3RD BATCH OF CASES

1
G.R. No. L-45950 June 20, 1938
LEONA PASION VIUDA DE GARCIA, petitioner,
vs.
DIEGO LOCSIN, Judge of First Instance of Tarlac,
FELIX IMPERIAL, Provincial Fiscal of Tarlac, and the ANTI-USURY BOARD, respondents.

Facts:
1. Search Warrant Issuance: On November 10, 1934, Mariano G. Almeda, an agent of the
Anti-Usury Board, obtained a search warrant from the Justice of the Peace of Tarlac,
Tarlac, to search the house and store of petitioner Leona Pasion de Garcia in Victoria,
Tarlac, for "certain books, lists, chits, receipts, documents, and other papers relating to
her activities as a usurer." The affidavit supporting the warrant was provided by Almeda,
who stated he had probable cause to believe Garcia kept such documents related to
usury.
2. Search and Seizure: Almeda, with a captain from the Philippine Constabulary, executed
the search warrant in the absence of the petitioner, who was ill at the time. The search
resulted in the seizure of two packages of records and a locked filing cabinet containing
papers and documents. The petitioner's bookkeeper, Alfredo Salas, received a receipt
for the seized items.
3. Handling of Seized Documents: The documents were kept by the Anti-Usury Board for a
long period and were eventually turned over to the provincial fiscal. The fiscal used
these documents to file criminal cases against the petitioner for violations of the Anti-
Usury Law.
4. Petitioner's Demands: After the seizure, the petitioner, through her counsel, repeatedly
demanded the return of the seized documents. She filed a motion on January 7, 1937,
and again on June 4, 1937, to challenge the legality of the search warrant and demand
the return of the documents. The petitioner's motions were denied by the court, citing
the waiver of her rights.
5. Court Rulings: On October 5, 1937, the trial court denied the petitioner's motion and
ruled that by her silence and failure to object to the search, she had implicitly waived
her right to challenge the search and seizure. The motion for reconsideration was also
denied on January 3, 1938. The petitioner subsequently filed for a writ to nullify the
search warrant and the court orders.

Issues:
1. Was the search warrant issued in violation of the constitutional requirements?
2. Did the petitioner waive her constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and
seizures?

Rulings:
Validity of the Search Warrant:
 The Court ruled that the search warrant was illegally issued.
 judge did not independently determine the probable cause; rather, he relied solely on
the affidavit of Mariano G. Almeda.
 The judge did not examine Almeda under oath or consider any witnesses, which violated
the constitutional requirement for the judge to personally examine the complainant and
any witnesses before issuing the warrant.
 Additionally, the seized documents were not immediately delivered to the court as
required by law, which further compounded the illegality of the search.

Waiver of Constitutional Rights:

 The Court ruled that there was no waiver of the petitioner's constitutional right against
unreasonable searches and seizures.
 Although the petitioner did not object during the search, she was not present at the
time of the search and could not have objected because she was ill.
 After learning of the seizure, the petitioner promptly demanded the return of her
documents, both verbally and in writing.
 The Court found that the delay in making the demand did not amount to an implied
waiver.
 The failure to object during the search was simply a submission to the authority of the
law, not a waiver of her rights.

2
RUDY CABALLES y TAIÑO, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

Facts:
1. The petitioner, Rudy Caballes, was driving a vehicle that was flagged down by police
officers, Pat. Alex de Castro and Sgt. Victorino Noceja, who were conducting a routine
patrol.
2. They became suspicious when they saw that the vehicle's cargo was covered with
kakawati leaves, which was unusual and uncommon. After stopping the vehicle, the
police officers conducted a search, uncovering aluminum wires hidden under the leaves.
3. Caballes did not immediately respond when asked about the contents of his vehicle, and
the officers proceeded to search the vehicle. When asked where the wires came from,
Caballes mentioned that they were from the Cavinti area.
4. No prior confidential report or tip-off was given to the officers about the presence of
stolen items in the vehicle.
5. Caballes was charged with the illegal possession of the aluminum wires, and his
conviction was based largely on the evidence obtained from the search.

Issues:
1. Whether the warrantless search of the vehicle was supported by probable cause.
2. Whether the items found in the vehicle were in plain view, thereby justifying their
warrantless seizure.
 3. Whether the search was conducted with the consent of the petitioner.

Rulings:

Probable Cause:
 The Court ruled that the police officers did not have probable cause to conduct a
warrantless search of the vehicle.
 The mere fact that the vehicle was covered with kakawati leaves was insufficient to
establish probable cause.
 The Court emphasized that probable cause requires more than just a suspicion or an
unusual circumstance; it must be based on specific and concrete information or
evidence suggesting that a crime has been committed or that contraband is present.
 In this case, there was no prior intelligence or tip-off to justify the officers' suspicion.

Plain View Doctrine:

 The Court ruled that the items found in the vehicle were not in plain view.
 The aluminum wires were covered with leaves and hidden inside sacks, making it
impossible for the officers to determine the contents without searching the vehicle.
 The plain view doctrine only applies when an object is clearly visible without the need
for further intrusion or investigation.
 Since the contents were not immediately apparent to the officers, the search and
seizure could not be justified under this doctrine.

