Você está na página 1de 12

27.

Balayon v Dinopol
Facts:
On 13 January 2003, respondent Judge issued the search warrant. In the
evening of the same day, a team of policemen implemented the search warrant.
After the search conducted by the raiding team, a written report/information was
submitted where it was stated therein that the search was negative.

Issue:
Whether or not the search warrant is valid considering that, according to the
complainant, it was issued based alone on the sworn statement of complainant and
the application of P/S Insp. Carreon for the issuance thereof and considering further
that, according to the respondent, it was only after he made exhaustive clarificatory
interviews of Filoteo B. Arcallo in his chambers that the subject search warrant was
issued.

Held:
No.

The judge must, before issuing the warrant, personally examine, under oath
or affirmation, the complainant and any witnesses he may produce and take their
testimonies in writing, and attach them to the record, in addition to any affidavits
presented to him.

In the case at bar, respondent Judge failed to observe his mandate as


required by the rules. There was no record of searching questions and answers
attached to the records of the case in palpable disregard of the statutory
requirement previously quoted.

28. Re: Report on the Preliminary Results of the Spot Audit in the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 170, Malabon City, A.M. No. 16-05-142-RTC, September 5, 2017

Facts:
Judge Docena issued 418 search warrants which are also enforceable outside
the territorial jurisdiction of the RTC of Malabon City.

Issue:
Whether or not the search warrant is valid considering that according to
complainant, Judge Docena failed to ask the required probing and exhaustive
inquiry on the veracity of the compelling reason invoked and considering further
that, according to the respondent, for compelling reasons, the filing of the
application with any court within the judicial region where the crime was committed
or where the warrant shall be enforced

Held:
Yes.

The statement of compelling reasons is only a mandatory requirement in so


far as the proper venue for the filing of a search warrant application is concerned. It
cannot be viewed as an additional requisite for the issuance of a search warrant.
In this case, the OCA's findings that Judge Docena and Judge Magsino violated
Section 2 of Rule 126 by simply issuing search warrants involving crimes committed
outside the territorial jurisdiction of the RTC of Malabon City where: a) there is no
compelling reason to take cognizance of the applications; and b) the compelling
reasons alleged in the applications appear to be unmeritorious.

29. De Lima vs. Guerrero, G.R. No. 229781, October 10, 2017

Facts:

On February 24, 2017, the PNP Investigation and Detection Group served the
Warrant of Arrest on petitioner and the respondent judge issued the assailed
February 24, 2017 Order,25 committing petitioner to the custody of the PNP
Custodial Center.
Issue:

Whether or not the respondent gravely abused her discretion in finding


probable cause to issue the Warrant of Arrest against petitioner considering that,
according to the petitioner, evidence is inadmissible as they are based on hearsay
evidence and considering further that, according to the respondent, she evaluated
the Information and "all the evidence presented during the preliminary investigation
conducted in this case.

Held:

No.

Personal determination of the existence of probable cause by the judge is


required before a warrant of arrest may issue.

In this case, the judge is given a wide altitude of discretion in the


determination of probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest. A finding of
probable cause to order the accused's arrest does not require an inquiry into
whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is
believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged.

30. People vs. Canton G.R. No. 148825, December 27, 2002

Facts:

Canton was charged with a violation of Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. She
was caught in possession of shabu when an inspector of the airport searched her
and upon frisking.

Issue:
Whether or not the search and seizure was valid considering that, according
to the appellant, warrantless on the ground that the seized items were not in plain
view and considering further that, according to the appellee, the specimens seized
from her were acquired legitimately pursuant to airport security procedures
Held:
Yes.

