case digests - arrests, searches and seizures

8/13/2019 case digests - arrests, searches and seizures

1/20

People Vs. MartiMarti and his common- law wife, Shirley Reyes, went to the booth of the Manila Packing andExport Forwarders in the Pistang Pilipino Complex, Ermita, Manila, carrying with them 4 gift -wrapped packages. Anita Reyes (no relation to Shirley) attended to them.

Marti informed Anita that he was sending the packages to a friend in Zurich, Switzerland. Anitathen asked if she could examine and inspect the packages. Marti refused, assuring her that thepackages simply contained books, cigars, and gloves. The 4 packages were placed inside abrown corrugated box.

Before delivery of the box, Job Reyes (husband of Anita), following the standard operatingprocedure, opened the box for final inspection. When he opened the box, he notices a peculiarodor emitted from it. His curiosity aroused, he squeezed one of the bundles allegedly containinggloves and felt dried leaves inside. Opening one of the bundles, he pulled out a cellophanewrapper protruding from the opening of one of the gloves. He made an opening on one of thecellophane wrappers and took several grams of the contents.

After examination of the sample by the NBI, dried marijuana leaves were found to have beencontained inside the cellophane wrappers.

Marti was charged with violation of RA 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act).

Issue:1. W/N his constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure was violated? NO.2. W/N the same should be inadmissible in evidence? NO.

Held:1. The case at bar assumes a peculiar character since the evidence sought to be excluded wasprimarily discovered and obtained by a private person, acting in a private capacity and withoutthe intervention and participation of State authorities. In the absence of governmentalinterference, the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked against the State.The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures therefore applies as arestraint directly only against the government and it agencies tasked with the enforcement of thelaw. Thus, it could only be invoked against the State to whom the restraint against arbitrary andunreasonable exercise of power is imposed.

2. Said inspection was reasonable and a standard operation procedure on the part of Mr. Reyesas a precautionary measure before delivery of packages to the Bureau of Customs or the Bureauof Posts.Where the contraband articles are identified without a trespass on the part of the arrestingofficer, there is not the search that is prohibited by the constitution.

Doctrine:The protection against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be extended to actscommitted by private individuals so as to bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawfulintrusion by the government.


2/20

S TONEHILL V S . D IOKNO

[20 SCRA 383; L-19550; 19 JUN 1967]

Facts:

Upon application of the officers of the government named on the margin1

hereinafter referred to asRespondents-Prosecutors several judges 2 hereinafter referred to as Respondents-Judges issued, ondifferent dates, 3 a total of 42 search warrants against petitioners herein 4 and/or the corporations of whichthey were officers, 5 directed to the any peace officer, to search the persons above-named and/or thepremises of their offices, warehouses and/or residences, and to seize and take possession of the followingpersonal property to wit:

Books of accounts, financial records, vouchers, correspondence, receipts, ledgers, journals, portfolios,credit journals, typewriters, and other documents and/or papers showing all business transactionsincluding disbursements receipts, balance sheets and profit and loss statements and Bobbins (cigarettewrappers).

as "the subject of the offense; stolen or embezzled and proceeds or fruits of the offense," or "used orintended to be used as the means of committing the offense," which is described in the applications advertedto above as "violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and theRevised Penal Code."

Petitioners contentions are:(1) they do not describe with particularity the documents, books and things to be seized;(2) cash money, not mentioned in the warrants, were actually seized;(3) the warrants were issued to fish evidence against the aforementioned petitioners in deportation cases

filed against them;(4) the searches and seizures were made in an illegal manner; and(5) the documents, papers and cash money seized were not delivered to the courts that issued the

warrants, to be disposed of in accordance with law

Respondents-prosecutors contentions

(1) that the contested search warrants are valid and have been issued in accordance with law;(2) that the defects of said warrants, if any, were cured by petitioners' consent; and(3) that, in any event, the effects seized are admissible in evidence against herein petitioners, regardless of

the alleged illegality of the aforementioned searches and seizures.

The documents, papers, and things seized under the alleged authority of the warrants in question may besplit into two (2) major groups, namely: (a) those found and seized in the offices of the aforementionedcorporations, and (b) those found and seized in the residences of petitioners herein.

Issue:Whether or not those found and seized in the offices of the aforementioned corporations are obtainedlegally.

Whether or not those found and seized in the residences of petitioners herein are obtained legally.


3/20


4/20

BURGOS, SR. V. CHIEF OF STAFF, AFP

[133 SCRA 800; G.R. NO. 64261; 26 DEC1984]

Facts:

Petitioners assail the validity of 2 searchwarrants issued on December 7, 1982 byrespondent Judge Cruz-Pano of the then Courtof First Instance of Rizal, under which thepremises known as No. 19, Road 3, Project 6,Quezon City, and 784 Units C & D, RMSBuilding, Quezon Avenue, Quezon City, businessaddresses of the "Metropolitan Mail" and "We

Forum" newspapers, respectively, weresearched, and office and printing machines,equipment, paraphernalia, motor vehicles andother articles used in the printing, publicationand distribution of the said newspapers, as wellas numerous papers, documents, books andother written literature alleged to be in thepossession and control of petitioner JoseBurgos, Jr. publisher-editor of the "We Forum"newspaper, were seized. As a consequence ofthe search and seizure, these premises werepadlocked and sealed, with the further resultthat the printing and publication of saidnewspapers were discontinued. Respondentscontend that petitioners should have filed amotion to quash said warrants in the court thatissued them before impugning the validity ofthe same before this Court. Respondents alsoassail the petition on ground of laches (Failure

or negligence for an unreasonable andunexplained length of time to do that which, byexercising due diligence, could or should havebeen done earlier. It is negligence or omissionto assert a right within a reasonable time,warranting a presumption that the partyentitled to assert it either has abandoned it ordeclined to assert it). Respondents furtherstate that since petitioner had already used as

evidence some of the documents seized in aprior criminal case, he is stopped fromchallenging the validity of the search warrants.

