400

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Manalili vs. Court of Appeals
*

G.R. No. 113447. October 9, 1997.

ALAIN MANALILI y DIZON, petitioner, vs. COURT OF

APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
respondents.
Constitutional Law; Searches and Seizures; The search was
valid, being akin to a stop-and-frisk; Stop-and-Frisk; Defined.We
disagree with petitioner and hold that the search was valid, being
akin to a stop-and-frisk. In the landmark case of Terry vs. Ohio, a
stop-and-frisk was defined as the vernacular designation of the
right of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street, interrogate
him, and pat him for weapon(s).
Same; Same; Generally a search and seizure must be validated
by a previously secured judicial warrant; otherwise, such search and
seizure is unconstitutional and subject to challenge.In Philippine
jurisprudence, the general rule is that a search and seizure must be
validated by a previously secured judicial warrant; otherwise, such
search and seizure is unconstitutional and subject to challenge.
Same; Same; Evidence obtained in violation of the
constitutional provision is legally inadmissible in evidence.Any
evidence obtained in violation of the mentioned provision is legally
inadmissible in evidence as a fruit of the poisonous tree, falling
under the exclusionary rule.
Same; Same; Five Recognized Exceptions to the Rule Against
Warrantless Search and Seizure.This right, however, is not
absolute. The recent case of People vs. Lacerna enumerated five
recog-

________________
*

THIRD DIVISION.

401

VOL. 280, OCTOBER 9, 1997

401

Manalili vs. Court of Appeals

nized exceptions to the rule against warrantless search and seizure,
viz.: (1) search incidental to a lawful arrest, (2) search of moving
vehicles, (3) seizure in plain view, (4) customs search, and (5) waiver
by the accused themselves of their right against unreasonable

search and seizure.

Same; Same; Definition of Probable Cause.In People vs.
Encinada, the Court further explained that [i]n these cases, the
search and seizure may be made only with probable cause as the
essential requirement. Although the term eludes exact definition,
probable cause for a search is, at best, defined as a reasonable
ground of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong
in themselves to warrant a cautious man in the belief that the
person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged; or
the existence of such facts and circumstances which could lead a
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has
been committed and that the item(s), article(s) or object(s) sought in
connection with said offense or subject to seizure and destruction by
law is in the place to be searched.
Same; Same; Stop-and-frisk adopted as another exception to the
general rule against a search without a warrant.Stop-and-frisk
has already been adopted as another exception to the general rule
against a search without a warrant. In Posadas vs. Court of
Appeals, the Court held that there were many instances where a
search and seizure could be effected without necessarily being
preceded by an arrest, one of which was stop-and-frisk. In said case,
members of the Integrated National Police of Davao stopped
petitioner, who was carrying a buri bag and acting suspiciously.
They found inside petitioners bag one .38-cal. revolver with two
rounds of live ammunition, two live ammunitions for a .22-cal. gun
and a tear gas grenade. In upholding the legality of the search, the
Court said that to require the police officers to search the bag only
after they had obtained a search warrant might prove to be useless,
futile and much too late under the circumstances. In such a
situation, it was reasonable for a police officer to stop a suspicious
individual briefly in order to determine his identity or to maintain
the status quo while obtaining more information, rather than to
simply shrug his shoulders and allow a crime to occur.
Same; Same; Court concurs with the Solicitor Generals
contention that petitioner effectively waived the inadmissibility of
any evidence illegally obtained when he failed to raise this issue or
to object
402

402

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Manalili vs. Court of Appeals

thereto during the trial.Furthermore, we concur with the Solicitor

Generals contention that petitioner effectively waived the
inadmissibility of any evidence illegally obtained when he failed to
raise this issue or to object thereto during the trial. A valid waiver
of a right, more particularly of the constitutional right against
unreasonable search, requires the concurrence of the following
requirements: (1) the right to be waived existed; (2) the person
waiving it had knowledge, actual or constructive, thereof; and (3) he
or she had an actual intention to relinquish the right.
Same; Same; Issues not raised below cannot be pleaded for the
first time on appeal.Otherwise, the Courts will indulge every

reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental safeguards

and will not deduce acquiescence from the failure to exercise this
elementary right. In the present case, however, petitioner is deemed
to have waived such right for his failure to raise its violation before
the trial court. In petitions under Rule 45, as distinguished from an
ordinary appeal of criminal cases where the whole case is opened
for review, the appeal is generally limited to the errors assigned by
petitioner. Issues not raised below cannot be pleaded for the first
time on appeal.
Criminal Procedure; Evidence; Witnesses; Court has ruled that
the trial courts assessment of the credibility of witnesses,
particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals is accorded great
weight and respect.Time and again, this Court has ruled that the
trial courts assessment of the credibility of witnesses, particularly
when affirmed by the Court of Appeals as in this case, is accorded
great weight and respect, since it had the opportunity to observe
their demeanor and deportment as they testified before it. Unless
substantial facts and circumstances have been overlooked or
misappreciated by the trial court which, if considered, would
materially affect the result of the case, we will not countenance a
departure from this rule.
Criminal Law; Dangerous Drugs Act; Elements of Illegal
Possession of Marijuana.The elements of illegal possession of
marijuana are: (a) the accused is in possession of an item or object
which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (b) such possession is not
authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously
possessed the said drug.
403

VOL. 280, OCTOBER 9, 1997

403

Manalili vs. Court of Appeals

Same; Same; Evidence; Defense of frame-up, like alibi, is viewed
by the Court with disfavor, because it is easy to concoct and
fabricate.Furthermore, like the trial and the appellate courts, we
have not been given sufficient grounds to believe the extortion angle
in this case. Petitioner did not file any administrative or criminal
case against the arresting officers or present any evidence other
than his bare claim. His argument that he feared for his life was
lame and unbelievable, considering that he was released on bail and
continued to be on bail as early as April 26, 1988. Since then, he
could have made the charge in relative safety, as he was no longer
in the custody of the police. His defense of frame-up, like alibi, is
viewed by this Court with disfavor, because it is easy to concoct and
fabricate.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Ciriaco A. Macapagal for petitioner.
The Solicitor General for respondents.
PANGANIBAN, J.:
When dealing with a rapidly unfolding and potentially

criminal situation in the city streets where unarguably

there is no time to secure an arrest or a search warrant,
policemen should employ limited, flexible responseslike
stop-and-friskwhich are graduated in relation to the
amount of information they possess, the lawmen being ever
vigilant to respect and not to violate or to treat cavalierly
the citizens constitutional rights against unreasonable
arrest, search and seizure.
The Case
This rule is reiterated as we resolve this petition for review
on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking
the reversal of the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated
April 19, 1993 and its Resolution dated January 20, 1994 in
CA G.R. CR No. 07266, entitled People of the Philippines
vs. Alain Manalili y Dizon.
404

404

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Manalili vs. Court of Appeals
1

In an Information dated April 11, 1988, Petitioner Alain

Manalili y Dizon was charged by Assistant Caloocan City
Fiscal E. Juan R. Bautista with violation of Section 8,
Article II
of Republic Act No. 6425, allegedly committed as
2
follows:
That on or about the 11th day of April 1988 in Caloocan City, MM,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused without any authority of law, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his custody,
possession and control crushed marijuana residue, which is a
prohibited drug and knowing the same to be such.
Contrary to Law.

Upon his arraignment on April

21, 1988, appellant pleaded
3
not guilty to the charge. With the agreement of the
public prosecutor, appellant
was released after filing a
4
P10,000.00 bail bond. After trial in due course, the
Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 124, acting
as a Special
Criminal Court, rendered on May 19, 1989 a
5
decision convicting appellant of illegal possession of
marijuana
residue. The dispositive portion of the decision
6
reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, this Court finds the
accused ALAIN MANALILI Y DIZON guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of violation of Section 8, Article II, of Republic Act No. 6425,
as amended (Illegal Possession of Marijuana residue), and hereby
snetences (sic) said accused to suffer imprisonment of SIX (6)
YEARS and ONE (1) DAY; and to pay a fine of P6,000.00; and to pay
the costs.
xxx
xxx
x x x.
7

Appellant remained on provisional liberty. Atty. Benjamin8

Razon, counsel for the defense, filed a Notice of Appeal

dated
______________
1

Docketed as Crim. Case No. C-30549.

CA rollo, p. 4.

Records, p. 12.

Ibid., p. 23.

Penned by Judge Rene Victoriano.

CA rollo, p. 12D.