Under Section 9 of Republic Act No. 6235, provides that holder of the ticket
and his hand-carried luggage(s) are subject to search for, and seizure of, prohibited
materials or substances. Holder refusing to be searched shall not be allowed to
board the aircraft

In this case, Susan voluntarily submitted herself to the search and seizure
when she allowed herself to be frisked and brought to the comfort room for further
inspection by airport security personnel. It likewise maintains that the shabu seized
from SUSAN during the routine frisk at the airport was acquired legitimately
pursuant to airport security procedures

The recognized exceptions established by jurisprudence are (1) search of moving


vehicles; (2) seizure in plain view; (3) customs searches; (4) waiver or consented
searches; (5) stop and frisk situations (Terry search); and (6) search incidental to a
lawful arrest
31. People vs. De Guzman 351 SCRA 573

Facts:
SPO1 Arnel Cuevas was assigned to conduct surveillance at the Villamar
Beach Resort. He learned that De Guzman was engaged in a drug sale. When he
peeped through the window of the cottage, he saw De Guzman and Martin seated
face to face while using shabu.

Issue:
Whether or not the search is valid considering that, according to the
appellant, there was no search warrant and considering further that, according to
the appellee they search was incidental to arrest.

Held:
Yes.

Rule 126, Section 12 of the Rules of Court provides that a person lawfully
arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used
as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant.

In this case, it was impossible for the police officers to obtain a search
warrant as they were merely on surveillance, and to do so might abort any possible
illegal activity that was taking place. Upon entry at the rented cottage, the police
officers saw the shabu and drug-related paraphernalia scattered on top of the table.
The search was incidental to arrest and therefore, is valid.
32. People vs. Mariacos, G.R. No. 188611, June 16, 2010

Facts:
PO2 Pallayoc met with a secret agent who informed him that a baggage of
marijuana in a a backpack bag with an "O.K." marking had been loaded on a
passenger jeepney that was about to leave for the poblacion. He boarded the
jeepney and when they stopped, he was able to arrest one of the women carrying
the bags.

Issue:
Whether or not the evidence is admissible considering that, according to the
petitioner, her right against an unreasonable search was flagrantly violated and
considering further that, according to the respondent, warrantless arrest of
appellant and the warrantless seizure of marijuana were valid and legal.

Held:
Yes.

Rule 126, Section 12 of the Rules of Court provides that a person lawfully
arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used
as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant.

In this case, the local police has been trying to intercept the transport of the
illegal drugs for more than a day, to no avail. Thus, when PO2 Pallayoc was tipped
by the secret agent, PO2 Pallayoc had no other recourse than to verify as promptly
as possible the tip and check the contents of the bags.
33. People v. Malmstedt G.R. No. 91107, June 19, 1991

Facts:
During the inspection, CIC Galutan noticed a bulge on accused's waist which
turned out to be a pouch bag containing hashish, a derivative of marijuana.

Issue:
Whether or not the search is valid considering that, according to the
defendant, it was made without a search warrant, and considering further that,
according to the plaintiff, he was searched while transporting prohibited drugs.

Held:
Yes.

Section 2 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that 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
In this case, NARCOM received the information, a few hours before the
apprehension of the accused, that a Caucasian travelling from Sagada to Baguio
City was carrying with him prohibited drugs. It would be impossible to obtain a
search warrant as it is not yet known where the accused would be apprehended.
Thus, the search was valid being reasonable.

34. People vs. Libnao

Facts:
Intelligence operatives of the PNP began conducting surveillance operation
on suspected drug dealers in the area. They learned from their asset that a certain
woman from Tajiri, Tarlac and a companion from Baguio City were transporting
illegal drugs once a month in big bulks.

Issue:
Whether or not the search is valid considering that, according to the
appellant, the search was warrantless and considering further that, according to the
appellee, the moving vehicle was stopped and searched on the basis of intelligence
information.

Held:
Yes.

The constitutional guarantee is not a blanket prohibition against all searches


and seizures as it operates only against "unreasonable" searches and seizures.

In this case, the police received a tip that the two will be transporting drugs
that night riding a tricycle. Surely, the two were intercepted three hours later, riding
a tricycle and carrying a suspicious-looking black bag, which possibly contained the
drugs in bulk. When they were asked who owned it and what its content was, both
became uneasy. Under these circumstances, the warrantless search and seizure of
appellant's bag was not illegal.
35. People vs. Breis, G.R. No. 205823, August 17, 2015

Facts:
An informant went to the PDEA-CAR field office and offered the
information that the accused were bound to transport a box of marijuana from
Baguio City to Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga. Pretending to be passengers, Mangili
and Peralta boarded the bus and they observed two male individuals whose physical
appearances fitted the descriptions given by the informant and saw a box placed in
between the legs of accused Breis.

