warrantless search and seizure

8/9/2019 Warrantless Search and Seizure

1/248

Warrantless Search and Seizure

G.R. No. 164815 September 3, !!"

SR. #NS$. %&RR' (. )*+&RS,Petitioner,vs.

(-R / *$$&*+S and $&$+& / 0& $0#+#$$#N&S,Respondents.

R E S O L U T I O N

N*(0-R*,J.:

For resolution is the Letter-Appeal1o Senior Inspe!tor "Sr. Insp.# $err% &. 'aleroso "'aleroso# pra%in(that our Fe)ruar% **, *++ e!ision*and $une +, *++ Resolution)e set aside and a ne/ one )eentered a!0uittin( hi o the !rie o ille(al possession o irear and aunition.

The actsare )riel% stated as ollo/s2

'aleroso /as !har(ed /ith violation o $residential 2ecree No. 1866,!oitted as ollo/s2

That on or a)out the 1+th da% o $ul%, 1334, in 5ue6on &it%, Philippines, the said a!!used /ithout an%

authorit% o la/, did then and there /illull%, unla/ull% and 7no/in(l% have in his8her possession andunder his8her !ustod% and !ontrol

One "1# !al. 9&harter Ars9 revolver )earin( serial no. :*1: /ith ive ":# live ao.

/ithout irst havin( se!ured the ne!essar% li!ense8perit issued )% the proper authorities.

&ONTRAR; TO LA


2/248

tri!%le. isuan!o and his tea approa!hed 'aleroso. The% put hi under arrest, inored hi o his

!onstitutional ri(hts, and )odil% sear!hed hi. The% ound a &harter Ars revolver, )earin( Serial No.:*1:, /ith ive ":# pie!es o live aunition, tu!7ed in his /aist.

'aleroso /as then )rou(ht to the poli!e station or 0uestionin(. Upon verii!ation in the Firears andE?plosives ivision in &ap &rae, eri0uito presented a !ertii!ationthat the su)Be!t irear /as

not issued to 'aleroso, )ut /as li!ensed in the nae o a !ertain Raul Palen!ia Salvatierra o Sapalo!,Canila.3

On the other hand, 'aleroso, SPO A(ustin R. Ti)ol, $r. "Ti)ol#, and Adrian ;uson testiied or thedeense. Their testionies are suari6ed as ollo/s2

On $ul% 1+, 1334, 'aleroso /as sleepin( inside a roo in the )oardin( house o his !hildren lo!ated atSa(ana Does, @aran(a% Ne/ Era, 5ue6on &it%. De /as a/a7ened )% our "=# heavil% ared en in!ivilian attire /ho pointed their (uns at hi and pulled hi out o the roo.1+The raidin( tea tied hishands and pla!ed hi near the au!et "outside the roo# then /ent )a!7 inside, sear!hed and ransa!7edthe roo. Coents later, an operative !ae out o the roo and e?!laied, 9Do%, a% na7uha a7on()aril sa loo)911

isuan!o inored 'aleroso that there /as a standin( /arrant or his arrest. Do/ever, the raidin( tea/as not ared /ith a sear!h /arrant.1*

Ti)ol testiied that he issued to 'aleroso a Ceorandu Re!eipt1dated $ul% 1, 133 !overin( thesu)Be!t irear and its aunition, upon the ver)al instru!tion o &ol. An(elito Coreno.1=

On Ca% 4, 133, the Re(ional Trial &ourt "RT, @ran!h 3, 5ue6on &it%, !onvi!ted 'aleroso as!har(ed and senten!ed hi to suer the indeterinate penalt% o our "=# %ears, t/o "*# onths andone "1# da%, as iniu, to si? "4# %ears, as a?iu. The (un su)Be!t o the !ase /as urther ordered!onis!ated in avor o the (overnent.1:

On appeal, the &ourt o Appeals "&A# aired14the RT& de!ision )ut the iniu ter o theindeterinate penalt% /as lo/ered to our "=# %ears and t/o "*# onths.

On petition or revie/, /e aired1in ull the &A de!ision. 'aleroso iled a Cotion orRe!onsideration1/hi!h /as denied /ith inalit%13on $une +, *++.

'aleroso is a(ain )eore us throu(h this Letter-Appeal*+iplorin( this &ourt to on!e ore ta7e a!onteplative rele!tion and deli)eration on the !ase, o!usin( on his )rea!hed !onstitutional ri(hts

a(ainst unreasona)le sear!h and sei6ure.*1

Cean/hile, as the Oi!e o the Soli!itor eneral "OS# ailed to tiel% ile its &oent on'alerosoGs Cotion or Re!onsideration, it instead iled a Caniestation in Lieu o &oent.**
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_164815_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_164815_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_164815_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_164815_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_164815_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_164815_2009.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_164815_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_164815_2009.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_164815_2009.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_164815_2009.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_164815_2009.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_164815_2009.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_164815_2009.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_164815_2009.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_164815_2009.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_164815_2009.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_164815_2009.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_164815_2009.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_164815_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_164815_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_164815_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_164815_2009.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_164815_2009.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_164815_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_164815_2009.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_164815_2009.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_164815_2009.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_164815_2009.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_164815_2009.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_164815_2009.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_164815_2009.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_164815_2009.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_164815_2009.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_164815_2009.html#fnt22


3/248

In its Caniestation, the OS !han(ed its previous position and no/ re!oends 'alerosoGs a!0uittal.

Ater a se!ond loo7 at the eviden!e presented, the OS !onsiders the testionies o the /itnesses orthe deense ore !redi)le and thus !on!ludes that 'aleroso /as arrested in a )oardin( house. Coreiportantl%, the OS a(rees /ith 'aleroso that the su)Be!t irear /as o)tained )% the poli!e oi!ersin violation o 'alerosoGs !onstitutional ri(ht a(ainst ille(al sear!h and sei6ure, and should thus )ee?!luded ro the eviden!e or the prose!ution. Lastl%, assuin( that the su)Be!t irear /asadissi)le in eviden!e, still, 'aleroso !ould not )e !onvi!ted o the !rie, sin!e he /as a)le toesta)lish his authorit% to possess the (un throu(h the Ceorandu Re!eipt issued )% his superiors.

Ater !onsiderin( ane/ 'alerosoGs ar(uents throu(h his Letter-Appeal, to(ether /ith the OSGsposition re!oendin( his a!0uittal, and 7eepin( in ind that su)stantial ri(hts ust ultiatel% rei(nsupree over te!hni!alities, this &ourt is s/a%ed to re!onsider.*

The Letter-Appeal is a!tuall% in the nature o a se!ond otion or re!onsideration.


4/248

appli!ation o the Rules /ould tend to rustrate rather than to proote Busti!e, it /ould al/a%s )e

/ithin our po/er to suspend the rules or e?!ept a parti!ular !ase ro its operation.*3

No/ on the su)stantive aspe!t.

The &ourt notes that the version o the prose!ution, as to /here 'aleroso /as arrested, is dierent ro

the version o the deense. The prose!ution !lais that 'aleroso /as arrested near the INP &entralPoli!e Station in &uliat, 5ue6on &it%, /hile he /as a)out to )oard a tri!%!le. Ater pla!in( 'alerosounder arrest, the arrestin( oi!ers )odil% sear!hed hi, and the% ound the su)Be!t irear andaunition. The deense, on the other hand, insists that he /as arrested inside the )oardin( house ohis !hildren. Ater servin( the /arrant o arrest "alle(edl% or 7idnappin( /ith ranso#, soe o thepoli!e oi!ers sear!hed the )oardin( house and or!i)l% opened a !a)inet /here the% dis!overed thesu)Be!t irear.

Ater a thorou(h re-e?aination o the re!ords and !onsideration o the Boint appeal or a!0uittal )%'aleroso and the OS, /e ind that /e ust (ive ore !reden!e to the version o the deense.

'alerosoGs appeal or a!0uittal o!uses on his !onstitutional ri(ht a(ainst unreasona)le sear!h andsei6ure alle(ed to have )een violated )% the arrestin( poli!e oi!ers> and i so, /ould render the

!onis!ated irear and aunition inadissi)le in eviden!e a(ainst hi.

The ri(ht a(ainst unreasona)le sear!hes and sei6ures is se!ured )% Se!tion *, Arti!le III o the&onstitution /hi!h states2

SE&. *. The ri(ht o the people to )e se!ure in their persons, houses, papers, and ee!ts a(ainstunreasona)le sear!hes and sei6ures o /hatever nature and or an% purpose shall )e inviola)le, and nosear!h /arrant or /arrant o arrest shall issue e?!ept upon pro)a)le !ause to )e deterined personall%)% the Bud(e ater e?aination under oath or airation o the !oplainant and the /itnesses he a%produ!e, and parti!ularl% des!ri)in( the pla!e to )e sear!hed and the persons or thin(s to )e sei6ed.

Fro this !onstitutional provision, it !an readil% )e (leaned that, as a (eneral rule, the pro!ureent o a/arrant is re0uired )eore a la/ enor!er !an validl% sear!h or sei6e the person, house, papers, oree!ts o an% individual.+

To unders!ore the si(nii!an!e the la/ atta!hes to the undaental ri(ht o an individual a(ainstunreasona)le sear!hes and sei6ures, the &onstitution su!!in!tl% de!lares in Arti!le III, Se!tion "*#, that9an% eviden!e o)tained in violation o this or the pre!edin( se!tion shall )e inadissi)le in eviden!eor an% purpose in an% pro!eedin(.91

The a)ove pros!ription is not, ho/ever, a)solute. The ollo/in( are the /ell-re!o(ni6ed instan!es/here sear!hes and sei6ures are allo/ed even /ithout a valid /arrant2

1.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_164815_2009.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_164815_2009.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_164815_2009.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_164815_2009.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_164815_2009.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_164815_2009.html#fnt31


5/248

*. HSei6ure o eviden!e in 9plain vie/.9 The eleents are2 a# a prior valid intrusion )ased on

the valid /arrantless arrest in /hi!h the poli!e are le(all% present in the pursuit o their oi!ialduties> )# the eviden!e /as inadvertentl% dis!overed )% the poli!e /ho have the ri(ht to )e/here the% are> !# the eviden!e ust )e iediatel% apparent> and d# 9plain vie/9 Bustiiedere sei6ure o eviden!e /ithout urther sear!h>

. Sear!h o a ovin( vehi!le. Di(hl% re(ulated )% the (overnent, the vehi!leGs inherento)ilit% redu!es e?pe!tation o priva!% espe!iall% /hen its transit in pu)li! thorou(hares

urnishes a hi(hl% reasona)le suspi!ion aountin( to pro)a)le !ause that the o!!upant!oitted a !riinal a!tivit%>

