Você está na página 1de 4

ABELITA III VS DORA inside the vehicle when petitioner opened the door.

Since a shooting
incident just took place and it was reported that petitioner was
involved in the incident, it was apparent to the police officers that
the firearms may be evidence of a crime, hence they were justified in
FACTS: seizing the firearms.

Judge Abelita III filed a complaint for Damages against P/Supt.


Doria and SPO3 Ramirez. Petitioner alleged that while he andhis
family are on their way home, these two officers requested them to
proceed to the Provincial PNP Headquarters at Camp BoniSerrano,
Masbate, Masbate. He was forcibly taken and was searched without PEOPLE VS GERENTE
warrant. A shotgun was found in his possession and hewas
arrested. Petitioner was charged with illegal possession of
firearms and frustrated murder.
FACTS:
The trial court found that petitionerwas at the scene of the shooting
incident in Barangay Nursery. The trial court ruled that the police The Valenzuela Police Station received a report about a mauling
officers who conducted the searchwere of the belief, based on incident. Upon learning at the hospital that the victim died on arrival
reasonable grounds, that petitioner was involved in the incident and and being informed of the cause of death, the policemen proceeded to
that the firearm used in the commission of the offense was in his the crime scene where they found a piece of wood with blood stains,
possession. The trial court ruled that petitioner’s warrantless arrest a hollow block and two roaches of marijuana. After being told by the
and the warrantless seizure ofthe firearms were valid and legal, eyewitness the identity of one of the three assailants, the policemen
thus, rejecting petitioner’s claim for frame up. went to appellant’s house where they introduced themselves, and
apprehended him and confiscated dried marijuana leaves.
ISSUE:
Whether the warrantless arrest and warrantless search and seizure
were illegal under Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal
Procedure; ISSUE:
Whether or not the search of appellant’s person and the seizure of the
HELD: marijuana leaves in his possession were valid.

No. For the warrantless arrest under this Rule to be valid, two
requisites must concur: HELD:
(1) the offender has just committed anoffense; and
(2) the arresting peace officer or private person has personal
knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has YES. The appellant contends that the trial court erred in admitting
committed it. the marijuana leaves as evidence in violation of his constitutional
right not to be subjected to illegal search and seizure, for the dried
Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure does marijuana leaves were seized from him in the course of a warrantless
not require the arresting officers to personally witness the arrest by the police officers. We do not agree.
commission of the offense with their own eyes.

In this case, P/Supt. Doria received a report about the alleged


shooting incident. SPO3Ramirez investigated the report and learned The search of appellant's person and the seizure of the marijuana
from witnesses that petitioner was involved in the incident. They leaves in his possession were valid because they were incident to a
were able to track down petitioner, but when invited to the police lawful warrantless arrest.
headquarters to shed light on the incident, petitioner initially agreed
then sped up his vehicle,prompting the police authorities to give
chase. Paragraphs (a) and (b), Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of
Court provide:
Petitioner’s act of trying to get away, coupled with the incident report
which they investigated, is enough to raise a reasonable suspicion on 'SECTION 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace
the part of the police authorities as to the existence of probable officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
cause.The seizure of the firearms was justified under the plain view
doctrine. "(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed,
is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;"

The plain view doctrine applies when the following requisites "(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has
concur: personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested
has committed it; . . .'
(1) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior
justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can
view a particular area;
The policemen arrested Gerente only some three (3) hours after
(2) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and Gerente and his companions had killed Blace. They saw Blace dead
in the hospital and when they inspected the scene of the crime, they
(3) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes found the instruments of death: a piece of wood and a concrete
may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to hollow block which the killers had used to bludgeon him to death.
seizure.

The eye-witness, Edna Edwina Reyes, reported the happening to the


The police authorities were in the area because that was where they policemen and pinpointed her neighbor, Gerente, as one of the killers.
caught up with petitioner after the chase. They saw the firearms Under those circumstances, since the policemen had personal
knowledge of the violent death of Blace and of facts indicating that especially when its transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly
Gerente and two others had killed him, they could lawfully arrest reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause that the occupant
Gerente without a warrant. If they had postponed his arrest until they committed a criminal activity;
could obtain a warrant, he would have fled the law as his two 4. Consented warrantless search;
companions did. 5. Customs search;
6. Stop and Frisk;
7. Exigent and emergency circumstances.
8. Search of vessels and aircraft; [and]
9. Inspection of buildings and other premises for the enforcement of
fire, sanitary and building regulations.33

