People v Sabagar CR No. 98060 Gouwoug 24, 1997 This case ita cave. involving an_appeal_concerning violation of appellant right to countel, and thal court gravely erred tn convicting her of the crime charged despite the unreasonable, and unlawful search and _riewure conolucted by VAKCoM agents. During 4he_arraignment, the acufed_pltaded not _guilty with legal autirtance. Acting on drag activity infyrmation, Cupillan.oine! -de_Guzman fom ARCOM travelled to Oroquieta Cty on fugu 23, 190, _guidecl by an_ifeformer. They marked_a_bill, conducted a — Mccesful_undercover_manijuana_purchalt, leading to the are At of Satumina “ Nena" Salazar. Move marijuana_was found at _Dosephine Bayotay place al she appellant pointed in responce te Gt- Gubibans question Hf she knew other pushers. The accused wat Inlerogated, blo-data and fingerprint taken, ana the documents Signed at the PC headquarters. 4 joint affidav Was filed, and steved thems were Send to MBI. Foreriste Chemill Arengas eaminatin confirmed Yhe substances as Marijuana, with a total wetghi of 18.3260 gram and positive te retulty. the defense presented Jeanie Mission, the accuredy !2 yoar-ole! daughter, who testified aboul she anti. deording & Jeanth, on Augusd 23, 1988, around 1:25pm., wo people entered “heir hosdte while she watched the store. they woke her mother, ook her the living room, and_tater_saw them taking her_away. Mena Salazar the actu std, plated Yhat_at 1220 pm the was_tn_her _ bedroom when Jimmy tubillan and anofher_perion, claiming tobe on a reid, held her hand, aking aboul alleged marijuana Sales. Despite no fearch warrant, She was threatentd with oy _pitt! Taken ty Philippine Constabulary headquarters, the was_ _guestioned with legal rights, pred to fqn. document, and Jailed. Salazar war Bund guilty of dug selling, sentenced to _ __ Ye _impritonment, and fned P20, 000.00. ee _______ the tal _Courd_believed she poteybon_witnestes, dismitin ‘ng. $he defenses challengee_anol_Pnoling_4_unlikely thet_waccom agents had_fmproper_motived. H tonduded thatthe appellant's denial- based evidenu _coudn'!_oul weigh _Jhe prosecution wi'tneses? _ _ Compelling _tsimony._tn_thit_appeal, the appellany arquey that _the trial _courd_erred—in_tonvicking her due to an unreasonable search, div regarding her presumpkon of Innoenu, and finding nor Quilty beyond reatmable doubt.I i _—4._Wheshec or not she tourd erred in convicting her of he came Charged despilt the unreaonable and_unlawsul_pearch and sletuie conducttd by NAIKLOM agent. Hebel : the courd_dismisted such claim, asserting that he byy-batt opratin was alegittmak means apprehend drug pushers withoud prior identfcation. the ame rt of she drug pusher in the oul Justified the_immediale coareh_wishoul wareart} and_¢he_omtabandlstered _duving the tuy~bust operation deemed admiaible 'n the Court, ai the evidenee uae ~ idenk fy any _trrégularisies_tn dhe operationArturo Figueroa faved charges of Illegal Porression of Firearm and Ammunition on Nov: 10, 1989, in General Tal, Cavite, “br having a. 4% caliber pistol without the required permit or Iwcenw. te pleaded “nod guilty" leuding td tial. Morning of November 40, 1994, Captain Lodivino fosarto and hi Jeam arrived at Arturo Figueras reidenve in Bray: Jan Juan, fan Franuiw Subdivision, General Trias, Cavite, to exeuute_an_amesd wanend ited by the Regional Thal Court of Matati. The warrant was retated to Caminal Case No.414 and Criminal Care Wo. 42, charging Tiquersa with Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunitions and Viblation of Suction to, Artie Ml, Republic Act G425. During the exeuttion of the arres warrant, the officers obierved scattered aluminum ‘Bil packages in the living room, raising Suspidons of illegal subsdanves, Jpeerfivally “thabu!" Subsequently, the aresting oltices Sought Tiquema's consent, along with nic bather and sitter tb ondud_a Jearvh_of the préméses. Thit Search led a Yhe discovery a 45 caliber_pistol, @ magazine, Jeven live ammunitiong anda match box containing an gluminum foil package win “habu" Figueroa denied the posession O& thit boxes, and an_inventoy was conducted by % team, with Bray. Captun Pigornia aitesting te the sieved ies In the subsequent trial, Figueroa contetd the wedibility of poreuution witnesses nd challenged Yhe adminadbility of the firearm and ammunition, arguing that they were _ distovertd during 4 Warrantles Seach. = The dia! Gourd tendered a devitten, finding TPquecva gailty beyond teasonable doubt. the develal portian of the Judgement sentenced him to lie_impcitonment, with the confiscation and forfertureof the firearm_and_ammuniten in Savor of the government. In_response, Figueroa lodyed on appeal, reiteryling nts argument against the adminibility of eddenwe fered in the wunantlers Search ond challenging the ©redbilily of the __ prosewtion _witnedtes. __Whether or not the appellant is vorecet ih hit argument againsd the admissibility of evidence sieved in dhe warrantless Search and challenging the uedibility of the pwleuation witnesses ? Meld : the -45. caliber pistol, magazine and rounds_of ammunition were nol unlawfully oblained. While one might wnvede alithicul ty, in_reudily_auepting the