AMBRE VS PEOPLE

 On April 20, 2005, the Caloocan Police Station Anti-Illegal Drug-Special Operation Unit conducted a
buy-bust operation pursuant to a tip from a police informant that a certain Abdulah Sultan and his wife
Ina Aderp were engaged in the selling of dangerous drugs at a residential compound in Caloocan
City.

 That the buy-bust operation resulted in the arrest of Aderp and a certain Tagoranao; that Sultan ran
away from the scene of the entrapment operation and pursued by the police

 in the course of the chase, Sultan led the said police officers to his house; that inside the house, the
police operatives found Ambre, Castro and Mendoza having a pot session.

 Ambre alleged that they were asked to buy malong and that when they failed to buy malong, Rosete
and Buban left her inside the residential compound to look for other vendors and that ten minutes
later, the policemen barged inside the compound and arrested her.

 Two separate Informations were filed against Ambre, and co-accused, Bernie Castro and Kaycee
Mendoza, before the RTC charging them with illegal possession of drug paraphernalia and illegal use
of shabu.

 When arraigned, Castro and Mendoza pleaded guilty to both charges. Ambre, on the other hand,
entered a plea of not guilty to the charges.

Issues: YES

1. Whether the warrantless arrest of Ambre and the search of her person was valid; and

2. Whether the items seized are inadmissible in evidence.

Held:

One of the recognized exception to Section 2, Article III, established by jurisprudence is search
incident to a lawful arrest.15 In this exception, the law requires that a lawful arrest must precede the
search of a person and his belongings. As a rule, an arrest is considered legitimate if effected with a valid
warrant of arrest.

Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, however, recognizes permissible
warrantless arrests; (a) arrest of a suspect in flagrante delicto; (b) arrest of a suspect where, based on
personal knowledge of the arresting officer, there is probable cause that said suspect was the perpetrator
of a crime which had just been committed; (c) arrest of a prisoner who has escaped from custody serving
final judgment or temporarily confined during the pendency of his case or has escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to another.

In arrest in flagrante delicto, the accused is apprehended at the very moment he is committing or
attempting to commit or has just committed an offense in the presence of the arresting officer.
PEOPLE VS BONGCARAWAN

 An interisland passenger ship sailed from Manila to Iligan City on March 11, 1990 and was about to
dock at the port of Iligan on March 13, 1990.

 Security officer, Mark Diesmo, received a complaint from passenger Lorena Canoy about her missing
jewelry. Canoy suspected Bongcarawan, one of her co-passengers at cabin no. 106 as the culprit.
Diesmo and four (4) other members of the vessel security force accompanied Canoy to search for the
suspect whom they later found at the economy section.

 With his consent, he was bodily searched, but no jewelry was found. He was then escorted by two (2)
security agents back to the economy section to get his baggage.

 When requested by the security, the accused opened the suitcase, revealing a brown bag and small
plastic packs containing shabu.

 Security personnel immediately reported the matter to the ship captain and took pictures of the
accused beside the suitcase and its contents. They also called the Philippine Coast Guard for
assistance.

 When asked about the contraband articles, the accused explained that he was just requested by a
certain Alican "Alex" Macapudi to bring the suitcase to the latter's brother in Iligan City.

Issue: YES

Whether or not the drug confiscated is inadmissible in evidence against Bongcarawan when it is acquired
through unlawful search and seizure.

Held:

The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures applies as a restraint
directed only against the government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law. In the case
at bar, the baggage of Bongcarawan was searched by the vessel security personnel. It was only after
they found "shabu" inside the suitcase that they called the Philippine Coast Guard for assistance. The
search and seizure of the suitcase and the contraband items was therefore carried out without
government intervention, and hence, the constitutional protection against unreasonable search and
seizure does not apply.

The vessel security officer in the case at bar is a private employee and does not discharge any
governmental function. In contrast, police officers are agents of the state tasked with the sovereign
function of enforcement of the law. Historically and until now, it is against them and other agents of the
state that the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures may be invoked.