Records, p. 180.

p. 13.
405

VOL. 280, OCTOBER 9, 1997

405

Manalili vs. Court of Appeals

9

May 31, 1989. On April 19, 1993, Respondent Court

promulgated its assailed10Decision, denying the appeal and
affirming the trial court:

ACCORDINGLY, the decision appealed from dated May 19, 1989 is

hereby AFFIRMED in all respects. Costs against appellant.
11

Respondent Court denied reconsideration via its assailed

Resolution dated January 20, 1994, disposing:
ACCORDINGLY, accused-appellants motion for reconsideration is,
as is hereby DENIED.

The Facts Version of the Prosecution

The facts, as found by the trial court, are as follows:

12

At about 2:10 oclock in the afternoon of April 11, 1988, policemen

from the Anti-Narcotics Unit of the Kalookan City Police Station
were conducting a surveillance along A. Mabini street, Kalookan
City, in front of the Kalookan City Cemetery. The policemen were
Pat. Romeo Espiritu and Pat. Anger Lumabas and a driver named
Arnold Enriquez was driving a Tamaraw vehicle which was the
official car of the Police Station of Kalookan City. The surveillance
was being made because of information that drug addicts were
roaming the area in front of the Kalookan City Cemetery.
Upon reaching the Kalookan City Cemetery, the policemen
alighted from their vehicle. They then chanced upon a male person
in front of the cemetery who appeared high on drugs. The male
________________
9

The Eighth Division composed of JJ. Justo P. Torres, Jr., ponente; Reynato

S. Puno (both of whom are now members of the Supreme Court), and Pacita
Canizares-Nye.
10
11

Rollo, pp. 45-51.

The former Eighth Division was reorganized and J. Emeterio C. Cui

replaced J. Reynato S. Puno.

12

Records, pp. 175-177. The narration of facts by the trial court is

reproduced here because it contains more details than the version of

Respondent Court.

406

406

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Manalili vs. Court of Appeals

person was observed to have reddish eyes and to be walking in a

swaying manner. When this male person tried to avoid the
policemen, the latter approached him and introduced themselves as
police officers. The policemen then asked the male person what he
was holding in his hands. The male person tried to resist. Pat.
Romeo Espiritu asked the male person if he could see what said
male person had in his hands. The latter showed the wallet and
allowed Pat. Romeo Espiritu to examine the same. Pat. Espiritu
took the wallet and examined it. He found suspected crushed
marijuana residue inside. He kept the wallet and its marijuana
contents.
The male person was then brought to the Anti-Narcotics Unit of
the Kalookan City Police Headquarters and was turned over to Cpl.
Wilfredo Tamondong for investigation. Pat. Espiritu also turned
over to Cpl. Tamondong the confiscated wallet and its suspected
marijuana contents. The man turned out to be the accused ALAIN
MANALILI y DIZON.
Upon receipt of the confiscated suspected marijuana residue
from Pat. Espiritu, Cpl. Tamondong wrapped the same with a white
sheet of paper on which he wrote Evidence A 4/11/88 Alain
Manalili. The white sheet of paper was marked as Exhibit E-3. The
residue was originally wrapped in a smaller sheet of folded paper.
(Exhibit E-4)
Cpl. Tamondong next prepared a referral slip addressed to the
NBI Forensic Chemistry Section requesting a chemical analysis of
the subject marijuana residue (Exhibit D). Cpl. Tamondong
thereafter prepared a Joint Affidavit of the apprehending policemen
(Exhibit A). Pat. Angel Lumabas handcarried the referral slip
(Exhibit D) to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI),
including the subject marijuana residue for chemical analysis. The
signature of Pat. Lumabas appears on the left bottom corner of
Exhibit D.
The Forensic Chemistry Section of the NBI received the
aforesaid referral slip and the subject marijuana residue at 7:40
oclock in the evening of April 11, 1988 as shown on the stamped
portion of Exhibit D.
It was NBI Aida Pascual who conducted the microscopic and
chemical examinations of the specimen which she identified.
13
(Exhibit E) Mrs. Pascual referred to the subject specimen as
crushed marijuana leaves in her Certification dated April 11, 1988
_________________
13

Exhibit F, Exhibits Envelope, p. 2.