Consented Search:
 The Court ruled that the search was not conducted with the valid consent of the
petitioner.
 The officers did not clearly and explicitly request Caballes' consent to search the vehicle.
Instead, they informed him that they would search his vehicle, which amounted to an
imposition rather than a request.
 The Court emphasized that consent must be voluntary, unequivocal, and specific, and
must not be inferred from passive submission or coercion.
 In this case, the officers' actions did not meet the required standards for a valid
consented search.

3
People vs. Omaweng
G.R. No. 99050
September 2, 1992. 213 SCRA 462 (1992)

Facts:
1. On September 12, 1988, PC constables, led by Joseph Layong, set up a checkpoint in
Barrio Dantay, Bontoc, Mt. Province. At around 9:15 A.M., they stopped a Ford Fiera
driven by the appellant, with no passengers. Upon requesting to inspect the vehicle, the
appellant consented.
 2. The officers discovered a traveling bag partially hidden under a spare tire, which the
appellant claimed contained clothes. Upon inspection, the bag held 41 plastic packets of
a pulverized substance.
3. After a field test by Constable David Osborne Fomocod, the substance was suspected to
be marijuana. The items were turned over to Sgt. Angel Pokling, and forensic tests by
Major Carlos Figueroa later confirmed the packets contained hashish or marijuana.
4. As a result, the appellant was charged and convicted for transporting prohibited drugs
under Section 4, Article II of R.A. No. 6425, as amended.

Issue:
1. Whether the constitutional rights of the accused against unreasonable search was
violated even if he consented the opening of the said bag.

Ruling:
 He willingly gave prior consent to the search and voluntarily agreed to have it conducted
on his vehicle and travelling bag.
 Thus, the accused waived his right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
 When one voluntarily submits to a search or consents to have it made of (sic) his person
or premises, he is precluded from later complaining thereof, he right to be secure from
unreasonable search may, like every right, be waived and such waiver may be made
either expressly or impliedly.
 “Since in the course of the valid search forty-one (41) packages of drugs were found, it
behooved the officers to seize the same; no warrant was necessary for such seizure.
 Besides, when said packages were identified by the prosecution witnesses and later on
formally offered in evidence, the accused did not raise any objection whatsoever.

4
G.R. No. 148825 December 27, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,
vs.
SUSAN CANTON, appellant.

Facts:
1. SUSAN was caught in flagrante delicto by airport security while attempting to smuggle
methamphetamine (shabu) into the country. During her arrest, a warrantless search
revealed three packages of the drug.
2. The appellant was subsequently charged with violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.
3. During trial, issues arose regarding the legality of the warrantless search, the violation of
her right to counsel, the admission of certain medical reports, and the penalties for her
conviction.

Issues:
1. Whether SUSAN's arrest without a warrant was lawful:
2. Whether SUSAN's constitutional right to counsel was violated during custodial
investigation:
3. Whether the admission of the medical report was erroneous:
 4. Whether the items seized from SUSAN (passport, plane tickets, and girdles) should be
returned:

Ruling:
On the legality of the warrantless arrest:
 The Court affirmed the lawfulness of the warrantless arrest of SUSAN.
 The arrest was justified under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, as the
appellant was apprehended in flagrante delicto, or caught in the act of committing a
crime (the possession of methamphetamine).

On the violation of the constitutional right to counsel:

 The Court ruled that SUSAN's right to counsel was not violated.
 No custodial investigation took place following her arrest. She was told that she had the
option to sign or not sign the documents, and no statements made by her were used in
evidence against her.
 Therefore, her claim of violation of her constitutional right to counsel was dismissed.

On the admission of the medical report:

 The Court acknowledged that the admission of the medical report was erroneous due to
the violation of the hearsay rule.
 However, despite the error in admitting the medical report, the Court found that
SUSAN's conviction stood firm.
 The Court held that the methamphetamine found in her possession and the testimonies
from prosecution witnesses were sufficient to support her conviction.

On the return of personal items (passport, plane tickets, and girdles):

 The Court ordered the return of the appellant's personal items—her passport, plane
tickets, and girdles.
 These items were not subject to the offense for which she was charged and were not
included in the list of items that could be seized under the law.
 As such, the Court ruled that they must be returned to her.

G.R. No. 90640 March 29, 1994

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
BONIFACIO BARROS, accused-appellant.

Facts:
1. On September 6, 1987, appellant Barros boarded a Dangwa bus in Bontoc, Mountain
Province, carrying a carton box. While traveling to Sabangan, the bus was stopped for a
"routinary inspection" at a checkpoint in Sabangan, Mountain Province.
2. The bus was inspected by police officers, and the officers noticed Barros had placed the
carton under his seat. Based on their suspicion, they asked Bongyao to inspect the
carton, which led to the discovery of four kilos of marijuana.
 3. The police officers had no prior information, tip-off, or suspicious behavior that would
have constituted probable cause for a search.
4. Barros was later charged with transporting marijuana. The defense argued that the
arrest and search were illegal, as they lacked probable cause and were conducted
without a warrant.

Issues:
1. Whether the arrest and search were conducted with probable cause or whether they
were unlawful.
o The Court ruled that there was no probable cause for the warrantless arrest or
search.
o The police officers had no information, suspicious behavior, or any direct
evidence linking Barros to a criminal act when they asked to inspect his carton.
o The mere act of carrying a carton on a bus was insufficient to justify the search.
o Therefore, the arrest and subsequent search violated Barros' constitutional right
against unreasonable searches and seizures.
2. Whether Barros waived any irregularities related to the arrest and search by posting
bail.
o The Court rejected the argument that Barros waived his rights by posting bail.
o It ruled that the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures
could not be waived simply by posting bail.
o Barros had timely objected to the admission of evidence obtained from the
unlawful search, and the Court found no intent to waive his rights.
o His failure to object during the search did not equate to consent, as peaceful
submission to a search does not imply consent, as established in People v.
Burgos.