=. &onsented /arrantless sear!h>

:. &ustos sear!h>

4. Stop and Fris7>

. E?i(ent and eer(en!% !ir!ustan!es.*

. Sear!h o vessels and air!rat> Hand

3. Inspe!tion o )uildin(s and other preises or the enor!eent o ire, sanitar% and )uildin(re(ulations.

In the e?!eptional instan!es /here a /arrant is not ne!essar% to ee!t a valid sear!h or sei6ure, /hat!onstitutes a reasona)le or unreasona)le sear!h or sei6ure is purel% a Budi!ial 0uestion, deterina)le

ro the uni0ueness o the !ir!ustan!es involved, in!ludin( the purpose o the sear!h or sei6ure, thepresen!e or a)sen!e o pro)a)le !ause, the anner in /hi!h the sear!h and sei6ure /as ade, the pla!eor thin( sear!hed, and the !hara!ter o the arti!les pro!ured. =

In li(ht o the enuerated e?!eptions, and appl%in( the test o reasona)leness laid do/n a)ove, is the/arrantless sear!h and sei6ure o the irear and aunition validJ


6/248


7/248

)eore us, sear!h /as ade in the lo!7ed !a)inet /hi!h !annot )e said to have )een /ithin 'alerosoGs

iediate !ontrol. Thus, the sear!h e?!eeded the )ounds o /hat a% )e !onsidered as an in!ident to ala/ul arrest.=

Nor !an the /arrantless sear!h in this !ase )e Bustiied under the 9plain vie/ do!trine.9

The 9plain vie/ do!trine9 a% not )e used to laun!h un)ridled sear!hes and indis!riinate sei6ures orto e?tend a (eneral e?plorator% sear!h ade solel% to ind eviden!e o deendantGs (uilt. The do!trine isusuall% applied /here a poli!e oi!er is not sear!hin( or eviden!e a(ainst the a!!used, )ut nonethelessinadvertentl% !oes a!ross an in!riinatin( o)Be!t.=3

As enun!iated in People v. &u)!u)in, $r.:+and People v. Lean(siri2:1

the 9plain vie/9 do!trine a% not )e usedto e?tend a (eneral e?plorator% sear!h ro one o)Be!t to another until soethin( in!riinatin( at lasteer(es.:*

Indeed, the poli!e oi!ers /ere inside the )oardin( house o 'alerosoGs !hildren, )e!ause the% /eresupposed to serve a /arrant o arrest issued a(ainst 'aleroso. In other /ords, the poli!e oi!ers had aprior Bustii!ation or the intrusion. &onse0uentl%, an% eviden!e that the% /ould inadvertentl% dis!over

a% )e used a(ainst 'aleroso. Do/ever, in this !ase, the poli!e oi!ers did not Bust a!!identall%dis!over the su)Be!t irear and aunition> the% a!tuall% sear!hed or eviden!e a(ainst 'aleroso.

&learl%, the sear!h ade /as ille(al, a violation o 'alerosoGs ri(ht a(ainst unreasona)le sear!h andsei6ure. &onse0uentl%, the eviden!e o)tained in violation o said ri(ht is inadissi)le in eviden!ea(ainst hi.1avvphi1

Unreasona)le sear!hes and sei6ures are the ena!e a(ainst /hi!h the !onstitutional (uarantees aordull prote!tion.


8/248

The @ill o Ri(hts is the )edro!7 o !onstitutional (overnent. I people are stripped na7ed o their

ri(hts as huan )ein(s, deo!ra!% !annot survive and (overnent )e!oes eanin(less. Thise?plains /h% the @ill o Ri(hts, !ontained as it is in Arti!le III o the &onstitution, o!!upies a positiono pria!% in the undaental la/ /a% a)ove the arti!les on (overnental po/er.::


9/248

14=, /hi!h re!o(ni6ed the perissi)ilit% o an entr% ade /ith the !onsent o one !o-o!!upant in theotherGs a)sen!e.

Held: In the !ir!ustan!es here at issue, a ph%si!all% present !o-o!!upantGs stated reusal to peritentr% renders /arrantless entr% and sear!h unreasona)le and invalid as to hi. Pp. =K13.

"a# The Fourth Aendent re!o(ni6es a valid /arrantless entr% and sear!h o a preises /hen thepoli!e o)tain the voluntar% !onsent o an o!!upant /ho shares, or is reasona)l% )elieved to share,!oon authorit% over the propert%, and no present !o-tenant o)Be!ts.Matlock, supra,at 1+>Illinoisv.Rodriguez,=3 U. S. 1, 14. The !onstant eleent in assessin( Fourth Aendent reasona)lenessin su!h !ases is the (reat si(nii!an!e (iven to /idel% shared so!ial e?pe!tations, /hi!h are inluen!ed)% propert% la/ )ut not !ontrolled )% its rules. Thus,Matlock not onl% holds that a solitar% !o-inha)itant a% soeties !onsent to a sear!h o shared preises, )ut also stands or the propositionthat the reasona)leness o su!h a sear!h is in si(nii!ant part a un!tion o !oonl% heldunderstandin(s a)out the authorit% that !o-inha)itants a% e?er!ise in /a%s that ae!t ea!h otherGsinterests. Pp. =K4.

")#MatlockGs e?aple o !oon understandin( is readil% apparent. The assuption tenants usuall%a7e a)out their !oon authorit% /hen the% share 0uarters is that an% one o the a% aditvisitors, /ith the !onse0uen!e that a (uest o)no?ious to one a% )e aditted in his a)sen!e. Matlockpla!ed no )urden on the poli!e to eliinate the possi)ilit% o at%pi!al arran(eents, a)sent reason todou)t that the re(ular s!hee /as in pla!e. Pp. 4K.

"!# This &ourt too7 a step to/ard addressin( the issue here /hen it held inMinnesotav. Olson,=3: U.S. 31, that overni(ht house(uests have a le(itiate e?pe!tation o priva!% in their teporar% 0uarters.I that !ustoar% e?pe!tation is a oundation o a house(uestGs Fourth Aendent ri(hts, it shouldollo/ that an inha)itant o shared preises a% !lai at least as u!h. In a!t, a !o-inha)itantnaturall% has an even stron(er !lai. No sensi)le person /ould enter shared preises )ased on oneo!!upantGs invitation /hen a ello/ tenant said to sta% out. Su!h reti!en!e /ould sho/ not tiidit% )uta reali6ation that /hen people livin( to(ether disa(ree over the use o their !oon 0uarters, aresolution ust !oe throu(h voluntar% a!!oodation, not )% appeals to authorit%. A)sent soere!o(ni6ed hierar!h%, e.g.,parent and !hild, there is no so!ietal or le(al understandin( o superior andinerior as )et/een !o-tenants. Pp. K1+.

"d# Thus, a disputed invitation, /ithout ore, (ives an oi!er no )etter !lai to reasona)leness inenterin( than the oi!er /ould have a)sent an% !onsent. isputed perission is no at!h or theFourth Aendent !entral value o Mrespe!t or the priva!% o the hoe, Wilsonv.a!ne,:*4 U. S.4+, 41+, and the StateGs other !ountervailin( !lais do not add up to out/ei(h it.

A !o-tenant /ho has an interest in )rin(in( !riinal a!tivit% to li(ht or in dele!tin( suspi!ion rohisel !an, e.g.,tell the poli!e /hat he 7no/s, or use )eore a a(istrate in (ettin( a /arrant. This!ase, /hi!h re!o(ni6es liits on evidentiar% sear!hes, has no )earin( on the !apa!it% o the poli!e, atthe invitation o one tenant, to enter a d/ellin( over another tenantGs o)Be!tion in order to prote!t aresident ro doesti! violen!e. Thou(h alternatives to disputed !onsent /ill not al/a%s open the doorto sear!h or eviden!e that the poli!e suspe!t is inside, nothin( in so!ial !usto or its rele!tion inprivate la/ ar(ues or pla!in( a hi(her value on delvin( into private preises to sear!h or eviden!e inthe a!e o disputed !onsent, than on re0uirin( !lear Bustii!ation )eore the (overnent sear!hesprivate livin( 0uarters over a residentGs o)Be!tion. Pp. 1+K14.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/415/164/index.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/497/177/index.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/495/91/index.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/495/91/index.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/526/603/index.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/526/603/index.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/415/164/index.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/497/177/index.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/495/91/index.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/495/91/index.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/526/603/index.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/526/603/index.html


10/248

"e# There are t/o loose ends. First, /hileMatlockGs e?planation or the !onstitutional sui!ien!% o a!o-tenantGs !onsent to enter and sear!h re!o(ni6ed a !o-inha)itantGs Mri(ht to perit the inspe!tion inhis o/n ri(ht, =1: U. S., at 11, n. , the ri(ht to adit the poli!e is not a ri(ht as understood underpropert% la/. It is, instead, the authorit% re!o(ni6ed )% !ustoar% so!ial usa(e as havin( a su)stantial)earin( on Fourth Aendent reasona)leness in spe!ii! !ir!ustan!es. The 0uestion here is /hether!ustoar% so!ial understandin( a!!ords the !onsentin( tenant authorit% to prevail over the !o-tenantGs

o)Be!tion, a 0uestionMatlockdid not ans/er. Se!ond, a ine line ust )e dra/n to avoid under!uttin(Matlock/here the deendant, thou(h not present, /as in a s0uad !ar not ar a/a%andRodriguez"/here the deendant /as asleep in the apartent and !ould have )een roused )% a 7no!7 on the door> ia potential deendant /ith sel-interest in o)Be!tin( is in a!t at the door and o)Be!ts, the !o-tenantGsperission does not sui!e or a reasona)le sear!h, /hereas the potential o)Be!tor, near)% )ut not parto the threshold !ollo0u%, loses out. Su!h oralis is Bustiied. So lon( as there is no eviden!e that thepoli!e have reoved the potentiall% o)Be!tin( tenant ro the entran!e spe!ii!all% to avoid a possi)leo)Be!tion, there is pra!ti!al value in the siple !larit% o !opleentar% rules, one re!o(ni6in( the !o-tenantGs perission /hen no ello/ o!!upant is on hand, the other a!!ordin( dispositive /ei(ht to theello/ o!!upantGs e?pressed !ontrar% indi!ation. Pp. 14K1.

"# Dere, respondentGs reusal is !lear, and nothin( in the re!ord Bustiies the sear!h on (roundsindependent o his /ieGs !onsent. Pp. 1K13.

* a. 41=, 4+= S. E. *d :, aired.