407

VOL. 280, OCTOBER 9, 1997

Manalili vs. Court of Appeals

407

14

(Exhibit F). These crushed marijuana leaves gave positive

results for marijuana, according to the Certificate.
Mrs. Pascual also conducted a chromatographic examination of
the specimen. In this examination, she also found that the crushed
marijuana leaves gave positive results for marijuana. She then
prepared a Final Report of her examinations (Exhibit G).
After conducting the examinations, Ms. Pascual placed the
specimen in a white letter-envelope and sealed it. (Exhibit E). She
then wrote identification notes on this letter-envelope. (Exhibit E1)
Pat. Lumabas carried the Certification marked as Exhibit F
from the NBI Forensic Chemistry Section to Cpl. Tamondong. Upon
receipt thereof, Cpl. Tamondong prepared a referral slip addressed
to the City Fiscal of Kalookan City. (Exhibit C)

On rebuttal, Pat. Espiritu testified that appellant was not

riding a tricycle but was walking
in front of the cemetery
15
when he was apprehended.
Version of the Defense
The trial court summarized
the testimonies of the defense
16
witnesses as follows:
At about 2:00 oclock in the afternoon of April 11, 1988, the accused
ALAIN MANALILI was aboard a tricycle at A. Mabini street near
the Kalookan City Cemetery on the way to his boarding house.
Three policemen ordered the driver of the tricycle to stop because
the tricycle driver and his lone passenger were under the influence
of marijuana. The policemen brought the accused and the tricycle
driver inside the Ford Fiera which the policemen were riding in.
The policemen then bodily searched the accused and the tricycle
driver. At this point, the accused asked the policemen why he was
being searched and the policemen replied that he (accused) was
carrying marijuana. However, nothing was found on the persons of
the accused and the driver. The policemen allowed the tricycle
driver to go
_______________
14

Exhibit G, Exhibits Envelope, p. 3.

15

TSN, April 19, 1989, pp. 2-4.

16

Records, pp. 177-178. The Memorandum for the Petitioner did not present

the defenses version of the facts.

408

408

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Manalili vs. Court of Appeals

while they brought the accused to the police headquarters at

Kalookan City where they said they would again search the
accused.
On the way to the police headquarters, the accused saw a
neighbor and signalled the latter to follow him. The neighbor thus
followed the accused to the Kalookan City Police Headquarters.
Upon arrival thereat, the accused was asked to remove his pants in
the presence of said neighbor and another companion. The

policemen turned over the pants of the accused over a piece of bond
paper trying to look for marijuana. However, nothing was found,
except for some dirt and dust. This prompted the companion of the
neighbor of the accused to tell the policemen to release the accused.
The accused was led to a cell. The policemen later told the accused
that they found marijuana inside the pockets of his pants.
At about 5:00 oclock in the afternoon on the same day, the
accused was brought outside the cell and was led to the Ford Fiera.
The accused was told by the policemen to call his parents in order to
settle the case. The policemen who led the accused to the Ford
Fiera were Pat. Lumabas, Pat. Espiritu and Cpl. Tamondong. Pat.
Lumabas was the policeman who told the accused to call his
parents. The accused did not call his parents and he told the
policemen that his parents did not have any telephone.
At about 5:30 oclock in the afternoon of the same day, the
accused was brought in the office of an inquest Fiscal. There, the
accused told the Fiscal that no marijuana was found on his person
but the Fiscal told the accused not to say anything. The accused
was then brought back to the Kalookan City Jail.
Loreto Medenilla, the tricycle driver who was allegedly with the
accused when he and the accused were stopped by policemen and
then bodily searched on April 11, 1988, testified. He said that the
policemen found nothing either on his person or on the person of the
accused when both were searched on April 11, 1988.
Roberto Abes, a neighbor of the accused, testified that he
followed the accused at the Kalookan City Police Headquarters on
April 11, 1988. He said that the police searched the accused who
was made to take off his pants at the police headquarters but no
marijuana was found on the body of the accused.
409

VOL. 280, OCTOBER 9, 1997

409

Manalili vs. Court of Appeals

Appellant, who was recalled to the stand as sur-rebuttal
witness, presented several pictures showing that tricycles
17
were allowed to ply in front of the Caloocan Cemetery.
The Rulings of the Trial and the Appellate Courts
The trial court convicted petitioner of illegal possession of
marijuana residue largely on the strength of the arresting
officers testimony. Patrolmen Espiritu and Lumabas were
neutral and disinterested witnesses, testifying only on
what transpired during the performance of their duties.
Substantially, they asserted that the appellant was found
to be in possession of a substance which was later
identified as crushed marijuana residue.
The trial court disbelieved appellants defense that this
charge was merely trumped up, because the appellant
neither took any legal action against the allegedly erring
policemen nor moved for a reinvestigation before the city
fiscal of Kalookan City.
On appeal, Respondent Court found no proof that the
decision of the trial court was based on speculations,
surmises or conjectures. On the alleged serious

discrepancies in the testimonies of the arresting officers,

the appellate court ruled that the said inconsistencies were
insubstantial to impair the essential veracity of the
narration. It further found petitioners contentionthat he
could not be convicted of illegal possession of marijuana
residueto be without merit, because the forensic chemist
reported that what she examined were marijuana leaves.
Issues
Petitioner assigns the following errors on the part of
Respondent Court:
_____________
17

TSN, April 19, 1989, pp. 9-12.

