G.R. No. 81561 January 18, 1991 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs. ANDRE MARTI, accused-appellant.

BIDIN, J.:p This is an appeal from a decision rendered by the Special Criminal Court of Manila (Regional Trial Court, Branch !" # convicting accused-appellant of violation of Section $% (b#, &rticle "' in relation to Section (, &rticle %% and Section $ (e# (i#, &rticle % of Republic &ct )($*, as amended, other+ise ,no+n as the -angerous -rugs &ct. The facts as summari.ed in the brief of the prosecution are as follo+s/ 0n &ugust %(, %123, bet+een %4/44 and %%/44 a.m., the appellant and his common-la+ +ife, Shirley Reyes, +ent to the booth of the 5Manila 6ac,ing and 78port 9or+arders5 in the 6istang 6ilipino Comple8, 7rmita, Manila, carrying +ith them four ((# gift +rapped pac,ages. &nita Reyes (the proprietress and no relation to Shirley Reyes# attended to them. The appellant informed &nita Reyes that he +as sending the pac,ages to a friend in :urich, S+it.erland. &ppellant filled up the contract necessary for the transaction, +riting therein his name, passport number, the date of shipment and the name and address of the consignee, namely, 5;&!T7R 9"7R:, Mattac,etr "", 24*$ :urich, S+it.erland5 (-ecision, p. )# &nita Reyes then as,ed the appellant if she could e8amine and inspect the pac,ages. &ppellant, ho+ever, refused, assuring her that the pac,ages simply contained boo,s, cigars, and gloves and +ere gifts to his friend in :urich. "n vie+ of appellant<s representation, &nita Reyes no longer insisted on inspecting the pac,ages. The four ((# pac,ages +ere then placed inside a bro+n corrugated bo8 one by t+o feet in si.e (%< 8 $<#. Styro-foam +as placed at the bottom and on top of the pac,ages before the bo8 +as sealed +ith mas,ing tape, thus ma,ing the bo8 ready for shipment (-ecision, p. 2#. Before delivery of appellant<s bo8 to the Bureau of Customs and=or Bureau of 6osts, Mr. Job Reyes (proprietor) and husband of Anita (Reyes), following standard operating procedure, opened the boxes for final inspection. When he opened appellant's box, a peculiar odor emitted therefrom. is curiousity aroused, he s!uee"ed one of the bundles allegedly containing glo#es and felt dried lea#es inside. $pening one of the bundles, he pulled out a cellophane wrapper protruding from the opening of one of the glo#es. e made an opening on one of the cellophane wrappers and too% se#eral grams of the contents thereof (tsn, pp. $1->4, 0ctober ), %123? 7mphasis supplied#. @ob Reyes forth+ith prepared a letter reporting the shipment to the AB" and reBuesting a laboratory e8amination of the samples he e8tracted from the cellophane +rapper (tsn, pp. *-), 0ctober ), %123#. Ce brought the letter and a sample of appellant<s shipment to the Aarcotics Section of the Aational Bureau of "nvestigation (AB"#, at about %/>4 o<cloc, in the afternoon of that date, i.e., &ugust %(, %123. Ce +as intervie+ed by the Chief of Aarcotics Section. @ob Reyes informed the AB" that the rest of the shipment +as still in his office. Therefore, @ob Reyes and three (># AB" agents, and a photographer, +ent to the Reyes< office at 7rmita, Manila (tsn, p. >4, 0ctober ), %123#. Job Reyes brought out the box in which appellant's pac%ages were placed and, in the presence of the &'( agents, opened the top flaps, remo#ed the styro)foam and too% out the cellophane wrappers from inside the glo#es. -ried mariDuana leaves +ere found to have been contained inside the cellophane +rappers (tsn, p. >2, 0ctober ), %123? 7mphasis supplied#. The pac,age +hich allegedly contained boo,s +as li,e+ise opened by @ob Reyes. Ce discovered that the pac,age contained bric,s or ca,e-li,e dried mariDuana leaves. The pac,age +hich allegedly contained tabacalera cigars +as also opened. "t turned out that dried mariDuana leaves +ere neatly stoc,ed underneath the cigars (tsn, p. >1, 0ctober ), %123#. The AB" agents made an inventory and too, charge of the bo8 and of the contents thereof, after signing a 5Receipt5 ac,no+ledging custody of the said effects (tsn, pp. $->, 0ctober 3, %123#. Thereupon, the AB" agents tried to locate appellant but to no avail. &ppellant<s stated address in his passport being the Manila Central 6ost 0ffice, the agents reBuested assistance from the latter<s Chief Security. 0n

&ugust $3, %123, appellant, +hile claiming his mail at the Central 6ost 0ffice, +as invited by the AB" to shed light on the attempted shipment of the sei.ed dried leaves. 0n the same day the Aarcotics Section of the AB" submitted the dried leaves to the 9orensic Chemistry Section for laboratory e8amination. "t turned out that the dried leaves +ere mariDuana flo+ering tops as certified by the forensic chemist. (&ppellee<s Brief, pp. 1%%, Rollo, pp. %>$-%>(#. Thereafter, an "nformation +as filed against appellant for violation of R& )($*, other+ise ,no+n as the -angerous -rugs &ct. &fter trial, the court a !uo rendered the assailed decision. "n this appeal, accused=appellant assigns the follo+ing errors, to +it/ TC7 !0;7R C0ERT 7RR7- "A &-M"TT"AF "A 7'"-7AC7 TC7 "!!7F&!!G S7&RCC7&A- S7":7- 0B@7CTS C0AT&"A7- "A TC7 90ER 6&RC7!S. TC7 !0;7R C0ERT 7RR7- "A C0A'"CT"AF &667!!&AT -7S6"T7 TC7 EA-"S6ET79&CT TC&T C"S R"FCTS EA-7R TC7 C0AST"TET"0A ;C"!7 EA-7R CEST0-"&! 6R0C77-"AFS ;7R7 A0T 0BS7R'7-. TC7 !0;7R C0ERT 7RR7- "A A0T F"'"AF CR7-7AC7 T0 TC7 7 6!&A&T"0A 09 TC7 &667!!&AT 0A C0; TC7 90ER 6&RC7!S C&M7 "AT0 C"S 60SS7SS"0A (&ppellant<s Brief, p. %?Rollo, p. **# %. &ppellant contends that the evidence subDect of the imputed offense had been obtained in violation of his constitutional rights against unreasonable search and sei.ure and privacy of communication (Sec. $ and >, &rt. """, Constitution# and therefore argues that the same should be held inadmissible in evidence (Sec. > ($#, &rt. """#. Sections $ and >, &rticle """ of the Constitution provide/ Sec. $. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and sei.ures of +hatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search +arrant or +arrant of arrest shall issue e8cept upon probable cause to be determined personally by the Dudge after e8amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the +itnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be sei.ed. Sec. >. (%# The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable e8cept upon la+ful order of the court, or +hen public safety or order reBuires other+ise as prescribed by la+. ($# &ny evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. 0ur present constitutional provision on the guarantee against unreasonable search and sei.ure had its origin in the %1>* Charter +hich, +orded as follo+s/ The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and sei.ures shall not be violated, and no +arrants shall issue but uponprobable cause, to be determined by the Dudge after e8amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the +itnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be sei.ed. (Sec. % H>I, &rticle """# +as in turn derived almost verbatim from the 9ourth &mendment to the Enited States Constitution. &s such, the Court may turn to the pronouncements of the Enited States 9ederal Supreme Court and State &ppellate Courts +hich are considered doctrinal in this Durisdiction. Thus, follo+ing the e8clusionary rule laid do+n in Mapp #. $hio by the *+ ,ederal +upreme -ourt (>)3 ES )(>, 2% S.Ct. %)2(, ) !.7d. %42% H%1)%I#, this Court, in +tonehill #. .io%no ($4 SCR& >2> H%1)3I#, declared as inadmissible any evidence obtained by virtue of a defective search and sei.ure +arrant, abandoning in the process the ruling earlier adopted in Moncado #. /eople's -ourt (24 6hil. % H%1(2I# +herein the admissibility of evidence +as not affected by the illegality of its sei.ure. The %13> Charter (Sec. ( H$I, &rt. "'# constitutionali.ed the +tonehill ruling and is carried over up to the present +ith the advent of the %123 Constitution.

"n a number of cases, the Court strictly adhered to the e8clusionary rule and has struc, do+n the admissibility of evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional safeguard against unreasonable searches and sei.ures. (Bache J Co., (6hil.#, "nc., v. Rui., >3 SCR& 2$> H%13%I? !im v. 6once de !eon, )) SCR& $11 H%13*I? 6eople v. Burgos, %(( SCR& % H%12)I? Roan v. Fon.ales, %(* SCR& )23 H%123I? +ee also Sala.ar v. Con. &chacoso, et al., FR Ao. 2%*%4, March %(, %114#. "t must be noted, ho+ever, that in all those cases adverted to, the evidence so obtained +ere invariably procured by the State acting through the medium of its la+ enforcers or other authori.ed government agencies. 0n the other hand, the case at bar assumes a peculiar character since the evidence sought to be e8cluded +as primarily discovered and obtained by a private person, acting in a private capacity and +ithout the intervention and participation of State authorities. Ender the circumstances, can accused=appellant validly claim that his constitutional right against unreasonable searches and sei.ure has been violatedK Stated other+ise, may an act of a private individual, allegedly in violation of appellant<s constitutional rights, be invo,ed against the StateK ;e hold in the negative. "n the absence of governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invo,ed against the State. &s this Court held in 0illanue#a #. 1uerubin ((2 SCR& >(* H%13$I/ %. 2his constitutional right (against unreasonable search and sei.ure# refers to the immunity of one's person, whether citi"en or alien, from interference by go#ernment, included in +hich is his residence, his papers, and other possessions. . . . . . . There the state, ho+ever po+erful, does not as such have the access e8cept under the circumstances above noted, for in the traditional formulation, his house, ho+ever humble, is his castle. 2hus is outlawed any unwarranted intrusion by go#ernment, which is called upon to refrain from any in#asion of his dwelling and to respect the pri#acies of his life. . . . (Cf. Schermerber v. California, >2( ES 3*3 H%1))I and Boyd v. Enited States, %%) ES )%) H%22)I? 7mphasis supplied#. "n 'urdeau #. Mc.owell ($*) ES ()* (%1$%#, (% S Ct. *(3? )* !.7d. %4(2#, the Court there in construing the right against unreasonable searches and sei.ures declared that/ (t#he 9ourth &mendment gives protection against unla+ful searches and sei.ures, and as sho+n in previous cases, its protection applies to governmental action. "ts origin and history clearly sho+ that it +as intended as a restraint upon the activities of sovereign authority, and +as not intended to be a limitation upon other than governmental agencies? as against such authority it +as the purpose of the 9ourth &mendment to secure the citi.en in the right of unmolested occupation of his d+elling and the possession of his property, subDect to the right of sei.ure by process duly served. The above ruling +as reiterated in +tate #. 'ryan ((*3 6.$d ))% H%1)2I# +here a par,ing attendant +ho searched the automobile to ascertain the o+ner thereof found mariDuana instead, +ithout the ,no+ledge and participation of police authorities, +as declared admissible in prosecution for illegal possession of narcotics. &nd again in the %1)1 case of Wal%er #. +tate (($1 S.;.$d %$%#, it +as held that the search and sei.ure clauses are restraints upon the government and its agents, not upon private individuals (citing 6eople v. 6otter, $(4 Cal. &pp.$d )$%, (1 Cap. Rptr, 21$ (%1))#? State v. Bro+n, Mo., >1% S.;.$d 14> (%1)*#? State v. 0lsen, 0r., >%3 6.$d 1>2 (%1*3#. !i,e+ise appropos is the case of 'ernas #. *+ (>3> 9.$d *%3 (%1)3#. The Court there said/ The search of +hich appellant complains, ho+ever, +as made by a private citi.en L the o+ner of a motel in +hich appellant stayed overnight and in +hich he left behind a travel case containing the evidence complained of. The search +as made on the motel o+ner<s o+n initiative. Because of it, he became suspicious, called the local police, informed them of the bag<s contents, and made it available to the authorities.

The fourth amendment and the case la+ applying it do not reBuire e8clusion of evidence obtained through a search by a private citi.en. Rather, the amendment only proscribes governmental action.5 The contraband in the case at bar having come into possession of the Fovernment +ithout the latter transgressing appellant<s rights against unreasonable search and sei.ure, the Court sees no cogent reason +hy the same should not be admitted against him in the prosecution of the offense charged. &ppellant, ho+ever, +ould li,e this court to believe that AB" agents made an illegal search and sei.ure of the evidence later on used in prosecuting the case +hich resulted in his conviction. The postulate advanced by accused=appellant needs to be clarified in t+o days. "n both instances, the argument stands to fall on its o+n +eight, or the lac, of it. 9irst, the factual considerations of the case at bar readily foreclose the proposition that AB" agents conducted an illegal search and sei.ure of the prohibited merchandise. Records of the case clearly indicate that it +as Mr. @ob Reyes, the proprietor of the for+arding agency, +ho made search=inspection of the pac,ages. Said inspection +as reasonable and a standard operating procedure on the part of Mr. Reyes as a precautionary measure before delivery of pac,ages to the Bureau of Customs or the Bureau of 6osts (TSA, 0ctober ) J 3, %123, pp. %*-%2? pp. 3-2? 0riginal Records, pp. %%1-%$$? %)3-%)2#. "t +ill be recalled that after Reyes opened the bo8 containing the illicit cargo, he too, samples of the same to the AB" and later summoned the agents to his place of business. Thereafter, he opened the parcel containing the rest of the shipment and entrusted the care and custody thereof to the AB" agents. Clearly, the AB" agents made no search and sei.ure, much less an illegal one, contrary to the postulate of accused=appellant. Second, the mere presence of the AB" agents did not convert the reasonable search effected by Reyes into a +arrantless search and sei.ure proscribed by the Constitution. Merely to observe and loo, at that +hich is in plain sight is not a search. Caving observed that +hich is open, +here no trespass has been committed in aid thereof, is not search (Chad+ic, v. State, ($1 S;$d %>*#. ;here the contraband articles are identified +ithout a trespass on the part of the arresting officer, there is not the search that is prohibited by the constitution (ES v. !ee $3( ES **1, 3% !.7d. %$4$ H%1$3I? Mer v. State of California >3( ES $>, %4 !.7d.$d. 3$) H%1)>I? Moore v. State, ($1 S;$d %$$ H%1)2I#. "n 3andy #. Wat%ins ($>3 9. Supp. $)) H%1)(I#, it +as li,e+ise held that +here the property +as ta,en into custody of the police at the specific reBuest of the manager and +here the search +as initially made by the o+ner there is no unreasonable search and sei.ure +ithin the constitutional meaning of the term. That the Bill of Rights embodied in the Constitution is not meant to be invo,ed against acts of private individuals finds support in the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission. True, the liberties guaranteed by the fundamental la+ of the land must al+ays be subDect to protection. But protection against +homK Commissioner Bernas in his sponsorship speech in the Bill of Rights ans+ers the Buery +hich he himself posed, as follo+s/ 9irst, the general reflections. The protection of fundamental liberties in the essence of constitutional democracy. 6rotection against +homK /rotection against the state. 2he 'ill of Rights go#erns the relationship between the indi#idual and the state. (ts concern is not the relation between indi#iduals, between a pri#ate indi#idual and other indi#iduals. What the 'ill of Rights does is to declare some forbidden "ones in the pri#ate sphere inaccessible to any power holder. (Sponsorship Speech of Commissioner Bernas , Record of the Constitutional Commission, 'ol. %, p. )3(? @uly %3, %12)? 7mphasis supplied# The constitutional proscription against unla+ful searches and sei.ures therefore applies as a restraint directed only against the government and its agencies tas,ed +ith the enforcement of the la+. Thus, it could only be invo,ed against the State to +hom the restraint against arbitrary and unreasonable e8ercise of po+er is imposed. "f the search is made upon the reBuest of la+ enforcers, a +arrant must generally be first secured if it is to pass the test of constitutionality. Co+ever, if the search is made at the behest or initiative of the proprietor of a private establishment for its o+n and private purposes, as in the case at bar, and +ithout the intervention of

police authorities, the right against unreasonable search and sei.ure cannot be invo,ed for only the act of private individual, not the la+ enforcers, is involved. "n sum, the protection against unreasonable searches and sei.ures cannot be e8tended to acts committed by private individuals so as to bring it +ithin the ambit of alleged unla+ful intrusion by the government. &ppellant argues, ho+ever, that since the provisions of the %1>* Constitution has been modified by the present phraseology found in the %123 Charter, e8pressly declaring as inadmissible any evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional prohibition against illegal search and sei.ure, it matters not +hether the evidence +as procured by police authorities or private individuals (&ppellant<s Brief, p. 2, Rollo, p. )$#. The argument is untenable. 9or one thing, the constitution, in laying do+n the principles of the government and fundamental liberties of the people, does not govern relationships bet+een individuals. Moreover, it must be emphasi.ed that the modifications introduced in the %123 Constitution (re/ Sec. $, &rt. """# relate to the issuance of either a search +arrant or +arrant of arrest #is)a)#is the responsibility of the Dudge in the issuance thereof (+eeSoliven v. Ma,asiar, %)3 SCR& >1> H%122I? Circular Ao. %> H0ctober %, %12*I and Circular Ao. %$ H@une >4, %123I. The modifications introduced deviate in no manner as to +hom the restriction or inhibition against unreasonable search and sei.ure is directed against. The restraint stayed +ith the State and did not shift to anyone else. Corolarilly, alleged violations against unreasonable search and sei.ure may only be invo,ed against the State by an individual unDustly traduced by the e8ercise of sovereign authority. To agree +ith appellant that an act of a private individual in violation of the Bill of Rights should also be construed as an act of the State +ould result in serious legal complications and an absurd interpretation of the constitution. Similarly, the admissibility of the evidence procured by an individual effected through private sei.ure eBually applies, in pari passu, to the alleged violation, non-governmental as it is, of appellant<s constitutional rights to privacy and communication. $. "n his second assignment of error, appellant contends that the lo+er court erred in convicting him despite the undisputed fact that his rights under the constitution +hile under custodial investigation +ere not observed. &gain, the contention is +ithout merit, ;e have carefully e8amined the records of the case and found nothing to indicate, as an 5undisputed fact5, that appellant +as not informed of his constitutional rights or that he gave statements +ithout the assistance of counsel. The la+ enforcers testified that accused=appellant +as informed of his constitutional rights. "t is presumed that they have regularly performed their duties (+ee. *(m#, Rule %>%# and their testimonies should be given full faith and credence, there being no evidence to the contrary. ;hat is clear from the records, on the other hand, is that appellant refused to give any +ritten statement +hile under investigation as testified by &tty. !astimoso of the AB", Thus/ 9iscal 9ormoso/ Gou said that you investigated Mr. and Mrs. @ob Reyes. ;hat about the accused here, did you investigate the accused together +ith the girlK ;"TA7SS/ Ges, +e have intervie+ed the accused together +ith the girl but the accused availed of his constitutional right not to give any +ritten statement, sir. (TSA, 0ctober 2, %123, p. )$? 0riginal Records, p. $(4# The above testimony of the +itness for the prosecution +as not contradicted by the defense on crosse8amination. &s borne out by the records, neither +as there any proof by the defense that appellant gave uncounselled confession +hile being investigated. What is more, we ha#e e8amined the assailed Dudgment of the trial court and no+here is there any reference made to the testimony of appellant +hile under custodial investigation +hich +as utili.ed in the finding of conviction. &ppellant<s second assignment of error is therefore misplaced. >. Coming no+ to appellant<s third assignment of error, appellant +ould li,e us to believe that he +as not the o+ner of the pac,ages +hich contained prohibited drugs but rather a certain Michael, a Ferman national, +hom appellant met in a pub along 7rmita, Manila/ that in the course of their >4-minute conversation, Michael

reBuested him to ship the pac,ages and gave him 6$,444.44 for the cost of the shipment since the Ferman national +as about to leave the country the ne8t day (0ctober %*, %123, TSA, pp. $-%4#. Rather than give the appearance of veracity, +e find appellant<s disclaimer as incredulous, self-serving and contrary to human e8perience. "t can easily be fabricated. &n acBuaintance +ith a complete stranger struc, in half an hour could not have pushed a man to entrust the shipment of four ((# parcels and shell out 6$,444.44 for the purpose and for appellant to readily accede to comply +ith the underta,ing +ithout first ascertaining its contents. &s stated by the trial court, 5(a# person +ould not simply entrust contraband and of considerable value at that as the mariDuana flo+ering tops, and the cash amount of 6$,444.44 to a complete stranger li,e the &ccused. The &ccused, on the other hand, +ould not simply accept such underta,ing to ta,e custody of the pac,ages and ship the same from a complete stranger on his mere say-so5 (-ecision, p. %1, Rollo, p. 1%#. &s to +hy he readily agreed to do the errand, appellant failed to e8plain. -enials, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative self-serving evidence +hich deserve no +eight in la+ and cannot be given greater evidentiary +eight than the testimony of credible +itnesses +ho testify on affirmative matters (6eople v. 7sBuillo, %3% SCR& *3% H%121I? 6eople vs. Sariol, %3( SCR& $>3 H%121I#. &ppellant<s bare denial is even made more suspect considering that, as per records of the "nterpol, he +as previously convicted of possession of hashish by the Mleve Court in the 9ederal Republic of Fermany on @anuary %, %12$ and that the consignee of the frustrated shipment, ;alter 9ier., also a S+iss national, +as li,e+ise convicted for drug abuse and is Dust about an hour<s drive from appellant<s residence in :urich, S+it.erland (TSA, 0ctober 2, %123, p. ))? 0riginal Records, p. $((? -ecision, p. $%? Rollo, p. 1>#. 7vidence to be believed, must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible +itness, but it must be credible in itself such as the common e8perience and observation of man,ind can approve as probable under the circumstances (6eople v. &lto, $) SCR& >($ H%1)2I, citing -aggers v. 'an -y,e, >3 A.@. 7g. %>4? see also 6eople v. Sarda, %3$ SCR& )*% H%121I? 6eople v. Sunga, %$> SCR& >$3 H%12>I#? CastaNares v. C&, 1$ SCR& *)3 H%131I#. &s records further sho+, appellant did not even bother to as, Michael<s full name, his complete address or passport number. 9urthermore, if indeed, the Ferman national +as the o+ner of the merchandise, appellant should have so indicated in the contract of shipment (78h. 5B5, 0riginal Records, p. (4#. 0n the contrary, appellant signed the contract as the o+ner and shipper thereof giving more +eight to the presumption that things +hich a person possesses, or e8ercises acts of o+nership over, are o+ned by him (Sec. * HDI, Rule %>%#. &t this point, appellant is therefore estopped to claim other+ise. 6remises considered, +e see no error committed by the trial court in rendering the assailed Dudgment. ;C7R790R7, the Dudgment of conviction finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged is hereby &99"RM7-. Ao costs. S0 0R-7R7-.

G.R. No. L!1955" Jun# 19, 196$ HARR% S. STONEHILL, ROBERT P. BROO&S, JOHN J. BROO&S an' &ARL BE(&, petitioners, vs. HON. JOSE ). DIO&NO, *n +*, -a.a-*/y a, SE(RETAR% OF J0STI(E1 JOSE L0&BAN, *n +*, -a.a-*/y a, A-/*n2 D*r#-/or, Na/*ona3 Bur#au o4 In5#,/*2a/*on1 SPE(IAL PROSE(0TORS PEDRO D. (EN6ON, EFREN I. PLANA an' MAN0EL 7ILLAREAL, JR. an' ASST. FIS(AL MANASES G. RE%ES1 J0DGE AMADO ROAN, Mun*-*.a3 (our/ o4 Man*3a1 J0DGE ROMAN (ANSINO, Mun*-*.a3 (our/ o4 Man*3a1 J0DGE HERMOGENES (AL0AG, (our/ o4 F*r,/ In,/an-# o4 R*8a3!9u#8on (*/y Bran-+, an' J0DGE DAMIAN JIMENE6, Mun*-*.a3 (our/ o4 9u#8on (*/y, respondents. (ON(EP(ION, C.J.: Epon application of the officers of the government named on the margin% L hereinafter referred to as Respondents-6rosecutors L several Dudges$ L hereinafter referred to as Respondents-@udges L issued, on different dates,> a total of ($ search +arrants against petitioners herein( and=or the corporations of +hich they +ere officers,* directed to the any peace officer, to search the persons above-named and=or the premises of their offices, +arehouses and=or residences, and to sei.e and ta,e possession of the follo+ing personal property to +it/ Boo,s of accounts, financial records, vouchers, correspondence, receipts, ledgers, Dournals, portfolios, credit Dournals, type+riters, and other documents and=or papers sho+ing all business transactions including disbursements receipts, balance sheets and profit and loss statements and Bobbins (cigarette +rappers#. as 5the subDect of the offense? stolen or embe..led and proceeds or fruits of the offense,5 or 5used or intended to be used as the means of committing the offense,5 +hich is described in the applications adverted to above as 5violation of Central Ban, !a+s, Tariff and Customs !a+s, "nternal Revenue (Code# and the Revised 6enal Code.5 &lleging that the aforementioned search +arrants are null and void, as contravening the Constitution and the Rules of Court L because, inter alia/ (%# they do not describe +ith particularity the documents, boo,s and things to be sei.ed? ($# cash money, not mentioned in the +arrants, +ere actually sei.ed? (># the +arrants +ere issued to fish evidence against the aforementioned petitioners in deportation cases filed against them? ((# the searches and sei.ures +ere made in an illegal manner? and (*# the documents, papers and cash money sei.ed +ere not delivered to the courts that issued the +arrants, to be disposed of in accordance +ith la+ L on March $4, %1)$, said petitioners filed +ith the Supreme Court this original action for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and inDunction, and prayed that, pending final disposition of the present case, a +rit of preliminary inDunction be issued restraining Respondents-6rosecutors, their agents and =or representatives from using the effects sei.ed as aforementioned or any copies thereof, in the deportation cases already adverted to, and that, in due course, thereafter, decision be rendered Buashing the contested search +arrants and declaring the same null and void, and commanding the respondents, their agents or representatives to return to petitioners herein, in accordance +ith Section >, Rule )3, of the Rules of Court, the documents, papers, things and cash moneys sei.ed or confiscated under the search +arrants in Buestion. "n their ans+er, respondents-prosecutors alleged, ) (%# that the contested search +arrants are valid and have been issued in accordance +ith la+? ($# that the defects of said +arrants, if any, +ere cured by petitioners< consent? and (># that, in any event, the effects sei.ed are admissible in evidence against herein petitioners, regardless of the alleged illegality of the aforementioned searches and sei.ures. 0n March $$, %1)$, this Court issued the +rit of preliminary inDunction prayed for in the petition. Co+ever, by resolution dated @une $1, %1)$, the +rit +as partially lifted or dissolved, insofar as the papers, documents and things sei.ed from the offices of the corporations above mentioned are concerned? but, the inDunction +as maintained as regards the papers, documents and things found and sei.ed in the residences of petitioners herein.3 Thus, the documents, papers, and things sei.ed under the alleged authority of the +arrants in Buestion

may be split into t+o ($# maDor groups, namely/ (a# those found and sei.ed in the offices of the aforementioned corporations, and (b# those found and sei.ed in the residences of petitioners herein. &s regards the first group, +e hold that petitioners herein have no cause of action to assail the legality of the contested +arrants and of the sei.ures made in pursuance thereof, for the simple reason that said corporations have their respective personalities, separate and distinct from the personality of herein petitioners, regardless of the amount of shares of stoc, or of the interest of each of them in said corporations, and +hatever the offices they hold therein may be.2 "ndeed, it is +ell settled that the legality of a sei.ure can be contested only by the party +hose rights have been impaired thereby,1 and that the obDection to an unla+ful search and sei.ure is purely personal and cannot be availed of by third parties. %4 ConseBuently, petitioners herein may not validly obDect to the use in evidence against them of the documents, papers and things sei.ed from the offices and premises of the corporations adverted to above, since the right to obDect to the admission of said papers in evidence belongsexclusi#ely to the corporations, to +hom the sei.ed effects belong, and may not be invo,ed by the corporate officers in proceedings against them in their individual capacity. %% "ndeed, it has been held/ . . . that the Fovernment<s action in gaining possession of papers belonging to the corporation did not relate to nor did it affect the personal defendants. "f these papers +ere unla+fully sei.ed and thereby the constitutional rights of or any one +ere invaded, they +ere the rights of the corporation and not the rights of the other defendants. Ae8t, it is clear that a Buestion of the la+fulness of a sei.ure can be raised only by one whose rights ha#e been in#aded. Certainly, such a sei.ure, if unla+ful, could not affect the constitutional rights of defendants whose property had not been sei"ed or the pri#acy of whose homes had not been disturbed? nor could they claim for themselves the benefits of the 9ourth &mendment, +hen its violation, if any, +as +ith reference to the rights of another. Remus #s4 *nited +tates (C.C.&.#$1% 9. *4%, *%%. "t follo+s, therefore, that the Buestion of the admissibility of the evidence based on an alleged unla+ful search and sei.ure does not e8tend to the personal defendants but embraces only the corporation +hose property +as ta,en. . . . (& Fuc,enheimer J Bros. Co. vs. Enited States, H%1$*I > 9. $d. 32), 321, 7mphasis supplied.# ;ith respect to the documents, papers and things sei.ed in the residences of petitioners herein, the aforementioned resolution of @une $1, %1)$, lifted the +rit of preliminary inDunction previously issued by this Court,%$ thereby, in effect, restraining herein Respondents-6rosecutors from using them in evidence against petitioners herein. "n connection +ith said documents, papers and things, t+o ($# important Buestions need be settled, namely/ (%# +hether the search +arrants in Buestion, and the searches and sei.ures made under the authority thereof, are valid or not, and ($# if the ans+er to the preceding Buestion is in the negative, +hether said documents, papers and things may be used in evidence against petitioners herein.56wph75489t 6etitioners maintain that the aforementioned search +arrants are in the nature of general +arrants and that accordingly, the sei.ures effected upon the authority there of are null and void. "n this connection, the Constitution%> provides/ The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and sei.ures shall not be violated, and no +arrants shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by the Dudge after e8amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the +itnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be sei.ed. T+o points must be stressed in connection +ith this constitutional mandate, namely/ (%# that no +arrant shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by the Dudge in the manner set forth in said provision? and ($# that the +arrant shall particularly describe the things to be sei.ed. Aone of these reBuirements has been complied +ith in the contested +arrants. "ndeed, the same +ere issued upon applications stating that the natural and Duridical person therein named had committed a 5violation of Central Ban !a+s, Tariff and Customs !a+s, "nternal Revenue (Code# and Revised 6enal Code.5 "n other +ords, nospecific offense had been alleged in said applications. The averments thereof +ith respect to the

offense committed +ere abstract. &s a conseBuence, it +as impossible for the Dudges +ho issued the +arrants to have found the e8istence of probable cause, for the same presupposes the introduction of competent proof that the party against +hom it is sought has performed particular acts, or committed specific omissions, violating a given provision of our criminal la+s. &s a matter of fact, the applications involved in this case do not allege any specific acts performed by herein petitioners. "t +ould be the legal heresy, of the highest order, to convict anybody of a 5violation of Central Ban, !a+s, Tariff and Customs !a+s, "nternal Revenue (Code# and Revised 6enal Code,5 L as alleged in the aforementioned applications L +ithout reference to any determinate provision of said la+s or To uphold the validity of the +arrants in Buestion +ould be to +ipe out completely one of the most fundamental rights guaranteed in our Constitution, for it +ould place the sanctity of the domicile and the privacy of communication and correspondence at the mercy of the +hims caprice or passion of peace officers. This is precisely the evil sought to be remedied by the constitutional provision above Buoted L to outla+ the so-called general +arrants. "t is not difficult to imagine +hat +ould happen, in times of ,een political strife, +hen the party in po+er feels that the minority is li,ely to +rest it, even though by legal means. Such is the seriousness of the irregularities committed in connection +ith the disputed search +arrants, that this Court deemed it fit to amend Section > of Rule %$$ of the former Rules of Court %( by providing in its counterpart, under the Revised Rules of Court %* that 5a search +arrant shall not issue but upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense.5 Aot satisfied +ith this Bualification, the Court added thereto a paragraph, directing that 5no search +arrant shall issue for more than one specific offense.5 The grave violation of the Constitution made in the application for the contested search +arrants +as compounded by the description therein made of the effects to be searched for and sei.ed, to +it/ Boo,s of accounts, financial records, vouchers, Dournals, correspondence, receipts, ledgers, portfolios, credit Dournals, type+riters, and other documents and=or papers sho+ing all business transactions including disbursement receipts, balance sheets and related profit and loss statements. Thus, the +arrants authori.ed the search for and sei.ure of records pertaining to all business transactions of petitioners herein, regardless of +hether the transactions +ere legal or illegal. The +arrants sanctioned the sei.ure of all records of the petitioners and the aforementioned corporations, +hatever their nature, thus openly contravening the e8plicit command of our Bill of Rights L that the things to be sei.ed be particularly described L as +ell as tending to defeat its maDor obDective/ the elimination of general +arrants. Relying upon Moncado #s4 /eople's -ourt (24 6hil. %#, Respondents-6rosecutors maintain that, even if the searches and sei.ures under consideration +ere unconstitutional, the documents, papers and things thus sei.ed are admissible in evidence against petitioners herein. Epon mature deliberation, ho+ever, +e are unanimously of the opinion that the position ta,en in the Moncado case must be abandoned. Said position +as in line +ith the &merican common la+ rule, that the criminal should not be allo+ed to go free merely 5because the constable has blundered,5 %) upon the theory that the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and sei.ures is protected by means other than the e8clusion of evidence unla+fully obtained, %3 such as the common-la+ action for damages against the searching officer, against the party +ho procured the issuance of the search +arrant and against those assisting in the e8ecution of an illegal search, their criminal punishment, resistance, +ithout liability to an unla+ful sei.ure, and such other legal remedies as may be provided by other la+s. Co+ever, most common la+ Durisdictions have already given up this approach and eventually adopted the e8clusionary rule, reali.ing that this is the only practical means of enforcing the constitutional in:unction against unreasonable searches and sei.ures. "n the language of @udge !earned Cand/ &s +e understand it, the reason for the e8clusion of evidence competent as such, +hich has been unla+fully acBuired, is that e8clusion is the only practical +ay of enforcing the constitutional privilege. "n earlier times the action of trespass against the offending official may have been protection enough? but that is true no longer. 0nly in case the prosecution +hich itself controls the sei.ing officials, ,no+s that it cannot profit by their wrong will that wrong be repressed.%2 "n fact, over thirty (>4# years before, the 9ederal Supreme Court had already declared/

"f letters and private documents can thus be sei.ed and held and used in evidence against a citi.en accused of an offense, the protection of the (th &mendment, declaring his rights to be secure against such searches and sei.ures, is of no #alue, and, so far as those thus placed are concerned, might as +ell be stric,en from the Constitution. 2he efforts of the courts and their officials to bring the guilty to punishment, praiseworthy as they are, are not to be aided by the sacrifice of those great principles established by years of endea#or and suffering which ha#e resulted in their embodiment in the fundamental law of the land.%1 This vie+ +as, not only reiterated, but, also, broadened in subseBuent decisions on the same 9ederal Court. $4&fter revie+ing previous decisions thereon, said Court held, in Mapp #s4 $hio (supra.#/ Today +e once again e8amine the ;olf<s constitutional documentation of the right of privacy free from unreasonable state intrusion, and after its do.en years on our boo,s, are led by it to close the only courtroom door remaining open to evidence secured by official la+lessness in flagrant abuse of that basic right, reserved to all persons as a specific guarantee against that very same unla+ful conduct. ;e hold that all evidence obtained by searches and sei.ures in violation of the Constitution is, by that same authority, inadmissible in a State. Since the 9ourth &mendment<s right of privacy has been declared enforceable against the States through the -ue 6rocess Clause of the 9ourteenth, it is enforceable against them by the same sanction of e8clusion as it used against the 9ederal Fovernment. ;ere it other+ise, then Dust as +ithout the ;ee,s rule the assurance against unreasonable federal searches and sei.ures +ould be 5a form of +ords,5 valueless and underserving of mention in a perpetual charter of inestimable human liberties, so too, without that rule the freedom from state in#asions of pri#acy would be so ephemeral and so neatly se#ered from its conceptual nexus with the freedom from all brutish means of coercing e#idence as not to permit this -ourt's high regard as a freedom 5implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.5 &t the time that the Court held in ;olf that the amendment +as applicable to the States through the -ue 6rocess Clause, the cases of this Court as +e have seen, had steadfastly held that as to federal officers the 9ourth &mendment included the e8clusion of the evidence sei.ed in violation of its provisions. 7ven ;olf 5stoutly adhered5 to that proposition. The right to +hen conceded operatively enforceable against the States, +as not susceptible of destruction by avulsion of the sanction upon +hich its protection and enDoyment had al+ays been deemed dependent under the Boyd, ;ee,s and Silverthorne Cases. Therefore, in e8tending the substantive protections of due process to all constitutionally unreasonable searches L state or federal L it +as logically and constitutionally necessarily that the e8clusion doctrine L an essential part of the right to privacy L be also insisted upon as an essential ingredient of the right ne+ly recogni.ed by the ;olf Case. "n short, the admission of the new constitutional Right by Wolf could not tolerate denial of its most important constitutional pri#ilege, namely, the exclusion of the e#idence which an accused had been forced to gi#e by reason of the unlawful sei"ure4 2o hold otherwise is to grant the right but in reality to withhold its pri#ilege and en:oyment. 0nly last year the Court itself recogni.ed that the purpose of the exclusionary rule to 5is to deter ; to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty in the only effecti#ely a#ailable way ; by remo#ing the incenti#e to disregard it5 . . . . The ignoble shortcut to conviction left open to the State tends to destroy the entire system of constitutional restraints on +hich the liberties of the people rest. Caving once recogni.ed that the right to privacy embodied in the 9ourth &mendment is enforceable against the States, and that the right to be secure against rude invasions of privacy by state officers is, therefore constitutional in origin, we can no longer permit that right to remain an empty promise. Because it is enforceable in the same manner and to li,e effect as other basic rights secured by its -ue 6rocess Clause, we can no longer permit it to be re#ocable at the whim of any police officer who, in the name of law enforcement itself, chooses to suspend its en:oyment4 $ur decision, founded on reason and truth, gi#es to the indi#idual no more than that which the -onstitution guarantees him to the police officer no less than that to which honest law enforcement is entitled, and, to the courts, that :udicial integrity so necessary in the true administration of :ustice. (emphasis ours.#

"ndeed, the non-e8clusionary rule is contrary, not only to the letter, but also, to the spirit of the constitutional inDunction against unreasonable searches and sei.ures. To be sure, if the applicant for a search +arrant has competent evidence to establish probable cause of the commission of a given crime by the party against +hom the +arrant is intended, then there is no reason +hy the applicant should not comply +ith the reBuirements of the fundamental la+. Epon the other hand, if he has no such competent evidence, then it is not possible for the @udge to find that there is probable cause, and, hence, no Dustification for the issuance of the +arrant. The only possible e8planation (not Dustification# for its issuance is the necessity of fishing evidence of the commission of a crime. But, then, this fishing e8pedition is indicative of the absence of evidence to establish a probable cause. Moreover, the theory that the criminal prosecution of those +ho secure an illegal search +arrant and=or ma,e unreasonable searches or sei.ures +ould suffice to protect the constitutional guarantee under consideration, overloo,s the fact that violations thereof are, in general, committed By agents of the party in po+er, for, certainly, those belonging to the minority could not possibly abuse a po+er they do not have. Regardless of the handicap under +hich the minority usually L but, understandably L finds itself in prosecuting agents of the maDority, one must not lose sight of the fact that the psychological and moral effect of the possibility $% of securing their conviction, is +atered do+n by the pardoning po+er of the party for +hose benefit the illegality had been committed. "n their Motion for Reconsideration and &mendment of the Resolution of this Court dated @une $1, %1)$, petitioners allege that Rooms Aos. 2% and 1% of Carmen &partments, Couse Ao. $442, -e+ey Boulevard, Couse Ao. %(>), Colorado Street, and Room Ao. >4( of the &rmy-Aavy Club, should be included among the premises considered in said Resolution as residences of herein petitioners, Carry S. Stonehill, Robert 6. Broo,, @ohn @. Broo,s and Marl Bec,, respectively, and that, furthermore, the records, papers and other effects sei.ed in the offices of the corporations above referred to include personal belongings of said petitioners and other effects under their e8clusive possession and control, for the e8clusion of +hich they have a standing under the latest rulings of the federal courts of federal courts of the Enited States. $$ ;e note, ho+ever, that petitioners< theory, regarding their alleged possession of and control over the aforementioned records, papers and effects, and the alleged 5personal5 nature thereof, has Been &dvanced, notin their petition or amended petition herein, but in the Motion for Reconsideration and &mendment of the Resolution of @une $1, %1)$. "n other +ords, said theory +ould appear to be readDustment of that follo+ed in said petitions, to suit the approach intimated in the Resolution sought to be reconsidered and amended. Then, too, some of the affidavits or copies of alleged affidavits attached to said motion for reconsideration, or submitted in support thereof, contain either inconsistent allegations, or allegations inconsistent +ith the theory no+ advanced by petitioners herein. Epon the other hand, +e are not satisfied that the allegations of said petitions said motion for reconsideration, and the contents of the aforementioned affidavits and other papers submitted in support of said motion, have sufficiently established the facts or conditions contemplated in the cases relied upon by the petitioners? to +arrant application of the vie+s therein e8pressed, should +e agree thereto. &t any rate, +e do not deem it necessary to e8press our opinion thereon, it being best to leave the matter open for determination in appropriate cases in the future. ;e hold, therefore, that the doctrine adopted in the Moncado case must be, as it is hereby, abandoned? that the +arrants for the search of three (># residences of herein petitioners, as specified in the Resolution of @une $1, %1)$, are null and void? that the searches and sei.ures therein made are illegal? that the +rit of preliminary inDunction heretofore issued, in connection +ith the documents, papers and other effects thus sei.ed in said residences of herein petitioners is hereby made permanent? that the +rits prayed for are granted, insofar as the documents, papers and other effects so sei.ed in the aforementioned residences are concerned? that the aforementioned motion for Reconsideration and &mendment should be, as it is hereby, denied? and that the petition herein is dismissed and the +rits prayed for denied, as regards the documents, papers and other effects sei.ed in the t+enty-nine ($1# places, offices and other premises enumerated in the same Resolution, +ithout special pronouncement as to costs. "t is so ordered.

:A.M. No. RTJ!9;!96<. F#=ruary >8, 1996? LEO7IGILDO 0. MANTARING, complainant, vs. J0DGE MAN0EL A. ROMAN, JR., RT(, Bran-+ <>, P*na@a3ayan, Or*#n/a3 M*n'oro1 an' J0DGE IRENEO B. MOLATO, MT(, Bon2a=on, Or*#n/a3 M*n'oro, respondents4 SG!!&BES %. REMEDIAL LA)1 NE) TRIAL1 REMED% A7AILABLE TO PARTIES DENIED OF A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRIAL. ! There is a remedy available to the party see,ing the disBualification of the Dudge. "f he is denied a fair and impartial trial, caused by the DudgeOs bias or preDudice, he can as, for a ne+ trial in the interest of Dustice +hich +ill be granted if that is really the case. $. ID.1 (RIMINAL PRO(ED0RE1 SEAR(H )ARRANT1 )ARRANT OF ARREST1 BASIS FOR ISS0AN(E. ! The issuance of a search +arrant and of a +arrant of arrest reBuires the sho+ing of probabilities as to different facts. "n the case of search +arrants, the determination is based on the finding that (%# the articles to be sei.ed are connected to a criminal activity and ($# they are found in the place to be searched. "t is not necessary that a particular person be implicated. 0n the other hand, in arrest cases, the determination of probable cause is based on a finding that a crime has been committed and that the person to be arrested has committed it. >. ID.1 ID.1 )ARRANT OF ARREST1 RE90IREMENTS FOR ISS0AN(E. ! "t is no+ settled that in issuing +arrants of arrest in preliminary investigations, the investigating Dudge must/ (a# have e8amined in +riting and under oath the complainant and his +itnesses by searching Buestions and ans+ers? (b# be satisfied that probable cause e8ists? and (c# that there is a need to place the respondent under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of Dustice. MENDO6A, J.: Respondent @udge "reneo B. Molato is the presiding Dudge of the Municipal Trial Court of Bongabon, 0riental Mindoro. 0n @anuary 3, %11>, an administrative complaint +as filed against him and @udge Manuel &. Roman, @r., presiding Dudge of the Regional Trial Court of 6inamalayan, 0riental Mindoro, Branch ($, by !eovigildo E. Mantaring, Sr., +ho charged them +ith conduct unbecoming of members of the Dudiciary. 0n 9ebruary $%, %11(, after the parties had filed their respective pleadings and supporting documents, this Court dismissed the complaint against the t+o for lac, of merit. The motion for reconsideration filed by complainant +as subseBuently denied. ;hat is before us no+ is the Supplemental Complaint filed by !eovigildo E. Mantaring, Sr. against @udge "reneo B. Molato, +hich charges him +ith harassment. "t is alleged that because of the filing of the first complaint against him, respondent @udge "reneo B. Molato should have inhibited himself from conducting the preliminary investigation of a criminal case considering that the respondents in that case +ere complainant and his son. "nstead, it is alleged, he too, cogni.ance of the case and ordered the arrest of complainant and his son, !eovigildo Mantaring, @r., out of hatred and revenge for them because of the filing of the first case by the complainant. The Supplemental Complaint +as referred to the 0ffice of the Court &dministrator +hich, in a Memorandum dated $* Aovember %11(, recommended the dismissal of the case for lac, of merit. Aonetheless, the Court reBuired the respondent @udge "reneo B. Molato to comment. "n his Comment dated @uly ), %11*, respondent Dudge denies the allegations against him. Ce avers that on the application by S60( 6acifico !. 9radeDas, he issued a search +arrant +hich resulted in the sei.ure from a certain @oel Famo of a home-made gun, a hand grenade, five live ammunitions for Cal. >2 and three live ammunitions for %$ gauge shotgun? that on &ugust <=, %11>, a complaint for "llegal 6ossession of 9irearms and &mmunition +as filed against @oel Famo in +hich the herein complainant !eovigildo, Sr. and his son, !eovigildo, @r., +ere included? that finding that the house in +hich the firearms and ammunition had been found +as o+ned by complainant and his son, he concluded that there +as probable cause to believe that complainant and his son +ere guilty of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition and accordingly ordered

their arrest. Respondent Dudge claims that he inhibited himself from the case after he +as ordered by the 78ecutive @udge, RTC, Branch (%, 6inamalayan, 0riental Mindoro. "n his Reply complainant contends that as the search +arrant +as issued only against @oel Famo and Mantaring, @r. it +as +rong for respondent Dudge to find probable cause against him on the theory that, as o+ners of the house in +hich the firearms and ammunitions +ere found, they had constructive possession of the same. Ce li,e+ise contends that respondent Dudge did not inhibit himself until after the preliminary e8amination +as terminated and the +arrant of arrest issued, and only after complainant had filed a petition for inhibition +hich the 78ecutive @udge found to be +ell ta,en. 0n 0ctober %), %11*, this case +as referred to the 0C& for reevaluation, report and recommendation. 0n @anuary %$, %11), the 0C& submitted a Memorandum, recommending dismissal of the supplemental complaint for lac, of merit, for the follo+ing reasons/ (%# "t is erroneous for herein complainant to eBuate the application for the issuance of search +arrant +ith the institution and prosecution of criminal action in a trial court. (Malaloan #s4 Court of &ppeals, $>$ SCR& $(1#. Complainant cannot insist that since his name +as not included in the search +arrant, the house designated to be searched did not belong to him, and that he +as not present at the preliminary investigation of +itnesses preparatory to the issuance of the Buestioned +arrant of arrest, there +as no basis for respondent Dudge to order his arrest. ($# Ao taint of irregularity attended the issuance by respondent Dudge of the +arrant of arrest against complainant and his son. Aeither +as the charge that the +arrant of arrest +as issued by respondent Dudge in the spirit of anger, hatred or harassment purposes substantiated. To begin +ith, it cannot be contended that complainant !eovigildo Mantaring, Sr. could not be proceeded against simply because he +as not included in the search +arrant issued against Famo and !eovigildo Mantaring, @r., +ho is apparently his son. The determination of probable cause in preliminary investigations is based solely on the evidence presented by the complainant, regardless of +hether or not the respondent in that case is named in the proceedings for a search +arrant. &s correctly pointed out by, the 0C&, the issuance of a search +arrant and of a +arrant of arrest reBuires the sho+ing of probabilities as to different facts. "n the case of search +arrants, the determination is based on the finding that (%# the articles to be sei.ed are connected to a criminal activity and ($# they are found in the place to be searched. "t is not necessary that a particular person be implicated. 0n the other hand, in arrest cases, the determination of probable cause is based on a finding that a crime has been committed and that the person to be arrested has committed it. "n this case, the arrest of herein complainant and his son, together +ith @oel Famo, +as ordered on the basis of respondentsO finding that the place from +here the guns and ammunitions +ere sei.ed belonged to complainant !eovigildo Mantaring, Sr. and the testimonies of +itnesses presented by S60( 9radeDas. 0f course complainant denies that the house in +hich the firearms and ammunition +ere found belonged to him and claims that at the time of the search he +as in Manila. The provincial prosecutor subseBuently dismissed the case against complainant on precisely these grounds, i4e4, that the house did not belong to complainant and he +as in Manila at the time the search and sei.ure +ere conducted. But to say this is not to say that respondent acted arbitrarily or that he abused his po+ers so as to give ground for administrative disciplinary action against him. "t is only to say that he committed an error of Dudgment for +hich complainantOs remedy is Dudicial. ;hat +e thin, reBuires serious consideration is the contention by the complainant that respondent Dudge should have inhibited himself from conducting the preliminary investigation of the criminal case, considering that the respondent +as the present complainant, +ho had earlier filed an administrative case against the Dudge and another one. ;e are not unmindful of the cases in +hich it +as stated that the mere filing of an administrative case against a Dudge by one of the parties before him is not a ground for disBualifying him from hearing a case. &n e8amination of these cases reveals, ho+ever, that the administrative cases +ere filed during the pendency of the cases, and it is evident that the administrative cases +ere filed only to force the Dudge to inhibit himself from the consideration of the case before him. &s this Court held, if on every occasion the party apparently aggrieved +ere allo+ed to stop the proceedings in order to a+ait the final

decision on the desired disBualification, or demand the immediate inhibition of the Dudge on the basis alone of his being so charged, many cases +ould have to be ,ept pending or perhaps there +ould not be enough Dudges left to handle all the cases pending in all the courts. 0n the other hand, there is a remedy available to the party see,ing the disBualification of the Dudge. "f he is denied a fair and impartial trial, caused by the DudgeOs bias or preDudice, he can as, for a ne+ trial in the interest of Dustice +hich +ill be granted if that is really the case. But, in the case at bar, an administrative complaint against respondent and @udge Manuel &. Roman, @r. had previously been filed and it +as paramount that respondent +as free from any appearance of bias against, or hostility to+ard, the complainant. The impression could not be helped that his action in that case +as dictated by a spirt of revenge against complainant for the latterOs having filed an administrative disciplinary action against the Dudge. The situation called for sedulous regard on his part for the principle that a party is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial Dudge. This circumstance should have underscored for respondent the need of steering clear of the case because he might be perceived, rightly or +rongly, to be susceptible to bias and partiality. 9or his Dudgment must not be tainted by even the slightest suspicion of improbity or preconceived interest in order to preserve at all times the faith and confidence in courts of Dustice by any party to the litigation. "ndeed prudence should have made respondent Dudge heed the admonition that Pa spotless dispensation of Dustice reBuires not only that the decision rendered be intrinsically fair but that the Dudge rendering it must at all times maintain the appearance of fairness and impartiality.Q Moreover, +e thin, it +as improper for respondent Dudge to have issued the +arrants of arrest against complainant and his son +ithout any finding that it +as necessary to place them in immediate custody in order to prevent a frustration of Dustice. "t is no+ settled that in issuing +arrants of arrest in preliminary investigations, the investigating Dudge must/ (a# have e8amined in +riting and under oath the complainant and his +itnesses by searching Buestions and ans+ers? (b# be satisfied that probable cause e8ists? and (c# that there is a need to place the respondent under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of Dustice. "n this case, respondent Dudge Dustified the issuance of the +arrant of arrest on the follo+ing ground/ "n vie+ of the above considerations Hreferring to the antecedent factsI, it is the honest belief and finding of the Court that there is sufficient probable cause that the crime of "llegal 6ossession of 9irearms and &mmunition +as committed and that the named three (># accused @oel Famo, !eovigildo Mantaring, Sr. and !eovigildo Mantaring @r. are the ones probably guilty thereof for +hich reason ;arrant of &rrest +as issued by undersigned against them. Ce thus ordered the issuance of +arrant of arrest solely on his finding of probable cause, totally omitting to consider the third reBuirement that there must be a need to place the respondent under immediate custody Pin order not to frustrate the ends of Dustice.Q The framers of the Constitution confined the determination of probable cause as basis for the issuance of +arrants of arrest and search +arrants to Dudges the better to secure the people against unreasonable searches and sei.ures. Respondent Dudge failed to live up to this e8pectation by refusing to inhibit himself even +hen his very impartiality +as in Buestion and +orse by issuing a +arrant of arrest +ithout determining +hether or not it +as Dustified by the need to prevent a frustration of the ends of Dustice. 6arenthetically, the records sho+ that the criminal complaints against herein complainant and his son +ere eventually dismissed by the 6rovincial 6rosecutor, but not +ithout the follo+ing parting +ords/ "t cannot be gainsaid that respondents Mantarings +ere greatly preDudiced and suffered damages as a conseBuence of their inclusion in the criminal complaint. The unfortunate incident could have been avoided had the Conorable Municipal Trial @udge e8ercised the necessary prudence and Dudicial perpecuity HsicI e8pected of an impartial @udge in the conduct of preliminary investigation before issuance of +arrant of arrest. )HEREFORE, respondent Dudge "reneo B. Molato is R76R"M&A-7- and ;&RA7- that commission of similar acts in the future +ill be dealt +ith more severely. &ll other charges are dismissed for lac, of merit. S0 0R-7R7-.