VALEROSO VS CA For one, the warrantless search could not be justified as an incident to
a lawful arrest. Searches and seizures incident to lawful arrests are
governed by Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, which reads:
FACTS:
SEC. 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. – A person lawfully
arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything
which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission
On July 10, 1996, a duly issued warrant of arrest to the petitioner in a
of an offense without a search warrant.
case of kidnapping for ransom was released. Valeroso was found and
arrested and was bodily searched and after which a firearm with live
ammunition was found tucked in his waist. The subject firearm was We would like to stress that the scope of the warrantless search is not
later confirmed and revealed to have not been issued to the petitioner without limitations. When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the
but to another person. arresting officer to search the person arrested in order to remove any
weapon that the latter might use in order to resist arrest or effect his
escape. Otherwise, the officer’s safety might well be endangered, and
the arrest itself frustrated. In addition, it is entirely reasonable for the
The defense on the other hand claimed that Valeroso was arrested arresting officer to search for and seize any evidence on the arrestee’s
and searched (without a search warrant) in the boarding house of person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction.
his children. They pointed their guns on him and tied him and pulled
him out of the room as the raiding team went back inside, searched
and ransacked the room. Later, an operative came out of the room Moreover, in lawful arrests, it becomes both the duty and the right of
exclaiming that he has found a gun inside. The firearm according to the apprehending officers to conduct a warrantless search not only on
the petitioner was issued to Jerry Valeroso by virtue of the person of the suspect, but also in the permissible area within the
a Memorandum Receipt. latter’s reach.Otherwise stated, a valid arrest allows the seizure of
evidence or dangerous weapons either on the person of the one
arrested or within the area of his immediate control. The phrase
"within the area of his immediate control" means the area from within
Jerry C. Valeroso was then charged with violation of Presidential which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible
Decree No. 1866 for illegally possessing a revolver bearing serial evidence. A gun on a table or in a drawer in front of one who is
number 52315 without securing the necessary license/permit. The arrested can be as dangerous to the arresting officer as one concealed
petitioner through a letter of appeal asked the court to be in the clothing of the person arrested.
reconsidered.
In the present case, Valeroso was arrested by virtue of a warrant of
arrest allegedly for kidnapping with ransom. At that time, Valeroso
ISSUE: was sleeping inside the boarding house of his children. He was
awakened by the arresting officers who were heavily armed. They
Whether the warrantless search and seizure of the firearm and pulled him out of the room, placed him beside the faucet outside the
ammunition has merit and valid? room, tied his hands, and then put him under the care of Disuanco. The
other police officers remained inside the room and ransacked the
locked cabinet where they found the subject firearm and
HELD: No. ammunition. With such discovery, Valeroso was charged with illegal
possession of firearm and ammunition.

To underscore the significance the law attaches to the fundamental


right of an individual against unreasonable searches and seizures, the From the foregoing narration of facts, we can readily conclude that the
Constitution succinctly declares in Article III, Section 3(2), that "any arresting officers served the warrant of arrest without any resistance
evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be from Valeroso. They placed him immediately under their control by
inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding." pulling him out of the bed, and bringing him out of the room with his
hands tied. To be sure, the cabinet which, according to Valeroso, was
locked, could no longer be considered as an "area within his
The above proscription is not, however, absolute. The following are immediate control" because there was no way for him to take any
the well-recognized instances where searches and seizures are allowed weapon or to destroy any evidence that could be used against him.
even without a valid warrant:
The arresting officers would have been justified in searching the
1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest; person of Valeroso, as well as the tables or drawers in front of him, for
2. [Seizure] of evidence in "plain view." The elements are: a) a prior any concealed weapon that might be used against the former. But
valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the under the circumstances obtaining, there was no comparable
police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties; b) the justification to search through all the desk drawers and cabinets or the
evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have the other closed or concealed areas in that room itself.
right to be where they are; c) the evidence must be immediately
apparent; and d) "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence
without further search; It is worthy to note that the purpose of the exception (warrantless
3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the government, search as an incident to a lawful arrest) is to protect the arresting
the vehicle’s inherent mobility reduces expectation of privacy officer from being harmed by the person arrested, who might be armed
with a concealed weapon, and to prevent the latter from destroying made only upon probable cause, i.e., upon a belief, reasonably
evidence within reach. The exception, therefore, should not be arising out of circumstances known to the seizing officer, that an
strained beyond what is needed to serve its purpose. In the case before automobile or other vehicle contains an item, article or object which
us, search was made in the locked cabinet which cannot be said to by law is subject to seizure and destruction. Military or police
have been within Valeroso’s immediate control. Thus, the search checkpoints have also been declared to be not illegal per se as long as
exceeded the bounds of what may be considered as an incident to a the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to body
lawful arrest. search, and the inspection of the vehicle is merely visual.