6
[ G.R. No. 144037, September 26, 2003 ]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. NOEL TUDTUD Y PAYPA AND DINDO
BOLONG Y NARET, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

Facts:
1. The Incident: The appellants, Noel Tudtud y Paypa and Dindo Bolong y Naret, were
arrested by the police officers, who alleged that they were transporting marijuana. The
arrest was made without a search warrant, although the police officers had information
from an informant, Bobot Solier, that Tudtud would be bringing marijuana from
Cotabato to Davao City.
2. Police Actions: Despite the information received in the morning about Tudtud’s planned
arrival at 6:00 p.m., the police officers did not immediately seek a search warrant. They
claimed that they didn’t have sufficient grounds to request the warrant, even though
the police station and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) were nearby and accessible. They
also failed to approach a prosecutor to assist with the application for a warrant.
3. Search and Seizure: The appellants were confronted by officers, one of whom allegedly
pointed a gun at them, ordering them to open the box containing the marijuana. Tudtud
opened the box out of fear after the officer pointed a revolver at him. The marijuana
inside the box was seized by the officers without a warrant.
 4. Court Proceedings: The trial court convicted the appellants, but the appeal led to the
examination of the legality of the search and seizure.

Issues:
1. Whether the search and seizure conducted without a warrant was valid.
2. Whether the appellants' actions implied consent to the search.

Rulings:

Validity of Search and Seizure (Warrantless Search):

 The search and seizure were invalid.
 The court held that the warrantless search violated the appellants' constitutional rights
against unreasonable searches and seizures.
 There was no valid exception to justify the search, and the marijuana obtained was
inadmissible as evidence.
 The Court emphasized that a search without a warrant is a serious infringement on the
rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
 The court ruled that the police officers had adequate time and opportunity to secure a
search warrant but failed to do so, thus questioning the legitimacy of their actions.
 Furthermore, the search did not meet any exceptions, and no emergency existed that
warranted an immediate search without judicial authorization.

Implied Consent to Search:

 There was no valid consent to the search.
 The court found that the appellants did not voluntarily agree to the search but rather
complied out of fear when a gun was pointed at them.
 The acquiescence was not voluntary and should not be construed as consent.
 The Court stated that "the peaceful submission to a search or seizure is not a consent or
invitation thereto."
 The Court held that a person’s lack of objection in such coercive situations does not
amount to waiver or consent, particularly when the person is under the threat of being
shot, as in this case.

7
G.R. No. 93516 August 12, 1992
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILLIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
BASILIO DAMASO @ Bernardo/BERNIE MENDOZA @ KA DADO, accused-appellant.

Facts:
 Accused-Appellant: Basilio Damaso, also known as Bernie Mendoza or Ka Dado, was
charged with Violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866 for illegal possession of firearms
and ammunition in connection with the crime of subversion.
 Background: On June 18, 1988, a group of officers led by Lt. Candido Quijardo, while
verifying the presence of Communist Party of the Philippines/New People's Army
(CPP/NPA) members, discovered subversive items, including firearms, during a raid at
 various locations, including a house where they found subversive documents, an M-14
rifle, bullets, and other materials. Appellant was suspected to be the lessee and owner
of the house and the items found therein.
 Amended Information: The charge initially involved multiple individuals, but after an
amendment, it was limited to Basilio Damaso (appellant). He was accused of illegal
possession of firearms and ammunition in furtherance of subversion.
 Trial and Conviction: Despite objections from the defense regarding the admissibility of
evidence (which included hearsay, lack of a search warrant, and illegal search), the trial
court found Damaso guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to Reclusion
Perpetua.

Issues:
1. Did the trial court err in convicting the accused-appellant for the illegal possession of
firearms and ammunition in furtherance of subversion despite the prosecution's
evidence being weak and insufficient?
 The court ruled that the prosecution failed to present substantial and credible
evidence to establish that Damaso was the lessee or owner of the house or the
M-14 rifle and other subversive items found there.
 The evidence presented was mostly hearsay, and the failure to call the key
witnesses left the appellant’s constitutional right to confrontation and cross-
examination unaddressed.
 Therefore, the conviction was overturned due to weak evidence.

2. Was the search and seizure of the items in appellant’s house legal?
 The search conducted by the authorities was illegal.
 The law enforcement officers entered the appellant’s house without a search
warrant and without valid consent from someone who was authorized to waive
the appellant’s constitutional rights.
 Even though the prosecution argued that the items were found in "plain view" or
with consent, the court found that the constitutional immunity against
unreasonable searches and seizures was violated, as the appellant was not
present to give direct consent, and there was no evidence to prove that the
individuals who allowed the officers inside had the authority to do so.