G.R. No. 8>585 No5#@=#r 1<, 1988 MAAIMO 7. SOLI7EN, ANTONIO 7. RO(ES, FREDERI(& &. AG(AOLI, an' GODOFREDO L. MAN6ANAS,petitioners, vs. THE HON. RAMON P. MA&ASIAR, Pr#,*'*n2 Ju'2# o4 /+# R#2*ona3 Tr*a3 (our/ o4 Man*3a, Bran-+ ;5, 0NDERSE(RETAR% SIL7ESTRE BELLO III, o4 /+# D#.ar/@#n/ o4 Ju,/*-#, L0IS (. 7I(TOR, THE (IT% FIS(AL OF MANILA an' PRESIDENT (ORA6ON (. A90INO, respondents. PER (0RIAMB "n these consolidated cases, three principal issues +ere raised/ (%# +hether or not petitioners +ere denied due process +hen informations for libel +ere filed against them although the finding of the e8istence of a prima faciecase +as still under revie+ by the Secretary of @ustice and, subseBuently, by the 6resident? ($# +hether or not the constitutional rights of Beltran +ere violated +hen respondent RTC Dudge issued a +arrant for his arrest +ithout personally e8amining the complainant and the +itnesses, if any, to determine probable cause? and (># +hether or not the 6resident of the 6hilippines, under the Constitution, may initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners through the filing of a complaint-affidavit. SubseBuent events have rendered the first issue moot and academic. 0n March >4, %122, the Secretary of @ustice denied petitioners< motion for reconsideration and upheld the resolution of the Endersecretary of @ustice sustaining the City 9iscal<s finding of a prima facie case against petitioners. & second motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner Beltran +as denied by the Secretary of @ustice on &pril 3, %122. 0n appeal, the 6resident, through the 78ecutive Secretary, affirmed the resolution of the Secretary of @ustice on May $, %122. The motion for reconsideration +as denied by the 78ecutive Secretary on May %), %122. ;ith these developments, petitioners< contention that they have been denied the administrative remedies available under the la+ has lost factual support. "t may also be added that +ith respect to petitioner Beltran, the allegation of denial of due process of la+ in the preliminary investigation is negated by the fact that instead of submitting his counter- affidavits, he filed a 5Motion to -eclare 6roceedings Closed,5 in effect +aiving his right to refute the complaint by filing counteraffidavits. -ue process of la+ does not reBuire that the respondent in a criminal case actually file his counteraffidavits before the preliminary investigation is deemed completed. &ll that is reBuired is that the respondent be given the opportunity to submit counter-affidavits if he is so minded. The second issue, raised by petitioner Beltran, calls for an interpretation of the constitutional provision on the issuance of +arrants of arrest. The pertinent provision reads/ &rt. """, Sec. $. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and sei.ures of +hatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search +arrant or +arrant of arrest shall issue e8cept upon probable cause to be determined personally by the Dudge after e8amination nder oath or affirmation of the complainant and the +itnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be sei.ed. The addition of the +ord 5personally5 after the +ord 5determined5 and the deletion of the grant of authority by the %13> Constitution to issue +arrants to 5other responsible officers as may be authori.ed by la+,5 has apparently convinced petitioner Beltran that the Constitution no+ reBuires the Dudge to personally e8amine the complainant and his +itnesses in his determination of probable cause for the issuance of +arrants of arrest. This is not an accurate interpretation. ;hat the Constitution underscores is the e8clusive and personal responsibility of the issuing Dudge to satisfy himself of the e8istence of probable cause. "n satisfying himself of the e8istence of probable cause for the issuance of a +arrant of arrest, the Dudge is not reBuired to personally e8amine the complainant and his +itnesses. 9ollo+ing established doctrine and procedure, he shall/ (%# personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the e8istence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a +arrant of arrest? or ($# if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may disregard

the fiscal<s report and reBuire the submission of supporting affidavits of +itnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the e8istence of probable cause. Sound policy dictates this procedure, other+ise Dudges +ould be unduly laden +ith the preliminary e8amination and investigation of criminal complaints instead of concentrating on hearing and deciding cases filed before their courts. 0n @une >4, %123, the Supreme Court unanimously adopted Circular Ao. %$, setting do+n guidelines for the issuance of +arrants of arrest. The procedure therein provided is reiterated and clarified in this resolution. "t has not been sho+n that respondent Dudge has deviated from the prescribed procedure. Thus, +ith regard to the issuance of the +arrants of arrest, a finding of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac, or e8cess of Durisdiction cannot be sustained. &nent the third issue, petitioner Beltran argues that 5the reasons +hich necessitate presidential immunity from suit impose a correlative disability to file suit.5 Ce contends that if criminal proceedings ensue by virtue of the 6resident<s filing of her complaint-affidavit, she may subseBuently have to be a +itness for the prosecution, bringing her under the trial court<s Durisdiction. This, continues Beltran, +ould in an indirect +ay defeat her privilege of immunity from suit, as by testifying on the +itness stand, she +ould be e8posing herself to possible contempt of court or perDury. The rationale for the grant to the 6resident of the privilege of immunity from suit is to assure the e8ercise of 6residential duties and functions free from any hindrance or distraction, considering that being the Chief 78ecutive of the Fovernment is a Dob that, aside from reBuiring all of the office holder<s time, also demands undivided attention. But this privilege of immunity from suit, pertains to the 6resident by virtue of the office and may be invo,ed only by the holder of the office? not by any other person in the 6resident<s behalf. Thus, an accused in a criminal case in +hich the 6resident is complainant cannot raise the presidential privilege as a defense to prevent the case from proceeding against such accused. Moreover, there is nothing in our la+s that +ould prevent the 6resident from +aiving the privilege. Thus, if so minded the 6resident may shed the protection afforded by the privilege and submit to the court<s Durisdiction. The choice of +hether to e8ercise the privilege or to +aive it is solely the 6resident<s prerogative. "t is a decision that cannot be assumed and imposed by any other person. &s regards the contention of petitioner Beltran that he could not be held liable for libel because of the privileged character or the publication, the Court reiterates that it is not a trier of facts and that such a defense is best left to the trial court to appreciate after receiving the evidence of the parties. &s to petitioner Beltran<s claim that to allo+ the libel case to proceed +ould produce a 5chilling effect5 on press freedom, the Court finds no basis at this stage to rule on the point. The petitions fail to establish that public respondents, through their separate acts, gravely abused their discretion as to amount to lac, of Durisdiction. Cence, the +rits of certiorari and prohibition prayed for cannot issue. ;C7R790R7, finding no grave abuse of discretion amounting to e8cess or lac, of Durisdiction on the part of the public respondents, the Court Resolved to -"SM"SS the petitions in F. R. Aos. 2$*2*, 2$2$3 and 2>131. The 0rder to maintain the status !uo contained in the Resolution of the Court en banc dated &pril 3, %122 and reiterated in the Resolution dated &pril $), %122 is !"9T7-

G.R. No. 81$56 O-/o=#r >1, 1991 NI(OMEDES SIL7A C(o@#'#,C, MARLON SIL7A, CTa@aC an' ANTONIETA SIL7A, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE PRESIDING J0DGE, REGIONAL TRIAL (O0RT OF NEGROS ORIENTAL, BRAN(H AAAIII, D0MAG0ETE (IT%, respondent. FERNAN, C.J. "n this special civil action for certiorari, petitioners see, the nullification of Search ;arrant Ao. % issued by respondent @udge as +ell as the return of the money in the amount of 6%,$>%.44 sei.ed from petitioner &ntonieta Silva. The antecedent facts are as follo+s/ 0n @une %>, %12), M=Sgt. Ranulfo 'illamor, @r., as chief of the 6C Aarcom -etachment in -umaguete City, Aegros 0riental, filed an 5&pplication for Search ;arrant5 +ith the Regional Trial Court, Branch """, -umaguete City against petitioners Aicomedes Silva and Marlon Silva. 1 This application +as accompanied by a 5-eposition of ;itness5 e8ecuted by 6fc. &rthur M. &lcoran and 6at. !eon T. Ruindo, also dated @une %>, %12). > 0n the same day. @udge Aic,arter &. 0ntal, then 6residing @udge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch """, -umaguete City, pursuant to the said 5&pplication for Search ;arrant5 and 5-eposition of ;itness5, issued Search ;arrant Ao. %, directing the aforesaid police officers to search the room of Marlon Silva in the residence of Aicomedes Silva for violation of Republic &ct Ao. )($*, other+ise ,no+n as the -angerous -rugs &ct of %13$. as amended. 6ertinent portions of Search ;arrant Ao. % read as follo+s/ "t appearing to the satisfaction of the undersigned after e8amining oath (sic# M+324 Ranulfo 24 0illamor, Jr4 and his +itnesses (sic# /fc4 Arthur M4 Alcoran and /at4 >eon 24 1uindo that there is probable cause to believe that possession and control of Mari:uana dried lea#es, cigarettes, :oint has been committed or is about to be committed and that there are good and sufficient reasons to believe that mari:uana dried lea#es, cigarettes, :oint has in possession and=or control at 2ama's Room (Rgt4 side lst ,loor) located at &ono)>imbaga .ri#e, 2an:ay, &eg4 $r4 +hich is=are/ (SubDect of the offense stated above (Stolen or embe..led or other proceeds of fruits of the offense? (Esed or intended to be used as means of committing an offense. Gou are hereby commanded to ma,e an immediate search at any time of the day (night# of the room of 2ama +il#a residence of his father -omedes +il#a to open (sic# aparadors, loc%ers, cabinets, cartoons, containers, forthwith sei"e and ta%e possession of the following property Mari:uana dried lea#es, cigarettes, :oint and bring the said property to the undersigned to be dealt +ith as the la+ directs. ; "n the course of the search, the serving officers also sei.ed money belonging to &ntonieta Silva in the amount of 6%,$>%.(4. 0n @une %), %12), &ntonieta Silva filed a motion for the return of the said amount on the grounds that the search +arrant only authori.ed the serving officers to sei.e mariDuana dried leaves, cigarettes and Doint, and that said officers failed or refused to ma,e a return of the said search +arrant in gross violation of Section %%, Rule %$) of the Rules of Court. < &cting on said motion, @udge 0ntal issued an 0rder dated @uly %, %12), stating that the court 5holds in abeyance the disposition of the said amount of 6%,$>%.(4 pending the filing of appropriate charges in connection +ith the search +arrant.5 5 0n @uly $2, %123, petitioners filed a motion to Buash Search ;arrant Ao. % on the grounds that (%# it +as issued on the sole basis of a mimeographed 5&pplication for Search ;arrant5 and 5-eposition of ;itness5, +hich +ere accomplished by merely filling in the blan,s and ($# the Dudge failed to personally e8amine the complainant and +itnesses by searching Buestions and ans+ers in violation of Section >, Rule %$) of the Rules of Court. 6 0n &ugust %%, %123, respondent trial court, through @udge 7ugenio M. Cru., +ho, by then, had replaced retired @udge 0ntal, issued an 0rder denying the motion for lac, of merit, finding the reBuisites necessary for the issuance of a valid search +arrant duly complied +ith. $

& motion for reconsideration dated September %, %123 filed by petitioners +as li,e+ise denied by @udge Cru. in an order dated 0ctober %1, %123. Cence, this special civil action for certiorari4 6etitioners allege that the issuance of Search ;arrant Ao. % +as tainted +ith illegality and that respondent @udge should be vie+ed to have acted +ithout or in e8cess of Durisdiction, or committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac, of Durisdiction +hen he issued the 0rder dated &ugust %%, %123, denying their motion to Buash Search ;arrant Ao, %. ;e rule for petitioners. Section $, &rticle """ (Bill of Rights# of the %123 Constitution guarantees the right to personal liberty and security of homes against unreasonable searches and sei.ures. This section provides/ Sec. $. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and sei.ures of +hatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search +arrant or +arrant of arrest shall issue e8cept upon probable cause to be determined personally by the Dudge after e8amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the +itnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be sei.ed. The purpose of the constitutional provision against unla+ful searches and sei.ures is to prevent violations of private security in person and property, and unla+ful invasion of the sanctity of the home, by officers of the la+ acting under legislative or Dudicial sanction, and to give remedy against such usurpations +hen attempted. 8 Thus, Sections > and (, Rule %$) of the Rules of Court provide for the reBuisites for the issuance of a search +arrant, to +it/ S7C. >. Re!uisite for issuing search warrant4 L & search +arrant shall not issue but upon probable cause in connection +ith one specific offense to be determined personally by the Dudge after e8amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the +itnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be sei.ed. S7C. (. ?xamination of complainant@ record4 L The Dudge must, before issuing the +arrant, personally e8amine in the form of searching Buestions and ans+ers, in +riting and under oath the complainant and any +itnesses he may produce on facts personally ,no+n to them and attach to the record their s+orn statements together +ith any affidavits submitted. Based on the aforecited constitutional and statutory provisions, the Dudge must, before issuing a search +arrant, determine +hether there is probable cause by e8amining the complainant and +itnesses through searching Buestions and ans+ers. "n the case of /rudente #s4 .ayrit, F.R. Ao. 2$234, -ecember %(, %121, %24 SCR& )1, 3)3 this Court defined 5probable cause5 as follo+s/ The 5probable cause5 for a valid search +arrant, has been defined 5as such facts and circumstances +hich +ould lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed, and that obDects sought in connection +ith the offense are in the place sought to be searched5. This probable cause must be sho+n to be +ithin the personal ,no+ledge of the complainant or the +itnesses he may produce and not based on mere hearsay. "n the case at bar, +e have carefully e8amined the Buestioned search +arrant as +ell as the 5&pplication for Search ;arrant5 and 5-eposition of ;itness5, and found that @udge 0ntal failed to comply +ith the legal reBuirement that he must e8amine the applicant and his +itnesses in the form of searching Buestions and ans+ers in order to determine the e8istence of probable cause. The Doint 5-eposition of ;itness5 e8ecuted by 6fc. &lcoran and 6at. Ruindo, +hich +as submitted together +ith the 5&pplication for Search ;arrant5 contained, for the most part suggestive Buestions ans+erable by merely placing 5yes5 or 5no5 in the blan,s provided thereon. "n fact there +ere only four ((# Buestions as,ed, to +it/ R -o you personally ,no+ MA+gt4 Ranulfo 0illamor, Jr4 the applicant for a search +arrantK & Bes, sir4 R -o you have personal ,no+ledge that the said premises subDect of the offense stated above, and other proceeds of fruit of the offense, used or obtain (sic# or intended to be used as means of committing an offenseK

& Bes, sir4 R -o you ,no+ personally +ho is=are the person +ho has=have the property in his=their possession and controlK & Bes, sir4 R Co+ did you ,no+ all this (sic# thingsK & 2hrough discreet sur#eillance4 9 The above deposition did not only contain leading Buestions but it +as also very broad. The Buestions propounded to the +itnesses +ere in fact, not probing but +ere merely routinary. The deposition +as already mimeogragphed and all that the +itnesses had to do +as fill in their ans+ers on the blan,s provided. "n the case of &olasco #s4 /a8o, F.R. Ao. )124>, 0ctober 2, %12*, %>1 SCR& %*$, %)>, this Court held/ The 5probable cause5 reBuired to Dustify the issuance of a search +arrant comprehends such facts and circumstances as +ill induce a cautious man to rely upon them and act in pursuant thereof. 0f the 2 Buestions as,ed, the %st, $nd and (th pertain to identity. The >rd and *th are leading not searching Buestions. The )th, 3th and 2th refer to the description of the personalities to be sei.ed, +hich is identical to that in the Search ;arrant and suffers from the same lac, of particularity. The e8amination conducted +as general in nature and merely repetitious of the deposition of said +itness. Mere generali.ation +ill not suffice and does not satisfy the reBuirements or probable cause upon +hich a +arrant may issue. !i,e+ise, in the 6rudente case cited earlier, this Court declared the search +arrant issued as invalid due to the failure of the Dudge to e8amine the +itness in the form of searching Buestions and ans+ers. 6ertinent portion of the decision reads/ Moreover, a perusal of the deposition of 6=!t. 9lorencio &ngeles sho+s that it +as too brief and short. Respondent @udge did not e8amine him 5in the form of searching Buestions and ans+ers5. 0n the contrary, the Buestions as,ed +ere leading as they called for a simple 5yes5 or 5no5 ans+er. &s held in 1uintero #s4 &'(, 5the Buestions propounded by respondent 78ecutive @udge to the applicant<s +itness< are not sufficiently searching to establish probable cause. &s,ing of leading Buestions to the deponent in an application for search +arrant, and conducting of e8amination in a general manner, +ould not satisfy the reBuirements for issuance of a valid search +arrant. 1" Thus, in issuing a search +arrant, the Dudge must strictly comply +ith the constitutional and statutory reBuirement that he must determine the e8istence of probable cause by personally e8amining the applicant and his +itnesses in the form of searching Buestions and ans+ers. Cis failure to comply +ith this reBuirement constitutes grave abuse of discretion. &s declared in Marcelo #s4 .e 3u"man, F.R. Ao. !-$1433, @une $1, %12$, %%( SCR& )*3, 5the capricious disregard by the Dudge in not complying +ith the reBuirements before issuance of search +arrants constitutes abuse of discretion5. The officers implementing the search +arrant clearly abused their authority +hen they sei.ed the money of &ntonieta Silva. This is highly irregular considering that &ntonieta Silva +as not even named as one of the respondents, that the +arrant did not indicate the sei.ure of money but only of mariDuana leaves, cigarettes and Doints, and that the search +arrant +as issued for the sei.ure of personal property (a# subDect of the offense and (b# used or intended to be used as means of committing an offense and A0T for personal property stolen or embe..led or other proceeds of fruits of the offense. Thus, the then presiding @udge 0ntal li,e+ise abused his discretion +hen he reDected the motion of petitioner &ntonieta Silva see,ing the return of her sei.ed money. ;C7R790R7, the petition is granted. Search ;arrant Ao. % is hereby declared null and void. Respondent @udge of the Regional Trial Court of Aegros 0riental, Branch """ is directed to order the return to petitioner &ntonieta Silva of the amount of 6%,$>%.(4 +hich had earlier been sei.ed from her by virtue of the illegal search +arrant. This decision is immediately e8ecutory. Ao costs. S0 0R-7R7-.

G.R. No. 8151" Mar-+ 1<, 199" HORTEN(IA SALA6AR, petitioner, vs. HON. TOMAS D. A(HA(OSO, *n +*, -a.a-*/y a, A'@*n*,/ra/or o4 /+# P+*3*..*n# O5#r,#a, E@.3oy@#n/ A'@*n*,/ra/*on, an' FERDIE MAR90E6, respondents. SARMIENTO, J.: This concerns the validity of the po+er of the Secretary of !abor to issue +arrants of arrest and sei.ure under &rticle >2 of the !abor Code, prohibiting illegal recruitment. The facts are as follo+s/ 888 888 888 %. 0n 0ctober $%, %123, Rosalie Tesoro of %33 Tupa. Street, !everi.a, 6asay City, in a s+orn statement filed +ith the 6hilippine 0verseas 7mployment &dministration (607& for brevity# charged petitioner Cortencia Sala.ar, #i"/ 4(. T/ &no ba ang dahilan at i,a+ ngayon ay narito at nagbibigay ng salaysay. S/ Epang ire,lamo sa dahilan ang a,ing 67CC Card ay aya+ ibigay sa a,in ng dati ,ong manager. L Corty Sala.ar L )%* R.0. Santos, Mandaluyong, Mla. 4*. T/ Mailan at saan naganap and gina+ang panlolo,o sa iyo ng tao=mga taong inire,lamo moK S. Sa bahay ni Corty Sala.ar. 4). T/ 6aano naman naganap ang pangyayariK S. 6ag,agaling ,o sa @apan ipinata+ag niya a,o. Minuha ang 67CC Card ,o at sinabing hahanapan a,o ng boo,ing sa @apan. Mag 1 month<s na a,o sa 6hils. ay hindi pa niya a,o napa-alis. So lumipat a,o ng ibang company pero aya+ niyang ibigay and 67CC Card ,o. $. 0n Aovember >, %123, public respondent &tty. 9erdinand MarBue. to +hom said complaint +as assigned, sent to the petitioner the follo+ing telegram/ G0E &R7 C7R7BG -"R7CT7- T0 &667&R B790R7 97R-"7 M&RRE7: 607& &AT" "!!7F&! R7CRE"TM7AT EA"T )TC 9!R. 607& B!-F. 7-S& C0R. 0RT"F&S &'7. M&A-&!EG0AF MM 0A A0'7MB7R ), %123 &T %4 &M R7 C&S7 9"!7- &F&"AST G0E. 9&"! A0T EA-7R 67A&!TG 09 !&;. (. 0n the same day, having ascertained that the petitioner had no license to operate a recruitment agency, public respondent &dministrator Tomas -. &chacoso issued his challenged C!0SER7 &A- S7":ER7 0R-7R A0. %$4* +hich reads/ C0RTG S&!&:&R Ao. )%* R.0. Santos St. Mandaluyong, Metro Manila 6ursuant to the po+ers vested in me under 6residential -ecree Ao. %1$4 and 78ecutive 0rder Ao. %4$$, " hereby order the C!0SER7 of your recruitment agency being operated at Ao. )%* R.0. Santos St., Mandaluyong, Metro Manila and the sei.ure of the documents and paraphernalia being used or intended to be used as the means of committing illegal recruitment, it having verified that you have L (%# Ao valid license or authority from the -epartment of !abor and 7mployment to recruit and deploy +or,ers for overseas employment? ($# Committed=are committing acts prohibited under &rticle >( of the Ae+ !abor Code in relation to &rticle >2 of the same code. This 0R-7R is +ithout preDudice to your criminal prosecution under e8isting la+s.

-one in the City of Manila, this >th day of Aovember, %123. *. 0n @anuary $), %122 607& -irector on !icensing and Regulation &tty. 7stelita B. 7spiritu issued an office order designating respondents &tty. MarBue., &tty. @ovencio &bara and &tty. 7rnesto 'istro as members of a team tas,ed to implement Closure and Sei.ure 0rder Ao. %$4*. -oing so, the group assisted by Mandaluyong policemen and mediamen !ito Castillo of the 6eople<s @ournal and 7rnie Baluyot of Ae+s Today proceeded to the residence of the petitioner at )%* R.0. Santos St., Mandaluyong, Metro Manila. There it +as found that petitioner +as operating Cannalie -ance Studio. Before entering the place, the team served said Closure and Sei.ure order on a certain Mrs. 9lora Sala.ar +ho voluntarily allo+ed them entry into the premises. Mrs. 9lora Sala.ar informed the team that Cannalie -ance Studio +as accredited +ith Moreman -evelopment (6hil.#. Co+ever, +hen reBuired to sho+ credentials, she +as unable to produce any. "nside the studio, the team chanced upon t+elve talent performers L practicing a dance number and sa+ about t+enty more +aiting outside, The team confiscated assorted costumes +hich +ere duly receipted for by Mrs. &suncion Maguelan and +itnessed by Mrs. 9lora Sala.ar. ). 0n @anuary $2, %122, petitioner filed +ith 607& the follo+ing letter/ Fentlemen/ 0n behalf of Ms. Corty Sala.ar of )%* R.0. Santos, Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, +e respectfully reBuest that the personal properties sei.ed at her residence last @anuary $), %122 be immediately returned on the ground that said sei.ure +as contrary to la+ and against the +ill of the o+ner thereof. &mong our reasons are the follo+ing/ %. 0ur client has not been given any prior notice or hearing, hence the Closure and Sei.ure 0rder Ao. %$4* dated Aovember >, %123 violates 5due process of la+5 guaranteed under Sec. %, &rt. """, of the 6hilippine Constitution. $. Gour acts also violate Sec. $, &rt. """ of the 6hilippine Constitution +hich guarantees right of the people 5to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and sei"ures of +hatever nature and for any purpose.5 >. The premises invaded by your Mr. 9erdi MarBue. and five (*# others (including $ policemen# are the pri#ate residence of the +ala"ar family, and the entry, search as +ell as the sei.ure of the personal properties belonging to our client +ere +ithout her consent and +ere done +ith unreasonable force and intimidation, together +ith grave abuse of the color of authority, and constitute robbery and violation of domicile under &rts. $1> and %$2 of the Revised 6enal Code. Enless said personal properties +orth around T7A TC0ES&A- 67S0S (6%4,444.44# in all (and +hich +ere already due for shipment to @apan# are returned +ithin t+enty-four ($(# hours from your receipt hereof, +e shall feel free to ta,e all legal action, civil and criminal, to protect our client<s interests. ;e trust that you +ill give due attention to these important matters. 3. 0n 9ebruary $, %122, before 607& could ans+er the letter, petitioner filed the instant petition? on even date, 607& filed a criminal complaint against her +ith the 6asig 6rovincial 9iscal, doc,eted as "S-22-2>). 1 0n 9ebruary $, %122, the petitioner filed this suit for prohibition. &lthough the acts sought to be barred are alreadyfait accompli, thereby ma,ing prohibition too late, +e consider the petition as one for certiorari in vie+ of the grave public interest involved. The Court finds that a lone issue confronts it/ May the 6hilippine 0verseas 7mployment &dministration (or the Secretary of !abor# validly issue +arrants of search and sei.ure (or arrest# under &rticle >2 of the !abor CodeK "t is also an issue sBuarely raised by the petitioner for the Court<s resolution.

Ender the ne+ Constitution, +hich states/ . . . no search +arrant or +arrant of arrest shall issue e8cept upon probable cause to be determined personally by the Dudge after e8amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the +itnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be sei.ed. > it is only a Dudge +ho may issue +arrants of search and arrest. ; "n one case, it +as declared that mayors may not e8ercise this po+er/ 888 888 888 But it must be emphasi.ed here and no+ that +hat has Dust been described is the state of the la+ as it +as in September, %12*. The la+ has since been altered. Ao longer does the mayor have at this time the po+er to conduct preliminary investigations, much less issue orders of arrest. Section %(> of the !ocal Fovernment Code, conferring this po+er on the mayor has been abrogated, rendered functus officio by the %123 Constitution +hich too, effect on 9ebruary $, %123, the date of its ratification by the 9ilipino people. Section $, &rticle """ of the %123 Constitution pertinently provides that 5no search +arrant or +arrant of arrest shall issue e8cept upon probable cause to be determined personally by the Dudge after e8amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the +itnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or things to be sei.ed.5 The constitutional proscription has thereby been manifested that thenceforth, the function of determining probable cause and issuing, on the basis thereof, +arrants of arrest or search +arrants, may be validly e8ercised only by Dudges, this being evidenced by the elimination in the present Constitution of the phrase, 5such other responsible officer as may be authori.ed by la+5 found in the counterpart provision of said %13> Constitution, +ho, aside from Dudges, might conduct preliminary investigations and issue +arrants of arrest or search +arrants. < Aeither may it be done by a mere prosecuting body/ ;e agree that the 6residential &nti--ollar Salting Tas, 9orce e8ercises, or +as meant to e8ercise, prosecutorial po+ers, and on that ground, it cannot be said to be a neutral and detached 5Dudge5 to determine the e8istence of probable cause for purposes of arrest or search. Enli,e a magistrate, a prosecutor is naturally interested in the success of his case. &lthough his office 5is to see that Dustice is done and not necessarily to secure the conviction of the person accused,5 he stands, invariably, as the accused<s adversary and his accuser. To permit him to issue search +arrants and indeed, +arrants of arrest, is to ma,e him both Dudge and Dury in his o+n right, +hen he is neither. That ma,es, to our mind and to that e8tent, 6residential -ecree Ao. %1>) as amended by 6residential -ecree Ao. $44$, unconstitutional. 5 Section >2, paragraph (c#, of the !abor Code, as no+ +ritten, +as entered as an amendment by 6residential -ecrees Aos. %1$4 and $4%2 of the late 6resident 9erdinand Marcos, to 6residential -ecree Ao. %)1>, in the e8ercise of his legislative po+ers under &mendment Ao. ) of the %13> Constitution. Ender the latter, the then Minister of !abor merely e8ercised recommendatory po+ers/ (c# The Minister of !abor or his duly authori.ed representative shall have the po+er to recommend the arrest and detention of any person engaged in illegal recruitment. 6 0n May %, %12(, Mr. Marcos promulgated 6residential -ecree Ao. %1$4, +ith the avo+ed purpose of giving more teeth to the campaign against illegal recruitment. The -ecree gave the Minister of !abor arrest and closure po+ers/ (b# The Minister of !abor and 7mployment shall have the po+er to cause the arrest and detention of such non-licensee or non-holder of authority if after proper investigation it is determined that his activities constitute a danger to national security and public order or +ill lead to further e8ploitation of Dob-see,ers. The Minister shall order the closure of companies, establishment and entities found to be engaged in the recruitment of +or,ers for overseas employment, +ithout having been licensed or authori.ed to do so. $

0n @anuary $), %12), he, Mr. Marcos, promulgated 6residential -ecree Ao. $4%2, giving the !abor Minister search and sei.ure po+ers as +ell/ (c# The Minister of !abor and 7mployment or his duly authori.ed representatives shall have the po+er to cause the arrest and detention of such non-licensee or non-holder of authority if after investigation it is determined that his activities constitute a danger to national security and public order or +ill lead to further e8ploitation of Dob-see,ers. The Minister shall order the search of the office or premises and sei.ure of documents, paraphernalia, properties and other implements used in illegal recruitment activities and the closure of companies, establishment and entities found to be engaged in the recruitment of +or,ers for overseas employment, +ithout having been licensed or authori.ed to do so. 8 The above has no+ been etched as &rticle >2, paragraph (c# of the !abor Code. The decrees in Buestion, it is +ell to note, stand as the dying vestiges of authoritarian rule in its t+ilight moments. ;e reiterate that the Secretary of !abor, not being a Dudge, may no longer issue search or arrest +arrants. Cence, the authorities must go through the Dudicial process. To that e8tent, +e declare &rticle >2, paragraph (c#, of the !abor Code, unconstitutional and of no force and effect. The Solicitor Feneral<s reliance on the case of Morano #. 0i#o 9 is not +ell-ta,en. 0i#o involved a deportation case, governed by Section )1 of the defunct Revised &dministrative Code and by Section >3 of the "mmigration !a+. ;e have ruled that in deportation cases, an arrest (of an undesirable alien# ordered by the 6resident or his duly authori.ed representatives, in order to carry out a final decision of deportation is valid. 1" "t is valid, ho+ever, because of the recogni.ed supremacy of the 78ecutive in matters involving foreign affairs. ;e have held/ 11 888 888 888 The State has the inherent po+er to deport undesirable aliens (Chuoco Tiaco vs. 9orbes, $$2 E.S. *(1, *3 !. 7d. 1)4, (4 6hil. %%$$, %%$*#. That po+er may be e8ercised by the Chief 78ecutive 5+hen he deems such action necessary for the peace and domestic tranBuility of the nation.5 @ustice @ohnson<s opinion is that +hen the Chief 78ecutive finds that there are aliens +hose continued presence in the country is inDurious to the public interest, 5he may, even in the absence of e8press la+, deport them5. (9orbes vs. Chuoco Tiaco and Crossfield, %) 6hil. *>(, *)2, *)1? "n re McCulloch -ic,, >2 6hil. (%#. The right of a country to e8pel or deport aliens because their continued presence is detrimental to public +elfare is absolute and unBualified (Tiu Chun Cai and Fo Tam vs. Commissioner of "mmigration and the -irector of AB", %4( 6hil. 1(1, 1*)#. 1> The po+er of the 6resident to order the arrest of aliens for deportation is, obviously, e8ceptional. "t (the po+er to order arrests# can not be made to e8tend to other cases, li,e the one at bar. Ender the Constitution, it is the sole domain of the courts. Moreover, the search and sei.ure order in Buestion, assuming, ex gratia argumenti, that it +as validly issued, is clearly in the nature of a general +arrant/ 6ursuant to the po+ers vested in me under 6residential -ecree Ao. %1$4 and 78ecutive 0rder Ao. %4$$, " hereby order the C!0SER7 of your recruitment agency being operated at Ao. )%* R.0. Santos St., Mandaluyong, Metro Manila and the sei.ure of the documents and paraphernalia being used or intended to be used as the means of committing illegal recruitment, it having verified that you have L (%# Ao valid license or authority from the -epartment of !abor and 7mployment to recruit and deploy +or,ers for overseas employment? ($# Committed=are committing acts prohibited under &rticle >( of the Ae+ !abor Code in relation to &rticle >2 of the same code. This 0R-7R is +ithout preDudice to your criminal prosecution under e8isting la+s. 1; ;e have held that a +arrant must identify clearly the things to be sei.ed, other+ise, it is null and void, thus/

888 888 888 &nother factor +hich ma,es the search +arrants under consideration constitutionally obDectionable is that they are in the nature of general +arrants. The search +arrants describe the articles sought to be sei.ed in this +ise/ %# &ll printing eBuipment, paraphernalia, paper, in,, photo eBuipment, type+riters, cabinets, tables, communications= recording eBuipment, tape recorders, dictaphone and the li,e used and=or connected in the printing of the 5;7 90REM5 ne+spaper and any and all documents=communications, letters and facsimile of prints related to the 5;7 90REM5 ne+spaper. $# Subversive documents, pamphlets, leaflets, boo,s, and other publications to promote the obDectives and purposes of the subversive organi.ations ,no+n as Movement for 9ree 6hilippines, !ight-a-9ire Movement and &pril ) Movement? and ># Motor vehicles used in the distribution=circulation of the 5;7 90REM5 and other subversive materials and propaganda, more particularly, %# Toyota-Corolla, colored yello+ +ith 6late Ao. AM& 21$? $# -&TSEA, pic,-up colored +hite +ith 6late Ao. AM' 1)1? ># & delivery truc, +ith 6late Ao. ABS *($? (# T0G0T&-T&M&R&;, colored +hite +ith 6late Ao. 6B6 ))*? and *# T0G0T& Ci-!u8, pic,-up truc, +ith 6late Ao. AF' (3$ +ith mar,ing 5Bagong Silang.5 "n +tanford #. +tate of 2exas, the search +arrant +hich authori.ed the search for 5boo,s, records, pamphlets, cards, receipts, lists, memoranda, pictures, recordings and other +ritten instruments concerning the Communist 6arties of Te8as, and the operations of the Community 6arty in Te8as,5 +as declared void by the E.S. Supreme Court for being too general. "n li,e manner, directions to 5sei.e any evidence in connection +ith the violation of S-C %>->34> or other+ise5 have been held too general, and that portion of a search +arrant +hich authori.ed the sei.ure of any 5paraphernalia +hich could be used to violate Sec. *(-%13 of the Connecticut Feneral Statutes (the statute dealing +ith the crime of conspiracy#5 +as held to be a general +arrant, and therefore invalid. The description of the articles sought to be sei.ed under the search +arrants in Buestion cannot be characteri.ed differently. "n the Stanford case, the E.S. Supreme court calls to mind a notable chapter in 7nglish history? the era of disaccord bet+een the Tudor Fovernment and the 7nglish 6ress, +hen 50fficers of the Cro+n +ere given roving commissions to search +here they pleased in order to suppress and destroy the literature of dissent both Catholic and 6uritan.5 Reference herein to such historical episode +ould not be relevant for it is not the policy of our government to suppress any ne+spaper or publication that spea,s +ith 5the voice of non-conformity5 but poses no clear and imminent danger to state security. 1< 9or the guidance of the bench and the bar, +e reaffirm the follo+ing principles/ %. Ender &rticle """, Section $, of the l123 Constitution, it is only Dudges, and no other, +ho may issue +arrants of arrest and search/ $. The e8ception is in cases of deportation of illegal and undesirable aliens, +hom the 6resident or the Commissioner of "mmigration may order arrested, follo+ing a final order of deportation, for the purpose of deportation. ;C7R790R7, the petition is FR&AT7-. &rticle >2, paragraph (c# of the !abor Code is declared EAC0AST"TET"0A&! and null and void. The respondents are 0R-7R7- to return all materials sei.ed as a result of the implementation of Search and Sei.ure 0rder Ao. %$4*. Ao costs. S0 0R-7R7-.

G.R. No. L!<5;58 January >9, 19;$ NAR(ISO AL7ARE6, petitioner, vs. THE (O0RT OF FIRST INSTAN(E OF TA%ABAS an' THE ANTI!0S0R% BOARD, respondents. IMPERIAL, J.: The petitioner as,s that the +arrant of @une >, %1>), issued by the Court of 9irst "nstance of Tayabas, ordering the search of his house and the sei.ure, at any time of the day or night, of certain accounting boo,s, documents and papers belonging to him in his residence situated in "nfanta, 6rovince of Tayabas, as +ell as the order of a later date, authori.ing the agents of the &nti-Esury Board to retain the articles sei.ed, be declared illegal and set aside, and prays that all the articles in Buestion be returned to him. 0n the date above-mentioned, the chief of the secret service of the &nti-Esury Board, of the -epartment of @ustice, presented to @udge 7duardo Futierre. -avid then presiding over the Court of 9irst "nstance of Tayabas, an affidavit alleging that according to reliable information, the petitioner ,ept in his house in "nfanta, Tayabas, boo,s, documents, receipts, lists, chits and other papers used by him in connection +ith his activities as a money-lender charging usurious rates of interest in violation of the la+. "n his oath at the and of the affidavit, the chief of the secret service stated that his ans+ers to the Buestions +ere correct to the best of his ,no+ledge and belief. Ce did not s+ear to the truth of his statements upon his o+n ,no+ledge of the facts but upon the information received by him from a reliable person. Epon the affidavit in Buestion the @udge, on said date, issued the +arrant +hich is the subDect matter of the petition, ordering the search of the petitioner<s house at nay time of the day or night, the sei.ure of the boo,s and documents above-mentioned and the immediate delivery thereof to him to be disposed of in accordance +ith the la+. ;ith said +arrant, several agents of the &nti-Esury Board entered the petitioner<s store and residence at seven o<cloc, on the night of @une (, %1>), and sei.ed and too, possession of the follo+ing articles/ internal revenue licenses for the years %1>> to %1>), one ledger, t+o Dournals, t+o cashboo,s, nine order boo,s, four noteboo,s, four chec,s stubs, t+o memorandums, three ban,boo,s, t+o contracts, four stubs, forty-eight stubs of purchases of copra, t+o inventories, t+o bundles of bills of lading, one bundle of credit receipts, one bundle of stubs of purchases of copra, t+o pac,ages of correspondence, one receipt boo, belonging to !uis 9ernande., fourteen bundles of invoices and other papers many documents and loan contracts +ith security and promissory notes, *4( chits, promissory notes and stubs of used chec,s of the Cong,ong J Shanghai Ban,ing Corporation. The search for and a sei.ure of said articles +ere made +ith the opposition of the petitioner +ho stated his protest belo+ the inventories on the ground that the agents sei.ed even the originals of the documents. &s the articles had not been brought immediately to the Dudge +ho issued the search +arrant, the petitioner, through his attorney, filed a motion on @une 2, %1>), praying that the agent 7milio !. Siongco, or any other agent, be ordered immediately to deposit all the sei.ed articles in the office of the cler, of court and that said agent be declared guilty of contempt for having disobeyed the order of the court. 0n said date the court issued an order directing 7milio !. Siongco to deposit all the articles sei.ed +ithin t+enty-four hours from the receipt of notice thereof and giving him a period of five (*# days +ithin +hich to sho+ cause +hy he should not be punished for contempt of court. 0n @une %4th, &ttorney &rsenio Rodrigue., representing the &nti-Esury Board, filed a motion praying that the order of the 2th of said month be set aside and that the &nti-Esury Board be authori.ed to retain the articles sei.ed for a period of thirty (>4# days for the necessary investigation. The attorney for the petitioner, on @une $4th, filed another motion alleging that, not+ithstanding the order of the 2th of said month, the officials of the &nti-Esury Board had failed to deposit the articles sei.ed by them and praying that a search +arrant be issued, that the sheriff be ordered to ta,e all the articles into his custody and deposit of the &ntiEsury Board be punished for contempt of court. Said attorney, on @une $(th, filed an e8 parte petition alleging that +hile agent 7milio !. Siongco had deposited some documents and papers in the office of the cler, of court, he had so far failed to file an inventory duly verified by oath of all the documents sei.ed by him, to return the search +arrant together +ith the affidavit it presented in support thereof, or to present the report of the proceedings ta,en by him? and prayed that said agent be directed to filed the documents in Buestion

immediately. 0n the $*th of said month the court issued an order reBuiring agent 7milio !. Siongco forth+ith to file the search +arrant and the affidavit in the court, together +ith the proceedings ta,en by him, and to present an inventory duly verified by oath of all the articles sei.ed. 0n @uly $d of said year, the attorney for the petitioner filed another petition alleging that the search +arrant issue +as illegal and that it had nit yet been returned to date together +ith the proceedings ta,en in connection there+ith, and praying that said +arrant be cancelled, that an order be issued directing the return of all the articles sei.ed to the petitioner, that the agent +ho sei.ed them be declared guilty of contempt of court, and that charges be filed against him for abuse of authority. 0n September %4, %1>), the court issued an order holding/ that the search +arrant +as obtained and issued in accordance +ith the la+, that it had been duly complied +ith and, conseBuently, should not be cancelled, and that agent 7milio !. Siongco did not commit any contempt of court and must, therefore, be e8onerated, and ordering the chief of the &nti-Esury Board in Manila to sho+ case, if any, +ithin the une8tendible period of t+o ($# days from the date of notice of said order, +hy all the articles sei.ed appearing in the inventory, 78hibit %, should not be returned to the petitioner. The assistant chief of the &nti-Esury Board of the -epartment of @ustice filed a motion praying, for the reasons stated therein, that the articles sei.ed be ordered retained for the purpose of conducting an investigation of the violation of the &nti-Esury !a+ committed by the petitioner. "n vie+ of the opposition of the attorney for the petitioner, the court, on September $*th, issued an order reBuiring the &nti-Esury Board to specify the time needed by it to e8amine the documents and papers sei.ed and +hich of them should be retained, granting it a period of five (*# days for said purpose. 0n the >4th of said month the assistant chief of the &nti-Esury Board filed a motion praying that he be granted ten (%4# days to comply +ith the order of September $*th and that the cler, of court be ordered to return to him all the documents and papers together +ith the inventory thereof. The court, in an order of 0ctober $d of said year, granted him the additional period of ten(%4# days and ordered the cler, of court to send him a copy of the inventory. 0n 0ctober %4th, said official again filed another motion alleging that he needed si8ty ()4# days to e8amine the documents and papers sei.ed, +hich are designated on pages % to ( of the inventory by Aos. *, %4%), $>, $*, $), $3, >4, >%, >(, >), >3, >2, >1, (4, (%, ($, (> and (*, and praying that he be granted said period of si8ty ()4# days. "n an order of 0ctober %)th, the court granted him the period of si8ty ()4# days to investigate said nineteen (%1# documents. The petitioner alleges, and it is not denied by the respondents, that these nineteen (%1#documents continue in the possession of the court, the rest having been returned to said petitioner. ". & search +arrant is an order in +riting, issued in the name of the 6eople of the 6hilippine "slands, signed by a Dudge or a Dustice of the peace, and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for personal property and bring it before the court (section 1*, Feneral 0rders. Ao. *2, as amended by section ) of &ct Ao. $22)#. 0f all the rights of a citi.en, fe+ are of greater importance or more essential to his peace and happiness than the right of personal security, and that involves the e8emption of his private affairs, boo,s, and papers from the inspection and scrutiny of others ((n re 6acific Rail+ays Commission, >$ 9ed., $(%? "nterstate Commerce Commission vs Brimson, >2 !a+. ed., %4(3? Broyd #s4 E. S., $1 !a+. ed., 3()? Caroll #s4 E. S., )1 !a+. ed., *(>, *(1#. ;hile the po+er to search and sei.e is necessary to the public +elfare, still it must be e8ercised and the la+ enforced +ithout transgressing the constitutional rights or citi.en, for the enforcement of no statue is of sufficient importance to Dustify indifference to the basis principles of government (6eople #s4 7lias, %(3 A. 7., (3$#. "". &s the protection of the citi.en and the maintenance of his constitutional right is one of the highest duties and privileges of the court, these constitutional guaranties should be given a liberal construction or a strict construction in favor of the individual, to prevent stealthy encroachment upon, or gradual depreciation on, the rights secured by them(State #s4 Custer County, %12 6ac., >)$? State #s4 Mc-aniel, $>% 6ac., 1)*? $>3 6ac., >3>#. Since the proceeding is a drastic one, it is the general rule that statutes authori.ing searches and sei.ure or search +arrants must be strictly construed (Rose #s4 St. Clair, $2 9ed., H$dI, %21? !eonard #s4 E. S., ) 9ed. H$dI, >*>? 6erry #s4 E. S. %( 9ed. H$dI,22? Cofer #s4 State, %%2 So., )%>#.

""". The petitioner claims that the search +arrant issued by the court is illegal because it has been based upon the affidavit of agent Mariano F. &lmeda in +hose oath he declared that he had no personal ,no+ledge of the facts +hich +ere to serve as a basis for the issuance of the +arrant but that he had ,no+ledge thereof through mere information secured from a person +hom he considered reliable. To the Buestion 5;hat are your reason for applying for this search +arrant5, appearing in the affidavit, the agent ans+ered/ 5"t has been reported to me by a person +hom " consider to be reliable that there are being ,ept in said premises, boo,s, documents, receipts, lists, chits, and other papers used by him in connection +ith his activities as a money-lender, charging a usurious rate of interest, in violation of the la+5 and in attesting the truth of his statements contained in the affidavit, the said agent states that he found them to be correct and true to the best of his ,no+ledge and belief. Section %, paragraph >, of &rticle """ of the Constitution, relative to the bill of rights, provides that 5The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and sei.ures shall not be violated, and no +arrants shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by the Dudge after e8amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the +itnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place top be searched, and the persons or things to be sei.ed.5 Section 13 of Feneral 0rders, Ao. *2 provides that 5& search +arrant shall not issue e8cept for probable cause and upon application supported by oath particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or thing to be sei.ed.5 "t +ill be noted that both provisions reBuire that there be not only probable cause before the issuance of a search +arrant but that the search +arrant must be based upon an application supported by oath of the applicant ands the +itnesses he may produce. "n its broadest sense, an oath includes any form of attestation by +hich a party signifies that he is bound in conscience to perform an act faithfully and truthfully? and it is sometimes defined asan out+ard pledge given by the person ta,ing it that his attestation or promise is made under an immediate sense of his responsibility to Fod (Bouvier<s !a+ -ictionary? State #s4 @ac,son, %>3 A. ;., %4>(? (n re Sage, $( 0h. Cir. Ct. HA. S.I, 3? 6umphery #s4 State, %$$ A. ;., %1? 6riest #s4 State, ) A. ;., ()2? State #s4 @ones, %*( 6ac., >32? &t+ood #s4 State, %%% So., 2)*#. The oath reBuired must refer to the truth of the facts +ithin the personal ,no+ledge of the petitioner or his +itnesses, because the purpose thereof is to convince the committing magistrate, not the individual ma,ing the affidavit and see,ing the issuance of the +arrant, of the e8istence of probable cause (E. S. #s4 Tureaud, $4 9ed., )$%? E. S. #s4 Michals,i, $)* 9ed., 2>(1? E. S. #s4 6itotto, $)3 9ed., )4>? E. S. #s4 !ai Che+, $12 9ed., )*$#. The true test of sufficiency of an affidavit to +arrant issuance of a search +arrant is +hether it has been dra+n in such a manner that perDury could be charged thereon and affiant be held liable for damages caused (State #s4 Roosevelt Country $4th @ud. -is. Ct., $(( 6ac., $24? State #s4 Ruartier, $>) 6ac., 3()#. "t +ill li,e+ise be noted that section %, paragraph >, of &rticle """ of the Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and sei.ure. Enreasonable searches and sei.ures are a menace against +hich the constitutional guarantee afford full protection. The term 5unreasonable search and sei.ure5 is not defined in the Constitution or in Feneral 0rders Ao. *2, and it is said to have no fi8ed, absolute or unchangeable meaning, although the term has been defined in general language. &ll illegal searches and sei.ure are unreasonable +hile la+ful ones are reasonable. ;hat constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search or sei.ure in any particular case is purely a Dudicial Buestion, determinable from a consideration of the circumstances involved, including the purpose of the search, the presence or absence or probable cause, the manner in +hich the search and sei.ure +as made, the place or thing searched, and the character of the articles procured (Fo-Bart "mporting Co. #s4 E. S. 3* !a+. ed., >3(? 6eru #s4 E. S., ( 9ed., H$dI, 22%?E. S. #s4 'atune, $1$ 9ed., (13? &ngelo #s4 E. S. 34 !a+, ed., %(*? !ambert #s4 E. S. $2$ 9ed., (%>? E. S. #s4 Bateman, $32 9ed., $>%? Mason #s4 Rollins, %) 9ed. Cas. HAo. 1$*$I, $ Biss., 11#. "n vie+ of the foregoing and under the above-cited authorities, it appears that the affidavit, +hich served as the e8clusive basis of the search +arrant, is insufficient and fatally defective by reason of the

manner in +hich the oath +as made, and therefore, it is hereby held that the search +arrant in Buestion and the subseBuent sei.ure of the boo,s, documents and other papers are illegal and do not in any +ay +arrant the deprivation to +hich the petitioner +as subDected. "'. &nother ground alleged by the petitioner in as,ing that the search +arrant be declared illegal and cancelled is that it +as not supported by other affidavits aside from that made by the applicant. "n other +ords, it is contended that the search +arrant cannot be issued unless it be supported by affidavits made by the applicant and the +itnesses to be presented necessity by him. Section %, paragraph >, of &rticle """ of the Constitution provides that no +arrants shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by the Dudge after e8amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the +itnesses he may produce. Section 12 of Feneral 0rders, Ao. *2 provides that the Dudge or Dustice must, before issuing the +arrant, e8amine under oath the complainant and any +itnesses he may produce and ta,e their depositions in +riting. "t is the practice in this Durisdiction to attach the affidavit of at least the applicant or complainant to the application. "t is admitted that the Dudge +ho issued the search +arrant in this case, relied e8clusively upon the affidavit made by agent Mariano F. &lmeda and that he did not reBuire nor ta,e the deposition of any other +itness. Aeither the Constitution nor Feneral 0rders. Ao. *2 provides that it is of imperative necessity to ta,e the deposition of the +itnesses to be presented by the applicant or complainant in addition to the affidavit of the latter. The purpose of both in reBuiring the presentation of depositions is nothing more than to satisfy the committing magistrate of the e8istence of probable cause. Therefore, if the affidavit of the applicant or complainant is sufficient, the Dudge may dispense +ith that of other +itnesses. "nasmuch as the affidavit of the agent in this case +as insufficient because his ,no+ledge of the facts +as not personal but merely hearsay, it is the duty of the Dudge to reBuire the affidavit of one or more +itnesses for the purpose of determining the e8istence of probable cause to +arrant the issuance of the search +arrant. ;hen the affidavit of the applicant of the complaint contains sufficient facts +ithin his personal and direct ,no+ledge, it is sufficient if the Dudge is satisfied that there e8ist probable cause? +hen the applicant<s ,no+ledge of the facts is mere hearsay, the affidavit of one or more +itnesses having a personal ,no+ledge of the fact is necessary. ;e conclude, therefore, that the +arrant issued is li,e+ise illegal because it +as based only on the affidavit of the agent +ho had no personal ,no+ledge of the facts. '. The petitioner alleged as another ground for the declaration of the illegality of the search +arrant and the cancellation thereof, the fact that it authori.ed its e8ecution at night. Section %4% of Feneral 0rders, Ao. *2 authori.es that the search be made at night +hen it is positively asserted in the affidavits that the property is on the person or in the place ordered to be searched. &s +e have declared the affidavits insufficient and the +arrant issued e8clusively upon it illegal, our conclusion is that the contention is eBually +ell founded and that the search could not legally be made at night. '". 0ne of the grounds alleged by the petitioner in support of his contention that the +arrant +as issued illegally is the lac, of an adeBuate description of the boo,s and documents to be sei.ed. Section %, paragraphs >, of &rticle """ of the Constitution, and section 13 of Feneral 0rders, Ao. *2 provide that the affidavit to be presented, +hich shall serve as the basis for determining +hether probable cause e8ist and +hether the +arrant should be issued, must contain a particular description of the place to be searched and the person or thing to be sei.ed. These provisions are mandatory and must be strictly complied +ith (Munch #s4 E. S., $( 9ed. H$dI, *%2? E. S. #s4 Boyd, % 9ed. H$dI, %4%1? E. S. #s4 Carlson, $1$ 9ed., ()>? E. S. #s4 Bor,o+s,i, $)2 9ed., (42? "n re Tri-State Coal J Co,e Co., $*> 9ed., )4*? 6eople #s4 Mayen, %22 Cal., $>3? 6eople #s4 Mahn, $*) "ll. &pp., (%$*#? but +here, by the nature of the goods to be sei.ed, their description must be rather generally, it is not reBuired that a technical description be given, as this +ould mean that no +arrant could issue (6eople #s4 Rubio, *3 6hil., $2(? 6eople #s4 Mahn, supra#. The only description of the articles given in the affidavit presented to the Dudge +as as follo+s/ 5that there are being ,ept in said premises boo,s, documents, receipts, lists, chits and other papers used by him in connection +ith his activities as money-lender, charging a usurious rate of

interest, in violation of the la+.5 Ta,ing into consideration the nature of the article so described, it is clear that no other more adeBuate and detailed description could have been given, particularly because it is difficult to give a particular description of the contents thereof. The description so made substantially complies +ith the legal provisions because the officer of the la+ +ho e8ecuted the +arrant +as thereby placed in a position enabling him to identify the articles, +hich he did. '"". The last ground alleged by the petitioner, in support of his claim that the search +arrant +as obtained illegally, is that the articles +ere sei.ed in order that the &nti-Esury Board might provide itself +ith evidence to be used by it in the criminal case or cases +hich might be filed against him for violation of the &nti-usury !a+. &t the hearing of the incidents of the case raised before the court it clearly appeared that the boo,s and documents had really been sei.ed to enable the &nti-Esury Board to conduct an investigation and later use all or some of the articles in Buestion as evidence against the petitioner in the criminal cases that may be filed against him. The sei.ure of boo,s and documents by means of a search +arrant, for the purpose of using them as evidence in a criminal case against the person in +hose possession they +ere found, is unconstitutional because it ma,es the +arrant unreasonable, and it is eBuivalent to a violation of the constitutional provision prohibiting the compulsion of an accused to testify against himself (Ey Mheytin #s4 'illareal, ($ 6hil,, 22)? Brady #s4 E. S., $)) E. S., )$4? Temperani #s4 E. S., $11 9ed., >)*? E. S. #s4 Madden, $13 9ed., )31? Boyd #s4 E. S.,%%) E. S., %%)? Caroll #s4 E. S., $)3 E. S., %>$#. Therefore, it appearing that at least nineteen of the documents in Buestion +ere sei.ed for the purpose of using them as evidence against the petitioner in the criminal proceeding or proceedings for violation against him, +e hold that the search +arrant issued is illegal and that the documents should be returned to him. The &nti-Esury Board insinuates in its ans+er that the petitioner cannot no+ Buestion the validity of the search +arrant or the proceedings had subseBuent to the issuance thereof, because he has +aived his constitutional rights in proposing a compromise +hereby he agreed to pay a fine of 6$44 for the purpose of evading the criminal proceeding or proceedings. ;e are of the opinion that there +as no such +aiver, first, because the petitioner has emphatically denied the offer of compromise and, second, because if there +as a compromise it reffered but to the institution of criminal proceedings fro violation of the &nti-Esury !a+. The +aiver +ould have been a good defense for the respondents had the petitioner voluntarily consented to the search and sei.ure of the articles in Buestion, but such +as not the case because the petitioner protested from the beginning and stated his protest in +riting in the insufficient inventory furnished him by the agents. Said board alleges as another defense that the remedy sought by the petitioner does not lie because he can appeal from the orders +hich preDudiced him and are the subDect matter of his petition. Section $$$ of the Code of Civil 6rocedure in fact provides that mandamus +ill not issue +hen there is another plain, speedy and adeBuate remedy in the ordinary course of la+. ;e are of the opinion, ho+ever, that an appeal from said orders +ould have to lapse before he recovers possession of the documents and before the rights, of +hich he has been unla+fully deprived, are restored to him (9aDardo #s4 !lorente, ) 6hil., ($)? Manotoc #s4 McMic,ing and Trinidad, %4 6hil., %%1? Cru. Cerrera de !u,ban #s4 McMic,ing, %( 6hil., )(%? !amb #s4 6hipps, $$ 6hil., (*)#. Summari.ing the foregoing conclusions, +e hold/ %. That the provisions of the Constitution and Feneral 0rders, Ao. *2, relative to search and sei.ure, should be given a liberal construction in favor of the individual in order to maintain the constitutional guaranties +hole and in their full force? $. That since the provisions in Buestion are drastic in their form and fundamentally restrict the enDoyment of the o+nership, possession and use of the personal property of the individual, they should be strictly construed? >. That the search and sei.ure made are illegal for the follo+ing reasons/ (a# Because the +arrant +as based solely upon the affidavit of the petitioner +ho had no personal ,no+ledge of the facts of probable cause, and (b# because the +arrant +as issued for the sole purpose of sei.ing evidence +hich +ould

later be used in the criminal proceedings that might be instituted against the petitioner, for violation of the &nti-Esury !a+? (. That as the +arrant had been issued unreasonably, and as it does not appear positively in the affidavit that the articles +ere in the possession of the petitioner and in the place indicated, neither could the search and sei.ure be made at night? *. That although it is not mandatory to present affidavits of +itnesses to corroborate the applicant or a complainant in cases +here the latter has personal ,no+ledge of the facts, +hen the applicant<s or complainant<s ,no+ledge of the facts is merely hearsay, it is the duty of the Dudge to reBuire affidavits of other +itnesses so that he may determine +hether probable cause e8ists? ). That a detailed description of the person and place to be searched and the articles to be sei.ed is necessary, but +hereby, by the nature of the articles to be sei.ed, their description must be rather general, but is not reBuired that a technical description be given, as this +ould mean that no +arrant could issue? 3. That the petitioner did not +aive his constitutional rights because the offer of compromise or settlement attributed to him, does not mean, if so made, that he voluntarily tolerated the search and sei.ure? and 2. That an appeal from the orders Buestioned by the petitioner, if ta,en by him, +ould not be an effective, speedy or adeBuate remedy in the ordinary course of la+, and, conseBuently, the petition for mandamus filed by him, lies. 9or the foregoing considerations, the search +arrant and the sei.ure of @une >, %1>), and the orders of the respondent court authori.ing the relation of the boo,s and documents, are declared illegal and are set aside, and it is ordered that the Dudge presiding over the Court of 9irst "nstance of Tayabas direct the immediate return to the petitioner of the nineteen (%1# documents designated on pages % to ( of the inventory by Aos. *, %4, %), $>, $*,$), $3, >4, >%, >(, >), >3, >2, >1, (4, (%, ($, (> and (*, +ithout special pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.