410

410

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Manalili vs. Court of Appeals
I

The Court of Appeals erred in upholding the findings of fact of the

trial court.
II
The Court of Appeals erred in upholding the conviction of (the)
accused (and) in ruling that the guilt of the accused had been
proved (beyond) reasonable doubt.
III
The Court of Appeals erred in not ruling that the inconsistencies
in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were material and
substantial and not minor.
IV
The Court of Appeals erred in not appreciating the evidence that
the accused was framed for the purpose of extorting money.
V
The Court of Appeals erred in not acquitting the accused when
the evidence presented is consistent with both innocence and guilt.
VI
The Court of Appeals erred in admitting the evidence of the
prosecution which are inadmissible in evidence.

Restated more concisely, petitioner questions (1) the

admissibility of the evidence against him, (2) the credibility
of prosecution witnesses and the rejection by the trial and
the appellate courts of the defense of extortion, and (3) the
sufficiency of the prosecution evidence to sustain his
conviction.

The Courts Ruling

The petition has no merit.
411

VOL. 280, OCTOBER 9, 1997

411

Manalili vs. Court of Appeals

First Issue: Admissibility of the Evidence Seized

During a Stop-and-Frisk
Petitioner protests the admission of the marijuana leaves
found in his possession, contending that they were products
of an illegal search. The Solicitor General, in his Comment
dated July 5, 1994, which was adopted as memorandum for
respondent, counters that the inadmissibility of the
marijuana leaves was waived because petitioner never
raised this issue in the proceedings below nor did he object
to their admissibility in evidence. He adds that, even
assuming arguendo that there was no waiver, the search
was legal because it was incidental to a warrantless arrest
under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.
We disagree with petitioner and hold that the search
was valid, being akin 18to a stop-and-frisk. In the landmark
case of Terry vs. Ohio, a stop-and-frisk was defined as the
vernacular designation of the right of a police officer to stop
a citizen on the street, interrogate him, and pat him for
weapon(s):
x x x (W)here a police officer observes an unusual conduct which
leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that
criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is
dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the course
of investigating this behavior he identified himself as a policeman
and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial
stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his
own or others safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and
others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer
clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which
might be used to assault him. Such a search is a reasonable search
under the Fourth Amendment, and any weapon seized may
properly be introduced in evidence against the person from whom
19
they were taken.
______________
18

20 L Ed 2d 889; 88 S Ct 1868, 392 US 1, 900, June 10, 1968.

19

Herrera, A Handbook on Arrest, Search and Seizure and Custodial

Investigation, 1995 ed., p. 185; and Terry vs. Ohio, supra, p. 911.
412

412

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Manalili vs. Court of Appeals

In allowing such a search, the United States Supreme

Court held that the interest of effective crime prevention
and detection allows a police officer to approach a person,
in appropriate circumstances and manner, for purposes of
investigating possible criminal behavior even though there
is insufficient probable cause to make an actual arrest.
This was the legitimate investigative function which
Officer McFadden discharged in that case, when he
approached petitioner and his companion whom he
observed to have hovered alternately about a street corner
for an extended period of time, while not waiting for
anyone; paused to stare in the same store window roughly
24 times; and conferred with a third person. It would have
been sloppy police work for an officer of 30 years
experience to have failed to investigate this behavior
further.
In admitting in evidence two guns seized during the
stop-and-frisk, the US Supreme Court held that what
justified the limited search was the more immediate
interest of the police officer in taking steps to assure
himself that the person with whom he was dealing was not
armed with a weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally
be used against him.
It did not, however, abandon the rule that the police
must, whenever practicable, obtain advance judicial
approval of searches and seizures through the warrant
procedure, excused only by exigent circumstances.
In Philippine jurisprudence, the general rule is that a
search and seizure must be validated by a previously
secured judicial warrant; otherwise, such search and
20
seizure is unconstitutional and subject to challenge.
Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, gives this
guarantee:
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,
____________
Pita vs. Court of Appeals, 178 SCRA 362, 376, October 5, 1989; People
vs. Saycon, 236 SCRA 325, 328, September 5, 1994; People vs. Cuizon,
256 SCRA 325, 338, April 18, 1996; and People vs. Lacerna, G.R. No.
109250, September 5, 1997.
20