Clearly, the search made was illegal, a violation of Valeroso’s right


against unreasonable search and seizure. Consequently, the evidence Search of luggage inside a vehicle requires existence of probable
obtained in violation of said right is inadmissible in evidence against cause
him.1avvphi1
In this case, the taxi was validly stopped at the police checkpoint.
Such search however is limited to visual inspections without
occupants being subjected to a physical or body searches. A search of
a luggage inside the vehicle should require the existence of probable
PEOPLE VS LACERNA cause.

In several decisions, there was probable cause in the following


instances:
FACTS:
(a) where the distinctive odor of marijuana emanated from the
plastic bag carried by the accused

Noriel and Marlon Lacerna were inside a taxi when the group of (b) where an informer positively identified the accused who
Police Officer Carlito Valenzuela of the Western Police District was observed to have been acting suspiciously
signaled the taxi driver to park by the side of the road in lieu of a
police checkpoint. P03 Valenzuela asked permission to search the (c) where the accused fled when accosted by policemen
vehicle. The officers went about searching the luggages in the (d) where the accused who were riding a jeepney were stopped
vehicle. They found 18 blocks wrapped in newspaper with a distinct and searched by policemen who had earlier received confidential
smell of marijuana emanating from it. When the package was opened, reports that said accused would transport a large quantity of
P03 Valenzuela saw dried marijuana leaves. According to Noriel and marijuana
Marlon, the bag was a “padala” of their uncle. Marlon admitted that
he was the one who gave the 18 bundle blocks of marijuana to his (e) where the moving vehicle was stopped and searched on the
cousin Noriel as the latter seated at rear of the taxi with it. He basis of intelligence information and clandestine reports by a deep
however denied knowledge of the contents of the package. penetration agent or spy one who participated in the drug
smuggling activities of the syndicate to which the accused
belonged that said accused were bringing prohibited drugs into the
Marlon was charged before the RTC for “giving away” marijuana to country.
another. Noriel on the other hand was acquitted for insufficiency of
evidence. The court noticed that Noriel manifested “probinsyano”
traits and was, thus, unlikely to have dealt in prohibited drugs. Probable cause in this case is not evident. The mere act of slouching
in the seat when the taxi passed along P03 Valenzuela’s checkpoint
Marlon objected on the RTC’s decision, stating that the lower court does not constitute probable cause to justify search and seizure.
erred in saying that the act of “giving away to another” is not defined
under R.A. 6425 or the Dangerous Drugs Act. He also said that he
was not aware of the contents of the plastic bag given to him by his
uncle. Marlon also raised that his right against warrantless arrest and Consented search valid if intelligently made
seizure was violated.
Aniag, Jr. vs. COMELEC outlawed a search based on an implied
acquiescence, because such acquiescence was not consent within the
purview of the constitutional guaranty, but was merely passive
HELD: conformity to the search given under intimidating and coercive
circumstances.

In this case, Marlon was "urbanized in mannerism and speech"


Exceptions to the rule against warrantless arrest when he expressly said that he was consenting to the search as he
Five generally accepted exceptions to the rule against warrantless allegedly had nothing to hide and had done nothing wrong. This
arrest have been judicially formulated as follows: declaration is a confirmation of his intelligent and voluntary
acquiescence to the search. The marijuana bricks were, therefore,
(1) search incidental to a lawful arrest obtained legally through a valid search and seizure, thus admissible.