G.R. No. L!>>196 Jun# ;", 196$ ESTEBAN MORANO, (HAN SA0 )AH an' F0 %AN F0N, petitioners-appellants, vs. HON. MARTINIANO 7I7O *n +*, -a.a-*/y a, A-/*n2 (o@@*,,*on#r o4 I@@*2ra/*on, respondent-appellant. SAN(HE6, J.: Chan Sau ;ah, a Chinese citi.en born in 9u,ien, China on @anuary ), %1>$, arrived in the 6hilippines on Aovember $>, %1)% to visit her cousin, Samuel !ee Malaps. She left in mainland China t+o of her children by a first marriage/ 9u Tse Ca+ and 9u Gan Mai ;ith her +as 9u Gan 9un, her minor son also by the first marriage, born in Cong,ong on September %%, %1*3. Chan Sau ;ah and her minor son 9u Gan 9un +ere permitted only into the 6hilippines under a temporary visitor<s visa for t+o ($# months and after they posted a cash bond of 6(,444.44. 0n @anuary $(, %1)$, Chan Sau ;ah married 7steban Morano, a native-born 9ilipino citi.en. Born to this union on September %), %1)$ +as 7steban Morano, @r. To prolong their stay in the 6hilippines, Chan Sau ;ah and 9u Gan 9un obtained several e8tensions. The last e8tension e8pired on September %4, %1)$.56wph75489t "n a letter dated &ugust >%, %1)$, the Commissioner of "mmigration ordered Chan Sau ;ah and her son, 9u Gan 9un, to leave the country on or before September %4, %1)$ +ith a +arning that upon failure so to do, he +ill issue a +arrant for their arrest and +ill cause the confiscation of their bond. "nstead of leaving the country, on September %4, %1)$, Chan Sau ;ah (+ith her husband 7steban Morano# and 9u Gan 9un petitioned the Court of 9irst "nstance of Manila for mandamus to compel the Commissioner of "mmigration to cancel petitioners< &lien Certificates of Registration? prohibition to stop the Commissioner from issuing a +arrant for their arrest, and preliminary inDunction to restrain the Commissioner from confiscating their cash bond and from issuing +arrants of arrest pending resolution of this case.% The trial court, on Aovember >, %1)$, issued the +rit of preliminary inDunction prayed for, upon a 6$,444-bond. &fter trial and the stipulations of facts filed by the parties, the Court of 9irst "nstance rendered Dudgment, #i"/ "A '"7; 09 &!! TC7 90R7F0"AF, Dudgment is hereby rendered as follo+s/ (a# Franting this petition for Mandamus and 6rohibition +ith respect to petitioner CC&A S&E ;&C, +ho is hereby declared a citi.en of the 6hilippines? ordering the respondent to cancel her &lien Certificate of Registration and other immigration papers, upon the payment of proper dues? and declaring the preliminary inDunction +ith respect to her permanent, prohibiting the respondent, his representatives or subordinates from arresting and=or deporting said petitioner? (b# -ismissing this petition +ith respect to petitioner 9E G&A 9EA, and dissolving the +rit of preliminary inDunction issued herein, restraining the respondent, his representatives or subordinates from arresting and=or deporting said petitioner? (c# &uthori.ing respondent Commissioner to forfeit the bond filed by herein petitioners CC&A S&E ;&C and 9E G&A 9EA in the amount of 6(,444.44? and (d# -enying, for lac, of merit, the prayer to declare Sec. >3 (a# of the 6hilippine "mmigration &ct of %1(4 unconstitutional? ;ithout pronouncement, as to costs. 6etitioners and respondent Commissioner both appealed. ;e +ill deal +ith the claims of both appellants in their proper seBuence. %. The Solicitor Feneral<s brief assails the trial court<s declaration that Chan Sau ;ah is a citi.en of the 6hilippines. The court a !uo too, the position that 5Chan Sau ;ah became, by virtue of, and upon, her marriage to 7steban Morano, a natural-born 9ilipino, a 9ilipino citi.en.$ 6laced to the fore is paragraph %, Section %* of Common+ealth &ct (3> HRevised Aaturali.ation &ctI, +hich reads/

Sec. %*. ?ffect of the naturali"ation on wife children. L &ny +oman +ho is no+ or may hereafter be married to a citi.en of the 6hilippines, and +ho might herself be la+fully naturali.ed shall be deemed a citi.en of the 6hilippines. To apply this provision, t+o reBuisites must concur/ (a# valid marriage of an alien +oman to a citi.en of the 6hilippines and (b# the alien +oman herself might be la+fully naturali.ed. ;e may concede that the first reBuisite has been properly met. The validity of the marriage is presumed. But can the same be said of the second reBuisiteK This Buestion by all means is not ne+. "n a series of cases, this Court has declared that the marriage of an alien +oman to a 9ilipino citi.en does not ipso facto ma,e her a 9ilipino citi.en. She must satisfactorily sho+ that she has all the Bualifications and none of the disBualifications reBuired by the Aaturali.ation !a+.> >y 3io% a alias Wy 3io% a et al4 #s4 ?milio 3alang, !-$%>>$, March %2, %1)),S clearly +rites do+n the philosophy behind the rule in the follo+ing e8pressive language, #i"/ Reflection +ill reveal +hy this must be so. The Bualifications prescribed under section $ of the Aaturali.ation &ct, and the disBualifications enumerated in its section (, are not mutually e8clusive? and if all that +ere to be reBuired is that the +ife of a 9ilipino be not disBualified under section (, the result might +ell be that citi.enship +ould be conferred upon persons in violation of the policy of the statute. 9or e8ample, section ( disBualifies only L 5(c# 6olygamists or believers in the practice of polygamy? and (b# 6ersons convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude,5 so that a blac,mailer, or a maintainer of gambling or ba+dy houses, not previously convicted by a competent court, +ould not be thereby disBualified? still it is certain that the la+ did not intend such a person to, be admitted as a citi.en in vie+ of the reBuirement of section $ that an applicant for citi.enship 5must be of good moral character.5 Similarly, the citi.en<s +ife might be a convinced believer in racial supremacy, in government by certain selected classes, in the right to vote e8clusively by certain 5herrenvol,,5 and thus disbelieve in the principles underlying the 6hilippine Constitution? yet she +ould not be disBualified under section (, as long as she is not 5opposed to organi.ed government,5 nor affiliated to groups 5upholding or teaching doctrines opposing all organi.ed governments,5 nor 5defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence, personal assault or assassination for the success or predominance of their ideas.5 ?t sic de caeteris. Epon the principle of selective citi.enship, +e cannot afford to depart from the +ise precept affirmed and reaffirmed in the cases heretofore noted. "n the additional stipulation of facts of @uly >, %1)>, petitioners admit that Chan Sau ;ah is not possessed of all the Bualifications reBuired by the Aaturali.ation !a+. Because of all these +e are left under no doubt that petitioner Chan Sau ;ah did not become a 9ilipino citi.en. $. SBuarely put in issue by petitioners is the constitutionality of Section >3 (a# of the "mmigration &ct of %1(4, +hich reads/ Sec. >3. (a# The follo+ing aliens shall be arrested upon the +arrant of the Commissioner of "mmigration or of any other officer designated by him for the purpose and deported upon the +arrant of the Commissioner of "mmigration after a determination by the Board of Commissioners of the e8istence of the ground for deportation as charged against the alien/ 888 888 888 (3# &ny alien +ho remains in the 6hilippines in violation of any limitation or condition under +hich he +as admitted as a nonimmigrant. 6etitioners argue that the legal precept Dust Buoted trenches upon the constitutional mandate in Section % (>#, &rticle """ HBill of RightsI of the Constitution, to +it/ (># The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and sei.ures shall not be violated, and no +arrants shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by the Dudge after e8amination under oath or affirmation of the

complainant and the +itnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be sei.ed. They say that the Constitution limits to Dudges the authority to issue +arrants of arrest and that the legislative delegation of such po+er to the Commissioner of "mmigration is thus violative of the Bill of Rights. Section % (>#, &rticle """ of the Constitution, +e perceive, does not reBuire Dudicial intervention in the e8ecution of a final order of deportation issued in accordance +ith la+. The constitutional limitation contemplates an order of arrest in the e8ercise of Dudicial po+er( as a step preliminary or incidental to prosecution or proceedings for a given offense or administrative action, not as a measure indispensable to carry out a valid decision by a competent official, such as a legal order of deportation, issued by the Commissioner of "mmigration, in pursuance of a valid legislation. The follo+ing from &merican @urisprudence,* is illuminating/ "t is thoroughly established that Congress has po+er to order the deportation of aliens +hose presence in the country it deems hurtful. 0+ing to the nature of the proceeding, the deportation of an alien +ho is found in this country in violation of la+ is not a deprivation of liberty +ithout due process of la+. This is so, although the inBuiry devolves upon e8ecutive officers, and their findings of fact, after a fair though summary hearing, are made conclusive. 888 888 888 The determination of the propriety of deportation is not a prosecution for, or a conviction of, crime? nor is the deportation a punishment, even though the facts underlying the decision may constitute a crime under local la+. The proceeding is in effect simply a refusal by the government to harbor persons +hom it does not +ant. The coincidence of local penal la+ +ith the policy of Congress is purely accidental, and, though supported by the same facts, a criminal prosecution and a proceeding for deportation are separate and independent. "n conseBuence, the constitutional guarantee set forth in Section % (>#, &rticle """ of the Constitution aforesaid, reBuiring that the issue of probable cause be determined by a Dudge, does not e8tend to deportation proceedings.) The vie+ +e here e8press finds support in the discussions during the constitutional convention. The convention recogni.ed, as sanctioned by due process, possibilities and cases of deprivation of liberty, other than by order of a competent court.3 "ndeed, the po+er to deport or e8pel aliens is an attribute of sovereignty. Such po+er is planted on the 5accepted ma8im of international la+, that every sovereign nation has the po+er, as inherent in sovereignty, and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners +ithin its dominions.52 So it is, that this Court once aptly remar,ed that there can be no controversy on the fact that +here aliens are admitted as temporary visitors, 5the la+ is to the effect that temporary visitors +ho do not depart upon the e8piration of the period of stay granted them are subDect to deportation by the Commissioner of "mmigration, for having violated the limitation or condition under +hich they +ere admitted as non-immigrants ("mmigration !a+, Sec. >3 (a#, subsection (3#? C.&. )%>, as amended#.51 &nd, in a case directly in point, +here the po+er of the Commissioner to issue +arrants of arrest was challengedas unconstitutional, because 5such po+er is only vested in a Dudge by Section %, paragraph >, &rticle """ of our Constitution,5 this Court declared L This argument overloo,s the fact that the stay of appellant Ag Cua To as temporary visitor is subDect to certain contractual stipulations as contained in the cash bond put up by him, among them, that in case of breach the Commissioner may reBuire the recommitment of the person in +hose favor the bond has been filed. The Commissioner did nothing but to enforce such condition. Such a step is necessary to enable the Commissioner to prepare the ground for his deportation under section >3 (a# of Common+ealth &ct )%>. & contrary interpretation +ould render such po+er nugatory to the detriment of the State.%4 "t is in this conte8t that +e rule that Section >3 (a# of the "mmigration &ct of %1(4 is not constitutionally proscribed.

>. & seBuel to the Buestions Dust discussed is the second error set forth in the government<s brief. The Solicitor Feneral bal,s at the lo+er court<s ruling that petitioner Chan Sau ;ah is entitled to permanent residence in the 6hilippines +ithout first complying +ith the reBuirements of Sections 1 and %> of the "mmigration &ct of %1(4, as amended by Republic &ct *4>. ;e first go to the la+, #i"/ S7C. 1 Hlast paragraphI &n alien +ho is admitted as a nonimmigrant cannot remain in the 6hilippines permanently. To obtain permanent admission, a nonimmigrant alien must depart voluntarily to some foreign country and procure from the appropriate 6hilippine consul the proper visa and thereafter undergo e8amination by the officers of the Bureau of "mmigration at a 6hilippine port of entry for determination of his admissibility in accordance +ith the reBuirements of this &ct. S7C. %>. Ender the conditions set forth in this &ct there may be admitted into the 6hilippines immigrants, termed 5Buota immigrants5 not in e8cess of fifty (*4# of any one nationality or +ithout nationality for any one calendar year, e8cept that the follo+ing immigrants, termed 5nonBuota immigrants,5 maybe admitted +ithout regard to such numerical limitations. The corresponding 6hilippine Consular representative abroad shall investigate and certify the eligibility of a Buota immigrant previous to his admission into the 6hilippines. Rualified and desirable aliens +ho are in the 6hilippines under temporary stay may be admitted +ithin the Buota, subDect to the provisions of the last paragraph of section 1 of this &ct. (a# The +ife or the husband or the unmarried child under t+enty-one years of age of a 6hilippine citi.en, if accompanying or follo+ing to Doin such citi.en? (b# & child of alien parents born during the temporary visit abroad of the mother, the mother having been previously la+fully admitted into the 6hilippine for permanent residence, if the child is accompanying or coming to Doin a parent and applies for admission +ithin five years from the date of its birth? Concededly, Chan Sau ;ah entered the 6hilippines on a tourist)temporary visitor<s visa. She is a nonimmigrant. Ender Section %> Dust Buoted, she may therefore be admitted if she +ere a Bualified and desirable alien and subDect to the provisions of the last paragraph of Section 1. Therefore, first, she must depart voluntarily to some foreign country? second, she must procure from the appropriate consul the proper visa? and third, she must thereafter undergo e8amination by the officials of the Bureau of "mmigration at the port of entry for determination of her admissibility in accordance +ith the reBuirements of the immigration &ct. This Court in a number of cases has ruled, and consistently too, that an alien admitted as a temporary visitor cannot change his or her status +ithout first departing from the country and complying +ith the reBuirements of Section 1 of the "mmigration &ct. %% The gravamen of petitioners< argument is that Chan Sau ;ah has, since her entry, married in Manila a nativeborn 9ilipino, 7steban Morano. "t +ill not particularly help analysis for petitioners to appeal to family solidarity in an effort to th+art her deportation. Chan Sau ;ah, seemingly is not one +ho has a high regard for such solidarity. 6roof/ She left t+o of her children by the first marriage, both minors, in the care of neighbors in 9u,ien, China. Then, the +ording of the statute heretofore adverted to is a forbidding obstacle +hich +ill prevent this Court from +riting into the la+ an additional provision that marriage of a temporary alien visitor to a 9ilipino +ould ipso factoma,e her a permanent resident in his country. This is a field closed to Dudicial action. Ao breadth of discretion is allo+ed us. ;e cannot insulate her from the State<s po+er of deportation. Really, it +ould be an easy matter for an alien +oman to enter the 6hilippines as a temporary visitor, go through a moc, marriage, but actually live +ith another man as husband and +ife, and thereby s,irt the provisions of our immigration la+. &lso, a +oman of undesirable character may enter this country, ply a pernicious trade, marry a 9ilipino, and again thro+ overboard Sections 1 and %> of the &ct. Such a flan,ing movement, +e are confident, is impermissible.

Recently +e confirmed the rule that an alien +ife of a 9ilipino may not stay permanently +ithout first departing from the 6hilippines. Reason/ -iscourage entry under false pretenses. %$ The ruling of the trial court on this score should be reversed. (. "t is petitioners< turn to point as error the dismissal of the petition for mandamus and prohibition +ith respect to petitioner 9u Gan 9un. 6etitioners< line of thought is this/ 9u Gan 9un follo+s the citi.enship of his mother. They cite Section %*, paragraph >, Common+ealth &ct (3>, +hich says that/ & foreign-born minor child, if d+elling in the 6hilippines at the time of the naturali.ation of the parent, shall automatically become a 6hilippine citi.en. . . . 6etitioners< position is based on the assumption that Chan Sau ;ah, the mother, is a 9ilipino citi.en. ;e have held that she is not. &t best, 9u Gan 9un is a step-son of 7steban Morano, husband of Chan Sau ;ah. & stepson is not a foreign-born child of the step-father. The word child, +e are certain, means legitimate child, not a step-child. ;e are not +anting in precedents. Thus, +hen the Constitution provides that 5HtIhose +hose fathers are citi.ens of the 6hilippines5 are citi.ens thereof, %> the fundamental charter intends 5those5 to apply to legitimate children. %( "n another case, the term 5minor children5 or 5minor child5 in Section %* of the Revised Aaturali.ation !a+ refers only to legitimate children of 9ilipino citi.ens. This Court, thru Mr. Chief @ustice Roberto Concepcion, there said/ %* "t is claimed that the phrases 5minor children5 and 5minor child,5 used in these provisions, include adopted children. The argument is predicated upon the theory that an adopted child is, for all intents and purposes, a legitimate child. ;henever, the +ord 5children5 or 5child5 is used in statutes, it is generally understood, ho+ever, to refer to legitimate children, unless the conte8t of the la+ and its spirit indicate clearly the contrary. Thus, for instance, +hen the Constitution provides that 5those +hose fathers are citi.ens of the 6hilippines,5 and 5those +hose mothers are citi.ens of the 6hilippines5 +ho shall elect 6hilippine citi.enship upon reaching the age of maDority, are citi.ens of the 6hilippines (&rticle "', Section %, subdivisions H>I and H(I#, our fundamental la+ clearly refers to legitimate children (Chiongbian vs. -e !eon, () 0ff. Fa.., >)*$->)*(? Serra v. Republic, !-($$>, May %$, %1*$#. &t any rate, 9u Gan 9un entered the 6hilippines as a temporary visitor. The status of a temporary visitor cannot be converted into, that of a permanent resident, as +e have heretofore held, +ithout first complying +ith Section 1 of the "mmigration !a+. *. 6etitioners finally aver that the lo+er court erred in authori.ing respondent Commissioner to forfeit the bond filed by petitioners Chan Sau ;ah and 9u Gan 9un in the amount of 6(,444.44. Cere is petitioners< posture. They enDoyed their stay in the 6hilippines upon a bond. Ao+ they come to court and say that as the prescribed form of this bond +as not e8pressly approved by the Secretary of @ustice in accordance +ith Section > of Common+ealth &ct )%>, +hich reads L S7C. >. . . . Ce HCommissioner of "mmigrationI shall issue, subDect to the approval of the -epartment Cead, such rules and regulations and prescribes such forms of bond, reports, and other papers, and shall issue from time to time such instruction, not inconsistent +ith la+, as he shall deem best calculated to carry out the provisions of the immigration la+s. . . . that bond is void. Reasons there are +hich prevent us from giving our imprimatur to this argument. The provision reBuiring official approval of a bond is merely directory. 5"rregularity or entire failure in this respect does not affect the validity of the bond. %) The reason for the rule, is found in 1 C.@., p. $) (footnote#, +hich reads/ (a# Reason for rule. L 5Statutes reBuiring bonds to be approved by certain officials are not for the purpose of protecting the obligors in the bond, but are aimed to protect the public, to insure their solvency, and to create evidence of an unimpeachable character of the fact of their e8ecution. ;hen they are e8ecuted for a legal purpose, before a proper tribunal, and are in fact accepted and approved by the officer or body, +hose duty it +as to approve them, it could serve no useful purpose of the la+ to hold them invalid, to release all the obligors thereon, and to defeat every purpose of its e8ecution, simply because the fact of approval +as not indorsed

precisely as had been directed by the !egislature.5 &merican Boo, Co. vs. ;ells, 2> S; )$$, )$3, $) My !%%*1. (emphasis supplied# &nd another. This bond +as accepted by the government. "t had been there. The form of the bond here used is of long continued usage. "f the government did not Buestion the form of the bond at all, then +e must assume that it counted +ith the Secretary<s approval. 9or the presumption is that official duty has been legally performed. Surely enough, eBuitable considerations +ill stop petitioners from pleading invalidity of the bond. They offered that bond to enable them to enter and stay in this country. They enDoyed benefits therefrom. They cannot, 5in la+, and good conscience, be allo+ed to reap the fruits5 of that bond, and then Dettison the same. They are 5precluded from attac,ing the validity5 of such bond. %3 &ctually, to petitioners the bond +as good +hile they sought entry into the 6hilippines? they offered it as security for the underta,ing? that they 5+ill actually depart from the 6hilippines5 +hen their term of stay e8pires. Ao+ that the bond is being confiscated because they overstayed, they ma,e an about-face and say that such bond is null and void. They shall not profit from this inconsistent position. Their bond should be confiscated. Conformably to the foregoing, the Dudgment under revie+ is hereby modified as follo+s/ (%# The portion thereof +hich reads/ (a# Franting their petition for Mandamus and 6rohibition +ith respect to petitioner CC&A S&E ;&C, +ho is hereby declared a citi.en of the 6hilippines? ordering the respondent to cancel her &lien Certificate of Registration and other immigration papers, upon the payment of proper dues? and declaring preliminary inDunction +ith respect to her permanent, prohibiting the respondent, his representatives or subordinates from arresting and=or deporting said petitioner? is hereby reversed/ and, in conseBuence L The petition for mandamus and prohibition +ith respect to petitioner Chan Sau ;ah is hereby denied? and the Dudgment declaring her a citi.en of the 6hilippines, directing respondent to cancel her &lien Certificate of Registration and other immigration papers, and declaring the preliminary inDunction +ith respect to her permanent, are all hereby set aside? and ($# "n all other respects, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed. Ao costs. So ordered.

G.R. No. 8>5<< Jun# >8, 1988 IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS (ORP0S OFB ANDRE) HAR7E%, JOHN SHERMAN an' ADRIAAN 7AN DEL ELSHO0T, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE (OMMISSIONER MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO, (OMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND DEPORTATION, respondent. MELEN(IO!HERRERA, J.: & petition for Cabeas Corpus. 6etitioners &ndre+ Carvey and @ohn Sherman, *$ and 3$ years, respectively, are both &merican nationals residing at 6agsanDan, !aguna, +hile &driaan 'an 7lshout, *2 years old, is a -utch citi.en also residing at 6agsanDan, !aguna. The case stems from the apprehension of petitioners on $3 9ebruary %122 from their respective residences by agents of the Commission on "mmigration and -eportation (C"-# by virtue of Mission 0rders issued by respondent Commissioner Miriam -efensor Santiago of the C"-. 6etitioners are presently detained at the C"-etention Center. 6etitioners +ere among the t+enty-t+o ($$# suspected alien pedophiles +ho +ere apprehended after three months of close surveillance by C"- agents in 6agsanDan, !aguna. T+o ($# days after apprehension, or on $1 9ebruary %122, seventeen (%3# of the t+enty-t+o ($$# arrested aliens opted for self-deportation and have left the country. 0ne +as released for lac, of evidence? another +as charged not for being a pedophile but for +or,ing +ithout a valid +or,ing visa. Thus, of the original t+enty t+o ($$#, only the three petitioners have chosen to face deportation. Sei.ed during petitioners apprehension +ere rolls of photo negatives and photos of the suspected child prostitutes sho+n in salacious poses as +ell as boys and girls engaged in the se8 act. There +ere also posters and other literature advertising the child prostitutes. The 50peration Report,5 on &ndre+ Carvey and Richard Sherman dated $1 9ebruary %122 stated/ 888 888 888 &A-R7; M&RM C&R'7G +as found together +ith t+o young boys. R"CC&R- SC7RM&A +as found +ith t+o na,ed boys inside his room. "n respect of 'an -en 7lshout the 5&fter Mission Report,5 dated $3 9ebruary %122 read in part/ Aoted/ There +ere t+o ($# children ages %( J %) +hich subDect readily accepted having been in his care and live-in for Buite sometime. 0n ( March %122, deportation proceedings +ere instituted against petitioners for being undesirable aliens under Section )1 of the Revised &dministrative Code (-eportation Case Ao. 22-%>#. The 5Charge Sheet5 read inter alia/ ;herefore, this 0ffice charges the respondents for deportation, as undesirable aliens, in that/ they, being pedophiles, are inimical to public morals, public health and public safety as provided in Section )1 of the Revised &dministrative Code. 0n 3 March %122, ;arrants of &rrest +ere issued by respondent against petitioners for violation of Sections >3, (* and () of the "mmigration &ct and Section )1 of the Revised &dministrative Code 0n the same date, the Board of Special "nBuiry """ commenced trial against petitioners. 0n %( March %122, petitioners filed an Ergent 6etition for Release Ender Bond alleging that their health +as being seriously affected by their continuous detention. Epon recommendation of the Board of Commissioners for their provisional release, respondent ordered the C"- doctor to e8amine petitioners, +ho certified that petitioners +ere healthy. 0n $$ March %122, petitioners filed a 6etition for Bail +hich, ho+ever, respondent denied considering the certification by the C"- physician that petitioners +ere healthy. To avoid congestion, respondent ordered

petitioners< transfer to the C"- detention cell at 9ort Bonifacio, but the transfer +as deferred pending trial due to the difficulty of transporting them to and from the C"- +here trial +as on-going. 0n ( &pril %122 petitioner &ndre+ Carvey filed a Manifestation=Motion stating that he had 5finally agreed to a self-deportation5 and praying that he be 5provisionally released for at least %* days and placed under the custody of &tty. &sinas before he voluntarily departs the country.5 0n 3 &pril %122, the Board of Special "nBuiry L """ allo+ed provisional release of five (*# days only under certain conditions. Co+ever, it appears that on the same date that the aforesaid Manifestation= Motion +as filed, Carvey and his co-petitioners had already filed the present petition. 0n ( &pril %122, as heretofore stated, petitioners availed of this 6etition for a ;rit of Cabeas Corpus. & Return of the ;rit +as filed by the Solicitor Feneral and the Court heard the case on oral argument on $4 &pril %122. & Traverse to the ;rit +as presented by petitioners to +hich a Reply +as filed by the Solicitor Feneral. 6etitioners Buestion the validity of their detention on the follo+ing grounds/ %# There is no provision in the 6hilippine "mmigration &ct of %1(4 nor under Section )1 of the Revised &dministrative Code, +hich legally clothes the Commissioner +ith any authority to arrest and detain petitioners pending determination of the e8istence of a probable cause leading to an administrative investigation. $# Respondent violated Section $, &rticle """ of the %123 Constitution prohibiting unreasonable searches and sei.ures since the C"- agents +ere not clothed +ith valid ;arrants of arrest, search and sei.ure as reBuired by the said provision. ># Mere confidential information made to the C"- agents and their suspicion of the activities of petitioners that they are pedophiles, coupled +ith their association +ith other suspected pedophiles, are not valid legal grounds for their arrest and detention unless they are caught in the act. They further allege that being a pedophile is not punishable by any 6hilippine !a+ nor is it a crime to be a pedophile. ;e reDect petitioners< contentions and uphold respondent<s official acts ably defended by the Solicitor Feneral. There can be no Buestion that the right against unreasonable searches and sei.ures guaranteed by &rticle """, Section $ of the %123 Constitution, is available to all persons, including aliens, +hether accused of crime or not (Moncado vs. 6eople<s Court, 24 6hil. % H%1(2I. 0ne of the constitutional reBuirements of a valid search +arrant or +arrant of arrest is that it must be based upon probable cause. 6robable cause has been defined as referring to 5such facts and circumstances antecedent to the issuance of the +arrant that in themselves are sufficient to induce a cautious man to rely on them and act in pursuance thereof.5 (6eople vs. SyDuco )( 6hil. ))3 H%1>3I? &lvere. vs. C9", )( 6hil. >> H%1>3I#. The %12* Rules on Criminal 6rocedure also provide that an arrest +it a +arrant may be effected by a peace officer or even a private person (%# +hen such person has committed, actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense in his presence? and ($# +hen an offense has, in fact, been committed and he has personal ,no+ledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it (Rule %%>, Section *#. "n this case, the arrest of petitioners +as based on probable cause determined after close surveillance for three (># months during +hich period their activities +ere monitored. The e8istence of probable cause Dustified the arrest and the sei.ure of the photo negatives, photographs and posters +ithout +arrant (See 6apa vs. Mago, !-$3>)4, 9ebruary $2, %1)2,$$ SCR& 2*3? 6eople vs. Court of 9irst "nstance of Ri.al, !-(%)2), Aovember %3, %124, %4% SCR& 2), cited in CRE:, Constitutional !a+, %123 ed., p. %(>#. Those articles +ere sei.ed as an incident to a la+ful arrest and, are therefore, admissible in evidence (Section %$, Rule %$),%12* Rules on criminal 6rocedure#. But even assuming arguendo that the arrest of petitioners +as not valid at its inception, the records sho+ that formal deportation charges have been filed against them, as undesirable aliens, on ( March %122. ;arrants of arrest +ere issued against them on 3 March %122 5for violation of Section >3, (* and () of the "mmigration &ct and Section )1 of the &dministrative Code.5 & hearing is presently being conducted by a Board of Special "nBuiry. The restraint against their persons, therefore, has become legal. The ;rit has served its purpose. The process of the la+ is being follo+ed (Cru. vs. Montoya, !->12$>, 9ebruary $*, %13*, )$ SCR& *(>#. 5+ere a person<s detention +as later made by virtue of a Dudicial order in relation to criminal cases subseBuently filed against the detainee, his petition for hebeas corpus becomes moot and academic5 (Beltran vs. Farcia, !-

(14%(, &pril >4, %131, 21 SCR& 3%3#. 5"t is a fumdamental rule that a +rit of habeas corpus +ill not be granted +hen the confinement is or has become legal, although such confinement +as illegal at the beginning5 (Matsura vs. -irector of 6risons, 33 6hil. %4*4 H%1(3I#. That petitioners +ere not 5caught in the act5 does not ma,e their arrest illegal. 6etitioners +ere found +ith young boys in their respective rooms, the ones +ith @ohn Sherman being na,ed. Ender those circumstances the C"- agents had reasonable grounds to believe that petitioners had committed 5pedophilia5 defined as 5psychose8ual perversion involving children5 (Mraft-7bbing 6sychopatia Se8ualis p. ***? 6araphilia (or unusual se8ual activity# in +hich children are the preferred se8ual obDect5 (;ebster<s Third Ae+ "nternational -ictionary, %13% ed., p. %))*# HSolicitor Feneral<s Return of the ;rit, on p. %4%. ;hile not a crime under the Revised 6enal Code, it is behavior offensive to public morals and violative of the declared policy of the State to promote and protect the physical, moral, spiritual, and social +ell-being of our youth (&rticle "", Section %>, %123 Constitution#. &t any rate, the filing by petitioners of a petition to be released on bail should be considered as a +aiver of any irregularity attending their arrest and estops them from Buestioning its validity (Callanta v. 'illanueva, !-$()() J !-$()3(, @une $4, %133, 33 SCR& >33? Bagcal vs. 'illara.a, !-)%334, @anuary >%, %12>, %$4 SCR& *$*#. The deportation charges instituted by respondent Commissioner are in accordance +ith Section >3(a# of the 6hilippine "mmigration &ct of %1(4, in relation to Section )1 of the Revised &dministrative Code. Section >3(a# provides in part/ (a# The follo+ing aliens shall be arrested upon the +arrant of the Commissioner of "mmigration and -eportation or any other officer designated by him for the purpose and deported upon the +arrant of the Commissioner of "mmigration and -eportation after a determination by the Board of Commissioners of the e8istence of the ground for deportation as charged against the alien? 888 888 888 The foregoing provision should be construed in its entirety in vie+ of the summary and indivisible nature of a deportation proceeding, other+ise, the very purpose of deportation proceeding +ould be defeated. Section >3(a# is not constitutionally proscribed (Morano vs. 'ivo, !-$$%1), @une >4, %1)3, $4 SCR& *)$#. The specific constraints in both the %1>* 1 and %123 > Constitutions, +hich are substantially "dentical, contemplate prosecutions essentially criminal in nature. -eportation proceedings, on the other hand, are administrative in character. &n order of deportation is never construed as a punishment. "t is preventive, not a penal process. "t need not be conducted strictly in accordance +ith ordinary Court proceedings. "t is of course +ell-settled that deportation proceedings do not constitute a criminal action. The order of deportation is not a punishment, (Maliler vs. 7by, $)( E.S., >$#, it being merely the return to his country of an alien +ho has bro,en the conditions upon +hich he could continue to reside +ithin our borders (E.S. vs. -e los Santos, >> 6hil., >13#. The deportation proceedings are administrative in character, (Messler vs. Strac,er >43 E.S., $$# summary in nature, and need not be conducted strictly in accordance +ith the ordinary court proceedings (Murdoc, vs. Clar,, *> 9. H$dI, %**#. "t is essential, ho+ever, that the +arrant of arrest shall give the alien sufficient information about the charges against him, relating the facts relied upon. (E.S. vs. Ehl $%% 9., )$2.# "t is also essential that he be given a fair hearing +ith the assistance of counsel, if he so desires, before unpreDudiced investigators (Strench vs. 6edaris, ** 9. H$dI, *13? 78 parte @e+ Gou 0n, %) 9. H$dI, %*>#. Co+ever, all the strict rules of evidence governing Dudicial controversies do not need to be observed? only such as are fumdamental and essential li,e the right of cross-e8amination. (E.S. vs. Cughes, %4( 9. H$dI, %(? Murdoc, vs. Clar,, *> 9. H$dI, %**.# Cearsay evidence may even be admitted, provided the alien is given the opportunity to e8plain or rebut it (Morrell vs. Ba,er, $34 9., *33? Sercerchi vs. ;ard, $3 9. Supp., (>3#. (!ao Tang Bun vs. 9abre 2% 6hil. )2$ H%1(2I#. The ruling in 0i#o #s4 Montesa (F. R. Ao. $(*3), @uly $1, %1)2, $( SCR& %**# that 5the issuance of +arrants of arrest by the Commissioner of "mmigration, solely for purposes of investigation and before a final order of deportation is issued, conflicts +ith paragraph >, Section " of &rticle """ of the Constitution5 (referring to the

%1>* Constitution# ; is not invocable herein. Respondent Commissioner<s ;arrant of &rrest issued on 3 March %122 did not order petitioners to appear and sho+ cause +hy they should not be deported. They +ere issued specifically 5for violation of Sections >3, (* and () of the "mmigration &ct and Section )1 of the Revised &dministrative Code.5 Before that, deportation proceedings had been commenced against them as undesirable aliens on ( March %122 and the arrest +as a step preliminary to their possible deportation. Section >3 of the "mmigration !a+, +hich empo+ers the Commissioner of "mmigration to issue +arrants for the arrest of overstaying aliens is constitutional. The arrest is a stop preliminary to the deportation of the aliens +ho had violated the condition of their stay in this country. (Morano vs. 'ivo, !-$$%1), @une >4, %1)3, $4 SCR& *)$#. To rule other+ise +ould be to render the authority given the Commissioner nugatory to the detriment of the State. The pertinent provision of Common+ealth &ct Ao. )%>, as amended, +hich gives authority to the Commissioner of "mmigration to order the arrest of an alien temporary visitor preparatory to his deportation for failure to put up ne+ bonds reBuired for the stay, is not unconstitutional. 888 888 888 ... Such a step is necessary to enable the Commissioner to prepare the ground for his deportation under Section >3Hal of Common+ealth &ct )%>. & contrary interpretation +ould render such po+er nugatory to the detriment of the State. (Ag Cua To vs. Falang, F. R. Ao. %4%(*, 9ebruary $1, %1)(, %4 SCR& (%%#. 5The reBuirement of probable cause, to be determined by a @udge, does not e8tend to deportation proceedings.5 (Morano vs. 'ivo, supra, citing Tiu Chun Cai vs. Commissioner, infra#. There need be no 5truncated5 recourse to both Dudicial and administrative +arrants in a single deportation proceedings. The foregoing does not deviate from the ruling in 1ua -hee 3an #s4 .eportation 'oard (F. R. Ao. %4$24, September >4, %1)>, 1 SCR& $3 H%1)>I# reiterated in 0i#o #s4 Montesa, supra, that 5under the e8press terms of our Constitution (the %1>* Constitution#, it is therefore even doubtful +hether the arrest of an individual may be ordered by any authority other than a Dudge if the purpose is merely to determine the e8istence of a probable cause, leading to an administrative investigation.5 9or, as heretofore stated, probable cause had already been sho+n to e8ist before the +arrants of arrest +ere issued. ;hat is essential is that there should be a specific charge against the alien intended to be arrested and deported, that a fair hearing be conducted (Section >3HcI# +ith the assistance of counsel, if desired, and that the charge be substantiated by competent evidence. Thus, Section )1 of the Revised &dministrative Code e8plicitly provides/ Sec. )1. -eportation of subDect of foreign po+er. & subDect of a foreign po+er residing in the 6hilippines shall not be deported, e8pelled, or e8cluded from said "slands or repatriated to his o+n country by the 6resident of the 6hilippines e8cept upon prior investigation, conducted by said 78ecutive or his authori.ed agent, of the ground upon +hich such action is contemplated. "n such a case the person concerned shall be informed of the charge or charges against him and he shall be allo+ed not less than > days for the preparation of his defense. Ce shall also have the right to be heard by himself or counsel, to produce +itnesses in his o+n behalf, and to cross-e8amine the opposing +itnesses. The denial by respondent Commissioner of petitioners< release on bail, also challenged by them, +as in order because in deportation proceedings, the right to bail is not a matter of right but a matter of discretion on the part of the Commissioner of "mmigration and -eportation. Thus, Section >3(e# of the 6hilippine "mmigration &ct of %1(4 provides that 5any alien under arrest in a deportation proceeding may be released under bond or under such other conditions as may be imposed by the Commissioner of "mmigration.5 The use of the +ord 5may5 in said provision indicates that the grant of bail is merely permissive and not mandatory on the part of the Commissioner. The e8ercise of the po+er is +holly discretionary (0ng Cee Sang vs. Commissioner of "mmigration, !-1344, 9ebruary $2,%1)$, ( SCR& (($#. 5Aeither the Constitution nor Section )1 of the Revised &dministrative Code guarantees the right of aliens facing deportation to provisional liberty on bail.5 (Tiu Chun

Cai et al vs. -eportation Board, %4( 6hil. 1(1 H%1*2I#. &s deportation proceedings do not parta,e of the nature of a criminal action, the constitutional guarantee to bail may not be invo,ed by aliens in said proceedings (0ng Cee Sang vs. Commissioner of "mmigration, supra#. 7very sovereign po+er has the inherent po+er to e8clude aliens from its territory upon such grounds as it may deem proper for its self-preservation or public interest (!ao Tan Bun vs. 9abre 2% 6hil. )2$ H%1(2I#. The po+er to deport aliens is an act of State, an act done by or under the authority of the sovereign po+er ("n re McCulloch -ic,, >2 6hil. (% H%1%2I#. "t is a police measure against undesirable aliens +hose continued presence in the country is found to be inDurious to the public good and the domestic tranBuility of the people (9orbes vs. Chuoco Tiaco et al., %) 6hil. *>( H%1%4I#. 6articularly so in this case +here the State has e8pressly committed itself to defend the tight of children to assistance and special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, e8ploitation, and other conditions preDudicial to their development (&rticle ', Section >H$I#. Respondent Commissioner of "mmigration and -eportation, in instituting deportation proceedings against petitioners, acted in the interests of the State. ;C7R790R7, the 6etition is dismissed and the ;rit of Cabeas Corpus is hereby denied. S0 0R-7R7-

G.R. No. 958<$!<8. Mar-+ 1", 199;. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, 5,. GABRIEL GERENTE y B0LLO, accused-appellant. SG!!&BES %. R7M7-"&! !&;? CR"M"A&! 6R0C7-ER7? &RR7ST ;"TC0ET ;&RR&AT? !&;9E! ;C7A &RR7ST"AF 099"C7R C&S 67RS0A&! MA0;!7-F7 TC&T TC7 67RS0A T0 B7 &RR7ST7- C&S C0MM"TT7- TC7 CR"M7? C&S7 &T B&R. L The policemen arrested Ferente only some three (># hours after Ferente and his companions had ,illed Blace. They sa+ Blace dead in the hospital and +hen they inspected the scene of the crime, they found the instruments of death/ a piece of +ood and a concrete hollo+ bloc, +hich the ,illers had used to bludgeon him to death. The eye-+itness, 7dna 7d+ina Reyes, reported the happening to the policemen and pinpointed her neighbor, Ferente, as one of the ,illers. Ender those circumstances, since the policemen had personal ,no+ledge of the violent death of Blace and of facts indicating that Ferente and t+o others had ,illed him, they could la+fully arrest Ferente +ithout a +arrant. "f they had postponed his arrest until they could obtain a +arrant, he +ould have fled the la+ as his t+o companions did. $. "-.? "-.? S7&RCC &A- S7":ER7? '&!"- 7'7A ;"TC0ET & ;&RR&AT ;C7A M&-7 &S &A "AC"-7AT T0 !&;9E! &RR7ST? R&T"0A&!7. L The search conducted on Ferente<s person +as li,e+ise la+ful because it +as made as an incident to a valid arrest. This is in accordance +ith Section %$, Rule %$) of the Revised Rules of Court +hich provides/ 5Section %$. Search incident to la+ful arrest. L & person la+fully arrested may be searched for dangerous +eapons or anything +hich may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, +ithout a search +arrant.5 The fris, and search of appellant<s person upon his arrest +as a permissible precautionary measure of arresting officers to protect themselves, for the person +ho is about to be arrested may be armed and might attac, them unless he is first disarmed. "n &dams vs. ;illiams, (3 E.S. %(>, cited in @ustice "sagani &. Cru.<s Constitutional !a+, %11% 7dition, p. %*4, it +as ruled that 5the individual being arrested may be fris,ed for concealed +eapons that may be used against the arresting officer and all unla+ful articles found his person, or +ithin his immediate control may be sei.ed.5 >. CR"M"A&! !&;? C0AS6"R&CG? !"&B"!"TG 09 C0AS6"R&T0RS? RE!7? C&S7 &T B&R. L There is no merit in appellant<s allegation that the trial court erred in convicting him of having conspired and cooperated +ith 9redo and Totoy 7chigoren to ,ill Blace despite the testimony of -r. 'alentin Bernales that the fracture on the bac, of the victim<s s,ull could have been inflicted by one person only. +hat -r. Bernales stated +as a mere possibility that only one person dropped the concrete hollo+ bloc, on the head of the victim, smashing it. That circumstance, even if true, does not absolve the other t+o co-conspirators in the murder of Blace for +hen there is a conspiracy to commit a crime, the act of one conspirator is the act of all. The conspiracy +as proven by the eye+itness-testimony of 7dna 7d+ina Reyes, that she overheard the appellant and his companions conspire to ,ill Blace, that acting in concert, they attac,ed their victim +ith a piece of +ood and a hollo+ bloc, and caused his death. 5;hen there is no evidence indicating that the principal +itness for the prosecution +as moved by improper motive, the presumption is that he +as not so moved and his testimony is entitled to full faith and credit5 (6eople vs. Belibet, %11 SCR& *23, *22#. Cence, the trial court did not err in giving full credit to 7dna Reyes< testimony. (. "-.? C"'"! "A-7MA"TG 90R -7&TC? "ACR7&S7- T0 6*4,444.44. L The Solicitor Feneral correctly pointed out in the appellee<s brief that the a+ard of 6>4,444.44 as civil indemnity for the death of Clarito Blace should be increased to 6*4,444.44 in accordance +ith our ruling in 6eople vs. Sison, %21 SCR& )(>. GRIDO!A90INO, JB This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of 'alen.uela, Metro Manila, Branch %3$, +hich found the appellant guilty of 'iolation of Section 2 of Republic &ct )($* (-angerous -rugs &ct of %13$# and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a term of t+elve (%$# years and one (%# day, as minimum, to t+enty ($4# years, as ma8imum? and also found him guilty of Murder for +hich crime he +as sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The dispositive portion of the appealed decision reads/

5;C7R790R7, in vie+ of the foregoing the Court finds the accused Fabriel Ferente in Criminal Case Ao. %4$**-'-14 guilty beyond reasonable doubt of 'iolation of Section 2 of R.&. )($* and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of t+elve years and one day as minimum to t+enty years as ma8imum, and a fine of t+elve thousand, +ithout subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. 5"n Criminal Case Ao. %4$*)-'-14, the Court finds the accused Fabriel Ferente guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder, and there by (sic# no aggravating circumstances nor mitigating circumstances, is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua? to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the sum of 6>4,444.44, and in the amount of 6%3,)41.44 as funeral e8penses, +ithout subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. The accused Fabriel Ferente shall be credited +ith the full term of his preventive imprisonment.5 (p. $*, Rollo.# &ppellant Fabriel Ferente y Bullo +as charged +ith 'iolation of Section 2, &rt. "" of R.&. )($*, +hich +as doc,eted as Criminal Case Ao. %4$**-'-14 of the Regional Trial Court of 'alen.uela, Metro Manila. The "nformation reads/ 5That on or about the >4th day of &pril, %114, in the municipality of 'alen.uela, Metro Manila, 6hilippines, and +ithin the Durisdiction of this Conorable Court, the above-named accused, +ithout Dustification, did then and there +ilfully, unla+fully and feloniously have in his possession and control dried flo+ering tops +rapped in foil +ith mar,ings and place in a transparent plastic bag +hich are considered prohibited drugs.5 (p. $, Rollo.# The same accused, together +ith Totoy and 9redo 7chigoren +ho are both at large, +as charged +ith Murder in Criminal Case Ao. %4$*)-'-14 in an information of the same date and signed by the same &ssistant 6rovincial 6rosecutor, as follo+s/ 5That on or about the >4th day of &pril, %114, in the municipality of 'alen.uela, Metro Manila, 6hilippines, and +ithin the Durisdiction of this Conorable Court, the above-named accused together +ith t+o ($# others +ho are still at large and against +hom the preliminary investigation has not yet been terminated by the 0ffice of the 6rovincial 6rosecutor of Bulacan, conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping one another, armed +ith a piece of +ood and hallo+ (sic# bloc, and +ith intent to ,ill one Clarito B. Blace, did then and there +ilfully, unla+fully and feloniously, +ith evident premeditation and treachery, attac,, assault and hit +ith the said piece of +ood and hollo+ bloc, the said Clarito B. Blace, hitting the latter on the different parts of his body, thereby inflicting serious physical inDuries +hich directly caused the death of the said victim.5 (p. >, Rollo.# 7dna 7d+ina Reyes testified that at about 3/44 a.m. of &pril >4, %114, appellant Fabriel Ferente, together +ith 9redo 7chigoren and Totoy 7chigoren, started drin,ing liBuor and smo,ing mariDuana in the house of the appellant +hich is about si8 ()# meters a+ay from the house of the prosecution +itness +ho +as in her house on that day. She overheard the three men tal,ing about their intention to ,ill Clarito Blace. She testified that she heard 9redo 7chigoren saying, 5Fabriel, papatayin natin si Clarito Blace,5 and Totoy 7chigoren allegedly seconded 9redo<s suggestion saying/ 56apatayin natin <yan mamaya.5 &ppellant allegedly agreed/ 5Sigue, papatayin natin mamaya.5 (pp. >-(, tsn, &ugust $(, %114.# 9redo and Totoy 7chigoren and Ferente carried out their plan to ,ill Clarito Blace at about $/44 p.m. of the same day. The prosecution +itness, 7dna 7d+ina Reyes, testified that she +itnessed the ,illing. 9redo 7chigoren struc, the first blo+ against Clarito Blace, follo+ed by Totoy 7chigoren and Fabriel Ferente +ho hit him t+ice +ith a piece of +ood in the head and +hen he fell, Totoy 7chigoren dropped a hollo+ bloc, on the victim<s head. Thereafter, the three men dragged Blace to a place behind the house of Ferente. &t about (/44 p.m. of the same day, 6atrolman @aime Errutia of the 'alen.uela 6olice Station received a report from the 6alo 6olice -etachment about a mauling incident. Ce +ent to the 'alen.uela -istrict Cospital +here the victim +as brought. Ce +as informed by the hospital officials that the victim died on arrival. The cause of death +as massive fracture of the s,ull caused by a hard and heavy obDect. Right a+ay, 6atrolman Errutia, together +ith 6olice Corporal Romeo !ima and 6atrolman &le8 Emali, proceeded to 6aseo de Blas +here the mauling incident too, place. There they found a piece of +ood +ith blood stains, a hollo+ bloc, and t+o roaches of mariDuana. They +ere informed by the prosecution +itness, 7dna 7d+ina Reyes, that she sa+ the ,illing and she pointed to Fabriel Ferente as one of the three men +ho ,illed Clarito.

The policemen proceeded to the house of the appellant +ho +as then sleeping. They told him to come out of the house and they introduced themselves as policemen. 6atrolman Errutia fris,ed appellant and found a coin purse in his poc,et +hich contained dried leaves +rapped in cigarette foil. The dried leaves +ere sent to the Aational Bureau of "nvestigation for e8amination. The 9orensic Chemist found them to be mariDuana. 0nly the appellant, Fabriel Ferente, +as apprehended by the police. The other suspects, 9redo and Totoy 7chigoren, are still at large. 0n May $, %114, t+o separate informations +ere filed by &ssistant 6rovincial 6rosecutor BenDamin Caraig against him for 'iolation of Section 2, &rt. "", of R.&. )($*, and for Murder. ;hen arraigned on May %), %114, the appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges. & Doint trial of the t+o cases +as held. 0n September $(, %114, the trial court rendered a decision convicting him of 'iolation of Section 2 of R.&. )($* and of Murder. "n this appeal of the appellant, the follo+ing errors are ascribed to the trial court/ %. the court a Buo gravely erred in admitting the mariDuana leaves adduced in evidence by the prosecution? and $. the court a Buo gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant of the crimes charged despite the absence of evidence reBuired to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant contends that the trial court erred in admitting the mariDuana leaves as evidence in violation of his constitutional right not to be subDected to illegal search and sei.ure, for the dried mariDuana leaves +ere sei.ed from him in the course of a +arrantless arrest by the police officers. ;e do not agree. The search of appellant<s person and the sei.ure of the mariDuana leaves in his possession +ere valid because they +ere incident to a la+ful +arrantless arrest. 6aragraphs (a# and (b#, Section *, Rule %%> of the Revised Rules of Court provide/ <S7CT"0A *. &rrest +ithout +arrant? +hen la+ful. L & peace officer or a private person may, +ithout a +arrant, arrest a person/ 5(a# ;hen, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense?5 5(b# ;hen an offense has in fact Dust been committed, and he has personal ,no+ledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it? . . .< The policemen arrested Ferente only some three (># hours after Ferente and his companions had ,illed Blace. They sa+ Blace dead in the hospital and +hen they inspected the scene of the crime, they found the instruments of death/ a piece of +ood and a concrete hollo+ bloc, +hich the ,illers had used to bludgeon him to death. The eye-+itness, 7dna 7d+ina Reyes, reported the happening to the policemen and pinpointed her neighbor, Ferente, as one of the ,illers. Ender those circumstances, since the policemen had personal ,no+ledge of the violent death of Blace and of facts indicating that Ferente and t+o others had ,illed him, they could la+fully arrest Ferente +ithout a +arrant. "f they had postponed his arrest until they could obtain a +arrant, he +ould have fled the la+ as his t+o companions did. "n Emil vs. Ramos, %23 SCR& >%%, the arrest of the accused +ithout a +arrant +as effected one (%# day after he had shot to death t+o Capcom soldiers. The arrest +as held la+ful by this Court upon the rationale stated by us in 6eople vs. Malasugui, )> 6hil. $$%, $$2, thus/ 5To hold that no criminal can, in any case, be arrested and searched for the evidence and to,ens of his crime +ithout a +arrant, +ould be to leave society, to a large e8tent, at the mercy of the shre+dest, the most e8pert, and the most depraved of criminals, facilitating their escape in many instances.5 The search conducted on Ferente<s person +as li,e+ise la+ful because it +as made as an incident to a valid arrest. This is in accordance +ith Section %$, Rule %$) of the Revised Rules of Court +hich provides/ 5S7CT"0A %$. Search incident to la+ful arrest. L & person la+fully arrested may be searched for dangerous +eapons or anything +hich may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, +ithout a search +arrant.5 The fris, and search of appellant<s person upon his arrest +as a permissible precautionary measure of arresting officers to protect themselves, for the person +ho is about to be arrested may be armed and might attac, them unless he is first disarmed. "n &dams vs. ;illiams, (3 E.S. %(>, cited in @ustice "sagani &. Cru.<s Constitutional !a+, %11% 7dition, p. %*4, it +as ruled that 5the individual being arrested may be fris,ed for

concealed +eapons that may be used against the arresting officer and all unla+ful articles found in his person, or +ithin his immediate control may be sei.ed.5 There is no merit in appellant<s allegation that the trial court erred in convicting him of having conspired and cooperated +ith 9redo and Totoy 7chigoren to ,ill Blace despite the testimony of -r. 'alentin Bernales that the fracture on the bac, of the victim<s s,ull could have been inflicted by one person only. ;hat -r. Bernales stated +as a mere possibility that only one person dropped the concrete hollo+ bloc, on the head of the victim, smashing it. That circumstance, even if true, does not absolve the other t+o co-conspirators in the murder of Blace for +hen there is a conspiracy to commit a crime, the act of one conspirator is the act of all. The conspiracy +as proven by the eye+itness-testimony of 7dna 7d+ina Reyes, that she overheard the appellant and his companions conspire to ,ill Blace, that acting in concert, they attac,ed their victim +ith a piece of +ood and a hollo+ bloc, and caused his death. 5;hen there is no evidence indicating that the principal +itness for the prosecution +as moved by improper motive, the presumption is that he +as not so moved and his testimony is entitled to full faith and credit5 (6eople vs. Belibet, %11 SCR& *23, *22#. Cence, the trial court did not err in giving full credit to 7dna Reyes< testimony. &ppellant<s failure to escape (because he +as very drun,# is no indicium of his innocence. The Solicitor Feneral correctly pointed out in the appellee<s brief that the a+ard of 6>4,444.44 as civil indemnity for the death of Clarito Blace should be increased to 6*4,444.44 in accordance +ith our ruling in 6eople vs. Sison, %21 SCR& )(>. ;C7R790R7, the appealed decision is hereby &99"RM7-, +ith modification of the civil indemnity a+arded to the heirs of the victim, Clarito Blace, +hich is hereby increased to 6*4,444.44. S0 0R-7R7-.

