Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Facts : Branch Manager Marquez received an order from the Ombudsman to produce several bank documents for the purpose of
inspection in camera relative to various accounts maintained at Union Bank of the Philippines. The account to be inspected is the
account in connection to a case pending with the Ombudsman. Mr George Trivinio purchased 51 Manager’s checks for a total of
272.1 Million at traders bank. FFIB panel met in conference with petitioner Lourdes Marquez and Atty Fe Macalino at the banks main
office. The meeting was for the purpose of allowing the petitioner and Atty Macalino to view the check furnished by Traders Royal
Bank. After convincing themselves of the veracity of the checks, Atty Macalino advised Marquez to comply with the order of the
Ombudsman. Petitoner then agreed to a camera inspection
Petitoner later asked for more time asking for more time to respond to the order. The reason is that despite diligent efforts and
from the account numvers presented cannot be identified since the checks are issued in cash or bearer. Even if the cash were
payable to cash or bearer the name of the depositors could easily be identified. The ombudsman later issued an order directing
petitioner to produce the bank documents relative to the account in issue. Petitioner filed a TRO alleging harassment on the part of
the ombudsman.
ISSUE: Whether petitioner may be cited for indirect contempt for failure to produce the documents requested by the ombudsman
Ruling : No. In camera Inspection is not valid (Anti wiretapping law and The secrecy of the bank deposits acts and the intellectual
property code.
1. Impeachment case
2. By court order in bribery or dereliction of duty cases against public officials
3. Deposit is subject to litigation
4. Unexplained wealth In camera inspection may be allowed only if there is a pending case before the court of competent
jurisdiction. Further, the account must be clearly identified, the inspection limited to the subject matter of the pending case.
The bank personnel and the account holder must be notified to be present during the inspection and such inspection may
cover only the account identified in the present case.In the present case there is no pending litigation before any court of
competent authority. What the ombudsman wanted to do is to fish additional evidence to formally charge Lagdameo with the
Sandiganbayan. There is no pending case in court that would warrant the opening of the bank account for inspection
Warrantless Search
PP VS ROSA FACTS : Menguin was charged under RA Issue : W/N Doctrine : HELD: No the arrest and
ARUTA 6425 engaging in transporting 8kg and 5 kg the seizure 1.Warrantless search incidental to the seizure is not valid. In
MENGUIN of Marijuana. and arrest is lawful arrest recognized under sec the present case, the
P/T Alberto was tipped of by his informant valid 12 and Rule 126 accused cannot be said to
known as “Benjie” that a certain Rosa would 2. Seizure of evidence in Plain view be committing a crime.
be arriving from Baguio City the following day the elements are She was merely crossing
with large volumes of marijuana. a. a prior valid intrusion based on the street and was not
While thus positioned, a victory liner bus with the valid warrantless arrest which acting in any manner that
body number 474 and the letters BGO printed the police are legally present in the would engager a
on its front and back bumpers stopped in pursuit of his official duties reasonable ground for the
front of the PNB building at around 6:30 in b. the evidence was inadvertently NARCOM agent to
the evening of the same day when 2 females discovered by the police who had suspect and conclude that
and a male got off. It was in this stage that the rights to be where they are she was committing a
the INFORMANT pointed out to them Aling c. the evidence must be crime.
Rosa who was then carrying a traveling bag. immediately apparent and
After ascertaining that the accused is Aling d. the Plainview justified mere With regard to the search,
Rosa the team approached her and seizure of evidence without further there is no probable
introduced themselves as NARCOM agents. search cause for NARCOM
When p/lt Abello asked Aling Rosa the latter 3. Search of a moving vehicle. agents to effect a search
handed it to her and upon inspection they Highly regulated by the government. in the bag of the
determined that it is Marijuana plastic bags The vehicles mobility reduce the Appellant. Since the
expectation of privacy. arrest is illegal it should
4. Consented warrantless search follow that the search was
5. Customs search similarly illegal and not
6. Stop and Frisk being incidental t lawful
7. Exigent and Emergency arrest. Also, there was no
Circumstance consent on the part of the
the accused because it
Warrantless arrest- in flagrante was not voluntary for
delicto there is intimidation and
coercion. Silence does
not mean consent
NOLASO VS FACTS: Aguilar- Roque and Nolasco were Is the search In case of Public Order, search HELD: Since Aguilar-
CRUZ arrested by CSG group at the intersection of valid ( there warrant can be dispensed with Roque has been charged
Mayon Street and P. Margall Street in Qc. At was no with Rebellion which is a
the same day, the premies were also reasonable crime against public
searched time between order, the warrant for her
A search warrant was also issued issuance of arrest has not be served
the warrant for a considerable period
and the arrest. of time and that she was
arrested in her dwelling
the search within hald
hour of her arrest did not
need for a warrant
because of the possible
effects of public order.
