealed
for him because of a tip from one their informers simply accosted
transparent plastic bags containing a white crystalline substance, a Thus, the Court affirmed the decision as to Criminal Case Q-95-
paper clip box also containing a white crystalline substance, and two 64357 only.
bricks of dried leaves which appeared to be marijuana. A receipt of
the items seized was prepared, but the accused-appellant refused to
sign it. Charges against Roberto Salanguit y Ko for violations of
Republic Act (RA) 6425, i.e. for possession of shabu and marijuana,
(Criminal Cases Q-95-64357 and Q-95-64358, respectively) were
filed, and after hearing, the trial court convicted him in Criminal
Cases Q-95-64357 and Q-95-64358 for violation of Section 16 and 8,
respectively.

The accused-appellant contended that the evidence against him was

inadmissible because the warrant used in obtaining it was invalid.

ISSUES:

Whether the warrant was invalid for failure of providing evidence to

support the seizure of drug paraphernalia, and whether the
marijuana may be included as evidence in light of the plain view
doctrine.
HELD:
Yes. The warrant authorized the seizure of undetermined quantity of
shabu and drug paraphernalia. Evidence was presented showing
probable cause of the existence of methamphetamine hydrochloride
or shabu. The fact that there was no probable cause to support the
application for the seizure of drug paraphernalia does not warrant the
conclusion that the search warrant is void. This fact would be
SUMMARY SEARCH AND SEIZURE
1. The Constitution does not prohibit all kinds of searches and
seizures. It only prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.
2. A search and seizure is unreasonable if it is made without a
warrant, or the warrant was invalidly issued.
3. A search and seizure without a warrant is still reasonable if
conducted under the following circumstances:
a. Incident to a lawful arrest
It must be made AFTER the arrest. The objective is to make sure
that the life of the peace officer will not be endangered.
It must be contemporaneous with the arrest in both time and place.

material only if drug paraphernalia was in fact seized by the police. b. Search of moving vehicles
The fact is that none was taken by virtue of the search warrant issued. c. Consent searches
If at all, therefore, the search warrant is void only insofar as it
Only the person whose right may be violated can give the consent;
authorized the seizure of drug paraphernalia, but it is valid as to the it is a personal right.
seizure of methamphetamine hydrochloride as to which evidence was
The requisites are:
presented showing probable cause as to its existence. In sum, with
respect to the seizure of shabu from Salanguits residence, Search (1) The person has knowledge of his right against the search;
Warrant 160 was properly issued, such warrant being founded on (2) He freely gives his consent in spite of such knowledge.
probable cause personally determined by the judge under oath or
d. Objects in plain view
affirmation of the deposing witness and particularly describing the
place to be searched and the things to be seized. With respect to, and Requisites:
in light of the plain view doctrine, the police failed to allege the
(1) There must have been a prior valid intrusion, and the
time when the marijuana was found, i.e., whether prior to, or officer must have had a right to be at the place searched at the time of
contemporaneous with, the shabu subject of the warrant, or whether it the search;
(2) The evidence was inadvertently discovered;
was recovered on Salanguits person or in an area within his
(3) The evidence must be immediately apparent;
immediate control. Its recovery, therefore, presumably during the (4) There was no need for further search.
search conducted after the shabu had been recovered from the
e. Customs searches
cabinet, as attested to by SPO1 Badua in his deposition, was invalid.
f. Stop and Frisk/ Exigent circumstances
g. Emergency