Petitioners submit the following reasons tonullify the questioned warrants:1. Respondent Judge failed to conduct an

examination under oath or affirmation ofthe applicant and his witnesses, asmandated by the above-quotedconstitutional provision as well as Sec. 4,Rule 126 of the Rules of Court.

2. The search warrants pinpointed only oneaddress which would be the former

abovementioned address.3. Articles belonging to his co-petitioners

were also seized although the warrantswere only directed against Jose Burgos, Jr.

4. Real properties were seized.5. The application along with a joint affidavit,

upon which the warrants were issued, fromthe Metrocom Intelligence and SecurityGroup could not have provided sufficientbasis for the finding of a probable causeupon which a warrant may be validly issuedin accordance with Section 3, Article IV ofthe 1973 Constitution.

Respondents justify the continued sealing ofthe printing machines on the ground that theyhave been sequestered under Section 8 ofPresidential Decree No. 885, as amended,which authorizes sequestration of the property

of any person engaged in subversive activitiesagainst the government in accordance withimplementing rules and regulations as may beissued by the Secretary of National Defense.

Issue: Whether or Not the 2 search warrants werevalidly issued and executed.


5/20

Held: In regard to the quashal of warrants thatpetitioners should have initially filed to thelower court, this Court takes cognizance of thispetition in view of the seriousness and urgencyof the constitutional Issue raised, not tomention the public interest generated by thesearch of the "We Forum" offices which wastelevised in Channel 7 and widely publicized inall metropolitan dailies. The existence of thisspecial circumstance justifies this Court toexercise its inherent power to suspend its rules.With the contention pertaining to laches, thepetitioners gave an explanation evidencing that

they have exhausted other extra-judicial effortsto remedy the situation, negating thepresumption that they have abandoned theirright to the possession of the seized property.

On the enumerated reasons:1. This objection may properly be considered

moot and academic, as petitionersthemselves conceded during the hearing onAugust 9, 1983, that an examination hadindeed been conducted by respondent judgeof Col. Abadilla and his witnesses.

2. The defect pointed out is obviously atypographical error. Precisely, two searchwarrants were applied for and issuedbecause the purpose and intent were tosearch two distinct premises. It would bequite absurd and illogical for respondent

judge to have issued two warrants intended

for one and the same place.3. Section 2, Rule 126, of the Rules of Court,does not require that the property to beseized should be owned by the personagainst whom the search warrant isdirected. It may or may not be owned byhim.

4. Petitioners do not claim to be the ownersof the land and/or building on which the

machineries were placed. This being thecase, the machineries in question, while infact bolted to the ground, remain movableproperty susceptible to seizure under asearch warrant.

5. The broad statements in the applicationand joint affidavit are mere conclusions oflaw and does not satisfy the requirementsof probable cause. Deficient of suchparticulars as would justify a finding of theexistence of probable cause, said allegationcannot serve as basis for the issuance of asearch warrant and it was a grave error forrespondent judge to have done so. In

Alvarez v. Court of First Instance, this Courtruled that "the oath required must refer tothe truth of the facts within the personalknowledge of the petitioner or hiswitnesses, because the purpose thereof isto convince the committing magistrate, notthe individual making the affidavit andseeking the issuance of the warrant, of theexistence of probable cause." Anotherfactor which makes the search warrantsunder consideration constitutionallyobjectionable is that they are in the natureof general warrants. The description of thearticles sought to be seized under thesearch warrants in question are toogeneral.

With regard to the respondents invoking PD885, there is an absence of any implementing

rules and regulations promulgated by theMinister of National Defense. Furthermore,President Marcos himself denies the request ofmilitary authorities to sequester the propertyseized from petitioners. The closure of thepremises subjected to search and seizure iscontrary to the freedom of the press asguaranteed in our fundamental law. The searchwarrants are declared null and void.


6/20

PEOPLE VS. SALANGUITG.R. No. 133254-55, April 19, 2001

FACTS:Sr. Insp. Aguilar applied for a warrant in the RTC to search the residence of accused-appellant Robert Salanguit y Ko. He presented as his witness SPO1 Edmund Badua, who testifiedthat as a poseur-buyer, he was able to purchase 2.12 grams of shabu from accused-appellant. Thesale took place in accused-appellant's room, and Badua saw that the shabu was taken by accused-appellant from a cabinet inside his room. The application was granted, and a search warrant waslater issued. The police operatives knocked on accused- appellants door, but nobody opened it.They heard people inside the house, apparently panicking. The police operatives then forced thedoor open and entered the house. After showing the search warrant to the occupants of thehouse, Lt. Cortes and his group started searching the house. They found 12 small heat-sealedtransparent plastic bags containing a white crystalline substance, a paper clip box also containinga white crystalline substance, and two bricks of dried leaves which appeared to be marijuana

wrapped in newsprint having a total weight of approximately 1,255 grams. A receipt of the itemsseized was prepared, but the accused-appellant refused to sign it. After the search, the policeoperatives took accused-appellant with them to Station 10, EDSA, Kamuning, Quezon City, alongwith the items they had seized.