PAPA VS Facts : Alagao head of the counter- W/N THE Doctrine : The code authorized HELD: The search was
MAGO intelligence unit of MPD acting upon a SEIZURE IS persons having police authority valid and accordance with
reliable information received on Nov 3 1996 a VALID under the tariff and customs code to law and by that seizure
certain shipment of personal effects allegedly pass through or search any land, the BOC had acquired
misdeclared and undervalued would be enclosure, warehouse, store or jurisdiction over the foods
released the following day from the cists zone building to inspect or search and for the purpose of the
of Manila. examine any vessel, aircraft and enforcement of the
At around 4:30 in the afternoon , elements of any rich or package, any dutiable or customs and tariffs laws
counter-intelligence init went afer the trucks prohibited article introducted into to the exclusion of CFI
and intercepted them at the Agrifina Cirle. the ph contrary to law without need MANILA
The trucks were later seized on the of warrant in the said cases.
instruction of the chiefo of police “ In case of dwelling house – this
can only be searched with a warrant
Pp vs CFI RASAC was informe by an undisclosed W/N THE Searches and seizure without a HELD : THE SEARCH IS
informant that a shipment of highly dutiable SEIZURE IN warrant can only be allowed if there VALID
goods would be transported to Manila from THE MOVING is proable cause- a belief Not a mere false alarm –
angeles City on a blue dodge car. VEHICLE reasonably arising out of the informant followed
On the same day. A light blue dodge car with WITHOUT A circumstance known to the seizojg was with them wherein he
a plate 21-87-73 driven by Sgt Jessie Hope WARRANT IS officer that an automobile or other identified an approaching
as it was approaching towards the exit was VALID behicle containts that which by law car as one descrived by
approached. The RASAC agents gave a is subject to seizure and destriction him a week earlier to be
chase and overtook SGT Hope’s car to stop the suspected carrier of
but the latter instead of heeding made a U- untaxed merchandize .
TURN BACK TO THE North diversion road, Therefore, he did not
he cannot go through because there were merely acted upon a mere
buses in front of him there he was arrested. hearsay but upin an info
The agents saw 4 boxes at the back of his
seat revealing some untaxed items
Caballes vs FACTS : While on a routine Patrol in ISSUE : W/N Search is permissible : HELD. NO PROBABLE
PP Barangay Sampalucan he spotted a the consti right 1. Where the officer merely CAUSENo the police
passenger jeep unusually covered with was violated draws aside the curtain of a officer did not merely
Kakawati leaves. when the vacant vehicle whichi s conduct a visual search or
Suspecting that the keep was loaded with vehicle was parked on the public fair visual inspection of herein
smuggled goods, the two police officers seized grounds petitioner’s vehicle. They
flagged down the vehicle ( asked what was CAN MERE 2. Simply looks into a vehicle had to reach inside the
loaded on the jeep he did not answer) SUSPICION 3. Flashes as light therein vehicle LIFT the kakawati
Appellant consent, the police checked the BE without opeming the car leaves and LOOK inside
cargo and discovered bundles of 3.08 PROBABLE doors the sacks vefore they
aluminum galvanized conductor wires CAUSE 4. Where the occipants are not were able to see the
weighed 700 kg a subjected to a physical pr cable wires ot cannot be
body search or visual considered to be a mere
inspection routine checks . Mere
5. Routine check is conducted suspicion cannot amount
in a fixed area. to probable cause. In the
PLAINVIEW DOCTRINE present case, there is no
1. Plainly exposed to sight probable cause.
2. Package are in a In the present case, the
transparent package police DEMANDED to let
wherein its content are them view the vehicle and
obvious or identifiable not asked.