3. Did the trial court err in considering the firearms and other items as evidence when
they were allegedly declared inadmissible by another branch of the same court due to
an illegal search?
 The court ruled that the items seized were the fruits of an illegal search and, as
such, should have been excluded as evidence.
 Since the search violated the constitutional rights of the appellant, the items
seized could not be used to support the conviction.
 8
G.R. No. L-27968 December 3, 1975
JOSE G. LOPEZ and TOMAS VELASCO, petitioners,
vs.
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF DAVAO, CHAIRMAN OF THE
ASAC, ACTING DIRECTOR, NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, CITY FISCAL OF DAVAO,
SENIOR NBI AGENT OF DAVAO, EARL REYNOLDS, AND/OR ANY OF THEIR AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVES, respondents.

Facts:
1. The case revolves around a civil action for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, arising
from the seizure of 1,480 sacks of copra and 86 sacks of coffee from the M/V Jolo Lema
by the Collector of Customs of Davao.
2. The seizure was contested by the petitioners, Tomas Velasco and Jose G. Lopez, as
allegedly violating constitutional rights, particularly the guarantee against unreasonable
searches and seizures.
3. In the previous case (Nasiad v. Court of Tax Appeals), it was established that the goods
in question had been smuggled from Indonesia and were lawfully subject to forfeiture.
4. The petitioners contested the search of the hotel room of Tomas Velasco, claiming it
was conducted without a search warrant. The search was led by NBI agent Earl Reynolds
and was alleged to have been carried out without proper consent.
5. Respondents argued that there was consent for the search, provided by Teofila Ibañez,
Tomas Velasco’s wife, who voluntarily allowed the search and handed over documents
and items without any coercion.

Issues:
1. Whether the seizure of the goods (copra and coffee) by the Collector of Customs of
Davao was lawful.
2. Whether the search of Tomas Velasco's hotel room, conducted without a warrant,
violated the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
3. Whether the consent for the search of the hotel room was valid, thus exempting the
need for a search warrant.

Rulings:

Seizure of the Goods:

 The Court upheld the seizure of the goods as lawful, affirming the findings from the
Nasiad case.
 The goods were found to have been imported illegally from Indonesia and thus subject
to forfeiture.
 The petitioners' claims that the goods were purchased domestically and not subject to
seizure were dismissed as unfounded.
 The Court affirmed the validity of the seizure, as there was sufficient evidence to prove
the smuggling.
Search of the Hotel Room:
 The Court ruled that the search of the hotel room did not violate the constitutional
protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
 The petitioners claimed the search was conducted without a warrant, but the Court
found that the search was based on valid consent.
 Teofila Ibañez, the wife of Tomas Velasco, voluntarily allowed the search and turned
over the documents and items requested by the officers.
 Since there was no coercion or unlawful force used, the search was deemed lawful.

Validity of Consent:
 The Court determined that there was valid consent for the search, which dispensed with
the need for a warrant.
 The Court found that Teofila Ibañez voluntarily consented to the search after being
informed of its purpose.
 The evidence supported the respondents' claim that consent was given freely, and there
was no reason to doubt the voluntariness of the consent.
 Therefore, the search was legally permissible without a warrant.

9
G.R. No. 142531 October 15, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,
vs.
DANILO ASIS y FONPERADA and GILBERT FORMENTO y SARICON, appellant.

Facts:
1. The appellants, Danilo Asis and Gilbert Formento, were charged with the crime of
robbery with homicide under Article 294, No. 1 of the Revised Penal Code for the killing
of Roy Ching, a deaf-mute. The crime occurred at the victim’s store, where he was
found dead.
 Circumstantial Evidence: The prosecution presented circumstantial evidence to prove
the guilt of the appellants. The bloodstained shorts allegedly belonging to the victim
were recovered from a bag owned by appellant Gilbert Formento. Additionally,
bloodstains were found on the shirt of appellant Danilo Asis.
 Last Seen with the Victim: The appellants were the last persons seen with the victim
before his death. They were regular acquaintances of the victim, and it was established
that they had visited his store frequently.
 Lack of Eyewitnesses and Stolen Property: No eyewitnesses testified about the actual
killing or robbery. Moreover, none of the items allegedly stolen from the victim (such as
cash or jewelry) were recovered.
 The Search and Seizure: The bloodstained shorts were recovered from the bag of
Formento during a search that was later questioned for its legality. There was no
warrant for the search, and the issue of consent was raised, as the appellants did not
have an interpreter during the search, and there were concerns about the validity of the
waiver of the constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure.
 Trial Court Decision: Despite the lack of direct evidence, the trial court convicted the
appellants based on the circumstantial evidence, including the bloodstained shorts and
 shirts, and sentenced them to death. It also found aggravating circumstances such as
abuse of confidence, superior strength, and treachery.

Issues:
1. Whether or not the circumstantial evidence presented was insufficient to
prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Whether or not the trial court erred for failure to consider their Physical
Infirmities (Deaf-Mute Status)

Rulings:

Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence

 The Court agreed with the appellants that the circumstantial evidence presented was
insufficient to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
 The bloodstained shorts and bloodstains on Asis's shirt were not enough to conclusively
link the appellants to the crime of robbery with homicide.
 The Court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must form a coherent, unbroken
chain leading to the conclusion that the accused is guilty, which was not established in
this case.
 The Court also noted that there were no direct witnesses and no stolen property was
recovered.