ISSUE: Whether or not the search warrant was valid.

HELD: Rule 126, 4 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that a search warrantshall not issue except upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense to bedetermined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of thecomplainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to besearched and the things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines.

The fact that there was no probable cause to support the application for the seizure ofdrug paraphernalia does not warrant the conclusion that the search warrant is void. This factwould be material only if drug paraphernalia was in fact seized by the police. The fact is that nonewas taken by virtue of the search warrant issued. If at all, therefore, the search warrant is voidonly insofar as it authorized the seizure of drug paraphernalia, but it is valid as to the seizure ofmethamphetamine hydrochloride as to which evidence was presented showing probable cause asto its existence.

It would be a drastic remedy indeed if a warrant, which was issued on probable causeand particularly describing the items to be seized on the basis thereof, is to be invalidated intoto because the judge erred in authorizing a search for other items not supported by theevidence. Accordingly, we hold that the first part of the search warrant, authorizing the search ofaccused-appellant's house for an undetermined quantity of shabu, is valid, even though thesecond part, with respect to the search for drug paraphernalia, is not.

Accused-appellant contends that the warrant was issued for more than one specificoffense because possession or use of methamphetamine hydrochloride and possession of drugparaphernalia are punished under two different provisions of R.A. No. 6425.


7/20

The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 is a special law that deals specifically with dangerousdrugs which are subsumed into "prohibited" and "regulated" drugs and defines and penalizescategories of offenses which are closely related or which belong to the same class or species.Accordingly, one (1) search warrant may thus be validly issued for the said violations of theDangerous Drugs Act.

A description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can,with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended to be searched.

The search warrant authorized the seizure of methamphetamine hydrochlorideor shabu but not marijuana. However, seizure of the latter drug is being justified on the groundthat the drug was seized within the "plain view" of the searching party. This is contested byaccused-appellant.

Under the "plain view doctrine," unlawful objects within the "plain view" of an officer

who has the right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may bepresented in evidence. For this doctrine to apply, there must be: (a) prior justification; (b)inadvertent discovery of the evidence; and (c) immediate apparent illegality of the evidencebefore the police.

The question is whether these requisites were complied with by the authorities in seizingthe marijuana in this case. Because the location of the shabu was indicated in the warrant andthus known to the police operatives, it is reasonable to assume that the police found the packetsof the shabu first. Once the valid portion of the search warrant has been executed, the "plain viewdoctrine" can no longer provide any basis -for admitting the other items subsequently found.

A search incident to a lawful arrest is limited to the person of the one arrested and thepremises within his immediate control. The rationale for permitting such a search is to prevent theperson arrested from obtaining a weapon to commit violence, or to reach for incriminatoryevidence and destroy it.

The police failed to allege in this case the time when the marijuana wasfound, i.e., whether prior to, or contemporaneous with, the shabu subject of the warrant, orwhether it was recovered on accused-appellant's person or in an area within his immediatecontrol. Its recovery, therefore, presumably during the search conducted after the shabu had

been recovered from the cabinet, as attested to by SPO1 Badua in his depostion, was invalid. Themarijuana bricks were wrapped in newsprint. There was no apparent illegality to justify theirseizure.


8/20


9/20

ALVAREZ VS. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF TAYABASG.R. No. L-45358, January 29 1937

FACTS:

The chief of the secret service of the Anti-Usury Board, of the Department of Justice, presented to Judge Eduardo GutierrezDavid, an affidavit alleging that according to reliable information, the petitioner kept in his house,books, documents, receipts, lists, chits and other papers used by him in connection with his activities as amoney-lender charging usurious rates of interest in violation of the law.

He did not swear to the truth of his statements upon his own knowledge of the facts but upon the informationreceived by him from a reliable person. Upon the affidavit in question the Judge, on said date, issued the warrant which isthe subject matter of the petition.

With said warrant, several agents of the Anti-Usury Board entered the petitioner's store and residence at seveno'clock on the night, and seized and took possession of the following articles: internal revenuelicenses for the years 1933 to 1936, one ledger, two journals, two cashbooks, nine order books, four notebooks, fourchecks stubs, two memorandums, three bankbooks, two contracts, four stubs, forty-eight stubs of purchases ofcopra, two inventories, two bundles of bills of lading, one bundle of credit receipts, one bundle of stubs ofpurchases of copra, two packages of correspondence, one receipt book belonging

to Luis Fernandez, fourteen bundles of invoices and other papers many documents and loan contracts with security andpromissory notes, 504 chits, promissory notes and stubs of used checks of the Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation.

The search for and a seizure of said articles were made with the opposition of the petitioner who stated his protest belowthe inventories on the ground that the agents seized even the originals of the documents.

As the articles had not been brought immediately to the judge who issued the search warrant, the petitioner,through his attorney, filed a motion, praying that the agent, be ordered immediately to deposit all the seizedarticles in the office of the clerk of court and that said agent be declared guilty of contempt for havingdisobeyed the order of the court.

ISSUE: Whether or not there was a valid search and seizure.