(2) search of moving vehicles

(3) seizure in plain view, To be punishable, to “give away” a prohibited drug should be
with the intent to transfer ownership
(4) customs searches,
As distinguished from "delivery," which is an incident of sale,
(5) waiver by the accused themselves of their right against "giving away" is a disposition other than a sale. It is, therefore, an act
unreasonable search and seizure. short of a sale which involves no consideration. The prohibited drug
becomes an item or merchandise presented as a gift or premium
(giveaway), where ownership is transferred.
Search and seizure relevant to moving vehicles are allowed in
recognition of the impracticability of securing a warrant under said
circumstances. In such cases, however, the search and seizure may be
By merely handing the plastic bag to Noriel, Marlon cannot be particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or
punished for giving away marijuana as a gift or premium to another. things to be seized.i
Intent to transfer ownership should be proven.
Search and seizure may be made without a warrant and the evidence
obtained therefrom may be admissible in the following instances: (1)
search incident to a lawful arrest; (2) search of a moving motor vehicle;
Elements of illegal sale of prohibited drugs (3) search in violation of customs laws; (4) seizure of evidence in plain
view; (5) when the accused himself waives his right against
The elements of illegal possession of prohibited drugs are as follows unreasonable searches and seizures;ii[24] and (6) stop and frisk
(a) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is situations.
identified to be a prohibited drug As a rule, an arrest is considered legitimate if effected with a valid
warrant of arrest. The Rules of Court, however, recognizes
(b) such possession is not authorized by law
permissible warrantless arrests.
(c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the prohibited drug.
Thus, a peace officer or a private person may, without warrant, arrest a
person:

Evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that Marlon was in (a) when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is
possession of the plastic bag containing the prohibited drugs without actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense (arrest in
the requisite authority. He cannot deny knowledge of the package as flagrante delicto);
its smell is pervasive. (b) when an offense has just been committed and he has probable
cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it (arrest
effected in hot pursuit); and
(c) when the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a
penal establishment or a place where he is serving final judgment or is
PEOPLE VS MOLINA temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while
being transferred from one confinement to another (arrest of escaped
prisoners).
FACTS: In the case at bar, accused-appellants manifested no outward
indication that would justify their arrest. In holding a bag on board a
trisikad, accused-appellants could not be said to be committing,
attempting to commit or have committed a crime. The response of
Sometime in June 1996, SPO1 Paguidopon received an
Molina that “Boss, if possible we will settle this” is an equivocal
information regarding the presence of an alleged marijuana pusher in
statement which standing alone will not constitute probable cause to
Davao City. His informer pointed to the motorcycle driver,
effect an inflagrante delicto arrest.
accused-appellant Mula, as the pusher. As to accused-appellant
Molina, SPO1 Paguidopon had no occasion to see him before the Note that were it not for SPO1 Marino Paguidopon (who did not
arrest. Moreover, the names and addresses of the accused-appellants participate in the arrest but merely pointed accused-appellants to the
came to the knowledge of SPO1 Paguidopon only after they were arresting officers), accused-appellants could not be the subject of any
arrested. In the morning of August 8, 1996, SPO1 Paguidopon suspicion, reasonable or otherwise. SPO1 Paguidopon only learned
received an information that the alleged pusher will be passing at Mula’s name and address after the arrest. It is doubtful if SPO1
NHA, Ma-a, Davao City. He called for assistance at the PNP proceed Paguidopon indeed recognized accused-appellant Mula. It is worthy
to the house of SPO1 Marino Paguidopon where they would wait for to note that, before the arrest, he was able to see Mula in person only
the alleged pusher to pass by. At around 9:30 in the morning of August once, pinpointed to him by his informer while they were on the side of
8, 1996, a “trisikad” carrying the accused-appellants passed by. At the road.
that instance, SPO1 Paguidopon pointed to the accused-appellants as
the pushers. The police officers then ordered the “trisikad” to stop. These circumstances could not have afforded SPO1 Paguidopon a
SPO1 Pamplona introduced himself as a police officer and asked closer look at accused-appellant Mula, considering that the latter was
accused-appellant Molina to open the bag. Molina replied, “Boss, if then driving a motorcycle when SPO1 Paguidopon caught a glimpse
possible we will settle this.” SPO1 Pamplona insisted on opening the of him. With respect to accused-appellant Molina, SPO1 Paguidopon
bag, which revealed dried marijuana leaves inside. Thereafter, admitted that he had never seen him before the arrest.
accused-appellants Mula and Molina were handcuffed by the police
officers. The Court holds that the arrest of accused-appellants does not fall
under the exceptions allowed by the rules. Hence, the search
Accused-appellants contended that the marijuana allegedly conducted on their person was likewise illegal. Consequently, the
seized from them is inadmissible as evidence for having been obtained marijuana seized by the peace officers could not be admitted as
in violation of their constitutional right against unreasonable searches evidence. WHEREFORE accused are ACQUITTED.
and seizures.
ISSUE: W/N the marijuana is inadmissible in evidence for having
been seized in violation of appellants’ constitutional rights against
unreasonable searches and seizures?
HELD:
The fundamental law of the land mandates that searches and seizures
be carried out in a reasonable fashion. The Constitution provides: SEC.
2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever
nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and 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