G.R. No. 1"96;; Ju3y >", 199< THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NORMANDO DEL ROSARIO % LOPE6, accused-appellant. MELO, J.: Aormando del Rosario +as charged before Branch %3 of the Regional Trial Court of the 9ourth @udicial Region stationed in Cavite City +ith "llegal 6ossession of 9irearm and &mmunitions in Criminal Case Ao. $>)-1% and "llegal Sale of Regulated -rugs in Criminal Case Ao. $>3-1%, under t+o informations reading, respectively, as follo+s/ -riminal -ase &o. <CD)E5 That on or about September (, %11%, in the City of Cavite, Republic of the 6hilippines and +ithin the Durisdiction of this Conorable Court, the above-named accused, +ithout legal authority, did, then and there, +illfully, unla+fully, feloniously and ,no+ingly have in his possession and control a homemade (palti,#caliber .$$ revolver +ith three (># live ammunition. Contrary to la+. -riminal -ase &o. <CF)E5 That on or about September (, %11%, in the City of Cavite, Republic of the 6hilippines and +ithin the Durisdiction of this Conorable Court, the above-named accused, +ithout legal authority, did, then and there, +illfully, unla+fully, feloniously and ,no+ingly sell to a poseur buyer an aluminum foil containing Methamphetamine Cydrochloride also ,no+n as 5Shabu5, a regulated drug. Contrary to la+. (pp. $4-$%, Rollo.# Epon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges, and after Doint trial of the t+o cases, the court a !uo rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of +hich reads/ ;C7R790R7, in vie+ of the foregoing, the Court finds the accused Aormando del Rosario y !ope. guilty beyond reasonable doubt in the above-entitled cases and he is hereby sentenced to undergo imprisonment/ in Crim. Case Ao. $>)-1% for 'iolation of 6.-. %2)) of Seventeen (%3# years, 9our ((# months and 0ne (%# day of reclusion temporal, as minimum to T+enty ($4# years of reclusion temporal, as ma8imum and in Crim. Case Ao. $>3-1% for a violation of Section %*, &rticle """ of Republic &ct )($*, as amended of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of 6>4,444.44, +ithout subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs in both cases. The shabu, the 0ne Cundred 6eso bill and other paraphernalia are hereby ordered confiscated in favor of the government. (pp. $2-$1, Rollo.# 9rom said decision, the instant appeal has been interposed. The prosecution<s version of the case, as set forth in appellee<s brief, is as follo+s/ Epon application of S60> Raymundo Entiveros of the 6hilippine Aational 6olice (6A6# of Cavite City, Regional Trial Court @udge &rturo de Fuia issued in the morning of September (, %11% a search +arrant (78h. T, p. *4, Rec.L Crim. Case Ao. $>3-1%# authori.ing the search and sei.ure of an 5undetermined Buantity of Methamphetamine Cydrochloride commonly ,no+n as shabu and its paraphernalias5 in the premises of appellant<s house located at 2$2 R. Basa St., San RoBue, Cavite City. Co+ever, the search +arrant +as not implemented immediately due to the lac, of police personnel to form the raiding team (pp. (, 3, tsn., 9eb. (, %11$#. &t about 1 o<cloc, in the evening of that day, a raiding team +as finally organi.ed. S60> Entiveros headed the raiding team +ith 60> Rogelio 9rancisco, S60% 7duardo Aovero, S60>

Reynaldo de la Cru., 60% Carlito Barbuco, 60> 0nrubio and S60$ 'illegas as members (pp. *, %4, tsn., 9eb. (, %11$? p. 3, tsn., -ec. %%, %11%#. "n the final briefing of the raiding team at the police station, it +as agreed upon that 60% 'enerando !una +ill buy shabu from appellant and after his return from appellant<s house, the raiding team +ill implement the search +arrant (p. %4, tsn., 9eb. (, %11$? pp. %3-%2, tsn., -ec. %%, %11%#. & mar,ed money consisting of a 6%44 bill bearing serial no. 6R >$1(4) (78h. 6, p. *%, Rec.# +as given by the Station Commander to 60% !una and entered in the police logboo, (p. %$, 9eb. (, %11$#. 60% !una +ith a companion proceeded to appellant<s house to implement the search +arrant. Barangay Capt. Maigue, Aorma del Rosario and appellant +itnessed the search at appellant<s house (p. %4, tsn., -ec. %%, %11%#. S60> de la Cru. and 60> 9rancisco found a blac, canister containing shabu, an aluminum foil, a palti, .$$ caliber (78h. 0# atop the T' set, three used ammunitions in a cup and three +allets (78hs. R, R, S#, one containing the mar,ed money (78h. 6? pp. %%-%$, tsn., -ec. %%, %11$#. S60% Aovero found inside a sho+ bo8 aluminum foils, nap,ins and a burner (p. 1, tsn., March %%, %11$#. S60> de la Cru. turned over the +allet containing the mar,ed money to 60> 0nrubio (p. 2, >$, tsn., @an. 3, %11$#. The sei.ed items +ere photographed thereat by 9red &gana and then turned over to 60> 0nrubio (pp. 2, >$, tsn., @an. 3, %11$#. S60> Entiveros issued receipts (78hs. ', '%, pp. *>-*(, Rec.# for the sei.ed items +ith Barangay Capt. Maigue and appellant<s sister Aorma as signing +itnesses. Ce also made a return (78h. E, p. *$, Rec.# of the sei.ed items to the court (pp. %%-%**, tsn., 9eb. %2, %11$.#. &t police station, the sei.ed items +ere taped and initialed by S60> de la Cru. (p. >>, tsn., @an. 3, %11$#. The ne8t day, S60( 6ilapil, through 60% Barbuco, for+arded to AB" 9orensic Chemist Mary &nn &ranas for laboratory analysis the aluminum foil (78hs. &, @, pp. >3, (), Rec.# containing suspected shabu bought by 60% !una from appellant in the buy-bust operation as +ell as the aluminum foils (78hs. F, M, pp. (>, (3, Rec.# containing suspected mariDuana +hich +ere confiscated by virtue of the search +arrant. The findings of AB" 9orensic Chemist &ranas disclosed that all the specimen submitted to her for laboratory analysis by S60% 6ilapil, thru 60% Barbuco, gave positive results for Methamphetamine Cydrochloride (pp. $-1, tsn., -ec. >, %11%? 78h. B, C, C, ", pp. >2, >1, ((, (*, Rec.#. (pp. %4$-%4*, Rollo.# Carefully evaluating the evidence on record, +e believe that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused-appellant. Much is to be desired in the manner the police authorities effected the arrest of accusedappellant and the same observation may be made +ith regard to the +ay the prosecution conducted its case. 9oremost among the inadeBuacies of the prosecution is its failure to call to the +itness stand 60% 'enerando !una, the alleged poseur-buyer. There is, thus, a total absence of evidence to establish the purported sale of shabu by accused-appellant to 'enerando !una, the supposed poseur-buyer. The omission to present the poseur-buyer casts serious doubts that an illegal sale of a dangerous drug actually too, place. The trial court gave much +eight to the testimonies of the police members of the buy-bust operation. Co+ever, the prosecution did not present as +itness the supposed poseur-buyer. Such omission casts serious doubt on appellant<s guilt because +ithout the testimony of the poseur-buyer, there is no convincing evidence to sho+ that appellant sold mariDuana. The testimonies of the rest of the buy-bust operation are hearsay in vie+ of the fact that the poseurbuyer, +as never presented at the trial. There +as even no testimony that +hen the accusedappellant handed the stuff to the poseur-buyer that the latter in turn handed the mar,ed money. The failure of the prosecution to present the alleged buyer of the mariDuana +as a fatal fla+ in the case against the accused. (6eople vs. 9ulgarillas, $%$ SCR& 3), 24 H%11$I#

The testimony of prosecution +itness 60> Rogelio 9rancisco that 'eneracion !una, the alleged 6oseur-buyer, bought shabu from accused-appellant +as derived solely from +hat !una supposedly told him (pp. %1-$4, tsn., -ecember %%, %11%# and, therefore, is patently hearsay evidence, +ithout any evidentiary +eight +hatsoever. !i,e+ise, the statements of prosecution +itnesses 6olicemen Reynaldo de la Cru., Raymundo Entiveros, and 7duardo Aovera, @r. as to the alleged sale of shabu are hearsay, +ithout +eight, as all of them +ere not present during the alleged sale. &ccording to the version of the prosecution, during the alleged buy-bust operation, accused-appellant handed over to 'eneracion !una, the alleged poseur-buyer, a Buantity of shabu, and !una in turn paid accusedappellant a mar,ed 6%44 bill and then returned to the police station and informed the raiding team that he had already bought the shabu from accused-appellant. Thereupon, the raiding team proceeded to the house of accused-appellant to implement the search +arrant. The version of the prosecution is highly incredible. The record is devoid of any reason +hy the police officers did not ma,e any attempt to arrest accused-appellant at the time he allegedly sold the shabu to 'eneracion !una +ho +as accompanied by another police officer. That +as the opportune moment to arrest accused-appellant. The version foisted by the prosecution upon this Court is contrary to human e8perience in the ordinary course of human conduct. The usual procedure in a buy-bust operation is for the police officers to arrest the pusher of drugs at the very moment he hands over the dangerous drug to the poseur-buyer. That is the very reason +hy such a police operation is called a 5buy-bust5 operation. The police poseur-buyer 5buys5 dangerous drugs from the pusher and 5busts5 (arrests# him the moment the pusher hands over the drug to the police officer. ;e thus entertain serious doubts that the shabu contained in a small canister +as actually sei.ed or confiscated at the residence of accused-appellant. "n conseBuence, the manner the police officers conducted the subseBuent and much-delayed search is highly irregular. Epon bargaining into the residence of accusedappellant, the police officers found him lying do+n and they immediately arrested and detained him in the living room +hile they searched the other parts of the house. &lthough they fetched t+o persons to +itness the search, the +itnesses +ere called in only after the policemen had already entered accused-appellant<s residence (pp. $$-$>, tsn, -ecember %%, %11%#, and, therefore, the policemen had more than ample time to plant the shabu. Corollary to the constitutional precept that, in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved (Sec. %(($#, &rticle """, -onstitution of the Republic of the 6hilippines# is the rule that in order to convict an accused the circumstances of the case must e8clude all and each and every hypothesis consistent +ith his innocence (6eople vs. Tanchoco? 3) 6hil. ()> H%1()I? 6eople vs. Constante, %$ SCR& )*> H%1)(I? 6eople vs. @ara, %(( SCR& *%) H%12)I#. The facts of the case do not rule out the hypothesis that accused- appellant is innocent. &t any rate, accused-appellant cannot be convicted of possession of the shabu contained in a canister and allegedly sei.ed at his house, for the charge against him +as for selling shabu +ith the information alleging that the 5accused, +ithout legal authority did . . . sell to a poseur buyer an aluminum foil containing Methamphetamine Cydrochloride . . .5 Sale is totally different from possession. &rticle %(*2 of the Civil Code defines sale as a contract +hereby 5one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the o+nership of and to deliver a determine thing, and the other to pay therefor a price certain in money or its eBuivalent5, +hile 5possession is the holding of a thing or the enDoyment of a right5 as defined by &rticle *$> of the Civil Code. &ccused-appellant cannot be convicted of a crime +hich is not charged in the information for to do so +ould deny him the due process of la+ (6eople vs. -espavellador, % SCR& $4* H%1)%I? 6eople vs. Mori, ** SCR& >2$ H%13(I#. Aeither can accused-appellant be convicted of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition. The search +arrant implemented by the raiding party authori.ed only the search and sei.ure of 5. . . the described Buantity of Methamphetamine Cydrochloride commonly ,no+n as shabu and its paraphernalia5 (78h. 0, p. *4, original record#. Thus, the raiding party +as authori.ed to sei.e only shabu and paraphernalia for the use thereof and no other. & search +arrant is not a s+eeping authority empo+ering a raiding party to underta,e a finishing e8pedition to sei.e and confiscate any and all ,inds of evidence or articles relating to a crime. The Constitution itself (Section $, &rticle """# and the Rules of Court (Section >, Rule %$)# specifically mandate that the search

+arrant must particularly describe the things to be sei.ed. Thus, the search +arrant +as no authority for the police officers to sei.e the firearm +hich +as not mentioned, much less described +ith particularity, in the search +arrant. Aeither may it be maintained that the gun +as sei.ed in the course of an arrest, for as earlier observed, accused-appellant<s arrest +as far from regular and legal. Said firearm, having been illegally sei.ed, the same is not admissible in evidence (Stonehill vs. -io,no, $4 SCR& >2> H%1)3I#. The Constitution e8pressly ordains the e8clusion in evidence of illegally sei.ed articles. &ny evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. (Section >H$I, &rticle """, Constitution of the Republic of the 6hilippines#. ;ith the e8clusion in evidence of the illegally sei.ed firearm, there is, therefore, a total absence of evidence to support the charge of illegal possession of firearm, against accused-appellant. The same may be said of the charge of illegal possession of ammunition. ;C7R790R7, the decision appealed from is hereby R7'7RS7- and accused-appellant is hereby &CRE"TT7- in Criminal Case Ao. $>)-1% and Criminal Case Ao. $>3-1%. The immediate release of accused-appellant is hereby ordered unless there e8ists a pending valid cause against him. The shabu, the mar,ed 6%44 bill, firearm, and ammunition are hereby ordered confiscated in favor of the government. S0 0R-7R7-

G.R. No. 8156$ O-/o=#r ;, 1991 IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF ROBERTO 0MIL, ROLANDO D0RAL an' RENATO 7ILLAN0E7A, MANOLITA O. 0MIL an' NI(ANOR P. D0RAL, FELI(ITAS 7. SESE, petitioners, vs. FIDEL 7. RAMOS, MAJ. GEN. RENATO DE 7ILLA, BRIG. GEN. RAMON MONTANO, BRIG. GEN. ALEAANDER AG0IRRE, respondents. PER (0RIAMB Before the Court are separate motions filed by the petitioners in the above-entitled petitions, see,ing reconsideration of the Court<s decision promulgated on 1 @uly %114 (the decision, for brevity# +hich dismissed the petitions, +ith the follo+ing dispositive part/ ;C7R790R7, the petitions are hereby -"SM"SS7-, e8cept that in 34R4 &o4 G=F<F (7spiritu vs. !im#, the bail bond for petitioner<s provisional liberty is hereby ordered reduced from 6)4,444.44 to 6%4,444.44. Ao costs. The Court avails of this opportunity to clarify its ruling a begins +ith the statement that the decision did not rule L as many misunderstood it to do L that mere suspicion that one is Communist 6arty or Ae+ 6eople<s &rmy member is a valid ground for his arrest +ithout +arrant. Moreover, the decision merely applied long existing laws to the factual situations obtaining in the several petitions. &mong these la+s are th outla+ing the Communist 6arty of the 6hilippines (C66# similar organi.ations and penali.ing membership therein be dealt +ith shortly#. "t is elementary, in this connection, if these la+s no longer reflect the thin,ing or sentiment of the people, it is Congress as the elected representative of the people L not the Court L that should repeal, change or modify them. "n their separate motions for reconsideration, petitioners, in sum, maintain/ %. That the assailed decision, in upholding the validity of the Buestioned arrests made +ithout +arrant, and in relying on the provisions of the Rules of Court, particularly Section * of Rule %%> (&rrest#, disregards the fact that such arrests violated the constitutional rights of the persons arrested? $. That the doctrine laid do+n in 3arcia #s. ?nrile 1 and (lagan #s. ?nrile > should be abandoned? >. That the decision erred in considering the admissions made by the persons arrested as to their membership in the Communist 6arty of the 6hilippines=Ae+ 6eople<s &rmy, and their o+nership of the unlicensed firearms, ammunitions and subversive documents found in their possession at the time of arrest, inasmuch as those confessions do not comply +ith the reBuirements on admissibility of e8traDudicial admissions? (. That the assailed decision is based on a misappreciation of facts? *. That F.R. Ao. 2%*)3 (the Emil case# should not be deemed moot and academic. ;e find no merit in the motions for reconsideration. "t can not be overloo,ed that these are petitions for the issuance of the +rit of habeas corpus, filed by petitioners under the Rules of Court. ; The +rit of habeas corpus e8ists as a speedy and effective remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint. < Therefore, the function of the special proceedings of habeas corpus is to inBuire into the legality of one<s detention, 5 so that if detention is illegal, the detainee may be ordered forth+it released. "n the petitions at bar, to ascertain +hether the detention petitioners +as illegal or not, the Court before rendering decision dated 1 @uly %114, loo,ed into +hether their Buestioned arrests +ithout +arrant +ere made in accordance +ith la+. 9or, if the arrests +ere made in accordance +ith la+, +ould follo+ that the detention resulting from such arrests also in accordance +ith la+. There can be no dispute that, as a general rule, no peace officer or person has the po+er or authority to arrest anyo +ithout a +arrant of arrest, except in those cases express authori"ed by law. 6 The la+ e8pressly

allo+ing arrests +itho +arrant is found in Section *, Rule %%> of the Rules of Court +hich states the grounds upon +hich a#alid arrest, without warrant, can be conducted. "n the present cases, the focus is understandably on Section *, paragraphs (a# and (b# of the said Rule %%>, +hich read/ Sec. *. Arrest without warrant? when lawful. L & peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person/ (a# ;hen, in his presence, the person to he arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense? (b# ;hen an offense has in fact Dust been committed, and he has personal ,no+ledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrest has committed it? and . . . (7mphasis supplied#. The Court<s decision of 1 @uly %114 rules that the arrest Rolando .ural (F.R. Ao. 2%*)3# without warrant is Dustified it can be said that, +ithin the contemplation of +ection = Rule 55C, he (-ural# +as committing an offense, +hen arrested because -ural +as arrested for being a member of the Ae+ 6eople<s &rmy, an outla+ed organi.ation, +here membership penali.ed, $ and for subversion +hich, li,e rebellion is, under the doctrine of3arcia #s. ?nrile, 8 a continuing offense, thus/ The crimes of insurrection or rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and other crimes and offenses committed in the furtherance (sic# on the occasion thereof, or incident thereto, or in connection there+ith under 6residential 6roclamation Ao. $4(*, are all in the nature of continuing offenses +hich set them apart from the common offenses, aside from their essentially involving a massive conspiracy of nation+ide magnitude. . . . Fiven the ideological content of membership in the C66=A6& +hich includes armed struggle for the overthro+ of organi.ed government, -ural did not cease to be, or became less of a subversive, 90R 6ER60S7S 09 &RR7ST, simply because he +as, at the time of arrest, confined in the St. &gnes Cospital. -ural +as identified as one of several persons +ho the day before his arrest, +ithout +arrant, at the St. &gnes Cospital, had shot t+o ($# C&6C0M policemen in their patrol car. That -ural had shot the t+o ($# policemen in Caloocan City as part of his mission as a 5sparro+5 (A6& member# did not end there and then. -ural, given another opportunity, +ould have shot or +ould shoot other policemen any+here as agents or representatives of organi.ed government. "t is in this sense that subversion li,e rebellion (or insurrection# is perceived here as a continuing offense. Enli,e other so-called 5common5 offenses, i.e. adultery, murder, arson, etc., +hich generally end upon their commission, subversion and rebellion are anchored on an ideological base +hich compels the repetition of the same acts of la+lessness and violence until the overriding obDective of overthro+ing organi.ed government is attained. Aor can it be said that -ural<s arrest +as grounded on mere suspicion by the arresting officers of his membership in the C66=A6&. Cis arrest +as based on 5probable cause,5 as supported by actual facts that +ill be sho+n hereafter. 'ie+ed from another but related perspective, it may also be said, under the facts of the Emil case, that the arrest of -ural falls under +ection =, paragraph (b), Rule 55C of the Rules of Court, +hich reBuires t+o ($# conditions for a valid arrestt +ithout +arrant/ first, that the person to be arrested has Dust committed an offense, and second, that the arresting peace officer or private person has personal ,no+ledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested is the one +ho committed the offense. Section *(b#, Rule %%>, it +ill be noted, refers to arrests +ithout +arrant, based on 5personal ,no+ledge of facts5 acBuired by the arresting officer or private person. "t has been ruled that 5personal ,no+ledge of facts,5 in arrests +ithout +arrant must be based upon probable cause, +hich means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion 9 The grounds of suspicion are reasonable +hen, in the absence of actual belief of the arresting officers, the suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the offense, is based on actual facts, i.e., supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the

person to be arrested. 1" & reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded on probable cause, coupled with good faith on the part of the peace officers ma%ing the arrest. 11 These reBuisites +ere complied +ith in the Emil case and in the other cases at bar. "n 3.R. &o. G5=DF (*mil case), military agents, on % 9ebruary %122, +ere dispatched to the St. &gnes Cospital, Roosevelt &venue, Rue.on City, to verify a confidential information +hich +as received by their office, about a 5sparro+ man5 (A6& member# +ho had been admitted to the said hospital +ith a gunshot +ound? that the information further disclosed that the +ounded man in the said hospital +as among the five (*# male 5sparro+s5 +ho murdered t+o ($# Capcom mobile patrols the day before, or on >% @anuary %122 at about %$/44 o<cloc, noon, before a road hump along Macanining St., Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City? that based on the same information, the +ounded man<s name +as listed by the hospital management as 5Ronnie @avellon,5 t+enty-t+o ($$# years old of Bloc, %4, !ot (, South City Comes, BiNan, !aguna. 1> Said confidential information received by the arresting officers, to the effect that an A6& member (5sparro+ unit5# +as being treated for a gunshot +ound in the named hospital, is deemed reasonable and +ith cause as it +as based on actual facts and supported by circumstances sufficient to engender a belief that an A6& member +as truly in the said hospital. The actual facts supported by circumstances are/ first L the day before, or on >% @anuary %122, t+o ($# C&6C0M soldiers +ere actually ,illed in Bagong Bario, Caloocan City by five (*# 5sparro+s5 including -ural? second ; a +ounded person listed in the hospital records as 5Ronnie @avellon5 +as actually then being treated in St. &gnes Cospital for a gunshot +ound? third ; as the records of this case disclosed later, 5Ronnie @avellon5 and his address entered in the hospital records +ere fictitious and the +ounded man +as in reality Rolando -ural. "n fine, the confidential information received by the arresting officers merited their immediate attention and action and, in fact, it +as found to be true. 7ven the petitioners in their motion for reconsideration, 1; believe that the confidential information of the arresting officers to the effect that -ural +as then being treated in St. &gnes Cospital +as actually received from the attending doctor and hospital management in compliance +ith the directives of the la+, 1< and, therefore, came from reliable sources. &s to the condition that 5probable cause5 must also be coupled +ith acts done in good faith by the officers +ho ma,e the arrest, the Court notes that the peace officers +no arrested -ural are deemed to have conducted the same in good faith, considering that la+ enforcers are presumed to regularly perform their official duties. The records sho+ that the arresting officers did not appear to have been ill-motivated in arresting -ural. 15 "t is therefore clear that the arrest, +ithout +arrant, of -ural +as made in compliance +ith the reBuirements of paragraphs (a# and (b# of Section *, Rule %%>. 6arenthetically, it should be mentioned here that a fe+ day after -ural<s arrest, +ithout +arrant, an information charging double murder +ith assault against agents of persons in authority +as filed against -ural in the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City (Criminal Case Ao. C->4%%$#. Ce +as thus promptly placed under Dudicial custody (as distinguished fro custody of the arresting officers#. 0n >% &ugust %122, he +a convicted of the crime charged and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The Dudgment of conviction is no+ on appeal before this Court in F.R. Ao. 2(1$%. &s to Amelia Ro!ue and Wilfredo 'uenaobra (F.R. Aos. 2(*2%-2$#, .omingo Anonue#o and Ramon -asiple (F.R. Aos. 2(*2>-2(# and 0ic%y $caya (F.R. Ao. 2>%)$#, their arrests, +ithout +arrant, are also Dustified. They +ere searched pursuant to search +arrants issued by a court of la+ and +ere found +it unlicensed firearms, e8plosives and=or ammunition in their persons. They +ere, therefore, caught in flagrante delicto +hich Dustified their outright arrests +ithout +arrant, under Sec *(a#, Rule %%>, Rules of Court. 6arenthetically, it should be mentioned here that a fe+ davs after their arrests +ithout +arrant, informations +ere filed in court against said petitioners, thereby placing them +ithin Dudicial custody and disposition. 9urthermore, Buenaobra mooted his o+n petition fo habeas corpus by announcing to this Court during the hearing of these petitions that he had chosen to remain in detention in the custody of the authorities. More specifically, the antecedent facts in the 5in flagrante5 cases are/ %. 0n $3 @une %122, the military agents received information imparted by a former A6& about the operations of the C66 and A6& in Metro Manila and that a certain house occupied by one

Renato Constantine, located in the 'illalu. Compound, Molave St., Mari,ina Ceights, Mari,ina, Metro Manila +as being used as their safehouse? that in vie+ of this information, the said house +as placed under military surveillance and on %$ &ugust %122, pursuant to a search warrant duly issued by court, a search of the house +as conducted? that +hen Renato Constantine +as then confronted he could not produce any permit to possess the firearms, ammunitions, radio and other communications eBuipment, and he admitted that he +as a ran,ing member of the C66. 16 $. "n the case of Wilfredo 'uenaobra, he arrived at the house of Renato Constantino in the evening of %$ &ugust %122, and admitted that he +as an A6& courier and he had +ith him letters to Renato Constantine and other members of the rebel group. >. 0n the other hand, the arrest of Amelia Ro!ue +as a conseBuence of the arrest of Buenaobra +ho had in his possession papers leading to the +hereabouts of RoBue? 1$ that, at the time of her arrest, the military agents found subversive documents and live ammunitions, and she admitted then that the documents belonged to her. 18 (. &s regards .omingo Anonue#o and Ramon -asiple they +ere arrested +ithout +arrant on %> &ugust %122, +hen they arrived at the said house of Renato Constantine in the evening of said date? that +hen the agents fris,ed them, subversive documents, and loaded guns +ere found in the latter<s possession but failing to sho+ a permit to possess them. 19 *. ;ith regard to 0ic%y $caya, she +as arrested, +ithout +arrant +hen she arrived (on %$ May %122# at the premises ofthe house of one Benito Tiam.on +ho +as believed to be the head of the C66=A6&, and whose house was sub:ect of a search warrant duly issued by the court. &t the time of her arrest +ithout +arrant the agents of the 6C-"ntelligence and "nvestigation found ammunitions and subversive documents in the car of 0caya. >" "t is to be noted in the above cases (RoBue, Buenaobra, &nonuevo, Casiple and 0caya# that the reason +hich compelled the military agents to ma,e the arrests +ithout +arrant +as the information given to the military authorities that t+o ($# safehouses (one occupied by Renato Constantine and the other by Benito Tiam.on# +ere being used by the C66=A6& for their operations, +ith information as to their e8act location and the names of Renato Constantine and Benito Tiam.on as residents or occupants thereof. &nd at the time of the actual arrests, the follo+ing circumstances surrounded said arrests (of RoBue, Buenaobra, &nonuevo and Casiple#, +hich confirmed the belief of the military agents that the information they had received +as true and the persons to be arrested +ere probably guilty of the commission of certain crimes/ first/ search +arrant +as duly issued to effect the search of the Constantine safehouse? second/ found in the safehouse +as a person named Renato Constantine, +ho admitted that he +as a ran,ing member of the C66, and found in his possession +ere unlicensed firearms and communications eBuipment? third/ at the time of their arrests, in their possession +ere unlicensed firearms, ammunitions and=or subversive documents, and they admitted o+nership thereof as +ell as their membership in the C66=A6&. &nd then, shortly after their arrests, they +ere positively identified by their former comrades in the organi.ation as C66=A6& members. "n vie+ of these circumstances, the corresponding informations +ere filed in court against said arrested persons. The records also sho+ that, as in the case of -ural, the arrests +ithout +arrant made by the military agents in the Constantino safehouse and later in the &melia RoBue house, do not appear to have been ill-motivated or irregularly performed. ;ith all these facts and circumstances e8isting before, during and after the arrest of the afore-named persons (-ural, Buenaobra, RoBue, &nonuevo, Casiple and 0caya#, no prudent an can say that it +ould have been better for the military agents not to have acted at all and made any arrest. That +ould have been an unpardonable neglect of official duty and a cause for disciplinary action against the peace officers involved. 9or, one of the duties of la+ enforcers is to arrest la+brea,ers in order to place them in the hands of e8ecutive and Dudicial authorities upon +hom devolves the duty to investigate the acts constituting the alleged violation of la+ and to prosecute and secure the punishment therefor. >1 &n arrest is therefore in the nature of an administrative measure. The po+er to arrest +ithout +arrant is +ithout limitation as long as the reBuirements of

Section *, Rule %%> are met. This rule is founded on an over+helming public interest in peace and order in our communities. "n ascertaining +hether the arrest +ithout +arrant is conducted in accordance +ith the conditions set forth in Section *, Rule %%>, this Court determines not +hether the persons arrested are indeed guilty of committing the crime for +hich they +ere arrested. >> Aot evidence of guilt, but 5probable cause5 is the reason that can validly compel the peace officers, in the performance of their duties and in the interest of public order, to conduct an arrest +ithout +arrant. >; The courts should not e8pect of la+-enforcers more than +hat the la+ reBuires of them. Ender the conditions set forth in Section *, Rule %%>, particularly paragraph (b# thereof, even if the arrested persons are later found to be innocent and acBuitted, the arresting officers are not liable. >< But if they do not strictly comply +ith the said conditions, the arresting officers can be held liable for the crime of arbitrary detention, >5 for damages under &rticle >$ of the Civil Code >6 and=or for other administrative sanctions. "n 3.R. &o. G=F<F, ?spiritu, on $> Aovember %122, +as arrested +ithout +arrant, on the basis of the attestation of certain +itnesses/ that about */44 o<cloc, in the afternoon of $$ Aovember %122, at the corner of Magsaysay Boulevard and 'elencia St., Sta. Mesa, Manila, 7spiritu spo,e at a gathering of drivers and sympathi.ers, +here he said, among other things/ Bu,as tuloy ang +elga natin . . . hanggang sa mag%agulona. >$ (7mphasis supplied# and that the police authorities +ere present during the press conference held at the Aational 6ress Club (A6C# on $$ Aovember %122 +here 7spiritu called for a nation+ide stri,e (of Deepney and bus drivers# on $> Aovember %122. >8 7spiritu +as arrested +ithout +arrant, not for subversion or any 5continuing offense,5 but for uttering the above-Buoted language +hich, in the perception of the arresting officers, +as inciting to sedition. Many persons may differ as to the validity of such perception and regard the language as falling +ithin free speech guaranteed by the Constitution. But, then, 7spiritu had not lost the right to insist, during the pre-trial or trial on the merits, that he +as Dust e8ercising his right to free speech regardless of the charged atmosphere in +hich it +as uttered. But, the authority of the peace officers to ma,e the arrest, +ithout +arrant, at the time the +ords +ere uttered, or soon thereafter, is still another thing. "n the balancing of authority and freedom, +hich obviously becomes difficult at times, the Court has, in this case, tilted the scale in favor of authority but only for purposes of the arrest (not conviction#. !et it be noted that the Court has ordered the bail for 7spiritu<s release to be reduced from 6)4,444.44 to 6%4,444.44. !et it also be noted that supervening events have made the ?spiritu case moot and academic. 9or 7spiritu had before arraignment as,ed the court a !uo for re-investigation, the peace officers did not appear. Because of this development, the defense as,ed the court a !uo at the resumption of the hearings to dismiss the case. Case against 7spiritu (Criminal Case Ao. 22-)2>2*# has been provisionally dismissed and his bail bond cancelled. "n 3.R. &o. GDCC< (&a"areno#, the records sho+ that in the morning of %( -ecember %122, Romulo Bunye "" +as ,illed by a group of men in &labang, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila? that at about */44 o<cloc, in the morning of $2 -ecember %122, Ramil Regala, one of the suspects in the said ,illing, +as arrested and he pointed to Aarciso Aa.areno as one of his companions during the ,illing of Bunye ""? that at 3/$4 of the same morning ($2 -ecember %122#, the police agents arrested Aa.areno, +ithout +arrant, for investigation. >9 &lthough the ,illing of Bunye "" occurred on %( -ecember %122, +hile Aa.areno<s arrest +ithout +arrant +as made only on $2 -ecember %122, or %( days later, the arrest fans under Section *(b# of Rule %%>, since it +as only on $2 -ecember %122 that the police authorities came to ,no+ that Aa.areno +as probably one of those guilty in the ,illing of Bunye "" and the arrest had to be made promptly, even +ithout +arrant, (after the police +ere alerted# and despite the lapse of fourteen (%(# days to prevent possible flight. &s sho+n in the decision under consideration, this Court, in upholding the arrest +ithout +arrant of Aa.areno noted several facts and events surrounding his arrest and detention, as follo+s/ . . . on > @anuary %121 (or si8 ()# days after his arrest +ithout +arrant#, an information charging Aarciso Aa.areno, Ramil Regala and t+o ($# others, +ith the ,illing of Romulo Bunye "" +as

filed +it the Regional Trial Court of Ma,ati, Metro Manila. The case is doc, eted therein as Criminal Case Ao. 3>%. 0n 3 @anuary %121, Aarciso Aa.areno filed a motion to post bail but the motion +as denied by the trial court in an order dated %4 @anuary %121, even as the motion to post bail, earlier filed by his co-accused, Manuel !aureaga, +as granted by the same trial court. 0n %> @anuary %121, a petition for habeas corpus +as filed +ith this Court on behalf of Aarciso Aa.areno and on %> @anuary %121, the Court issued the +rit of habeas corpus, retumable to the 6residing @udge of the Regional Trial Court of Bifian, !aguna, Branch $(, ordering said court to hear the case on >4 @anuary %121 and thereafter resolve the petition. &t the conclusion of the hearing, or on % 9ebruary %121, the 6residing @udge of the Regional Trial Court of BiNan, !aguna issued a resolution denying the petition for habeas corpus, it appearing that the said Aarciso Aa.areno is in the custody of the respondents by reason of an information filed against him +ith the Regional Trial Court of Ma,ati, Metro Manila +hich liad ta,en cogni.ance of said case and had, in fact, denied the motion for bail filed by said Aarciso Aa.areno (presumably because of the strength of the evidence against him#. This Court reiterates that shortly after the arrests of ?spiritu and &a"areno, the corresponding informations against them +ere filed in court. The arrests of 7spiritu and Aa.areno +ere based on probable cause and supported by factual circumstances. They complied +ith conditions set forth in Section *(b# of Rule %%>. They +ere not arbitrary or +himsical arrests. 6arenthetically, it should be here stated that Aa.areno has since been convicted by the court a !uo for murder and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Ce has appealed the Dudgment of conviction to the Court of &ppeals +here it is pending as of this date ( C&-F.R. Ao. still undoc,eted#. 6etitioners contend that the decision of 1 @uly %114 ignored the contitution reBuisiteds for admissibility of an e8traDudicial admission. "n the case of 'uenaobra (F.R. Aos. 2(*2%-2$#, he admitted ;" that he +as an A6& courier. 0n the other hand, in the case of Amelia Ro!ue, she admitted ;1 that the unlicensed firearms, ammunition and subversive documents found in her possession during her arrest, belonged to her. The Court, it is true, too, into account the admissions of the arrested persons of their membership in the C66=A6&, as +ell as their o+nership of the unlicensed firearms, ammunitions and documents in their possession. But again, these admissions, as revealed by the records, strengthen the Court<s perception that truly the grounds upon +hich the arresting officers based their arrests +ithout +arrant, are supported by probable cause, i.e. that the persons arrested +ere probably guilty of the commission of certain offenses, in compliance +ith Section *, Rule %%> of the Rules of Court. To note these admissions, on the other hand, is not to rule that the persons arrested are already guilty of the offenses upon +hich their +arrantless arrests +ere predicated. The tas, of determining the guilt or innocence of persons arrested +ithout +arrant is not proper in a petition for habeas corpus. "t pertains to the trial of the case on the merits. &s to the argument that the doctrines in 3arcia #s. ?nrile, and (lagan #s. ?nrile should be abandoned, this Court finds no compelling reason at this time to disturb the same, particularly ln the light of prevailing conditions +here national security and liability are still directly challenged perhaps +ith greater vigor from the communist rebels. ;hat is important is that everv arrest +ithout +arrant be tested as to its legality #ia habeas corpus proceeding. This Court. +ill promptly loo, into L and all other appropriate courts are enDoined to do the same L the legality of the arrest +ithout +arrant so that if the conditions under Sec. * of Rule %%>, Rules of Court, as elucidated in this Resolution, are not met, then the detainee shall forth+ith be ordered released? but if such conditions are met, then the detainee shall not be made to languish in his detention but must be promptly tried to the end that he may be either acBuitted or convicted, +ith the least delay, as +arranted by the evidence. A ,inal Word This Resolution ends as it began, reiterating that mere suspicion of being a Communist 6arty member or a subversive is absolutely not a ground for the arrest +ithout +arrant of the suspect. The Court predicated the

validity of the Buestioned arrests +ithout +arrant in these petitions, not on mere unsubstantiated suspicion, but on compliance +ith the conditions set forth in Section *, Rule %%>, Rules of Court, a long e8isting la+, and +hich, for stress, are probable cause and good faith of the arresting peace officers, and, further, on the basis of, as the records sho+, the actual facts and circumstances supporting the arrests. More than the allure of popularity or palatability to some groups, what is important is that the -ourt be right. &CC0R-"AF!G, the motions for reconsideration of the decision dated 1 @uly %114, are -7A"7-. This denial is 9"A&!. S0 0R-7R7-.

G.R. No. 9;>;9 Mar-+ 18, 1991 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EDISON S0(RO, accused-appellant. G0TIERRE6, JR., J.:p 7dison Sucro +as charged +ith and convicted of violation of Section (, &rticle "" of the -angerous -rugs &ct, under an "nformation +hich reads/ That on or about the $%st day of March, %121, in the evening, in the 6oblacion, Municipality of Malibo, 6rovince of &,lan, Republic of the 6hilippines, and +ithin the Durisdiction of this Conorable Court, the above-named accused, acting as a pusher or bro,er in the business of selling, administering, delivery, giving a+ay to another and=or distributing prohibited drugs, did then and there +ilfully, unla+fully and feloniously and +ithout authority of la+ have in his possession and control nineteen (%1# pieces of mariDuana cigarette stic,s and four ((# tea bags of dried mariDuana leaves +hich +ere confiscated from him by the police authorities of Malibo, &,lan, shortly after having sold one tea bag of dried mariDuana leaves to a customer. (Rollo, p. 1# Epon arraignment, the accused-appellant, assisted by counsel, entered a plea of 5not guilty5 to the offense charged. Trial ensued and a Dudgment of conviction +as rendered, the pertinent portion of +hich reads/ ;C7R790R7, Dudgment is rendered finding the accused 7dison Sucro guilty of the sale of prohibited drug under Section (, &rticle "" of the -angerous -rug &ct, as amended, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, and pay a fine of 6$4,444, and costs. Ce shall be entitled to full credit in the service of his sentence +ith the period for +hich he has undergone preventive imprisonment to the date of promulgation of this Dudgment. &ll the items of mariDuana confiscated in this case are declared forfeited in favor of the State. (Rollo, p. (%# 9rom the foregoing Dudgment of conviction, accused-appellant interposes this appeal, assigning the follo+ing as errors allegedly committed by the court a !uo, to +it/ " TC7 !0;7R C0ERT 7RR7- "A &-M"TT"AF &S 7'"-7AC7 90R TC7 6R0S7CET"0A 7 C"B"TS 575-57-(5, T7& B&FS 09 &!!7F7- M&R"@E&A&, T0 B7 TC7 -$R/*+ .?>(-2(@ 9ERTC7RM0R7, TC&T TC7 S&M7 ;7R7 T&M7A ;"TC0ET TC7 R7RE"R7- ;&RR&AT 09 S7&RCC &A&RR7ST S"AC7 TC7 &CCES7- ;&S A0T "A TC7 &CT 09 C0MM"TT"AF &AG 0997AS7 &T TC7 T"M7 09 C"S &RR7ST. "" TC7 !0;7R C0ERT 7RR7- "A 9"A-"AF TC7 &CCES7- 7-"S0A SECR0 FE"!TG 09 TC7 S&!7 09 6R0C"B"T7- -REFS EA-7R S7CT"0A (, &RT"C!7 "", 09 TC7 -&AF7R0ES -REFS &CT &A- S7AT7AC"AF C"M T0 SE997R & 67A&!TG 09 !"97 "M6R"S0AM7AT &A- T0 6&G & 9"A7 09 6 $4,444.44. (&ppellant<s Brief, p. %# The antecedent facts of the case as summari.ed by the Solicitor Feneral are as follo+s/ 0n March $%, %121, 6at. Roy 9ulgencio, a member of the "A6, Malibo, &,lan, +as instructed by 6=!t. 'icente Seraspi, @r. (Station Commander of the "A6 Malibo, &,lan# to monitor the activities of appellant 7dison Sucro, because of information gathered by Seraspi that Sucro +as selling mariDuana. (p. ), TSA, May $,%121#. &s planned, at about */44 6.M. on said date, 6at. 9ulgencio 6ositioned himself under the house of a certain &rlie Regalado at C. Ruimpo Street. &dDacent to the house of Regalado, about $ meters a+ay, +as a chapel. Thereafter, 6at. 9ulgencio sa+ appellant enter the chapel, ta,ing something +hich turned out later to be mariDuana from the compartment of a cart found inside the chapel, and then return to the street +here he handed the same to a buyer, &ldie Borromeo. &fter a +hile appellant +ent bac, to the chapel and again came out +ith mariDuana +hich he gave to a group of persons. (pp. )-2, %*%2, (bid#. "t +as at this instance that 6at. 9ulgencio radioed 6=!t. Seraspi and reported the activity going on. 6=!t. Seraspi instructed 6at. 9ulgencio to continue monitoring developments. &t about )/>4 6.M.,

6at. 9ulgencio again called up Seraspi to report that a third buyer later "dentified as Ronnie Macabante, +as transacting +ith appellant. (pp. %2-%1, (bid# &t that point, the team of 6=!t. Seraspi proceeded to the area and +hile the police officers +ere at the Gouth Costel at Maagma St., 6at. 9ulgencio told 6=!t. Seraspi to intercept Macabante and appellant. 6=!t. Seraspi and his team caught up +ith Macabante at the crossing of Mabini and Maagma Sts. in front of the &,lan Medical Center. Epon seeing the police, Macabante thre+ something to the ground +hich turned out to be a tea bag of mariDuana. (pp. )-2, TSA, @une %1, %121# ;hen confronted, Macabante readily admitted that he bought the same from appellant (7dison Sucro# in front of the chapel. (p. ), TSA, May $(, %121# The police team +as able to overta,e and arrest appellant at the corner of C. Ruimpo and 'eterans Sts. The police recovered %1 stic,s and ( teabags of mariDuana from the cart inside the chapel and another teabag from Macabante, The teabags of mariDuana +ere sent to the 6C-"A6 Crime !aboratory Service, at Camp -elgado, "loilo City for analysis. The specimens (78hibits 5F5 to 5F-%25, 78hibits 575 to 57-(5# +ere all found positive of mariDuana. (pp. (3, TSA, Sept. (, %121#5 (&ppellee<s Brief, pp. >-)# &s can be seen from the facts, the issue hinges mainly on +hether or not the arrest +ithout +arrant of the accused is la+ful and conseBuently, +hether or not the evidence resulting from such arrest is admissible. ;e rule in the affirmative. The accused-appellant contends that his arrest +as illegal, being a violation of his rights granted under Section $, &rticle """ of the %123 Constitution. Ce stresses that there +as sufficient time for the police officers to apply for a search and arrest +arrants considering that 9ulgencio informed his Station Commander of the activities of the accused t+o days before March $%, %121, the date of his arrest. This contention is +ithout merit. Section *, Rule %%> of the Rules on Criminal 6rocedure provides for the instances +here arrest +ithout +arrant is considered la+ful. The rule states/ Arrest without warrant, when lawful. L & peace officer or private person may, +ithout +arrant, arrest a person/ (a# When in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense? (b# When an offense has in fact :ust been committed, and he has personal %nowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it? (7mphasis supplied# &n offense is committed in the presence or +ithin the vie+ of an officer, +ithin the meaning of the rule authori.ing an arrest +ithout a +arrant, +hen the officer sees the offense, although at a distance, or hears the disturbances created thereby and proceeds at once to the scene thereof. (E.S. v. 9ortale.a, %$ 6hil. (3$ H%141I? and E.S. v. Samonte, %) 6hil. *%) H%1%4I# The records sho+ that 9ulgencio +ent to &rlie Regalado<s house at C. Ruimpo Street to monitor the activities of the accused +ho +as earlier reported to be selling mariDuana at a chapel t+o ($# meters a+ay from Regalado<s house. 9ulgencio, +ithin a distance of t+o meters sa+ Sucro conduct his nefarious activity. Ce sa+ Sucro tal, to some persons, go inside the chapel, and return to them and e8change some things. These, Sucro did three times during the time that he +as being monitored. 9ulgencio +ould then relay the on-going transaction to 6=!t. Seraspi. &nent the second reBuirement, the fact that Macabante, +hen intercepted by the police, +as caught thro+ing the mariDuana stic, and +hen confronted, readily admitted that he bought the same from accused-appellant clearly indicates that Sucro had Dust sold the mariDuana stic, to Macabante, and therefore, had Dust committed an illegal act of +hich the police officers had personal ,no+ledge, being members of the team +hich monitored Sucro<s nefarious activity. The court earlier indicated in the case of /eople #. 'ati (F.R. Ao. 23($1, &ugust $3, %114# that police officers have personal ,no+ledge of the actual commission of the crime +hen it had earlier conducted surveillance activities of the accused. Thus, it stated/

;hen !uciano and Caraan reached the place +here the alleged transaction +ould ta,e place and +hile positioned at a street comer, they sa+ appellant Regalado Bati and ;arner MarBue. by the side of the street about forty to fifty meters a+ay from them (the public officers#. They sa+ MarBue. giving something to Bati, +ho, thereafter handed a +rapped obDect to MarBue. +ho then inserted the obDect inside the front of his pants in front of his abdomen +hile Bati, on his part, placed the thing given to him inside his poc,et. (p. $# 888 888 888 . . . Both 6atrolman !uciano and Caraan actually witnessed the same and their testimonies +ere based on their actual and personal ,no+ledge of the events that too, place leading to appellant<s arrest. They may not have been +ithin hearing distance, specially since conversation +ould e8pectedly be carried on in hushed tones, but they +ere certainly near enough to observe the movements of the appellant and the buyer. Moreover, these prosecution +itnesses are all la+ enforcers and are, therefore, presumed to have regularly performed their duties in the absence of proof to the contrary (6eople v. Bati, supra citing 6eople v. &gapito, F.R. Ao. 3>32), 0ctober %$, %123# The accused Buestions the failure of the police officers to secure a +arrant considering that 9ulgencio himself ,ne+ of Sucro<s activities even prior to the former<s Doining the police force. 9ulgencio reported Sucro<s activities only three days before the incident. &s the records reveal, 9ulgencio and Sucro had ,no+n each other since their childhood years and that after 9ulgencio Doined the police force, he told the accused-appellant not to sell drugs in their locality. Cence, it is possible that because of this friendship, 9ulgencio hesitated to report his childhood friend and merely advised him not to engage in such activity. Co+ever, because of reliable information given by some informants that selling +as going on everyday, he +as constrained to report the matter to the Station Commander. 0n the other hand, the failure of the police officers to secure a +arrant stems from the fact that their ,no+ledge acBuired from the surveillance +as insufficient to fulfill the reBuirements for the issuance of a search +arrant. ;hat is paramount is that probable cause e8isted. Thus, it has been held in the case of /eople #. >o o Wing, et al. (F.R. Ao. 224%3, @anuary $%, %11%#/ "n the instant case, it +as firmly established from the factual findings of the trial court that the authorities had reasonable ground to believe that appellant +ould attempt to bring in contraband and transport it +ithin the country. The belief +as based on intelligence reports gathered from surveillance activities on the suspected syndicate, of +hich appellant +as touted to be a member. &side from this, they +ere also certain as to the e8pected date and time of arrival of the accused from China. But such ,no+ledge +as clearly insufficient to enable them to fulfill the reBuirements for the issuance of a search +arrant. Still and all, the important thing is that there +as probable cause to conduct the +arrantless search, +hich must still be present in such a case. &s the Solicitor Feneral has pointed out/ There are several instances +hen a +arrantless search and sei.ure can be effected +ithout necessarily being preceded by an arrest provided the same is effected on the basis of probable cause (e.g. stop and search +ithout +arrant at chec,points#. Bet+een +arrantless searches and sei.ures at chec,points and in the case at bar the latter is more reasonable considering that unli,e in the former, it +as effected on the basis of probable cause. Ender the circumstances (monitoring of transactions# there e8isted probable cause for the arresting officers, to arrest appellant +ho +as in fact selling mariDuana and to sei.e the contraband. That searches and sei.ures must be supported by a valid +arrant is not an absolute rule (Manipon, @r. v. Sandiganbayan, %(> SCR& $)3 H%12)I#. &mong the e8ceptions granted by la+ is a search incidental to a la+ful arrest under Sec. %$, Rule %$) of the Rules on Criminal 6rocedure, +hich provides that a person la+fully arrested may be searched for dangerous +eapons or anything +hich may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, +ithout a search +arrant. (6eople v. Castiller, F.R. Ao. 2332>, &ugust ), %114#

The accused-appellant claims that the arrest having been done +ithout +arrant, it follo+s that the evidence obtained therefrom is inadmissible. &s earlier discussed, there is nothing unla+ful about the arrest considering its compliance +ith the reBuirements of a +arrantless arrest. 7rgo, the fruits obtained from such la+ful arrest are admissible in evidence. 7dison Sucro assails the trial court<s reliance on the statement of Macabante +hose reason for testifying could be merely to escape prosecution. ;e Buote the trial court<s finding as to the testimony of Macabante/ The non-filing of a complaint against him for possession of mariDuana may have been the reason of (sic# his +illingness to testify in court against the accused. But this does not necessarily taint the evidence that proceeds from his lips. &s e8plained by !t. Seraspi, the best sources of information against drug pushers are usually their customers, especially if as in this case, there is no other direct evidence of the selling e8cept the testimony of the buyer. ;e accept this observation as a realistic appraisal of a situation in +hich drug users are, and should be employed by la+ enforcement authorities to bolster the drive against pushers +ho are the real felons in our society. ;e have observed the demeanor of the +itness in court, and found him to be straightfor+ard, unhesitating, and spontaneous in his declarations, so that +e are satisfied as to his intention and disposition to tell the truth (Rollo, p. (4# Time and again it has been held that the findings of the trial court are entitled to great +eight and should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is sho+n that the trial court had overloo,ed certain facts of +eight and importance, it being ac,no+ledged. that the court belo+, having seen and heard the +itnesses during the trial, is in a better position to evaluate their testimonies (6eople v. Emali, et al., F.R. Ao. 2((*4, 9ebruary (, %11% citing 6eople v. &lvare., %)> SCR& 3(* H%122I? 6eople v. -orado, >4 SCR& *> H%1)1I? and 6eople v. 7speDo, >) SCR& (44 H%134I#. 9urthermore, the testimony of Macabante +as corroborated on material points by public officers 9ulgencio and Seraspi. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the police officers +ere compelled by any motive than to accomplish their mission to capture a drug pusher in the e8ecution of the crime, the presumption being that police officers perform their duties regularly in the absence of any evidence to the contrary (Rule %>%, Sec. >(m#, Revised Rules on 7vidence? 6eople v. Castiller, supra citing 6eople v. Aatipravat, %(* SCR& (2> H%12)I#. The prosecution evidence +as further bolstered by the findings of the 9orensic Chemist that the items sei.ed +ere all positive for mariDuana. "n contrast to the evidence presented by the prosecution, accused-appellant<s defense is alibi +hich is unavailing considering that he +as positively identified by Macabante to be the person from +hom he bought mariDuana. Sucro alleges that he could not have committed the crime since he +as +ith his uncle and cousin distributing handbills for his &untie<s candidacy. The fact, ho+ever, remains that it does not preclude the possibility that he +as present in the vicinity as established by his admission that he moved a lot and even had the occasion to meet Macabante on the street. "t is +ell-settled that mere denials cannot prevail against the positive identification of the appellant as the seller of the prohibited substances. (6eople v. Mhan, %)% SCR& (4) H%122I? and 6eople v. 6aco, %34 SCR& )2% H%121I# 6remises considered, this Court is convinced that appellant 7dison Sucro had indeed committed the offense charged. The trial court<s decision must be upheld. ;C7R790R7, the decision appealed from is hereby &99"RM7-. S0 0R-7R7-.

G.R. No. 959"> F#=ruary <, 199> PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DON RODRIG0E6A, accused-appellant. REGALADO, J.: 0n appeal before us is the decision of the Regional Trial Court of !egaspi City, Branch %4, finding accusedappellant -on Rodrigue.a guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section (, &rticle "" of the -angerous -rugs &ct of %13$ (Republic &ct Ao. )($*, as amended# and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of 6$4,444.44 and costs. 1 Co+ever, the Solicitor Feneral, deviating from his conventional stance in the prosecution of criminal cases, recommends the acBuittal of appellant for the reasons stated in his Manifestation for &cBuittal ("n !ieu of &ppellee<s Brief# filed +ith the Court. ;e have revie+ed and analy.ed the testimonial and documentary evidence in this case and +e find said recommendation to be +ell ta,en. The information, dated @uly %4, %123, charges -on Rodrigue.a and his co-accused, Samuel Segovia and &ntonio !onceras, +ith allegedly having in their custody and possession %44 grams of mariDuana leaves and for selling, in a buy-bust operation, said %44 grams of dried mariDuana leaves for a consideration of 6$44.44. > -uring the arraignment, all the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge against them. &t the trial, the prosecution and the defense presented several +itnesses after +hich the court a !uo rendered Dudgment acBuitting Samuel Segovia and &ntonio !onceras but convicting and penali.ing herein appellant as hereinbefore stated. The follo+ing facts are culled from the decision of the trial court and the evidence presented by the prosecution. &t around */44 o<cloc, in the afternoon of @uly %, %123, C"C Ciriaco Taduran +as in their headBuarters at the 0ffice of the Aarcotics Regional Enit at Camp Bagong "balon, !egaspi City, together +ith S=Sgt. 7lpidio Molina+e, C"C !eonardo B. Falutan and their commanding officer, MaDor Crisostomo M. :eidem, +hen a confidential informer arrived and told them that there +as an ongoing illegal traffic of prohibited drugs in Tagas, -araga, &lbay. MaDor :eidem formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation, +hich team +as given 6$44.44 in different denominations to buy mariDuana. These bills +ere treated +ith ultraviolet po+der at the 6hilippine Constabulary Crime !aboratory (6CC!#. Sgt. Molina+e gave the money to Taduran +ho acted as the poseur buyer. Ce +as told to loo, for a certain -on, the alleged seller of prohibited drugs. Taduran +ent to Tagas alone and, +hile along the road, he met Samuel Segovia. Ce as,ed Segovia +here be could find -on and +here he could buy mariDuana. Segovia left for a +hile and +hen be returned, he +as accompanied by a man +ho +as later on introduced to him as -on, herein appellant. ; &fter agreeing on the price of 6$44.44 for %44 grams of mariDuana, -on halted a passing tricycle driven by &ntonio !onceras. Ce boarded it and left Taduran and Segovia. ;hen he came bac,, -on gave Taduran 5a certain obDect +rapped in a plastic5 +hich +as later identified as mariDuana, and received payment therefor. Thereafter, Taduran returned to the headBuarters and made a report regarding his said purchase of mariDuana. < Based on that information, MaDor :eidem ordered a team to conduct an operation to apprehend the suspects. "n the evening of the same date, C"C Falutan and S=Sgt. Molina+e proceeded to Regidor Street, -araga, &lbay and arrested appellant, &ntonio !onceras and Samuel Segovia. The constables +ere not, ho+ever, armed +ith a +arrant of arrest +hen they apprehended the three accused. The arrestees +ere brought to the headBuarters for investigation. 5 Thereafter, agents of the Aarcotics Command (A&RC0M# conducted a raid in the house of @ovencio Rodrigue.a, father of appellant. Taduran did not go +ith them. -uring the raid, they +ere able to confiscate dried mariDuana leaves and a plastic syringe, among others. The search, ho+ever, +as not authori.ed by any search +arrant. 6

The ne8t day, @uly $, %123, @ovencio Rodrigue.a +as released from detention but appellant +as detained. &n affidavit, allegedly ta,en from and e8ecuted by him, +as s+orn to by him before the assistant city prosecutor. &ppellant had no counsel +hen his s+orn statement +as ta,en during that custodial investigation. The arrestees +ere also e8amined by personnel of the 6CC! and +ere found positive for ultraviolet po+der. $ The three accused presented different versions of their alleged participations. Samuel Segovia testified that he +as in their house in the evening of @uly %, %123 listening to the radio. !ater, he ate his merienda and then +ent out to buy cigarettes from the store. ;hile he +as at the store, a Deep stopped behind him. Several armed men alighted therefrom and ordered him to get inside the Deep. Ce refused but he +as forced to board the vehicle. Ce +as even hit by the butt of a gun. 8 Ce +as thereafter brought to Camp Bagong "balon +here he +as investigated and +as repeatedly as,ed regarding the +hereabouts of Rodrigue.a. Ce +as manhandled by the A&RC0M agents and +as detained +hile inside the camp. Ce +as then made to hold a 6%4.44 bill treated +ith ultraviolet po+der. ;hen he +as ta,en to the 6CC! and e8amined he +as found positive of the ultraviolet po+der. Ce +as also made to sign some papers but he did not ,no+ +hat they +ere all about. 9 &ppellant, on the other hand, testified that on said date he +as in the house of his aunt in San RoBue, !egaspi City. Ce stayed there overnight and did not leave the place until the ne8t day +hen his brother arrived and told him that their father +as ta,en by some military men the preceding night. &ppellant +ent to Camp Bagong "balon and arrived there at around 2/44 o<cloc, in the morning of @uly $, %123. ;hen he arrived, he +as as,ed if he ,ne+ anything about the mariDuana incident, to +hich Buestion he ans+ered in the negative. !i,e Segovia, he +as made to hold a 6%4.44 bill and +as brought to the crime laboratory for e8amination. 9rom that time on, he +as not allo+ed to go home and +as detained inside the camp. Ce +as also tortured in order to ma,e him admit his complicity in the alleged sale of mariDuana. 1" "n the assignment of errors in his brief, appellant contends that the trial court erred in (%# admitting in evidence the s+orn statement of appellant +hich +as obtained in violation of his constitutional rights? ($# convicting appellant of the crime charged despite the fact that the %44 grams of dried mariDuana leaves allegedly bought from him +ere not properly identified? (># convicting appellant of the crime charged despite the fact that the evidence for the prosecution is +ea, and not convincing? and ((# finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of selling or at least acting as bro,er in the sale of the %44 grams of mariDuana to C"C Taduran late in the afternoon of @uly %, %123, despite the failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 11 ;e rule for the appellant and approve the recommendation for his acBuittal. "n disposing of this case, ho+ever, +e feel that the issues raised by appellant should properly be discussed seriatim. %. & buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment employed by peace officers to trap and catch a malefactor in flagrante delicto. 1> &pplied to the case at bar, the term in flagrante delicto reBuires that the suspected drug dealer must be caught redhanded in the act of selling mariDuana or any prohibited drug to a person acting or posing as a buyer. "n the instant case, ho+ever, the procedure adopted by the A&RC0M agents failed to meet this Bualification. Based on the very evidence of the prosecution, after the alleged consummation of the sale of dried mariDuana leaves, C"C Taduran immediately released appellant Rodrigue.a instead of arresting and ta,ing him into his custody. This act of C"C Taduran, assuming arguendo that the supposed sale of mariDuana did ta,e place, is decidedly contrary to the natural course of things and inconsistent +ith the aforestated purpose of a buy-bust operation. "t is rather absurd on his part to let appellant escape +ithout having been subDected to the sanctions imposed by la+. "t is, in fact, a dereliction of duty by an agent of the la+. $. The admissibility of the s+orn statement allegedly e8ecuted by appellant +as sBuarely placed in issue and, as correctly pointed out by the defense, said s+orn statement is inadmissible in evidence against appellant. ;e have once again to reiterate and emphasi.e that &rticle """ of the %123 Constitution provides/ Sec. %$ (%#. &ny person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have a competent and independent counsel preferably of his o+n choice. "f the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided +ith one. These rights cannot be +aived e8cept in +riting and in the presence of counsel. 888 888 888

(># &ny confession or admission obtained in violation of this or section %3 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. &n e8amination of said s+orn statement sho+s that appellant +as informed of his constitutional right to remain silent and to be assisted by counsel during custodial e8amination. Ce +as also as,ed if he +as +aiving his right to be assisted by counsel and he ans+ered in the affirmative. Co+ever, +hile the rights of a person under custodial investigation may be +aived, such +aiver must be made not only voluntarily, ,no+ingly and intelligently but also in the presence and +ith the assistance of counsel. 1; "n the present case, the +aiver made by appellant being +ithout the assistance of counsel, this omission alone is sufficient to invalidate said s+orn statement. 1< >. Corollary to this, +e ta,e cogni.ance of the error of the trial court in admitting in evidence against appellant the articles allegedly confiscated during the raid conducted in the house of @ovencio Rodrigue.a. &s provided in the present Constitution, a search, to be valid, must generally be authori.ed by a search +arrant duly issued by the proper government authority. 15 True, in some instances, this Court has allo+ed government authorities to conduct searches and sei.ures even +ithout a search +arrant. Thus, +hen the o+ner of the premises +aives his right against such incursion? 16 +hen the search is incidental to a la+ful arrest? 1$ +hen it is made on vessels and aircraft for violation of customs la+s? 18 +hen it is made on automobiles for the purpose of preventing violations of smuggling or immigration la+s? 19 +hen it involves prohibited articles in plain vie+? >" or in cases of inspection of buildings and other premises for the enforcement of fire, sanitary and building regulations,>1 a search may be validly made even +ithout a search +arrant. "n the case at bar, ho+ever, the raid conducted by the A&RC0M agents in the house of @ovencio Rodrigue.a +as not authori.ed by any search +arrant. "t does not appear, either, that the situation falls under any of the aforementioned cases. Cence, appellant<s right against unreasonable search and sei.ure +as clearly violated. The A&RC0M agents could not have Dustified their act by invo,ing the urgency and necessity of the situation because the testimonies of the prosecution +itnesses reveal that the place had already been put under surveillance for Buite some time. Cad it been their intention to conduct the raid, then they should, because they easily could, have first secured a search +arrant during that time. (. The Court further notes the confusion and ambiguity in the identification of the confiscated mariDuana leaves and other prohibited drug paraphernalia presented as evidence against appellant. C"C Taduran, +ho acted as the poseur buyer, testified that appellant sold him %44 grams of dried mariDuana leaves +rapped in a plastic bag. Surprisingly, and no plausible e8planation has been advanced therefor, +hat +ere submitted to and e8amined by the 6CC! and thereafter utili.ed as evidence against the appellant +ere the follo+ing items/ 0ne (%# red and +hite colored plastic bag containing the follo+ing/ 78h. 5&5LThirty (>4# grams of suspected dried mariDuana fruiting tops contained inside a transparent plastic bag. 78h. 5B5L 9ifty (*4# grams of suspected dried mariDuana leaves and seeds contained inside a +hite colored plastic labelled 5Robertson5. 78h. 5C5L 9our ((# aluminum foils each containing suspected dried mariDuana fruiting tops having a total +eight of seven grams then further +rapped +ith a piece of aluminum foil. 78h. 5-5L 9ive (*# small transparent plastic bags each containing suspected dried mariDuana fruiting tops having a total +eight of seventeen grams. 78h. 575L 0ne plastic syringe. >> 7vidently, these prohibited articles +ere among those confiscated during the so-called follo+-up raid in the house of @ovencio Rodrigue.a. The unans+ered Buestion then arises as to the identity of the mariDuana leaves that became the basis of appellant<s conviction. >; "n /eople #s. Rubio, >< this Court had the occasion to rule that the plastic bag and the dried mariDuana leaves contained therein constitute the corpus delicti of the crime. &s such, the e8istence thereof must be proved +ith certainty and conclusiveness. 9ailure to do so +ould be fatal to the cause of the prosecution.