HELD: No. That the search and seizure made are illegal for the following reasons: (a) Because the warrantwas based solely upon the affidavit of the petitioner who had no personal knowledge of the facts of probablecause, and (b) because the warrant was issued for the sole purpose of seizing evidence which would later be usedin the criminal proceedings that might be instituted against the petitioner, for violation of the Anti-UsuryLaw. That as the warrant had been issued unreasonably, and as it does not appear positively in the affidavit thatthe articles were in the possession of the petitioner and in the place indicated, neither could the search and seizure bemade at night


10/20

Mata vs Bayona G.R. No. L-50720, 26 March 1984

ARRESTS, SEARCHES AND SEIZURES >Examination of witnesses

FACTS : Soriano Mata was accused underPresidential Decree (PD) 810, as amended byPD 1306, the information against him allegingthat Soriano Mata offered, took and arrangedbets on the Jai Alai game by selling illegaltickets known as Masiao tickets without anyauthority from the Philippine Jai Alai &Amusement Corporation or from the governmentauthorities concerned. Mata claimed that duringthe hearing of the case, he discovered thatnowhere from the records of the said case could

be found the search warrant and other pertinentpapers connected to the issuance of the same,so that he had to inquire from the City Fiscal itswhereabouts, and to which inquiry JudgeJosephine K. Bayona, presiding Judge of theCity Court of Ormoc replied, it is with the court.The Judge then handed the records to the Fiscalwho attached them to the records. This led Matato file a motion to quash and annul the searchwarrant and for the return of the articles seized,citing and invoking, among others, Section 4 of

Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court. Themotion was denied by the Judge on 1 March1979, stating that the court has made a thoroughinvestigation and examination under oath ofBernardo U. Goles and Reynaldo T. Mayote,members of the Intelligence Section of 352nd PCCo./Police District II INP; that in fact the courtmade a certification to that effect; and that thefact that documents relating to the searchwarrant were not attached immediately to therecord of the criminal case is of no moment,considering that the rule does not specify whenthese documents are to be attached to therecords. Matas motion for reconsideration of theaforesaid order having been denied, he came tothe Supreme Court, with the petition forcertiorari, praying, among others, that the Courtdeclare the search warrant to be invalid for its

alleged failure to comply with the requisites ofthe Constitution and the Rules of Court, and thatall the articles confiscated under such warrant asinadmissible as evidence in the case, or in anyproceedings on the matter.

ISSUE : WON the judge must before issuing thewarrant personally examine on oath oraffirmation the complainant and any witnesseshe may produce and take their depositions inwriting, and attach them to the record, in additionto any affidavits presented to him?

HELD :YES. Under the Constitution no search

warrant shall issue but upon probable cause tobe determined by the Judge or such otherresponsible officer as may be authorized by lawafter examination under oath or affirmation of thecomplainant and the witnesses he may produce.More emphatic and detailed is the implementingrule of the constitutional injunction, The Rulesprovide that the judge must before issuing thewarrant personally examine on oath oraffirmation the complainant and any witnesseshe may produce and take their depositions in

writing, and attach them to the record, in additionto any affidavits presented to him. Mere affidavitsof the complainant and his witnesses are thusnot sufficient. The examining Judge has to takedepositions in writing of the complainant and thewitnesses he may produce and to attach them tothe record. Such written deposition is necessaryin order that the Judge may be able to properlydetermine the existence or nonexistence of theprobable cause, to hold liable for perjury theperson giving it if it will be found later that hisdeclarations are false. We, therefore, hold thatthe search warrant is tainted with illegality by thefailure of the Judge to conform with the essentialrequisites of taking the depositions in writing andattaching them to the record, rendering thesearch warrant invalid.


11/20

Yousef Al Ghoul vs. Court of Appeals

GR No.126859, September 4, 2001

Facts : Judge Geronimo S. Mangay, presiding judge ofthe Regional Trial Court, National Capital JudicialRegion, Branch 125, Kalookan City, issued searchwarrants 54-953 and 55-954 for the search andseizure of certain items in Apartment No. 2 at 154Obiniana Compound, Deparo Road, Kalookan City.On April 1, 1995, the police searched Apartment No.8, in the same compound and found one (1) .45caliber pistol Found in Apartment No. 2 werefirearms, ammunitions and explosives. Petitionerswere charged before the Regional Trial Court of

Kalookan City accusing them with illegal possessionof firearms, ammunitions and explosives, pursuant toPresidential Decree No. 1866.6 Thereafter,petitioners were arrested and detained. Petitionerscontend that the search and seizure orders violatedSections 2 and 3 of the Bill of Rights as well asSection 3 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court onCriminal Procedure because the place searched andarticles seized were not described with particularity.They argue that the two-witness requirement underSection 10 of Rule 126 was ignored when only one

witness signed the receipt for the properties seizedduring the search, and said witness was notpresented at the trial.

ISSUE: W/N the items described in the warrantwere sufficiently described with particularity.

HELD: As held in PICOP v. Asuncion, the place to besearched cannot be changed, enlarged nor amplifiedby the police. Policemen may not be restrained from

pursuing their task with vigor, but in doing so, caremust be taken that constitutional and legalsafeguards are not disregarded. Exclusion ofunlawfully seized evidence is the only practicalmeans of enforcing the constitutional injunctionagainst unreasonable searches and seizures. Hence,we are constrained to declare that the search madeat Apartment No. 8 is illegal and the .45 caliber pistoltaken thereat is inadmissible in evidence againstpetitioners.

Now, in contrast, the search conducted at ApartmentNo. 2 could not be similarly faulted. The searchwarrants in question specifically mentionedApartment No. 2. The search was done in thepresence of its occupants, herein petitioners, inaccordance with Section 7 of Rule 126, Revised Rulesof Court. Petitioners allege lack of particularity in thedescription of objects to be seized pursuant to thewarrants. That the articles seized during the searchof Apartment No. 2 are of the same kind and natureas those items enumerated in the search warrant

appears to be beyond cavil. The items seized fromApartment No. 2 were described with specifity in thewarrants in question. The nature of the itemsordered to be seized did not require a technicaldescription. Moreover, the law does not require thatthe things to be seized must be described in preciseand minute details as to leave no room for doubt onthe part of the searching authorities, otherwise, itwould be virtually impossible for the applicants toobtain a search warrant as they would not knowexactly what kind of things they are looking for.