Souter, $., delivered the opinion o the &ourt, in /hi!h Stevens, enned%, ins)ur(, and @re%er, $$.,Boined. Stevens, $., and @re%er, $., iled !on!urrin( opinions. Ro)erts, &. $., iled a dissentin( opinion,in /hi!h S!alia, $., Boined. S!alia, $., and Thoas, $., iled dissentin( opinions. Alito, $., too7 no part inthe !onsideration or de!ision o the !ase.

Oi!ial Supree &ourt !ase la/ is onl% ound in the print version o the United States Reports. $ustia!ase la/ is provided or (eneral inorational purposes onl%, and a% not rele!t !urrent le(aldevelopents, verdi!ts or settleents.


11/248

Jose W .Diokno, Joker P. Arroyo, Rene A. V. Sarmiento, Dan Malabonga and Cesar Maravilla

for petitioners.

#ELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:

The facts before the Court in these Certiorari, Prohibition, and mandamus proceedings will be

briefly stated. The three petitioners will be referred to through their surnames of NOLACO,

A!"#LA$%$O&"' and TOL'NT#NO.

(. Prior to August ), (*+ -hereinafter to be referred to without the year, A!"#LA$%$O&"'

was one of the accused of $ebellion in Criminal Case No.

/C%01%((2 of /ilitary Commission No. 01, both cases being entitled 3People of te

Pilippines vs. Jose Ma. Sison, et al.3 he was then still at large.

0. At ((425 A./. on August )th, A!"#LA$%$O&"' and NOLACO were arrested by aConstabulary ecurity !roup -C! at the intersection of /ayon treet and P. /argall treet,

&ue6on City. The stated time is an allegation of petitioners, not denied by respondents. The

record does not disclose that a warrant of arrest had previously beeen issued against

NOLACO.

2. At (0455 N. on August )th, elements of the C! searched the premises at 02*%7 /ayon

treet, &ue6on City. The stated time is an allegation of petitioners, not specifically denied by

respondents. #n their CO//'NT, however, respondents have alleged that the search was

conducted 3late on the same day38 that is late on august )th.

. On August )th, at around *455 A./., Lt. Col. 9irgilio !. alda:eno of the C!, applied for a

earch ;arrant from respondent ecutive ?udge of the $egional

Trial Court in &ue6on City, to be served at No. 02*%7 /ayon treet, &ue6on City, determined

tyo be the leased residence of A!"#LA$%$O&"', after almost a month of 3round the cloc@

surveillance3 of the premises as a 3suspected underground house of the CPPNPA.3

A!"#LA$%$O&"' has been long wanted by the military for being a high ran@ing officer of the

Communist Party of the Philippines, particularly connected with the /9 Baragatano=a

Andrea cases.

#n connection with the earch ;arrant issued, the following may be stated4

-a The earch ;arrant was issued in proceedings entitled 3People of the Philippines vs. /ila

Aguilar%$oDue, Accused, earch ;arrant No. +5% + for rebellion3 -the 'A$C< ;A$$ANT

CA'. ?udge Panos Court was 7ranch ++.

-b #t does not appear from the records before us that an application in writing was submitted

by Lt. Col. alda:eno to ?udge Pa=o.


12/248

-c According to the record, Lt. Col. alda:eno and his witness A ionicio A. Lapus, were

e>amined under oath by ?udge Pa=o but only the deposition of A Lapus has been

submitted to us. The latter deposed that to his personal @nowledge, there were @ept in the

premises to be searched records, documents and other papers of the CPPNPA and the

National emocratic Eront, including support money from foreign and local sources intended

to be used for rebellion.

1. #n connection with the search made at (0455 N. of August )th the following may be stated4

-a TOL'NT#NO was a person then in charge of the premises.


13/248

cept upon probable cause to be determined by the?udge or such other responsible officer as may be authori6ed by law, after e>amination under oath or affirmation

of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and

the things to be sei6ed.

The disputed earch ;arrant -No. +5%+ describes the personalities to be sei6ed as follows4

ocuments, papers and other records of the Communist Party of the PhihppinesNew Peoples

Army andor the National emocratic Eront, such as /inutes of the Party /eetings, Plans of

these groups, Programs, List of possible supporters, subversive boo@s and instructions,

manuals not otherwise available to the public, and support money from foreign or local sources.

#t is at once evident that the foregoing earch ;arrant authori6es the sei6ure of personal properties vaguely

described and not particulari6ed. #t is an all% embracing description which includes everything conceivable

regarding the Communist Party of the Philippines and the National emocratic Eront. #t does not specify what

the subversive boo@s and instructions are8 what the manuals not otherwise available to the public contain to

ma@e them subversive or to enable them to be used for the crime of rebellion. There is absent a definite

guideline to the searching team as to what items might be lawfully sei6ed thus giving the officers of the law

discretion regarding what articles they should sei6e as, in fact, ta@en also were a portable typewriter and 0

wooden bo>es. #t is thus in the nature of a general warrant and infringes on the constitutional mandate reDuiring

particular description of the things to be sei6ed. #n the recent rulings of this Court, search warrants of similar

description were considered null and void for being too general. Thus4

ubversive documents, pamphlets, leaflets, boo@s, and other publications to promote theob:ectives and purposes of the subversive organi6ations @nown as /ovement for Eree

Philippines. Light%a%Eire /ovement and April ) /ovement. 6

The things to be sei6ed under the warrant issued by respondent :udge were described as

Fsubversive documents, propaganda materials, EAs, printing paraphernalia and all other

subversive materials uch description hardly provided a definite guideline to the search team as

to what articles might be lawfully sei6ed thereunder. aid description is no different from if not


14/248

worse than, the description found in the search warrants in !"#rgos, et al. v. te Cief of

Staff!which this Court declared null and void for being too general. >

#n the case at bar, the search warrant issued by respondent :udge allowed the sei6ure of printed

copies of the Philippine Times, manuscriptsdrafts of articles for publication, newspaper

dummies subversive documents, articles, etc., and even typewriters, duplicating machines,

mimeographing and tape recording machines. Thus, the language used is so all embracing as to

include all conceivable records and eDuipment of petitioner regardless of whether they are legal

or illegal. The search warrant under consideration was in the nature of a general warrant which

is constitutionally ob:ectionable. 8

The lac@ of particulari6ation is also evident in the e>amination of the witness presented by the applicant for

earch ;arrant.

& /r. ionicio Lapus, there is an application for search warrant filed by Lt. Col. 9irgilio alda:eno and the

Court would li@e to @now if you affirm the truth of your answer in this depositionI

-The deposition insteadJ

A Ges, sir,

&


15/248

2rd and 1th are leading not searching Duestions. The )th, Hth and +th refer to the description of the personalities

to be sei6ed, which is #dentical to that in the earch ;arrant and suffers from the same lac@ of particularity. The

e>amination conducted was general in nature and merely repetitious of the deposition of said witness. /ere

generali6ation will not suffice and does not satisfy the reDuirements of probable cause upon which a warrant may

issue.

$espondents claim, however, that the proper forum for Duestioning the illegality of a earch ;arrant is with the

Court that issued it instead of this original, independent action to Duash. The records show, however, that

petitioners did raise that issue in the 'A$C< ;A$$ANT CA' in their Comment, dated October (+, (*+. #n

fact, they already Duestioned the admissibility of the evidence obtained under the earch ;arrant, even during

the inDuest investigation on August (5, (*+. And in the "79'$#9' OC"/'NT CA', they filed a /otion

to uppress on ecember (0, (*+ claiming that the proceedings under the earch ;arrant were unlawful.

ubstantially, therefore, while not denominated as a motion to Duash, petitioners had Duestioned the legality of

the earch ;arrant.

Parenthetically, it stri@es the Court that the pendency of the 'A$C< ;A$$ANT CA' and of the

"79'$#9' OC"/'NT CA' before two different Courts is not conducive to an orderly administration of

:ustice. #t should be advisable that, whenever a earch ;arrant has been issued by one Court, or 7ranch, and a

criminal prosecution is initiated in another Court, or 7ranch, as a result of the service of the earch ;arrant, the'A$C< ;A$$ANT CA' should be consolidated with the criminal case for orderly procedure. The later

criminal case is more substantial than the earch ;arrant proceeding, and the Presiding ?udge in the criminal

case should have the right to act on petitions to e>clude evidence unlawfully obtained.

Notwithstanding the irregular issuance of the earch ;arrant and although, ordinarily, the articles sei6ed under

an invalid search warrant should be returned, they cannot be ordered returned in the case at bar to A!"#LA$%

$O&"'. ome searches may be made without a warrant. Thus, ection (0, $ule (0), $ules of Court, e>plicitly

provides4

ection (0. Sear$ %ito#t %arrant of person arrested.JA person charged with an offense may

be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission

of the offense.

The provision is declaratory in the sense that it is confined to the search, without a search warrant, of a person

who had been arrested. #t is also a general rule that, as an incident of an arrest, the place or premises where the

arrest was made can also be search without a search warrant. #n this latter case, 3the e>tent and

reasonableness of the search must be decided on its own facts and circumstances, and it has been stated that,

in the application of general rules, there is some confusion in the decisions as to what constitutes the e>tent of

the place or premises which may be searched.


16/248

;ecutive ?udge

'rnani Cru6 Pa=o is hereby annulled and set aside, and the Temporary $estraining Order en:oining respondent

from introducing evidence obtained pursuant to the earch ;arrant in the ubversive ocuments case hereby

made permanent, the, personalities sei6ed may be retained by the Constabulary ecurity !roup for possible

introduction as evidence in Criminal Case No. /C%(%(, pending before pecial /ilitary commission No. (,

without pre:udice to petitioner /ila Aguilar%$oDue ob:ecting to their relevance and as@ing said Commission to

return to her any and all irrelevant documents and articles.

O O$'$'.

Plana, &s$olin Relova, '#tierre(, Jr., De la )#ente, Alampay and Pata*o $on$#r.

Makasiar, C.J., $on$#rs in te res#lt.

A+#ino, J. took no part.

Con$ep$ion Jr., J., reserves is vote.

Se:%r%te O:&o&

TEEHAN?EE, J., concurring and dissenting4

# concur with the concurring and dissenting opinion of /r. ?ustice 9icente Abad antos. The

Duestioned search warrant has correctly been declared null and void in the CourtFs decision

as a general warrant issued in gross violation of the constitutional mandate that 3the right of

the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable

searches and sei6ures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall not be violated3 -7ill of

$ights, sec. 2. The 7ill of $ights orders the absolute e>clusion of all illegally obtained

evidence4 3Any evidence obtained in violation of this . . . section shall be inadmissible for any

purpose in any proceeding3 -ec. K0. This constitutional mandate e>pressly adopting the

e>clusionary rule has proved by historical e>perience to be the only practical means of

enforcing the constitutional in:unction against unreasonable searches and sei6ures by

o#tla%ingall evidence illegally sei6ed and thereby removing the incentive on the part of stateand police officers to disregard such basic rights. ;hat the plain language of the Constitution

mandates is beyond the power of the courts to change or modify.