*. "t is accepted that, as a rule, minor inconsistencies in the testimony of a +itness +ill not affect his credibility. "t even enhances such credibility because it only sho+s that he has not been rehearsed. >5 Co+ever, +hen the inconsistencies pertain to material and crucial points, the same detract from his overall credibility. The e8ception, rather than the rule, applies in the case at bar. &s correctly pointed out by the Solicitor Feneral, the testimonies of the prosecution +itnesses are tainted +ith serious fla+s and material inconsistencies rendering the same incredible. >6 C"C Taduran, in his testimony, said that they had already been conducting surveillance of the place +here the buy-bust operation +as to ta,e place. "t turned out, ho+ever, that he did not even ,no+ the e8act place and the identity of the person from +hom he +as to buy mariDuana leaves. Thus/ 9"SC&! T0!0S& R ;hat place in Tagas +ere you able to go (to#K ;"TA7SS & " am not actually familiar in (sic# that place, in Tagas, although +e occasionally passed there. R Ao+, upon your arrival in Tagas, +hat did you do that afternoonK & " +aited for the suspect because previously, +e have already been conducted (sic# surveillance (sic# in the vicinity. R Epon arrival in Tagas, +ere you able to see the suspectK & By the road, sir. R ;ho +as the first person did you see (sic# +hen you arrived at TagasK & The first person +hom " sa+ is Samuel Segovia. R ;ere you able to tal, +ith this Samuel SegoviaK & &ccording to him, +e could get some. >$ The same findings go for the testimony of +itness Falutan. "n his direct e8amination, he declared that they arrested the three accused all at the same time on the fateful night of @uly %, %123. But, in his crosse8amination and as corroborated by the @oint &ffidavit of &rrest >8 submitted by him and Molina+e, it appeared that !onceras and Segovia +ere arrested on different times and that appellant -on Rodrigue.a +as not among those +ho +ere arrested. "nstead, it +as @ovencio Rodrigue.a, -on<s father, +ho +as pic,ed up at a much later time. ;ith said inconsistencies in sharp focus, +e are constrained to give more credibility to the testimony of appellant Rodrigue.a. ;hile it is true that appellant<s defense amounts to an alibi, and as such is the +ea,est defense in a criminal prosecution, there are, nonetheless, some evidentiary aspects pointing to the truth in his testimony. 9irstly, the @oint &ffidavit of &rrest corroborates his testimony that he +as not among those +ho +ere arrested on the night of @uly %, %123. Cis co-accused Segovia also testified that appellant Rodrigue.a +as not +ith them +hen they +ere apprehended by the A&RC0M agents. Secondly, the apparent motive of the A&RC0M agents in prosecuting the accused +as also revealed during the trial of the case. Rebuttal +itnesses Fracita Bahillo, sister of appellant, and Cospicio Segovia, father of Samuel Segovia, testified that Sgt. Molina+e, +ho has since been reportedly dismissed from the service, as,ed for 6%4,444.44 from each of them in e8change for the liberty of the accused. >9 This allegation +as never refuted by the prosecution. Cence, the rule laid do+n by this Court that the statements of prosecution +itnesses are entitled to full faith and credit ;" has no application in the case at bar. 9inally, the Court has repeatedly ruled that to sustain the conviction of the accused, the prosecution must rely on the strength of its o+n evidence and not on the +ea,ness of the defense. ;1 &s clearly sho+n by the evidence, the prosecution has failed to establish its cause. "t has not overcome the presumption of innocence accorded to appellant. This being the case, appellant should not be allo+ed to suffer for un+arranted and imaginary imputations against him. ;C7R790R7, the Dudgment of conviction of the court belo+ is hereby R7'7RS7- and S7T &S"-7 and accused-appellant -on Rodrigue.a is hereby &CRE"TT7- of the crime charged. "t is hereby ordered that he be immediately released from custody unless he is other+ise detained for some other la+ful cause. S0 0R-7R7-.

G.R. No. 1"18;$ F#=ruary 11, 199> ROLITO GO y TAMB0NTING, .#/*/*on#r, 5,. THE (O0RT OF APPEALS, THE HON. BENJAMIN 7. PELA%O, Pr#,*'*n2 Ju'2#, Bran-+ 168, R#2*ona3 Tr*a3 (our/, N(JR Pa,*2, M.M., an' PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, r#,.on'#n/,. 97!"C"&A0, @./ &ccording to the findings of the San @uan 6olice in their "nvestigation Report, % on $ @uly %11%, 7ldon Maguan +as driving his car along ;ilson St., San @uan, Metro Manila, heading to+ards 6. Fuevarra St. 6etitioner entered ;ilson St., +here it is a one-+ay street and started travelling in the opposite or 5+rong5 direction. &t the corner of ;ilson and @. &bad Santos Sts., petitioner<s and Maguan<s cars nearly bumped each other. 6etitioner alighted from his car, +al,ed over and shot Maguan inside his car. 6etitioner then boarded his car and left the scene. & security guard at a nearby restaurant +as able to ta,e do+n petitioner<s car plate number. The police arrived shortly thereafter at the scene of the shooting and there retrieved an empty shell and one round of live ammunition for a 1 mm caliber pistol. 'erification at the !and Transportation 0ffice sho+ed that the car +as registered to one 7lsa &ng Fo. The follo+ing day, the police returned to the scene of the shooting to find out +here the suspect had come from? they +ere informed that petitioner had dined at Cravings Ba,e Shop shortly before the shooting. The police obtained a facsimile or impression of the credit card used by petitioner from the cashier of the ba,e shop. The security guard of the ba,e shop +as sho+n a picture of petitioner and he positively identified him as the same person +ho had shot Maguan. Caving established that the assailant +as probably the petitioner, the police launched a manhunt for petitioner. 0n 2 @uly %11%, petitioner presented himself before the San @uan 6olice Station to verify ne+s reports that he +as being hunted by the police? he +as accompanied by t+o ($# la+yers. The police forth+ith detained him. &n eye+itness to the shooting, +ho +as at the police station at that time, positively identified petitioner as the gunman. That same day, the police promptly filed a complaint for frustrated homicide $ against petitioner +ith the 0ffice of the 6rovincial 6rosecutor of Ri.al. 9irst &ssistant 6rovincial 6rosecutor -ennis 'illa "gnacio (56rosecutor5# informed petitioner, in the presence of his la+yers, that he could avail himself of his right to preliminary investigation but that he must first sign a +aiver of the provisions of &rticle %$* of the Revised 6enal Code. 6etitioner refused to e8ecute any such +aiver. 0n 1 @uly %11%, +hile the complaint +as still +ith the 6rosecutor, and before an information could be filed in court, the victim, 7ldon Maguan, died of his gunshot +ound(s#. &ccordingly, on %% @uly %11%, the 6rosecutor, instead of filing an information for frustrated homicide, filed an information for murder > before the Regional Trial Court. Ao bail +as recommended. &t the bottom of the information, the 6rosecutor certified that no preliminary investigation had been conducted because the accused did not e8ecute and sign a +aiver of the provisions of &rticle %$* of the Revised 6enal Code. "n the afternoon of the same day, %% @uly %11%, counsel for petitioner filed +ith the 6rosecutor an omnibus motion for immediate release and proper preliminary investigation, ( alleging that the +arrantless arrest of petitioner +as unla+ful and that no preliminary investigation had been conducted before the information +as filed. 6etitioner also prayed that he be released on recogni.ance or on bail. 6rovincial 6rosecutor Mauro Castro, acting on the omnibus motion, +rote on the last page of the motion itself that he interposed no obDection to petitioner being granted provisional liberty on a cash bond of 6%44,444.44. 0n %$ @uly %11%, petitioner filed an urgent e8-parte motion for special raffle * in order to e8pedite action on the 6rosecutor<s bail recommendation. The case +as raffled to the sala of respondent @udge, +ho, on the same date, approved the cash bond ) posted by petitioner and ordered his release. 3 6etitioner +as in fact released that same day. 0n %) @uly %11%, the 6rosecutor filed +ith the Regional Trial Court a motion for leave to conduct preliminary investigation 2 and prayed that in the meantime all proceedings in the court be suspended. Ce stated that petitioner had filed before the 0ffice of the 6rovincial 6rosecutor of Ri.al an omnibus motion for immediate

release and preliminary investigation, +hich motion had been granted by 6rovincial 6rosecutor Mauro Castro, +ho also agreed to recommend cash bail of 6%44,444.44. The 6rosecutor attached to the motion for leave a copy of petitioner<s omnibus motion of %% @uly %11%. &lso on %) @uly %11%, the trial court issued an 0rder 1 granting leave to conduct preliminary investigation and cancelling the arraignment set for %* &ugust %11% until after the prosecution shall have concluded its preliminary investigation. 0n %3 @uly %11%, ho+ever, respondent @udge motu proprio issued an 0rder, %4 embodying the follo+ing/ (%# the %$ @uly %11% 0rder +hich granted bail +as recalled? petitioner +as given (2 hours from receipt of the 0rder to surrender himself? ($# the %) @uly %11% 0rder +hich granted leave to the prosecutor to conduct preliminary investigation +as recalled and cancelled? (># petitioner<s omnibus motion for immediate release and preliminary investigation dated %% @uly %11% +as treated as a petition for bail and set for hearing on $> @uly %11%. 0n %1 @uly %11%, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus before the Supreme Court assailing the %3 @uly %11% 0rder, contending that the information +as null and void because no preliminary investigation had been previously conducted, in violation of his right to due process. 6etitioner also moved for suspension of all proceedings in the case pending resolution by the Supreme Court of his petition? this motion +as, ho+ever, denied by respondent @udge. 0n $> @uly %11%, petitioner surrendered to the police. By a Resolution dated $( @uly %11%, this Court remanded the petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus to the Court of &ppeals. 0n %) &ugust %11%, respondent @udge issued an order in open court setting the arraignment of petitioner on $> &ugust %11%. 0n %1 &ugust %11%, petitioner filed +ith the Court of &ppeals a motion to restrain his arraignment. 0n $> &ugust %11%, respondent Dudge issued a Commitment 0rder directing the 6rovincial ;arden of Ri.al to admit petitioner into his custody at the Ri.al 6rovincial @ail. 0n the same date, petitioner +as arraigned. "n vie+, ho+ever, of his refusal to enter a plea, the trial court entered for him a plea of not guilty. The Trial court then set the criminal case for continuous hearings on %1, $( and $) September? on $, >, %% and %3 0ctober? and on 3, 2, %(, %*, $% and $$ Aovember %11%. 0n $3 &ugust %11%, petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus %$ in the Court of &ppeals. Ce alleged that in vie+ of public respondent<s failure to Doin issues in the petition for certiorari earlier filed by him, after the lapse of more than a month, thus prolonging his detention, he +as entitled to be released on habeas corpus. 0n >4 &ugust %11%, the Court of &ppeals issued the +rit of habeas corpus. %> The petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, on the one hand, and the petition for habeas corpus, upon the other, +ere subseBuently consolidated in the Court of &ppeals. The Court of &ppeals, on $ September %11%, issued a resolution denying petitioner<s motion to restrain his arraignment on the ground that that motion had become moot and academic. 0n %1 September %11%, trial of the criminal case commenced and the prosecution presented its first +itness. 0n $> September %11%, the Court of &ppeals rendered a consolidated decision %( dismissing the t+o ($# petitions, on the follo+ing grounds/ a. 6etitioner<s +arrantless arrest +as valid because the offense for +hich he +as arrested and charged had been 5freshly committed.5 Cis identity had been established through investigation. &t the time he sho+ed up at the police station, there had been an e8isting manhunt for him. -uring the confrontation at the San @uan 6olice Station, one +itness positively identified petitioner as the culprit. b. 6etitioner<s act of posting bail constituted +aiver of any irregularity attending his arrest. Ce +aived his right to preliminary investigation by not invo,ing it properly and seasonably under the Rules. c. The trial court did not abuse its discretion +hen it issued the %3 @uly %11% 0rder because the trial court had the inherent po+er to amend and control its processes so as to ma,e them conformable to la+ and Dustice. d. Since there +as a valid information for murder against petitioner and a valid commitment order (issued by the trial Dudge after petitioner surrendered to the authorities +hereby petitioner +as given to the custody of the 6rovincial ;arden#, the petition for habeas corpus could not be granted.

0n > 0ctober %11%, the prosecution presented three (># more +itnesses at the trial. Counsel for petitioner also filed a 5;ithdra+al of &ppearance5 %* +ith the trial court, +ith petitioner<s conformity. 0n ( 0ctober %11%, the present 6etition for Revie+ on Certiorari +as filed. 0n %( 0ctober %11%, the Court issued a Resolution directing respondent @udge to hold in abeyance the hearing of the criminal case belo+ until further orders from this Court. "n this 6etition for Revie+, t+o ($# principal issues need to be addressed/ first, +hether or not a la+ful +arrantless arrest had been effected by the San @uan 6olice in respect of petitioner Fo? and second, +hether petitioner had effectively +aived his right to preliminary investigation. ;e consider these issues seriatim. "n respect of the first issue, the Solicitor Feneral argues that under the facts of the case, petitioner had been validly arrested +ithout +arrant. Since petitioner<s identity as the gunman +ho had shot 7ldon Maguan on $ @uly %11% had been sufficiently established by police +or,, petitioner +as validly arrested si8 ()# days later at the San @uan 6olice Station. The Solicitor Feneral invo,es Aa.areno v. Station Commander, etc., et al., %) one of the seven (3# cases consolidated +ith "n the Matter of the 6etition for Cabeas Corpus of Roberto Emil, etc., v. Ramos, et al. %3 +here a maDority of the Court upheld a +arrantees arrest as valid although effected fourteen (%(# days after the ,illing in connection +ith +hich Aa.areno had been arrested. &ccordingly, in the vie+ of the Solicitor Feneral, the provisions of Section 3, Rule %%$ of the Rules of Court +ere applicable and because petitioner had declined to +aive the provisions of &rticle %$* of the Revised 6enal Code, the 6rosecutor +as legally Dustified in filing the information for murder even +ithout preliminary investigation. 0n the other hand, petitioner argues that he +as not la+fully arrested +ithout +arrant because he +ent to the police station si8 ()# days after the shooting +hich he had allegedly perpetrated. Thus, petitioner argues, the crime had not been 5Dust committed5 at the time that he +as arrested. Moreover, none of the police officers +ho arrested him had been an eye+itness to the shooting of Maguan and accordingly none had the 5personal ,no+ledge5 reBuired for the la+fulness of a +arrantees arrest. Since there had been no la+ful +arrantless arrest. Section 3, Rule %%$ of the Rules of Court +hich establishes the only e8ception to the right to preliminary investigation, could not apply in respect of petitioner. The reliance of both petitioner and the Solicitor Feneral upon Emil v. Ramos is, in the circumstances of this case, misplaced. "n Emil v. Ramos, by an eight-to-si8 vote, the Court sustained the legality of the +arrantless arrests of petitioners made from one (%# to fourteen days after the actual commission of the offenses, upon the ground that such offenses constituted 5continuing crimes.5 Those offenses +ere subversion, membership in an outla+ed organi.ation li,e the Ae+ 6eople<s &rmy, etc. "n the instant case, the offense for +hich petitioner +as arrested +as murder, an offense +hich +as obviously commenced and completed at one definite location in time and space. Ao one had pretended that the fatal shooting of Maguan +as a 5continuing crime.5 Secondly, +e do not believe that the +arrantees 5arrest5 or detention of petitioner in the instant case falls +ithin the terms of Section * of Rule %%> of the %12* Rules on Criminal 6rocedure +hich provides as follo+s/ Sec. * &rrest +ithout +arrant? +hen la+ful. L & peace officer or a private person may, +ithout +arrant, arrest a person/ (a# ;hen, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense? (b# ;hen an offense has in fact Dust been committed, and he has personal ,no+ledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it? and (c# ;hen the person to be arrested is a prisoner +ho has escaped from a penal establishment or place +here he is serving final Dudgment or temporarily confined +hile his case is pending, or has escaped +hile being transferred from one confinement to another. "n cases falling under paragraphs (a# and (b# hereof, the person arrested +ithout a +arrant shall be forth+ith delivered to the nearest police station or Dail, and he shall be proceed against in accordance +ith Rule %%$, Section 3. 6etitioner<s 5arrest5 too, place si8 ()# days after the shooting of Maguan. The 5arresting5 officers obviously +ere not present, +ithin the meaning of Section *(a#, at the time petitioner had allegedly shot Maguan. Aeither

could the 5arrest5 effected si8 ()# days after the shooting be reasonably regarded as effected 5+hen Hthe shooting hadI in fact Dust been committed5 +ithin the meaning of Section *(b#. Moreover, none of the 5arresting5 officers had any 5personal ,no+ledge5 of facts indicating that petitioner +as the gunman +ho had shot Maguan. The information upon +hich the police acted had been derived from statements made by alleged eye+itnesses to the shooting L one stated that petitioner +as the gunman? another +as able to ta,e do+n the alleged gunman<s car<s plate number +hich turned out to be registered in petitioner<s +ife<s name. That information did not, ho+ever, constitute 5personal ,no+ledge.5 %2 "t is thus clear to the Court that there +as no la+ful +arrantless arrest of petitioner +ithin the meaning of Section * of Rule %%>. "t is clear too that Section 3 of Rule %%$, +hich provides/ Sec. 3 ;hen accused la+fully arrested +ithout +arrant. L ;hen a person is la+fully arrested +ithout a +arrant for an offense cogni.able by the Regional Trial Court the complaint or information may be filed by the offended party, peace officer or fiscal +ithout a preliminary investigation having been first conducted, on the basis of the affidavit of the offended party or arresting office or person. Co+ever, before the filing of such complaint or information, the person arrested may as, for a preliminary investigation by a proper officer in accordance +ith this Rule, but he must sign a +aiver of the provisions of &rticle %$* of the Revised 6enal Code, as amended, +ith the assistance of a la+yer and in case of nonavailability of a la+yer, a responsible person of his choice. Aot+ithstanding such +aiver, he may apply for bail as provided in the corresponding rule and the investigation must be terminated +ithin fifteen (%*# days from its inception. "f the case has been filed in court +ithout a preliminary investigation having been first conducted, the accused may +ithin five (*# days from the time he learns of the filing of the information, as, for a preliminary investigation +ith the same right to adduce evidence in his favor in the manner prescribed in this Rule. (7mphasis supplied# "ndeed, petitioner +as not arrested at all. ;hen he +al,ed into San @uan 6olice Station, accompanied by t+o ($# la+yers, he in fact placed himself at the disposal of the police authorities. Ce did not state that he +as 5surrendering5 himself, in all probability to avoid the implication he +as admitting that he had slain 7ldon Maguan or that he +as other+ise guilty of a crime. ;hen the police filed a complaint for frustrated homicide +ith the 6rosecutor, the latter should have immediately scheduled a preliminary investigation to determine +hether there +as probable cause for charging petitioner in court for the ,illing of 7ldon Maguan. "nstead, as noted earlier, the 6rosecutor proceed under the erroneous supposition that Section 3 of Rule %%$ +as applicable and reBuired petitioner to +aive the provisions of &rticle %$* of the Revised 6enal Code as a condition for carrying out a preliminary investigation. This +as substantive error, for petitioner +as entitled to a preliminary investigation and that right should have been accorded him +ithout any conditions. Moreover, since petitioner had not been arrested, +ith or +ithout a +arrant, he +as also entitled to be released forth+ith subDect only to his appearing at the preliminary investigation. Turning to the second issue of +hether or not petitioner had +aived his right to preliminary investigation, +e note that petitioner had from the very beginning demanded that a preliminary investigation be conducted. &s earlier pointed out, on the same day that the information for murder +as filed +ith the Regional Trial Court, petitioner filed +ith the 6rosecutor an omnibus motion for immediate release and preliminary investigation. The Solicitor Feneral contends that that omnibus motion should have been filed +ith the trial court and not +ith the 6rosecutor, and that the petitioner should accordingly be held to have +aived his right to preliminary investigation. ;e do not believe that +aiver of petitioner<s statutory right to preliminary investigation may be predicated on such a slim basis. The preliminary investigation +as to be conducted by the 6rosecutor, not by the Regional Trial Court. "t is true that at the time of filing of petitioner<s omnibus motion, the information for murder had already been filed +ith the Regional Trial Court/ it is not clear from the record +hether petitioner +as a+are of this fact at the time his omnibus motion +as actually filed +ith the 6rosecutor. "n Crespo v. Mogul, %1 this Court held/ The preliminary investigation conducted by the fiscal for the purpose of determining +hether a prima facie case e8ists to +arranting the prosecution of the accused is terminated upon the filing of the information in the proper

court. "n turn, as above stated, the filing of said information sets in motion the criminal action against the accused in Court. Should the fiscal find it proper to conduct a reinvestigation of the case, at such stage, the permission of the Court must be secured. &fter such reinvestigation the finding and recommendations of the fiscal should be submitted to the Court for appropriate action. ;hile it is true that the fiscal has the BuasiDudicial discretion to determine +hether or not a criminal case should be filed in court or not, once the case had already been brought to Court +hatever disposition the fiscal may feel should be proper in the case thereafter should be addressed for the consideration of the Court. The only Bualification is that the action of the Court must not impair the substantial rights of the accused., or the right of the 6eople to due process of la+. 888 888 888 The rule therefore in this Durisdiction is that once a complaint or information is filed in Court any disposition of the case HsuchI as its dismissal or the conviction or acBuittal of the accused rests in the sound discretion of the Court. &lthough the fiscal retains the direction and control of the prosecution of criminal cases even +hile the case is already in Court he cannot impose his opinion on the trial court. The Court is the best and sole Dudge on +hat to do +ith the case before it. . . . $4 (Citations omitted? emphasis supplied# Aonetheless, since petitioner in his omnibus motion +as as,ing for preliminary investigation and not for a reinvestigation (Crespo v. Mogul involved a re-investigation#, and since the 6rosecutor himself did file +ith the trial court, on the *th day after filing the information for murder, a motion for leave to conduct preliminary investigation (attaching to his motion a copy of petitioner<s omnibus motion#, +e conclude that petitioner<s omnibus motion +as in effect filed +ith the trial court. ;hat +as crystal clear +as that petitioner did as, for a preliminary investigation on the very day that the information +as filed +ithout such preliminary investigation, and that the trial court +as five (*# days later apprised of the desire of the petitioner for such preliminary investigation. 9inally, the trial court did in fact grant the 6rosecutor<s prayer for leave to conduct preliminary investigation. Thus, even on the (mista,en# supposition apparently made by the 6rosecutor that Section 3 of Rule %%$ of the Revised Court +as applicable, the *-day reglementary period in Section 3, Rule %%$ must be held to have been substantially complied +ith. ;e believe and so hold that petitioner did not +aive his right to a preliminary investigation. ;hile that right is statutory rather than constitutional in its fundament, since it has in fact been established by statute, it is a component part of due process in criminal Dustice. $% The right to have a preliminary investigation conducted before being bound over to trial for a criminal offense and hence formally at ris, of incarceration or some other penalty, is not a mere formal or technical right? it is a substantive right. The accused in a criminal trial is inevitably e8posed to prolonged an8iety, aggravation, humiliation, not to spea, of e8pense? the right to an opportunity to avoid a process painful to any one save, perhaps, to hardened criminals, is a valuable right. To deny petitioner<s claim to a preliminary investigation +ould be to deprive him the full measure of his right to due process. The Buestion may be raised +hether petitioner still retains his right to a preliminary investigation in the instant case considering that he +as already arraigned on $> &ugust %11%. The rule is that the right to preliminary investigation is +aived +hen the accused fails to invo,e it before or at the time of entering a plea at arraignment. $$ "n the instant case, petitioner Fo had vigorously insisted on his right to preliminary investigation before his arraignment. &t the time of his arraignment, petitioner +as already before the Court of &ppeals on certiorari, prohibition and mandamus precisely as,ing for a preliminary investigation before being forced to stand trial. &gain, in the circumstances of this case, +e do not believe that by posting bail petitioner had +aived his right to preliminary investigation. "n 6eople v. Selfaison, $> +e did hold that appellants there had +aived their right to preliminary investigation because immediately after their arrest, they filed bail and proceeded to trial 5+ithout previously claiming that they did not have the benefit of a preliminary investigation.5 $( "n the instant case, petitioner Fo as,ed for release on recogni.ance or on bail and for preliminary investigation in one omnibus motion. Ce had thus claimed his right to preliminary investigation before respondent @udge approved the cash bond posted by petitioner and ordered his release on %$ @uly %11%. &ccordingly, +e cannot reasonably imply +aiver of preliminary investigation on the part of petitioner. "n fact, +hen the 6rosecutor filed a motion in court

as,ing for leave to conduct preliminary investigation, he clearly if impliedly recogni.ed that petitioner<s claim to preliminary investigation +as a legitimate one. ;e +ould clarify, ho+ever, that contrary to petitioner<s contention the failure to accord preliminary investigation, +hile constituting a denial of the appropriate and full measure of the statutory process of criminal Dustice, did not impair the validity of the information for murder nor affect the Durisdiction of the trial court. $* "t must also be recalled that the 6rosecutor had actually agreed that petitioner +as entitled to bail. This +as eBuivalent to an ac,no+ledgment on the part of the 6rosecutor that the evidence of guilt then in his hands +as not strong. &ccordingly, +e consider that the %3 @uly %11% order of respondent @udge recalling his o+n order granting bail and reBuiring petitioner to surrender himself +ithin forty-eight ((2# hours from notice, +as plainly arbitrary considering that no evidence at all L and certainly no ne+ or additional evidence L had been submitted to respondent @udge that could have Dustified the recall of his order issued Dust five (*# days before. "t follo+s that petitioner +as entitled to be released on bail as a matter of right. The final Buestion +hich the Court must face is this/ ho+ does the fact that, in the instant case, trial on the merits has already commenced, the 6rosecutor having already presented four ((# +itnesses, impact upon, firstly, petitioner<s right to a preliminary investigation and, secondly, petitioner<s right to be released on bailK -oes he continue to be entitled to have a preliminary investigation conducted in respect of the charge against himK -oes petitioner remain entitled to be released on bailK Turning first to the matter of preliminary investigation, +e consider that petitioner remains entitled to a preliminary investigation although trial on the merits has already began. Trial on the merits should be suspended or held in abeyance and a preliminary investigation forth+ith accorded to petitioner. $) "t is true that the 6rosecutor might, in vie+ of the evidence that he may at this time have on hand, conclude that probable cause e8ists? upon the other hand, the 6rosecutor conceivably could reach the conclusion that the evidence on hand does not +arrant a finding of probable cause. "n any event, the constitutional point is that petitioner +as not accorded +hat he +as entitled to by +ay of procedural due process. $3 6etitioner +as forced to undergo arraignment and literally pushed to trial +ithout preliminary investigation, +ith e8traordinary haste, to the applause from the audience that filled the courtroom. "f he submitted to arraignment at trial, petitioner did so 5,ic,ing and screaming,5 in a manner of spea,ing . -uring the proceedings held before the trial court on $> &ugust %11%, the date set for arraignment of petitioner, and Dust before arraignment, counsel made very clear petitioner<s vigorous protest and obDection to the arraignment precisely because of the denial of preliminary investigation. $2 So energetic and determined +ere petitioner<s counsel<s protests and obDections that an obviously angered court and prosecutor dared him to +ithdra+ or +al,out, promising to replace him +ith counsel de oficio. -uring the trial, before the prosecution called its first +itness, petitioner through counsel once again reiterated his obDection to going to trial +ithout preliminary investigation/ petitioner<s counsel made of record his 5continuing obDection.5 $1 6etitioner had promptly gone to the appellate court on certiorari and prohibition to challenge the la+fulness of the procedure he +as being forced to undergo and the la+fulness of his detention. >4 "f he did not +al, out on the trial, and if he cross-e8amined the prosecution<s +itnesses, it +as because he +as e8tremely loath to be represented by counsel de oficio selected by the trial Dudge, and to run the ris, of being held to have +aived also his right to use +hat is freBuently the only test of truth in the Dudicial process. "n respect of the matter of bail, +e similarly believe and so hold that petitioner remains entitled to be released on bail as a matter of right. Should the evidence already of record concerning petitioner<s guilt be, in the reasonable belief of the 6rosecutor, strong, the 6rosecutor may move in the trial court for cancellation of petitioner<s bail. "t +ould then be up to the trial court, after a careful and obDective assessment of the evidence on record, to grant or deny the motion for cancellation of bail. To reach any other conclusions here, that is, to hold that petitioner<s rights to a preliminary investigation and to bail +ere effectively obliterated by evidence subseBuently admitted into the record +ould be to legitimi.e the deprivation of due process and to permit the Fovernment to benefit from its o+n +rong or culpable omission and effectively to dilute important rights of accused persons +ell-nigh to the vanishing point. "t may be that to reBuire the State to accord petitioner his rights to a preliminary investigation and to bail at this point, could turn

out ultimately to be largely a ceremonial e8ercise. But the Court is not compelled to speculate. &nd, in any case, it +ould not be idle ceremony? rather, it +ould be a celebration by the State of the rights and liberties of its o+n people and a re-affirmation of its obligation and determination to respect those rights and liberties. &CC0R-"AF!G, the Court resolved to FR&AT the 6etition for Revie+ on Certiorari. The 0rder of the trial court dated %3 @uly %11% is hereby S7T &S"-7 and AE!!"9"7-, and the -ecision of the Court of &ppeals dated $> September %11% hereby R7'7RS7-. The 0ffice of the 6rovincial 6rosecutor is hereby 0R-7R7- to conduct forth+ith a preliminary investigation of the charge of murder against petitioner Fo, and to complete such preliminary investigation +ithin a period of fifteen (%*# days from commencement thereof. The trial on the merits of the criminal case in the Regional Trial Court shall be SES67A-7- to a+ait the conclusion of the preliminary investigation. Meantime, petitioner is hereby 0R-7R7- released forth+ith upon posting of a cash bail bond of 0ne Cundred Thousand 6esos (6%44,444.44#. This release shall be +ithout preDudice to any la+ful order that the trial court may issue, should the 0ffice of the 6rovincial 6rosecutor move for cancellation of bail at the conclusion of the preliminary investigation. Ao pronouncement as to costs. This -ecision is immediately e8ecutory. S0 0R-7R7-.

G.R. No. 891;9 Au2u,/ >, 199" ROMEO POSADAS y 6AMORA, .#/*/*on#r, 5,. THE HONORABLE (O0RT OF APPEALS an' THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, r#,.on'#n/,. F&AC&GC0, @./ The validity of a +arrantless search on the person of petitioner is put into issue in this case. 0n 0ctober %), %12) at about %4/44 o<cloc, in the morning 6at. Ersicio Engab and 6at. Embra Empar, both members of the "ntegrated Aational 6olice ("A6# of the -avao Metrodiscom assigned +ith the "ntelligence Tas, 9orce, +ere conducting a surveillance along Magallanes Street, -avao City. ;hile they +ere +ithin the premises of the Ri.al Memorial Colleges they spotted petitioner carrying a 5buri5 bag and they noticed him to be acting suspiciously. They approached the petitioner and identified themselves as members of the "A6. 6etitioner attempted to flee but his attempt to get a+ay +as th+arted by the t+o not+ithstanding his resistance. They then chec,ed the 5buri5 bag of the petitioner +here they found one (%# caliber .>2 Smith J ;esson revolver +ith Serial Ao. 334%1) % t+o ($# rounds of live ammunition for a .>2 caliber gun $ a smo,e (tear gas# grenade, > and t+o ($# live ammunitions for a .$$ caliber gun. ( They brought the petitioner to the police station for further investigation. "n the course of the same, the petitioner +as as,ed to sho+ the necessary license or authority to possess firearms and ammunitions found in his possession but he failed to do so. Ce +as then ta,en to the -avao Metrodiscom office and the prohibited articles recovered from him +ere indorsed to M=Sgt. -idoy the officer then on duty. Ce +as prosecuted for illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions in the Regional Trial Court of -avao City +herein after a plea of not guilty and trial on the merits a decision +as rendered on 0ctober 2, %123 finding petitioner guilty of the offense charged as follo+s/ ;C7R790R7, in vie+ of all the foregoing, this Court , finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged. "t appearing that the accuse d +as belo+ eighteen (%2# years old at the time of the commission of the offense (&rt. )2, par. $#, he is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from T7A (%4# G7&RS and 0A7 (%# -&G of prision mayor to T;7!'7 (%$# Gears, 9"'7 (*# months and 7leven (%%# days of Reclusion Temporal, and to pay the costs. The firearm, ammunitions and smo,e grenade are forfeited in favor of the government and the Branch Cler, of Court is hereby directed to turn over said items to the Chief, -avao Metrodiscom, -avao City. * Aot satisfied there+ith the petitioner interposed an appeal to the Court of &ppeals +herein in due course a decision +as rendered on 9ebruary $>, %121 affirming in toto the appealed decision +ith costs against the petitioner. ) Cence, the herein petition for revie+, the main thrust of +hich is that there being no la+ful arrest or search and sei.ure, the items +hich +ere confiscated from the possession of the petitioner are inadmissible in evidence against him. The Solicitor Feneral, in Dustifying the +arrantless search of the buri bag then carried by the petitioner, argues that under Section %$, Rule %>) of the Rules of Court a person la+fully arrested may be searched for dangerous +eapons or anything used as proof of a commission of an offense +ithout a search +arrant. "t is further alleged that the arrest +ithout a +arrant of the petitioner +as la+ful under the circumstances. Section *, Rule %%> of the %12* Rules on Criminal 6rocedure provides as follo+s/ S7C. *. &rrest +ithout +arrant? +hen la+ful L & peace officer or a private person may, +ithout a +arrant, arrest a person/ (a# ;hen in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense? (b# ;hen an offense has in fact Dust been committed, and he has personal ,no+ledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it? and

(c# ;hen the person to be arrested is a prisoner +ho has escaped from a penal establishment or place +here he is serving final Dudgment or temporarily confined +hile his case is pending, or has escaped +hile being transferred from one confinement to another. "n cases falling under paragraphs (a# and (b# hereof, the person arrested +ithout a +arrant shall be forth+ith delivered to the nearest police station or Dail, and he shall be proceeded against in accordance +ith Rule %%$, Section 3. ()a, %3a# 9rom the foregoing provision of la+ it is clear that an arrest +ithout a +arrant may be effected by a peace officer or private person, among others, +hen in his presence the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense? or +hen an offense has in fact Dust been committed, and he has personal ,no+ledge of the facts indicating that the person arrested has committed it. The Solicitor Feneral argues that +hen the t+o policemen approached the petitioner, he +as actually committing or had Dust committed the offense of illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions in the presence of the police officers and conseBuently the search and sei.ure of the contraband +as incidental to the la+ful arrest in accordance +ith Section %$, Rule %$) of the %12* Rules on Criminal 6rocedure. ;e disagree. &t the time the peace officers in this case identified themselves and apprehended the petitioner as he attempted to flee they did not ,no+ that he had committed, or +as actually committing the offense of illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions. They Dust suspected that he +as hiding something in the buri bag. They did no+ ,no+ +hat its contents +ere. The said circumstances did not Dustify an arrest +ithout a +arrant. Co+ever, there are many instances +here a +arrant and sei.ure can be effected +ithout necessarily being preceded by an arrest, foremost of +hich is the 5stop and search5 +ithout a search +arrant at military or police chec,points, the constitutionality or validity of +hich has been upheld by this Court in 'almonte vs. de 'illa, 3 as follo+s/ 6etitioner 'almonte<s general allegation to the effect that he had been stopped and searched +ithout a search +arrant by the military manning the chec,points, +ithout more, i.e., +ithout stating the details of the incidents +hich amount to a violation of his light against unla+ful search and sei.ure, is not sufficient to enable the Court to determine +hether there +as a violation of 'almonte<s right against unla+ful search and sei.ure. Aot all searches and sei.ures are prohibited. Those +hich are reasonable are not forbidden. & reasonable search is not to be determined by any fi8ed formula but is to be resolved according to the facts of each case. ;here, for e8ample, the officer merely dra+s aside the curtain of a vacant vehicle +hich is par,ed on the public fair grounds, or simply loo,s into a vehicle or flashes a light therein, these do not constitute unreasonable search. The setting up of the Buestioned chec,points in 'alen.uela (and probably in other areas# may be considered as a security measure to enable the ACR-C to pursue its mission of establishing effective territorial defense and maintaining peace and order for the benefit of the public. Chec,points may also be regarded as measures to th+art plots to destabili.e the government in the interest of public security. "n this connection, the Court may ta,e Dudicial notice of the shift to urban centers and their suburbs of the insurgency movement, so clearly reflected in the increased ,illings in cities of police and military men by A6& 5sparro+ units,5 not to mention the abundance of unlicensed firearms and the alarming rise in la+lessness and violence in such urban centers, not all of +hich are reported in media, most li,ely brought about by deteriorating economic conditions L +hich all sum up to +hat one can rightly consider, at the very least, as abnormal times. Bet+een the inherent right of the state to protect its e8istence and promote public +elfare and an individual<s right against a +arrantless search +hich is ho+ever reasonably conducted, the former should prevail. True, the manning of chec,points by the military is susceptible of abuse by the men in uniform in the same manner that all governmental po+er is susceptible of abuse. But, at the cost of occasional inconvenience, discomfort and even irritation to the citi.en, the chec,points during these abnormal times, +hen conducted +ithin reasonable limits, are part of the price +e pay for an orderly society and a peaceful community. (7mphasis supplied#.

Thus, as bet+een a +arrantless search and sei.ure conducted at military or police chec,points and the search thereat in the case at bar, there is no Buestion that, indeed, the latter is more reasonable considering that unli,e in the former, it +as effected on the basis of a probable cause. The probable cause is that +hen the petitioner acted suspiciously and attempted to flee +ith the buri bag there +as a probable cause that he +as concealing something illegal in the bag and it +as the right and duty of the police officers to inspect the same. "t is too much indeed to reBuire the police officers to search the bag in the possession of the petitioner only after they shall have obtained a search +arrant for the purpose. Such an e8ercise may prove to be useless, futile and much too late. "n 6eople vs. C9" of Ri.al, 2 this Court held as follo+s/ . . . "n the ordinary cases +here +arrant is indispensably necessary, the mechanics prescribed by the Constitution and reiterated in the Rules of Court must be follo+ed and satisfied. But ;e need not argue that there are e8ceptions. Thus in the e8traordinary events +here +arrant is not necessary to effect a valid search or sei.ure, or +hen the latter cannot be performed e8cept +ithout +arrant, +hat constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search or sei.ure becomes purely a Dudicial Buestion, determinable from the uniBueness of the circumstances involved, including the purpose of the search or sei.ure, the presence or absence of probable cause, the manner in +hich the search and sei.ure +as made, the place or thing searched and the character of the articles procured. The Court reproduces +ith approval the follo+ing disBuisition of the Solicitor Feneral/ The assailed search and sei.ure may still be Dustified as a,in to a 5stop and fris,5 situation +hose obDect is either to determine the identity of a suspicious individual or to maintain the status Buo momentarily +hile the police officer see,s to obtain more information. This is illustrated in the case of Terry vs. 0hio, >1$ E.S. % (%1)2#. "n this case, t+o men repeatedly +al,ed past a store +indo+ and returned to a spot +here they apparently conferred +ith a third man. This aroused the suspicion of a police officer. To the e8perienced officer, the behaviour of the men indicated that they +ere si.ing up the store for an armed robbery. ;hen the police officer approached the men and as,ed them for their names, they mumbled a reply. ;hereupon, the officer grabbed one of them, spun him around and fris,ed him. 9inding a concealed +eapon in one, he did the same to the other t+o and found another +eapon. "n the prosecution for the offense of carrying a concealed +eapon, the defense of illegal search and sei.ure +as put up. The Enited States Supreme Court held that 5a police officer may in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner approach a person for the purpose of investigating possible criminal behaviour even though there is no probable cause to ma,e an arrest.5 "n such a situation, it is reasonable for an officer rather than simply to shrug his shoulder and allo+ a crime to occur, to stop a suspicious individual briefly in order to determine his identity or maintain the status Buo +hile obtaining more information. . . . Clearly, the search in the case at bar can be sustained under the e8ceptions heretofore discussed, and hence, the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and sei.ures has not been violated. 1 ;C7R790R7, the petition is -7A"7- +ith costs against petitioner. S0 0R-7R7-.

G.R. No. 8$"59 Jun# >>, 199> THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, .3a*n/*44!a..#33##, 5,. ROGELIO MENGOTE y TEJAS, a--u,#'! a..#33an/. CRE:, @./ &ccused-appellant Rogelio Mengote +as convicted of illegal possession of firearms on the strength mainly of the stolen pistol found on his person at the moment of his +arrantless arrest. "n this appeal, he pleads that the +eapon +as not admissible as evidence against him because it had been illegally sei.ed and +as therefore the fruit of the poisonous tree. The Fovernment disagrees. "t insists that the revolver +as validly received in evidence by the trial Dudge because its sei.ure +as incidental to an arrest that +as doubtless la+ful even if admittedly +ithout +arrant. The incident occurred shortly before noon of &ugust 2, %123, after the ;estern 6olice -istrict received a telephone call from an informer that there +ere three suspicious-loo,ing persons at the corner of @uan !una and Aorth Bay Boulevard in Tondo, Manila. & surveillance team of plainclothesmen +as forth+ith dispatched to the place. &s later narrated at the trial by 6atrolmen Rolando Mercado and &lberto @uan, % they there sa+ t+o men 5loo,ing from side to side,5 one of +hom +as holding his abdomen. They approached these persons and identified themselves as policemen, +hereupon the t+o tried to run a+ay but +ere unable to escape because the other la+men had surrounded them. The suspects +ere then searched. 0ne of them, +ho turned out to be the accused-appellant, +as found +ith a .>2 caliber Smith and ;esson revolver +ith si8 live bullets in the chamber. Cis companion, later identified as Aicanor Morellos, had a fan ,nife secreted in his front right pants poc,et. The +eapons +ere ta,en from them. Mengote and Morellos +ere then turned over to police headBuarters for investigation by the "ntelligence -ivision. 0n &ugust %%, %123, the follo+ing information +as filed against the accused-appellant before the Regional Trial Court of Manila/ The undersigned accuses R0F7!"0 M7AF0T7 y T7@&S of a violation of 6residential -ecree Ao. %2)), committed as follo+s/ That on or about &ugust 2, %123, in the City of Manila, 6hilippines, the said accused did then and there +ilfully, unla+fully and ,no+ingly have in his possession and under his custody and control a firearm, to +it/ one (%# cal. >2 5S J ;5 bearing Serial Ao. 23$4-T +ithout first having secured the necessary license or permit therefor from the proper authorities. Besides the police officers, one other +itness presented by the prosecution +as Rigoberto -anganan, +ho identified the subDect +eapon as among the articles stolen from him during the robbery in his house in Malabon on @une %>, %123. Ce pointed to Mengote as one of the robbers. Ce had duly reported the robbery to the police, indicating the articles stolen from him, including the revolver. $ 9or his part, Mengote made no effort to prove that he o+ned the firearm or that he +as licensed to possess it and claimed instead that the +eapon had been 56lanted5 on him at the time of his arrest. > The gun, together +ith the live bullets and its holster, +ere offered as 78hibits &, B, and C and admitted over the obDection of the defense. &s previously stated, the +eapon +as the principal evidence that led to Mengote<s conviction for violation of 6.-. %2)). Ce +as sentenced to reclusion perpetua. ( "t is submitted in the &ppellant<s Brief that the revolver should not have been admitted in evidence because of its illegal sei.ure. no +arrant therefor having been previously obtained. Aeither could it have been sei.ed as an incident of a la+ful arrest because the arrest of Mengote +as itself unla+ful, having been also effected +ithout a +arrant. The defense also contends that the testimony regarding the alleged robbery in -anganan<s house +as irrelevant and should also have been disregarded by the trial court. The follo+ing are the pertinent provision of the Bill of Rights/ Sec. $. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and sei.ures of +hatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search +arrant or +arrant of arrest shall issue e8cept upon probable cause to be determined personally by the Dudge after e8amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant

and the +itnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be sei.ed. Sec. > (%#. The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable e8cept upon la+ful order of the court, or +hen public safety or order reBuires other+ise as prescribed by la+. ($# &ny evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. There is no Buestion that evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search or sei.ure is inadmissible in any proceeding for any purpose. That is the absolute prohibition of &rticle """, Section >($#, of the Constitution. This is the celebrated e8clusionary rule based on the Dustification given by @udge !earned Cand that 5only in case the prosecution, +hich itself controls the sei.ing officials, ,no+s that it cannot profit by their +rong +ill the +rong be repressed.5 The Solicitor Feneral, +hile conceding the rule, maintains that it is not applicable in the case at bar. Cis reason is that the arrest and search of Mengote and the sei.ure of the revolver from him +ere la+ful under Rule %%>, Section *, of the Rules of Court reading as follo+s/ Sec. *. &rrest +ithout +arrant +hen la+ful. L & peace officer or private person may, +ithout a +arrant, arrest a person? (a# ;hen, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense? (b# ;hen an offense has in fact Dust been committed, and he has personal ,no+ledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it? and (c# ;hen the person to be arrested is a prisoner +ho has escaped from a penal establishment or place +here he is serving final Dudgment or temporarily confined +hile his case is pending, or has escaped +hile being transferred from one confinement to another. "n cases failing under paragraphs (a# and (b# hereof, the person arrested +ithout a +arrant shall be forth+ith delivered to the nearest police station or Dail, and he shall be proceeded against in accordance +ith Rule %%$, Section 3. ;e have carefully e8amined the +ording of this Rule and cannot see ho+ +e can agree +ith the prosecution. 6ar. (c# of Section * is obviously inapplicable as Mengote +as not an escapee from a penal institution +hen he +as arrested. ;e therefore confine ourselves to determining the la+fulness of his arrest under either 6ar. (a# or 6ar. (b# of this section. 6ar. (a# reBuires that the person be arrested (%# after he has committed or +hile he is actually committing or is at least attempting to commit an offense, ($# in the presence of the arresting officer. These reBuirements have not been established in the case at bar. &t the time of the arrest in Buestion, the accused-appellant +as merely 5loo,ing from side to side5 and 5holding his abdomen,5 according to the arresting officers themselves. There +as apparently no offense that had Dust been committed or +as being actually committed or at least being attempted by Mengote in their presence. The Solicitor Feneral submits that the actual e8istence of an offense +as not necessary as long as Mengote<s acts 5created a reasonable suspicion on the part of the arresting officers and induced in them the belief that an offense had been committed and that the accused-appellant had committed it.5 The Buestion is, ;hat offenseK ;hat offense could possibly have been suggested by a person 5loo,ing from side to side5 and 5holding his abdomen5 and in a place not e8actly forsa,enK These are certainly not sinister acts. &nd the setting of the arrest made them less so, if at all. "t might have been different if Mengote bad been apprehended at an ungodly hour and in a place +here he had no reason to be, li,e a dar,ened alley at > o<cloc, in the morning. But he +as arrested at %%/>4 in the morning and in a cro+ded street shortly after alighting from a passenger Deep +ith " his companion. Ce +as not s,ul,ing in the shado+s but +al,ing in the clear light of day. There +as nothing clandestine about his being on that street at that busy hour in the bla.e of the noonday sun.

0n the other hand, there could have been a number of reasons, all of them innocent, +hy his eyes +ere darting from side to side and be +as holding his abdomen. "f they e8cited suspicion in the minds of the arresting officers, as the prosecution suggests, it has nevertheless not been sho+n +hat their suspicion +as all about. "n fact, the policemen themselves testified that they +ere dispatched to that place only because of the telephone call from the informer that there +ere 5suspicious-loo,ing5 persons in that vicinity +ho +ere about to commit a robbery at Aorth Bay Boulevard. The caller did not e8plain +hy he thought the men loo,ed suspicious nor did he elaborate on the impending crime. "n the recent case of 6eople v. Malmstedt, * the Court sustained the +arrantless arrest of the accused because there +as a bulge in his +aist that e8cited the suspicion of the arresting officer and, upon inspection, turned out to be a pouch containing hashish. "n 6eople v. Claudio, ) the accused boarded a bus and placed the buri bag she +as carrying behind the seat of the arresting officer +hile she herself sat in the seat before him. Cis suspicion aroused, be surreptitiously e8amined the bag, +hich he found to contain mariDuana. Ce then and there made the +arrantless arrest and sei.ure that +e subseBuently upheld on the ground that probable cause had been sufficiently established. The case before us is different because there +as nothing to support the arresting officers< suspicion other than Mengote<s darting eyes and his hand on his abdomen. By no stretch of the imagination could it have been inferred from these acts that an offense had Dust been committed, or +as actually being committed, or +as at least being attempted in their presence. This case is similar to 6eople v. &minnudin, 3 +here the Court held that the +arrantless arrest of the accused +as unconstitutional. This +as effected +hile be +as coming do+n a vessel, to all appearances no less innocent than the other disembar,ing passengers. Ce had not committed nor +as be actually committing or attempting to commit an offense in the presence of the arresting officers. Ce +as not even acting suspiciously. "n short, there +as no probable cause that, as the prosecution incorrectly suggested, dispensed +ith the constitutional reBuirement of a +arrant. 6ar. (b# is no less applicable because its no less stringent reBuirements have also not been satisfied. The prosecution has not sho+n that at the time of Mengote<s arrest an offense had in fact Dust been committed and that the arresting officers had personal ,no+ledge of facts indicating that Mengote had committed it. &ll they had +as hearsay information from the telephone caller, and about a crime that had yet to be committed. The truth is that they did not ,no+ then +hat offense, if at all, had been committed and neither +ere they a+are of the participation therein of the accused-appellant. "t +as only later, after -anganan had appeared at the 6olice headBuarters, that they learned of the robbery in his house and of Mengote<s supposed involvement therein. 2 &s for the illegal possession of the firearm found on Mengote<s person, the policemen discovered this only after he had been searched and the investigation conducted later revealed that he +as not its o+ners nor +as he licensed to possess it. Before these events, the 6eace officers had no ,no+ledge even of Mengote< identity, let alone the fact (or suspicion# that he +as unla+fully carrying a firearm or that he +as involved in the robbery of -anganan<s house. "n the landmar, case of 6eople v. Burgos, 1 this Court declared/ Ender Section )(a# of Rule %%>, the officer arresting a person +ho has Dust committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense must have personal ,no+ledge of the fact. The offense must also be committed in his presence or +ithin his vie+. (Sayo v. Chief of 6olice, 24 6hil. 2*1#. (7mphasis supplied# 888 888 888 "n arrests +ithout a +arrant under Section )(b#, ho+ever, it is not enough that there is reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a crime. & crime must in fact or actually have been committed first. That a crime has actually been committed is an essential precondition. "t is not enough to suspect that a crime may have been committed. The fact of the commission of the offense must be undisputed. The test of reasonable ground applies only to the identity of the perpetrator. (7mphasis supplied# This doctrine +as affirmed in &lih v. Castro, %4 thus/

"f the arrest +as made under Rule %%>, Section *, of the Rules of Court in connection +ith a crime about to be committed, being committed, or Dust committed, +hat +as that crimeK There is no allegation in the record of such a falsification. 6arenthetically, it may be observed that under the Revised Rule %%>, Section *(b#, the officer ma,ing the arrest must have personal ,no+ledge of the ground therefor as stressed in the recent case of 6eople v. Burgos. (7mphasis supplied# "t +ould be a sad day, indeed, if any person could be summarily arrested and searched Dust because he is holding his abdomen, even if it be possibly because of a stomach-ache, or if a peace officer could clamp handcuffs on any person +ith a shifty loo, on suspicion that he may have committed a criminal act or is actually committing or attempting it. This simply cannot be done in a free society. This is not a police state +here order is e8alted over liberty or, +orse, personal malice on the part of the arresting officer may be Dustified in the name of security. There is no need to discuss the other issues raised by the accused-appellant as the ruling +e here ma,e is sufficient to sustain his e8oneration. ;ithout the evidence of the firearm ta,en from him at the time of his illegal arrest, the prosecution has lost its most important e8hibit and must therefore fail. The testimonial evidence against Mengote (+hich is based on the said firearm# is not sufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the crime imputed to him. ;e commend &tty. 'ioleta Calvo--rilon for her able and spirited defense of the accused-appellant not only in the brief but also in the reply brief, +hich she did not have to file but did so Dust the same to stress the constitutional rights of her client. The fact that she +as acting only as a counsel de oficio +ith no e8pectation of material re+ard ma,es her representation even more commendable. The Court feels that if the peace officers had been more mindful of the provisions of the Bill of Rights, the prosecution of the accused-appellant might have succeeded. &s it happened, they allo+ed their over.ealousness to get the better of them, resulting in their disregard of the reBuirements of a valid search and sei.ure that rendered inadmissible the vital evidence they had invalidly sei.ed. This should be a lesson to other peace officers. Their impulsiveness may be the very cause of the acBuittal of persons +ho deserve to be convicted, escaping the clutches of the la+ because, ironically enough, it has not been observed by those +ho are supposed to enforce it. ;C7R790R7, the appealed decision is R7'7RS7- and S7T &S"-7. The accused-appellant is &CRE"TT7and ordered released immediately unless he is validly detained for other offenses. Ao costs. S0 0R-7R7-.

G.R. No. 911"$ Jun# 19, 1991 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, .3a*n/*44!a..#33##, 5,. MI&AEL MALMSTEDT, '#4#n'an/!a..#33an/. 6&-"!!&, @./ "n an information dated %* @une %121, accused-appellant Mi,ael Malmstedt (hereinafter referred to as the accused# +as charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC# of !a Trinidad, Benguet, Branch %4, in Criminal Case Ao. 21-CR-4))>, for violation of Section (, &rt. "" of Republic &ct )($*, as amended, other+ise ,no+n as the -angerous -rugs &ct of %13$, as amended. The factual bac,ground of the case is as follo+s/ &ccused Mi,ael Malmstedt, a S+edish national, entered the 6hilippines for the third time in -ecember %122 as a tourist. Ce had visited the country sometime in %12$ and %12*. "n the evening of 3 May %121, accused left for Baguio City. Epon his arrival thereat in the morning of the follo+ing day, he too, a bus to Sagada and stayed in that place for t+o ($# days. &t around 3/44 o<cloc, in the morning of %% May %121, accused +ent to the Aangonogan bus stop in Sagada to catch the first available trip to Baguio City. 9rom Baguio City, accused planned to ta,e a late afternoon trip to &ngeles City, then proceed to Manila to catch his flight out of the country, scheduled on %> May %121. 9rom Sagada, accused too, a S,yline bus +ith body number 244* and 6late number &'C 14$. % &t about 2/ 44 o<cloc, in the morning of that same day (%% May %121#, Captain &len 'asco, the Commanding 0fficer of the 9irst Regional Command (A&RC0M# stationed at Camp -ang+a, ordered his men to set up a temporary chec,point at Milometer %(, &cop, Tublay, Mountain 6rovince, for the purpose of chec,ing all vehicles coming from the Cordillera Region. The order to establish a chec,point in the said area +as prompted by persistent reports that vehicles coming from Sagada +ere transporting mariDuana and other prohibited drugs. Moreover, information +as received by the Commanding 0fficer of A&RC0M, that same morning, that a Caucasian coming from Sagada had in his possession prohibited drugs. $ The group composed of seven (3# A&RC0M officers, in coordination +ith Tublay 6olice Station, set up a chec,point at the designated area at about %4/44 o<cloc, in the morning and inspected all vehicles coming from the Cordillera Region. &t about %/>4 o<cloc, in the afternoon, the bus +here accused +as riding +as stopped. Sgt. 9ider and C"C Falutan boarded the bus and announced that they +ere members of the A&RC0M and that they +ould conduct an inspection. The t+o ($# A&RC0M officers started their inspection from the front going to+ards the rear of the bus. &ccused +ho +as the sole foreigner riding the bus +as seated at the rear thereof. -uring the inspection, C"C Falutan noticed a bulge on accused<s +aist. Suspecting the bulge on accused<s +aist to be a gun, the officer as,ed for accused<s passport and other identification papers. ;hen accused failed to comply, the officer reBuired him to bring out +hatever it +as that +as bulging on his +aist. The bulging obDect turned out to be a pouch bag and +hen accused opened the same bag, as ordered, the officer noticed four ((# suspicious-loo,ing obDects +rapped in bro+n pac,ing tape, prompting the officer to open one of the +rapped obDects. The +rapped obDects turned out to contain hashish, a derivative of mariDuana. Thereafter, accused +as invited outside the bus for Buestioning. But before he alighted from the bus, accused stopped to get t+o ($# travelling bags from the luggage carrier. Epon stepping out of the bus, the officers got the bags and opened them. & teddy bear +as found in each bag. 9eeling the teddy bears, the officer noticed that there +ere bulges inside the same +hich did not feel li,e foam stuffing. "t +as only after the officers had opened the bags that accused finally presented his passport. &ccused +as then brought to the headBuarters of the A&RC0M at Camp -ang+a, !a Trinidad, Benguet for further investigation. &t the investigation room, the officers opened the teddy bears and they +ere found to also contain hashish. Representative samples +ere ta,en from the hashish found among the personal effects of accused and the same +ere brought to the 6C Crime !aboratory for chemical analysis. "n the chemistry report, it +as established that the obDects e8amined +ere hashish. a prohibited drug +hich is a derivative of mariDuana. Thus, an information +as filed against accused for violation of the -angerous -rugs &ct.