413

VOL. 280, OCTOBER 9, 1997

413

Manalili vs. Court of Appeals

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 particularly describing the place to
be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Any evidence obtained in violation of the mentioned

provision is legally inadmissible in evidence as a fruit of
the poisonous tree, falling under the exclusionary rule:

SEC. 3. x x x
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of x x x the preceding
section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
21

This right, however, is not absolute. The recent case of

People vs. Lacerna enumerated five recognized exceptions
to the rule against warrantless search and seizure, viz.: (1)
search incidental to a lawful arrest, (2) search of moving
vehicles, (3) seizure in plain view, (4) customs search, and
(5) waiver by the accused themselves of22their right against
unreasonable
search and seizure.
In People vs.
23
Encinada, the Court further explained that [i]n these
cases, the search and seizure may be made only with
probable cause as the essential requirement. Although the
term eludes exact definition, probable cause for a search is,
at best, defined as a reasonable ground of suspicion,
supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in
themselves to warrant a cautious man in the belief
_____________
21

Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, allows a search without a

warrant for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof

of the commission of an offense of a person lawfully arrested.
22

People vs. Lacerna, supra; People vs. Fernandez, 239 SCRA 174, 182-

183, December 13, 1994. In the latter case, Puno, J., proposed a sixth
exception: exigent circumstances, as a catchall category that would
encompass a number of diverse situations where some kind of emergency
makes obtaining a search warrant impractical, useless, dangerous or
unnecessary.
23

G.R. No. 116720, October 2, 1997, pp. 15-16, citing A Handbook on

Arrest, supra, p. 40.

414

414

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Manalili vs. Court of Appeals

that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which

he is charged; or the existence of such facts and
circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and
prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed
and that the item(s), article(s) or object(s) sought in
connection with said offense or subject to seizure and
destruction by law is in the place to be searched.
Stop-and-frisk has already been adopted as another
exception to the general rule against a search
without a
24
warrant. In Posadas vs. Court of Appeals, the Court held
that there were many instances where a search and seizure
could be effected without necessarily being preceded by an
arrest, one of which was stop-and-frisk. In said case,
members of the Integrated National Police of Davao
stopped petitioner, who was carrying a buri bag and acting
suspiciously. They found inside petitioners bag one .38-cal.
revolver with two rounds of live ammunition, two live
ammunitions for a .22-cal. gun and a tear gas grenade. In
upholding the legality of the search, the Court said that to
require the police officers to search the bag only after they

had obtained a search warrant might prove to be useless,

futile and much too late under the circumstances. In such a
situation, it was reasonable for a police officer to stop a
suspicious individual briefly in order to determine his
identity or to maintain the status quo while obtaining more
information, rather than to simply shrug his shoulders and
allow a crime to occur.
In the case at hand, Patrolman Espiritu and his
companions observed during their surveillance that
appellant had red eyes and was wobbling like a drunk
along the Caloocan City Cemetery, which according to
police information was a popular hangout of drug addicts.
From his experience as a member of the Anti-Narcotics
Unit of the Caloocan City Police, such suspicious behavior
was characteristic of drug addicts who were high. The
policemen therefore had sufficient reason to
_________________
24

188 SCRA 288, 292-293, August 2, 1990, per Gancayco, J.,

concurred in by all members of the First Division, namely: Narvasa,

Cruz, Grio-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ.
415

VOL. 280, OCTOBER 9, 1997

415

Manalili vs. Court of Appeals

stop petitioner to investigate if he was actually high on
drugs. During such investigation,
they found marijuana in
25
petitioners possession:
FISCAL RALAR:
Q And why were you conducting surveillance in front of
the Caloocan Cemetery, Sangandaan, Caloocan City?
A Because there were some informations that some drug
dependents were roaming around at A. Mabini Street in
front of the Caloocan Cemetery, Caloocan City.
xxx

xxx

xxx

Q While you were conducting your surveillance, together

with Pat. Angel Lumabas and one Arnold Enriquez,
what happened, if any?
A We chanced upon one male person there in front of the
Caloocan Cemetery then when we called his attention,
he tried to avoid us, then prompting us to approach him
and introduce ourselves as police officers in a polite
manner.
xxx

xxx

xxx

Q Could you describe to us the appearance of that person

when you chanced upon him?
A That person seems like he is high on drug.
Q How were you able to say Mr. Witness that that person
that you chanced upon was high on drug?
A Because his eyes were red and he was walking on a
swaying manner.