All the articles thus sei6ed fall under the e>clusionary rule totally and #n+#alifiedlyand cannot

be used against any of the three petitioners, as held by the ma:ority in the recent case of

'alman vs. Pamaran-!.$. Nos. H(05+%5*, August 25, (*+1. The Court has held that 3in

issuing a search warrant the :udge must strictly comply with the reDuirements of the


17/248

Constitution and the statutory provisions. A liberal construction should be given in favor of the

individual to prevent stealthy encroachment upon, or gradual depreciation of the rights

secured by the Constitution. No presumptions of regularity are to be invo@ed in aid of the

process when an officer underta@es to :ustify it.3 -/ata vs. 7ayona, (0+ C$A 2++, 2*2%2*

The ma:ority pronouncement that 3as an incident to -petitioner /ila Aguilar% $oDueFs arrest,

her dwelling at No. 02*%7 /ayon treet, &ue6on City could have been searched, even

without a warrant, for evidence of rebellion3 is patently against the constitutional proscription

and settled law and :urisprudence. /r. ?ustice Cuevas amply discusses this in the dissenting

portion of his separate opinion. uffice it to add and stress that the arresting C! !roup

themselves @new that they needed a search warrant and obtained the void warrant in

Duestion. The e>ception of $ule (0), sec. (0 which allows a warrantless search of a person

who is lawfully arrested is absolutely limited to his person, at the time of and incident to his

arrest and to dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission

of the offense.3 uch warrantless search obviously cannot be made in a place oterthan the

place of arrest. #n this case, petitioner Aguilar%$oDue was arrested at ((425 a.m. on board apublic vehicle on te road-at /ayon and P. /argall treets. To hold that her dwelling could

3later on the same day3 be searched without warrant is to sanction an untenable violation, if

not nullification, of the cited basic constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and

sei6ures.

# vote to grant the petition in toto.

A7AD SANTOS, J., concurring and dissenting4

# concur in the :udgment insofar as it annuls and sets aside earch ;arrant No. +5%+ issuedby '>ecutive ?udge 'rnani Cru6 Pa=o for the reasons adduced by ?ustice /elencio


18/248

CUE@AS, J., concurring and dissenting

# fully agree with the pronouncement in the ma:ority opinion nullifying earch warrant No. +5%

+ issued by the ecutive ?udge of the $egional Trial Court of

&ue6on City which was served at 02*7 /ayon t., &ue6on City #t does not specify with

reDuisite particularity the things, ob:ects or properties that may be sei6ed hereunder. 7eing in

the nature of a general warrant, it violates the constitutional mandate that the place to be

searched and the persons or things to be sei6ed, Fmust be particularly described. -Art. #9, ec.

2, (*H2 Constitution

#, however, regret being unable to concur with the dictum :ustifying the said search on the

basis of ec. (0, $ule (0) of the $ules of Court which provides4

'C. (0. Sear$ %ito#t %arrant of person arrested.JA person charged with an

offense may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be

used as proof of the commission of the offense.

The lawful arrest being the sole :ustification for the validity of the warrantless search under the

aforeDuoted provision -ec. (0, $ule (0) the same must be limited to and circumscribed by,

the s#b*e$t, time, andpla$eof said arrest. As to s#b*e$t, the warrantless search is sanctioned

only with respect to the person of the suspect, and things that may be sei6ed from him are

limited to 3dangerous weapons3 or 3anything which may be used as proof of the commission

of the offense.3


19/248

the defendants were under arrest and in custody elsewhere. That search cannot

be sustained as an incident of the arrests. MARS-1 vs. /S, 0H1 " (*0, (**.

-'mphasis supplied -Agnello vs. ".., 0)* ".. 05,25

The second element which must e>ist in order to bring the case within the e>ception to the

general rule is that, in addition to a lawful arrest, the search must be incident to the arrest.

The search must be made at the place of the arrest, otherwise, it is not incident

to the arrest.A'1&- vs. /.S. s#pra. #n this latter case, 0)* ".. 05 at 25, it

is said that the officers have a right to ma@e a search contemporaneously with

the arrest.And if te p#rpose of te offi$ers in making teir entry is not to make

an arrest, but to ma@e a search to obtain evidence for some future arrest, then

search is not incidental to arrest. "2ARS vs. /.S. 0H2 ".., 0+ 'T AL. -Papani

vs, ". . + E 0d ()5, ()2

#n the instant case, petitioners were arrested at the intersection of /ayon t. and P. /argall

t. at ((425 A./. of August ). (*H). The search, on the other hand, was conducted after the

arrest, that was at around (0455 noon of the same day or 3late that same day -as respondents

claim in their 3CO//'NT3 at the residence of petitioner A!"#LA$%$O&"' in 02*7 /ayMn

t., &ue6on City.


20/248

# concur with the concurring and dissenting opinion of /r. ?ustice 9icente Abad antos. The

Duestioned search warrant has correctly been declared null and void in the CourtFs decision

as a general warrant issued in gross violation of the constitutional mandate that 3the right of

the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable

searches and sei6ures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall not be violated3 -7ill of

$ights, sec. 2. The 7ill of $ights orders the absolute e>clusion of all illegally obtained

evidence4 3Any evidence obtained in violation of this . . . section shall be inadmissible for any

purpose in any proceeding3 -ec. K0. This constitutional mandate e>pressly adopting the

e>clusionary rule has proved by historical e>perience to be the only practical means of

enforcing the constitutional in:unction against unreasonable searches and sei6ures by

o#tla%ingall evidence illegally sei6ed and thereby removing the incentive on the part of state

and police officers to disregard such basic rights. ;hat the plain language of the Constitution

mandates is beyond the power of the courts to change or modify.

All the articles thus sei6ed fall under the e>clusionary rule totally and #n+#alifiedlyand cannot

be used against any of the three petitioners, as held by the ma:ority in the recent case of'alman vs. Pamaran-!.$. Nos. H(05+%5*, August 25, (*+1. The Court has held that 3in

issuing a search warrant the :udge must strictly comply with the reDuirements of the

Constitution and the statutory provisions. A liberal construction should be given in favor of the

individual to prevent stealthy encroachment upon, or gradual depreciation of the rights

secured by the Constitution. No presumptions of regularity are to be invo@ed in aid of the

process when an officer underta@es to :ustify it.3 -/ata vs. 7ayona, (0+ C$A 2++, 2*2%2*

The ma:ority pronouncement that 3as an incident to -petitioner /ila Aguilar% $oDueFs arrest,

her dwelling at No. 02*%7 /ayon treet, &ue6on City could have been searched, even

without a warrant, for evidence of rebellion3 is patently against the constitutional proscriptionand settled law and :urisprudence. /r. ?ustice Cuevas amply discusses this in the dissenting

portion of his separate opinion. uffice it to add and stress that the arresting C! !roup

themselves @new that they needed a search warrant and obtained the void warrant in

Duestion. The e>ception of $ule (0), sec. (0 which allows a warrantless search of a person

who is lawfully arrested is absolutely limited to his person, at the time of and incident to his

arrest and to dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission

of the offense.3 uch warrantless search obviously cannot be made in a place oterthan the

place of arrest. #n this case, petitioner Aguilar%$oDue was arrested at ((425 a.m. on board a

public vehicle on te road-at /ayon and P. /argall treets. To hold that her dwelling could

3later on the same day3 be searched without warrant is to sanction an untenable violation, if

not nullification, of the cited basic constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and

sei6ures.

# vote to grant the petition in toto.

A7AD SANTOS, J., concurring and dissenting4


21/248

# concur in the :udgment insofar as it annuls and sets aside earch ;arrant

No. +5%+ issued by '>ecutive ?udge 'rnani Cru6 Pa=o for the reasons adduced by ?ustice

/elencio


22/248

An officer ma@ing an arrest may ta@e from the person arrested any money or

property found upon his person which was used in the commission of the crime

or might furnish the prisoner with the means of committing violence or escaping

or which may be used as evidence in the trial of the cause ... -#n $e /oreno vs.

Ago Chi, (0 Phil. 2*4 People vs. 9eloso, + Phil. ()*

;ith respect to the timeandpla$eof the warrantless search allowed by law, it must be

contemporaneous with the lawful arrest. tated otherwise, to be valid, the search must have

been conducted at about the time of the arrest or immediately thereafter and only at the place

where the suspect was arrested,

The right without a search warrant contemporaneously to search a person

lawfully arrested%ile $ommitting a $rimeand to search the place where the

arrest is made in order to find and sei6e things connected with the crime as its

fruits or as the means by which it was committed, as well as weapons or other

things to effect an escape from custody is not to be doubted. CAR- vs. /S

0)H " (00. (1+. ... "#t te rigt does not e0tend to oter pla$es. )ran@

AgnelloFs house was several bloc@s distant from AlbaFs house where the arrest

was made. ;hen it was entered and searched, the conspiracy was ended and

the defendants were under arrest and in custody elsewhere. That search cannot

be sustained as an incident of the arrests. MARS-1 vs. /S, 0H1 " (*0, (**.

-'mphasis supplied -Agnello vs. ".., 0)* ".. 05,25

The second element which must e>ist in order to bring the case within the e>ception to the

general rule is that, in addition to a lawful arrest, the search must be incident to the arrest.

The search must be made at the place of the arrest, otherwise, it is not incident

to the arrest.A'1&- vs. /.S. s#pra. #n this latter case, 0)* ".. 05 at 25, it

is said that the officers have a right to ma@e a search contemporaneously with

the arrest.And if te p#rpose of te offi$ers in making teir entry is not to make

an arrest, but to ma@e a search to obtain evidence for some future arrest, then

search is not incidental to arrest. "2ARS vs. /.S. 0H2 ".., 0+ 'T AL. -Papani

vs, ". . + E 0d ()5, ()2

#n the instant case, petitioners were arrested at the intersection of /ayon t. and P. /argall

t. at ((425 A./. of August ). (*H). The search, on the other hand, was conducted after thearrest, that was at around (0455 noon of the same day or 3late that same day -as respondents

claim in their 3CO//'NT3 at the residence of petitioner A!"#LA$%$O&"' in 02*7 /ayon

t., &ue6on City.