-uring the arraignment, accused entered a plea of 5not guilty.5 9or his defense, he raised the issue of illegal search of his personal effects. Ce also claimed that the hashish +as planted by the A&RC0M officers in his pouch bag and that the t+o ($# travelling bags +ere not o+ned by him, but +ere merely entrusted to him by an &ustralian couple +hom he met in Sagada. Ce further claimed that the &ustralian couple intended to ta,e the same bus +ith him but because there +ere no more seats available in said bus, they decided to ta,e the ne8t ride and as,ed accused to ta,e charge of the bags, and that they +ould meet each other at the -ang+a Station. !i,e+ise, accused alleged that +hen the A&RC0M officers demanded for his passport and other "dentification papers, he handed to one of the officers his pouch bag +hich +as hanging on his nec, containing, among others, his passport, return tic,et to S+eden and other papers. The officer in turn handed it to his companion +ho brought the bag outside the bus. ;hen said officer came bac,, he charged the accused that there +as hashish in the bag. Ce +as told to get off the bus and his picture +as ta,en +ith the pouch bag placed around his nec,. The trial court did not give credence to accused<s defense. The claim of the accused that the hashish +as planted by the A&RC0M officers, +as belied by his failure to raise such defense at the earliest opportunity. ;hen accused +as investigated at the 6rovincial 9iscal<s 0ffice, he did not inform the 9iscal or his la+yer that the hashish +as planted by the A&RC0M officers in his bag. "t +as only t+o ($# months after said investigation +hen he told his la+yer about said claim, denying o+nership of the t+o ($# travelling bags as +ell as having hashish in his pouch bag. "n a decision dated %$ 0ctober %121, the trial court found accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of the -angerous -rugs &ct, specifically Section (, &rt. "" of R& )($*, as amended. > The dispositive portion of the decision reads as follo+s/ ;C7R790R7, finding the guilt of the accused Mi,ael Malmstedt established beyond reasonable doubt, this Court finds him FE"!TG of violation of Section (, &rticle %% of Republic &ct )($*, as amended, and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of T+enty Thousand 6esos (6$4,444.44#, +ith subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs. !et the hashish subDect of this case be turned over to the 9irst Aarcotics Regional Enit at Camp Bado? -ang+a, !a Trinidad Benguet for proper disposition under Section $4, &rticle "' of Republic &ct )($*, as amended.S0 0R-7R7-. ( See,ing the reversal of the decision of the trial court finding him guilty of the crime charged, accused argues that the search of his personal effects +as illegal because it +as made +ithout a search +arrant and, therefore, the prohibited drugs +hich +ere discovered during the illegal search are not admissible as evidence against him. The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and sei.ures. * Co+ever, +here the search is made pursuant to a la+ful arrest, there is no need to obtain a search +arrant. & la+ful arrest +ithout a +arrant may be made by a peace officer or a private person under the follo+ing circumstances. ) Sec. * &rrest +ithout +arrant? +hen la+ful. TT & peace officer or a private person may, +ithout a +arrant, arrest a person/ (a# ;hen, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense? (b# ;hen an offense has in fact Dust been committed, and he has personal ,no+ledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it? and (c# ;hen the person to be arrested is a prisoner +ho has escaped from a penal establishment or place +here he is serving final Dudgment or temporarily confined +hile his case is pending, or has escaped +hile being transferred from one confinement to another. "n cases falling under paragraphs (a# and (b# hereof, the person arrested +ithout a +arrant shall be forth+ith delivered to the nearest police station or Dail, and he shall be proceeded against in accordance +ith Rule %%$, Section 3. ()a %3a#. &ccused +as searched and arrested +hile transporting prohibited drugs (hashish#. & crime +as actually being committed by the accused and he +as caught in flagrante delicto. Thus, the search made upon his personal

effects falls sBuarely under paragraph (%# of the foregoing provisions of la+, +hich allo+ a +arrantless search incident to a la+ful arrest. 3 ;hile it is true that the A&RC0M officers +ere not armed +ith a search +arrant +hen the search +as made over the personal effects of accused, ho+ever, under the circumstances of the case, there +as sufficient probable cause for said officers to believe that accused +as then and there committing a crime. 6robable cause has been defined as such facts and circumstances +hich could lead a reasonable, discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed, and that the obDects sought in connection +ith the offense are in the place sought to be searched. 2 The reBuired probable cause that +ill Dustify a +arrantless search and sei.ure is not determined by any fi8ed formula but is resolved according to the facts of each case. 1 ;arrantless search of the personal effects of an accused has been declared by this Court as valid, because of e8istence of probable cause, +here the smell of mariDuana emanated from a plastic bag o+ned by the accused, %4 or +here the accused +as acting suspiciously, %% and attempted to flee. %$ &side from the persistent reports received by the A&RC0M that vehicles coming from Sagada +ere transporting mariDuana and other prohibited drugs, their Commanding 0fficer also received information that a Caucasian coming from Sagada on that particular day had prohibited drugs in his possession. Said information +as received by the Commanding 0fficer of A&RC0M the very same morning that accused came do+n by bus from Sagada on his +ay to Baguio City. ;hen A&RC0M received the information, a fe+ hours before the apprehension of herein accused, that a Caucasian travelling from Sagada to Baguio City +as carrying +ith him prohibited drugs, there +as no time to obtain a search +arrant. "n the Tangliben case, %> the police authorities conducted a surveillance at the 'ictory !iner Terminal located at Bgy. San Aicolas, San 9ernando 6ampanga, against persons engaged in the traffic of dangerous drugs, based on information supplied by some informers. &ccused Tangliben +ho +as acting suspiciously and pointed out by an informer +as apprehended and searched by the police authorities. "t +as held that +hen faced +ith on-the-spot information, the police officers had to act Buic,ly and there +as no time to secure a search +arrant. "t must be observed that, at first, the A&RC0M officers merely conducted a routine chec, of the bus (+here accused +as riding# and the passengers therein, and no e8tensive search +as initially made. "t +as only +hen one of the officers noticed a bulge on the +aist of accused, during the course of the inspection, that accused +as reBuired to present his passport. The failure of accused to present his identification papers, +hen ordered to do so, only managed to arouse the suspicion of the officer that accused +as trying to hide his identity. 9or is it not a regular norm for an innocent man, +ho has nothing to hide from the authorities, to readily present his identification papers +hen reBuired to do soK The receipt of information by A&RC0M that a Caucasian coming from Sagada had prohibited drugs in his possession, plus the suspicious failure of the accused to produce his passport, ta,en together as a +hole, led the A&RC0M officers to reasonably believe that the accused +as trying to hide something illegal from the authorities. 9rom these circumstances arose a probable cause +hich Dustified the +arrantless search that +as made on the personal effects of the accused. "n other +ords, the acts of the A&RC0M officers in reBuiring the accused to open his pouch bag and in opening one of the +rapped obDects found inside said bag (+hich +as discovered to contain hashish# as +ell as the t+o ($# travelling bags containing t+o ($# teddy bears +ith hashish stuffed inside them, +ere prompted by accused<s o+n attempt to hide his identity by refusing to present his passport, and by the information received by the A&RC0M that a Caucasian coming from Sagada had prohibited drugs in his possession. To deprive the A&RC0M agents of the ability and facility to act accordingly, including, to search even +ithout +arrant, in the light of such circumstances, +ould be to sanction impotence and ineffectiveness in la+ enforcement, to the detriment of society. ;C7R790R7, premises considered, the appealed Dudgment of conviction by the trial court is hereby &99"RM7-. Costs against the accused-appellant. S0 0R-7R7-.

G.R. No. 1>"<;1 A.r*3 1, 1998 RODOLFO ESPANO, accused-petitioner, vs. (O0RT OF APPEALS an' PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. ROMERO, J.: This is a petition for revie+ of the decision of the Court of &ppeals in C&-F.R. CR Ao. %>13) dated @anuary %), %11*, 1 +hich affirmed in toto the Dudgment of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch %, convincing petitioner Rodolfo 7spano for violation of &rticle "", Section 2 of Republic &ct Ao. )($*, as amended, other+ise ,no+n as the -angerous -rugs &ct. 6etitioner +as charged under the follo+ing information/ That on or about @uly %(, %11%, in the City of Manila, 6hilippines, the said accused not being authori.ed by la+ to possess or use any prohibited drug, did then and there +illfully, unla+fully and ,no+ingly have in his possession and under his custody and control t+elve (%$# plastic cellophane (bags# containing crushed flo+ering tops, mariDuana +eighing *.* grams +hich is a prohibited drug. Contrary to la+. > The evidence for the prosecution, based on the testimony of 6at. Romeo 6agilagan, sho+s that on @uly %(, %11%, at about %$/>4 a.m., he and other police officers, namely, 6at. ;ilfredo &Buino, Simplicio Rivera, and 7rlindo !umboy of the ;estern 6olice -istrict (;6-#, Aarcotics -ivision +ent to :amora and 6andacan Streets, Manila to confirm reports of drug pushing in the area. They sa+ petitioner selling 5something5 to another person. &fter the alleged buyer left, they approached petitioner, identified themselves as policemen, and fris,ed him. The search yielded t+o plastic cellophane tea bags of mariDuana. ;hen as,ed if he had more mariDuana, he replied that there +as more in his house. The policemen +ent to his residence +here they found ten more cellophane tea bags of mariDuana. 6etitioner +as brought to the police headBuarters +here he +as charged +ith possession of prohibited drugs. 0n @uly $(, %11%, petitioner posted bail ; and the trial court issued his order of release on @uly $1, %11%. < &nnabelle &lip, forensic chemist of the ;6- Criminal "nvestigation !aboratory Section, testified that the articles sent to her by 6at. ;ilfredo &Buino regarding the apprehension of a certain Rodolfo 7spano for e8amination tested positive for mariDuana, +ith a total +eight of *.* grams. By +ay of defense, petitioner testified that on said evening, he +as sleeping in his house and +as a+a,ened only +hen the policemen handcuffed him. Ce alleged that the policemen +ere loo,ing for his brother-in-la+ !auro, and +hen they could not find the latter, he +as instead brought to the police station for investigation and later indicted for possession of prohibited drugs. Cis +ife Myrna corroborated his story. The trial court reDected petitioner<s, defense as a 5mere afterthought5 and found the version of the prosecution 5more credible and trust+orthy.5 Thus, on &ugust %(, %11$, the trial court rendered a decision, convicting petitioner of the crime charged, the dispositive portion of +hich reads/ ;C7R790R7 there being proof beyond reasonable doubt, the court finds the accused Rodolfo 7spano y 'aleria guilty of the crime of violation of Section 2, &rticle "", in relation to Section $ (e-!# ("# of Republic &ct Ao. )($* as amended by Batas 6ambansa Blg. %31, and pursuant to la+ hereby sentences him to suffer imprisonment of si8 ()# years and one (%# day to t+elve (%$# years and to pay a fine of 6),444.44 +ith subsidiary imprisonment in case of default plus costs. The mariDuana is declared forfeited in favor of government and shall be turned over to the -angerous -rugs Board +ithout delay. S0 0R-7R7-. 5 6etitioner appealed the decision to the Court of &ppeals. The appellate court, ho+ever, affirmed the decision of the trial court in toto. Cence, this petition.

6etitioner contends that the trial and appellate courts erred in convicting him on the basis of the follo+ing/ (a# the pieces of evidence sei.ed +ere inadmissible? (b# the superiority of his constitutional right to be presumed innocent over the doctrine of presumption of regularity, (c# he +as denied the constitutional right of confrontation and to compulsory process? and (d# his conviction +as based on evidence +hich +as irrelevant and not properly identified. &fter a careful e8amination of the records of the case, this Court finds no compelling reason sufficient to reverse the decisions of the trial and appellate courts. 9irst, it is a +ell settled doctrine that findings of trial courts on the credibility of +itnesses deserve a high degree of respect. Caving observed the deportment of +itnesses during the trial, the trial Dudge is in a better position to determine the issue of credibility and, thus, his findings +ill not be disturbed during appeal in the absence of any clear sho+ing that he had overloo,ed, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of +eight and substance +hich could have altered the conviction of the appellants. 6 "n this case, the findings of the trial court that the prosecution +itnesses +ere more credible than those of the defense must stand. 6etitioner failed to sho+ that 6at. 6agilagan, in testifying against him, +as motivated by reasons other than his duty to curb drug abuse and had any intent to falsely impute to him such a serious crime as possession of prohibited drugs. "n the absence of such ill motive, the presumption of regularity in the performance of his official duty must prevail. "n /eople #. 0elasco, $ this Court reiterated the doctrine of presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty +hich provides/ . . . &ppellant failed to establish that 6at. Fodoy and the other members of the buy-bust team are policemen engaged in mulcting or other unscrupulous activities +ho +ere motivated either by the desire to e8tort money or e8act personal vengeance, or by sheer +him and caprice, +hen they entrapped her. &nd in the absence of proof of any intent on the part of the police authorities to falsely impute such a serious crime against appellant, as in this case, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, . . . , must prevail over the self-serving and uncorroborated claim of appellant that she had been framed. 8 9urthermore, the defense set up by petitioner does not deserve any consideration. Ce simply contended that he +as in his house sleeping at the time of the incident. This Court has consistently held that alibi is the +ea,est of all defenses? and for it to prosper, the accused has the burden of proving that he +as not at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission and that it +as physically impossible for him to be there. Moreover, the 5claim of a <frame-up<, li,e alibi, is a defense that has been invariably vie+ed by the Court +ith disfavor for it can Dust as easily be concocted but difficult to prove, and is a common and standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of the -angerous -rugs &ct.5 9 Ao clear and convincing evidence +as presented by petitioner to prove his defense of alibi. Second, petitioner contends that the prosecution<s failure to present the alleged informant in court cast a reasonable doubt +hich +arrants his acBuittal. This is again +ithout merit, since failure of the prosecution to produce the informant in court is of no moment especially +hen he is not even the best +itness to establish the fact that a buy-bust operation had indeed been conducted. "n this case, 6at. 6agilagan, one of the policemen +ho apprehended petitioner, testified on the actual incident of @uly %(, %11%, and identified him as the one they caught in possession of prohibited drugs. Thus, ;e find that the prosecution had satisfactorily proved its case against appellants. There is no compelling reason for us to overturn the finding of the trial court that the testimony of Sgt. Famboa, the lone +itness for the prosecution, +as straightfor+ard spontaneous and convincing. The testimony of a sole +itness, if credible and positive and satisfies the court beyond reasonable doubt, is sufficient to convict. 1" Thus on the basis of 6at. 6agilagan<s testimony, the prosecution +as able to prove that petitioner indeed committed the crime charged? conseBuently, the finding of conviction +as proper. !astly, the issue on the admissibility of the mariDuana sei.ed should li,e+ise be ruled upon. Rule %%> Section *(a# of the Rules of Court provides/

& peace officer or a private person may, +ithout a +arrant, arrest a person/ a. +hen, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense? 888 888 888 6etitioner<s arrest falls sBuarely under the aforecited rule. Ce +as caught in flagranti as a result of a buy-bust operation conducted by police officers on the basis of information received regarding the illegal trade of drugs +ithin the area of :amora and 6andacan Streets, Manila. The police officer sa+ petitioner handing over something to an alleged buyer. &fter the buyer left, they searched him and discovered t+o cellophanes of mariDuana. Cis arrest +as, therefore, la+ful and the t+o cellophane bags of mariDuana sei.ed +ere admissible in evidence, being the fruits of the crime. &s for the ten cellophane bags of mariDuana found at petitioner<s residence, ho+ever, the same are inadmissible in evidence. The %123 Constitution guarantees freedom against unreasonable searches and sei.ures under &rticle """, Section $ +hich provides/ The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and sei.ures of +hatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search +arrant or +arrant of arrest shall issue e8cept upon probable cause to be determined personally by the Dudge after e8amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the +itnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be sei.ed. &n e8ception to the said rule is a +arrantless search incidental to a la+ful arrest for dangerous +eapons or anything +hich may be used as proof of the commission of an offense. 11 "t may e8tend beyond the person of the one arrested to include the premises or surroundings under his immediate control. "n this case, the ten cellophane bags of mariDuana sei.ed at petitioner<s house after his arrest at 6andacan and :amora Streets do not fall under the said e8ceptions. "n the case of /eople #. >ua, 1> this Court held/ &s regards the bric, of mariDuana found inside the appellant<s house, the trial court correctly ignored it apparently in vie+ of its inadmissibility. ;hile initially the arrest as +ell as the body search +as la+ful, the +arrantless search made inside the appellant<s house became unla+ful since the police operatives +ere not armed +ith a search +arrant. Such search cannot fall under 5search made incidental to a la+ful arrest,5 the same being limited to body search and to that point +ithin reach or control of the person arrested, or that +hich may furnish him +ith the means of committing violence or of escaping. "n the case at bar, appellant +as admittedly outside his house +hen he +as arrested. Cence, it can hardly be said that the inner portion of his house +as +ithin his reach or control. The articles sei.ed from petitioner during his arrest +ere valid under the doctrine of search made incidental to a la+ful arrest. The +arrantless search made in his house, ho+ever, +hich yielded ten cellophane bags of mariDuana became unla+ful since the police officers +ere not armed +ith a search +arrant at the time. Moreover, it +as beyond the reach and control of petitioner. "n sum, this Court finds petitioner Rodolfo 7spano guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating &rticle "", Section 2, in relation to Section $ (e-!# ("# of Republic &ct Ao. )($*, as amended. Ender the said provision, the penalty imposed is si8 years and one day to t+elve years and a fine ranging from si8 thousand to t+elve thousand pesos. ;ith the passage of Republic &ct Ao. 3)*1, +hich too, effect on -ecember >%, %11>, the imposable penalty shall no+ depend on the Buantity of drugs recovered. Ender the provisions of Republic &ct Ao. 3)$1, Section $4, and as interpreted in /eople #. +imon 1; and /eople #. >ara, 1< if the Buantity of mariDuana involved is less than 3*4 grams, the imposable penalty ranges from prision correccional to reclusion temporal. Ta,ing into consideration that petitioner is not a habitual delinBuent, the amendatory provision is favorable to him and the Buantity of mariDuana involved is less than 3*4 grams, the penalty imposed under Republic &ct Ao. 3)*1 should be applied. There being no mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, the imposable penalty shall be prision correccional in its medium period. &pplying the "ndeterminate Sentence !a+, the ma8imum penalty shall be ta,en from the medium period of prision correccional, +hich is t+o ($# years, four ((# months and one

(%# day to four ((# years and t+o ($# months, +hile the minimum shall be ta,en from the penalty ne8t lo+er in degree, +hich is one (%# month and one (%# day to si8 ()# months of arresto mayor. ;C7R790R7, the instant petition is hereby -7A"7-. The decision of the Court of &ppeals in C.&.-F.R. CR Ao. %>13) dated @anuary %), %11* is &99"RM7- +ith the M0-"9"C&T"0A that petitioner Rodolfo 7spano is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of T;0 ($# months and 0A7 (%# day of arresto mayor, as minimum to T;0 ($# years, 90ER ((# months and 0A7 (%# day of prision correccional, as ma8imum. S0 0R-7R7-.

:G.R. No. 16;858. Jun# >8, >""5? 0NITED LABORATORIES, IN(., petitioner, vs. ERNESTO ISIP an'Eor SHALIMAR PHILIPPINES an'Eor O((0PANTS, S+a3*@ar Bu*3'*n2, No. 15$1, Ara2on S/r##/, S/a. (ru8, Man*3a, respondents. (ALLEJO, SR., J.B Rolando C. Besarra, Special "nvestigator """ of the Aational Bureau of "nvestigation (AB"#, filed an application, in the Regional Trial Court (RTC# of Manila, for the issuance of a search +arrant concerning the first and second floors of the Shalimar Building, located at Ao. %*3%, &ragon Street (formerly Ao. %*$(, !acson &venue, Sta. Cru., Manila# occupied and=or used by Shalimar 6hilippines, o+ned=operated by 7rnesto "sip? and for the sei.ure of the follo+ing for violation of Section ((a#, in relation to Section 2, of Republic &ct (R.&.# Ao. 2$4>/ a. 9inished or unfinished products of EA"T7- !&B0R&T0R"7S (EA"!&B#, particularly R7'"C0A multivitamins? b. Sundry items such as tags, labels, bo8es, pac,ages, +rappers, receptacles, advertisements and other paraphernalia used in the offering for sale, sale and=or distribution of counterfeit R7'"C0A multivitamins? c. Sales invoices, delivery receipts, official receipts, ledgers, Dournals, purchase orders and all other boo,s of accounts and documents used in recording the manufacture and=or importation, distribution and=or sales of counterfeit R7'"C0A multivitamins.H%I The application +as doc,eted as /eople #4 ?rnesto (sip, et al4, Respondents, Search ;arrant Case Ao. 4((1%) and raffled to Branch $( of the court. &ppended thereto +ere the follo+ing/ (%# a s,etchH$I sho+ing the location of the building to be searched? ($# the affidavitH>I of Charlie Rabe of the &rmadillo 6rotection and Security &gency hired by Enited !aboratories, "nc. (EA"!&B#, +ho allegedly sa+ the manufacture, production and=or distribution of fa,e drug products such as Revicon by Shalimar 6hilippines? (># the letter-reBuest of EA"!&B, the duly licensed and e8clusive manufacturer and=or distributor of Revicon and -isudrin, for the monitoring of the unauthori.ed production=manufacture of the said drugs and, if +arranted, for their sei.ure? ((# the letter-complaintH(I of EA"!&B issued through its -irector of the Security and Safety Froup? and (*# the Doint affidavitH*I of AB" &gents Roberto -ivinagracia and Rolando Besarra containing the follo+ing allegations/ $. ;hen learned that an &sset +as already placed by &RM&-"!!0 6R0T7CT"'7 &A- S7CER"TG &F7ACG named CC&R!"7 R&B7, +ho +as renting a room since Aovember $44>, at the said premises located at Ao. %*3% &ragon St., Sta. Cru., Manila. MR. R&B7 averred that the o+ner of the premises is a certain MR. 7RA7ST0 "S"6 and that the said premises +hich is ,no+n as SC&!"M&R 6C"!"66"A7S, Shalimar Building, are being used to manufacture counterfeit EA"!&B products, particularly R7'"C0A multivitamins, +hich +as already patented by EA"!&B since %12*? >. Epon verification of the report, +e found out that the said premises is a si8-story structure, +ith an additional floor as a penthouse, and colored red-bro+n. "t has a tight security arrangement +herein nonresidents are not allo+ed to enter or reconnoiter in the premises? (. ;e also learned that its old address is Ao. %*$( !acson &venue, Sta. Cru., Manila, and has a ne+ address as %*3% &ragon St., Sta. Cru., Manila? and that the area of counterfeiting operations are the first and second floors of Shalimar Building? *. Since +e cannot enter the premises, +e instructed the &sset to ta,e pictures of the area especially the places +herein the clandestine manufacturing operations +ere being held. &t a peril to his +ell-being and security, the &sset +as able to ta,e photographs herein incorporated into this Search ;arrant &pplication.H)I & representative from EA"!&B, Michael Tome, testified during the hearing on the application for the search +arrant. &fter conducting the reBuisite searching Buestions, the court granted the application and issued Search ;arrant Ao. 4(-(1%) dated @anuary $3, $44(, directing any police officer of the la+ to conduct a search of the first and second floors of the Shalimar Building located at Ao. %*3%, &ragon Street, Sta. Cru., Manila. The court also directed the police to sei.e the follo+ing items/ a. 9inished or unfinished products of EA"T7- !&B0R&T0R"7S (EA"!&B#, particularly R7'"C0A multivitamins?

b. Sundry items such as tags, labels, bo8es, pac,ages, +rappers, receptacles, advertisements and other paraphernalia used in the offering for sale, sale and=or distribution of counterfeit R7'"C0A multivitamins? c. Sales invoices, delivery receipts, official receipts, ledgers, Dournals, purchase orders and all other boo,s of accounts and documents used in recording the manufacture and=or importation, distribution and=or sales of counterfeit R7'"C0A multivitamins.H3I The court also ordered the delivery of the sei.ed items before it, together +ith a true inventory thereof e8ecuted under oath. The search +arrant +as implemented at (/>4 p.m. on @anuary $3, $44( by AB" agents Besarra and -ivinagracia, in coordination +ith EA"!&B employees. Ao fa,e Revicon multivitamins +ere found? instead, there +ere sealed bo8es at the first and second floors of the Shalimar Building +hich, +hen opened by the AB" agents in the presence of respondent "sip, contained the follo+ing/ RE&AT"TG=EA"T -7SCR"6T"0A 31$ Bottles -isudrin )4 ml. >4 Bo8es (%44 pieces each# "noflo8 $44 mg.H2I AB" Special "nvestigator -ivinagracia submitted an inventory of the things sei.ed in +hich he declared that the search of the first and second floors of the Shalimar Building at Ao. %*3%, &ragon Street, Sta. Cru., Manila, the premises described in the +arrant, +as done in an orderly and peaceful manner. Ce also filed a Return of Search ;arrant,H1I alleging that no other articles=items other than those mentioned in the +arrant and inventory sheet +ere sei.ed. The agent prayed that of the items sei.ed, ten bo8es of -isudrin )4 ml., and at least one bo8 of "noflo8 be turned over to the custody of the Bureau of 9ood and -rugs (B9&-# for e8amination.H%4I The court issued an order granting the motion, on the condition that the turn over be made before the court, in the presence of a representative from the respondents and the court.H%%I The respondents filed an PErgent Motion to Ruash the Search ;arrant or to Suppress 7vidence.QH%$I They contended that the implementing officers of the AB" conducted their search at the first, second, third and fourth floors of the building at Ao. %*$(-&, !acson &venue, Sta. Cru., Manila, +here items in Popen displayQ +ere allegedly found. They pointed out, ho+ever, that such premises +as different from the address described in the search +arrant, the first and second floors of the Shalimar Building located at Ao. %*3%, &ragon Street, Sta. Cru., Manila. The respondents, li,e+ise, asserted that the AB" officers sei.ed -isudrin and "noflo8 products +hich +ere not included in the list of properties to be sei.ed in the search +arrant. EA"!&B, in collaboration +ith the AB", opposed the motion, insisting that the search +as limited to the first and second floors of the Shalimar building located at the corner of &ragon Street and !acson &venue, Sta. Cru., Manila. They averred that, based on the s,etch appended to the search +arrant application, RabeOs affidavit, as +ell as the Doint affidavit of Besarra and -ivinagracia, the building +here the search +as conducted +as located at Ao. %*3%, &ragon Street corner !acson &venue, Sta. Cru., Manila. They pointed out that Ao. %*$( !acson &venue, Sta. Cru., Manila +as the old address, and the ne+ address +as Ao. %*3%, &ragon Street, Sta. Cru., Manila. They maintained that the +arrant +as not implemented in any other place.H%>I "n reply, the respondents insisted that the items sei.ed +ere different from those listed in the search +arrant. They also claimed that the sei.ure too, place in the building located at Ao. %*$(-& +hich +as not depicted in the s,etch of the premises +hich the applicant submitted to the trial court.H%(I "n accordance +ith the ruling of this Court in /eople #4 -ourt of Appeals,H%*I the respondents served a copy of their pleading on EA"!&B.H%)I 0n March %%, $44(, the trial court issued an 0rderH%3I granting the motion of the respondents, on the ground that the things sei.ed, namely, -isudrin and "noflo8, +ere not those described in the search +arrant. 0n March %), $44(, the trial court issued an advisoryH%2I that the sei.ed articles could no longer be admitted in evidence against the respondents in any proceedings, as the search +arrant had already been Buashed. EA"!&B, through the Ereta !a+ 0ffice, filed a motion, in collaboration +ith the AB" agents, for the reconsideration of the order, contending that the ground used by the court in Buashing the +arrant +as not that invo,ed by the respondents, and that the sei.ure of the items +as Dustified by the plain vie+ doctrine. The respondents obDected to the appearance of the counsel of EA"!&B, contending that the latter could not appear for the 6eople of the 6hilippines. The respondents moved that the motion for reconsideration of EA"!&B be

stric,en off the record. -isputing the claims of EA"!&B, they insisted that the items sei.ed +ere contained in bo8es at the time of the sei.ure at Ao. %*$(-&, !acson &venue corner &ragon Street, Sta. Cru., Manila, and +ere not apparently incriminating on plain vie+. Moreover, the sei.ed items +ere not those described and itemi.ed in the search +arrant application, as +ell as the +arrant issued by the court itself. The respondents emphasi.ed that the Shalimar !aboratories is authori.ed to manufacture galenical preparations of the follo+ing products/ 6roducts/ 6ovidone "odine Chamomile 0il Salicylic &cid %4 g. Cydrogen 6ero8ide >U Topical Solution &ceite de &lcamforado &ceite de Man.anillaH%1I "n a manifestation and opposition, the respondents assailed the appearance of the counsel of EA"!&B, and insisted that it +as not authori.ed to appear before the court under the Rules of Court, and to file pleadings. They averred that the B9&- +as the authori.ed government agency to file an application for a search +arrant. "n its counter-manifestation, EA"!&B averred that it had the personality to file the motion for reconsideration because it +as the one +hich sought the filing of the application for a search +arrant? besides, it +as not proscribed by Rule %$) of the Revised Rules of Criminal 6rocedure from participating in the proceedings and filing pleadings. The only parties to the case +ere the AB" and EA"!&B and not the State or public prosecutor. EA"!&B also argued that the offended party, or the holder of a license to operate, may intervene through counsel under Section %) of Rule %%4, in relation to Section 3(e#, of the Rules of Criminal 6rocedure. EA"!&B prayed that an ocular inspection be conducted of the place searched by the AB" officers.H$4I "n their reDoinder, the respondents manifested that an ocular inspection +as the option to loo, for+ard to.H$%I Co+ever, no such ocular inspection of the said premises +as conducted. "n the meantime, the B9&- submitted to the court the result of its e8amination of the -isudrin and "noflo8 samples +hich the AB" officers sei.ed from the Shalimar Building. 0n its e8amination of the actual component of "noflo8, the B9&- declared that the substance failed the test.H$$I The B9&-, li,e+ise, declared that the e8amined -isudrin syrup failed the test.H$>I The B9&- had earlier issued the follo+ing report/ PROD0(T NAME Manu4a-/ur#r L.N. E.D. FINDINGS %.6henylpropanolamine Enilab $%4$%**$ >-4) -Registered, ho+ever, (-isudrin# label=physical %$.* mg.=*m! Syrup appearance does not conform +ith the B9&approved label= registered specifications. $.0flo8acin ("noflo8# Enilab 114%3(43 >-4* -Registered, ho+ever, $44 mg. tablet. label=physical appearance does not conform +ith the B9&approved label= registered specifications.H$(I 0n May $2, $44(, the trial court issued an 0rderH$*I denying the motion for reconsideration filed by EA"!&B. The court declared that/ The Search ;arrant is crystal clear/ The sei.ing officers +ere only authori.ed to ta,e possession of Pfinished or unfinished products of Enited !aboratories (EA"!&B#, particularly R7'"C0A Multivitamins, and documents evidencing the counterfeit nature of said products. The Receipt="nventory of 6roperty Sei.ed pursuant to the

+arrant does not, ho+ever, include R7'"C0A but other products. &nd +hether or not these sei.ed products are imitations of EA"!&B items is beside the point. Ao evidence +as sho+n nor any +as given during the proceedings on the application for search +arrant relative to the sei.ed products. 0n this score alone, the search suffered from a fatal infirmity and, hence, cannot be sustained.H$)I EA"!&B, thus, filed the present petition for revie+ on certiorari under Rule (* of the Rules of Court, +here the follo+ing issues are raised/ ;hether or not the sei.ed 31$ bottles of -isudrin )4 ml. and >4 bo8es of "noflo8 $44 mg. are "A&-M"SS"B!7 as evidence against the respondents because they constitute the Pfruit of the poisonous treeQ or, C0A'7RS7!G, +hether or not the sei.ure of the same counterfeit drugs is Dustified and la+ful under the Pplain vie+Q doctrine and, hence, the same are legally admissible as evidence against the respondents in any and all actionsKH$3I The petitioner avers that it +as deprived of its right to a day in court +hen the trial court Buashed the search +arrant for a ground +hich +as not raised by the respondents herein in their motion to Buash the +arrant. &s such, it argues that the trial court ignored the issue raised by the respondents. The petitioner insists that by so doing, the RTC deprived it of its right to due process. The petitioner asserts that the description in the search +arrant of the products to be sei.ed T Pfinished or unfinished products of EA"!&BQ T is sufficient to include counterfeit drugs +ithin the premises of the respondents not covered by any license to operate from the B9&-, and=or not authori.ed or licensed to manufacture, or repac,age drugs produced or manufactured by EA"!&B. Citing the ruling of this Court in /adilla #4 -ourt of Appeals,H$2I the petitioner asserts that the products sei.ed +ere in plain vie+ of the officers? hence, may be sei.ed by them. The petitioner posits that the respondents themselves admitted that the sei.ed articles +ere in open display? hence, the said articles +ere in plain vie+ of the implementing officers. "n their comment on the petition, the respondents aver that the petition should have been filed before the Court of &ppeals (C&# because factual Buestions are raised. They also assert that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition involving the validity and the implementation of the search +arrant. They argue that the petitioner merely assisted the AB", the B9&- and the -epartment of @ustice? hence, it should have impleaded the said government agencies as parties-petitioners. The petition should have been filed by the 0ffice of the Solicitor Feneral (0SF# in behalf of the AB" and=or the B9&-, because under the %123 Revised &dministrative Code, the 0SF is mandated to represent the government and its officers charged in their official capacity in cases before the Supreme Court. The respondents further assert that the trial court may consider issues not raised by the parties if such consideration +ould aid the court in the Dust determination of the case. The respondents, li,e+ise, maintain that the raiding team slashed the sealed bo8es so fast even before respondent "sip could obDect. They argue that the sei.ure too, place at Ao. %*$(-&, !acson &venue, Sta. Cru., Manila covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT# Ao. $$4332, and not at Ao. %*3%, &ragon Street, Sta. Cru., Manila covered by TCT Ao. %3((%$ as stated in the search +arrant. They assert that the ruling of the Court in /eople #4 -ourt of AppealsH$1I is applicable in this case. They conclude that the petitioner failed to prove the factual basis for the application of the plain vie+ doctrine.H>4I "n reply, the petitioner asserts that it has standing and is, in fact, the real party-in-interest to defend the validity of the search +arrant issued by the RTC? after all, it +as upon its instance that the application for a search +arrant +as filed by the AB", +hich the RTC granted. "t asserts that it is not proscribed under R.&. Ao. 2$4> from filing a criminal complaint against the respondents and reBuesting the AB" to file an application for a search +arrant. The petitioner points out that the Rules of Criminal 6rocedure does not specifically prohibit a private complainant from defending the validity of a search +arrant. Aeither is the participation of a state prosecutor provided in Rule %$) of the said Rules. &fter all, the petitioner insists, the proceedings for the application and issuance of a search +arrant is not a criminal action. The petitioner asserts that the place sought to be searched +as sufficiently described in the +arrant for, after all, there is only one building on the t+o parcels of land described in t+o titles +here Shalimar 6hilippines is located, the place searched by the AB" officers.H>%I "t also asserts that the building is located at the corner of &ragon Street and !acson &venue, Sta. Cru., Manila.H>$I

The petitioner avers that the plain vie+ doctrine is applicable in this case because the bo8es +ere found outside the door of the respondentsO laboratory on the garage floor. The bo8es aroused the suspicion of the members of the raiding team T precisely because these +ere mar,ed +ith the distinctive EA"!&B logos. The bo8es in +hich the items +ere contained +ere themselves so designated to replicate true and original EA"!&B bo8es for the same medicine. Thus, on the left hand corner of one side of some of the bo8esH>>I the letters P&BRQ under the +ords P)4 ml,Q appeared to describe the condition=Buality of the bottles inside (as it is +ith genuine EA"!&B bo8 of the true medicine of the same brand#. The petitioner pointed out that P&BRQ is the acronym for Pamber bottle roundQ describing the bottles in +hich the true and original -isudrin (for children# is contained. The petitioner points out that the same bo8es also had their o+n Plicense platesQ +hich +ere instituted as among its internal control=countermeasures. The license plates indicate that the items +ithin are, supposedly, P-isudrin.Q The AB" officers had reasonable ground to believe that all the bo8es have one and the same data appearing on their supposedly distinctive license plates. The petitioner insists that although some of the bo8es mar,ed +ith the distinctive EA"!&B logo +ere, indeed, sealed, the tape or seal +as also a copy of the original because these, too, +ere mar,ed +ith the distinctive EA"!&B logo. The petitioner appended to its pleading pictures of the Shalimar building and the rooms searched sho+ing respondent "sip?H>(I the bo8es sei.ed by the police officers containing -isudrin syrup?H>*I and the bo8es containing "noflo8 and its contents.H>)I The issues for resolution are the follo+ing/ (%# +hether the petitioner is the proper party to file the petition at bench? ($# +hether it +as proper for the petitioner to file the present petition in this Court under Rule (* of the Rules of Court? and (># +hether the search conducted by the AB" officers of the first and second floors of the Shalimar building and the sei.ure of the sealed bo8es +hich, +hen opened, contained -isudrin syrup and "noflo8, +ere valid. 0n the first issue, +e agree +ith the petitionerOs contention that a search +arrant proceeding is, in no sense, a criminal actionH>3I or the commencement of a prosecution.H>2I The proceeding is not one against any person, but is solely for the discovery and to get possession of personal property. "t is a special and peculiar remedy, drastic in nature, and made necessary because of public necessity. "t resembles in some respect +ith +hat is commonly ,no+n as @ohn -oe proceedings.H>1I ;hile an application for a search +arrant is entitled li,e a criminal action, it does not ma,e it such an action. & search +arrant is a legal process +hich has been li,ened to a +rit of discovery employed by the State to procure relevant evidence of crime.H(4I "t is in the nature of a criminal process, restricted to cases of public prosecutions.H(%I & search +arrant is a police +eapon, issued under the police po+er. & search +arrant must issue in the name of the State, namely, the 6eople of the 6hilippines.H($I & search +arrant has no relation to a civil process. "t is not a process for adDudicating civil rights or maintaining mere private rights.H(>I "t concerns the public at large as distinguished from the ordinary civil action involving the rights of private persons.H((I "t may only be applied for in the furtherance of public prosecution.H(*I Co+ever, a private individual or a private corporation complaining to the AB" or to a government agency charged +ith the enforcement of special penal la+s, such as the B9&-, may appear, participate and file pleadings in the search +arrant proceedings to maintain, inter alia, the validity of the search +arrant issued by the court and the admissibility of the properties sei.ed in anticipation of a criminal case to be filed? such private party may do so in collaboration +ith the AB" or such government agency. The party may file an opposition to a motion to Buash the search +arrant issued by the court, or a motion for the reconsideration of the court order granting such motion to Buash.H()I "n this case, EA"!&B, in collaboration +ith the AB", opposed the respondentsO motion to Buash the search +arrant. The respondents served copies of their reply and opposition=comment to EA"!&B, through Modesto &leDandro, @r.H(3I The court a !uo allo+ed the appearance of EA"!&B and accepted the pleadings filed by it and its counsel. The general rule is that the proper party to file a petition in the C& or Supreme Court to assail any adverse order of the RTC in the search +arrant proceedings is the 6eople of the 6hilippines, through the 0SF. Co+ever, in -olumbia /ictures ?ntertainment, (nc4 #4 -ourt of Appeals,H(2I the Court allo+ed a private

corporation (the complainant in the RTC# to file a petition for certiorari, and considered the petition as one filed by the 0SF. The Court in the said case even held that the petitioners therein could argue its case in lieu of the 0SF/ 9rom the records, it is clear that, as complainants, petitioners +ere involved in the proceedings +hich led to the issuance of Search ;arrant Ao. $>. "n /eople #4 &ano, the Court declared that +hile the general rule is that it is only the Solicitor Feneral +ho is authori.ed to bring or defend actions on behalf of the 6eople or the Republic of the 6hilippines once the case is brought before this Court or the Court of &ppeals, if there appears to be grave error committed by the Dudge or a lac, of due process, the petition +ill be deemed filed by the private complainants therein as if it +ere filed by the Solicitor Feneral. "n line +ith this ruling, the Court gives this petition due course and +ill allo+ petitioners to argue their case against the Buestioned order in lieu of the Solicitor Feneral.H(1I The general rule is that a party is mandated to follo+ the hierarchy of courts. Co+ever, in e8ceptional cases, the Court, for compelling reasons or if +arranted by the nature of the issues raised, may ta,e cogni.ance of petitions filed directly before it.H*4I "n this case, the Court has opted to ta,e cogni.ance of the petition, considering the nature of the issues raised by the parties. The Court does not agree +ith the petitionerOs contention that the issue of +hether the -isudrin and "noflo8 products +ere la+fully sei.ed +as never raised in the pleadings of the respondents in the court a !uo. Truly, the respondents failed to raise the issue in their motion to Buash the search +arrant? in their reply, ho+ever, they averred that the sei.ed items +ere not included in the subDect +arrant and, therefore, +ere not la+fully sei.ed by the raiding team. They also averred that the said articles +ere not illegal per se, li,e e8plosives and shabu, as to Dustify their sei.ure in the course of unla+ful search.H*%I "n their 0pposition=Comment filed on March %*, $44(, the respondents even alleged the follo+ing/ The Durisdiction of this Conorable Court is limited to the determination of +hether there is a legal basis to Buash the search +arrant and=or to suppress the sei.ed articles in evidence. Since the articles allegedly sei.ed during the implementation of the search +arrant T -isudrin and "noflu8 products T +ere not included in the search +arrant, they +ere, therefore, not la+fully sei.ed by the raiding team? they are not illegal per se, as it +ere, li,e an arms cache, subversive materials or shabu as to Dustify their sei.ure in the course of a la+ful search, or being in plain vie+ or some such. Ao need +hatever for some public assay. The AB" manifestation is a glaring admission that it cannot tell +ithout proper e8amination or assay that the -isudrin and "noflo8 samples allegedly sei.ed from respondentOs place +ere counterfeit. &ll the relevant presumptions are in favor of legality.H*$I The Court, therefore, finds no factual basis for the contention of the petitioner that the respondents never raised in the court a !uo the issue of +hether the sei.ure of the -isudrin and "noflo8 products +as valid. "n any event, the petitioner filed a motion for the reconsideration of the March %%, $44( 0rder of the court a !uo on the follo+ing claims/ $.4% The Conorable Court 7RR7- in ruling on a non-issue or the issue as to the alleged failure to particularly describe in the search +arrant the items to be sei.ed but upon +hich A0 challenge +as then e8isting and=or A0 controversy is raised? $.4$ The Conorable Court 7RR7- in its ruling that Pfinished or unfinished products of EA"!&BQ cannot stand the test of a particular description for +hich it then reasons that the search is, supposedly unreasonable? and, $.4> The Conorable Court 7RR7- in finding that the evidence sei.ed is la+fully inadmissible against respondents.H*>I The court a !uo considered the motion of the petitioner and the issue raised by it before finally resolving to deny the same. "t cannot thus be gainsaid that the petitioner +as denied its right to due process. 0n the validity of the sei.ure of the sealed bo8es and its contents of -isudrin and "noflo8, the Court, li,e+ise, reDects the contention of the petitioner. & search +arrant, to be valid, must particularly describe the place to be searched and the things to be sei.ed. The officers of the la+ are to sei.e only those things particularly described in the search +arrant. & search

+arrant is not a s+eeping authority empo+ering a raiding party to underta,e a fishing e8pedition to sei.e and confiscate any and all ,inds of evidence or articles relating to a crime. The search is limited in scope so as not to be general or e8planatory. Aothing is left to the discretion of the officer e8ecuting the +arrant.H*(I 0bDects, articles or papers not described in the +arrant but on plain vie+ of the e8ecuting officer may be sei.ed by him. Co+ever, the sei.ure by the officer of obDects=articles=papers not described in the +arrant cannot be presumed as plain vie+. 2he +tate must adduce e#idence, testimonial or documentary, to pro#e the confluence of the essential re!uirements for the doctrine to apply, namelyH (a) the executing law enforcement officer has a prior :ustification for an initial intrusion or otherwise properly in a position from which he can #iew a particular order@ (b) the officer must disco#er incriminating e#idence inad#ertently@ and (c) it must be immediately apparent to the police that the items they obser#e may be e#idence of a crime, contraband, or otherwise sub:ect to sei"ure4H**I The doctrine is not an e8ception to the +arrant. "t merely serves to supplement the prior Dustification T +hether it be a +arrant for another obDect, hot pursuit, search as an incident to a la+ful arrest or some other legitimate reason for being present, unconnected +ith a search directed against the accused. The doctrine may not be used to e8tend a general e8ploratory search from one obDect to another until something incriminating at last emerges. "t is a recognition of the fact that +hen e8ecuting police officers comes across immediately incriminating evidence not covered by the +arrant, they should not be reBuired to close their eyes to it, regardless of +hether it is evidence of the crime they are investigating or evidence of some other crime. "t +ould be needless to reBuire the police to obtain another +arrant.H*)I Ender the doctrine, there is no invasion of a legitimate e8pectation of privacy and there is no search +ithin the meaning of the Constitution. The immediate reBuirement means that the e8ecuting officer can, at the time of discovery of the obDect or the facts therein available to him, determine probable cause of the obDectOs incriminating evidence.H*3I "n other +ords, to be immediate, probable cause must be the direct result of the officerOs instantaneous sensory perception of the obDect.H*2I The obDect is apparent if the e8ecuting officer had probable cause to connect the obDect to criminal activity. The incriminating nature of the evidence becomes apparent in the course of the search, +ithout the benefit of any unla+ful search or sei.ure. "t must be apparent at the moment of sei.ure. H*1I The reBuirement of inadvertence, on the other hand, means that the officer must not have ,no+n in advance of the location of the evidence and intend to sei.e it.H)4I -iscovery is not anticipated.H)%I The immediately apparent test does not reBuire an unduly high degree of certainty as to the incriminating character of evidence. "t reBuires merely that the sei.ure be presumptively reasonable assuming that there is probable cause to associate the property +ith criminal activity? that a ne8us e8ists bet+een a vie+ed obDect and criminal activity.H)$I "ncriminating means the furnishing of evidence as proof of circumstances tending to prove the guilt of a person. H)>I "ndeed, probable cause is a fle8ible, common sense standard. "t merely reBuires that the facts available to the officer +ould +arrant a man of reasonable caution and belief that certain items may be contrabanded or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime. "t does not reBuire proof that such belief be correct or more li,ely than true. & practical, non-traditional probability that incriminating evidence is involved is all that is reBuired. The evidence thus collected must be seen and verified as understood by those e8perienced in the field of la+ enforcement.H)(I "n this case, -isudrin and=or "noflo8 +ere not listed in the search +arrant issued by the court a !uo as among the properties to be sei.ed by the AB" agents. The +arrant specifically authori.ed the officers only to sei.e Pcounterfeit Revicon multivitamins, finished or unfinished, and the documents used in recording, manufacture and=or importation, distribution and=or sale, or the offering for sale, sale and=or distribution of the said vitamins.Q The implementing officers failed to find any counterfeit Revicon multivitamins, and instead sei.ed sealed bo8es +hich, +hen opened at the place +here they +ere found, turned out to contain "noflo8 and -isudrin.

"t +as thus incumbent on the AB" agents and the petitioner to prove their claim that the items +ere sei.ed based on the plain vie+ doctrine. "t is not enough to prove that the sealed bo8es +ere in the plain vie+ of the AB" agents? evidence should have been adduced to prove the e8istence of all the essential reBuirements for the application of the doctrine during the hearing of the respondentsO motion to Buash, or at the very least, during the hearing of the AB" and the petitionerOs motion for reconsideration on &pril %), $44(. The immediately apparent aspect, after all, is central to the plain vie+ e8ception relied upon by the petitioner and the AB". There is no sho+ing that the AB" and the petitioner even attempted to adduce such evidence. "n fact, the petitioner and the AB" failed to present any of the AB" agents +ho e8ecuted the +arrant, or any of the petitionerOs representative +ho +as present at the time of the enforcement of the +arrant to prove that the enforcing officers discovered the sealed bo8es inadvertently, and that such bo8es and their contents +ere incriminating and immediately apparent. (t must be stressed that only the &'( agentAagents who enforced the warrant had personal %nowledge whether the sealed boxes and their contents thereof were incriminating and that they were immediately apparent4H)*I There is even no sho+ing that the AB" agents ,ne+ the contents of the sealed bo8es before they +ere opened. "n sum then, the Court finds and so hold that the petitioner and the AB" failed to prove the essential reBuirements for the application of the plain vie+ doctrine. IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is -7A"7- for lac, of merit. The assailed orders of the Regional Trial Court are &99"RM7-. S0 0R-7R7-.

:G.R. No. 1>;595. D#-#@=#r 1>, 199$? SAMM% MALA(AT y MANDAR, petitioner, vs. (O0RT OF APPEALS, an' PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. DA7IDE, JR., J.B "n an "nformation filed on >4 &ugust %114, in Criminal Case Ao. 14-2)3(2 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC# of Manila, Branch *, petitioner Sammy Malacat y Mandar +as charged +ith violating Section > of 6residential -ecree Ao. %2)), as follo+s/ That on or about &ugust $3, %114, in the City of Manila, 6hilippines, the said accused did then and there +illfully, unla+fully and ,no+ingly ,eep, possess and=or acBuire a hand grenade, +ithout first securing the necessary license and=or permit therefor from the proper authorities. &t arraignment on 1 0ctober %114, petitioner, assisted by counsel de oficio, entered a plea of not guilty. &t pre-trial on %% March %11%, petitioner admitted the e8istence of 78hibits P&,Q P&-%,Q and P&-$,Q +hile the prosecution admitted that the police authorities +ere not armed +ith a search +arrant nor +arrant of arrest at the time they arrested petitioner. &t trial on the merits, the prosecution presented the follo+ing police officers as its +itnesses/ Rodolfo Gu, the arresting officer? @osefino F. Serapio, the investigating officer? and 0rlando Ramilo, +ho e8amined the grenade. Rodolfo Gu of the ;estern 6olice -istrict, Metropolitan 6olice 9orce of the "ntegrated Aational 6olice, 6olice Station Ao. >, Ruiapo, Manila, testified that on $3 &ugust %114, at about )/>4 p.m., in response to bomb threats reported seven days earlier, he +as on foot patrol +ith three other police officers (all of them in uniform# along Rue.on Boulevard, Ruiapo, Manila, near the Mercury -rug store at 6la.a Miranda. They chanced upon t+o groups of Muslim-loo,ing men, +ith each group, comprised of three to four men, posted at opposite sides of the corner of Rue.on Boulevard near the Mercury -rug Store. These men +ere acting suspiciously +ith PHtIheir eyes V moving very fast.Q Gu and his companions positioned themselves at strategic points and observed both groups for about thirty minutes. The police officers then approached one group of men, +ho then fled in different directions. &s the policemen gave chase, Gu caught up +ith and apprehended petitioner. Epon searching petitioner, Gu found a fragmentation grenade tuc,ed inside petitionerOs Pfront +aist line.Q GuOs companion, police officer Rogelio Malibiran, apprehended &bdul Casan from +hom a .>2 caliber revolver +as recovered. 6etitioner and Casan +ere then brought to 6olice Station Ao. > +here Gu placed an P Q mar, at the bottom of the grenade and thereafter gave it to his commander. 0n cross-e8amination, Gu declared that they conducted the foot patrol due to a report that a group of Muslims +as going to e8plode a grenade some+here in the vicinity of 6la.a Miranda. Gu recogni.ed petitioner as the previous Saturday, $* &ugust %114, li,e+ise at 6la.a Miranda, Gu sa+ petitioner and $ others attempt to detonate a grenade. The attempt +as aborted +hen Gu and other policemen chased petitioner and his companions? ho+ever, the former +ere unable to catch any of the latter. Gu further admitted that petitioner and Casan +ere merely standing on the corner of Rue.on Boulevard +hen Gu sa+ them on $3 &ugust %114. &lthough they +ere not creating a commotion, since they +ere supposedly acting suspiciously, Gu and his companions approached them. Gu did not issue any receipt for the grenade he allegedly recovered from petitioner. @osefino F. Serapio declared that at about 1/44 a.m. of $2 &ugust %114, petitioner and a certain &bdul Casan +ere brought in by Sgt. SaBuilla for investigation. 9orth+ith, Serapio conducted the inBuest of the t+o suspects, informing them of their rights to remain silent and to be assisted by competent and independent counsel. -espite SerapioOs advice, petitioner and Casan manifested their +illingness to ans+er Buestions even +ithout the assistance of a la+yer. Serapio then too, petitionerOs uncounselled confession (78h. P7Q#, there being no 6&0 la+yer available, +herein petitioner admitted possession of the grenade. Thereafter, Serapio prepared the affidavit of arrest and boo,ing sheet of petitioner and Casan. !ater, Serapio turned over

the grenade to the "ntelligence and Special &ction -ivision ("S&-# of the 78plosive 0rdnance -isposal Enit for e8amination. 0n cross-e8amination, Serapio admitted that he too, petitionerOs confession ,no+ing it +as inadmissible in evidence. 0rlando Ramilo, a member of the Bomb -isposal Enit, +hose principal duties included, among other things, the e8amination of e8plosive devices, testified that on $$ March %11%, he received a reBuest dated %1 March %11% from !t. 7duardo Cabrera and 60 -iosdado -iotoy for e8amination of a grenade. Ramilo then affi8ed an orange tag on the subDect grenade detailing his name, the date and time he received the specimen. -uring the preliminary e8amination of the grenade, he PHfIound that HtheI maDor components consisting of HaI high filler and fuse assembly H+ereI all present,Q and concluded that the grenade +as PHlIive and capable of e8ploding.Q 0n even date, he issued a certification stating his findings, a copy of +hich he for+arded to -iotoy on %% &ugust %11%. 6etitioner +as the lone defense +itness. Ce declared that he arrived in Manila on $$ @uly %114 and resided at the Muslim Center in Ruiapo, Manila. &t around )/>4 in the evening of $3 &ugust %114, he +ent to 6la.a Miranda to catch a breath of fresh air. Shortly after, several policemen arrived and ordered all males to stand aside. The policemen searched petitioner and t+o other men, but found nothing in their possession. Co+ever, he +as arrested +ith t+o others, brought to and detained at 6recinct Ao. >, +here he +as accused of having shot a police officer. The officer sho+ed the gunshot +ounds he allegedly sustained and shouted at petitioner PIiJto ang tama mo sa a%in.Q This officer then inserted the mu..le of his gun into petitionerOs mouth and said, PIyJou are the one who shot me.Q 6etitioner denied the charges and e8plained that he only recently arrived in Manila. Co+ever, several other police officers mauled him, hitting him +ith benches and guns. 6etitioner +as once again searched, but nothing +as found on him. Ce sa+ the grenade only in court +hen it +as presented. The trial court ruled that the +arrantless search and sei.ure of petitioner +as a,in to a Pstop and fris,,Q +here a P+arrant and sei.ure can be effected +ithout necessarily being preceded by an arrestQ and P+hose obDect is either to maintain the status !uo momentarily +hile the police officer see,s to obtain more information.Q 6robable cause +as not reBuired as it +as not certain that a crime had been committed, ho+ever, the situation called for an investigation, hence to reBuire probable cause +ould have been Ppremature.Q The RTC emphasi.ed that Gu and his companions +ere PHcIonfronted +ith an emergency, in +hich the delay necessary to obtain a +arrant, threatens the destruction of evidenceQ and the officers PHhIad to act in haste,Q as petitioner and his companions +ere acting suspiciously, considering the time, place and Preported cases of bombing.Q 9urther, petitionerOs group suddenly ran a+ay in different directions as they sa+ the arresting officers approach, thus PHiIt is reasonable for an officer to conduct a limited search, the purpose of +hich is not necessarily to discover evidence of a crime, but to allo+ the officer to pursue his investigation +ithout fear of violence.Q The trial court then ruled that the sei.ure of the grenade from petitioner +as incidental to a la+ful arrest, and since petitioner PHlIater voluntarily admitted such fact to the police investigator for the purpose of bombing the Mercury -rug Store,Q concluded that sufficient evidence e8isted to establish petitionerOs guilt beyond reasonable doubt. "n its decision dated %4 9ebruary %11( but promulgated on %* 9ebruary %11(, the trial court thus found petitioner guilty of the crime of illegal possession of e8plosives under Section > of 6.-. Ao. %2)), and sentenced him to suffer/ HTIhe penalty of not less than S7'7AT77A (%3# G7&RS, 90ER ((# M0ATCS &A- 0A7 (%# -&G 09 R?->*+($& 2?M/$RA>, as minimum, and not more than TC"RTG (>4# G7&RS 09 R?->*+($& /?R/?2*A, as ma8imum. 0n %2 9ebruary %11(, petitioner filed a notice of appeal indicating that he +as appealing to this Court. Co+ever, the record of the case +as for+arded to the Court of &ppeals +hich doc,eted it as C&-F.R. CR Ao. %*122 and issued a notice to file briefs. "n his &ppellantOs Brief filed +ith the Court of &ppeals, petitioner asserted that/

%. TC7 !0;7R C0ERT 7RR7- "A C0!-"AF TC&T TC7 S7&RCC E60A TC7 67RS0A 09 &CCES7-&667!!&AT &A- TC7 S7":ER7 09 TC7 &!!7F7- C&A-FR7A&-7 9R0M C"M P;&S &A &66R06R"&T7 "AC"-7AT T0 C"S &RR7ST.Q $. TC7 !0;7R C0ERT 7RR7- "A &-M"TT"AF &S 7'"-7AC7 &F&"AST &CCES7--&667!!&AT TC7 C&A-FR7A&-7 &!!7F7-!G S7":7- 9R0M C"M &S "T ;&S & 6R0-ECT 09 &A EAR7&S0A&B!7 &A"!!7F&! S7&RCC. "n sum, petitioner argued that the +arrantless arrest +as invalid due to absence of any of the conditions provided for in Section * of Rule %%> of the Rules of Court, citing /eople #s4 Mengote. &s such, the search +as illegal, and the hand grenade sei.ed, inadmissible in evidence. "n its Brief for the &ppellee, the 0ffice of the Solicitor Feneral agreed +ith the trial court and prayed that its decision be affirmed in toto4 "n its decision of $( @anuary %11), the Court of &ppeals affirmed the trial court, noting, first, that petitioner abandoned his original theory before the court a !uo that the grenade +as PplantedQ by the police officers? and second, the factual finding of the trial court that the grenade +as sei.ed from petitionerOs possession +as not raised as an issue. 9urther, respondent court focused on the admissibility in evidence of 78hibit P-,Q the hand grenade sei.ed from petitioner. Meeting the issue sBuarely, the Court of &ppeals ruled that the arrest +as la+ful on the ground that there +as probable cause for the arrest as petitioner +as Pattempting to commit an offense,Q thus/ ;e are at a loss to understand ho+ a man, +ho +as in possession of a live grenade and in the company of other suspicious characterHsI +ith unlicensed firearmHsI lur,ing in 6la.a Miranda at a time +hen political tension haHdI been en,indling a series of terroristic activities, HcanI claim that he +as not attempting to commit an offense. ;e need not mention that 6la.a Miranda is historically notorious for being a favorite bomb site especially during times of political upheaval. &s the mere possession of an unlicensed grenade is by itself an offense, MalacatOs posture is simply too preposterous to inspire belief. "n so doing, the Court of &ppeals too, into account petitionerOs failure to rebut the testimony of the prosecution +itnesses that they received intelligence reports of a bomb threat at 6la.a Miranda? the fact that 60 Gu chased petitioner t+o days prior to the latterOs arrest, or on $3 &ugust %114? and that petitioner and his companions acted suspiciously, the PaccumulationQ of +hich +as more than sufficient to convince a reasonable man that an offense +as about to be committed. Moreover, the Court of &ppeals observed/ The police officers in such a volatile situation +ould be guilty of gross negligence and dereliction of duty, not to mention of gross incompetence, if they H+ouldI first +ait for Malacat to hurl the grenade, and ,ill several innocent persons +hile maiming numerous others, before arriving at +hat +ould then be an assured but moot conclusion that there +as indeed probable cause for an arrest. ;e are in agreement +ith the lo+er court in saying that the probable cause in such a situation should not be the ,ind of proof necessary to convict, but rather the practical considerations of everyday life on +hich a reasonable and prudent mind, and not legal technicians, +ill ordinarily act. 9inally, the Court of &ppeals held that the rule laid do+n in 6eople v. Mengote, +hich petitioner relied upon, +as inapplicable in light of PHcIrucial differences,Q to +it/ H"n MengoteI the police officers never received any intelligence report that someone HatI the corner of a busy street H+ouldI be in possession of a prohibited article. Cere the police officers +ere responding to a HsicI public clamor to put a chec, on the series of terroristic bombings in the Metropolis, and, after receiving intelligence reports about a bomb threat aimed at the vicinity of the historically notorious 6la.a Miranda, they conducted foot patrols for about seven days to observe suspicious movements in the area. 9urthermore, in Mengote, the police officers HhadI no personal ,no+ledge that the person arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. Cere, 60> Gu HhadI personal ,no+ledge of the fact that he chased Malacat in 6la.a Miranda t+o days before he finally succeeded in apprehending him. Enable to accept his conviction, petitioner forth+ith filed the instant petition and assigns the follo+ing errors/ %. TC7 R7S60A-7AT C0ERT 7RR7- "A &99"RM"AF TC7 9"A-"AF 09 TC7 TR"&! C0ERT TC&T TC7 ;&RR&AT!7SS &RR7ST 09 67T"T"0A7R ;&S '&!"- &A- !7F&!.