Issue:
Whether or not the search is valid considering that, according to the
appellant, the search was warrantless and considering further that, according to the
appellee, the moving vehicle was stopped and searched on the basis of intelligence
information.

Held:
Yes.

The constitutional guarantee is not a blanket prohibition against all searches


and seizures as it operates only against "unreasonable" searches and seizures.

In the present case, the vehicle that carried the prohibited drugs was about
to leave. The PDEA agents made a judgment call to act fast, as time was of the
essence. Mangili and Peralta identified two men fitting the description given
by the informant in possession of a box described by the informant to contain
marijuana. Thus, the search is valid.
36. People vs. Nuevas, G.R. No. 170233, February 22, 2007

Facts:
Police officers Fami and Cabling, during a stationary surveillance and
monitoring of illegal drug trafficking in Olongapo City, came across Jesus Nuevas,
who they suspected to be carrying drugs. Upon inquiry, Nuevas showed them a
plastic bag which contained marijuana leaves and bricks wrapped in a blue cloth. He
then informed the officers of 2 other persons who would be making marijuana
deliveries.

Issue:
Whether or not the search is valid considering that, according to the
appellants, it is warrantless and considering further that, according to the appellee,
evidence was in plain view.

Held:
No.

An object is in plain view if it is plainly exposed to sight or when it is enclosed


in a package, an experienced observer could infer from its appearance that it
contains the prohibited article.

In this case, the dried marijuana leaves were inside the plastic bags were
wrapped in a blue cloth and newspapers. The object itself is not in plain view and
therefore cannot be seized without a warrant.
37. Fajardo vs. People, G.R. No. 190889, January 10, 2011

Facts:
Concerned citizens complains that armed men drinking liquor at the
residence of petitioner were indiscriminately firing guns. The policemen desisted
from entering petitioner’s house but they cordoned the perimeter of the house as
they waited for further instructions. The warrant was served on petitioner at 9:30
a.m and the team found and was able to confiscate firearms.

Issue:
Whether or not the search was valid considering that, according to the
petitioner, it was warrantless and considering further that, according to the
respondent, the guns are in plain view.

Held:
Yes.

Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling in the "plain view" of an officer,
who has a right to be in the position to have that view, are subject to seizure and
may be presented as evidence.

In this case, petitioner and Valerio were earlier seen respectively holding .45
caliber pistols before they ran inside the structure and sought refuge. The seizure of
the two receivers of the .45 caliber pistol outside petitioner’s house falls within the
purview of the plain view doctrine. Thus, the search is valid.
38. Pacis vs. Pamaran, 56 SCRA 16

Facts:
Ricardo Santos is the owner of a Mercury automobile, model 1957. It was
brought into this country without the payment of customs duty and taxes, its owner
Donald James Hatch being tax-exempt. Petitioner instituted seizure proceedings and
issued a warrant of seizure and detention based on the discrepancy between the
custom duty paid and the amount collectible.

Issue:
Whether or not the warrant of seizure is valid considering that, according to
the petitioner, the custom duty has not been paid fully and considering further that,
according to the respondent, it is unauthorized.

Held:
Yes.

A warrant of search and seizure, to be valid, must be the product of a judicial


determination.

In this case, petitioner, as Acting Collector of Customs for the Port of Manila,
had the requisite authority for the issuance of the contested warrant of seizure and
detention for the automobile.

39. People vs. Asis, 391 SCRA 108

Facts:
Danilo Asis and Gilbert Formento were charged of robbery with homicide for
taking away cash and other valuables and stabbing Roy Ching.

Issue:
Whether or not the search was valid considering that, according to the
appellant, it is warrantless and considering further that, according to the appellee,
the appellants gave their consent.