Non-consideration of Their Physical Infirmities (Deaf-Mute Status)

 The Court recognized the appellants' physical infirmities (being deaf-mutes) but found
that it did not affect the outcome of the case.
 The appellants did not raise the issue of their physical infirmities during the trial, and no
evidence was presented that their disabilities had a significant impact on their
understanding of the proceedings.
 While the Court noted the absence of an interpreter, it concluded that the failure to
consider their deaf-mute status did not alter the sufficiency of the evidence or affect the
trial proceedings.
 The deaf-mute status was not a significant factor that would affect the appellants' guilt
or innocence in this case.

10
G.R. No. L-95630 June 18, 1992
SPOUSES LEOPOLDO and MA. LUISA VEROY, petitioners,
vs.
THE HON. WILLIAM L. LAYAGUE, Presiding Judge, Branch XIV, Regional Trial Court at Davao
City; and BRIG. GEN. PANTALEON DUMLAO, Commanding General, PC-Criminal Investigation
Service, respondents.

Facts:
1. Petitioners, Leopoldo and Ma. Luisa Veroy, owned a house in Skyline Village, Davao City,
but had moved to Quezon City in 1988. They left their house in Davao under the care of
 two houseboys and a woman named Edna Soguilon, who was given a key to the kitchen
for emergencies.
2. On April 12, 1990, the authorities, based on a tip that the house was being used as a
rebel hideout, raided their residence. The search was conducted with permission from
Ma. Luisa Veroy, although only the kitchen was opened initially.
3. They found firearms, materials related to rebellion, and other items in the children's
room and master's bedroom.
4. An information was filed against the petitioners for illegal possession of firearms under
Presidential Decree No. 1866, specifically accusing them of constructive possession.
5. The petitioners were later arrested, but they filed motions for bail and hospital
confinement due to health reasons. The motions were denied by the trial court.
6. The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition, claiming
violations of their constitutional rights, including due process and equal protection.

Issues:
1. Constitutionality of Presidential Decree No. 1866: Is the third paragraph of Section 1 of
PD 1866 unconstitutional for violating the due process and equal protection clauses of
the Constitution?
2. Repeal of PD 1866 by Republic Act No. 6968: Has Republic Act No. 6968 repealed PD
1866?
3. Admissibility of the Evidence: Did the trial court err in admitting the seized items as
evidence, considering they were obtained through an allegedly illegal search and
seizure?

Rulings:
Constitutionality of PD No. 1866:
 The Supreme Court held that the third paragraph of Section 1 of PD 1866 was not
unconstitutional.
 It reaffirmed the ruling in Misolas v. Panga which held that the provision did not violate
the due process or equal protection clauses of the Constitution.

Repeal of PD 1866 by Republic Act No. 6968:

 The Court ruled that Republic Act No. 6968 did not repeal PD 1866.
 It clarified that the two laws addressed distinct offenses, and there was no clear
indication that the legislature intended to eliminate the offenses under PD 1866.
 As such, PD 1866 remained valid.

Admissibility of the Evidence:

 The Court ruled that the evidence seized during the search was inadmissible.
 The search, although permitted by Ma. Luisa Veroy, was only authorized for the purpose
of confirming the presence of rebel soldiers.
 The police officers did not secure a warrant and had sufficient time to do so, violating
the petitioners' constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure.
 As a result, the articles seized were considered products of an illegal search and could
not be used as evidence in the criminal case for illegal possession of firearms.
 11
G.R. No. 113447 October 9, 1997
ALAIN MANALILI y DIZON, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

Facts:
1. The petitioner was apprehended by police officers during a surveillance operation near
the Caloocan City Cemetery, a known hangout for drug addicts.
2. The officers observed suspicious behavior by the petitioner, such as having red eyes and
walking unsteadily, which led the police officers to suspect he was under the influence
of drugs.
3. During the stop-and-frisk, the police officers requested to inspect what the petitioner
was holding, and he allowed them to do so.
4. Marijuana was found in the petitioner's possession, which led to his arrest for illegal
possession of marijuana.
5. The petitioner argued that the marijuana leaves were unlawfully seized and should not
be admitted in evidence, and he also contested the credibility of the arresting officers'
testimonies.

Issues:
1. Whether the marijuana found in the petitioner's possession should be admitted as
evidence, considering the petitioner argued that the search was illegal.
2. Whether the testimonies of the arresting officers were credible, or if they contained
contradictions that would undermine the petitioner's conviction.
3. Whether the evidence presented during the trial was sufficient to support the
conviction of the petitioner for illegal possession of marijuana.

Rulings:

Admissibility of the Evidence Seized During the Stop-and-Frisk:

 The Court ruled that the search was valid and akin to a stop-and-frisk.
 It found that the police officers had reasonable grounds to stop and investigate the
petitioner based on his suspicious behavior, which was consistent with being under the
influence of drugs.
 The Court ruled that the marijuana seized was admissible because the search was legally
justified as an exception to the warrant requirement (stop-and-frisk).
 The Court also ruled that the petitioner had waived the right to contest the evidence by
not raising the issue during trial. His failure to object to the admission of the evidence
during the proceedings was considered a waiver.

Assessment of Evidence:
 The Court upheld the trial court's and appellate court's assessment of the credibility of
the arresting officers.
 The Court ruled that minor contradictions in the officers' testimonies (e.g., whether the
marijuana was found in a wallet or a plastic bag) did not affect the essential truth of
 their statements. These inconsistencies were deemed insufficient to discredit the
officers' testimonies.
 The Court emphasized that despite the contradictions, the testimony of Officer Espiritu,
corroborated by the joint affidavit and the physical evidence, was credible.