statement of the prosecution that the Search wat condu ckd with wonsent preety given. by the appellant and member of hic_household, i should be pointed out, in any Case, that the Jearch and sieve was done admittedly on the occassion of a lawful arrest. a A Jdignilicant exeption fom the necessity fora search wom if when the search and (iequre Ww effected af_an incident ua lawhyl arrest _an—so_in_ Feople v. Musa this Court elabo mated, thus Ihe warranlless search an_sierure, wan incident % Q_suspevts lawful arrest, may_extend beyond the pean of the one arrested to include she prémiser_0F Jurrounding under hit_imme diate vontrl-—opjecs in the “plain view" of an offiter who has the right i be in tne position. tn_have thal view are subject le Jicqure and may be presented cs evidence.Sees: The case involves tne appeal of Antolin Culzon, Hove Pua alas Steve Po alias Tommy sy, and Paul Lee alias Paul Leung against their _vonviction fr unlawfully transporting Methamphedamine hydrochloride tit the wunny, in violation of Sechon 15 of KA 6425, alo known as Dangerous Druyo Aut of 1992. In the prosec.stion, the Nahonat Burcu of Investigation (NBL) Gnductd suevertlanw on Antolin tui2n and mi wile Saran bused on _intormuhen regarding ther involvement _In cag utivitiel- On February 24, 1992, a team was organitéd intercept the Couple upon their arrival al Ninoy Aquino International Airport (WAIA) fiom Hong Kong. Cuizon and his wife handed four bags to steve Pua and Paul Lee al the airpod, who then loaded Jhem into a taxi. AMhough efforts t apprehend them, Pua + lea, failed initially, they were eventually located af the Manila Peninsula Hotel, where bags Containing suspect shabu were found in their room. Suvequently, the 4am proceeded to. Cuiton's residene in Caleocan_City, where another bag of Suipected shabu was seized along witha Atearm. the suspects were broughi t NB! headquarter fir fursher investigation. Additionally, @ Substantial amount of Suspeced shabu was discovered hidden in the Ceiling of the hotel rom amounting 5 kilos Analyst tonficem-ed that the substances Bund_wee indeed methamphetamine hydichloride or“ Shabu" a regulated dug. In the defenre, Appellant Pua pretented an alibi if defente, claiming thal he and w- appellant Lee_wete in their hotel wom ai the Manila Peninsula totel during the alleged Commission of the offence. fua fated that he was astisting Lee, who was expecting a delayed arrival of his fitnd hamed_ Leong Chong chong or Paul Leung. Atording Pug, they received Paul Leung's luggage in their room but were later vizited by. individuals claiming to be NBLagenty who then discovered the shabu package im the luggage On the other and appellant (ui2on_denied the pwtewutions version of events asserting that he did nol mee! Pua and tee at the airport_and_did nol hand them any luggage. Instead, he claimed that_only his two-year old son and cousin met them a the airport, and they were brought home directly to yheir home _in Caloocan Cit. Cuiton Wife,Cousin, and nephew 4estified in_his faver- Untortunately, Qppelland Paul Lee, who only undetetands Chinese - Cantonese, wad unable +o testify due to the absence of an interpreter. AS a result, the trial Court considered him and Pua te have waived their right 6 preset additional evidence, and the care proceeded tw decision affer tne Submision of memoranda. SGue: — Whedher or nol the warranties arrests and searches Condutled by National Bureau of Investigation_on spouses Cuizon, Aleve Pua, and Paul Lee were egal and Condtitutional. cat The Court ruled that arrests, Searches, and seiqures Withoud a warrant are generally prohibited by law unless Special exceptions apply. these exceptions include situations Where a person commit O crime in the prefence of law. enforcement officert_or where an offense has just been committed, Qnd the officers have_petsonal Knowledge of the Fach. However, In the care at hand, the court found out thal_none of thee exceptions applied. The individuals where arertd bated on hearsay infirmation and there wal nb lear evideng that _@ crime had been committed. therefore, the March and_arre st were cleemed illegal, and any evidence obtainecl_as.a_teult of illegal Joarch was contidered Inadmitsible in court. For clanty, the court cited cates, in all the cares discusted shore were fact. which were Bund by the (ourd a Provide — probable_cause Justifying warrantless arrests and searches, je. distinc! odor of marijuana, reports aboul_crug teanspovting or poritive identification by informed, Suspicious behaviour, atempt to flee, failute to produ identification papers and soon- loo, urgency altended the arrests and searches because gach of the_discusted cases_involved theute Of motor velutdes_and Yhe_great-Iitelinood thal the accuted would gel away long before a warrant _can_be_protuted. And, lert 4 be overtooked, “unlike this Instant Care_before the cour Ihe enfwers th the - aferementioned cafes ackd_immedictely on Yhe informeytin __recetved, Suipidons_raised, and_pwbable caules extablish ml _and-effecied the anelts and _fearcher? without any delay.FRepte v. ette Tras : The care primarily revolves around she legality of warrant. wed for