Q What was he doing in particular when you chanced

upon him?
A He was roaming around, sir.
Q You said that he avoided you, what did you do when he
avoided you?
A We approached him and introduced ourselves as police
officers in a polite manner, sir.
Q How did you introduce yourselves?
A In a polite manner, sir.
Q What did you say when you introduced yourselves?
A We asked him what he was holding in his hands, sir.
________________
25

TSN, May 27, 1988, pp. 6-9.

416

416

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Manalili vs. Court of Appeals

Q And what was the reaction of the person when you

asked him what he was holding in his hands?
A He tried to resist, sir.
Q When he tried to resist, what did you do?
A I requested him if I can see what was he was(sic)
holding in his hands.
Q What was the answer of the person upon your request?
A He allowed me to examine that something in his hands,
sir.
xxx

xxx

xxx

Q What was he holding?

A He was holding his wallet and when we opened it, there
was a marijuana (sic) crushed residue.
Furthermore, we concur with the Solicitor Generals
contention that petitioner effectively waived the
inadmissibility of any evidence illegally obtained when he
failed to raise this issue or to object thereto during the
trial. A valid waiver of a right, more particularly of the
constitutional right against unreasonable search, requires
the concurrence of the following requirements: (1) the right
to be waived existed; (2) the person waiving it had
knowledge, actual or constructive, thereof; and (3) he or she
26
had an actual intention to relinquish the right.
Otherwise, the Courts will indulge every reasonable
presumption against waiver of fundamental safeguards
and will not deduce acquiescence from the failure to
exercise this elementary right. In the present case,
however, petitioner is deemed to have waived such right for
his failure to raise its violation before the trial court. In
petitions under Rule 45, as distinguished from an ordinary

appeal of criminal cases where the whole case is opened for

review, the appeal is generally limited to the errors
assigned by petitioner. Issues not 27
raised below cannot be
pleaded for the first time on appeal.
________________
26

People vs. Salangga, 234 SCRA 407, 417-418, July 25, 1994, per

Regalado, J.
27

Manila Bay Club Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 245 SCRA 715,

729, July 11, 1995; Chua vs. Court of Appeals, 206 SCRA
417

VOL. 280, OCTOBER 9, 1997

417

Manalili vs. Court of Appeals

Second Issue: Assessment of Evidence

Petitioner also contends that the two arresting officers
testimony
contained
polluted,
irreconcilable
and
unexplained contradictions which did not support
petitioners conviction.
We disagree. Time and again, this Court has ruled that
the trial courts assessment of the credibility of witnesses,
particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals as in
this case, is accorded great weight and respect, since it had
the opportunity to observe their demeanor and deportment
as they testified before it. Unless substantial facts and
circumstances have been overlooked or misappreciated by
the trial court which, if considered, would materially affect
the result of the
case, we will not countenance a departure
28
from this rule. We concur with Respondent Courts ruling:
(e)ven assuming as contended by appellant that there had been
some inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses testimonies, We
do not find them substantial enough to impair the essential veracity
of their narration. In People vs. Avila, it was held thatAs long as
the witnesses concur on the material points, slight differences in
their remembrance of the details, do not reflect on the essential
veracity of their statements.

However, we find that, aside from the presumption of

regularity in the performance of duty, the bestowal of full
credence on Pat. Espiritus testimony is justified by
tangible evidence on record. Despite Pat. Lumabas
contradictory testimony,
that of Espiritu is supported by
29
the Joint Affidavit signed by both arresting policemen.
The question of whether the marijuana was found inside
petitioners wallet or inside a plastic bag is immaterial,
considering that petitioner did not deny
______________
339, 344-345, February 19, 1992; and Baquiran vs. Court of Appeals,2
SCRA 873, 877, July 31, 1961.
28

People vs. Atad, G.R. No. 114105, January 16, 1997, p. 19; People vs.