Held:
No
The constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures, being a
personal one, cannot be waived by anyone except the person whose rights are
invaded or who is expressly authorized to do so on his or her behalf.

In this case, it was the wife of Formento who voluntarily surrendered the bag
that contained the bloodstained trousers of the victim. The appellant was also
physically present during the search, the waiver could not have come from any
other person. Thus, the search is not valid being without warrant and consent.
40. Anonymous Letter-Complaint Against Atty. Miguel Morales, 571 SCRA 361

Facts:
Atty. Morales, Branch Clerk of Court of MeTC, Branch 67, Manila was
investigated on the basis of an anonymous letter alleging that he was consuming
his working hours filing and attending to personal cases, using office supplies,
equipment and utilities. The OCA conducted a spot investigation aided by NBI
agents. The team was able to access Atty. Morales personal computer and print two
documents stored in its hard drive.

Issue:
Whether or not the search is valid considering that, according to the
complainant, it was done with the consent of Atty. Morales and considering further
that, according to the respondent, it violates his right to privacy.

Held:
No.

Consent to a search must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. It must


be voluntary in order to validate an otherwise illegal search; that is, the consent
must be unequivocal, specific, intelligently given and uncontaminated by any
duress or coercion.

In this case, Atty. Morales immediately filed an administrative case against


said persons questioning the validity of the investigation, specifically invoking his
constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure. It is a showing that
Atty. Morales had no actual intention to relinquish his right. Thus, the search is not
valid being without warrant and consent.
41. People vs. De Gracia, G.R. No. 102009-10, July 6, 1994.

Facts:
RAM-SFP staged coup d’état in December 1989 against the Government. A
search team raided the Eurocar Sales Office and found an unusual quantity of high-
powered firearms and explosives.

Issue:
Whether or not the search is valid considering that, according to the
appellant it was warrantless, and considering further that, according to the
appellee, the instant case falls under one of the exceptions to the prohibition
against a warrantless search.

Held:
The exigent circumstance doctrine provides that when probable cause has
been established to believe that evidence will be removed or destroyed before a
warrant can be obtained, a warrantless search and seizure can be justified.

In this case, had reasonable ground to believe that a crime was being
committed. The raid was actually precipitated by intelligence reports that said office
was being used as headquarters by the RAM. There was a surveillance conducted on
the premises wherein the surveillance team was fired at by a group of men coming
from the Eurocar building. Under such exigency of the moment, a search warrant
could lawfully be dispensed with.
42. People vs. Aruta, 288 SCRA 626

Facts:
An informant that a certain “Aling Rosa” will be arriving from Baguio City with
a large volume of marijuana. P/Lt. Abello assembled a team that waited near the
PNB. A bus stopped in front of the PNB building. It was at this stage that the
informant pointed out to the team "Aling Rosa" who was then carrying a traveling
bag.

Issue:
Whether or not the search is valid considering that, according to the
appellant, it was warrantless and considering further that, according to the
appellee, given the circumstances t would be impossible for them to acquire a
warrant.

Held:
No.

The exigent circumstance doctrine provides that when probable cause has
been established to believe that evidence will be removed or destroyed before a
warrant can be obtained, a warrantless search and seizure can be justified.

In this case, there was no reason whatsoever for them to suspect that
accused-appellant was committing a crime, except for the pointing finger of the
informant. There being no probable cause, the search was illegal.
43. People vs. Mengote, G.R. No. 87059, June 22, 1992

Facts:
Accused-appellant Rogelio Mengote was convicted of illegal possession of
firearms on the strength mainly of the stolen pistol found on his person at the
moment of his warrantless arrest.

Issue:
Whether or not the search is valid considering that, according to the
appellant, it was warrantless and considering further that, according to the
appellee, it was lawful.

Held:
No.
Police may stop a person if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person
has committed or is about to commit a crime, and may frisk the suspect for
weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and
dangerous.