23/248

the premises at 02*7 /ayon t., &ue6on City ;#T


24/248

the tie o the sear!h. The saet% and evidentiar% Bustii!ations underl%in( 'hi(elGs e?!eptionauthori6e a vehi!le sear!h onl% /hen there is a reasona)le possi)ilit% o su!h a!!ess. Althou(h it doesnot ollo/ ro 'hi(el, !ir!ustan!es uni0ue to the autoo)ile !onte?t also Busti% a sear!h in!identto a la/ul arrest /hen it is Mreasona)le to )elieve eviden!e relevant to the !rie o arrest i(ht )eound in the vehi!le. horntonv. United States, :=1 U. S. 41:,4* "S!alia, $., !on!urrin( inBud(ent#. Neither 'hi(elGs rea!hin(-distan!erule nor horntonGs allo/an!e or evidentiar% sear!hes

authori6ed the sear!h in this !ase. In !ontrast to&elton, /hi!h involved a sin(le oi!er !onronted /ithour unse!ured arrestees, ive oi!ers hand!ued and se!ured ant and the t/o other suspe!ts inseparate patrol !ars )eore the sear!h )e(an. ant !learl% !ould not have a!!essed his !ar at the tie othe sear!h. An evidentiar% )asis or the sear!h /as also la!7in(. @elton and Thornton /ere )otharrested or dru( oenses, )ut ant /as arrested or drivin( /ith a suspended li!ensean oense or/hi!h poli!e !ould not reasona)l% e?pe!t to ind eviden!e in antGs !ar. &.*no$lesv.Io$a, :*: U. S.11,11. The sear!h in this !ase /as thereore unreasona)le. Pp. K11.

"!# This &ourt is unpersuaded )% the StateGs ar(uent that its e?pansive readin( o&elton !orre!tl%)alan!es la/ enor!eent interests /ith an arresteeGs liited priva!% interest in his vehi!le. The Stateseriousl% undervalues the priva!% interests at sta7e, and it e?a((erates )oth the !larit% provided )% a)road readin( o&elton and its iportan!e to la/ enor!eent interests. A narro/ readin( o&eltonand hornton,to(ether /ith this &ourtGs other Fourth Aendent de!isions, e.g.,Michiganv.ong,=4 U. S. 1+, and United States v.Ross,=:4 U. S. 3, perit an oi!er to sear!h a vehi!le /hensaet% or evidentiar% !on!erns deand. Pp. 11K1=.

"d# Stare decisisdoes not re0uire adheren!e to a )road readin( o&elton.The e?perien!e o the *%ears sin!e&eltonhas sho/n that the (enerali6ation underpinnin( the )road readin( o that de!ision isunounded, and )lind adheren!e to its ault% assuption /ould authori6e %riad un!onstitutionalsear!hes. Pp. 1:K1.

*14 Ari6. 1, 14* P. d 4=+, aired.

Stevens, $., delivered the opinion o the &ourt, in /hi!h S!alia, Souter, Thoas, and ins)ur(, $$.,Boined. S!alia, $., iled a !on!urrin( opinion. @re%er, $., iled a dissentin( opinion. Alito, $., iled adissentin( opinion, in /hi!h Ro)erts, &. $., and enned%, $., Boined, and in /hi!h @re%er, $., Boinede?!ept as to Part IIKE.

Arizona v. Gant

Argued: October 7, 2008

Decided:April 21, 2009

FactsThe Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures andusually reuires an o!icer to ha"e both probable cause and a #arrant in order tosearch a person or her property$ There are, ho#e"er, a number o% e&ceptions tothis reuirement$ One o% the times #hen an o!icer does not need a #arrant tosearch someone is at the time o% a la#%ul arrest$ Typically, in the interest o% theo!icer's sa%ety and e"idence disco"ery and preser"ation, the o!icer can searchan arrestee and the area #ithin his immediate control #ithout (rst obtainin) a
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/541/615/index.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/541/615/index.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/525/113/index.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/525/113/index.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/525/113/index.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/463/103/index.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/456/798/index.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/456/798/index.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/541/615/index.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/525/113/index.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/525/113/index.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/463/103/index.htmlhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/456/798/index.html


25/248

#arrant$ This case addresses the e&tent o% an o!icer's po#er in searchin) anarrestee's "ehicle a%ter he has been arrested and placed in the bac* o% a policecar$

On Au)ust 2+, 1999, the police responded to an anonymous tip o% dru) acti"ity ata particular residence$ hen they arri"ed, -odney .ant ans#ered the door andidenti(ed himsel%$ /e in%ormed police that the o#ner o% the house #as not home

but #ould return later that e"enin)$ hen the police le%t, they chec*ed recordsand disco"ered that .ant had a #arrant %or his arrest %or dri"in) #ith asuspended license$

The o!icers returned to the home later that e"enin) and arrested t#oindi"iduals$ A%ter both arrestees #ere handcu!ed and placed in the bac* o%police cars, .ant arri"ed at the house dri"in) a "ehicle$ hen he stepped out o%his car, he #as arrested %or dri"in) #ith a suspended license$ A%ter .ant #ashandcu!ed and placed in the bac* o% a third police car, o!icers searched .ant'scar$ They %ound a )un in the car alon) #ith a ba) o% cocaine in a ac*et poc*et onthe bac*seat$

.ant #as char)ed #ith possession o% the cocaine$ /e sou)ht to ha"e thee"idence %ound in his car suppressed at trial because, he claimed, the search o%his car had been unreasonable$ The trial court denied .ant's motion and .ant#as con"icted$ The state appellate court and the Arizona upreme ourtre"ersed the trial court's con"iction, rulin) that the search o% .ant's car #as notallo#ed because it did not promote o!icer sa%ety or e"idence disco"ery andpreser"ation$ 3ecause the search "iolated .ant's Fourth Amendment ri)hts, thee"idence %ound in .ant's car should ha"e been suppressed and not presented attrial$ The tate appealed to the 4$$ upreme ourt$

Issue

5oes the Fourth Amendment reuire that police o!icers, #hen arrestin) a recentoccupant o% a "ehicle, demonstrate either a threat to o!icer sa%ety or a need topreser"e e"idence related to the crime in order to conduct a search o% that

"ehicle #ithout a #arrant6

Constitutional Amendment and Precedents

The Fourth Amendment

The ri)ht o% the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, ande!ects, a)ainst unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be "iolated,

and no arrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oathor a!irmation, and particularly describin) the place to be searched and thepersons or thin)s to be seized$

Chimel v. California (1969)

O!icers came to himel's home #ith a #arrant %or himel's arrest %orbur)lary they did not ha"e a search #arrant$ A%ter they arrested himelthey as*ed to search his home$ himel re%used, but the o!icers in%ormed


26/248

him that they could search his house any#ay on the basis o% his la#%ularrest$

The ourt ruled that an o!icer could search the area #ithin an arrestee'simmediate control i% the o!icer's sa%ety #as at ris* or the arrestee coulddestroy e"idence relatin) to his arrest$ A search o% himel's entire home#ent beyond the area that #as #ithin himel's immediate control and,

there%ore, the ourt ruled in %a"or o% himel$

New or! v. "elton (19#1)

A police o!icer pulled o"er a car #ith %our male passen)ers %or speedin)$The policeman smelled mariuana and sa# #hat appeared to be anen"elope that contained mariuana lyin) on the :oor o% the car$ /e arrestedall %our men %or unla#%ul possession o% mariuana, but did not place themin the bac* o% a police car$ The o!icer then searched the passen)ercompartment o% the car, includin) 3elton's ac*et that #as lyin) in thebac*seat, #hile the %our arrestees stood nearby$ ;n the ac*et poc*et theo!icer %ound a ba) o% cocaine$ 3elton #as then also char)ed #ith criminal

possession o% a controlled substance$

The ourt ruled that because the ac*et #as #ithin the passen)ercompartment o% the car it #as #ithin 3elton's immediate control, e"enthou)h 3elton #as standin) outside the car$ 3elton had been la#%ullyarrested, and there%ore a #arrantless search o% the arrestee's "ehicle #asla#%ul$

Thornton v. $.%. (&'')

3e%ore a police o!icer could pull


27/248

)reater ris* o% bein) lost$ O!icers should there%ore ha"e more po#er tosecure e"idence o% criminal acti"ity %rom a "ehicle$

5ue to the uniue nature o% "ehicular searches, Chimeldoes not applybecause Chimelin"ol"ed the search o% a home$

Beltonhas been interpreted as )i"in) o!icers the po#er to search a "ehicle

durin) an arrest as lon) as the arrestee remains at the scene o% the arrestand the search is close in time to the arrest, e"en i% the arrestee cannotreach the passen)er compartment o% the car$

A rulin) %or .ant in this case #ould reuire a departure %rom the typicalinterpretation o%Belton$ This #ould, in e!ect,o"erturnBelton$ ;n order too"erturn precedent, a )reat burden must be met$ O"erturnin) theprecedent #ould cause undue hardship, and circumstances ha"e notchan)ed enou)h to #arrant o"erturnin)Belton$ There%ore, the )reatburden is not met$

Arguments for Gant arrantless "ehicular searches are subect to the limitations set out in

Chimel$ There%ore, an o!icer can only search the area #ithin theimmediate control o% the arrestee in order to promote o!icer sa%ety or topreser"e e"idence %rom bein) destroyed$ ;n this case, .ant #as loc*ed inthe police car at the time o% the search$ The passen)er compartment o% hiscar #as not #ithin his immediate control, and there%ore neither o!icersa%ety nor e"idence preser"ation #as an issue$

Thorntonsays that police are allo#ed to search a "ehicle i% it is reasonableto belie"e that doin) so #ould unco"er e"idence related to the arrest o% the

occupant$ .ant #as arrested %or dri"in) #ith a suspended license$ ;t #asnot reasonable to thin* that searchin) the car #ould unco"er any e"idencein relation to that char)e$

Beltonhas been misinterpreted in the past rather than allo#in) o!icers tosearch a "ehicle at the time o% an arrest under any circumstances,Beltononly allo#s o!icers to search the "ehicle i% the arrestee is #ithin reach o%the passen)er compartment at the time o% the search$

;nterpretin)Beltonthis #ay =allo#in) o!icers to only search the "ehicle i%the arrestee is #ithin reach o% the passen)er compartment> still ensureso!icer sa%ety and e"idence preser"ation #hile also respectin) the ri)hts o%

the indi"idual arrestee$

Decision

?ustice te"ens deli"ered the opinion o% the ourt, in #hich ?ustices calia,outer, Thomas and .insbur) oined$ ?ustice Alito #rote a dissentin) opinion, in#hich hie% ?ustice -oberts and ?ustices @ennedy and 3reyer oined$