CONSENT
1. The age of the defendant
2. Whether he was in a public
or secluded location
3. Whether he objected to the
search or passively looked
upon
4. The education and
intelligence of the defendant
5. The presence of coercive
police procedure
6. That the defendant belief
that no incriminating
evidence will be found
7. That nature of the police
questioning
8. The environment in which
the questioning took place,
9. The possibly vulnerable
subjective state of the
person consenting it
Obra vs CAPetitioner Obra received a letter from W/N the Public official must conduct an HELD: No . Probable
Jeannette Grybos on behalf of the Gillies seizure of the investigation to find probable cause cause does not exist. In
Heirs that spouses James Brett and June truck without regarding the complaint the present case,the
Brett had been conducting illegal mining warrant is with petitioner Obra letter to
activities in an area in Brgy. Palasan Benguet probable Search of a moving vehicle- the private respondent clearly
the land was allegedly belonged to the Gillies cause or if it is truck was seized entering the states that an
Heirs. On the same day, OBRA wrote a letter valid mining area it was not transporting investigation is to be
to Brig Gen Dumpot the commanding materials outside the mining area. conducted in order to
General of Regional Unified Comand of the On the ground of mobility from them verify the veracity of the
Phil Constabulary requesting for an owing vehicle makes it possible for complaint. The actions of
assistance in apprehending a truck used by the vehicle to be searched to move Petitioner violated consti
Bretts. out of the locality or jurisdiction in rights when he merely
On July 1, 1985 an Isuzu Elf Truck was which the warrant should be sought. relied on the letter
seized by Morales as it was entering the complaint of Grybos
Mamakar Mining area in benguet. without investigation.
PP VS FACTS : Captain Vasco the commanding W/N the Probable cause of DRUG CASE HELD:The information that a
MALMSTEDT officer of the First Regional Command search 1. When there is a smell of Caucasian was coming from
stationed at Camp Dangwa ordered his man incidental to marijuana emanating from a Sagada coupled with the act
to set up temporary checkpoints for the lawful arrest is plastic bag owned by the that the accused does not want
purpose of checking all vehicles coming from valid for IN accused to present his passport would
the Cordilleria Region. The order was ,ade FLAGRANTE 2. The accused was acting mean probable cause exist a
pm the account of persistent reports that DELICTO suspiciously reasonable belief that accused
vehicle coming from Sagada were 3. When the accused was trying to hide something To
transporting marijuana and other prohibited attempted to flee deprive the NARCOM agents of
drugs. The commanding officer also received the ability and facility to act
accordingly, including, to search
a tip that a caucian man was coming from even without warrant, in the light
Sagada having possession prohibited drugs of such circumstances, would be
The accused was riding the bus that to sanction impotence and
afternoon whe suddenly the petioners ineffectiveness in law
voarded the bus and announced that they enforcement, to the detriment of
were members of the NARCOM and that they society.
would conduct an inspection. The accused
was the ONLY foreigner in the bus. During
the inspection, the police officer noticed a
bulge on accused’s waist. Suspecting the
buldge to be a gun the officer asked for the
accused passport and other papers. The
bulging thing turned out to be a pouch bag.
When opened, noticed 4 suspicious looking
objects wrapped in brown packing tape,
prompting the officer to open the same which
turned out to be hashish.
ROAN VS Petitioner claims that he was a victim of W/N THE The individual may knowingly agree HELD: The said search
GONZALES illegal searches and seizure conducted by SEARCH IS to be searched or waive objections does not come into the
military authorities. The challenged search VALID to an illegal search. And it has also purview of plain view
warrant was issued by judge on May 10 been held that prohibited articles doctrine. The respondent
1984. The petitioner’s house was searched 2 may be taken without a warrant if cannot claim that they
days later but none of the articles listed in the they are open to ete and hand and stumbled upon the bullets
warrant was discovered. However, the the [peace officer comes upon them inadvertently because the
officers conducted the search found colt inadvertently said gun was not in plain
magnum revolver and confiscated the same. view when they were
taken
People vs The informant of a buy bust , saw a young W.N THE Wararnt is not needed when in HELD: Appellant placed
Tabar boy approached their informant and handed SEIZURE IS flagrante delicto the packs of Marijuana
cigarettes to him who in turn handed the VALID sticks under the rolled
marked money to the young boy. Then the pair of pants which she
informant gave them the pre arranged signal was then carrying at the
then they approached the boy said they are time she hurriedly left
police officer. The boy was in a possession of when she saw her
marijuana, Appellant’s aunt was caught with nephew being arrested.
