Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CFI
64 PHIL. 33 29 JANUARY 1937
Facts:
The Anti-Usury Board of the Department of Justice presented to Judge
David a sworn affidavit that a certain Narciso Alvarez is in possession of books,
receipts, chits, lists used by him as money lender/usurer charging usurious rates
in violation of law. Affiant Almeda, chief of the task force, didnt say that the
information was based on his personal knowledge but was only received by him
from a reliable source. Subsequently, the judge issued the warrant ordering the
search of Alvarez house. On June 4, 1936, the agents raided the subject place
and seized different documents namely, banknotes, bankbooks, stubs,
cashbooks, bills of lading, credit receipts, etc. Thereafter, the articles seized
was not brought immediately to the custody of the judge who issued the SW.
Alvarez moved that the agents of the Board be declared guilty of contempt and
prays that all articles in question be returned to him because the SW issued was
illegal. On the other hand, the Anti-Usury Board pleaded that they be allowed to
retain custody of the articles seized for further investigation. When the judge
sustained the latters motion. Alvarez elevated the matter to the SC and prayed
that the search warrant as well as the order of the judge authorizing the Anti-
individual making the affidavit and seeking the issuance of the warrant, of
the existence of probable cause. The true test of sufficiency of an affidavit
to warrant issuance of a search warrant is whether it has been drawn in
such a manner that perjury could be charged thereon and affiant be held
liable for damages caused. The affidavit, which served as the exclusive basis
of the search warrant, is insufficient and fatally defective by reason of the
manner in which the oath was made, and therefore, the search warrant and the
subsequent seizure of the books, documents and other papers are illegal.
Further, it is the practice in this jurisdiction to attach the affidavit of at least the
applicant or complainant to the application. It is admitted that the judge who
issued the search warrant in this case, relied exclusively upon the affidavit made
by agent Almeda and that he did not require nor take the deposition of any other
witness. The Constitution does not provide that it is of an imperative necessity to
take the depositions of the witnesses to be presented by the applicant or
complainant in addition to the affidavit of the latter. The purpose of both in
requiring the presentation of depositions is nothing more than to satisfy the
committing magistrate of the existence of probable cause. Therefore, if the
affidavit of the applicant or complainant is sufficient, the judge may dispense with
that of other witnesses. Inasmuch as the affidavit of the agent was insufficient
because his knowledge of the facts was not personal but merely hearsay, it is
the duty of the judge to require the affidavit of one or more witnesses for the
Issue:
contains sufficient facts within his personal and direct knowledge, it is sufficient if
the judge is satisfied that there exists probable cause; when the applicants
Ruling:
knowledge of the facts is mere hearsay, the affidavit of one or more witnesses
having a personal knowledge of the facts is necessary. Thus the warrant issued
is likewise illegal because it was based only on the affidavit of the agent who had
no personal knowledge of the facts.
fixed rule for its determination exists. Probable cause is determined in the light of
conditions obtaining in a given situation. Thus, it was improper for the Court of
Appeals to reverse the RTCs findings simply because the sales receipt
evidencing NBI Agent Samianos purchase of counterfeit goods is not in his
name.
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and
held that for purposes of determining probable cause, the sales receipt is not the
only proof that the sale of Microsoft software occurred. The NBI was able to
present the computer unit that was purchased from Maxicorp, in which Maxicorp
had pre-installed Microsoft software. A computer technician who demonstrated
the presence of Microsoft software in the computer unit was also presented. The
Supreme Court held that the trial court complied adequately with the
requirements of the Constitution and the Rules of Court.
The name and description of the accused should be inserted in the body of the
warrant and where the name is unknown there must be such a description of the
person accused as will enable the officer to identify him when found.
In May, 1923, the building located at No. 124 Calle Arzobispo, City of
Manila, was used by an organization known as the Parliamentary Club. Jose Ma.
Veloso was at that time a member of the House of Representative of the
Philippine Legislature. He was also the manager of the club. The police of Manila
had reliable information that the so-called Parliamentary Club was nothing more
than a gambling house. Indeed, on May 19, 1923, J. F. Townsend, the chief of
the gambling squad, had been to the club and verified this fact. Detective Andres
Geronimo of the secret service of the City of Manila, applied for, and obtained a
search warrant from Judge Garduo of the municipal court. Once inside the
Parliamentary Club, nearly fifty persons were apprehended by the police. One of
them was the defendant Veloso. Veloso asked Townsend what he wanted, and
the latter showed him the search warrant. Veloso read it and told Townsend that
he was Representative Veloso and not John Doe, and that the police had no
right to search the house. Townsend answered that Veloso was considered as
John Doe. As Veloso's pocket was bulging, as if it contained gambling utensils.