Majority


28/248

;n a +B decision, the ourt a!irmed the Arizona upreme ourt's rulin)$ ;norder %or a #arrantless "ehicular search at the time o% an arrest to beconstitutional, the arrestee has to be #ithin reach o% the passen)ercompartment, or it has to be reasonable that a search o% the "ehicle #ill turn upe"idence o% the crime %or #hich the person is bein) arrested$

.ant #as handcu!ed in the bac* o% the police car #ith ("e police o!icers

)uardin) him$ There%ore, the ourt reasoned, he #as not #ithin reach o% thepassen)er compartment and o!icer sa%ety and e"idence preser"ation #as not anissue$ Further, he #as arrested %or dri"in) #ith a suspended license$ There%ore,it #as not reasonable %or the police to belie"e that a search o% .ant's "ehicle#ould turn up e"idence related to that char)e$ 3ecause neither o% thesereuirements #as met, the search in this situation #as not constitutional$

Finally, the ourt asserted that they #ere not "iolatin) stare decisisbecause they#ere not o"errulin)Belton$ The interpretation o%Beltonthat the tate reliedupon #as inaccurate there%ore, the ourt #as not o"errulin)Belton, but ratherinterpretin) it properly$

Dissent

The dissentin) ustices ar)ued thatBelton#as meant to )i"e police o!icers thepo#er to search a "ehicle at the time o% arrest re)ardless o% the arrestee's abilityto reach the "ehicle, and the ourt's interpretation o%Belton, #hich limits thearea o% search to the area #ithin the arrestee's reach, in e!ect, o"erruledprecedent$ They noted that #hile their interpretation o%Beltonmay be imper%ect,it is precedent that has been %ollo#ed %or t#entyei)ht years$ The burden too"erturn precedent is )reat, and that burden is not met here$ There%ore, theourt should %ollo# precedent and rule that, because the search #as close intime to the arrest, .ant's Fourth Amendment ri)hts #ere not "iolated$

RESOLUTION FOR MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

G.R. No. +76"8!3. %anuar 3!, 1"89.:

('N0#* 2. N+*S(, #+* *G-#+*R7R;-& and W#++#& (. +&N#N,Petitioners, ecuti


29/248

For resolution are petitionersG and pu)li! respondentsG respe!tive Cotions or Partial Re!onsiderationo this &ourtGs e!ision o O!to)er , 13:, /hi!h de!reed that2 B(!2!hanro)les.!o.ph

9


30/248

9All the arti!les thus sei6ed all under the e?!lusionar% rule totall% and un0ualiiedl% and !annot )eused a(ainst an% o the three petitioners, as held )% the aBorit% in the re!ent !ase o alan v.Paaran ".R. Nos. 1*+-+3, Au(ust +, 13:# . . .9!rala/ virtua1a/li)rar%

A&&ORINL;, !onsiderin( the respe!tive positions no/ ta7en )% the parties, petitionersG Cotion or

Partial Re!onsideration o this &ourtGs e!ision o O!to)er , 13: is RANTE, and the dispositiveportion thereo is here)% revised to read as ollo/s2!hanro)les virtual la/li)rar%


31/248

still, a PA, or the person /hose house the% /ould /ant to sear!h. Ared /ith a /arrant o arrest or aPA, the ilitar% or poli!e /ould sipl% /ait or the person to rea!h his house, then arrest hi. Eveni the person arrested does not resist and has in a!t )een ta7en a/a% alread% ro his house, under theaBorit% rulin(, the arrestin( part% /ould still have the ri(ht to sear!h the house o the arrestee and !arta/a% all his thin(s and use the as eviden!e a(ainst hi in !ourt.

9In su!h a situation, /hat then happens to that strin(ent !onstitutional re0uireent that no sear!h/arrant . . . shall issue e?!ept upon pro)a)le !ause to )e deterined )% the Bud(e, or su!h otherresponsi)le oi!ers as a% )e authori6ed )% la/, ater e?aination under oath or airation o the!oplainant and the /itnesses he a% produ!e, and parti!ularl% des!ri)in( the pla!e to )e sear!hed,and the thin(s to )e sei6edG and the !onstitutional inBun!tion that an% eviden!e o)tained in violation othis . . . shall )e inadissi)le or an% purpose in an% pro!eedin(G9 :

The )etter and esta)lished rule is a stri!t appli!ation o the e?!eption provided in Rule 1*4, se!. 1* andthat is to a)solutel% liit a /arrantless sear!h o a person /ho is la/ull% arrested to his or her personat the tie o and in!ident to his or her arrest and to 9dan(erous /eapons or an%thin( /hi!h a% )eused as proo o the !oission o the oense.9 Su!h /arrantless sear!h o)viousl% !annot )e ade ina pla!e other than the pla!e o arrest. 4

Appl%in( the aorestated rule to this !ase, the undisputed a!t is that petitioner Cila A0uilar Ro0ue /asarrested at 112+ a.. a)oard a pu)li! vehi!le on the road "at Ca%on and P. Car(al Sts.#. Thepronoun!eent )% the aBorit% at that tie, that as an in!ident to her arrest, her d/ellin( at *3-@Ca%on Street !ould )e sear!hed even /ithout a /arrant or eviden!e o the !har(es o re)ellion ileda(ainst her /as !ontrar% to the !onstitutional pros!ription, as deined )% la/ and Burispruden!e. It /astantaount to san!tionin( an untena)le violation, i not nullii!ation, o the )asi! !onstitutional ri(htand (uarantee a(ainst unreasona)le sear!hes and sei6ures.


32/248

*. &laudio Teehan7ee, 'i!ente A)ad Santos and Serain &uevas,--.,

. Raon A0uino and Dero(enes &on!ep!ion $r.,--.,

=. A aniest error2 This !learl% reers to arrest /arrant, ro the thrust o the ar(uent.

:. Re!ord, pa(e *+1.

4. The 13: Revised Rules on &riinal Pro!edure e?pressl% !lariies this throu(h a !han(e in the!aption, as ollo/s2 9Se!. 1* Sear!h in!ident to la/ul arrest. A person la/ull% arrested a% )esear!hed or dan(erous /eapons or an%thin( /hi!h a% )e used as proo o the !oission o anoense, /ithout a sear!h /arrant.9 "Rule 1*4#

%0NSN ). -. S. , 333 -.S. 1! C1"48D

333 -.S. 1!

%0NSN


33/248

and then the deendant opened the door. The oi!er said, I /ant to tal7 to %ou a little )it. She then, ashe des!ri)es it, stepped )a!7 a!0uies!entl% and aditted us. De said, I /ant to tal7 to %ou a)out theopiu sell in the roo here. She denied that there /as su!h a sell. Then he said, I /ant %ou to!onsider %oursel under arrest )e!ause /e are (oin( to sear!h the roo. The sear!h turned upin!riinatin( opiu and so7in( apparatus, the latter )ein( /ar, apparentl% ro re!ent use. Thiseviden!e the istri!t &ourt reused to suppress )eore trial and aditted over deendants o)Be!tion at

the trial. &onvi!tion resulted and the &ir!uit &ourt o Appeals aired. *The deendant !hallen(ed the sear!h o her hoe as a violation o the ri(hts se!ured to her in !oon/ith others, )% the Fourth Aendent to the &onstitution. H U.S. 1+ , 1 The overnent deendsthe sear!h as le(all% Bustiia)le, ore parti!ularl% as in!ident to /hat it ur(es /as a la/ul arrest o theperson.

I.

The Fourth Aendent to the &onstitution o the United States provides2

The ri(ht o the people to )e se!ure in their persons, houses, papers, and ee!ts, a(ainstunreasona)le sear!hes and sei6ures, shall not )e violated, and no


34/248

There are e?!eptional !ir!ustan!es in /hi!h, on )alan!in( the need or ee!tive la/ enor!eenta(ainst the H U.S. 1+ , 1: ri(ht o priva!%, it a% )e !ontended that a a(istrates /arrant or sear!ha% )e dispensed /ith. @ut this is not su!h a !ase. No reason is oered or not o)tainin( a sear!h/arrant e?!ept the in!onvenien!e to the oi!ers and soe sli(ht dela% ne!essar% to prepare papers andpresent the eviden!e to a a(istrate. These are never ver% !onvin!in( reasons and, in these!ir!ustan!es, !ertainl% are not enou(h to )%pass the !onstitutional re0uireent. No suspe!t /as

leein( or li7el% to ta7e li(ht. The sear!h /as o peranent preises, not o a ova)le vehi!le. Noeviden!e or !ontra)and /as threatened /ith reoval or destru!tion, e?!ept perhaps the ues /hi!h/e suppose in tie /ill disappear. @ut the% /ere not !apa)le at an% tie o )ein( redu!ed topossession or presentation to !ourt. The eviden!e o their e?isten!e )eore the sear!h /as ade0uate andthe testion% o the oi!ers to that ee!t /ould not perish ro the dela% o (ettin( a /arrant.

I the oi!ers in this !ase /ere e?!used ro the !onstitutional dut% o presentin( their eviden!e to aa(istrate, it is dii!ult to thin7 o a !ase in /hi!h it should )e re0uired.

II.

The overnent !ontends, ho/ever, that this sear!h /ithout /arrant ust )e held valid )e!ausein!ident to an arrest. This alle(ed (round o vai dit% re0uires e?aination o the a!ts to deterine/hether the arrest itsel /as la/ul. Sin!e it /as /ithout /arrant, it !ould )e valid onl% i or a !rie!oitted in the presen!e o the arrestin( oi!er or or a elon% o /hi!h he had reasona)le !ause to)elieve deendant (uilt%. : H U.S. 1+ , 14 The overnent, in ee!t, !on!edes that the arrestin(oi!er did not have pro)a)le !ause to arrest petitioner until he had entered her roo and ound her to)e the sole o!!upant. 4 It points out spe!ii!all%, reerrin( to the tie Bust )eore entr%, For at that tiethe a(ents did not 7no/ /hether there /as one or several persons in the roo. It /as reasona)le to)elieve that the roo i(ht have )een an opiu so7in( den. And it sa%s, that /hen the a(ents/ere aditted to the roo and ound onl% the petitioner present the% had a reasona)le )asis or)elievin( that she had )een so7in( opiu and thus illi!itl% possessed the nar!oti!. Thus theovernent 0uite properl% sta7es the ri(ht to arrest, not on the inorers tip and the sell the oi!ersre!o(ni6ed )eore entr%, )ut on the 7no/led(e that she /as alone in the roo, (ained onl% ater, and/holl% )% reason o, their entr% o her hoe. It /as thereore their o)servations inside o her 0uarters,ater the% had o)tained adission under !olor o their poli!e authorit%, on /hi!h the% ade the arrest.