Marijuana When she was asked to
spread out, the package
of marijuana was exposed
to the policemen
therefore, the crime be
committed in flagrante
delicto or plain view
Aniag vs
Comelec
Peole vs
tutud
Verona vs A Policy wherein all students participating in W.N THE The fourth amendment does not HELD: The ordinance is
Acton interscholastic athletics must sign a form DRUG TEST protect all subjective expectation of valid. Student Athletes by
consenting to the testing and must obtain a IS VALID privacy but only those that society going out for theteam
written consent of their parents. Athletes are recognise a legitimate. The voluntarily subject
tested at the beginning of each session for supervisory relationship between themselves to a dggree of
each sport. In addition once a week of the the petitioner and state justifies a regulation even higher
season the names of the athletes are placed degree of impingement upon a than those imposed on
in a pool from a student where two adults privacy that would not be student’s generally.
random pick names of 10% of athletes for constitutional if applied to the public Students within the school
Random Drug testing at large. environment have a
“ LOCO PARENTIS”- parents palce lesser expectation of
“ SPECIAL NEEDS BEYOND THE NORML minor children in private schools privacy than the members
NEED OF FOR THE LAW JUSTIFIES NO and teachers et al act as loco of the population
WARRANT” – the need to maintain ordre parentis generally.
People v Acting on a confidential tip supplied by a w/n the DOCTRINE WARRANTLESS HELD : THE SEARCH
Compacion police informant that the accused was searches and 1. When the owner of the AND SEIZURE is not
growing and cultivating marijuana plants. The seizures are premises voluntarily submits valid. The accused did not
police conducted a surveillance of the valid to a search consent to the seach and
residence of accused-appellant who was then 2. When the owner of the seizure. The act of
barangay captian wherein they saw 2 tall premises waives his right allowing the members of
plants in the backyard of the accused where against incursion MILITARY to enter cannot
they suspected the same to be marijuana 3. When search is incidental to be construed as condent.
plants.They applied for a search warrant but lawful arrest Intimidation because they
due to jurisdictional issue they were not 4. When it is made on vessels were armed
granted the same. The team arrived and aircradts for violation of
nonetheless without a warrant. Upon custom laws In the present case
knocking they were asked to enter he was 5. When it is made on plainview doctrine cannot
immediately asked by SPO4 about the automobles for the purpose be invoked. They forced
suspected marijuana plants and he admitted of preventing violations of their way in the premises
that he planted and cultivated the same for smuggling or immigration without the consent of the
his wife. law accused. It is undisputed
6. Plainview that a prior surveillance
7. Stop and Frisk was already done on the
8. Search is under emergeny suspicion that he was
situation growing and cultivating
PLAINVIEW DOCTRINE marijuana when they
1. A Prior valid intention based allegedly came n plain
on valid warrantless arret in ciew of mj plants. When
which the police are legally the agents entered his
present in pursuit of their premises their intention
official duties was to seized the said
2. The evidence was plant , hence they did not
inadvertently discovered by come to the said plant
the police who have the right inadvertently therefore,
to where they are plainview doctrine cant
3. The evidence must be apply.
immediately apparent and
4.Justified were the seizure of
evidence without further search
People v de Rolando De Gracia was charged in two w/n there is a DOCTRINE: Military officials had HELD: Prior to raid, there
Gracia ) separate information for illegal possession of valid search reasonable ground to believe that a was a surveillance
ammunition in furtherance of rebellion. A warrant crime was being committed there conducted on the
surveillance which actually started on the was more than sufficient probable premises wherein the
night of nov 30 1989 at around 10:00 pm was cause to warrant their action. The surveillance team was
conducted pursuant to an intelligence report arrest or capture is thus impleed by fired at by a group coming
received by the division that the said the exigencies of the situation that from EUROCAR building.
establishment was being occupied by involves the survival of the When military men raided
elements of RAM-SFP as a communication authorities. the place the occupants
command post. Searching team were able to refused to open the dooe
confiscate thigs and arrested de gracia as the despite request
only person present in theroom compelling break the
door. The unusual firing
from not a gun store could
not be justified or even
colourably explained. In
additional there was
general chaos and
disorder and intensive
firing within the vicinity of
the office and in the
nearby camp Aguinaldo.