Search of the appellants howe, as the defente argues thal the volver fund during the search should not have been admitted at Qvidence due the lack of proper warrant, thus implivating Conshtu fional_ rights. In the lower court, the prosecutich pretented Nida Sultones Yhe surviving victim__of q ¢pecial complex crime C highway robbery and homicide), to testify about the evens leading to the theft of her pertonal belongings and the Kitling of her bother, Maxie Monilar, Ic Nida _recounded that che and Maximo were. wallcing towards the town of Sogod, Cebu intending to buy goods for_her store. Along the way, they encountered Radel Montecstlo, who followed them and eventually attaked ida, siangling her and dealing her Writtwatch and money in the amount of 1.900 00. Alex Mordecilla then Joined in 4 assict fadel. During the siniggle a masted man_appeartd_and_chot_Maximo, who - Jover olied. Afterward the Montecitlo.brothedt_dragged Nida to a Nearby cteet, threatening her with a_knife_and qun- Howeves, they lel her go_atfer she promised not_to_teport the incident 40 the_police. Despiter_her promise, Nida did report the incident, leading ty the_areest_of Monteatlo. During the investigation, fade! _ implicated the appellant, leading toa fearch of the appeltant's house by the police. The search was tonduced with the ausittance_ of Barangay Captain of tbabao a a witness. fee a Slation Commander Salustiano Comaingking of the fogod Police Station and Several Policemen arrived at the howe of appellant around. 4:00 am en May 3 1989 and fund appellant Walking around.in font of hit house. After the policeman_explained their purpose tv appellant he ceded to their request cand offered ty have hts house searched ty them. Appelland w&nd_with them _ arnund the house, bared his personal belong ings_and_opened every olrawer_and_cabined for the Policeman t_see. While the cearch wat going on, Patrolman Alberts Arnado talked to one of the _ -childten of appellant. ‘the child point _q_yartition in she double walling of appellants bedroom_and there, inerted belureen Saucale walls of the room, a_.28 caliber pistol /revoler tt was found .The gun found in the appellanty house turned out positive for gunpowder residues afler chemical analysis conducted by Myrna Areola, a Brensic analysi of the Phil(ppine Condabulary Came. Labora tory. Sotto on the Ofer hand, prefented an alibi, claiming he wal @thome during the Incident. He argued thal evidence, including Yhe_tevolver_and_paraflin 4eH"recullt, was fabricated ty the police. The Courd, howert, upheld the guilty verdid, relying on Midas consistent testimony and the forensic_evidene. the Paratiin tet Were deemed reliable, gnd Sotlos objections to he Search were dismitsed. the court ¢oncluded shat Cott actively parnicipated in the Crime leading +o hil conviction. Sotto appeal primarily challenged the credibility of the wiinestes and the admitsibility Of eviceno, bul the Court Upheld fhe Yhe lower court's decition. Secue: Whether or not the Search conductd i untonstifutional ai Yhe appellant aseerts thot it_wor withod warrant. te Bi Conclusion reached by the courl_u that the appellant's claimy are fund to be flawed, and the People'y care Gre deemed meritorious. The Court emphasizes thal when the intue involves the crearbility of witneses, appellale courts generally differ to the tal Courts findings unless thee ita clear Oversight Of Significant fact. the Court Meticulously examined the evidence, finding no errr in the lower courts conclusion and the appellant it guilty Of the imputed crime. Bali JE it accepted dictum thal when the acused himcelt waives his tight agains ynteasonable searches Gnd fei2ue, the : Rxcutioncry rule provided in the Bill of Kighls finds no apelivation. When one Voluntary Submite ta fearch_of content te have Made_on_hit pewen or premises, he © precludd from later Complaining thereof. the right to be secure from Unrecuonable search Maybe waived either exprealy and. impliedly. Since the Oppellant consented or acquiested tthe Search, the 28 caliber revolver ti dmistable evidence agaitut him. Appellandsc bare assertien dhat he objected 42 the wanantles wach ha Pelle afler$hovignt fo exquipaie himself afler_tealizing the damaging Contequ eres of his approval. Furthermore, the festimony of Parangay Captain reinforces the Prttumption of tegulavity enjoyed by law enforus with gard tp Consenfed Search, a presumption which appellant ditmally Lite fy_ovtrome.