Thus the overnent is o)li(ed to Busti% the arrest )% the sear!h and at the sae tie to Busti% thesear!h )% H U.S. 1+ , 1 the arrest. This /ill not do. An oi!er (ainin( a!!ess to private livin(0uarters under !olor o his oi!e and o the la/ /hi!h he personiies ust then have soe valid )asisin la/ or the intrusion. An% other rule /ould underine the ri(ht o the people to )e se!ure in theirpersons, houses, papers and ee!ts, and /ould o)literate one o the ost undaental distin!tions)et/een our or o (overnent, /here oi!ers are under the la/, and the poli!e-state /here the% arethe la/.

Reversed.

The &DIEF $USTI&E, Cr. $usti!e @LA&, Cr. $usti!e REE and Cr. $usti!e @URTON dissent.

/ootnotes
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=333&invol=10#f5http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=333&invol=10#f6http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=333&invol=10#fhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=333&invol=10#f5http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=333&invol=10#f6http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=333&invol=10#f


35/248

H Footnote 1 T/o !ounts !har(ed violation o *::"a# o the Internal Revenue &ode, *4 U.S.&.*::"a#, *4 U.S.&.A. Int.Rev.&ode, *::"a#, and t/o !ounts !har(ed violation o the Nar!oti! ru(sIport and E?port A!t, as aended, *1 U.S.&. 1=, *1 U.S.&.A. 1=.

H Footnote * 3 &ir., 14* F.*d :4*.

H Footnote In United States v. Le7o/it6, *: U.S. =:*, =4= , =*, * A.L.R. :, this &ourt said2 the inored and deli)erate deterinations o a(istrates epo/ered to issue /arrants as to /hatsear!hes and sei6ures are perissi)le under the &onstitution are to )e preerred over the hurried a!tiono oi!ers and others /ho a% happen to a7e arrests. Se!urit% a(ainst unla/ul sear!hes is oreli7el% to )e attained )% resort to sear!h /arrants than )% relian!e upon the !aution and sa(a!it% o pett%oi!ers /hile a!tin( under the e?!iteent that attends the !apture o persons a!!used o !rie.

H Footnote = @elie, ho/ever /ell ounded, that an arti!le sou(ht is !on!ealed in a d/ellin( house,urnishes no Bustii!ation or a sear!h o that pla!e /ithout a /arrant. And su!h sear!hes are heldunla/ul not/ithstandin( a!ts un0uestiona)l% sho/in( pro)a)le !ause. A(nello v. United States, *43U.S. *+, , 4, :1 A.L.R. =+3.

H Footnote : This is the


36/248

depre!iation o the ri(hts se!ured )% the, )% iper!epti)le pra!ti!e o !ourts or )% /ell-intentioned,)ut ista7enl% over6ealous, e?e!utive oi!ers.

)LAIN @IEW DOCTRINE

G.R. No. 96>> /%&%r4 , 993

)EO)LE OF THE )HILI))INES, plaintiff%appellee,vs.#ARI #USA 4 HANTATALU, accused%appellant.

3e Soli$itor 'eneral for plaintiff4appellee.

Pablo . M#rillo for a$$#sed4appellant.

RO#ERO, J.:

The appellant, /ari /usa, see@s, in this appeal, the reversal of the decision, dated August 2(, (**5,of the $egional Trial Court -$TC of

amboanga City, 7ranch ##, finding him guilty of selling mari:uana in violation of Article ##, ection of $epublicAct No. )01, as amended, otherwise @nown as the angerous rugs Act of (*H0.

The information filed on ecember (1, (*+* against the appellant reads4

That on or about ecember (, (*+*, in the City of amboanga, Philippines, and within the:urisdiction of this


37/248

turned over the newspaper%wrapped mari:uana to Tgt. ?esus 7elarga. gt. 7elarga inspectedthe stuff turned over to him and found it to be mari:uana.

The ne>t day, ecember (, (*+*, about (425 P./., a buy%bust was planned. gt. Amado Aniwas assigned as the poseur buyer for which purpose he was given P05.55 -with N !A*11++2by 7elarga. Thebuy%bust money had been ta@en by Tgt. ?esus 7elarga from /gt. Noh ali /ihasun, Chiefof #nvestigation ection, and for which 7elarga signed a receipt -'>h. 3L3 3L%l3 The teamunder gt. Eoncargas was assigned as bac@%up security. A pre%arranged signal was arrangedconsisting of gt. AniFs raising his right hand, after he had succeeded to buy the mari:uana. Thetwo NA$CO/ teams proceeded to the target site in two civilian vehicles. 7elargaFs team wascomposed of gt. 7elarga, team leader, gt. Amado Ani, poseur buyer, gt. Lego and gt.7iong.

Arriving at the target site, gt. Ani proceeded to the house of /ari /usa, while the rest of theNA$CO/ group positioned themselves at strategic places about *5 to (55 meters from /ari/usaFs house. Tgt. 7elarga could see what went on between Ani and suspect /ari /usa fromwhere he was. Ani approached /ari /usa, who came out of his house, and as@ed Ani what hewanted. Ani said he wanted some more stuff. Ani gave /ari /usa the P05.55 mar@ed money.

After receiving the money, /ari /usa went bac@ to his house and came bac@ and gave AmadoAni two newspaper wrappers containing dried mari:uana. Ani opened the two wrappers andinspected the contents. Convinced that the contents were mari:uana, Ani wal@ed bac@ towardshis companions and raised his right hand. The two NA$CO/ teams, riding the two civilianvehicles, sped towards gt. Ani. Ani :oined 7elargaFs team and returned to the house.

At the time gt. Ani first approached /ari /usa, there were four persons inside his house4 /ari/usa, another boy, and two women, one of whom Ani and 7elarga later came to @now to be/ari /usaFs wife. The second time, Ani with the NA$CO/ team returned to /ari /usaFs house,the woman, who was later @nown as /ari /usaFs wife, slipped away from the house. gt.7elarga fris@ed /ari /usa but could not find the P05.55 mar@ed money with him. /ari /usawas then as@ed where the P05.55 was and he told the NA$CO/ team he has given the moneyto his wife -who had slipped away. gt. 7elarga also found a plastic bag containing driedmari:uana inside it somewhere in the @itchen. /ari /usa was then placed under arrest andbrought to the NA$CO/ office. At uterville, gt. Ani turned over to gt. 7elarga the two

newspaper%wrapped mari:uana he had earlier bought from /ari /usa -'>hs. 3C3 33.

#n the NA$CO/ office, /ari /usa first gave his name as amination. The turnover of the mari:uana specimen to the PC Crime Laboratory was by way ofa letter%reDuest, dated ecember (, (*+* -'>h. 373, which was stamped 3$'C'#9'3 by thePC Crime Laboratory -'>h. 37%(3 on the same day.

/rs. Athena 'lisa P. Anderson, the Eorensic Chemist of the PC Crime Laboratory, e>amined themari:uana specimens sub:ecting the same to her three tests. All submitted specimens shee>amined gave positive results for the presence of mari:uana. /rs. Anderson reported theresults of her e>amination in her Chemistry $eport %(55%+*, dated ecember (, (*+*, -'>h.3?3, 3?%(3, 3?%03, 3?%23, 3?%3 and 3?%13. /rs. Anderson identified in court the two newspaperwrapped mari:uana bought at thebuy%bust on ecember (, (*+*, through her initial and the weight of each specimen writtenwith red in@ on each wrapper -'>hs. 3C%(3 and 3%(3. he also identified the one newspaper%wrapped mari:uana bought at the test%buy on ecember (2, (*+*, through her mar@ings -'>h.3'%(3. /rs. Anderson also identified her Chemistry $eport -'>h. 3?3 sub%mar@ings.


38/248

T. gt. 7elarga identified the two buy%bust newspaper wrapped mari:uana through his initial, thewords 3buy%bust3 and the words 3ecember (, (*+*, 041 P./.3 -written on '>hs. 3C3 and 33.7elarga also identified the receipt of the P05 mar@ed money -with N !A*11++2 -'>h. 3L3,dated ecember (, (*+*, and his signature thereon -'>h.3L%(3. h. 37%03 and the stamp of the PCCrime Laboratory mar@ed 3$'C'#9'3 -'>h. 37%(3.=

Eor the defense, the following testified as witnesses4 -( the accused%appellant /ari amination /ari /usa said it wason the ne>t day, /ari /usa was brought to the EiscalFs Office by three NA$CO/ agents. Thefiscal as@ed him if the mari:uana was owned by him and he said 3not.3 After that single Duestion,/ari /usa was brought to the City ?ail. /ari /usa said he did not tell the fiscal that he had beenmaltreated by the NA$CO/ agents because he was afraid he might be maltreated in the fiscalFsoffice.

/ari /usa denied the NA$CO/ agentsF charge that he had sold two wrappers of mari:uana tothem8 that he had received from them a P05.55 bill which he had given to his wife.


39/248

#n this appeal, the appellant contends that his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and impugns thecredibility of the prosecution witnesses.

The appellant claims that the testimony of gt. Ani, the poseur%buyer, is not credible because4 -( prior to thebuy%bust operation, neither gt. Ani nor the other NA$CO/ agents were personally @nown by the appellant orvice%versa8 and -0 there was no witness to the alleged giving of the two wrappers of mari:uana by the appellantto gt. Ani.

gt. Ani testified that on ecember (2, (*+*, upon instruction by Tgt. ?esus 7elarga, he conducted a test%buyoperation on the appellant whereby he bought one wrapper of mari:uana for P(1.55 from the latter.>


40/248

7elarga allegedly did not see the sale, the appellant contends that the uncorroborated testimony of gt. Ani cannot stand as basis for his conviction.

People v. Ale does not apply here because the policeman in that case testified that he and his companion werecertain that the appellant therein handed mari:uana cigarettes to the poseur%buyer based on the appearance ofthe cigarette stic@s. The Court re:ected this claim, stating that4

This Court cannot give full credit to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses mar@ed as theyare with contradictions and tainted with inaccuracies.

7i=an testified that they were able to tell that the four cigarettes were mari:uana cigarettesbecause according to him, the rolling of ordinary cigarettes are different from those of mari:uanacigarettes. -tsn, November (2, (*+, p. (5.