In this case, the patrolmen saw two men "looking from side to side," one of
whom was holding his abdomen. These acts could not to suspect that a crime may
have been committed. A warrant would not be issued based on personal malice on
the part of the arresting officer. Thus, the search is not valid.
44. People vs. Chua, 396 SCRA 657

Facts:
After accused-appellant alighted from the car carrying a sealed Zest-O juice
box, SPO2 Nulud and PO2 Nunag hurriedly accosted him and introduced themselves
as police officers. When he pulled out his wallet, a small transparent plastic bag with
a crystalline substance protruded from his right back pocket. Forthwith, SPO2 Nulud
subjected him to a body search which yielded twenty (20) pieces of live .22 caliber
firearm bullets from his left back pocket.

Issue:
Whether or not the search is valid considering that, according to the
appellant, it was warrantless and considering further that, according to the
appellee,

Held:
No.

Police may stop a person if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person
has committed or is about to commit a crime, and may frisk the suspect for
weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and
dangerous.

In this case, accused-appellant did not exhibit manifest unusual and


suspicious conduct reasonable enough to dispense with the procedure outlined by
jurisprudence and the law. There was, therefore, no genuine reasonable ground for
the immediacy of accused-appellant’s search and seizure.
45. People vs. Recepcion, G.R. No. 141943, November 13, 2002

Facts:
Eight persons allegedly conspired to kill and actually killed 5 customers of
Sabungan Fastfood & Videoke. After the shooting, the accused boarded a jeepney
owned by Ruben Labjata and made him drive to Tarlac where they freed the driver
and boarded a tricycle driven by Conrado Marquez. After the police invited the
jeepney driver and the tricycle driver for questioning, the area where they were
hiding was cordoned off. Eventually, the accused were arrested.
Issue:
Whether or not the arrest is valid considering that, according to the
appellants, it was warrantless, and considering further that, according to the
appellee, it was made in hot pursuit.
Held:
Yes.

Hot Pursuit provides that the police may enter the premises where they
suspect a crime has been committed without a warrant when delay would endanger
their lives or the lives of others and lead to the escape of the alleged perpetrator.

In this case, the arrest of the appellants has been made in hot pursuit.
Considering the nature of the crime committed and the act of escaping by the
appellants, the arrest without warrant is justified.

46. Dacanay vs. People, G.R. No. 199018, September 27, 2017

Facts:
While a TFAV Unit was patrolling they noticed a male person holding a plastic
sachet in his right hand. The TFAV Unit already knew the man for the latter had
been previously arrested several times by authorities for illegal drug possession. As
the TFAV Unit neared him, the latter ran away. He tried to throw away the plastic
sachet as he was boarding a tricycle but the members of the TFAV Unit caught up
with him. Genguyon arrested him and recovered the plastic sachet, containing white
crystalline substance, from the latter's possession.

Issue:
Whether or not the arrest is valid considering that, according to the
petitioner, it was warrantless and considering further that, according to the
respondent, the arrest was in flagrante delicto.

Held:
Yes.

A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person


when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.

In this case, petitioner's overt act of holding the plastic sachet with white
crystalline substance in the presence and within the view of Genguyon, a TFAV Unit
member, justified the warrantless arrest.
47. Peralta vs. People, G.R. No. 221991, August 30, 2017.

Facts:
A team responded to a telephone call received by their desk officer-on-duty
that there was a man firing a gun at the back of the PLDT Building. Upon arrival
thereat, the police officers saw two (2) men walking holding a gun and a knife
respectively. Upon seeing the police officers, the men became uneasy. Upon
apprehension, they recovered a caliber .45 pistol with five (5) live ammunitions from
Peralta and a knife from Calimlim.

Issue:
Whether or not the arrest is valid considering that, according to the
petitioner, it was warrantless and considering further that, according to the
respondent, the arrest was in flagrante delicto.

Held:
Yes.

A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person


when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.

In this case, upon the arrival of the police officers, they saw Peralta carrying a
pistol. This prompted the police officers to confront Peralta regarding the pistol, and
when the latter was unable to produce a license for such pistol and/or a permit to
carry the same, the former proceeded to arrest him and seize the pistol from him.
Clearly, the police officer conducted a valid in flagrante delicto warrantless arrest on
Peralta.

Você também pode gostar