Substantial similarity of those articles described as aclass or species would suffice .

The case of Bache and Co. (Phil.), Inc. v. Ruiz , 37SCRA 823, 835 (1971), pointed out that one of thetests to determine the particularity in thedescription of objects to be seized under a searchwarrant is when the things described are limited tothose which bear direct relation to the offense forwhich the warrant is being issued. A carefulexamination of the Search Warrants shows thatthey were worded in such a manner that theenumerated items to be seized could bear adirect relation to the offense of violation ofSection 1 and 3 of Presidential Decree No.1866,as amended, penalizing illegal possession offirearms, ammunitions and explosives.


12/20

PRUDENTE VS. JUDGE DAYRITG.R. No. 82870, December 14 1989

FACTS: P/Major Alladin Dimagmaliw, filed withthe (RTC) an application for the issuance of asearch warrant. In his application for searchwarrant, P/Major Alladin Dimagmaliw alleged,among others, as follows: 1) That he has beeninformed and has good and sufficient reasonsto believe that Nemesio Prudente has in hiscontrol or possession firearms, explosiveshandgrenades and ammunition which areillegally possessed or intended to be used asthe means of committing an offense which the

said Nemesio Prudente is keeping andconcealing at the following premises of thePolytechnic University of the Philippines; 2)That the undersigned has verified the reportand found it to be a fact, and therefore,believes that a Search Warrant should be issuedRespondent Judge issued Search Warrant whichwas enforced by some 200 WPD operatives.

Petitioner moved to quash the search warrant.He claimed that (1) the complainant's lonewitness, Lt. Florenio C. Angeles, had nopersonal knowledge of the facts which formedthe basis for the issuance of the search warrant;(2) the examination of the said witness was notin the form of searching questions and answers;(3) the search warrant was a general warrant,for the reason that it did not particularlydescribe the place to be searched and that it

failed to charge one specific offense; and (4) thesearch warrant was issued in violation ofCircular No. 19 of the Supreme Court in that thecomplainant failed to allege under oath that theissuance of the search warrant on a Saturdaywas urgent.

Respondent Judge issued an order, denying thepetitioner's motion and supplemental motion

to quash. Petitioner's motion forreconsideration 10 was likewise denied

ISSUE: Whether or not there was probablecause to satisfy the issuance of a searchwarrant.

HELD: No. For a valid search warrant to issue,there must be PROBABLE CAUSE, which is to bedetermined personally by the judge, afterexamination under oath or affirmation of the

complainant and the witnesses he mayproduce, and particularly describing the placeto be searched and the persons or things to beseized. The probable cause must be inconnection with one specific offense and the

judge must, before issuing the warrant,personally examine in the form of searchingquestions and answers, in writing and underoath, the complainant and any witness he mayproduce, on facts personally known to themand attach to the record their swornstatements together with any affidavitssubmitted.

"Probable cause" for a valid search warrant, hasbeen defined "as such facts and circumstanceswhich would lead a reasonably discreet andprudent man to believe that an offense hasbeen committed, and that objects sought in

connection with the offense are in the placesought to be searched." This probable causemust be shown to be within the personalknowledge of the complainant or the witnesseshe may produce and not based on merehearsay.

In his application for search warrant, P/MajorAlladin Dimagmaliw stated that "he has been


13/20

informed" that Nemesio Prudente "has in hiscontrol and possession" the firearms andexplosives described therein, and that he "hasverified the report and found it to be a fact." Onthe other hand, in his supporting deposition,P/Lt. Florenio C. Angeles declared that, as aresult of their continuous surveillance forseveral days, they "gathered informations fromverified sources" that the holders of the saidfire arms and explosives are not licensed topossess them. In other words, the applicant andhis witness had no personal knowledge of thefacts and circumstances which became thebasis for issuing the questioned search

warrant, but acquired knowledge thereof only

through information from other sources orpersons.

Moreover, a perusal of the deposition of P/Lt.Florenio Angeles shows that it was too brief andshort. Respondent Judge did not examine him"in the form of searching questions andanswers." On the contrary, the questions askedwere leading as they called for a simple "yes" or"no" answer. Asking of leading questions to thedeponent in an application for search warrant,and conducting of examination in a generalmanner, would not satisfy the requirements forissuance of a valid search warrant."

U MIL V S . R AMOS

[187 SCRA 311; G.R. NO . 81567; 3 O CT 1991]Facts:

On 1 February 1988, military agents weredispatched to the St. Agnes Hospital,Roosevelt Avenue, Quezon City, to verify a

confidential information which was receivedby their office, about a "sparrow man" (NPAmember) who had been admitted to the saidhospital with a gunshot wound. That thewounded man in the said hospital wasamong the five (5) male "sparrows" whomurdered two (2) Capcom mobile patrolsthe day before, or on 31 January 1988 atabout 12:00 o'clock noon, before a roadhump along Macanining St., Bagong Barrio,

Caloocan City. The wounded man's namewas listed by the hospital management as"Ronnie Javellon," twenty-two (22) years old

of Block 10, Lot 4, South City Homes,Bian, Laguna however it was disclosedlater that the true name of the woundedman was Rolando Dural. In view of thisverification, Rolando Dural was transferredto the Regional Medical Servicesof theCAPCOM, for security reasons. Whileconfined thereat, he was positively identifiedby the eyewitnesses as the one whomurdered the 2 CAPCOM mobile patrols.

