PEOPLE V ARUTA On December 13, 1988, P/Lt.

Abello was tipped off by his informant, known only as Benjie, that a certain "Aling Rosa" would be arriving from Baguio City the following day, December 14, 1988, with a large volume of marijuana. Acting on said tip, P/Lt. Abello assembled a team composed of P/Lt. Jose. While thus positioned, a Victory Liner Bus with body number 474 and the letters BGO printed on its font and back bumpers stopped in front of the PNB building at around 6:30 in the evening of the same day from where two females and a male got off. It was at this stage that the informant pointed out to the team "Aling Rosa" who was then carrying a traveling bag. Having ascertained that accused-appellant was "Aling Rosa," the team approached her and introduced themselves as NARCOM agents. When P/Lt. Abello asked "Aling Rosa" about the contents of her bag, the latter handed it to the former.

especially when its transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause that the occupant committed a criminal activity; 4. Consented warrantless search;6. Stop and Frisk; 10 and 7. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances. 11

In the instant case, the NARCOM agents were admittedly not armed with a warrant of arrest. To legitimize the warrantless search and seizure of accused-appellant's bag, accused-appellant must have been validly arrested under Section 5 of Rule 113 which provides inter alia: Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; xxx xxx xxx Accused-appellant Aruta cannot be said to be committing a crime. Neither was she about to commit one nor had she just committed a crime. Accused-appellant was merely crossing the street and was not acting in any manner that would engender a reasonable ground for the NARCOM agents to suspect and conclude that she was committing a crime. It was only when the informant pointed to accusedappellant and identified her to the agents as the carrier of the marijuana that she was singled out as the suspect. In the absence of probable cause to effect a valid and legal warrantless arrest, the search and seizure of accused-appellant's bag would also not be justified as seizure of evidence in "plain view" under the second exception. The marijuana was obviously not immediately apparent as shown by the fact that the NARCOM agents still had to request accused-

The following cases are specifically provided or allowed by law: 1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court 8 and by prevailing jurisprudence; 2. Seizure of evidence in "plain view," the elements of which are: (a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties; (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they are; (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent, and (d) "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence without further search; 3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the government, the vehicle's inherent mobility reduces expectation of privacy

appellant to open the bag to ascertain its contents. Neither would the search and seizure of accused-appellant's bag be justified as a search of a moving vehicle. There was no moving vehicle to speak of in the instant case as accused-appellant was apprehended several minutes after alighting from the Victory Liner bus. In fact, she was accosted in the middle of the street and not while inside the vehicle. Aside from the inapplicability of the abovecited case, the act of herein accused-appellant in handing over her bag to the NARCOM agents could not be construed as voluntary submission or an implied acquiescence to the unreasonable search. The instant case is similar to People v. Encinada, 26 where this Court held: PEOPLE V DORIA

waiting. "Jun" took out from his bag an object wrapped in plastic and gave it to P03 Manlangit. P03 Manlangit forthwith arrested "Jun" as SPO1 Badua rushed to help in the arrest. They frisked "Jun" but did not find the marked bills on him. Upon inquiry, "Jun" revealed that he left the money at the house of his associate named "Neneth. 6 "Jun" led the police team to "Neneth's" house nearby at Daang Bakal. Appeal DORIA Entrapment is the conception and planning of an offense by an officer, and his procurement of its commission by one who would not have perpetrated it except for the trickery, percuasion or fraud of the officers." 23 It consists of two (2) elements: (a) acts of percuasion, trickery, or fraud carried out by law enforcement officers or the agents to induce a defendant to commit a crime; and (b) the origin of the criminal design in the minds of thegovernment officials rather than that of the innocent defendant, such that the crime is the product of the creative activity of the law enforcement officer. 24

The prosecution contends the offense was committed as follows: In November 1995, members of the North Metropolitan District, Philippine National Police (PNP) Narcotics Command (Narcom), received information from two (2) civilian informants (CI) that one "Jun" was engaged in illegal drug activities in Mandaluyong City. The Narcom agents decided to entrap and arrest "Jun" in a buy-bust operation. At 7:20 of the same morning, "Jun" appeared and the CI introduced PO3 Manlangit as interested in buying one (1) kilo of marijuana. P03 Manlangit handed "Jun" the marked bills worth P1,600.00. "Jun" instructed P03 Manlangit to wait for him at the corner of Shaw Boulevard and Jacinto Street while he got the marijuana from his associate. 5 An hour later, "Jun" appeared at the agreed place where P03 Manlangit, the CI and the rest of the team were

The test of entrapment is whether the conduct of the law enforcement agent was likely to induce a normally law-abiding person, other than one who is ready and willing, to commit the offense; 41 Objective test, Here, the court considers the nature of the police activity involved and the propriety of police conduct. 39 The inquiry is focused on the inducements used by government agents, on police conduct, not on the accused and his predisposition to commit the crime. Both the "subjective" and "objective" approaches have been criticized and objected to. It is claimed that the "subjective" test

creates an "anything goes" rule, i.e, if the court determines that an accused was predisposed to commit the crime charged, no level of police deceit, badgering or other unsavory practices will be deemed impermissible. 47 Delving into the accused's character and predisposition obscures the more important task of judging police behavior and prejudices the accused more generally. It ignores the possibility that no matter what his past crimes and general disposition were, the accused might not have committed the particular crime unless confronted with inordinate inducements. We therefore stress that the "objective" test in buy-bust operations demands that the details of the purported transaction must be clearly and adequately shown. This must start from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale. We also hold that the warrantless arrest of accused-appellant Doria is not unlawful who was merely standing outside her house. Accused-appellant Gaddao was not caught redhanded during the buy-bust operation to give ground for her arrest under Section 5 (a) of Rule 113. She was not committing any crime. Contrary to the finding of the trial court, there was no occasion at all for appellant Gaddao to flee from the policemen to justify her arrest in "hot pursuit." 114 In fact, she was going about her daily chores when the policemen pounced on her. The "plain view" doctrine applies when the following requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a

position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. 122 The marijuana was not in plain view and its seizure without the requisite search warrant was in violation of the law and the Constitution. 135 It was fruit of the poisonous tree and should have been excluded and never considered by the trial court. 136

PEOPLE V MOLINA

At about 7:30 in the morning of August 8, 1996, SPO1 Paguidopon received an information that the alleged pusher will be passing at NHA, Maa, Davao City any time that morning.9 While the team were positioned in the house of SPO1 Paguidopon, a "trisikad" carrying the accused-appellants passed by. At that instance, SPO1 Paguidopon pointed to the accusedappellants as the pushers. Thereupon The police officers then ordered the "trisikad" to stop. At that point, accused-appellant Mula who was holding a black bag handed the same to accused-appellant Molina. Subsequently, SPO1 Pamplona introduced himself as a police officer and asked accused-appellant Molina to open the bag.13 Molina replied, "Boss, if possible we will settle this."14 SPO1 Pamplona insisted on opening the bag, which revealed dried marijuana leaves inside. Thereafter; accusedappellants Mula and Molina were handcuffed by the police officers.15 On December 6, 1996,

committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. The arresting officer, therefore, must have personal knowledge of such fact or, as recent case law adverts to, personal knowledge of facts or circumstances convincingly indicative or constitutive of probable cause. Thus, a peace officer or a private person may, without warrant, arrest a person: (a) when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense (arrest in flagrante delicto); (b) when an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it (arrest effected in hot pursuit); and (c) when the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or a place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another ( arrest of escaped prisoners ).27 In the case at bar, the court a quo anchored its judgment