__Peeple v. Crate This 15 care Concerning the arrest and vonviction of Kora Arata for transporting Marijuana, with the legality of the search Gnd! seiwure being a central insue. On December 12, 1908, PELE. Abello was tipped of by his informand, Known only ox Benjie, that certain Aling Kosa would be arriving fom Baguio city the Allowing day, December 14,198¢, with @ large volume of marijuana._Acling on said_tip, P/Lt. Abelb Qssembled q Ham compoled of PIlt. Joe Domingo, Sgt: Sudiacal, St. rear Imperial, Jgt- Panilo Santiags and Sgt. Erin Quimbia- aid team wend t Wert Pajac-bajac Olongapo City around 4:00 in_dhe afternoon of December M, 1988 and deployed themselves Near tho Philippine National Dank building along Rizal avenue and. Yhe Caltex gasoline Mation. While thuc positioned, a victory Liner Bu stopped in tron of the PNB building wish a body tno. 494 at around 6:30 in the evening of the same. day where two femate: and males_gol off. H-war al thie tage thet the informant pointed out to the team Aling fora who was then canying a travelling. a a ay af ‘The NAKCOM agertt_approached the accuted, Foca, identified — Yhemselver, and questioned her about the wontente of her_bag- ling €osa handed it to P/LE Aello. Upon inspection, marijuana Was found inside. The agents confiscated vhe bag and_a_bus tickel, Then brought Aling fora to the NAKCOM_ oftive fr InverKgation. A forentic chemi confiemed the subttance ac Marijuana. the Priecution teed itt Care aller pretenting evidene. ie The defente filed demurrer of evidence, arguing the illegality of seach and seleure, bud i) war denied without tuling_on she legality. Rosa testified, claiming Innocence and_ alleging arbitrary Qrres. __ Moreover che added +hal_no search warrant_was shown te_her_by the _anesting officers. Afler_the prosecution made a fanal Offer_of evidence, the defence fled a Comment and for Objections to Proseustions Formal_offer of eyidence contesting the admilsibility of the thms seized gu vhey Wee allegedly a Product of an_unreasonable search and selzure. The Regiong) Thal Court -0f Olongapo was not _Convinved wiv Aling Kota's —Verrion of the incident shat some _woman gare her the bag for_her (Aling fora) ty hold, the RIC Conuided Yhe_auused ~ appellant of transporting 8 kilos and 600 grams of GR. No. 120915marijuana from Baguio City to Olongapo city in violaken of section 4, Artie M1 of RA Mo of27 and sentenced her 4 Ni impriton ment and to pay a fine of P 20, 000.00 without Subsidiary Imprisonment tn cate of insolvency. rIecue: Whesher or not the warrantless fearch reulting the arrest Of auued-appellant violakd her conshtutional rights ? The “Court ruled that the Acuced-appellant cannot be Said to be committing a crime- Neither was the aboul_to commit_a_crime_nor had she jud tommitted a_crime - Accuted- appellant was merely crossing the eel and wadnot acting in_any manner thal would engender a teawnable Grund for the NARCOM agents te suped and conclude vhat the was committing a ¢rime. twas only when the informant prinkd to the accused-apellant and identfed her t he agent au she carrier of marijuana thal che was singled out ay he suspec.The NARCOM agents would not have apprehended Aculed-appellant were Ht nol Br the furtive finger of the informant because, as clearly illustrated by she evidence _on reeord, there wos_no reason whgtsoever for them to Swpect that acused appellant was commithing a uime, exept for the pointing finger of the informant. This, the lourt could neithey sanction nor tletale as Hit @ clear violation of the Constitutional quarante against unreaionable search and. fei2uee. Neither was there dny Semblanw of any complianu with the Nigid_tequitements of probable caule and warantles arrests. Consequently, there was no legal basis for the NARCOM Agent to efect a Warranties search of aceused- appetland's bag, their_being no probable Cause and the aculed-appellant Nol having been lawfully arrested. Slated otherwise, the anect being Incipiently illegal, i logically fillows thal the Sublequent Sorch was similarly. iegal, it being not incidental to a lawtnl Grrest. The consh fational_ guarantee again _unreassnable feanh And serene mud perfore opercile_in Ravor of atu ted - appellans.DIAZ v. PEOPLE This cave is a cate conerning the Petthon for (eriorari under Rule 45 which aim to overturn the courd of Appeals Decision on May 12, 2014 and Resolution Auguid 11, 2044. the CA rejected the Kule G5 petition, challenging RIC Branch 934 Order_on Tuly 1¢, 2019 and September 20, 2013. denying the Mation 10. Quash_ Search warrant and Metion for Reonsideration filed by. Merilyn Diaz. Oh April 24, 2012, search warrant No. 99 was tisued basecl on Opplication by Police officer Rio Avila, allowing 4he Search of Morilyn Dias reddence in Jan Pedro, Laguna, for suspectcl illegal oaugs. the Warrant wos execuled, resulting in the distovey ancl sereure of Approximately nine grams of shabu. following an arred an_inqued Proceedings took place, and a case for violation of Section 11 of Republic Ad no- 9165 was file against petitioner Oia- On May 2 2012, Diaz filed a Motion tr Quash the search Warrant, arguing tt lacked specifity in. qascribing tho place te be Searched and failed to_distinguish her unit fom other households —__ in She same location: the Ric of San fablo Cty forwarded she moti tothe 16 of San Pedro for @edolubin on May $, 2042. On_March 4, 2013, the proeustion opposed the Motion, asterting the presumption of the warrants tegularity unless evidence ht precenkd otherwite. a In_an_order on July 4¢, 2019 the RIC of fan Ped Lagura,_ Branch 93_rejected petitioners motion, deeming the discription of the place it Sufficient. the Court @mphasited that the officers, With reasonable effort, could identify the intended fearch location. the _ Petitioner's motion for_rewnidecation, filed on Seplember 30, 2013, wat also denied: Derpite these decisions, the petitioner puaued a