So policeman Rosacker took hold of Veloso only to meet with his resistance.
Veloso bit Rosacker in the right forearm, and gave him a blow in another part of
the body, which injured the policeman quite severely. Through the combined
efforts of Townsend and Rosacker, Veloso was finally laid down on the floor, and
long sheets of paper, of reglas de monte, cards, cardboards, and chips were
taken from his pockets. All of the persons arrested were searched and then
conducted to the patrol wagons. Veloso again refused to obey and shouted
offensive epithets against the police department. Veloso resisted so tenaciously
that three policemen were needed to place him in the patrol wagon. In the
municipal court of the City of Manila, the persons arrest in the raid was accused
of gambling. All of them were eventually acquitted in the Court of First Instance
for lack of proof, with the sole exception of Veloso, who was found guilty of
maintaining a gambling house.
A warrant for the apprehension of a person whose true name is unknown, by the
name of "John Doe" or "Richard Roe," "whose other or true name in unknown,"
is void, without other and further descriptions of the person to be apprehended,
and such warrant will not justify the officer in acting under it. Such a warrant
must, in addition, contain the best descriptio personae possible to be obtained of
the person or persons to be apprehended, and this description must be sufficient
to indicate clearly the proper person or persons upon whom the warrant is to be
served; and should state his personal appearance and peculiarities, give his
occupation and place of residence, and any other circumstances by means of
which he can be identified.
Facts:
Issue: WON the search warrant and the arrest of Veloso was valid.
Held: Yes.
It is provided, among other things, in Section 2, Article III of the
Constitution, a search warrant shall not issue except for probable cause and
upon application supported by oath particularly describing the place to be
searched and the person of thing to be seized.
In the first place, the affidavit for the search warrant and the search warrant
itself described the building to be searched as "the building No. 124 Calle
Arzobispo, City of Manila, Philippine Islands." This, without doubt, was a
sufficient designation of the premises to be searched.
As the search warrant stated that John Doe had gambling apparatus in his
possession in the building occupied by him at No. 124 Calle Arzobispo, City of
Manila, and as this John Doe was Jose Ma. Veloso, the manager of the club, the
police could identify John Doe as Jose Ma. Veloso without difficulty.
considerable lapse of time between the hit and run and the actual apprehension.
Because arrest was legal, the pieces of evidence are admissible.
Facts:
1.
apprehended with the help pf a civilian witness. Upon arrest following high
powered firearms were found in his possession:1) .357 caliber revolver with 6
live ammunition, 2) M-16 Baby Armalite magazine with ammo, 3) 380 pietro
beretta with 8 ammo and 4) 6 live double action ammo of .38 caliber revolver.
Padilla claimed papers of guns were at home. His arrest for hit and run
incident modified to include grounds of Illegal Possession of firearms. He had no
Firearms under PD 1866 by the RTC of Angeles City. He was convicted and
was denied by Court of Appeals. Padilla filed lots of other petitions and all of a
that the policemen who actually arrested him were not at the scene of the hit and
run. The court begs to disagree. It is a reality that curbing lawlessness gains
more success when law enforcers function in collaboration with private citizens.
Furthermore, in accordance with settled jurisprudence, any objection, defect or
ISSUE: WON the firearms and ammunitions taken in the course thereof are
inadmissible in evidence under the exclusionary rule
HELD:
No. petitioner questions the legality of his arrest. There is no dispute
that no warrant was issued for the arrest of petitioner, but that per se did not
make his apprehension at the Abacan Bridge illegal. Warrantless arrests are
sanctioned in Sec. 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedurea peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
person (a) when in his presence the person to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. When caught in
flagrante delicto with possession of an unlicensed firearm and ammo, petitioners
warrantless arrest was proper since he was actually committing another offence
in the presence of all those officers. There was no supervening event or a
irregularity attending an arrest must be made before the accused enters his plea.
Facts:
On 14 July 1991, at about 12:30 a.m., Pat. Romeo Pagilagan and
other police officers, namely, Pat. Wilfredo Aquilino, Simplicio Rivera, and
Erlindo Lumboy of the Western Police District (WPD), Narcotics Division went
to Zamora and Pandacan Streets, Manila to confirm reports of drug pushing in
the area. They saw Rodolfo Espano selling "something" to another person.