#t is however, incredible to believe that they could discern the type of rolling done on thosecigarettes from the distance where they were observing the alleged sale of more or less (5 to (1meters.change of certain articles between the two. The

relevant portion of Tgt. 7elargaFs testimony reads4


41/248

The corroborative testimony of Tgt. 7elarga strengthens the direct evidence given by gt. Ani. Additionally, theCourt has ruled that the fact that the police officers who accompanied the poseur%buyer were unable to seee>actly what the appellant gave the poseur%buyer because of their distance or position will not be fatal to theprosecutionFs case30provided there e>ists other evidence, direct or circumstantial, e.g., the testimony of theposeur%buyer, which is sufficient to prove the consummation of the sale of the prohibited drug

The appellant ne>t assails the sei6ure and admission as evidence of a plastic bag containing mari:uana whichthe NA$CO/ agents found in the appellantFs @itchen. #t appears that after gt. Ani gave the pre%arranged signalto the other NA$CO/ agents, the latter moved in and arrested the appellant inside the house. They searchedhim to retrieve the mar@ed money but didnFt find it. "pon being Duestioned, the appellant said that he gave themar@ed money to his wife.3Thereafter, Tgt. 7elarga and gt. Lego went to the @itchen and noticed whatTgt. 7elarga described as a 3cellophane colored white and stripe hanging at the corner of the @itchen.3 3cept upon probable cause to bedetermined personally by the :udge after e>amination under oath or affirmation of thecomplainant and the witness he may produce, and particularly describing the place to besearched and the persons or things to be sei6ed.

Eurthermore, the Constitution, in conformity with the doctrine laid down in Stoneill v. Diokno, 3=declaresinadmissible, any evidence obtained in violation of the freedom from unreasonable searches and sei6ures. 3!

;hile a valid search warrant is generally necessary before a search and sei6ure may be effected, e>ceptions tothis rule are recogni6ed. Thus, inAlvero v. Di(on,36the Court stated that. 3Kthe most important e>ception to thenecessity for a search warrant is the right of search and sei6ure as an incident to a lawful arrest.33>

$ule (0), ection (0 of the $ules of Court e>pressly authori6es a warrantless search and sei6ure incident to alawful arrest, thus4

ec. (0. Sear$ in$ident to la%f#l arrest. J A person lawfully arrested may be searched fordangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense,without a search warrant.

There is no doubt that the warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest authori6es the arresting officer to ma@ea search upon the person of the person arrested. As early as (*5*, the Court has ruled that 3Kan officer ma@ingan arrest may ta@e from the person arrested any money or property found upon his person which was used inthe commission of the crime or was the fruit of the crime or which might furnish the prisoner with the means ofcommittingviolence or of escaping, or which may be used as evidence in the trial of the cause . . . 3 38tend beyond the personof the one arrested to include the premises or surroundings under his immediate control.=0Ob:ects in the 3plain


42/248

view3 of an officer who has the right to be in the position to have that view are sub:ect to sei6ure and may bepresented as evidence.=

#n 5er v. California=tend a general e>ploratory search made solely to f ind evidence of defendantFs guilt. The 3plain view3doctrine is usually applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, butnonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating ob:ect.=!Eurthermore, the ".. upreme Court statedthe following limitations on the application of the doctrine4

;hat the 3plain view3 cases have in common is that the police officer in each of them had a prior :ustification foran intrusion in the course of which he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused.The doctrine serves to supplement the prior :ustification J whether it be a warrant for another ob:ect, hot pursuit,search incident to lawful arrest, or some other legitimate reason for being present unconnected with a searchdirected against the accused J and permits the warrantless sei6ure. Of course, the e>tension of the original

:ustification is legitimate only where it is immediately apparent to the police that they have evidence before them8the 3plain view3 doctrine may not be used to e>tend a general e>ploratory search from one ob:ect to another untilsomething incriminating at last emerges. =6

#t has also been suggested that even if an ob:ect is observed in 3plain view,3 the 3plain view3 doctrine will not:ustify the sei6ure of the ob:ect where the incriminating nature of the ob:ect is not apparent from the 3plain view3of the ob:ect.=>tated differently, it must be immediately apparent to the police that the items that they observemay be evidence of a crime, contraband, or otherwise sub:ect to sei6ure.

#n the instant case, the appellant was arrested and his person searched in the living room. Eailing to retrieve themar@ed money which they hoped to find, the NA$CO/ agents searched the whole house and found the plasticbag in the @itchen. The plastic bag was, therefore, not within their 3plain view3 when they arrested the appellantas to :ustify its sei6ure. The NA$CO/ agents had to move from one portion of the house to another before theysighted the plastic bag. "nli@e 5er vs. California, where the police officer had reason to wal@ to the doorway ofthe ad:acent @itchen and from which position he saw the mari:uana, the NA$CO/ agents in this case went fromroom to room with the obvious intention of fishing for more evidence.

/oreover, when the NA$CO/ agents saw the plastic bag hanging in one corner of the @itchen, they had no clue

as to its contents. They had to as@ the appellant what the bag contained. ;hen the appellant refused to respond,they opened it and found the mari:uana. "nli@e 5er v. California, where the mari:uana was visible to the policeofficerFs eyes, the NA$CO/ agents in this case could not have discovered the inculpatory nature of the contentsof the bag had they not forcibly opened it. 'ven assuming then, that the NA$CO/ agents inadvertently cameacross the plastic bag because it was within their 3plain view,3 what may be said to be the ob:ect in their 3plainview3 was :ust the plastic bag and not the mari:uana. The incriminating nature of the contents of the plastic bagwas not immediately apparent from the 3plain view3 of said ob:ect. #t cannot be claimed that the plastic bagclearly betrayed its contents, whether by its distinctive configuration, its transprarency, or otherwise, that itscontents are obvious to an observer.=8


43/248

;e, therefore, hold that under the circumstances of the case, the 3plain view3 doctrine does not apply and themari:uana contained in the plastic bag was sei6ed illegally and cannot be presented in evidence pursuant to

Article ###, ection 2-0 of the Constitution.

The e>clusion of this particular evidence does not, however, diminish, in any way, the damaging effect of theother pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution to prove that the appellant sold mari:uana, in violation of

Article ##, ection of the angerous rugs Act of (*H0. ;e hold that by virtue of the testimonies of gt. Ani andTgt. 7elarga and the two wrappings of mari:uana sold by the appellant to gt. Ani, among other pieces ofevidence, the guilt of the appellant of the crime charged has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

;


44/248

and our "=# other poli!een as e)ers. P8Insp. &ortes desi(nated PO Canlan(it as the poseur-)u%er and SPO1 @adua as his )a!7-up, and the rest o the tea as perieter se!urit%. SuperintendentPedro Al!antara, &hie o the North Cetropolitan istri!t PNP Nar!o, (ave the tea P*,+++.++ to!over operational e?penses. Fro this su, PO Canlan(it set aside P1,4++.++-- a one thousand peso)ill and si? "4# one hundred peso )illsiiiH-- as one% or the )u%-)ust operation. The ar7et pri!e oone 7ilo o ariBuana /as then P1,4++.++. PO Canlan(it ar7ed the )ills /ith his initials and listed

their serial nu)ers in the poli!e )lotter.

iv

H= The tea rode in t/o !ars and headed or the tar(et area.At 2*+ o the sae ornin(, 9$un9 appeared and the &I introdu!ed PO Canlan(it as interested in)u%in( one "1# 7ilo o ariBuana. PO Canlan(it handed 9$un9 the ar7ed )ills /orth P1,4++.++. 9$un9instru!ted PO Canlan(it to /ait or hi at the !orner o Sha/ @oulevard and $a!into Street /hile he(ot the ariBuana ro his asso!iate.vH: An hour later, 9$un9 appeared at the a(reed pla!e /here POCanlan(it, the &I and the rest o the tea /ere /aitin(. 9$un9 too7 out ro his )a( an o)Be!t /rappedin plasti! and (ave it to PO Canlan(it. PO Canlan(it orth/ith arrested 9$un9 as SPO1 @aduarushed to help in the arrest. The% ris7ed 9$un9 )ut did not ind the ar7ed )ills on hi. Upon in0uir%,9$un9 revealed that he let the one% at the house o his asso!iate naed 9Neneth.9viH49$un9 led thepoli!e tea to 9Neneths9 house near)% at aan( @a7al.

The tea ound the door o 9Neneths9 house open and a /oan inside. 9$un9 identiied the /oan ashis asso!iate.viiHSPO1 @adua as7ed 9Neneth9 a)out the P1,4++.++ as PO Canlan(it loo7ed over9Neneths9 house. Standin( )% the door, PO Canlan(it noti!ed a !arton )o? under the dinin( ta)le. Desa/ that one o the )o?s laps /as open and inside the )o? /as soethin( /rapped in plasti!. Theplasti! /rapper and its !ontents appeared siilar to the ariBuana earlier 9sold9 to hi )% 9$un.9 Dissuspi!ion aroused, PO Canlan(it entered 9Neneths9 house and too7 hold o the )o?. De pee7ed insidethe )o? and ound that it !ontained ten "1+# )ri!7s o /hat appeared to )e dried ariBuana leaves.

Siultaneous /ith the )o?s dis!over%, SPO1 @adua re!overed the ar7ed )ills ro 9Neneth.9viiiHThe poli!een arrested 9Neneth.9 The% too7 9Neneth9 and 9$un,9 to(ether /ith the )o?, its !ontentsand the ar7ed )ills and turned the over to the investi(ator at head0uarters. It /as onl% then that thepoli!e learned that 9$un9 is Floren!io oria % @olado /hile 9Neneth9 is 'ioleta addao % &ataa. Theone "1# )ri!7 o dried ariBuana leaves re!overed ro 9$un9 plus the ten "1+# )ri!7s re!overed ro9Neneths9 house /ere e?ained at the PNP &rie La)orator%.i?H3 The )ri!7s, eleven "11# in all, /ereound to )e dried ariBuana ruitin( tops o various /ei(hts totallin( ,4=1.+ (ras.?H1+Theprose!ution stor% /as denied )% a!!used-appellants Floren!io oria and 'ioleta addao. Floren!iooria, a -%ear old !arpenter, testiied that on e!e)er :, 133:, at 2++ in the ornin(, he /as at the(ate o his house readin( a ta)loid ne/spaper. T/o en appeared and as7ed hi i he 7ne/ a !ertain9Toto%.9 There /ere an% 9Toto%s9 in their area and as the en 0uestionin( hi /ere stran(ers,a!!used-appellant denied 7no/in( an% 9Toto%.9 The en too7 a!!used-appellant inside his house anda!!used hi

warrantless search and seizure

Documents