$. TC7 R7S60A-7AT C0ERT 7RR7- "A C0!-"AF TC&T TC7 RE!"AF "A 6706!7 'S. M7AF0T7 -07S A0T 9"A- &66!"C&T"0A "A TC7 "AST&AT C&S7. "n support thereof, petitioner merely restates his arguments belo+ regarding the validity of the +arrantless arrest and search, then disagrees +ith the finding of the Court of &ppeals that he +as Pattempting to commit a crime,Q as the evidence for the prosecution merely disclosed that he +as Pstanding at the corner of 6la.a Miranda and Rue.on BoulevardQ +ith his eyes Pmoving very fastQ and Ploo,ing at every person that come (sic# nearer (sic# to them.Q 9inally, petitioner points out the factual similarities bet+een his case and that of /eople #4 Mengote to demonstrate that the Court of &ppeals miscomprehended the latter. "n its Comment, the 0ffice of the Solicitor Feneral prays that +e affirm the challenged decision. 9or being impressed +ith merit, +e resolved to give due course to the petition. The challenged decision must immediately fall on Durisdictional grounds. To repeat, the penalty imposed by the trial court +as/ HAIot less than S7'7AT77A (%3# G7&RS, 90ER ((# M0ATCS &A- 0A7 (%# -&G 09 R?->*+($& 2?M/$RA>, as minimum, and not more than TC"RTG (>4# G7&RS 09 R?->*+($& /?R/?2*A, as ma8imum. The penalty provided by Section > of 6.-. Ao. %2)) upon any person +ho shall unla+fully possess grenades is reclusion temporal in its ma8imum period to reclusion perpetua. 9or purposes of determining appellate Durisdiction in criminal cases, the ma8imum of the penalty, and not the minimum, is ta,en into account. Since the ma8imum of the penalty is reclusion perpetua, the appeal therefrom should have been to us, and not the Court of &ppeals, pursuant to Section 1(># of the @udiciary Reorgani.ation &ct of %124 (B.6. Blg. %$1#, in relation to Section %3 of the @udiciary &ct of %1(2, Section *($# of &rticle '""" of the Constitution and Section >(c# of Rule %$$ of the Rules of Court. The term Plife imprisonmentQ as used in Section 1 of B.6. Blg. %$1, the @udiciary &ct of %1(2, and Section > of Rule %$$ must be deemed to include reclusion perpetua in vie+ of Section *($# of &rticle '""" of the Constitution. 6etitionerOs Aotice of &ppeal indicated that he +as appealing from the trial courtOs decision to this Court, yet the trial court transmitted the record to the Court of &ppeals and the latter proceeded to resolve the appeal. ;e then set aside the decision of the Court of &ppeals for having been rendered +ithout Durisdiction, and consider the appeal as having been directly brought to us, +ith the petition for revie+ as petitionerOs Brief for the &ppellant, the comment thereon by the 0ffice of the Solicitor Feneral as the Brief for the &ppellee and the memoranda of the parties as their Supplemental Briefs. -eliberating on the foregoing pleadings, +e find ourselves convinced that the prosecution failed to establish petitionerOs guilt +ith moral certainty. 9irst, serious doubt surrounds the story of police officer Gu that a grenade +as found in and sei.ed from petitionerOs possession. Aotably, Gu did not identify, in court, the grenade he allegedly sei.ed. &ccording to him, he turned it over to his commander after putting an P Q mar, at its bottom? ho+ever, the commander +as not presented to corroborate this claim. 0n the other hand, the grenade presented in court and identified by police officer Ramilo referred to +hat the latter received from !t. 7duardo Cabrera and police officer -iotoy not immediately after petitionerOs arrest, but nearly seven (3# months later, or on %1 March %11%? further, there +as no evidence +hatsoever that +hat Ramilo received +as the very same grenade sei.ed from petitioner. "n his testimony, Gu never declared that the grenade passed on to Ramilo +as the grenade the former confiscated from petitioner. Gu did not, and +as not made to, identify the grenade e8amined by Ramilo, and the latter did not claim that the grenade he e8amined +as that sei.ed from petitioner. 6lainly, the la+ enforcement authorities failed to safeguard and preserve the chain of evidence so crucial in cases such as these. Second, if indeed petitioner had a grenade +ith him, and that t+o days earlier he +as +ith a group about to detonate an e8plosive at 6la.a Miranda, and Gu and his fello+ officers chased, but failed to arrest them, then considering that Gu and his three fello+ officers +ere in uniform and therefore easily cogni.able as police officers, it +as then unnatural and against common e8perience that petitioner simply stood there in pro8imity to the police officers. Aote that Gu observed petitioner for thirty minutes and must have been close enough to petitioner in order to discern petitionerOs eyes Pmoving very fast.Q

9inally, even assuming that petitioner admitted possession of the grenade during his custodial investigation by police officer Serapio, such admission +as inadmissible in evidence for it +as ta,en in palpable violation of Section %$(%# and (># of &rticle """ of the Constitution, +hich provide as follo+s/ S7C. %$ (%#. &ny person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his o+n choice. "f the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided +ith one. These rights cannot be +aived e8cept in +riting and in the presence of counsel. 888 (># &ny confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section %3 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. Serapio conducted the custodial investigation on petitioner the day follo+ing his arrest. Ao la+yer +as present and Serapio could not have reBuested a la+yer to assist petitioner as no 6&0 la+yer +as then available. Thus, even if petitioner consented to the investigation and +aived his rights to remain silent and to counsel, the +aiver +as invalid as it +as not in +riting, neither +as it e8ecuted in the presence of counsel. 7ven granting ex gratia that petitioner +as in possession of a grenade, the arrest and search of petitioner +ere invalid, as +ill be discussed belo+. The general rule as regards arrests, searches and sei.ures is that a +arrant is needed in order to validly effect the same. The Constitutional prohibition against unreasonable arrests, searches and sei.ures refers to those effected +ithout a validly issued +arrant, subDect to certain e8ceptions. &s regards valid +arrantless arrests, these are found in Section *, Rule %%> of the Rules of Court, +hich reads, in part/ Sec. *. -- &rrest, +ithout +arrant? +hen la+ful -- & peace officer or a private person may, +ithout a +arrant, arrest a person/ (a# ;hen, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense? (b# ;hen an offense has in fact Dust been committed, and he has personal ,no+ledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it? and (c# ;hen the person to be arrested is a prisoner +ho has escaped SSS & +arrantless arrest under the circumstances contemplated under Section *(a# has been denominated as one 5in flagrante delicto,5 +hile that under Section *(b# has been described as a 5hot pursuit5 arrest. Turning to valid +arrantless searches, they are limited to the follo+ing/ (%# customs searches? ($# search of moving vehicles? (># sei.ure of evidence in plain vie+? ((# consent searches? (*# a search incidental to a la+ful arrest? and ()# a 5stop and fris,.5 "n the instant petition, the trial court validated the +arrantless search as a Pstop and fris,Q +ith Pthe sei.ure of the grenade from the accused HasI an appropriate incident to his arrest,Q hence necessitating a brief discussion on the nature of these e8ceptions to the +arrant reBuirement. &t the outset, +e note that the trial court confused the concepts of a 5stop-and-fris,5 and of a search incidental to a la+ful arrest. These t+o types of +arrantless searches differ in terms of the reBuisite Buantum of proof before they may be validly effected and in their allo+able scope. "n a search incidental to a la+ful arrest, as the precedent arrest determines the validity of the incidental search, the legality of the arrest is Buestioned in a large maDority of these cases, e.g., +hether an arrest +as merely used as a prete8t for conducting a search. "n this instance, the la+ reBuires that there first be a la+ful arrest before a search can be made -- the process cannot be reversed. &t bottom, assuming a valid arrest, the arresting officer may search the person of the arrestee and the area +ithin +hich the latter may reach for a +eapon or for evidence to destroy, and sei.e any money or property found +hich +as used in the commission of the crime, or the fruit of the crime, or that +hich may be used as evidence, or +hich might furnish the arrestee +ith the means of escaping or committing violence. Cere, there could have been no valid in flagrante delicto or hot pursuit arrest preceding the search in light of the lac, of personal ,no+ledge on the part of Gu, the arresting officer, or an overt physical act, on the part of

petitioner, indicating that a crime had Dust been committed, +as being committed or +as going to be committed. Caving thus sho+n the invalidity of the +arrantless arrest in this case, plainly, the search conducted on petitioner could not have been one incidental to a la+ful arrest. ;e no+ proceed to the Dustification for and allo+able scope of a 5stop-and-fris,5 as a 5limited protective search of outer clothing for +eapons,5 as laid do+n in 2erry, thus/ ;e merely hold today that +here a police officer observes unusual conduct +hich leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his e8perience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons +ith +hom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, +here in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and ma,es reasonable inBuiries, and +here nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his o+n or others< safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover +eapons +hich might be used to assault him. Such a search is a reasonable search under the 9ourth &mendment SSS 0ther notable points of Terry are that +hile probable cause is not reBuired to conduct a 5stop and fris,,5 it nevertheless holds that mere suspicion or a hunch +ill not validate a 5stop and fris,.5 & genuine reason must e8ist, in light of the police officer<s e8perience and surrounding conditions, to +arrant the belief that the person detained has +eapons concealed about him. 9inally, a 5stop-and-fris,5 serves a t+o-fold interest/ (%# the general interest of effective crime prevention and detection, +hich underlies the recognition that a police officer may, under appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner, approach a person for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior even +ithout probable cause? and ($# the more pressing interest of safety and self-preservation +hich permit the police officer to ta,e steps to assure himself that the person +ith +hom he deals is not armed +ith a deadly +eapon that could une8pectedly and fatally be used against the police officer. Cere, here are at least three (># reasons +hy the Pstop-and-fris,Q +as invalid/ 9irst, +e harbor grave doubts as to GuOs claim that petitioner +as a member of the group +hich attempted to bomb 6la.a Miranda t+o days earlier. This claim is neither supported by any police report or record nor corroborated by any other police officer +ho allegedly chased that group. &side from impairing Gu<s credibility as a +itness, this li,e+ise diminishes the probability that a genuine reason e8isted so as to arrest and search petitioner. "f only to further tarnish the credibility of Gu<s testimony, contrary to his claim that petitioner and his companions had to be chased before being apprehended, the affidavit of arrest (78h. 5&5# e8pressly declares other+ise, i.e., upon arrival of five (*# other police officers, petitioner and his companions +ere 5immediately collared.5 Second, there +as nothing in petitionerOs behavior or conduct +hich could have reasonably elicited even mere suspicion other than that his eyes +ere Pmoving very fastQ T an observation +hich leaves us incredulous since Gu and his teammates +ere no+here near petitioner and it +as already )/>4 p.m., thus presumably dus,. 6etitioner and his companions +ere merely standing at the corner and +ere not creating any commotion or trouble, as Gu e8plicitly declared on cross-e8amination/ R &nd +hat +ere they doingK & They +ere merely standing. R Gou are sure of thatK & Ges, sir. R &nd +hen you sa+ them standing, there +ere nothing or they did not create any commotionK & Aone, sir. R Aeither did you see them create commotionK & Aone, sir. Third, there +as at all no ground, probable or other+ise, to believe that petitioner +as armed +ith a deadly +eapon. Aone +as visible to Gu, for as he admitted, the alleged grenade +as PdiscoveredQ Pinside the front +aistlineQ of petitioner, and from all indications as to the distance bet+een Gu and petitioner, any telltale bulge,

assuming that petitioner +as indeed hiding a grenade, could not have been visible to Gu. "n fact, as noted by the trial court/ ;hen the policemen approached the accused and his companions, they +ere not yet a+are that a handgrenade +as tuc,ed inside his +aistline. They did not see any bulging obDect in HsicI his person. ;hat is uneBuivocal then in this case are blatant violations of petitionerOs rights solemnly guaranteed in Sections $ and %$(%# of &rticle """ of the Constitution. )HEREFORE, the challenged decision of the Seventeenth -ivision of the Court of &ppeals in C&-F.R. CR Ao. %*122 is S7T &S"-7 for lac, of Durisdiction on the part of said Court and, on ground of reasonable doubt, the decision of %4 9ebruary %11( of Branch * of the Regional Trial Court of Manila is R7'7RS7- and petitioner S&MMG M&!&C&T y M&A-&R is hereby &CRE"TT7- and 0R-7R7- immediately released from detention, unless his further detention is Dustified for any other la+ful cause. Costs de oficio. S0 0R-7R7-.

G.R. No. L!>$;6" F#=ruary >8, 1968 HON. RI(ARDO G. PAPA, a, (+*#4 o4 Po3*-# o4 Man*3a1 HON. J0AN PON(E ENRILE, a, (o@@*,,*on#r o4 (u,/o@,1 PEDRO PA(IS, a, (o33#-/or o4 (u,/o@, o4 /+# Por/ o4 Man*3a1 an' MARTIN ALAGAO, a, Pa/ro3@an o4 /+# Man*3a Po3*-# D#.ar/@#n/, petitioners, vs. REMEDIOS MAGO an' HILARION 0. JAREN(IO, a, Pr#,*'*n2 Ju'2# o4 Bran-+ >;, (our/ o4 F*r,/ In,/an-# o4 Man*3a, respondents. 6ALDI7AR, J.: This is an original action for prohibition and certiorari, +ith preliminary inDunction filed by Ricardo 6apa, Chief of 6olice of Manila? @uan once 7nrile, Commissioner of Customs? 6edro 6acis, Collector of Customs of the 6ort of Manila? and Martin &lagao, a patrolman of the Manila 6olice -epartment, against Remedios Mago and Con. Cilarion @arencio, 6residing @udge of Branch $> of the Court of 9irst "nstance of Manila, praying for the annulment of the order issued by respondent @udge in Civil Case Ao. )3(1) of the Court of 9irst "nstance of Manila under date of March 3, %1)3, +hich authori.ed the release under bond of certain goods +hich +ere sei.ed and held by petitioners in connection +ith the enforcement of the Tariff and Customs Code, but +hich +ere claimed by respondent Remedios Mago, and to prohibit respondent @udge from further proceeding in any manner +hatsoever in said Civil Case Ao. )3(1). 6ending the determination of this case this Court issued a +rit of preliminary inDunction restraining the respondent @udge from e8ecuting, enforcing and=or implementing the Buestioned order in Civil Case Ao. )3(1) and from proceeding +ith said case. 6etitioner Martin &lagao, head of the counter-intelligence unit of the Manila 6olice -epartment, acting upon a reliable information received on Aovember >, %1)) to the effect that a certain shipment of personal effects, allegedly misdeclared and undervalued, +ould be released the follo+ing day from the customs .one of the port of Manila and loaded on t+o truc,s, and upon orders of petitioner Ricardo 6apa, Chief of 6olice of Manila and a duly deputi.ed agent of the Bureau of Customs, conducted surveillance at gate Ao. % of the customs .one. ;hen the truc,s left gate Ao. % at about (/>4 in the afternoon of Aovember (, %1)), elements of the counter-intelligence unit +ent after the truc,s and intercepted them at the &grifina Circle, 7rmita, Manila. The load of the t+o truc,s consisting of nine bales of goods, and the t+o truc,s, +ere sei.ed on instructions of the Chief of 6olice. Epon investigation, a person claimed o+nership of the goods and sho+ed to the policemen a 5Statement and Receipts of -uties Collected in "nformal 7ntry Ao. %(3-**4%5, issued by the Bureau of Customs in the name of a certain Bienvenido Aaguit. Claiming to have been preDudiced by the sei.ure and detention of the t+o truc,s and their cargo, Remedios Mago and 'alentin B. !anopa filed +ith the Court of 9irst "nstance of Manila a petition 5for mandamus +ith restraining order or preliminary inDunction, doc,eted as Civil Case Ao. )3(1), alleging, among others, that Remedios Mago +as the o+ner of the goods sei.ed, having purchased them from the Sta. Monica Frocery in San 9ernando, 6ampanga? that she hired the truc,s o+ned by 'alentin !anopa to transport, the goods from said place to her residence at %)*3 !aon !aan St., Sampaloc, Manila? that the goods +ere sei.ed by members of the Manila 6olice -epartment +ithout search +arrant issued by a competent court? that anila Chief of 6olice Ricardo 6apa denied the reBuest of counsel for Remedios Mago that the bales be not opened and the goods contained therein be not e8amined? that then Customs Commissioner @acinto Favino had illegally assigned appraisers to e8amine the goods because the goods +ere no longer under the control and supervision of the Commissioner of Customs? that the goods, even assuming them to have been misdeclared and, undervalued, +ere not subDect to sei.ure under Section $*>% of the Tariff and Customs Code because Remedios Mago had bought them from another person +ithout ,no+ledge that they +ere imported illegally? that the bales had not yet been opened, although Chief of 6olice 6apa had arranged +ith the Commissioner of Customs regarding the disposition of the goods, and that unless restrained their constitutional rights +ould be violated and they +ould truly suffer irreparable inDury. Cence, Remedios Mago and 'alentin !anopa prayed for the issuance of a restraining order, ex parte, enDoining the above-named police and customs authorities, or

their agents, from opening the bales and e8amining the goods, and a +rit of mandamus for the return of the goods and the truc,s, as +ell as a Dudgment for actual, moral and e8emplary damages in their favor. 0n Aovember %4, %1)), respondent @udge Cilarion @arencio issued an order ex parte restraining the respondents in Civil Case Ao. )3(1) L no+ petitioners in the instant case before this Court L from opening the nine bales in Buestion, and at the same time set the hearing of the petition for preliminary inDunction on Aovember %), %1)). Co+ever, +hen the restraining order +as received by herein petitioners, some bales had already been opened by the e8aminers of the Bureau of Customs in the presence of officials of the Manila 6olice -epartment, an assistant city fiscal and a representative of herein respondent Remedios Mago. Ender date of Aovember %*, %1)), Remedios Mago filed an amended petition in Civil Case Ao. )3(1), including as party defendants Collector of Customs 6edro 6acis of the 6ort of Manila and !t. Martin &lagao of the Manila 6olice -epartment. Cerein petitioners (defendants belo+# filed, on Aovember $(, %1)), their 5&ns+er +ith 0pposition to the "ssuance of a ;rit of 6reliminary "nDunction5, denying the alleged illegality of the sei.ure and detention of the goods and the truc,s and of their other actuations, and alleging special and affirmative defenses, to +it/ that the Court of 9irst "nstance of Manila had no Durisdiction to try the case? that the case fell +ithin the e8clusive Durisdiction of the Court of Ta8 &ppeals? that, assuming that the court had Durisdiction over the case, the petition stated no cause of action in vie+ of the failure of Remedios Mago to e8haust the administrative remedies provided for in the Tariff and Customs Code? that the Bureau of Customs had not lost Durisdiction over the goods because the full duties and charges thereon had not been paid? that the members of the Manila 6olice -epartment had the po+er to ma,e the sei.ure? that the sei.ure +as not unreasonable? and the persons deputi.ed under Section $$4> (c# of the Tariff and Customs Code could effect search, sei.ures and arrests in inland places in connection +ith the enforcement of the said Code. "n opposing the issuance of the +rit of preliminary inDunction, herein petitioners averred in the court belo+ that the +rit could not be granted for the reason that Remedios Mago +as not entitled to the main reliefs she prayed for? that the release of the goods, +hich +ere subDect to sei.ure proceedings under the Tariff and Customs Code, +ould deprive the Bureau of Customs of the authority to forfeit them? and that Remedios Mago and 'alentin !anopa +ould not suffer irreparable inDury. Cerein petitioners prayed the court belo+ for the lifting of the restraining order, for the denial of the issuance of the +rit of preliminary inDunction, and for the dismissal of the case. &t the hearing on -ecember 1, %1)), the lo+er Court, +ith the conformity of the parties, ordered that an inventory of the goods be made by its cler, of court in the presence of the representatives of the claimant of the goods, the Bureau of Customs, and the &nti-Smuggling Center of the Manila 6olice -epartment. 0n -ecember %>, %1)), the above-named persons filed a 5Compliance5 itemi.ing the contents of the nine bales. Cerein respondent Remedios Mago, on -ecember $>, %1)), filed an ex parte motion to release the goods, alleging that since the inventory of the goods sei.ed did not sho+ any article of prohibited importation, the same should be released as per agreement of the patties upon her posting of the appropriate bond that may be determined by the court. Cerein petitioners filed their opposition to the motion, alleging that the court had no Durisdiction to order the release of the goods in vie+ of the fact that the court had no Durisdiction over the case, and that most of the goods, as sho+n in the inventory, +ere not declared and +ere, therefore, subDect to forfeiture. & supplemental opposition +as filed by herein petitioners on @anuary %1, %1)3, alleging that on @anuary %$, %1)3 sei.ure proceedings against the goods had been instituted by the Collector of Customs of the 6ort of Manila, and the determination of all Buestions affecting the disposal of property proceeded against in sei.ure and forfeiture proceedings should thereby be left to the Collector of Customs. 0n @anuary >4, %1)3, herein petitioners filed a manifestation that the estimated duties, ta8es and other charges due on the goods amounted to 61*,33$.44. 0n 9ebruary $, %1)3, herein respondent Remedios Mago filed an urgent manifestation and reiteration of the motion for the release under bond of the goods. 0n March 3, %1)3, the respondent @udge issued an order releasing the goods to herein respondent Remedios Mago upon her filing of a bond in the amount of 6(4,444.44, and on March %>, %1)3, said respondent filed the corresponding bond.

0n March %>, %1)3, herein petitioner Ricardo 6apa, on his o+n behalf, filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of the court releasing the goods under bond, upon the ground that the Manila 6olice -epartment had been directed by the Collector of Customs of the 6ort of Manila to hold the goods pending termination of the sei.ure proceedings. ;ithout +aiting for the court<s action on the motion for reconsideration, and alleging that they had no plain, speedy and adeBuate remedy in the ordinary course of la+, herein petitioners filed the present action for prohibition and certiorari +ith preliminary inDunction before this Court. "n their petition petitioners alleged, among others, that the respondent @udge acted +ithout Durisdiction in ordering the release to respondent Remedios Mago of the disputed goods, for the follo+ing reasons/ (%# the Court of 9irst "nstance of Manila, presided by respondent @udge, had no Durisdiction over the case? ($# respondent Remedios Mago had no cause of action in Civil Case Ao. )3(1) of the Court of 9irst "nstance of Manila due to her failure to e8haust all administrative remedies before invo,ing Dudicial intervention? (># the Fovernment +as not estopped by the negligent and=or illegal acts of its agent in not collecting the correct ta8es? and ((# the bond fi8ed by respondent @udge for the release of the goods +as grossly insufficient. "n due time, the respondents filed their ans+er to the petition for prohibition and certiorari in this case. "n their ans+er, respondents alleged, among others/ (%# that it +as +ithin the Durisdiction of the lo+er court presided by respondent @udge to hear and decide Civil Case Ao. )3(1) and to issue the Buestioned order of March 3, %1)3, because said Civil Case Ao. )3(1) +as instituted long before sei.ure, and identification proceedings against the nine bales of goods in Buestion +ere instituted by the Collector of Customs? ($# that petitioners could no longer go after the goods in Buestion after the corresponding duties and ta8es had been paid and said goods had left the customs premises and +ere no longer +ithin the control of the Bureau of Customs? (># that respondent Remedios Mago +as purchaser in good faith of the goods in Buestion so that those goods can not be the subDect of sei.ure and forfeiture proceedings? ((# that the sei.ure of the goods +as affected by members of the Manila 6olice -epartment at a place outside control of Durisdiction of the Bureau of Customs and affected +ithout any search +arrant or a +arrant of sei.ure and detention? (*# that the +arrant of sei.ure and detention subseBuently issued by the Collector of Customs is illegal and unconstitutional, it not being issued by a Dudge? ()# that the sei.ing officers have no authority to sei.e the goods in Buestion because they are not articles of prohibited importation? (3# that petitioners are estopped to institute the present action because they had agreed before the respondent @udge that they +ould not interpose any obDection to the release of the goods under bond to ans+er for +hatever duties and ta8es the said goods may still be liable? and (2# that the bond for the release of the goods +as sufficient. The principal issue in the instant case is +hether or not, the respondent @udge had acted +ith Durisdiction in issuing the order of March 3, %1)3 releasing the goods in Buestion. The Bureau of Customs has the duties, po+ers and Durisdiction, among others, (%# to assess and collect all la+ful revenues from imported articles, and all other dues, fees, charges, fines and penalties, accruing under the tariff and customs la+s? ($# to prevent and suppress smuggling and other frauds upon the customs? and (># to enforce tariff and customs la+s. % The goods in Buestion +ere imported from Cong,ong, as sho+n in the 5Statement and Receipts of -uties Collected on "nformal 7ntry5. $ &s long as the importation has not been terminated the imported goods remain under the Durisdiction of the Bureau of customs. "mportation is deemed terminated only upon the payment of the duties, ta8es and other charges upon the articles, or secured to be paid, at the port of entry and the legal permit for +ithdra+al shall have been granted. > The payment of the duties, ta8es, fees and other charges must be in full. ( The record sho+s, by comparing the articles and duties stated in the aforesaid 5Statement and Receipts of -uties Collected on "nformal 7ntry5 +ith the manifestation of the 0ffice of the Solicitor Feneral * +herein it is stated that the estimated duties, ta8es and other charges on the goods subDect of this case amounted to 61*,33$.44 as evidenced by the report of the appraiser of the Bureau of Customs, that the duties, ta8es and other charges had not been paid in full. 9urthermore, a comparison of the goods on +hich duties had been assessed, as sho+n in the 5Statement and Receipts of -uties Collected on "nformal 7ntry5 and the 5compliance5 itemi.ing the articles found in the bales upon e8amination and inventory, ) sho+s that the Buantity

of the goods +as underdeclared, presumably to avoid the payment of duties thereon. 9or e8ample, &nne8 B (the statement and receipts of duties collected# states that there +ere (4 pieces of ladies< s+eaters, +hereas &nne8 C (the inventory contained in the 5compliance5# states that in bale Ao. % alone there +ere ($ do.ens and % piece of ladies< s+eaters of assorted colors? in &nne8 B, only %44 pieces of +atch bands +ere assessed, but in &nne8 C, there +ere in bale Ao. $, $41 do.ens and * pieces of men<s metal +atch bands (+hite# and %$4 do.ens of men<s metal +atch band (gold color#, and in bale Ao. 3, >$4 do.ens of men<s metal +atch bands (gold color#? in &nne8 B, $4 do.ens only of men<s hand,erchief +ere declared, but in &nne8 C it appears that there +ere $$( do.ens of said goods in bale Ao. $, %$4 do.ens in bale Ao. ), >24 do.ens in bale Ao. 3, $$4 do.ens in bale Ao. 2, and another $44 do.ens in bale Ao. 1. The articles contained in the nine bales in Buestion, +ere, therefore, subDect to forfeiture under Section $*>4, pars. e and m, (%#, (>#, ((#, and (*# of the Tariff and Customs Code. &nd this Court has held that merchandise, the importation of +hich is effected contrary to la+, is subDect to forfeiture, 3 and that goods released contrary to la+ are subDect to sei.ure and forfeiture. 2 7ven if it be granted, arguendo, that after the goods in Buestion had been brought out of the customs area the Bureau of Customs had lost Durisdiction over the same, nevertheless, +hen said goods +ere intercepted at the &grifina Circle on Aovember (, %1)) by members of the Manila 6olice -epartment, acting under directions and orders of their Chief, Ricardo C. 6apa, +ho had been formally deputi.ed by the Commissioner of Customs, 1 the Bureau of Customs had regained Durisdiction and custody of the goods. Section %$4) of the Tariff and Customs Code imposes upon the Collector of Customs the duty to hold possession of all imported articles upon +hich duties, ta8es, and other charges have not been paid or secured to be paid, and to dispose of the same according to la+. The goods in Buestion, therefore, +ere under the custody and at the disposal of the Bureau of Customs at the time the petition for mandamus, doc,eted as Civil Case Ao. )3(1), +as filed in the Court of 9irst "nstance of Manila on Aovember 1, %1)). The Court of 9irst "nstance of Manila, therefore, could not e8ercise Durisdiction over said goods even if the +arrant of sei.ure and detention of the goods for the purposes of the sei.ure and forfeiture proceedings had not yet been issued by the Collector of Customs. The ruling in the case of 5Alberto de Joya, et al4 #4 on4 3regorio >antin, et al.,5 F.R. Ao. !-$(4>3, decided by this Court on &pril $3, %1)3, is sBuarely applicable to the instant case. "n the .e Joya case, it appears that 9rancindy Commercial of Manila bought from 7rnerose Commercial of Cebu City 14 bales of assorted te8tiles and rags, valued at 6%%3,3>%.44, +hich had been imported and entered thru the port of Cebu. 7rnerose Commercial shipped the goods to Manila on board an inter-island vessel. ;hen the goods +here about to leave the customs premises in Manila, on 0ctober ), %1)(, the customs authorities held them for further verification, and upon e8amination the goods +ere found to be different from the declaration in the cargo manifest of the carrying vessel. 9rancindy Commercial subseBuently demanded from the customs authorities the release of the goods, asserting that it is a purchaser in good faith of those goods? that a local purchaser +as involved so the Bureau of Customs had no right to e8amine the goods? and that the goods came from a coast+ise port. 0n 0ctober $), %1)(, 9rancindy Commercial filed in the Court of 9irst "nstance of Manila a petition for mandamus against the Commissioner of Customs and the Collector of Customs of the port of Manila to compel said customs authorities to release the goods. 9rancindy Commercial alleged in its petition for mandamus that the Bureau of Customs had no Durisdiction over the goods because the same +ere not imported to the port of Manila? that it +as not liable for duties and ta8es because the transaction +as not an original importation? that the goods +ere not in the hands of the importer nor subDect to importer<s control, nor +ere the goods imported contrary to la+ +ith its (9rancindy Commercial<s# ,no+ledge? and that the importation had been terminated. 0n Aovember %$, %1)(, the Collector of Customs of Manila issued a +arrant of sei.ure and identification against the goods. 0n -ecember >, %1)(, the Commissioner of Customs and the Collector of Customs, as respondents in the mandamus case, filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds of lac, of Durisdiction, lac, of cause of action, and in vie+ of the pending sei.ure and forfeiture proceedings. The Court of 9irst "nstance held resolution on the motion to dismiss in abeyance pending decision on the merits. 0n -ecember %(, %1)(, the Court of 9irst "nstance of

Manila issued a preventive and mandatory inDunction, on prayer by 9rancindy Commercial, upon a bond of 6$4,444.44. The Commissioner of Customs and the Collector of Customs sought the lifting of the preliminary and mandatory inDunction, and the resolution of their motion to dismiss. The Court of 9irst "nstance of Manila, ho+ever, on @anuary %$, %1)*, ordered them to comply +ith the preliminary and mandatory inDunction, upon the filing by 9rancindy Commercial of an additional bond of 6*4,444.44. Said customs authorities thereupon filed +ith this Court, on @anuary %(, %1)*, a petition for certiorari and prohibition +ith preliminary inDunction. "n resolving the Buestion raised in that case, this Court held/ This petition raises t+o related issues/ first, has the Customs bureau Durisdiction to sei.e the goods and institute forfeiture proceedings against themK and ($# has the Court of 9irst "nstance Durisdiction to entertain the petition for mandamus to compel the Customs authorities to release the goodsK 9rancindy Commercial contends that since the petition in the Court of first "nstance +as filed (on 0ctober $), %1)(# ahead of the issuance of the Customs +arrant of sei.ure and forfeiture (on Aovember %$, %1)(#,the Customs bureau should yield the Durisdiction of the said court. The record sho+s, ho+ever, that the goods in Buestion were actually sei"ed on $ctober D, 5EDK, i4e., before 9rancindy Commercial sued in court. The purpose of the sei.ure by the Customs bureau +as to verify +hether or not Custom duties and ta8es +ere paid for their importation. Cence, on -ecember $>, %1)(, Customs released $$ bales thereof, for the same +ere found to have been released regularly from the Cebu 6ort (6etition &nne8 5!5#. &s to goods imported illegally or released irregularly from Customs custody, these are subDect to sei.ure under Section $*>4 m. of the Tariff and Customs Code (R& %1*3#. The Bureau of Customs has Durisdiction and po+er, among others to collect revenues from imported articles, fines and penalties and suppress smuggling and other frauds on customs? and to enforce tariff and customs la+s (Sec. )4$, Republic &ct %1*3#. The goods in Buestion are imported articles entered at the 6ort of Cebu. Should they be found to have been released irregularly from Customs custody in Cebu City, they are subDect to sei.ure and forfeiture, the proceedings for +hich comes +ithin the Durisdiction of the Bureau of Customs pursuant to Republic &ct %1>3. Said proceeding should be follo+ed? the o+ner of the goods may set up defenses therein (6acis v. &veria, !-$$*$), Aov. $4, %1)).# 9rom the decision of the Commissioner of Customs appeal lies to the Court of Ta8 &ppeals, as provided in Sec. $(4$ of Republic &ct %1>3 and Sec. %% of Republic &ct, %%$*. To permit recourse to the Court of 9irst "nstance in cases of sei.ure of imported goods +ould in effect render ineffective the po+er of the Customs authorities under the Tariff and Customs Code and deprive the Court of Ta8 &ppeals of one of its e8clusive appellate Durisdictions. &s this Court has ruled in 6acis v. &veria, supra, Republic &cts %1>3 and %%$* vest Durisdiction over sei.ure and forfeiture proceedings e8clusively upon the Bureau of Customs and the Court of Ta8 &ppeals. Such la+ being special in nature, +hile the @udiciary &ct defining the Durisdiction of Courts of 9irst "nstance is a general legislation, not to mention that the former are later enactments, the Court of 9irst "nstance should yield to the Durisdiction of the Customs authorities. "t is the settled rule, therefore, that the Bureau of Customs acBuires e8clusive Durisdiction over imported goods, for the purposes of enforcement of the customs la+s, from the moment the goods are actually in its possession or control, even if no +arrant of sei.ure or detention had previously been issued by the Collector of Customs in connection +ith sei.ure and forfeiture proceedings. "n the present case, the Bureau of Customs actually sei.ed the goods in Buestion on Aovember (, %1)), and so from that date the Bureau of Customs acBuired Durisdiction over the goods for the purposes of the enforcement of the tariff and customs la+s, to the e8clusion of the regular courts. Much less then +ould the Court of 9irst "nstance of Manila have Durisdiction over the goods in Buestion after the Collector of Customs had issued the +arrant of sei.ure and detention on @anuary %$, %1)3. %4 &nd so, it cannot be said, as respondents contend, that the issuance of said +arrant +as only an attempt to divest the respondent @udge of Durisdiction over the subDect matter of the case. The court

presided by respondent @udge did not acBuire Durisdiction over the goods in Buestion +hen the petition for mandamus +as filed before it, and so there +as no need of divesting it of Durisdiction. Aot having acBuired Durisdiction over the goods, it follo+s that the Court of 9irst "nstance of Manila had no Durisdiction to issue the Buestioned order of March 3, %1)3 releasing said goods. Respondents also aver that petitioner Martin &lagao, an officer of the Manila 6olice -epartment, could not sei.e the goods in Buestion +ithout a search +arrant. This contention cannot be sustained. The Chief of the Manila 6olice -epartment, Ricardo F. 6apa, having been deputi.ed in +riting by the Commissioner of Customs, could, for the purposes of the enforcement of the customs and tariff la+s, effect searches, sei.ures, and arrests, %% and it +as his duty to ma,e sei.ure, among others, of any cargo, articles or other movable property +hen the same may be subDect to forfeiture or liable for any fine imposed under customs and tariff la+s. %$ Ce could la+fully open and e8amine any bo8, trun,, envelope or other container +herever found +hen he had reasonable cause to suspect the presence therein of dutiable articles introduced into the 6hilippines contrary to la+? and li,e+ise to stop, search and e8amine any vehicle, beast or person reasonably suspected of holding or conveying such article as aforesaid. %> "t cannot be doubted, therefore, that petitioner Ricardo F. 6apa, Chief of 6olice of Manila, could la+fully effect the search and sei.ure of the goods in Buestion. The Tariff and Customs Code authori.es him to demand assistance of any police officer to effect said search and sei.ure, and the latter has the legal duty to render said assistance. %( This +as +hat happened precisely in the case of !t. Martin &lagao +ho, +ith his unit, made the search and sei.ure of the t+o truc,s loaded +ith the nine bales of goods in Buestion at the &grifina Circle. Ce +as given authority by the Chief of 6olice to ma,e the interception of the cargo. %* 6etitioner Martin &lagao and his companion policemen had authority to effect the sei.ure +ithout any search +arrant issued by a competent court. The Tariff and Customs Code does not reBuire said +arrant in the instant case. The Code authori.es persons having police authority under Section $$4> of the Tariff and Customs Code to enter, pass through or search any land, inclosure, +arehouse, store or building, not being a d+elling house? and also to inspect, search and e8amine any vessel or aircraft and any trun,, pac,age, or envelope or any person on board, or to stop and search and e8amine any vehicle, beast or person suspected of holding or conveying any dutiable or prohibited article introduced into the 6hilippines contrary to la+, +ithout mentioning the need of a search +arrant in said cases. %) But in the search of a d+elling house, the Code provides that said 5d+elling house may be entered and searched only upon warrant issued by a Dudge or Dustice of the peace. . . .5 %3 "t is our considered vie+, therefor, that e8cept in the case of the search of a d+elling house, persons e8ercising police authority under the customs la+ may effect search and sei.ure +ithout a search +arrant in the enforcement of customs la+s. 0ur conclusion finds support in the case of Carroll v. Enited States, >1 &.!.R., 314, 311, +herein the court, considering a legal provision similar to Section $$%% of the 6hilippine Tariff and Customs Code, said as follo+s/ Thus contemporaneously +ith the adoption of the (th &mendment, +e find in the first Congress, and in the follo+ing second and fourth Congresses, a difference made as to the necessity for a search +arrant bet+een goods subDect to forfeiture, +hen concealed in a d+elling house of similar place, and li,e goods in course of transportation and concealed in a movable vessel, +here readily they could be put out of reach of a search +arrant. . . . &gain, by the $d section of the &ct of March >, %2%* (> Stat. at !.$>%, $>$, chap. 1(#, it +as made la+ful for customs officers not only to board and search vessels +ithin their o+n and adDoining districts, but also to stop, search and e8amine any vehicle, beast or person on +hich or +hom they should suspect there +as merchandise +hich +as subDect to duty, or had been introduced into the Enited States in any manner contrary to la+, +hether by the person in charge of the vehicle or beast or other+ise, and if they should find any goods, +ares, or merchandise thereon, +hich they had probably cause to believe had been so unla+fully brought into the country, to sei.e and secure the same, and the vehicle or beast as +ell, for trial and forfeiture. This &ct +as rene+ed &pril $3, %2%) (> Sta. at !. >%*, chap. %44#, for a year and e8pired. The &ct of 9ebruary $2, %2)*, revived W $ of the &ct of %2%*,

above described, chap. )3, %> Stat. at !. ((%. The substance of this section +as re-enacted in the >d section of the &ct of @uly %2, %2)), chap. $4%, %( Stat. at !. %32, and +as thereafter embodied in the Revised Statutes as W >4)%, Comp. Stat. W *3)>, $ 9ed. Stat. &nno. $d ed. p. %%)%. Aeither W >4)% nor any of its earlier counterparts has ever been attac,ed as unconstitutional. "ndeed, that section +as referred to and treated as operative by this court in 'on Cot.hausen v. Aa.ro, %43 E.S. $%*, $%1, $3 !. ed. *(4, *(%, $ Sup. Ct. Rep. *4>. . . . "n the instant case, +e note that petitioner Martin &lagao and his companion policemen did not have to ma,e any search before they sei.ed the t+o truc,s and their cargo. "n their original petition, and amended petition, in the court belo+ Remedios Mago and 'alentin !anopa did not even allege that there +as a search. %2 &ll that they complained of +as, That +hile the truc,s +ere on their +ay, they +ere intercepted +ithout any search +arrant near the &grifina Circle and ta,en to the Manila 6olice -epartment, +here they +ere detained. But even if there +as a search, there is still authority to the effect that no search +arrant +ould be needed under the circumstances obtaining in the instant case. Thus, it has been held that/ The guaranty of freedom from unreasonable searches and sei.ures is construed as recogni.ing a necessary difference bet+een a search of a d+elling house or other structure in respect of +hich a search +arrant may readily be obtained and a search of a ship, motorboat, +agon, or automobile for contraband goods, +here it is not practicable to secure a +arrant because the vehicle can be Buic,ly moved out of the locality or Durisdiction in +hich the +arrant must be sought. ((3 &m. @ur., pp. *%>-*%(, citing Carroll v. Enited States, $)3 E.S. %>$, )1 !. ed., *(>, (* S. Ct., $24, >1 &.!.R., 314? 6eople v. Case, >$4 Mich., >31, %14 A.;., >21, $3 &.!.R., )2).# "n the case of /eople #4 -ase (>$4 Mich., >31, %14 A.;., >21, $3 &.!.R., )2)#, the Buestion raised by defendant<s counsel +as +hether an automobile truc, or an automobile could be searched +ithout search +arrant or other process and the goods therein sei.ed used after+ards as evidence in a trial for violation of the prohibition la+s of the State. Same counsel contended the negative, urging the constitutional provision forbidding unreasonable searches and sei.ures. The Court said/ . . . Aeither our state nor the 9ederal Constitution directly prohibits search and sei.ure +ithout a +arrant, as is sometimes asserted. 0nly 5unreasonable5 search and sei.ure is forbidden. . . . . . . The Buestion +hether a sei.ure or a search is unreasonable in the language of the Constitution is a Dudicial and not a legislative Buestion? but in determining +hether a sei.ure is or is not unreasonable, all of the circumstances under +hich it is made must be loo,ed to. The automobile is a s+ift and po+erful vehicle of recent development, +hich has multiplied by Buantity production and ta,en possession of our high+ays in battalions until the slo+er, animal-dra+n vehicles, +ith their easily noted individuality, are rare. Constructed as covered vehicles to standard form in immense Buantities, and +ith a capacity for speed rivaling e8press trains, they furnish for successful commission of crime a disguising means of silent approach and s+ift escape un,no+n in the history of the +orld before their advent. The Buestion of their police control and reasonable search on high+ays or other public places is a serious Buestion far deeper and broader than their use in so-called 5bootleging5 or 5rum running,5 +hich is itself is no small matter. ;hile a possession in the sense of private o+nership, they are but a vehicle constructed for travel and transportation on high+ays. Their active use is not in homes or on private premises, the privacy of +hich the la+ especially guards from search and sei.ure +ithout process. The baffling e8tent to +hich they are successfully utili.ed to facilitate commission of crime of all degrees, from those against morality, chastity, and decency, to robbery, rape, burglary, and murder, is a matter of common ,no+ledge. Epon that problem a condition, and not a theory, confronts proper administration of our criminal la+s. ;hether search of and sei.ure from an automobile upon a high+ay or other public place +ithout a search +arrant is unreasonable is in its final analysis to be determined as a Dudicial Buestion in vie+ of all the circumstances under +hich it is made.

Caving declared that the sei.ure by the members of the Manila 6olice -epartment of the goods in Buestion +as in accordance +ith la+ and by that sei.ure the Bureau of Customs had acBuired Durisdiction over the goods for the purpose of the enforcement of the customs and tariff la+s, to the e8clusion of the Court of 9irst "nstance of Manila, ;e have thus resolved the principal and decisive issue in the present case. ;e do not consider it necessary, for the purposes of this decision, to discuss the incidental issues raised by the parties in their pleadings. ;C7R790R7, Dudgment is hereby rendered, as follo+s/ (a# Franting the +rit of certiorari and prohibition prayed for by petitioners? (b# -eclaring null and void, for having been issued +ithout Durisdiction, the order of respondent @udge Cilarion E. @arencio, dated March 3, %1)3, in Civil Code Ao. )3(1) of the Court of 9irst "nstance of Manila? (c# -eclaring permanent the preliminary inDunction issued by this Court on March >%, %1)3 restraining respondent @udge from e8ecuting, enforcing and=or implementing his order of March 3, %1)3 in Civil Case Ao. )3(1) of the Court of 9irst "nstance of Manila, and from proceeding in any manner in said case? (d# 0rdering the dismissal of Civil Case Ao. )3(1) of the Court of 9irst "nstance of Manila? and56wph75489t (e# 0rdering the private respondent, Remedios Mago, to pay the costs. "t is so ordered.

G.R. No. 1<51$6 Mar-+ ;", >""< PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. SANTIAGO PERALTA y POLIDARIO Fa/ 3ar2#G, ARMANDO DAT0IN JR. y GRANADOS Fa/ 3ar2#G, 0L%SSES GAR(IA y T0PAS, MIG0ELITO DE LEON y L0(IANO, LIBRANDO FLORES y (R06 an' ANTONIO LO%OLA y SALISI, accused, 0L%SSES GAR(IA y T0PAS, MIG0ELITO DE LEON y L0(IANO, LIBRANDO FLORES y (R06 an' ANTONIO LO%OLA y SALISI, appellants. -7C"S"0A PANGANIBAN, J.: The right of the accused to counsel demands effective, vigilant and independent representation. The la+yerOs role cannot be reduced to being that of a mere +itness to the signing of an e8tra-Dudicial confession. The Case Before the Court is an appeal from the &ugust $%, $444 -ecision% of the Regional Trial Court (RTC# of Manila (Branch %2# in Criminal Case Ao. 1$-%%$>$$. &ppellants Elysses Farcia y Tupas, Miguelito de !eon y !uciano, !ibrando 9lores y Cru. and &ntonio !oyola y Salisi, as +ell as their co-accused -- Santiago 6eralta y 6olidario and &rmando -atuin @r. y Franados -- +ere convicted therein of Bualified theft. The dispositive portion of the -ecision reads/ 5;C7R790R7, the accused, Santiago 6eralta y 6olidario, &rmando -atuin, @r. y Franados, Elysses Farcia y Tupas, Miguelito -e !eon y !uciano, !ibrando 9lores y Cru. and &ntonio !oyola y Salisi, are hereby convicted of the crime of Bualified theft of 6%1(,%14.44 and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua +ith all the accessory penalties provided by la+, and to pay the costs. Moreover, all the accused are ordered to pay the Central Ban, of the 6hilippines, no+ Bang,o Sentral ng 6ilipinas, actual damages in the sum of 6%1(,%14.44 +ith interest thereon at the legal rate from the date of the filing of this action, Aovember 1, %11$, until fully paid.5$ "n an "nformation dated Aovember 1, %11$,> appellants and their co-accused +ere charged as follo+s/ 5That sometime in the year %114 and including Aovember (, %11$, in the City of Manila, 6hilippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating +ith others +hose true names, identities and present +hereabouts are still un,no+n and helping one another, did then and there +ilfully, unla+fully and feloniously, +ith intent to gain and +ithout the ,no+ledge and consent of the o+ner thereof, ta,e, steal and carry a+ay punctured currency notes due for shredding in the total amount of 6%1(,%14.44, belonging to the Central Ban, of the 6hilippines as represented by 6edro !abita y Cabriga, to the damage and preDudice of the latter in the aforesaid sum of 6%1(,%14.44 6hilippine currency? 5That said accused Santiago 6eralta y 6olidario, &rmando -atuin, @r. y Franados, Elysses Farcia y Tupas, Miguelito de !eon y !uciano and &ntonio !oyola y Salisi committed said offense +ith grave abuse of confidence they being at the time employed as Currency Revie+ers, -river, Currency &ssistant " and Money Counter of the offended party and as such they had free access to the property stolen.5( Farcia +as arrested on Aovember (, %11$? and his co-accused, on Aovember 1, %11$. &ppellants, ho+ever, obtained t+o Release 0rders from RTC 'ice 78ecutive @udge Corona "bay-Somera on Aovember 1 and %4, %11$, upon their filing of a cash bond to secure their appearance +henever reBuired by the trial court.* -uring their arraignment on May (, %11>, appellants, assisted by their respective counsels, pleaded not guilty.) 0n September >4, %112, the trial court declared that -atuin @r. and 6eralta +ere at large, because they had failed to appear in court despite notice.3 &fter trial in due course, they +ere all found guilty and convicted of Bualified theft in the appealed -ecision. The 9acts 'ersion of the 6rosecution The 0ffice of the Solicitor Feneral (0SF# presents the prosecutionOs version of the facts as follo+s/ 5&bout %4/44 oOcloc, in the morning of Aovember (, %11$, 6edro !abita of Central Ban, of the 6hilippines (CB6# Hno+ Bang,o Sentral ng 6ilipinas (BS6#I +ent to the Theft and Robbery Section of

;estern 6olice -istrict Command (;6-C#, and filed a complaint for Rualified Theft against Santiago 6eralta, &rmando -atuin, @r., Elysses Farcia, Miguelito de !eon, !ibrando 9lores and &ntonio S. !oyola. 56edro !abita submitted to S60( Cielito Coronel, the investigating officer at ;6-C, punctured currency notes in 6%44.44 and 6*44.44 bills +ith a face value of 6hp%1(,%14.44. Said notes +ere allegedly recovered by the BS6 Cash -epartment during its cash counting of punctured currency bills submitted by different ban,s to the latter. The punctured bills +ere reDected by the BS6 money counter machine and +ere later submitted to the investigation staff of the BS6 Cash -epartment. &s a result of the investigation, it +as determined that said reDected currency bills +ere actually punctured notes already due for shredding. These currency bills +ere punctured because they +ere no longer intended for circulation. Before these notes could be shredded, they +ere stolen from the BS6 by the abovenamed accused. 50n the basis of the complaint filed by 6edro !abita, Elysses Farcia +as apprehended in front of Folden Fate Subdivision, !as 6iNas City, +hile he +as +aiting for a passenger bus on his +ay to the BS6. Farcia +as brought to the police station for investigation. 50n Aovember (, * and ), %11$, +hile in the custody of the police officers, Farcia gave three separate statements admitting his guilt and participation in the crime charged. Ce also identified the other named accused as his cohorts and accomplices and narrated the participation of each and everyone of them. 50n the basis of FarciaOs s+orn statements, the other named accused +ere invited for Buestioning at the police station and +ere subseBuently charged +ith Bualified theft together +ith Farcia.52 (Citations omitted# 'ersion of the -efense The defense states its version of the facts in the follo+ing manner/ 5&ccused-appellant Farcia served as a driver of the armored car of the Central Ban, from %132 to %11(. 50n Aovember (, %11$, bet+een 3/44 a.m. and 2/44 a.m., a man +ho had identified himself as a police officer arrested accused-appellant Farcia +hile +aiting for a passenger bus in front of the Folden Fate Subdivision, !as 6iNas City. Ce +as arrested +ithout any +arrant for his arrest. The police officer +ho had arrested accused-appellant Farcia dragged the latter across the street and forced him to ride 8 8 8 a car. 5;hile inside the car, he +as blindfolded, his hands +ere handcuffed behind his bac,, and he +as made to bend +ith his chest touching his ,nees. Somebody from behind hit him and he heard some of the occupants of the car say that he +ould be salvaged if he +ould not tell the truth. ;hen the occupants of the car mentioned perforated notes, he told them that he does not ,no+ anything about those notes. 5&fter the car had stopped, he +as dragged out of the car and 8 8 8 up and do+n 8 8 8 the stairs. ;hile being dragged out of the car, he felt somebody fris, his poc,et. 5&t a safe house, somebody mentioned to him the names of his co-accused and he told them that he does not ,no+ his co-accused 8 8 8. ;henever he +ould deny ,no+ing his co-accused, somebody +ould bo8 him on his chest. Somebody poured +ater on accused-appellant FarciaOs nose +hile lying on the bench. Ce +as able to spit out the +ater that had been poured on his nose Hat firstI, but somebody covered his mouth. &s a result, he could not breathHeI. 5;hen accused-appellant Farcia reali.ed that he could not bear the torture anymore, he decided to cooperate +ith the police, and they stopped the +ater pouring and allo+ed him to sit do+n. 5&ccused-appellant Farcia heard people tal,ing and he heard somebody utter, Xmay na,i,inig.X Suddenly his t+o ears +ere hit +ith open palmHsI 8 8 8. &s he +as being brought do+n, he felt somebody return his personal belongings to his poc,et. &ccused-appellant FarciaOs personal belongings consisted of HhisI driverOs license, important papers and coin purse.