After the alleged buyer left, they approached Espano, identified themselves as
policemen, and frisked him. The search yielded two plastic cellophane tea bags
of marijuana. When asked if he had more marijuana, he replied that there was
more in his house. The policemen went to his residence where they found ten
more cellophane tea bags of marijuana. Espano was brought to the police
headquarters where he was charged with possession of prohibited drugs. On
24 July 1991, Espano posted bail and the trial court issued his order of release
on 29 July 1991. On 14 August 1992, the trial court rendered a decision,
convicting Espano of the crime charged. Espano appealed the decision to the
Court of Appeals. The appellate court, however, on 15 January 1995 affirmed
the decision of the trial court in toto. Espano filed a petition for review with the
Supreme Court.
Issue: Whether or not the search of Espanos home after his arrest does
not violate against his right against unreasonable search and seizure.
Held:
Espano's arrest falls squarely under Rule 113 Section 5(a) of the
Rules of Court. He was 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 within the area of Zamora and Pandacan Streets, Manila.
The police officer saw Espano handing over something to an alleged buyer. After
the buyer left, they searched him and discovered two cellophanes of marijuana.
His arrest was, therefore, lawful and the two cellophane bags of marijuana
seized were admissible in evidence, being the fruits of the crime. As for the 10
cellophane bags of marijuana found at Espano's residence, however, the same
inadmissible in evidence. The articles seized from Espano during his arrest
were valid under the doctrine of search made incidental to a lawful arrest. The
warrantless search made in his house, however, which yielded ten
Facts:
About 9:15 p.m. of 28 June 1989, Sgt. Victorino Noceja and Pat. Alex
de Castro, while on a routine patrol in Barangay Sampalucan, Pagsanjan,
Laguna, spotted a passenger jeep unusually covered with "kakawati" leaves.
Suspecting that the jeep was loaded with smuggled goods, the two police
officers flagged down the vehicle. The jeep was driven by Rudy Caballes y
Taio. When asked what was loaded on the jeep, he did not answer, but he
appeared pale and nervous. With Caballes' consent, the police officers checked
the cargo and they discovered bundles of 3.08 mm aluminum/galvanized
conductor wires exclusively owned by National Power Corporation (NAOCOR).
The conductor wires weighed 700 kilos and valued at P55,244.45. Noceja asked
Caballes where the wires came from and Caballes answered that they came
from Cavinti, a town approximately 8 kilometers away from Sampalucan.
Thereafter, Caballes and the vehicle with the high- voltage wires were brought to
the Pagsanjan Police Station. Danilo Cabale took pictures of Caballes and the
jeep loaded with the wires which were turned over to the Police Station
Commander of Pagsanjan, Laguna. Caballes was incarcerated for 7 days in the
Municipal jail. Caballes was charged with the crime of theft in an information
dated 16 October 1989. During the arraignment, Caballes pleaded not guilty and
hence, trial on the merits ensued. On 27 April 1993, Regional Trial Court of
Santa Cruz, Laguna rendered judgment, finding Caballes, guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of theft. In a resolution dated 9 November 1998,
the trial court denied Caballes' motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals
affirmed the trial court decision on 15 September 1998. Caballes appealed the
decision by certiorari.
Issue: Whether or not Caballes passive submission to the statement of Sgt.
Noceja that the latter "will look at the contents of his vehicle and he answered
in the positive" be considered as waiver on Caballes part on warrantless
search and seizure.
Held: Enshrined in our Constitution is the inviolable right of the people to be
secure in their persons and properties against unreasonable searches and
seizures, as defined under Section 2, Article III thereof. The exclusionary rule
under Section 3(2), Article III of the Constitution bars the admission of
evidence obtained in violation of such right. The constitutional proscription
against warrantless searches and seizures is not absolute but admits of
certain exceptions, namely: (1) warrantless search incidental to a lawful
arrest recognized under Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court and by
Manalili v. CA
[GR 113447, 9 October 1997]
19.
Facts:
At about 2:10 p.m. of 11 April 1988, policemen from the Anti-Narcotics
Unit of the Kalookan City Police Station were conducting a surveillance along A.