Sufficiency of Evidence:
 The Court found that the prosecution had sufficiently proven the elements of illegal
possession of marijuana:
1. The petitioner possessed the marijuana (identified as crushed marijuana
leaves).
2. He did not have any legal authority to possess the substance.
3. The petitioner’s actions (being high on drugs and resisting the officers'
requests) indicated that he knowingly possessed the marijuana.
 The Court also dismissed the petitioner’s defense of extortion and frame-up, finding
them unconvincing and unsupported by evidence.

12
G.R. Nos. 136066-67 February 4, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
BINAD SY CHUA, accused-appellant.

Facts:
1. Accused-appellant Binad Sy Chua was arrested by police officers based on information
from a civilian informant, who had been providing tips about the accused’s drug-dealing
activities for two years.
2. On September 21, 1996, the police officers, led by SPO2 Mario Nulud, confronted the
accused near the Thunder Inn Hotel in Angeles City.
3. The accused was seen casually walking towards the hotel, carrying a sealed Zest-O juice
box, and no overt suspicious act was observed. Despite this, the police arrested him
without a warrant before any alleged drug transaction had occurred.
4. The officers claimed that they acted based on prior knowledge of his illegal activities,
but they did not have probable cause for an arrest at that moment. They later searched
him and found methamphetamine (shabu) and ammunition in the sealed juice box.
5. The trial court convicted Binad Sy Chua for violating drug laws, but he appealed the
decision, claiming the arrest and search were illegal due to the absence of a warrant and
the failure to follow proper procedures for a "stop-and-frisk."

Issues:
1. Whether the warrantless arrest of the accused-appellant was justified under the in
flagrante delicto rule.
2. Whether the search conducted on the accused-appellant was a valid "stop-and-frisk."
3. Whether the evidence seized during the warrantless search should be admissible.

Rulings:
In flagrante delicto rule:
 The warrantless arrest was not justified.
 The court ruled that for an in flagrante delicto arrest to be valid, two elements must be
present: (1) the person must commit, attempt to commit, or have just committed a
crime in the presence of the arresting officers, and (2) the overt act indicating a crime
must occur in the presence of the officers.
 In this case, the accused was not committing any overt act or showing signs of engaging
in criminal behavior when he was arrested. Therefore, there was no probable cause for
an in flagrante delicto arrest.

Stop-and-frisk:
 The "stop-and-frisk" was not valid in this case.
 The search and seizure conducted by the police officers could not be considered a
legitimate "stop-and-frisk" under the Fourth Amendment.
 For a stop-and-frisk to be lawful, it must precede an arrest and must be based on
reasonable suspicion that the person is armed or involved in criminal activity.
 In this case, the arrest occurred before any frisk or search was conducted, and there was
no reasonable suspicion to justify the immediate search or the arrest.

Admissibility of the seized evidence:

 The evidence seized from the accused during the illegal arrest and search was
inadmissible.
 The search was not legally justified, and the items found in the accused’s possession
(shabu and ammunition) were not in plain view.
 Therefore, the evidence obtained was the fruit of an illegal search and could not be used
in court.

13
G.R. No. 123595 December 12, 1997
SAMMY MALACAT y MANDAR, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

Facts:
1. Petitioner’s Arrest: Sammy Malacat was arrested without a warrant by police officers,
including PO3 Yu, after being observed standing at the corner of Plaza Miranda and
Quezon Boulevard. The officers were responding to intelligence reports of a bomb
threat in the area, specifically regarding potential terrorist activities.
2. The Arrest and Search: The police officer Yu claimed that Malacat was involved in a
group that had attempted to detonate a bomb at Plaza Miranda two days earlier. Yu
observed Malacat behaving suspiciously and, after a brief observation, apprehended
him. The police officer alleged that during a search incident to the arrest, they
discovered a grenade tucked into Malacat’s waistband.
3. Conflicting Testimonies and Evidence: There were discrepancies in the testimonies
regarding the seizure of the grenade. Yu failed to identify the grenade in court, and the
chain of custody was compromised since the grenade was handed over to another
 officer nearly seven months after the arrest, making it impossible to confirm if the
grenade presented in court was the one seized from Malacat.
4. Violation of Rights: During custodial investigation, Malacat allegedly confessed to
possessing the grenade. However, his confession was inadmissible because it was taken
without informing him of his constitutional rights or having counsel present.
5. Appeal and Court Ruling: The Court of Appeals initially affirmed the conviction of
Malacat based on the validity of the warrantless arrest and search, but the Supreme
Court found flaws in the process, particularly regarding the arrest, search, and the
failure to establish the chain of evidence.

Issues:
1. Whether the warrantless arrest of petitioner was valid.
2. Whether the search incident to the arrest (seizing the grenade) was valid.
3. Whether the ruling in People v. Mengote applied to this case.
4. Whether the confession made by the petitioner was admissible in evidence.

Rulings:

Warrantless Arrest:
 The Supreme Court ruled that the warrantless arrest was invalid.
 The arrest was not justified under any of the exceptions for warrantless arrests, such as
being caught in the act of committing a crime or during a hot pursuit.
 There was no overt physical act or personal knowledge on the part of the arresting
officer indicating that Malacat had committed, was committing, or was about to commit
a crime.
 Therefore, the arrest violated the constitutional protections against unreasonable
searches and seizures.