Issue: Whether or Not Rolando was lawfully arrested.

Held: Rolando Dural was arrested for being a member of the NPA, an outlawedsubversive organization. Subversion being a continuing offense, the arrest without warrantis justified as it can be said that he was committing as offense when arrested. The crimesrebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and crimes oroffenses committed in furtherance therefore in connection therewith constitute directassaults against the state and are in the nature of continuing crimes.


14/20

Bache & Co. Inc. et al vs BIR CommissionerVivencio Ruiz et al

Search and Seizure Personal Examination ofthe Judge On 24 Feb 1970, Commissioner Vera of InternalRevenue, wrote a letter addressed to J Ruizrequesting the issuance of a search warrant againstpetitioners for violation of Sec 46(a) of the NIRC, inrelation to all other pertinent provisions thereof,particularly Sects 53, 72, 73, 208 and 209, andauthorizing Revenue Examiner de Leon make and filethe application for search warrant which wasattached to the letter. The next day, de Leon and hiswitnesses went to CFI Rizal to obtain the search

warrant. At that time J Ruiz was hearing a certaincase; so, by means of a note, he instructed hisDeputy Clerk of Court to take the depositions of DeLeon and Logronio. After the session had adjourned,J Ruiz was informed that the depositions had alreadybeen taken. The stenographer read to him herstenographic notes; and thereafter, J Ruiz askedrespondent Logronio to take the oath and warnedhim that if his deposition was found to be false andwithout legal basis, he could be charged for perjury.J Ruiz signed de Leons application for searchwarrant and Logronios deposition. The search wassubsequently conducted. ISSUE: Whether or notthere had been a valid search warrant.

HELD: The SC ruled in favor of Bache on threegrounds.1. J Ruiz failed to personally examine thecomplainant and his witness. Personalexamination by the judge of the complainantand his witnesses is necessary to enable him todetermine the existence or non-existence of aprobable cause.

2. The search warrant was issued for more thanone specific offense.

The search warrant in question was issued forat least four distinct offenses under the Tax

Code. As ruled in Stonehill Such is theseriousness of the irregularities committed inconnection with the disputed search warrants,that this Court deemed it fit to amend Section 3of Rule 122 of the former Rules of Court that asearch warrant shall not issue but uponprobable cause in connection with one specificoffense. Not satisfied with this qualification,the Court added thereto a paragraph, directingthat no search warrant shall issue for morethan one specific offense.

3. The search warrant does not particularlydescribe the things to be seized. The

documents, papers and effects sought to beseized are described in the Search Warrant

Unregistered and private books of accounts(ledgers, journals, columnars, receipts anddisbursements books, customers ledgers); receiptsfor payments received; certificates of stocks andsecurities; contracts, promissory notes and deeds ofsale; telex and coded messages; businesscommunications, accounting and business records;checks and check stubs; records of bank deposits andwithdrawals; and records of foreign remittances,covering the years 1966 to 1970.

The description does not meet the requirementin Art III, Sec. 1, of the Constitution, and of Sec.3, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court, thatthe warrant should particularly describe thethings to be seized. A search warrant may besaid to particularly describe the things to be

seized when the description therein is asspecific as the circumstances will ordinarilyallow or when the description expresses aconclusion of fact not of law by which thewarrant officer may be guided in making thesearch and seizure or when the thingsdescribed are limited to those which bear directrelation to the offense for which the warrant isbeing issued.


15/20

20th Century Fox Film v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 76649-51, August 19, 1988THE FACTS: Petitioner 20 th Century Fox Film

Corporation sought the assistance of the NBI inconducting searches and seizures in connection

with the NBIs anti -film piracy campaign.Petitioner alleged that certain videotape outletsall over Metro Manila are engaged in theunauthorized sale and renting out ofcopyrighted films in violation of PD No. 49 (theold Intellectual Property Law).The NBIconducted surveillance and investigation of theoutlets pinpointed by the petitioner andsubsequently filed three (3) applications for

search warrants against the video outletsowned by the private respondents. The lowercourt issued the desired search warrants. The

NBI, accompanied by the petitioner's agents,raided the video outlets and seized the itemsdescribed in the three warrants.Privaterespondents later filed a motion to lift thesearch warrants and release the seizedproperties, which was granted by the lowercourt. Petitioners motion for reconsiderationwas denied by the lower court. The CA affirmedthe trial court.

THE ISSUE: Did the judge properly lift the search warrants he issued earlier?THE RULING [The Court DISMISSED the petition and AFFIRMED the questioned decision andresolution of the CA.] YES, the judge properly lifted the search warrants he issued earlier.

The lower court lifted the three (3) questioned search warrants in the absence ofprobable cause that the private respondents violated P.D. 49. NBI agents who acted as witnessesduring the application for search warrant did not have personal knowledge of the subject matterof their testimony, which was the alleged commission of the offense of piracy by the privaterespondents. Only the petitioners counsel who was also a witness during the application statedthat he had personal knowledge that the confiscated tapes owned by the private respondents

were pirated tapes taken from master tapes belonging to the petitioner. The lower court lifted thewarrants, declaring that the testimony of petitioners counsel did not have much cr edencebecause the master tapes of the allegedly pirated tapes were not shown to the court during theapplication.