Mabini street, Kalookan City, in front of the Kalookan City Cemetery. The
policemen were Pat. Romeo Espiritu and Pat. Anger Lumabas and a driver
named Arnold Enriquez was driving a Tamaraw vehicle which was the official car
of the Police Station of Kalookan City. The surveillance was being made
because of information that drug addicts were roaming the area in front of the
Kalookan City Cemetery. Upon reaching the Kalookan City Cemetery, the
policemen alighted from their vehicle. They then chanced upon a male person in
front of the cemetery who appeared high on drugs. The male person was
observed to have reddish eyes and to be walking in a swaying manner. When
this male person tried to avoid the policemen, the latter approached him and
introduced themselves as police officers. The policemen then asked the male
person what he was holding in his hands. The male person tried to resist. Pat.
Romeo Espiritu asked the male person if he could see what said male person
had in his hands. The latter showed the wallet and allowed Pat. Romeo Espiritu
to examine the same. Pat. Espiritu took the wallet and examined it. He found
suspected crushed marijuana residue inside. He kept the wallet and its
marijuana contents. The male person was then brought to the Anti-Narcotics
Unit of the Kalookan City Police Headquarters and was turned over to Cpl.
Wilfredo Tamondong for investigation. Pat. Espiritu also turned over to Cpl.
Tamondong the confiscated wallet and its suspected marijuana contents. The
man turned out to be Alain Manalili y Dizon.
On 11 April 1988, Manalili was charged by Assistant Caloocan City
Fiscal E. Juan R. Bautista with violation of Section 8, Article II of Republic Act
6425. Upon his arraignment on 21 April 1988, Manalili pleaded "not guilty" to
the charge. With the agreement of the public prosecutor, Manalili was released
after filing a P10,000.00 bail bond. After trial in due course, the Regional Trial
Court of Caloocan City, Branch 124, acting as a Special Criminal Court,
rendered on 19 May 1989 a decision convicting appellant of illegal possession
of marijuana residue. Manalili remained on provisional liberty. Atty. Benjamin
Razon, counsel for the defense, filed a Notice of Appeal dated 31 May 1989. On
19 April 1993, the Court of Appeals denied the appeal and affirmed the trial
court. The appellate court denied reconsideration via its Resolution dated 20
January 1994. Manalili filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme
Court.
Issue: Whether or not the search and seizure could be effected without
necessarily being preceded by an arrest.
Held:
In the landmark case of Terry vs. Ohio, a stop-and-frisk was defined as
the vernacular designation of the right of a police officer to stop a citizen on the
street, interrogate him, and pat him for weapon(s). In allowing such a search,
the interest of effective crime prevention and detection allows a police officer to
approach a person, in appropriate circumstances and manner, for purposes of
investigating possible criminal behavior even though there is insufficient
probable cause to make an actual arrest. In Philippine jurisprudence, the
general rule is that a search and seizure must be validated by a previously
secured judicial
warrant; otherwise,
such search and seizure
is
unconstitutional and subject to challenge. Section 2, Article III of the 1987
Constitution, gives this guarantee. This right, however, is not absolute. The
recent case of People vs. Lacerna enumerated five recognized exceptions to
the rule against warrantless search and seizure, viz.: "(1) search incidental to a
lawful arrest, (2) search of moving vehicles, (3) seizure in plain view, (4) customs
search, and (5) waiver by the accused themselves of their right against
unreasonable search and seizure." Stop-and-frisk has already been adopted
as another exception to the general rule against a search without a
warrant. In Posadas vs. Court of Appeals, the Court held that there were many
instances where a search and seizure could be effected without necessarily
being preceded by an arrest, one of which was stop-and-frisk. To require the
police officers to search the bag only after they had obtained a search warrant
might prove to be useless, futile and much too late under the circumstances.
Herein, Patrolman Espiritu and his companions observed during their
surveillance that Manalili had red eyes and was wobbling like a drunk along the
Caloocan City Cemetery, which according to police information was a popular
hangout of drug addicts. From his experience as a member of the Anti-Narcotics
Unit of the Caloocan City Police, such suspicious behavior was characteristic
of drug addicts who were "high." The policemen therefore had sufficient
reason to stop Manalili to investigate if he was actually high on drugs. During
such investigation, they found marijuana in his possession. The search was
valid, being akin to a stop-and-frisk.
the Rules of Court. Turning to valid warrantless searches, they are limited to
the following: (1) customs searches; (2) search of moving vehicles; (3) seizure of
evidence in plain view; (4) consent searches; (5) a search incidental to a lawful
arrest; and (6) a "stop and frisk." The concepts of a "stop-and-frisk" and of a
search incidental to a lawful arrest must not be confused. Here, there could have
been no valid in flagrante delicto or hot pursuit arrest preceding the search in
light of the lack of personal knowledge on the part of Yu, the arresting officer, or
an overt physical act, on the part of Malacat, indicating that a crime had just
been committed, was being committed or was going to be committed.