Search Incident to Arrest:

 The search was deemed invalid because the underlying arrest was not lawful.
 The Court explained that a search incident to a lawful arrest is allowed only after a valid
arrest has been made.
 Since the arrest was unlawful, the search that followed was also unlawful, and any
evidence obtained, including the grenade, could not be used.

Application of People v. Mengote:

 The Court found that the ruling in People v. Mengote was inapplicable to this case.
 The circumstances in Mengote were different, particularly because there was no
intelligence report or prior knowledge about the suspect, unlike in the current case,
where the police had information regarding a bomb threat and had been conducting
surveillance.
 The facts here involved more direct observations by the officers, particularly PO Yu,
which justified a different legal analysis.
Admissibility of Confession:
 The Court ruled that Malacat’s confession was inadmissible because it was obtained in
violation of his constitutional rights under Section 12(1) and (3) of Article III of the
Constitution.
 Malacat was not informed of his rights to remain silent and to counsel, and no lawyer
was present during his custodial investigation.
 The confession was therefore taken in violation of his right to due process and could not
be used as evidence against him.

14
G.R. Nos. 138539-40 January 21, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,
vs.
ANTONIO C. ESTELLA, appellant.

Facts:
1. Antonio C. Estella (appellant) was accused of possessing marijuana found inside a hut.
The police conducted a search of the hut with a search warrant.
2. The police officers claimed that Estella voluntarily surrendered marijuana after being
shown the search warrant.
3. However, Barangay Captain Barnachea, who was assisting the police during the search,
contradicted the testimony of the police officers, stating that Estella was sitting outside
the hut, drinking coffee, and did not go inside to surrender the marijuana.
4. The prosecution failed to prove that Estella was the owner or occupant of the hut or
that he voluntarily surrendered the drugs to the police.

Issues:
1. Whether the search conducted was lawful:
2. Whether the evidence seized from the search should be admissible:
3. Whether Estella’s constitutional rights were violated:
4. Whether the prosecution proved Estella’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt:

Rulings for Each Issue:

Whether the search conducted was lawful:

 The Court ruled that the search was illegal.
 The search could not be considered incident to a lawful arrest because the prosecution
failed to prove that Estella was in possession of the marijuana at the time of the search,
or that he had committed or was committing a crime in the presence of the police
officers.
 The search exceeded the legal scope of a search incident to an arrest.

Whether the evidence seized from the search should be admissible:

 The Court ruled that the evidence seized during the illegal search was inadmissible.
  Since the search was found to be unlawful, any evidence gathered from it was also
considered inadmissible under the rule that illegal searches cannot yield admissible
evidence.

Whether Estella’s constitutional rights were violated:

 The Court found that Estella's constitutional rights, including the right to be presumed
innocent and the protection against unlawful searches, were violated.
 The Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient legal evidence to
justify the search or the arrest.

Whether the prosecution proved Estella’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt:

 The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove Estella’s guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt.
 The Court found that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient, primarily because the
testimonies of key witnesses were contradictory and unreliable.
 As a result, Estella was acquitted due to the failure of the prosecution to meet its
burden of proof.

15
G.R. No. 170233 February 22, 2007
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
vs.
JESUS NUEVAS y GARCIA, REYNALDO DIN y GONZAGA, and FERNANDO INOCENCIO y
ABADEOS, Appellants.

Facts:
1. This case involves two appellants, Reynaldo Din and Fernando Inocencio, who were
convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Olongapo City for illegal possession of
marijuana.
2. The police officers, Fami and Cabling, received a tip from an informant about a drug
transaction. They observed Jesus Nuevas, who was allegedly carrying a bag containing
marijuana. Upon confronting Nuevas, he voluntarily handed over the bag.
3. The police officers then continued their operation and apprehended Din and Inocencio,
finding 2.5 kilos of marijuana in a plastic bag carried by Din.
4. The appellants argued that the search and seizure were illegal as they occurred without
a warrant, violating their constitutional rights. The appellate court upheld their
conviction, reasoning that the search was valid due to the voluntary surrender of the
bag by the appellants and the probable cause based on the informant’s tip.
5. However, the Court of Appeals found inconsistencies in the testimonies of the police
officers, particularly regarding the voluntariness of the surrender of the bag by Din and
Inocencio.
6. The appellants are now before the Supreme Court, asserting that the warrantless search
was unconstitutional and that the evidence obtained should be inadmissible.

Issues:
 1. Whether the warrantless search and seizure were valid, and if so, whether the
evidence obtained should be admissible.
2. Whether the appellants voluntarily consented to the search.
3. Whether the prosecution proved the possession of marijuana by Inocencio.

Rulings:

Warrantless Search and Seizure:

 The Court ruled that the warrantless search and seizure conducted on Din were invalid.
 The Court found that the search was not incidental to a lawful arrest, as no crime was
being committed in the presence of the police officers, and no probable cause existed to
justify a warrantless search.
 Additionally, the search did not qualify under the plain view doctrine because the
marijuana was not in plain view; it was inside a closed plastic bag.
 In Nuevas's case, however, the Court concluded that the search was valid because
Nuevas voluntarily handed over the bag containing the marijuana. This amounted to a
consented search, which was valid under the law.