5Ce +as forced to ride 8 8 8 the car still +ith blindfold. Cis blindfold and handcuffs +ere removed +hen he +as at the office of police officer -ante -imagmali+ at the ;estern 6olice -istrict, E.A. &venue, Manila. 5S60( Cielito Coronel as,ed accused-appellant Farcia about the latterOs name, age and address. The arrival of Mr. 6edro !abita of the Cash -epartment, Central Ban, of the 6hilippines, interrupted the intervie+, and Mr. !abita instructed S60( Coronel to get accused-appellant FarciaOs +allet and e8amine the contents thereof. S60( Coronel supposedly found three pieces of 6%44 perforated bill in accused-appellant FarciaOs +allet and the former insisted that they recovered the said perforated notes from accused-appellantOs +allet. S60( Coronel too, do+n the statement of Mr. !abita. 5"t +as actually Mr. !abita, and not accused-appellant Farcia, +ho gave the ans+ers appearing in accused-appellant FarciaOs alleged three s+orn statements dated Aovember (, %11$, Aovember *, %11$ and 8 8 8 Aovember ), %11$. 5&t or about )/44 p.m. on Aovember *, %11$, accused-appellant Farcia +as brought to the cell of the Theft and Robbery Section of the ;6-. &t or about 2/44 p.m., he +as brought to the office of Col. &lladin -imagmali+ +here his co-accused +ere also inside. Ce did not identify his co-accused, but he merely placed his hands on the shoulders of each of his co-accused, upon being reBuested, and Mr. !abita too, 8 8 8 pictures +hile he +as doing the said act. 5&ccused-appellant Farcia came to ,no+ &tty. 9rancisco Sanche. of the 6ublic &ttorneyOs 0ffice on Aovember (, %11$, at the office of police officer -ante -imagmali+, +hen S60( Coronel introduced &tty. Sanche. to accused-appellant Farcia and told him that &tty. Sanche. +ould be his la+yer. Co+ever, accused-appellant Farcia did not agree to have &tty. Sanche. to be his la+yer. &tty. Sanche. left after tal,ing to S60( Coronel, and accused-appellant Farcia had not met &tty. Sanche. anymore since then. Ce +as not present +hen &tty. Sanche. allegedly signed 8 8 8 the alleged three (># s+orn statements. 5-uring the hearing of the case on &pril ), $444, &tty. Sanche. manifested in open court that he did not assist accused-appellant Farcia +hen the police investigated accused-appellant Farcia, and that he signed 8 8 8 the three (># s+orn statements only as a +itness thereto. 5&ccused-appellant Farcia signed the alleged three s+orn statements due to S60( CoronelOs +arning that if he +ould not do so, he +ould again be tortured by +ater cure. 5S60H(I Coronel caused the arrest +ithout any +arrant of accused appellants -e !eon, !oyola, H9loresI on the basis of the complaint of Mr. 6edro !abita, and +hich arrest +as effected on Aovember *, %11$, by S60% &lfredo Silva and S60% Redelico. 5S60( Coronel, in his letter dated Aovember ), %11$, for+arded the case to the -uty "nBuest 6rosecutor assigned at the ;6-C CeadBuarters.51 (Citations omitted# Ruling of the Trial Court The trial court found that all the accused used to +or, for the BS6. Farcia +as a driver assigned to the Security and Transport -epartment? +hile 6eralta, -atuin @r., -e !eon, 9lores and !oyola +ere laborers assigned to the Currency Retirement -ivision. Their main tas, +as to haul perforated currency notes from the currency retirement vault to the basement of the BS6 building for shredding. 0n several occasions, during the period %114-%11$, they handed to Farcia perforated currency notes placed in a coin sac, that he, in turn, loaded in an armored escort van and delivered to someone +aiting outside the premises of the building. The trial court held that the coordinated acts of all the accused unerringly led to the conclusion that they had conspired to pilfer the perforated currency notes belonging to the BS6. The RTC reDected the disclaimer by Farcia of his o+n confessions, as such disclaimer +as 5an eleventh hour concoction to e8culpate himself and his co-accused.5 The trial court found his allegations of torture and coerced confessions unsupported by evidence. Moreover, it held that the recovery of three pieces of perforated 6%44 bills from FarciaOs +allet and the flight of 6eralta and -atuin @r. +ere indicative of the guilt of the accused. Cence, this appeal.%4

"ssues "n his Brief, Farcia raises the follo+ing issues/ 5% The trial court erred in admitting in evidence the alleged three S+orn Statements of &ccused-appellant Farcia and the alleged three pieces of 6%44 perforated notes 5$ The trial court erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty of Bualified theft.5%% "n their Doint Brief, -e !eon, !oyola and 9lores interpose this additional assignment of errors/ 5% The trial court erred in admitting in evidence the alleged three s+orn statements of &ccused Elysses Farcia (78hibits X"O, X@O and XMO# and the alleged three pieces of 6%44 perforated notes (78hibits XAO to XA-$O# over the obDections of the accused-appellants. 5$ The trial court erred in denying the demurrer to evidence of &ccused-appellants -e !eon, !oyola and 9lores? 5> The trial court erred in denying the Motion for Reconsideration of the 0rder denying the demurrer to evidence? 5( The trial court erred +hen it failed to consider the evidence adduced by the accused-appellants, consisting of e8hibits X%O, X$O to X$-BO, X>O and X(O and the testimony of their +itness, State &uditor 7smeralda 7lli? 5* The trial court erred in finding the accused-appellants guilty of Bualified theft.5%$ Simplified, the issues are as follo+s/ (%# the sufficiency of the evidence against appellants, including the admissibility of FarciaOs confessions and of the three perforated 6%44 currency notes? and ($# the propriety of the denial of their demurrer to evidence. The CourtOs Ruling The appeal has merit. 9irst "ssue/ Sufficiency of 7vidence The trial court convicted appellants mainly on the strength of the three confessions given by Farcia and the three perforated 6%44 currency notes confiscated from him upon his arrest. &ppellants, ho+ever, contend that these pieces of evidence are inadmissible. 78traDudicial Confessions &ppellants aver that the alleged three S+orn Statements of Farcia +ere obtained +ithout the assistance of counsel in violation of his rights under &rticle """, Section %$ (%# and ($# of the %123 Constitution, +hich provides thus/ 5Sec. %$. (%# &ny person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel, preferably of his o+n choice. "f the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided +ith one. These rights cannot be +aived e8cept in +riting and in the presence of counsel. 5($# Ao torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means +hich vitiate the free +ill shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incomunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.5 0n the other hand, the 0SF contends that counsel, &tty. 9rancisco Sanche. """ of the 6ublic &ttorneyOs 0ffice, duly assisted Farcia during the custodial investigation. "t is clear from a plain reading of the three e8traDudicial confessions%> that Farcia +as not assisted by &tty. Sanche.. The signature of the latter on those documents +as affi8ed after the +ord 5S&MS".5 Moreover, he appeared in court and categorically testified that he had not assisted Farcia +hen the latter +as investigated by the police, and that the former had signed the S+orn Statement only as a +itness.%(

The +ritten confessions, ho+ever, +ere still admitted in evidence by the RTC on the ground that Farcia had e8pressed in +riting his +illingness and readiness to give the S+orn Statements +ithout the assistance of counsel. The lo+er courtOs action is manifest error. The right to counsel has been +ritten into our Constitution in order to prevent the use of duress and other undue influence in e8tracting confessions from a suspect in a crime. The basic la+ specifically reBuires that any +aiver of this right must be made in +riting and e8ecuted in the presence of a counsel. "n such case, counsel must not only ascertain that the confession is voluntarily made and that the accused understands its nature and conseBuences, but also advise and assist the accused continuously from the time the first Buestion is as,ed by the investigating officer until the signing of the confession. Cence, the la+yerOs role cannot be reduced to being that of a mere +itness to the signing of a pre-prepared confession, even if it indicated compliance +ith the constitutional rights of the accused.%* The accused is entitled to effective, vigilant and independent counsel.%) & +aiver in +riting, li,e that +hich the trial court relied upon in the present case, is not enough. ;ithout the assistance of a counsel, the +aiver has no evidentiary relevance.%3 The Constitution states that 5HaIny confession or admission obtained in violation of Hthe aforecited Section %$I shall be inadmissible in evidence 8 8 8.5 Cence, the trial court +as in error +hen it admitted in evidence the uncounseled confessions of Farcia and convicted appellants on the basis thereof. The Buestion of +hether he +as tortured becomes moot. 6erforated Currency Aotes &ppellants contend that the three 6%44 perforated currency notes (78hibits 5A5 to 5A-$5# allegedly confiscated from Farcia after his arrest +ere 5fruits of the poisonous tree5 and, hence, inadmissible in evidence. The solicitor general evades the issue and argues, instead, that appellants +aived the illegality of their arrest +hen they entered a plea. Ce further contends that the e8clusion from the evidence of the three punctured currency bills +ould not alter the findings of the trial court. The police arrested Farcia +ithout a +arrant, +hile he had merely been +aiting for a passenger bus after being pointed out by the Cash -epartment personnel of the BS6. &t the time of his arrest, he had not committed, +as not committing, and +as not about to commit any crime. Aeither +as he acting in a manner that +ould engender a reasonable ground to suspect that he +as committing a crime. Aone of the circumstances Dustifying an arrest +ithout a +arrant under Section * of Rule %%> of the Rules of Court +as present. Cence, Farcia +as not la+fully arrested. Aonetheless, not having raised the matter before entering his plea, he is deemed to have +aived the illegality of his arrest. Aote, ho+ever, that this +aiver is limited to the arrest. "t does not e8tend to the search made as an incident thereto or to the subseBuent sei.ure of evidence allegedly found during the search. The Constitution proscribes unreasonable searches and sei.ures%2 of +hatever nature. ;ithout a Dudicial +arrant, these are allo+ed only under the follo+ing e8ceptional circumstances/ (%# a search incident to a la+ful arrest, ($# sei.ure of evidence in plain vie+, (># search of a moving motor vehicle, ((# customs search, (*# stop and fris, situations, and ()# consented search.%1 ;here the arrest +as incipiently illegal, it follo+s that the subseBuent search +as similarly illegal.$4 &ny evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional provision is legally inadmissible in evidence under the e8clusionary rule.$% "n the present case, the perforated 6%44 currency notes +ere obtained as a result of a search made +ithout a +arrant subseBuent to an unla+ful arrest? hence, they are inadmissible in evidence. Moreover, untenable is the solicitor generalOs argument that &ppellants -e !eon, 9lores and !oyola +aived the illegality of the arrest and sei.ure +hen, +ithout raising obDections thereto, they entered a plea of guilty. "t +as Farcia +ho +as unla+fully arrested and searched, not the aforementioned three appellants. The legality of an arrest can be contested only by the party +hose rights have been impaired thereby. 0bDection to an unla+ful search and sei.ure is purely personal, and third parties cannot avail themselves of it.$$ "ndeed, the prosecution sufficiently proved the theft of the perforated currency notes for retirement. "t failed, ho+ever, to present sufficient admissible evidence pointing to appellants as the authors of the crime.

The evidence presented by the prosecution sho+s that there +ere other people +ho had similar access to the shredding machine area and the currency retirement vault.$> &ppellants +ere pinpointed by !abita because of an anonymous phone call informing his superior of the people allegedly behind the theft? and of the une8plained increase in their spending, +hich +as incompatible +ith their income. !abita, ho+ever, did not submit sufficient evidence to support his allegation. ;ithout the e8traDudicial confession and the perforated currency notes, the remaining evidence +ould be utterly inadeBuate to overturn the constitutional presumption of innocence. Second "ssue/ -emurrer to 7vidence &ppellants contend that the trial court seriously erred +hen it denied the demurrer to evidence filed by &ppellants !oyola, -e !eon and 9lores. Aot one of the documents offered by the prosecution and admitted in evidence by the RTC established the alleged Bualified theft of perforated notes, and not one of the pieces of evidence sho+ed appellantsO participation in the commission of the crime. 0n the e8ercise of sound Dudicial discretion rests the trial DudgeOs determination of the sufficiency or the insufficiency of the evidence presented by the prosecution to establish a prima facie case against the accused. Enless there is a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac, of Durisdiction, the trial courtOs denial of a motion to dismiss may not be disturbed.$( &s discussed earlier, the inadmissibility of the confessions of Farcia did not become apparent until after &tty. 9rancisco had testified in court. 7ven if the confiscated perforated notes from the person of the former +ere held to be inadmissible, the confessions +ould still have constituted prima facie evidence of the guilt of appellants. 0n that basis, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying their demurrer to evidence. ;C7R790R7, the assailed -ecision is R7'7RS7- and S7T &S"-7. &ppellants are hereby &CRE"TT7- and ordered immediately R7!7&S7-, unless they are being detained for any other la+ful cause. The director of the Bureau of Corrections is hereby directed to submit his report on the release of the appellant or the reason for his continued detention +ithin five (*# days from notice of this -ecision. Ao costs. S0 0R-7R7-.

G.R. No. 8;988 S#./#@=#r >9, 1989 RI(ARDO (. 7ALMONTE AND 0NION OF LA)%ERS AND AD7O(ATES FOR PEOPLEHS RIGHTS F0LAPG, petitioners, vs. GEN. RENATO DE 7ILLA AND NATIONAL (APITAL REGION DISTRI(T (OMMAND, respondents. PADILLA, J.: This is a petition for prohibition +ith preliminary inDunction and=or temporary restraining order, see,ing the declaration of chec,points in 'alen.uela, Metro Manila or else+here, as unconstitutional and the dismantling and banning of the same or, in the alternative, to direct the respondents to formulate guidelines in the implementation of chec,points, for the protection of the people. 6etitioner Ricardo C. 'almonte sues in his capacity as citi.en of the Republic, ta8payer, member of the "ntegrated Bar of the 6hilippines ("B6#, and resident of 'alen.uela, Metro Manila? +hile petitioner Enion of !a+yers and &dvocates for 6eople<s Rights (E!&6# sues in its capacity as an association +hose members are all members of the "B6. The factual bac,ground of the case is as follo+s/ 0n $4 @anuary %123, the Aational Capital Region -istrict Command (ACR-C# +as activated pursuant to !etter of "nstruction 4$=23 of the 6hilippine Feneral CeadBuarters, &96, +ith the mission of conducting security operations +ithin its area of responsibility and peripheral areas, for the purpose of establishing an effective territorial defense, maintaining peace and order, and providing an atmosphere conducive to the social, economic and political development of the Aational Capital Region. 1 &s part of its duty to maintain peace and order, the ACR-C installed chec,points in various parts of 'alen.uela, Metro Manila. 6etitioners aver that, because of the installation of said chec,points, the residents of 'alen.uela are +orried of being harassed and of their safety being placed at the arbitrary, capricious and +himsical disposition of the military manning the chec,points, considering that their cars and vehicles are being subDected to regular searches and chec,-ups, especially at night or at da+n, +ithout the benefit of a search +arrant and=or court order. Their alleged fear for their safety increased +hen, at da+n of 1 @uly %122, BenDamin 6arpon, a supply officer of the Municipality of 'alen.uela, Bulacan, +as gunned do+n allegedly in cold blood by the members of the ACR-C manning the chec,point along Mc&rthur Cigh+ay at Malinta, 'alen.uela, for ignoring and=or refusing to submit himself to the chec,point and for continuing to speed off inspire of +arning shots fired in the air. 6etitioner 'almonte also claims that, on several occasions, he had gone thru these chec,points +here he +as stopped and his car subDected to search=chec,-up +ithout a court order or search +arrant. 6etitioners further contend that the said chec,points give the respondents a blan,et authority to ma,e searches and=or sei.ures +ithout search +arrant or court order in violation of the Constitution? > and, instances have occurred +here a citi.en, +hile not ,illed, had been harassed. 6etitioners< concern for their safety and apprehension at being harassed by the military manning the chec,points are not sufficient grounds to declare the chec,points as per se illegal. Ao proof has been presented before the Court to sho+ that, in the course of their routine chec,s, the military indeed committed specific violations of petitioners< right against unla+ful search and sei.ure or other rights. "n a case filed by the same petitioner organi.ation, *nion of >awyers and Ad#ocates for /eople's Right (*>A/) #s4 (ntegrated &ational /olice, ; it +as held that individual petitioners +ho do not allege that any of their rights +ere violated are not Bualified to bring the action, as real parties in interest. The constitutional right against unreasonable searches and sei.ures is a personal right invocable only by those +hose rights have been infringed, < or threatened to be infringed. ;hat constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search and sei.ure in any particular case is purely a Dudicial Buestion, determinable from a consideration of the circumstances involved. 5 6etitioner 'almonte<s general allegation to the effect that he had been stopped and searched +ithout a search +arrant by the military manning the chec,points, +ithout more, i.e., +ithout stating the details of the incidents +hich amount to a violation of his right against unla+ful search and sei.ure, is not sufficient to enable the Court

to determine +hether there +as a violation of 'almonte<s right against unla+ful search and sei.ure. Aot all searches and sei.ures are prohibited. Those +hich are reasonable are not forbidden. & reasonable search is not to be determined by any fi8ed formula but is to be resolved according to the facts of each case. 6 ;here, for e8ample, the officer merely dra+s aside the curtain of a vacant vehicle +hich is par,ed on the public fair grounds, $ or simply loo,s into a vehicle, 8 or flashes a light therein, 9 these do not constitute unreasonable search. The setting up of the Buestioned chec,points in 'alen.uela (and probably in other areas# may be considered as a security measure to enable the ACR-C to pursue its mission of establishing effective territorial defense and maintaining peace and order for the benefit of the public. Chec,points may also be regarded as measures to th+art plots to destabili.e the government, in the interest of public security. "n this connection, the Court may ta,e Dudicial notice of the shift to urban centers and their suburbs of the insurgency movement, so clearly reflected in the increased ,illings in cities of police and military men by A6& 5sparro+ units,5 not to mention the abundance of unlicensed firearms and the alarming rise in la+lessness and violence in such urban centers, not all of +hich are reported in media, most li,ely brought about by deteriorating economic conditions L +hich all sum up to +hat one can rightly consider, at the very least, as abnormal times. Bet+een the inherent right of the state to protect its e8istence and promote public +elfare and an individual<s right against a +arrantless search +hich is ho+ever reasonably conducted, the former should prevail. True, the manning of chec,points by the military is susceptible of abuse by the men in uniform, in the same manner that all governmental po+er is susceptible of abuse. But, at the cost of occasional inconvenience, discomfort and even irritation to the citi.en, the chec,points during these abnormal times, +hen conducted +ithin reasonable limits, are part of the price +e pay for an orderly society and a peaceful community. 9inally, on %3 @uly %122, military and police chec,points in Metro Manila +ere temporarily lifted and a revie+ and refinement of the rules in the conduct of the police and military manning the chec,points +as ordered by the Aational Capital Regional Command Chief and the Metropolitan 6olice -irector. 1" ;C7R790R7, the petition is -"SM"SS7-. S0 0R-7R7-.

G.R.No. $<869 Ju3y 6, 1988 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, .3a*n/*44!a..#33##, 5,. IDEL AMINN0DIN y AHNI, '#4#n'an/!a..#33an/. (R06, J.B The accused-appellant claimed his business +as selling +atches but he +as nonetheless arrested, tried and found guilty of illegally transporting mariDuana. The trial court, disbelieving him, held it +as high time to put him a+ay and sentenced him to life imprisonment plus a fine of 6$4,444.44. "del &minnudin +as arrested on @une $*, %12(, shortly after disembar,ing from the M=' ;ilcon 1 at about 2/>4 in the evening, in "loilo City. The 6C officers +ho +ere in fact +aiting for him simply accosted him, inspected his bag and finding +hat loo,ed li,ed mariDuana leaves too, him to their headBuarters for investigation. The t+o bundles of suspect articles +ere confiscated from him and later ta,en to the AB" laboratory for e8amination. ;hen they +ere verified as mariDuana leaves, an information for violation of the -angerous -rugs &ct +as filed against him. $ !ater, the information +as amended to include 9arida &li y Cassen, +ho had also been arrested +ith him that same evening and li,e+ise investigated. > Both +ere arraigned and pleaded not guilty. ( SubseBuently, the fiscal filed a motion to dismiss the charge against &li on the basis of a s+orn statement of the arresting officers absolving her after a <thorough investigation.5 * The motion +as granted, and trial proceeded only against the accused-appellant, +ho +as eventually convicted . ) &ccording to the prosecution, the 6C officers had earlier received a tip from one of their informers that the accused-appellant +as on board a vessel bound for "loilo City and +as carrying mariDuana. 3 Ce +as "dentified by name. 2 &cting on this tip, they +aited for him in the evening of @une $*, %12(, and approached him as he descended from the gangplan, after the informer had pointed to him. 1 They detained him and inspected the bag he +as carrying. "t +as found to contain three ,ilos of +hat +ere later analy.ed as mariDuana leaves by an AB" forensic e8aminer, %4 +ho testified that she conducted microscopic, chemical and chromatographic tests on them. 0n the basis of this finding, the corresponding charge +as then filed against &minnudin. "n his defense, &minnudin disclaimed the mariDuana, averring that all he had in his bag +as his clothing consisting of a Dac,et, t+o shirts and t+o pairs of pants. %% Ce alleged that he +as arbitrarily arrested and immediately handcuffed. Cis bag +as confiscated +ithout a search +arrant. &t the 6C headBuarters, he +as manhandled to force him to admit he +as carrying the mariDuana, the investigator hitting him +ith a piece of +ood in the chest and arms even as he parried the blo+s +hile he +as still handcuffed. %$ Ce insisted he did not even ,no+ +hat mariDuana loo,ed li,e and that his business +as selling +atches and sometimes cigarettes. %> Ce also argued that the mariDuana he +as alleged to have been carrying +as not properly "dentified and could have been any of several bundles ,ept in the stoc, room of the 6C headBuarters. %( The trial court +as unconvinced, noting from its o+n e8amination of the accused that he claimed to have come to "loilo City to sell +atches but carried only t+o +atches at the time, traveling from @olo for that purpose and spending 6%43.44 for fare, not to mention his other e8penses. %* &minnudin testified that he ,ept the t+o +atches in a secret poc,et belo+ his belt but, strangely, they +ere not discovered +hen he +as bodily searched by the arresting officers nor +ere they damaged as a result of his manhandling. %) Ce also said he sold one of the +atches for 6(44.44 and gave a+ay the other, although the +atches belonged not to him but to his cousin, %3 to a friend +hose full name he said did not even ,no+. %2 The trial court also reDected his allegations of maltreatment, observing that he had not sufficiently proved the inDuries sustained by him. %1 There is no Dustification to reverse these factual findings, considering that it +as the trial Dudge +ho had immediate access to the testimony of the +itnesses and had the opportunity to +eigh their credibility on the stand. Auances of tone or voice, meaningful pauses and hesitation, flush of face and dart of eyes, +hich may reveal the truth or e8pose the lie, are not described in the impersonal record. But the trial Dudge sees all of this, discovering for himself the truant fact amidst the falsities. The only e8ception +e may ma,e in this case is the trial court<s conclusion that the accused-appellant +as not really beaten up because he did not complain about it later nor did he submit to a medical e8amination. That is hardly fair or realistic. "t is possible &minnudin never had that opportunity as he +as at that time under

detention by the 6C authorities and in fact has never been set free since he +as arrested in %12( and up to the present. Ao bail has been allo+ed for his release. There is one point that deserves closer e8amination, ho+ever, and it is &minnudin<s claim that he +as arrested and searched +ithout +arrant, ma,ing the mariDuana allegedly found in his possession inadmissible in evidence against him under the Bill of Rights. The decision did not even discuss this point. 9or his part, the Solicitor Feneral dismissed this after an all-too-short argument that the arrest of &minnudin +as valid because it came under Rule %%>, Section )(b# of the Rules of Court on +arrantless arrests. This made the search also valid as incidental to a la+ful arrest. "t is not disputed, and in fact it is admitted by the 6C officers +ho testified for the prosecution, that they had no +arrant +hen they arrested &minnudin and sei.ed the bag he +as carrying. Their only Dustification +as the tip they had earlier received from a reliable and regular informer +ho reported to them that &minnudin +as arriving in "loilo by boat +ith mariDuana. Their testimony varies as to the time they received the tip, one saying it +as t+o days before the arrest, $4 another t+o +ee,s $% and a third 5+ee,s before @une $*.5 $$ 0n this matter, +e may prefer the declaration of the chief of the arresting team, !t. Cipriano Ruerol, @r., +ho testified as follo+s/ R Gou mentioned an intelligence report, you mean +ith respect to the coming of "del &minnudin on @une $*, %12(K & Ges, sir. R ;hen did you receive this intelligence reportK & T+o days before @une $*, %12( and it +as supported by reliable sources. R ;ere you informed of the coming of the ;ilcon 1 and the possible traffic,ing of mariDuana leaves on that dateK & Ges, sir, t+o days before @une $*, %12( +hen +e received this information from that particular informer, prior to @une $*, %12( +e have already reports of the particular operation +hich +as being participated by "del &minnudin. R Gou said you received an intelligence report t+o days before @une $*, %12( +ith respect to the coming of ;ilcon 1K & Ges, sir. R -id you receive any other report aside from this intelligence reportK & ;ell, " have received also other reports but not pertaining to the coming of ;ilcon 1. 9or instance, report of illegal gambling operation. C0ERT/ R 6revious to that particular information +hich you said t+o days before @une $*, %12(, did you also receive daily report regarding the activities of "del &minnudin & 6revious to @une $*, %12( +e received reports on the activities of "del &minnudin. R ;hat +ere those activitiesK & 6urely mariDuana traffic,ing. R 9rom +hom did you get that informationK & "t came to my hand +hich +as +ritten in a reBuired sheet of information, maybe for security reason and +e cannot "dentify the person. R But you received it from your regular informerK & Ges, sir. &TTG. !!&R":&/ R 6revious to @une $*, %12(, you +ere more or less sure that "del &minnudin is coming +ith drugsK & MariDuana, sir. R &nd this information respecting "del &minnudin<s coming to "loilo +ith mariDuana +as received by you many days before you received the intelligence report in +ritingK & Aot a report of the particular coming of &minnudin but his activities.

R Gou only ,ne+ that he +as coming on @une $*,%12( t+o days beforeK & Ges, sir. R Gou mean that before @une $>, %12( you did not ,no+ that &minnudin +as comingK & Before @une $>,%12(, ", in my capacity, did not ,no+ that he +as coming but on @une $>, %12( that +as the time +hen " received the information that he +as coming. Regarding the reports on his activities, +e have reports that he +as already consummated the act of selling and shipping mariDuana stuff. C0ERT/ R &nd as a result of that report, you put him under surveillanceK & Ges, sir. R "n the intelligence report, only the name of "del &minnudin +as mentionedK & Ges, sir. R &re you sure of thatK & 0n the $>rd he +ill be coming +ith the +oman. R So that even before you received the official report on @une $>, %12(, you had already gathered information to the effect that "del &minnudin +as coming to "loilo on @une $*, %12(K & 0nly on the $>rd of @une. R Gou did not try to secure a search +arrant for the sei.ure or search of the subDect mentioned in your intelligence reportK & Ao, more. R ;hy notK & Because +e +ere very very sure that our operation +ill yield positive result. R "s that your procedure that +henever it +ill yield positive result you do not need a search +arrant anymoreK & Search +arrant is not necessary. $ That last ans+er is a cavalier pronouncement, especially as it comes from a mere lieutenant of the 6C. The Supreme Court cannot countenance such a statement. This is still a government of la+s and not of men. The mandate of the Bill of Rights is clear/ Sec. $. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and sei.ures of +hatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search +arrant or +arrant of arrest shall issue e8cept upon probable cause to be determined personally by the Dudge after e8amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the +itnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be sei.ed. "n the case at bar, there +as no +arrant of arrest or search +arrant issued by a Dudge after personal determination by him of the e8istence of probable cause. Contrary to the averments of the government, the accused-appellant +as not caught in flagrante nor +as a crime about to be committed or had Dust been committed to Dustify the +arrantless arrest allo+ed under Rule %%> of the Rules of Court. 7ven e8pediency could not be invo,ed to dispense +ith the obtention of the +arrant as in the case of Roldan v. &rca, $( for e8ample. Cere it +as held that vessels and aircraft are subDect to +arrantless searches and sei.ures for violation of the customs la+ because these vehicles may be Buic,ly moved out of the locality or Durisdiction before the +arrant can be secured. The present case presented no such urgency. 9rom the conflicting declarations of the 6C +itnesses, it is clear that they had at least t+o days +ithin +hich they could have obtained a +arrant to arrest and search &minnudin +ho +as coming to "loilo on the M=' ;ilcon 1. Cis name +as ,no+n. The vehicle +as "dentified. The date of its arrival +as certain. &nd from the information they had received, they could have persuaded a Dudge that there +as probable cause, indeed, to Dustify the issuance of a +arrant. Get they did nothing. Ao effort +as made to comply +ith the la+. The Bill of Rights +as ignored altogether because the 6C lieutenant +ho +as the head of the arresting team, had determined on his o+n authority that a 5search +arrant +as not necessary.5

"n the many cases +here this Court has sustained the +arrantless arrest of violators of the -angerous -rugs &ct, it has al+ays been sho+n that they +ere caught red-handed, as a result of +hat are popularly called 5buybust5 operations of the narcotics agents. $* Rule %%> +as clearly applicable because at the precise time of arrest the accused +as in the act of selling the prohibited drug. "n the case at bar, the accused-appellant +as not, at the moment of his arrest, committing a crime nor +as it sho+n that he +as about to do so or that he had Dust done so. ;hat he +as doing +as descending the gangplan, of the M=' ;ilcon 1 and there +as no out+ard indication that called for his arrest. To all appearances, he +as li,e any of the other passengers innocently disembar,ing from the vessel. "t +as only +hen the informer pointed to him as the carrier of the mariDuana that he suddenly became suspect and so subDect to apprehension. "t +as the furtive finger that triggered his arrest. The "dentification by the informer +as the probable cause as determined by the officers (and not a Dudge# that authori.ed them to pounce upon &minnudin and immediately arrest him. Ao+ that +e have succeeded in restoring democracy in our country after fourteen years of the despised dictatorship, +hen any one could be pic,ed up at +ill, detained +ithout charges and punished +ithout trial, +e +ill have only ourselves to blame if that ,ind of arbitrariness is allo+ed to return, to once more flaunt its disdain of the Constitution and the individual liberties its Bill of Rights guarantees. ;hile this is not to say that the accused-appellant is innocent, for indeed his very o+n +ords suggest that he is lying, that fact alone does not Dustify a finding that he is guilty. The constitutional presumption is that he is innocent, and he +ill be so declared even if his defense is +ea, as long as the prosecution is not strong enough to convict him. ;ithout the evidence of the mariDuana allegedly sei.ed from &minnudin, the case of the prosecution must fall. That evidence cannot be admitted, and should never have been considered by the trial court for the simple fact is that the mariDuana +as sei.ed illegally. "t is the fruit of the poisonous tree, to use @ustice Colmes< felicitous phrase. The search +as not an incident of a la+ful arrest because there +as no +arrant of arrest and the +arrantless arrest did not come under the e8ceptions allo+ed by the Rules of Court. Cence, the +arrantless search +as also illegal and the evidence obtained thereby +as inadmissible. The Court strongly supports the campaign of the government against drug addiction and commends the efforts of our la+-enforcement officers against those +ho +ould inflict this malediction upon our people, especially the susceptible youth. But as demanding as this campaign may be, it cannot be more so than the compulsions of the Bill of Rights for the protection of the liberty of every individual in the realm, including the basest of criminals. The Constitution covers +ith the mantle of its protection the innocent and the guilty ali,e against any manner of high- handedness from the authorities, ho+ever praise+orthy their intentions. Those +ho are supposed to enforce the la+ are not Dustified in disregarding the rights of the individual in the name of order. 0rder is too high a price for the loss of liberty. &s @ustice Colmes, again, said, 5" thin, it a less evil that some criminals should escape than that the government should play an ignoble part.5 "t is simply not allo+ed in the free society to violate a la+ to enforce another, especially if the la+ violated is the Constitution itself. ;e find that +ith the e8clusion of the illegally sei.ed mariDuana as evidence against the accused-appellant, his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and he must therefore be discharged on the presumption that he is innocent. &CC0R-"AF!G, the decision of the trial court is R7'7RS7- and the accused-appellant is &CRE"TT7-. "t is so ordered.

G.R. No. 961$$ January >$, 199; PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, .3a*n/*44!a..#33##, 5,. MARI M0SA y HANTATAL0, a--u,#'!a..#33an/. ROMERO, J.B The appellant, Mari Musa, see,s, in this appeal, the reversal of the decision, dated &ugust >%, %114, % of the Regional Trial Court (RTC# of :amboanga City, Branch "", finding him guilty of selling mariDuana in violation of &rticle "", Section ( of Republic &ct Ao. )($*, as amended, other+ise ,no+n as the -angerous -rugs &ct of %13$. The information filed on -ecember %*, %121 against the appellant reads/ That on or about -ecember %(, %121, in the City of :amboanga, 6hilippines, and +ithin the Durisdiction of this Conorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authori.ed by la+, did then and there, +ilfully, unla+fully and feloniously sell to one SFT. &M&-0 &A", t+o ($# +rappers containing dried mariDuana leaves, ,no+ing the same to be a prohibited drug. C0ATR&RG T0 !&;. Epon his arraignment on @anuary %%, %114, the appellant pleaded not guilty. &t the trial, the prosecution presented three (># +itnesses, namely/ (%# Sgt. &mado &ni, @r. of the 1th Aarcotics Command (A&RC0M# of :amboanga City, +ho acted as poseur-buyer in the buy-bust operation made against the appellant? ($# T=Sgt. @esus Belarga, also of the 1th Aarcotics Command of :amboanga City, +ho +as the A&RC0M team leader of the buy-bust operation? and (># &thena 7lisa 6. &nderson, the -ocument 78aminer and 9orensic Chemist of 6C-"A6 Crime !aboratory of Regional Command (R7C0M# 1. The evidence of the prosecution +as summari.ed by the trial court as follo+s/ 6rosecution evidence sho+s that in the morning of -ecember %>, %121, T=Sgt. @esus Belarga, leader of a A&RC0T"CS C0MM&A- (A&RC0M# team based at Calarian, :amboanga City, instructed Sgt. &mado &ni to conduct surveillance and test buy on a certain Mari Musa of Suterville, :amboanga City. "nformation received from civilian informer +as that this Mari Musa +as engaged in selling mariDuana in said place. So Sgt. &mado &ni, another A&RC0M agent, proceeded to Suterville, in company +ith a A&RC0M civilian informer, to the house of Mari Musa to +hich house the civilian informer had guided him. The same civilian informer had also described to him the appearance of Mari Musa. &mado &ni +as able to buy one ne+spaper-+rapped dried mariDuana (78h. 575# for 6%4.44. Sgt. &ni returned to the A&RC0M office and turned over the ne+spaper+rapped mariDuana to T=Sgt. @esus Belarga. Sgt. Belarga inspected the stuff turned over to him and found it to be mariDuana. The ne8t day, -ecember %(, %121, about %/>4 6.M., a buy-bust +as planned. Sgt. &mado &ni +as assigned as the poseur buyer for +hich purpose he +as given 6$4.44 (+ith SA F&1**22># by Belarga. The buy-bust money had been ta,en by T=Sgt. @esus Belarga from M=Sgt. Aoh Sali Mihasun, Chief of "nvestigation Section, and for +hich Belarga signed a receipt (78h. 5!5 J 5!-l5 # The team under Sgt. 9oncargas +as assigned as bac,-up security. & pre-arranged signal +as arranged consisting of Sgt. &ni<s raising his right hand, after he had succeeded to buy the mariDuana. The t+o A&RC0M teams proceeded to the target site in t+o civilian vehicles. Belarga<s team +as composed of Sgt. Belarga, team leader, Sgt. &mado &ni, poseur buyer, Sgt. !ego and Sgt. Biong. &rriving at the target site, Sgt. &ni proceeded to the house of Mari Musa, +hile the rest of the A&RC0M group positioned themselves at strategic places about 14 to %44 meters from Mari Musa<s house. T=Sgt. Belarga could see +hat +ent on bet+een &ni and suspect Mari Musa from +here he +as. &ni approached Mari Musa, +ho came out of his house, and as,ed &ni +hat he +anted. &ni said he +anted some more stuff. &ni gave Mari Musa the 6$4.44 mar,ed money. &fter receiving the money, Mari Musa +ent bac, to his house and came bac, and gave &mado &ni t+o ne+spaper +rappers containing dried mariDuana. &ni opened the t+o +rappers and inspected the contents. Convinced that the contents +ere mariDuana, &ni +al,ed bac, to+ards his companions and raised his right hand. The t+o A&RC0M teams, riding the t+o civilian vehicles, sped to+ards Sgt. &ni. &ni Doined Belarga<s team and returned to the house. &t the time Sgt. &ni first approached Mari Musa, there +ere four persons inside his house/ Mari Musa, another boy, and t+o +omen, one of +hom &ni and Belarga later came to ,no+ to be Mari Musa<s +ife. The second

time, &ni +ith the A&RC0M team returned to Mari Musa<s house, the +oman, +ho +as later ,no+n as Mari Musa<s +ife, slipped a+ay from the house. Sgt. Belarga fris,ed Mari Musa but could not find the 6$4.44 mar,ed money +ith him. Mari Musa +as then as,ed +here the 6$4.44 +as and he told the A&RC0M team he has given the money to his +ife (+ho had slipped a+ay#. Sgt. Belarga also found a plastic bag containing dried mariDuana inside it some+here in the ,itchen. Mari Musa +as then placed under arrest and brought to the A&RC0M office. &t Suterville, Sgt. &ni turned over to Sgt. Belarga the t+o ne+spaper-+rapped mariDuana he had earlier bought from Mari Musa (78hs. 5C5 J -5#. "n the A&RC0M office, Mari Musa first gave his name as Cussin Musa. !ater on, Mari Musa gave his true name L Mari Musa. T=Sgt. @esus Belarga turned over the t+o ne+spaper-+rapped mariDuana (bought at the buy-bust#, the one ne+spaper-+rapped mariDuana (bought at the test-buy# and the plastic bag containing more mariDuana (+hich had been ta,en by Sgt. !ego inside the ,itchen of Mari Musa# to the 6C Crime !aboratory, :amboanga City, for laboratory e8amination. The turnover of the mariDuana specimen to the 6C Crime !aboratory +as by +ay of a letter-reBuest, dated -ecember %(, %121 (78h. 5B5#, +hich +as stamped 5R7C7"'7-5 by the 6C Crime !aboratory (78h. 5B-%5# on the same day. Mrs. &thena 7lisa 6. &nderson, the 9orensic Chemist of the 6C Crime !aboratory, e8amined the mariDuana specimens subDecting the same to her three tests. &ll submitted specimens she e8amined gave positive results for the presence of mariDuana. Mrs. &nderson reported the results of her e8amination in her Chemistry Report --%44-21, dated -ecember %(, %121, (78h. 5@5, 5@-%5, 5@-$5, 5@->5, 5@-(5 and 5@-*5#. Mrs. &nderson identified in court the t+o ne+spaper +rapped mariDuana bought at the buy-bust on -ecember %(, %121, through her initial and the +eight of each specimen +ritten +ith red in, on each +rapper (78hs. 5C-%5 and 5--%5#. She also identified the one ne+spaper-+rapped mariDuana bought at the test-buy on -ecember %>, %121, through her mar,ings (78h. 57-%5#. Mrs. &nderson also identified her Chemistry Report (78h. 5@5 J sub-mar,ings.# T. Sgt. Belarga identified the t+o buy-bust ne+spaper +rapped mariDuana through his initial, the +ords 5buybust5 and the +ords 5-ecember %(, %121, $/(* 6.M.5 (+ritten on 78hs. 5C5 and 5-5#. Belarga also identified the receipt of the 6$4 mar,ed money (+ith SA F&1**22># (78h. 5!5#, dated -ecember %(, %121, and his signature thereon (78h. 5!-%5#. Ce also identified the letter-reBuest, dated -ecember %(, %121, addressed to the 6C Crime !aboratory (78h. 5B5# and his signature thereon (78h. 5B-$5# and the stamp of the 6C Crime !aboratory mar,ed 5R7C7"'7-5 (78h. 5B-%5#. ( 9or the defense, the follo+ing testified as +itnesses/ (%# the accused-appellant Mari C. Musa? and ($# &hara R. Musa, his +ife. The trial court summari.ed the version of the defense, thus/ H0In -ecember %(, %121, at about %/>4 in the afternoon, Mari Musa +as in his house at Suterville, :amboanga City. ;ith him +ere his +ife, &hara Musa, ,no+n as &ra, his one-year old child, a +oman manicurist, and a male cousin named &bdul Musa. &bout %/>4 that afternoon, +hile he +as being manicured at one hand, his +ife +as inside the one room of their house, putting their child to sleep. Three A&RC0M agents, +ho introduced themselves as A&RC0M agents, dressed in civilian clothes, got inside Mari Musa<s house +hose door +as open. The A&RC0M agents did not as, permission to enter the house but simply announced that they +ere A&RC0M agents. The A&RC0M agents searched Mari Musa<s house and Mari Musa as,ed them if they had a search +arrant. The A&RC0M agents +ere Dust silent. The A&RC0M agents found a red plastic bag +hose contents, Mari Musa said, he did not ,no+. Ce also did not ,no+ if the plastic bag belonged to his brother, 9aisal, +ho +as living +ith him, or his father, +ho +as living in another house about ten arms-length a+ay. Mari Musa, then, +as handcuffed and +hen Mari Musa as,ed +hy, the A&RC0M agents told him for clarification. Mari Musa +as brought in a pic,-up, his +ife Doining him to the A&RC0M 0ffice at Calarian, :amboanga City. "nside the A&RC0M 0ffice, Mari Musa +as investigated by one A&RC0M agent +hich investigation +as reduced into +riting. The +riting or document +as interpreted to Mari Musa in Tagalog. The document stated that the mariDuana belonged to Mari Musa and Mari Musa +as as,ed to sign it. But Mari Musa refused to sign because the mariDuana did not belong to him. Mari Musa said he +as not told that he +as entitled to the assistance of counsel, although he himself told the A&RC0M agents he +anted to be assisted by counsel.

Mari Musa said four bullets +ere then placed bet+een the fingers of his right hand and his fingers +ere pressed +hich felt very painful. The A&RC0M agents bo8ed him and Mari Musa lost consciousness. ;hile Mari Musa +as maltreated, he said his +ife +as outside the A&RC0M building. The very day he +as arrested (on cross-e8amination Mari Musa said it +as on the ne8t day#, Mari Musa +as brought to the 9iscal<s 0ffice by three A&RC0M agents. The fiscal as,ed him if the mariDuana +as o+ned by him and he said 5not.5 &fter that single Buestion, Mari Musa +as brought to the City @ail. Mari Musa said he did not tell the fiscal that he had been maltreated by the A&RC0M agents because he +as afraid he might be maltreated in the fiscal<s office. Mari Musa denied the A&RC0M agents< charge that he had sold t+o +rappers of mariDuana to them? that he had received from them a 6$4.44 bill +hich he had given to his +ife. Ce did not sell mariDuana because he +as afraid that +as against the la+ and that the person selling mariDuana +as caught by the authorities? and he had a +ife and a very small child to support. Mari Musa said he had not been arrested for selling mariDuana before. * &fter trial, the trial court rendered the assailed decision +ith the follo+ing disposition/ ;C7R790R7, finding accused Mari Musa y Cantatalu guilty beyond reasonable doubt of selling mariDuana and pursuant to Sec. (, &rt "" of Rep. &ct Ao. )($*, he is sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay the fine of 6$4,444.44, the latter imposed +ithout subsidiary imprisonment. ) "n this appeal, the appellant contends that his guilt +as not proved beyond reasonable doubt and impugns the credibility of the prosecution +itnesses. The appellant claims that the testimony of Sgt. &ni, the poseur-buyer, is not credible because/ (%# prior to the buy-bust operation, neither Sgt. &ni nor the other A&RC0M agents +ere personally ,no+n by the appellant or vice-versa? and ($# there +as no +itness to the alleged giving of the t+o +rappers of mariDuana by the appellant to Sgt. &ni. Sgt. &ni testified that on -ecember %>, %121, upon instruction by T=Sgt. @esus Belarga, he conducted a testbuy operation on the appellant +hereby he bought one +rapper of mariDuana for 6%*.44 from the latter. 3 Ce reported the successful operation to T=Sgt. Belarga on the same day. 2 ;hereupon, T=Sgt. Belarga conducted a conference to organi.e a buy-bust operation for the follo+ing day. 1 0n -ecember %(, %121, at %/>4 p.m., t+o A&RC0M teams in separate vehicles headed by T=Sgt. Belarga and a certain Sgt. 9oncardas +ent to the place of operation, +hich +as the appellant<s house located in !aBuian Compound, Suterville, :amboanga City. Sgt. &ni +as +ith the team of T=Sgt. Belarga, +hose other members +ere Sgts. !ego and Biong. %4 Sgt. &ni +as given a mar,ed 6$4.44 bill by T=Sgt. Belarga, +hich +as to be used in the operation. Epon reaching the place, the A&RC0M agents positioned themselves at strategic places. %% Sgt. &ni approached the house. 0utside the house, the appellant as,ed Sgt. &ni +hat he +anted. Sgt. &ni as,ed him for some more mariDuana. %$ Sgt. &ni gave him the mar,ed 6$4.44 bill and the appellant +ent inside the house and brought bac, t+o paper +rappers containing mariDuana +hich he handed to Sgt. &ni. %> 9rom his position, Sgt. &ni could see that there +ere other people in the house. %( &fter the e8change, Sgt. &ni approached the other A&RC0M agents and made the pre-arranged signal of raising his right hand. %* The A&RC0M agents, accompanied by Sgt. &ni, +ent inside the house and made the arrest. The agents searched the appellant and unable to find the mar,ed money, they as,ed him +here it +as. The appellant said that he gave it to his +ife. %) The Court, after a careful reading of the record, finds the testimony of Sgt. &ni regarding the buy-bust operation, +hich resulted in the apprehension, prosecution and subseBuent conviction of the appellant, to be direct, lucid and forthright. Being totally untainted by contradictions in any of the material points, it deserves credence. The contention that the appellant could not have transacted +ith Sgt. &ni because they do not ,no+ each other is +ithout merit. The day before the buy-bust operation, Sgt. &ni conducted a test-buy and he successfully bought a +rapper of mariDuana from the appellant. Through this previous transaction, Sgt. &ni +as able to gain the appellant<s confidence for the latter to sell more mariDuana to Sgt. &ni the follo+ing day, during the buy-bust operation. Moreover, the Court has held that +hat matters is not an e8isting familiarity bet+een the buyer and

the seller, for Buite often, the parties to the transaction may be strangers, but their agreement and the acts constituting the sale and delivery of the mariDuana. %3 The appellant, again to cast doubt on the credibility of Sgt. &ni, argues that it +as impossible for the appellant to sell mariDuana +hile his +ife, cousin and manicurist +ere present. But the place of the commission of the crime of selling prohibited drugs has been held to be not crucial %2 and the presence of other people apart from the buyer and seller +ill not necessarily prevent the consummation of the illegal sale. &s the Court observed in 6eople v. 6aco, %1 these factors may sometimes camouflage the commission of the crime. "n the instant case, the fact that the other people inside the appellant<s house are ,no+n to the appellant may have given him some assurance that these people +ill not report him to the authorities. The appellant, besides assailing Sgt. &ni<s credibility, also Buestions the credibility of T=Sgt. Belarga. The appellant submits that since T=Sgt. Belarga admitted that he +as about 14 meters a+ay from Sgt. &ni and the appellant, he could not have possibly +itnessed the sale. The appellant invo,es 6eople v. &le $4 +here the Court observed that from a distance of %4-%* meters, a policeman cannot distinguish bet+een mariDuana cigarette from ordinary ones by the type of rolling done on the cigarette stic,s. &nd since T=Sgt. Belarga allegedly did not see the sale, the appellant contends that the uncorroborated testimony of Sgt. &ni cannot stand as basis for his conviction. 6eople v. &le does not apply here because the policeman in that case testified that he and his companion +ere certain that the appellant therein handed mariDuana cigarettes to the poseur-buyer based on the appearance of the cigarette stic,s. The Court reDected this claim, stating that/ This Court cannot give full credit to the testimonies of the prosecution +itnesses mar,ed as they are +ith contradictions and tainted +ith inaccuracies. BiNan testified that they +ere able to tell that the four cigarettes +ere mariDuana cigarettes because according to him, the rolling of ordinary cigarettes are different from those of mariDuana cigarettes. (tsn, Aovember %>, %12(, p. %4#. "t is ho+ever, incredible to believe that they could discern the type of rolling done on those cigarettes from the distance +here they +ere observing the alleged sale of more or less %4 to %* meters. $% "n the case at bar, ho+ever, T=Sgt. Belarga did not positively claim that he sa+ the appellant hand over mariDuana to Sgt. &ni. ;hat he said +as that there +as an e8change of certain articles bet+een the t+o. The relevant portion of T=Sgt. Belarga<s testimony reads/ R Ao+, do you remember +hether Sgt. &ni +as able to reach the house of Mari MusaK & Ges, ma<am. R &fter reaching Mari Musa, did you see +hat happened (sic#K & Ges, ma<am. R Could you please tell usK & 9rom our vehicle the stainless o+ner type Deep +here Sgt. !ego, Sgt. Biong +ere boarded, " sa+ that Sgt. &ni proceeded to the house near the road and he +as met by one person and later ,no+n as Mari Musa +ho +as at the time +earing short pants and later on " sa+ that Sgt. &ni handed something to him, thereafter received by Mari Musa and +ent inside the house and came bac, later and handed something to Sgt. &ni. Contrary to the contention of the appellant, it +as not impossible for T=Sgt. Belarga to have seen, from a distance of 14-%44 meters, Sgt. &ni hand to the appellant 5something5 and for the latter to give to the former 5something.5 Aot+ithstanding the fact that T=Sgt. Belarga could not have been certain that +hat Sgt. &ni received from the appellant +as mariDuana because of the distance, his testimony, nevertheless, corroborated the direct evidence, +hich the Court earlier ruled to be convincing, presented by Sgt. &ni on the follo+ing material points/ (%# T=Sgt. Belarga instructed Sgt. &ni to conduct a surveillance and test-buy operation on the appellant at Suterville, :amboanga City on -ecember %>, %121? $> ($# later that same day, Sgt. &ni +ent bac, to their office and reported a successful operation and turned over to T=Sgt. Belarga one +rapper of mariDuana? $( (># T=Sgt. Belarga then organi.ed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation the follo+ing day? $* ((# on -ecember %(, %121, T=Sgt. Belarga led a team of A&RC0M agents +ho +ent to Suterville, :amboanga City? $) (*# T=Sgt.

Belarga gave a 6$4.44 mar,ed bill to Sgt. &ni +hich +as to be used in the buy-bust operation? $3 ()# upon the arrival of the A&RC0M agents in Suterville, :amboanga City, Sgt. &ni proceeded to the house of the appellant +hile some agents stayed in the vehicles and others positioned themselves in strategic places? $2 the appellant met Sgt. &ni and an e8change of articles too, place. $1 The corroborative testimony of T=Sgt. Belarga strengthens the direct evidence given by Sgt. &ni. &dditionally, the Court has ruled that the fact that the police officers +ho accompanied the poseur-buyer +ere unable to see e8actly +hat the appellant gave the poseur-buyer because of their distance or position +ill not be fatal to the prosecution<s case >4 provided there e8ists other evidence, direct or circumstantial, e.g., the testimony of the poseur-buyer, +hich is sufficient to prove the consummation of the sale of the prohibited drug The appellant ne8t assails the sei.ure and admission as evidence of a plastic bag containing mariDuana +hich the A&RC0M agents found in the appellant<s ,itchen. "t appears that after Sgt. &ni gave the pre-arranged signal to the other A&RC0M agents, the latter moved in and arrested the appellant inside the house. They searched him to retrieve the mar,ed money but didn<t find it. Epon being Buestioned, the appellant said that he gave the mar,ed money to his +ife. >% Thereafter, T=Sgt. Belarga and Sgt. !ego +ent to the ,itchen and noticed +hat T=Sgt. Belarga described as a 5cellophane colored +hite and stripe hanging at the corner of the ,itchen.5 >$ They as,ed the appellant about its contents but failing to get a response, they opened it and found dried mariDuana leaves. &t the trial, the appellant Buestioned the admissibility of the plastic bag and the mariDuana it contains but the trial court issued an 0rder ruling that these are admissible in evidence. >> Built into the Constitution are guarantees on the freedom of every individual against unreasonable searches and sei.ures by providing in &rticle """, Section $, the follo+ing/ The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and sei.ures of +hatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search +arrant or +arrant of arrest shall issue e8cept upon probable cause to be determined personally by the Dudge after e8amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the +itness he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be sei.ed. 9urthermore, the Constitution, in conformity +ith the doctrine laid do+n in Stonehill v. -io,no, >( declares inadmissible, any evidence obtained in violation of the freedom from unreasonable searches and sei.ures. >* ;hile a valid search +arrant is generally necessary before a search and sei.ure may be effected, e8ceptions to this rule are recogni.ed. Thus, in &lvero v. -i.on, >) the Court stated that. 5HtIhe most important e8ception to the necessity for a search +arrant is the right of search and sei.ure as an incident to a la+ful arrest.5 >3 Rule %$), Section %$ of the Rules of Court e8pressly authori.es a +arrantless search and sei.ure incident to a la+ful arrest, thus/ Sec. %$. Search incident to la+ful arrest. L & person la+fully arrested may be searched for dangerous +eapons or anything +hich may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, +ithout a search +arrant. There is no doubt that the +arrantless search incidental to a la+ful arrest authori.es the arresting officer to ma,e a search upon the person of the person arrested. &s early as %141, the Court has ruled that 5HaIn officer ma,ing an arrest may ta,e from the person arrested any money or property found upon his person +hich +as used in the commission of the crime or +as the fruit of the crime or +hich might furnish the prisoner +ith the means of committing violence or of escaping, or +hich may be used as evidence in the trial of the cause . . . 5 >2 Cence, in a buy-bust operation conducted to entrap a drug-pusher, the la+ enforcement agents may sei.e the mar,ed money found on the person of the pusher immediately after the arrest even +ithout arrest and search +arrants. >1 "n the case at bar, the A&RC0M agents searched the person of the appellant after arresting him in his house but found nothing. They then searched the entire house and, in the ,itchen, found and sei.ed a plastic bag hanging in a corner. The +arrantless search and sei.ure, as an incident to a suspect<s la+ful arrest, may e8tend beyond the person of the one arrested to include the premises or surroundings under his immediate control. (4 0bDects in the

5plain vie+5 of an officer +ho has the right to be in the position to have that vie+ are subDect to sei.ure and may be presented as evidence. (% "n Mer v. California ($ police officers, +ithout securing a search +arrant but having information that the defendant husband +as selling mariDuana from his apartment, obtained from the building manager a pass,ey to defendants< apartment, and entered it. There they found the defendant husband in the living room. The defendant +ife emerged from the ,itchen, and one of the officers, after identifying himself, observed through the open door+ay of the ,itchen, a small scale atop the ,itchen sin,, upon +hich lay a bric,-shaped pac,age containing green leafy substance +hich he recogni.ed as mariDuana. The pac,age of mariDuana +as used as evidence in prosecuting defendants for violation of the Aarcotic !a+. The admissibility of the pac,age +as challenged before the E.S. Supreme Court, +hich held, after observing that it +as not unreasonable for the officer to +al, to the door+ay of the adDacent ,itchen on seeing the defendant +ife emerge therefrom, that 5the discovery of the bric, of mariDuana did not constitute a search, since the officer merely sa+ +hat +as placed before him in full vie+. (> The E.S. Supreme Court ruled that the +arrantless sei.ure of the mariDuana +as legal on the basis of the 5plain vie+5 doctrine and upheld the admissibility of the sei.ed drugs as part of the prosecution<s evidence. (( The 5plain vie+5 doctrine may not, ho+ever, be used to launch unbridled searches and indiscriminate sei.ures nor to e8tend a general e8ploratory search made solely to find evidence of defendant<s guilt. The 5plain vie+5 doctrine is usually applied +here a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating obDect. (* 9urthermore, the E.S. Supreme Court stated the follo+ing limitations on the application of the doctrine/ ;hat the 5plain vie+5 cases have in common is that the police officer in each of them had a prior Dustification for an intrusion in the course of +hich he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The doctrine serves to supplement the prior Dustification L +hether it be a +arrant for another obDect, hot pursuit, search incident to la+ful arrest, or some other legitimate reason for being present unconnected +ith a search directed against the accused L and permits the +arrantless sei.ure. 0f course, the e8tension of the original Dustification is legitimate only +here it is immediately apparent to the police that they have evidence before them? the 5plain vie+5 doctrine may not be used to e8tend a general e8ploratory search from one obDect to another until something incriminating at last emerges. () "t has also been suggested that even if an obDect is observed in 5plain vie+,5 the 5plain vie+5 doctrine +ill not Dustify the sei.ure of the obDect +here the incriminating nature of the obDect is not apparent from the 5plain vie+5 of the obDect. (3 Stated differently, it must be immediately apparent to the police that the items that they observe may be evidence of a crime, contraband, or other+ise subDect to sei.ure. "n the instant case, the appellant +as arrested and his person searched in the living room. 9ailing to retrieve the mar,ed money +hich they hoped to find, the A&RC0M agents searched the +hole house and found the plastic bag in the ,itchen. The plastic bag +as, therefore, not +ithin their 5plain vie+5 +hen they arrested the appellant as to Dustify its sei.ure. The A&RC0M agents had to move from one portion of the house to another before they sighted the plastic bag. Enli,e Mer vs. California, +here the police officer had reason to +al, to the door+ay of the adDacent ,itchen and from +hich position he sa+ the mariDuana, the A&RC0M agents in this case +ent from room to room +ith the obvious intention of fishing for more evidence. Moreover, +hen the A&RC0M agents sa+ the plastic bag hanging in one corner of the ,itchen, they had no clue as to its contents. They had to as, the appellant +hat the bag contained. ;hen the appellant refused to respond, they opened it and found the mariDuana. Enli,e Mer v. California, +here the mariDuana +as visible to the police officer<s eyes, the A&RC0M agents in this case could not have discovered the inculpatory nature of the contents of the bag had they not forcibly opened it. 7ven assuming then, that the A&RC0M agents inadvertently came across the plastic bag because it +as +ithin their 5plain vie+,5 +hat may be said to be the obDect in their 5plain vie+5 +as Dust the plastic bag and not the mariDuana. The incriminating nature of the contents of the plastic bag +as not immediately apparent from the 5plain vie+5 of said obDect. "t cannot be claimed that the plastic bag clearly betrayed its contents, +hether by its distinctive configuration, its transprarency, or other+ise, that its contents are obvious to an observer.

;e, therefore, hold that under the circumstances of the case, the 5plain vie+5 doctrine does not apply and the mariDuana contained in the plastic bag +as sei.ed illegally and cannot be presented in evidence pursuant to &rticle """, Section >($# of the Constitution. The e8clusion of this particular evidence does not, ho+ever, diminish, in any +ay, the damaging effect of the other pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution to prove that the appellant sold mariDuana, in violation of &rticle "", Section ( of the -angerous -rugs &ct of %13$. ;e hold that by virtue of the testimonies of Sgt. &ni and T=Sgt. Belarga and the t+o +rappings of mariDuana sold by the appellant to Sgt. &ni, among other pieces of evidence, the guilt of the appellant of the crime charged has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. ;C7R790R7, the appeal is -"SM"SS7- and the Dudgment of the Regional Trial Court &99"RM7-. S0 0R-7R7-.