Lua, 256 SCRA 539, 546, April 26, 1996; and People vs. Exala, 221 SCRA
494, 498-499, April 22, 1993.
29

Exhibits A & A-1, Exhibits Envelope, p. 1.

418

418

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Manalili vs. Court of Appeals

possession of said substance. Failure to present the wallet

in evidence did not negate that marijuana was found in
petitioners possession. This shows that such contradiction
30
is minor and does not destroy Espiritus credibility.
Third Issue: Sufficiency of Evidence
The elements of illegal possession of marijuana are: (a) the
accused is in possession of an item or object which is
identified to be a prohibited drug; (b) such possession is not
authorized by law; and (c) the31 accused freely and
consciously possessed the said drug.
The substance found in petitioners possession was
identified by NBI Forensic Chemist Aida Pascual to be
crushed marijuana leaves. Petitioners lack of authority to
possess these leaves was established. His awareness
thereof was undeniable, considering that petitioner was
high on drugs when stopped by the policemen and that he
resisted when asked to show and identify the thing he was
holding. Such behavior clearly shows that petitioner knew
that he was holding marijuana and that it was prohibited
by law.
Furthermore, like the trial and the appellate courts, we
have not been given sufficient grounds to believe the
extortion angle in this case. Petitioner did not file any
administrative or criminal case against the arresting
officers or present any evidence other than his bare claim.
His argument that he feared for his life was lame and
unbelievable, considering that he was released on bail
and
32
continued to be on bail as early as April 26, 1988. Since
then, he could have made the charge in relative safety, as
he was no longer in the custody of the police. His defense of
frame-up, like alibi, is viewed by this
_________________
30

People vs. Lua, supra, p. 547.

31

People vs. Lacerna, supra.

32

Records, p. 23.
419

VOL. 280, OCTOBER 9, 1997

419

Manalili vs. Court of Appeals

Court with
disfavor, because it is easy to concoct and
33
fabricate.

The Proper Penalty

The trial and the appellate courts overlooked the
Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103, as amended)
by sentencing petitioner to a straight penalty of six years
and one day of imprisonment, aside from the imposed fine
of six thousand pesos. This Act requires the imposition of
an indeterminate penalty:
SECTION 1. Hereafter, in imposing a prison sentence for an
offense punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments,
the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence
the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the
attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules
of the said Code, and the minimum which shall be within the range
of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the
offense; and if the offense is punished by any other law, the court
shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the
maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said
law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term
prescribed by the same. (As amended by Act No. 4225.)
SEC. 2. This Act shall not apply to persons convicted of offenses
punished with death penalty or life-imprisonment; to those
convicted of treason; to those convicted of misprision of treason,
rebellion, sedition or espionage; to those convicted of piracy; to those
who are habitual delinquents; to those who shall have escaped from
confinement or evaded sentence; to those who having been granted
conditional pardon by the Chief Executive shall have violated the
terms thereof; to those whose maximum term of imprisonment does
not exceed one year, not to those already sentenced by final
judgment at the time of approval of this Act, except as provided in
Section 5 hereof. (Italics supplied)
_______________
33

People vs. Velasco, 252 SCRA 135, 143, January 23, 1996, per

Davide, J.
420

420

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Manalili vs. Court of Appeals

The Dangerous Drugs Law, R.A. 6425, as amended by B.P.

179, imposes the following penalty for illegal possession of
marijuana:
Sec. 8. x x x x
The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six years and one day
to twelve years and a fine ranging from six thousand to twelve
thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless
authorized by law, shall possess or use Indian hemp.

Prescinding from the foregoing, the Court holds that the

proper penalty is an indeterminate sentence of
imprisonment
ranging from six years and one day to twelve
34
years.
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision and Resolution are

hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner is

sentenced to suffer IMPRISONMENT of SIX (6) YEARS, as
minimum, to TWELVE (12) YEARS, as maximum, and to
PAY a FINE of SIX THOUSAND PESOS. Costs against
petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa (C.J., Chairman), Romero, Melo and
Francisco, JJ., concur.
Judgment and resolution affirmed with modification.
Note.A significant exception from the necessity for a
search warrant is when the search and seizure is effected
as an incident to a lawful arrest. (People vs. Figueroa, 248
SCRA 679 [1995])
o0o
________________
34

People vs. Tabar, 222 SCRA 144, 155, May 17, 1993, per Davide, J.
421

Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.