People v Received a tip from an unnamed informer w/n THE PLAINVIEW- only applies when the No search warrant was
Valdez anout the presence of a marijuana plantation SEARCH OF police officer is NOT searching for issued by the judge after
allegedly near the place of appellant’s hut. MJ PLANT Is an evidence but inadvertently persona determination of
The police officer arrived at the place and lawful comes across an incriminating the existence of probable
where they found appellant in his nipa hut object. cause. The police had at
they thenn proceeded to look around the area least 1 day to get the
where appellannnt had his kaingin and saw 7 warrant they had the
five foot flowering MJ plant in two roys. name of the informant byt
Appellant admitted they were his plants they still did not do so.
The plain view doctrine
does not apply in this
case. The discovery of
the plants was not
inadvertent. SP02 SAID
THAT they had to look
into the area in order to
look for the incriminating
object. The discovery
therefore is not apparent
and that further search is
needed.
Board of Student Activities Drug Testing Policy SPECIAL NEEDS- A search is HELD:Policy effectively
Education v adopted by Oklahoma school district requires reasonable when supported by protects the safety and
Earls (US all middle and high school student to consent special needs beyond the normal health fo the student.
to urinary test in order to participate in extra need for law enforcement. Because Preventing drug use s an
curricular activity. reasonableness inquiry cannot important governmental
disregard the school’s custodial concern,. The health and
responsibility for children. safety requirement
applies with equal force to
Dissenting- “individual suspicion the Tecumseh’s children.
test” – READ GINSBURG OPINION The need to prevent and
deter for a school testing
policy. Given the
nationwide epidemic of
drug use and the
evidence of increase drug
use in TECUMSEH
schools it was entirely
reasonable for the school
to enforce this drug
testing policy.
SEARCHES AND SEIZURE OF WHATEVER NATURE AND WHATEVER PURPOSE
MATERIAL DISTRIBUTORS Sarreal filed a complaint seeking a money NO. EVEN if ocular inspection of the
VS HARRY LYONS judgment against the petitioner on three annex may revela falsification therof
causes of action by the petitioner the petitioner cannot
On May 27. 1947 Sarreal filed a motion for exempt themselves from the
the production and inspection of the production of said exhibits for mre
following documents ( books and papers of inspection and copying inasmuch as
material distributors, all individual ledgers the constitutional prohibition against
specially of the follwong persons. All letters self incrimination has been extended
exchanged between material dostributors in specific case only to the production
inc. Wichita Kansans lyons etc. all of documents as evidence and only
cablegrams exchange. when the person producing them is
Allegation the material seized were used as made to take the witness stand and
a fishing expedition identify them under oath and not the
The said articles seized contains evidence production of such documents but
material to the matters involved in the case mere inspection.
and are in poseession, custody or control of Mere inspection is not self
the petitioners therein. (?) incrimination
CAMARA VS MUNICIPAL Appellant was charged with violating the Public Held: NO THE CHARGE CANNOT
TRAIL COURT San Francisco Housing code for refusing Immediacy PROSPER. There was no emergency
after three efforts of the city housing demanding IMMEDIATE access. In
inspectors to secure his consent to allow fact, the petitioners even made three
warrantless inspection of the ground floor trips to the building in an attempt to
quarters which he leased and residential obtain appellant was unable to obtain
use of which allegedly violated the a warrant. Though the appellant was
apartment building’s occupancy able to enter the public portion of the
building this does not content that
such consent is sufficient to authorize
inspection fo appellants premises.
Appellsnt may not constitutionally be
convicted
IN RE VICKY OCAYA Mere suspicion that one is communist party HELD :
or new people’s army member is a valid 1. When in his presence, the
ground of his arrest without warrant. person to he arrested has
committed is actually
committing or is attempting to
cocmmit an offense
2. When an offense has in fact
just have been committed and
he has personal knowledge of
facts indicating that the person
to be arrested has committed
it.
Based on probable cause-