The presentation of the master tapes of the copyrighted films, from which the piratedfilms were allegedly copied, was necessary for the validity of search warrants against those whohave in their possession the pirated films. The petitioner's argument to the effect that thepresentation of the master tapes at the time of application may not be necessary as these wouldbe merely evidentiary in nature and not determinative of whether or not a probable cause existsto justify the issuance of the search warrants is not meritorious. The court cannot presume thatduplicate or copied tapes were necessarily reproduced from master tapes that it owns.

The essence of a copyright infringement is the similarity or at least substantial similarityof the purported pirated works to the copyrighted work. Hence, the applicant must present to thecourt the copyrighted films to compare them with the purchased evidence of the video tapesallegedly pirated to determine whether the latter is an unauthorized reproduction of theformer. This linkage of the copyrighted films to the pirated films must be established to satisfy therequirements of probable cause. Mere allegations as to the existence of the copyrighted filmscannot serve as basis for the issuance of a search warrant.


16/20

P EOPLE V S . S UCRO [195 SCRA 388; G.R. No. 93239; 18 Mar 1991]

Facts:

Pat. Fulgencio went to Arlie Regalados house at C. Quimpo to monitor activities of EdisonSUCRO (accused). Sucro was reported to be selling marijuana at a chapel 2 meters awayfrom Regalados house. Sucro was monitored to have talked and exchanged things threetimes. These activities are reported through radio to P/Lt. Seraspi. A third buyer wastransacting with appellant and was reported and later identified as Ronnie Macabante.From that moment, P/Lt.Seraspi proceeded to the area. While the police officers were atthe Youth Hostel in Maagama St. Fulgencio told Lt. Seraspi to intercept. Macabante was

intercepted at Mabini and Maagama crossing in front of Aklan Medical center. Macabantesaw the police and threw a tea bag of marijuana on the ground. Macabante admittedbuying the marijuana from Sucro in front of the chapel.

The police team intercepted and arrested SUCRO at the corner of C. Quimpo andVeterans. Recovered were 19 sticks and 4 teabags of marijuana from a cart inside thechapel and another teabag from Macabante.

Issue:

Whether or Not arrest without warrant is lawful.

Whether or Not evidence from such arrest is admissible.

Held:

Search and seizures supported by a valid warrant of arrest is not an absolute rule. Rule126, Sec 12 of Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that a person lawfully arrested maybe searched for dangerous weapons or anything, which may be used as proff of thecommission of an offense, without a search warrant.(People v. Castiller) The failure of

the police officers to secure a warrant stems from the fact that their knowledge requiredfrom the surveillance was insufficient to fulfill requirements for its issuance. However,warantless search and seizures are legal as long as PROBABLE CAUSE existed. Thepolice officers have personal knowledge of the actual commission of the crime from thesurveillance of the activities of the accused. As police officers were the ones conductingthe surveillance, it is presumed that they are regularly in performance of their duties.


17/20

P EOPLE V . R ODRIGUEZA

[205 SCRA 791; G.R. No. 95902; 4 Feb 1992]

Facts: NARCOM agents staged a buy-bust operation,after gaining information that there was an ongoingillegal traffic of prohibited drugs in Tagas, Albay. Theparticipating agents were given money treated withultraviolet powder. One of the agents went to saidlocation, asked for a certain Don. Thereafter, theDon, herein accused, met with him and a certainobject wrapped in a plastic later identified asmarijuana was given in exchange for P200. The agentwent back to headquarters and made a report, basedon which, a team was subsequently organized and araid was conducted in the house of the father of theaccused. During the raid, the NARCOM agents wereable to confiscate dried marijuana leaves and aplastic syringe among others. There was noauthorization by any search warrant. The accusedwas found positive of ultraviolet powder. The lowercourt, considering the evidences obtained andtestimonies from the prosecution, found him guiltyof violating the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 and

sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.Issue: Whether or Not the lower court wascorrect in its judgment.Held: The NARCOM agents procedure in theentrapment of the accused failed to meet thequalification that the suspected drug dealer must becaught red-handed in the act of selling marijuana to aperson posing as a buyer, since the operation wasconducted after the actual exchange. Said raid alsoviolated accused ri ght against unreasonable searchand seizure, as the situation did not fall in thecircumstances wherein a search may be validly madeeven without a search warrant, i.e. when the searchis incidental to a lawful arrest; when it involvesprohibited articles in plain view. The NARCOMagents could not have justified their act by invokingthe urgency and necessity of the situation becausethe testimonies of the prosecution witnesses revealthat the place had already been put undersurveillance for quite some time. Had it been their

intention to conduct the raid, then they should,because they easily could, have first secured a searchwarrant during that time. The Court further notesthe confusion and ambiguity in the identification ofthe confiscated marijuana leaves and otherprohibited drug paraphernalia presented as evidenceagainst appellant:

CIC Taduran, who acted as the poseur buyer,testified that appellant sold him 100 grams of driedmarijuana leaves wrapped in a plastic bag.Surprisingly, and no plausible explanation has beenadvanced therefor, what were submitted to andexamined by the PCCL and thereafter utilized asevidence against the appellant were the followingitems:

One (1) red and white coloredplastic bag containing the following:

Exh. "A"Thirty (30) grams of suspected driedmarijuana fruiting tops contained inside atransparent plastic bag.