Pehtion for_certiorari_befyre +ho Court_of Appeal the Court of Appeals _in its Decision on May !2 2014, “Uphed the. Jower courts naling, stating tha the (earch warrant adequalely specified the search Location. the Court explained thal she police offices executing the warrant succesfully Identified petitioners teildencg even though the howe number wat hot explicitly mentioned. the pefitioners attempd fir_tecontideratin was_likewite dehitd by she CA on dugua 1%, 2044.Mecue Whether or not Search Warrant 97 is a general warrant Br failing tu describe he plae tobe tearcheo! with sufficient Particulanity the fii held thal_a Valid t¢arch warrant must mee Certain _requitements_outlined in the constitution and other Provisions, including the determination of probable cau te by a judge, a_written ¢xamination under cath, and_cpecific description of +he Plate to be fearched and items to be reited. the absence of any. there. elements rendert the fearch warrant_nuil_and void. In_aife ting the validity of a search warrant, the focus tron whether she warrant adequately and specifically descviber the place to be Searched. the warrant must provide enough defall t. pe law enforement fom cxerising diiceetion in deciding where fo- seach and whal to fei2e. yhe desoiplion should be clear enough for the oftied te identify the inknded lovatien with teasonable effort, diftinguishing i fom other place! tn he Community - In Simpler terms, Q fearch warrant pastes the ted of definikenert H the description of the plau prevents the each of other nearby _premites. the ferm"plave" can refer te a single building or Stnacture, Puch as a houté or residence. Sse In the instant cate, the Search Warrant fr petitioner howte tn. Jan Pablo, Laguna. meek the necetiary standardl$ clearly specifying — the locatin for the search: pextoner's. "house at _Gitna, Bray. Cuyob, Jan Pedy, Laguna.” Ht authorizes o Search of petitioners entice howte, excluding other nearby struictuits. the CA righty @mphasited that the warrant, although tacking the howe number was Sufficient forthe police officert te tuentitify and locale petitioner: hole, thanks to the Sketches of /by informant Jericho Labrcicler.Gaya. v. Poste This petition challenges the Court of Appeals’ Decision on August 8, 2014 and Kesolution on Februaty 9, 2015, which affirmed with modifications the November 1%, 2010 Decision of Regional Trial Court in Criminal case Mo. 1400-04. the petitioner, folando Uy y Sayan, was fund guilty of violating Section 1, Article it of Republic Act Mo. 9165, 0° the Comprehensive Dangermus Drugs Act of 2022. On May 28, 2004, the prosecution fled _an_Information Z Guusing Uy of Illegal Possession of dangerow drugs. the charge pertained ts an incident on April 6, 2004, in Sitio Pasok, Brgy. Mabuhay, Jan Fernando Bukidnon, Wwhete Uy allegedly had. 248 grams of marijuana without the necessary permit, aggravated by his positive drug use According to the prosecution, during_a mobile check point set_up by PNP in compliance with COMELEC Fesolu ton Wo. 6446 Uy wat flagged down. Tailing to produce his motorcycle documents, a Seach revealed bundle of Manjuana in the tool compactment under the divert teat. JSubtequent. examination confirmed the pretence of Manjuana in the confiscated demsand in Uy'c Urine. In Contrast, the defense reprerented ‘solely by Uy, tontended ao diferent verrion. He claimed that on the mentioned day, while — delivering medicines in Mabuhay, hit motorcycle had_a flail tire In Barvio foso, San Fétnands. Individuale in civilia_ateite arcived, — Conducted a search finding nothing illegal, but arrested lm fr Jacting driver's liccence and motortycle documenis. Uy was then taken to the Polle Station, where he alleged micircatment and tortion Ar P10 000.00. He was late brought te Cagayan de Or Cy for dbug_tetting. The petition quettions the violation of Uy right ts privacy, emphasizing the lack of legal_bash of huarrest and the absence of reasonable Suspicion. The CA modified the penalty bul uphedl the conviction, citing Uy’ failure to object to the anes; Irregularity before arraignment. the modification i due to. _ the unconstitutionality of Section 96 (#)_of fA 9165, deeming the urine sample_inadmits ible ____ the petitioner, undeterred, led a certioran_getit‘on, arguing violation of hi_tigh! to privacy. He lontended that the citaumctances of hit arrest, under the COMELEC gun ban, lacked reasonable grounds, challenging the well-fyunded belie in hic guild. GR No. 217091 : __DI egue 4 Whether or not the police lacked reasonable grounol: for the Grrest Under the COMELEC gun ban, Considering the petitioner! auertion Of non- engagement in illegal activity, lack of prior Poritive identifcation, and the absence of incriminating evidence in plain view. a the tin held that the 1984 Constitution mandates searches Qnd_sei2ure through a judicial warant based on_probable_cauie; Without one, Searches are wonsidered intrusive and ynreasonable- Warrantles Searches are permitsible_when incidental toa lawful arrest, following the specific rules outlined in Section 5, Kile 12 of the Rules of Court. three instances allow warrantless arrests: @) arrest in flagranie delicto, (b) arresd