Voluntariness of the Consent to the Search:

 The Court found that Nuevas voluntarily consented to the search, as he handed over the
bag to the police officers without coercion.
 His attempt to explain his situation and implicate others was indicative of his willingness
to cooperate with the authorities.
 For Din, the Court ruled that no consent was given for the search. The testimonies of
the police officers were inconsistent regarding the manner in which the bag was
surrendered. There was no clear indication that Din willingly consented to the search.
 The Court emphasized that consent must be unequivocal and voluntary, and in this case,
it was not proven.

Possession of Marijuana by Inocencio:

 The Court ruled that Inocencio was wrongfully convicted.
 The evidence presented by the prosecution, which was based solely on Inocencio
looking into the plastic bag carried by Din, was insufficient to establish illegal possession
of the marijuana or any conspiracy.
 The act of looking into the bag does not amount to possession or even an attempt to
possess the illegal drugs.
 Inocencio’s defense was consistent, denying any involvement in the drug transaction or
possession of the drugs.

16
G.R. No. 170863 March 20, 2013
ENGR. ANTHONY V. ZAPANTA, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
Facts:
1. In October 2001, Anthony V. Zapanta, the Project Manager of Porta Vaga Building
Construction, along with Concordia O. Loyao, Jr. (a telescopic crane operator for Anmar,
Inc.), was charged with qualified theft.
2. The two allegedly conspired to steal steel beams worth ₱2,269,731.69 from the Porta
Vaga project site in Baguio City. Zapanta had the responsibility to manage and check all
construction materials, but instead, he instructed a truck driver and several welders to
unload the steel beams at locations other than the project site, specifically along Marcos
Highway and Mabini Street.
3. The stolen materials were later returned to Anmar’s warehouse, and an inventory
confirmed the theft.
4. The prosecution presented testimonies and evidence, including delivery receipts and
photographs, proving the stolen beams were unloaded and taken elsewhere. The
petitioner denied the charges, claiming he was employed by AMCGS, not Anmar, and
that the accusations were fabricated.
5. The RTC convicted the petitioner of qualified theft, sentencing him to imprisonment
from 10 years and 3 months to 20 years and ordering him to indemnify Anmar, Inc. The
CA affirmed the decision, but it modified the moral damages award.

Issues:
1. Whether the information adequately informed the petitioner of the charges, despite
the date of the crime being listed as "sometime in October 2001," with acts occurring
also in November 2001.
2. Whether the prosecution established the corpus delicti (the fact of the crime) by
proving the stolen steel beams, despite their absence as physical evidence in court.

Rulings:

Sufficiency of the Allegation of Date in the Information

 The Court ruled that the allegation of the date of the crime as "sometime in October
2001" was sufficient.
 According to Section 11, Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the exact date is
not required unless it is a material element of the crime.
 Since the offense could have occurred in either October or November 2001, the
approximate date was sufficient for the petitioner to be fully informed of the charge,
enabling him to prepare a defense.
 The offense was understood to have occurred within the statute of limitations and
before the case was filed.

Corpus Delicti (Establishing the Stolen Property)

 The Court ruled that corpus delicti was established through testimonies and
documentary evidence.
 While the stolen steel beams themselves were not physically presented in court, the
testimonies of witnesses and the photographs of the beams confirmed the theft.
 The security logbook, delivery receipts, and photographs corroborated that the beams
had been taken from the project site.
  The Court held that it was not necessary to present the stolen property in person, as the
crime was sufficiently established through circumstantial and testimonial evidence.

17
G.R. No. 120915 April 3, 1998
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ROSA ARUTA y MENGUIN, accused-appellant.

Facts:
1. On December 13, 1988, a confidential informant told NARCOM agents that a certain
"Aling Rosa" would be arriving in Olongapo City the following day carrying illegal drugs.
2. The agents, without securing a search warrant, positioned themselves near the Victory
Liner terminal where they expected "Aling Rosa" to arrive.
3. When accused-appellant Rosa Aruta alighted from the bus, carrying two traveling bags,
the agents approached her and requested to inspect her belongings.
4. Without her voluntary consent, they searched her bags and found marijuana.
5. Rosa was arrested and later convicted by the RTC for violating the Dangerous Drugs Act.

Issues:
1. Was the warrantless search of Rosa Aruta's belongings valid?
2. Did Rosa Aruta waive her constitutional right against unreasonable searches and
seizures by not objecting to the search?
3. Was the marijuana obtained through the illegal search admissible as evidence?

Rulings:
On the validity of the warrantless search:
 The search was invalid.
 There was no justifiable reason to conduct a warrantless search under the recognized
exceptions (like a search incidental to a lawful arrest, a stop-and-frisk, or a search with
consent).
 The NARCOM agents had more than 24 hours to secure a search warrant based on the
informant’s tip, but they failed to do so.

On the alleged waiver of constitutional rights:

 Rosa did not waive her right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
 The Court emphasized that silence or mere passive conformity in the face of a search
does not equate to consent.
 For a valid waiver, there must be a clear and actual intention to relinquish a right —
which was absent in Rosa’s case.

On the admissibility of evidence (marijuana):

 The marijuana obtained was inadmissible as evidence.
 Since the search was unconstitutional, the items seized were deemed fruits of the
poisonous tree and could not be used in court.
 The Court ruled that the exclusionary rule is necessary to give force to the constitutional
protection against unlawful searches.