Exh. "B" Fifty (50) grams of suspected driedmarijuana leaves and seeds contained inside awhite colored plastic labelled "Robertson".Exh. "C" Four (4) aluminum foils eachcontaining suspected dried marijuana fruitingtops having a total weight of seven grams thenfurther wrapped with a piece of aluminum foil.Exh. "D" Five (5) small transparent plasticbags each containing suspected driedmarijuana fruiting tops having a total weight ofseventeen grams.Exh. "E" One plastic syringe.

Evidently, these prohibited articles were amongthose confiscated during the so-called follow-up raidin the house of Rodriguezas father. The unansweredquestion then arises as to the identity of themarijuana leaves that became the basis ofappellant's conviction. In People vs. Rubio, this Courthad the occasion to rule that the plastic bag and the


18/20

dried marijuana leaves contained therein constitutethe corpus delicti of the crime. As such, the existencethereof must be proved with certainty and

conclusiveness. Failure to do so would be fatal to thecause of the prosecution. Conviction is reversed andset aside and accused is acquitted.

G O V S . C OURT OF A PPEALS

[206 SCRA 138; G.R. NO . 101837; 11 FEB 1992]

Facts:

Petitioner, while traveling in the wrong direction on a one-way street, almost had acollision with another vehicle. Petitioner thereafter got out of his car, shot the driver of theother vehicle, and drove off. An eyewitness of the incident was able to take downpetitioners plate number and reported the same to the police, who subsequently ordereda manhunt for petitioner. 6 days after the shooting, petitioner presented himself in thepolice station, accompanied by 2 lawyers, the police detained him. Subsequently acriminal charge was brought against him. Petitioner posted bail, the prosecutor filed thecase to the lower court, setting and commencing trial without preliminary investigation.Prosecutor reasons that the petitioner has waived his right to preliminary investigation asbail has been posted and that such situation, that petitioner has been arrested without awarrant lawfully, falls under Section 5, Rule 113 and Section 7, Rule 112 of The 1985Rules of Criminal Procedure which provides for the rules and procedure pertaining tosituations of lawful warrantless arrests. Petitioner in his petition for certiorari assails suchprocedure and actions undertaken and files for a preliminary investigation.

Issue: Whether or Not warrantless arrest of petitioner was lawful.Whether or Not petitioner effectively waived his right to preliminary investigation.

Held: Petitioner and prosecutor err in relying on Umil v. Ramos, wherein the Court upheldthe warrantless arrest as valid effected 1 to 14 days from actual commission of theoffenses, which however constituted continuing crimes, i.e. subv ersion, membership inan outlawed organization, etc. There was no lawful warrantless arrest under Section 5,Rule 113. This is because the arresting officers were not actually there during theincident, thus they had no personal knowledge and their information regarding petitionerwere derived from other sources. Further, Section 7, Rule 112, does not apply.

Petitioner was not arrested at all, as when he walked in the police station, he neitherexpressed surrender nor any statement that he was or was not guilty of any crime. Whena complaint was filed to the prosecutor, preliminary investigation should have beenscheduled to determine probable cause. Prosecutor made a substantive error, petitioneris entitled to preliminary investigation, necessarily in a criminal charge, where the same isrequired appear thereat. Petition granted, prosecutor is ordered to conduct preliminaryinvestigation, trial for the criminal case is suspended pending result from preliminaryinvestigation, petitioner is ordered released upon posting a bail bond.


19/20

P EOPLE V S . A MMINUDIN

[163 SCRA 402; G.R. L-74869; 6 Jul 1988]

Facts:

Idel Aminnudin, accused-appellant was arrested on June 25, 1984, shortly afterdisembarking from the M/V Wilcon 9 at about 8:30 in the evening, in Iloilo City. The PCofficers who were in fact waiting for him because of a tip from one their informers simplyaccosted him, inspected his bag and finding what looked liked marijuana leaves took himto their headquarters for investigation. The two bundles of suspect articles wereconfiscated from him and later taken to the NBI laboratory for examination. It was found tocontain three kilos of what were later analyzed as marijuana leaves by an NBI forensicexaminer. An information for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act was filed against him.Later, the information was amended to include Farida Ali y Hassen, who had also beenarrested with him that same evening and likewise investigated. Both were arraigned and

pleaded not guilty. Subsequently, the fiscal filed a motion to dismiss the charge against Alion the basis of a sworn statement of the arresting officers absolving her after a 'thoroughinvestigation." The motion was granted, and trial proceeded only against the accused-appellant, who was eventually convicted . In his defense, Aminnudin disclaimed themarijuana, averring that all he had in his bag was his clothing consisting of a jacket, twoshirts and two pairs of pants. He alleged that he was arbitrarily arrested and immediatelyhandcuffed. His bag was confiscated without a search warrant. At the PC headquarters,he was manhandled to force him to admit he was carrying the marijuana, the investigatorhitting him with a piece of wood in the chest and arms even as he parried the blows whilehe was still handcuffed. He insisted he did not even know what marijuana looked like and

that his business was selling watches and sometimes cigarettes. However the RTCrejected his allegations. Saying that he only has two watches during that time and that hedid not sufficiently proved the injuries allegedly sustained.

Issue:

Whether or not search of defendants bag is legal.

Held:

The search was illegal. Defendant was not caught in flagrante delicto, which could allowwarrantless arrest or search. At the moment of his arrest, he was not committing a crime.Nor was he about to do so or had just done so. To all appearances, he was like any of theother passengers innocently disembarking from the vessel. The said marijuana thereforecould not be appreciated as evidence against the defendant, and furthermore he isacquitted of the crime as charged.


20/20

case digests - arrests, searches and seizures

Documents