bated on Perzonal knowledge of the arresting officer and (C) arrest of an Cicaped pritoner. For arrests in flagrante delicto, two elements mus Conur: the Suspect overt act Indicating the commicsion_of the Grime and vhe act done in the presente of the arresting officer. In situations thvolving an individuals arrest during & checkpoint Search, military or police checkpoint re legally atceptable, ou long QU 4heir necesity iy Justified by publ't order exigendes_and Conducta with minimal intrusion. Checkpoint inspections, when limited to actions like drawing atide Curtains, visual searches or flashing lighit Without physical Searches do not violate an_Indtvidual'r rights Against unreasonable searches. — Felentire Searches, while stl valid, requice offices t have bheafonable_or probable cause before Londucting the Search, anti ctpabing the discovery of crime - related evidence or inshuments in the vehicle. In Ahis case, the Court acknowledges the general tule that motorirt passing through checkpoints are subject to reutme inspectons. However, an extensive search it Justified when yhere t probable. cause, indicating a reasonable belied thai the motorid ita law offender or the véhivle Contain’ inthuments of an offente- the petitioner riding a red_motorcycle,_was_stopped_at_a_mobile checkpoint in San Femando Bukidnon due bh hit failure b piient the Motoreyctes olbcuments- Suspecting theft, she police_inipected the vehicle and found a. plastic_cellophane_with dried _marijuana_in the ools Compariment- Further search rtvealed additional bundles of Manjjuana_under the divert feat. AHhough Jhe ehvoun ber —began_with a_COMELEC gun ban checkpoint, the anest and Sublequent featch were prmpted_by the pebtiones aiture tp Produce required document, leading to suspiciouas of Criminal ockvily and the dlisovery of marijuana.The inétant cate reveals a notable failure in complying with Jhe chain of custody rule by dhe police offive. Section 21 of RA 9105. oullines the necessary clepy including marking, Inventory, and photography of Seized Heme) druge in the presence of specife individuals. The taw Conmiden this procedure subsantre, not merely procedural. However, in this instance, there was a complete lack of compliance, al evidenced by he absence of inventory port. The failure to ertablich the movement of the selzed drug’ with the bequired wines: viblate subdantive law- Due to these lapses, petitioner’ acquittal ix justi fied, Cteating uncertainty aboud the identity and oe of the ewidence _precented by she protecutio: —People v. Kodriqueza he cate involver the appeal of bon Rodriguera, who was. initially Convicke of violating olug laws ina flawed buy bys operation, bul wat_ultimately acquitted due te Inioncittencies_in_sockmonics, tnaderiible evidence, and a failure ‘4 edablish_the_corput elit The dispule (nvolves accu led appeltom Don kodviguera, clong_wt co-aceuted! Samual Segovia and éntonio Lonteral, with +he protectin reptetented. hy Vhe_dSoliciee General. Central _& thie care tithe alveged siolastion of section 4, Arhicle MI of he Dangerous drug cut 0 1992 casing a_buy-bust —— operakin in Tagas, Darga, Albay, on July 4, 1982. Buring this opemation, fodriquera purportedly sd 400 grams of Marijuana leaves to_c1l. Griacwo Taduran. Sudfequently, Rodriqueea, Seqowia and Loncteat went antsio and a raid Conduckd at the hows of Toven cty flodrigutaa resulted in the seleue of marijuana and dag Paraphernalia. The regional trial court Convi'cked Rodriquera, who Cantetled the operations. legality, the admissibility of hit cwom statement, and he raid without Rearch warrant. He agued. that the protecation faibed eR eptablith the confacaked marijuana tdenbhy and. highlighted Invonsistenciel in. witn ed xeskiononics- b Throughsud we al Rodryuera maintained ph pleaof not. quilhy, and both cides prerented wihwestes. the eres guilty verdict was tree burncel om appeal, as the £6 recommended atquiteal, citing Paws inthe ___ proleciutins cove, the Court cmewrring with ty recommendation , ervphasired trues yf Yee bay bud operation, the admnistibihity of wom Halement, and tnumsidenda in witnes acount eo Den Podriquezn wat acquitted, with the_courtuncrectioning, he profecastrine failure b prove guilt beyond keatmable-olast and. the pretense of signifvcand Paws tn their cote Dre Whether of not the (oud thould offi Podrigu cra’ Uenviction. = the ea holding 1a Shit cate wot Nbtetal dnd tetting astd.e of thy Judgement of canvition for aeeated=aprutteant Rodriquerd, ulbima kay leading 1 bir-acquiital one drug-related charael, the Conti ctateing behind dhtr decictn_tt_multrfaccteeThe Court held the &_bay- bust operation 1 a form of entrapment AMployed py peau offer ts tap and cath a Malefacter in Flayrank deli. Applied to the cate ol bag the term in Flagrant delict requites thal the Supecked dug dealermutt be caught redhanded -in_ the act of telling marijuana or any prohibited drug ® o perten ating or posing as a buyer. i In the instant cate, poweaver, the “pacha dob feck by AK COM agenk failed te meef thts Qualificabm. Bated an the very eviene of the prosecutions after yhe alleged umiummatio of the ale of driect ~Marijuana leaves, C1 Txducan, enmedialely releated appellant Rodngutza instead of areding_and taking him inty mu_catrdly. this act _CIL_Taduran, assuming arguendo that the suppoted sale of marisuana -olid take plaus, decidedly Lmtrans te te hohacal coumto tf the Mvings and jnvonsitteet with Hu atsremenbened purpot of a_bug- best operation. 6 rather absurd his part + bel appellant cape wld having been subjected % the Sanchar. impored by law. It tt Infact d_dereliction_¢f duty by an agent of law.PEOPLE v. RODRIGUEZ [eee Ofars: This case_if a case concerning the appeal of Pablo Fodriquer which challenges she legality of ht: anest, the subsequent fearch, andthe odenl scibihhy of evidence used to support chard ele a : The_primary parties in this cate are; the appellant Pablo Rodriquer ¥ @tarian and the prorecution.reprerenting the People of the Philteetne,, wit? the Solicitor General Heading the_legal proceeding on behafP of the. goremment. The events leading tu the ditpute_unfolded_on June 21 1994, when the Taba Police Maton received a report of marijuana telling. ot the Wonder Dog, Circus Acting on this information, police officer! proceeded w the scene, leading te the arrest OF appellant Pablo kodriquez_and_ ‘another individual, Gregorto Abrera, under nurpiclen of drag relael achvities. a _ a — The prosecution asrerked that, Rodrigue was. caught In possession of Manijuana, justifying charges_under Section 4, Artie [lot the Dangerous tet. In Contrast, the defente led by Rodvigue2, vehemently denied engaging ‘n_any vale or trantaction (nvelving Marijuana, Gontending Yhat the_warrantlece search and arrest were conducted... unlawfally. ek cee the triql Court tonducled 1% decirton ™ uly %, 196, finding Rodrigue2 guilty of delivering, distr buting, and telling marijuana. ‘the _ Court Impored P20 000.00 nt, and additional torte. the defente_lnitiated an _ appeal, challenging the +rial_ court! decision bared on several errors. during the proceeding, including ve admistion of evidence deemed — inadmissible and the failure to establish the alleged Jale_of marifuana. _ “the appellate court ultimately reversed she rial court dectsten, leading ts. the_acquittal_of appellant Roclriqu ¢2 on charges. the appellate Court cancluded that the prosecution failed tu provide sulftcert evidence proving the. alleged vale of marijuana_and highlighted conHtutmnal Urlations selaled 4» crest and. Search protects tht \tolattontrenaetel the tanfivcated nvene Madmitie tn teved, leadingts Kedletques's elt Whether or nol_she worranvew search and aetst of the appellant Weer tonducleel Cowrfitly and. conttitutfonallly and evidence ebtained is incidevittille I court»Soeting the Court held that Pablo Rodrigue2 be acquitted of the charged! diet dhe prosecutions failure to ertablith Yhe ax of unlawéully rellind, dithibuting, and delivering Marijuana. The Gurl reatmed that the profeustion’ evidence did not prove Yhal the appellant engaged_in the alleged criminal activitier. the Anrecting offtted did not_wimes any acual tanacton Involving sale, dithibution, or delivery ef marijuana, and the key witness, GHgonio Abtera, who allegedly receled the marijuana fom she Appellant, was hol presented (nth Gourd. ai hd. a + Aditionally the Court addiesred Jhe true of she warranilecs arved and fearch, atterting thai the evidence obtained through thee actions was (nadmirtible, ay the aren lacked legal justhcatin, And there fore violated the appellants conttihsbimal rights again. nteatmable searches and felewes, foniequently the urd unuinced that the evidence presented did_nol_mud the standard of quilt beyond realmable could, lacling t Jk acquittal of th appellant.This care isa Cale concerning the sialidity of Enriles arrest due to Abugatals condratiction to hit swom stakement- On October 25, 1985 at @:00 pm, a buy-busl Ham was dispatched entrap Regelio kbugatal ad Koorevelt avenue in dain Franvito Del Monk, Quezon City, The plan was made on vhe Shength of a tp giren-by fenato Polines, a police informer, who Was ta pole himeelf ou a_buyer. In_sheir geparate tertimonie, both policeman satel thal Hhat Oteqsiim they caw polines had over the marked monzy teprcéenbing payment foc the mock bansavtin. Abugatal le the moneg And vehwared 40 minutes later with a wrapped object which he gavt fo Polines- the two policeman dhe approached Sougatal and plaed him under arct, at the same time confucating the wrapred objed- Subsequent laboratry @caminabin rercaled thic te be _Marifuana_ucth flowering bps weighing 22 grams. : The proecutin alio thowed that upm Padding, Abugatal led Yhe policemen % a house al 20 De vera street, lio in San Franctteg del Moni, Quezon Cty, where he called out fer Antonis Eneite- Enrite Came_oat and Mmetthem al the gak. Abugertal point to Fnrite ac the fours of manjuana, where upen the polite immediately onetled and Finked him. they Bund inthe waht font puted of his trouser: the marked money earlier dileveccd t Abugatal- : Abugatal signed a swom wnfesion affrming +h? bes hannhim + In had defense, Fnvile sectibed that marked money war “planted * O_him by she polte offtus, why he said clmply barteel inte hi house withart @ warrant and ame(ied him le soutly denteel any knowledge of Marijuana. He claimed that at the Knee the alleged thudent, he wasattending at a dental lechnician to a patent wham he war pling frr_denkires the Ruppored pabrend torvborake him 10 the name of Micta Tempo. Bile admitted that be had earlier been convictel of selling manijuana—and that he hao a pending applicab'n fer pribaten . We guggetted thal Shield be the Haken, fre rabatton app licatin be weakened as the police men sought to implicate him th the rey Uharat~ Abugerlal contradicted ha cartier swem takenerd are decland mth Hand Yhat he did het fell marijuana +» Polines. What Nally happened auerding to him there inert two male teenagersWho ashea him t buy marijuana, Abugatal dectined and reasmed that! ' oles nol_have marijuana and he didn know whee br buy frm: However the two mate teenagers frud him to go by Ennitey howe Gnd te givt him the marked money. Ye cliol 40 because they hare Unik. Enn‘lo handed hima plashe bag which wat laler towne ho toviain dried manfuana teart!. Qudge Fortun made a miliake by accepting Abugataly Swom Hakement as evident because it Was obtained without flowing the Neledary teps for a cottadial Investrgatian. the procedure outlined in Morates_y. Enrile_and_tetteraleel_ty People v- balit wasn't followtd- Thit_protedurt requited in forming the arrtcled persrey of vhobr night, incluoling the eight te ermain. tient and the vight by Cowmiel- Additionally, the pes mud be given opportynity Ummunitake wath ther Lawyer ora cholen kpresentative. Withand fllowing thete sept, any ttaltment oblained js nsdeced tnadeniuible. Whether or not the anest, (earch, and wnvittion of Enrilé Are valid. J the Hi held that il was Abugatal who was allegedly caught red-handed by the Politemen qs he sold the marijuana t Polines Enrile wot not even_al he 611 down. Two men_went_upstairt_and_wote up Jaime, who later Joined them _downstait- the men then spread the contents of the envelope on he table, which were Iitted down, and appellant, was_asted to_sign a paper listing the Inventory- However sho _tequested to contact her lawyer which was denied, and she _Was_forud to sign under theeat of hand cuffing- the Inven- co eeeeh HME Ha seetory list Was not rad t heh nor a copy war provided t any Of Yhe occupants. Additionally, appelland stated that although the search warrant was setved, the neither read (tb nor was it read to her. The. tial court rendertd g decision on June 24, 2004, finding appellant guilty of vhe crime cnacaed ond sentencing her to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. the courl bated itt decision onthe prosecutions avidenie, Which esbablished Uhat the Oppellant was in. possession et Mgulated drugt, specifically shabu, Without the conerponding Itcense or presuription. The search warrant issued by Iudge Diedican uthotited the PNP 49 conduct ceacch, Hsulting. iin seizure of drugs. Issue — Whether or not prosecution sufficiently proved beyond Feaionable doubt thai the appellant Inowingly posested the iMegal substances seized during the implementation of fearch warrant - i To etablith the crime of possesion of regulated deugg three —esfential elements mui be proven: @) the acuned war found fn Possersion of a regulated drug, (b) the polesion was not Quinorzedl by law of authorities, and (¢) qccused had knowledge that the. Substance was regulated. drug. _ He The concept of poiestion includes both actual and. Conthruckive poitessim. Criminal intent ty not hecedory. _ ‘the tuled that the law dow nof fequite_ exclusive pores im for conw'hions_and non-exclusive postestion does not absoWe the accused. Postesiter can be proven sMrough direct and_citametan tio! ——twidon wt, but_the_prosecutin_mutt demonstrale thai the accated knew. about the daags ond their natwe. Knowledge can be. inferred fom she presence of drags ina plaw under the cubed ombol,unies there £ a. cabistacry_expanati. ne An_shi_co.te, prosecution witnestes failed ty establith thal the houte where He drags wee found belonged tothe Oppellant, while —the defenre provided evidene thot the house where Wedge Were found. belonged te the Qppeliant4_ grandmother : the widens of the_pesecution fatled to extabhicn by Competent ovidena that Oppellant © the owner-or at beat ch -the_ownerthie_of the howe whee the thabu wat found. While a Tt_not Necessary that the property ta be seaeched or Wired sh 1d be_owmed by the pee againd whorn the search Warrant jy ie iedhowever, Yhert_must_be sufficient chowing that the prverty & under Appellant control or possession: The defense argues that the shabu found in she douse dec Nof_emcluttvely belong to the appellant, cl the wat nyt the only Perso with aucesd to the premises, Addifronally, her brother Wluntovily surrendertd some of the Confscaled Jubsian es, indicating Shared acess. Thus thy. profecation ited to convincingly prove wat the fervéd thabu was hers, furthermore the manner in whith the Search wat _unduvled did aot umply with the mandatory gavisios Sechron 9 Bale (26 of the Gules of Courd. while she appeltant and other swupank were present during the search, they wore tot allowed! to_witmess ib- — ze Henig the teverdal of the appeal and immedtale acquittal of the ayyellant.