Plainly, the search conducted on Malacat could not have been one incidental to
a lawful arrest. On the other hand, while probable cause is not required to
conduct a "stop and frisk," it nevertheless holds that mere suspicion or a hunch
will not validate a "stop and frisk Finally, a "stop-and-frisk" serves a two-fold
interest: (1) the general interest of effective crime prevention and detection,
which 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 without probable cause; and
(2) the more pressing interest of safety and self-preservation which permit the
police officer to take steps to assure himself that the person with whom he deals
is not armed with a deadly weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used
against the police officer. Here, there are at least three (3) reasons why the
"stop-and-frisk" was invalid: First, there is grave doubts as to Yu's claim that
Malacat was a member of the group which attempted to bomb Plaza Miranda 2
days earlier. Second, there was nothing in Malacat's behavior or conduct which
could have reasonably elicited even mere suspicion other than that his eyes
were "moving very fast" an observation which leaves us incredulous since Yu
and his teammates were nowhere near Malacat and it was already 6:30 p.m.,
thus presumably dusk. Third, there was at all no ground, probable or otherwise,
to believe that Malacat was armed with a deadly weapon. None was visible to
Yu, for as he admitted, the alleged grenade was "discovered" "inside the front
waistline" of Malacat, and from all indications as to the distance between Yu and
Malacat, any telltale bulge, assuming that Malacat was indeed hiding a grenade,
could not have been visible to Yu.
Issue: Whether or not the contents of the red plastic bag found in the kitchen
may be admitted as evidence as evidence acquired incidental to a lawful arrest.
Held:
Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest authorizes the arresting
officer to make a search upon the person of the person arrested. An officer
making an arrest may take from the person arrested and money or property
found upon his person which was used in the commission of the crime or was
the fruit of the crime or which might furnish the prisoner with the means of
committing violence or of escaping, or which may be used as evidence in the
trial of the cause. Hence, in a buy-bust operation conducted to entrap a drugpusher, the law enforcement agents may seize the marked money found on the
person of the pusher immediately after the arrest even without arrest and search
warrants. The warrantless search and seizure, as an incident to a suspect's
lawful arrest, may extend beyond the person of the one arrested to include
the premises or surroundings under his immediate control. Objects in the "plain
view" of an officer who has the right to be in the position to have that view are
subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence. When the discovery of the
evidence did not constitute a search, but where the officer merely saw what was
placed before him in full view, the warrantless seizure of the object was legal on
the basis of the "plain view" doctrine and upheld the admissibility of said
evidence. The "plain view" doctrine is usually applied where a police officer is
not searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently
comes across an incriminating object. What the'plain view' cases have in
common is that the police officer in each of them had a prior justification for an
intrusion in the course of which he came inadvertently across a piece of
evidence incriminating the accused.
The doctrine serves to supplement the prior justification whether it be
a warrant for another object, hot pursuit, search incident to lawful arrest, or
some other legitimate reason for being present unconnected with a search
directed against the accused and permits the warrantless seizure. The "plain
view" doctrine neither justify the seizure of the object where the incriminating
nature of the object is not apparent from the "plain view" of the object. Thus, the
exclusion of the plastic bag containing marijuana does not, however, diminish, in
any way, the damaging effect of the other pieces of evidence presented by the
prosecution to prove that the appellant sold marijuana, in violation of Article II,
Section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. By virtue of the testimonies of
Sgt. Ani and T/Sgt. Belarga and the two wrappings of marijuana sold by Musa to
Sgt. Ani, among other pieces of evidence, the guilt of Musa of the crime charged
has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
have obtained a warrant to arrest and search Aminnudin who was coming Iloilo
on the M/V Wilcon 9. His name was known. The vehicle was identified. The date
of its arrival was certain. And from the information they had received, they could
have persuaded a judge that there was probable cause, indeed, to justify the
issuance of a warrant. Yet they did nothing. No effort was made to comply with
the law. The Bill of Rights was ignored altogether because the PC lieutenant who
was the head of the arresting team, had determined on his own authority that
"search warrant was not necessary."
appellant. As such, the articles seized could not be used as evidence against
accused-appellant for these are fruits of a poisoned tree and, therefore, must
be rejected, pursuant to Article III, Sec. 3(2) of the Constitution.
bus, they decided to take the next ride and asked Malmstedt to take charge of
the bags, and that they would meet each other at the Dangwa Station. An
information was filed against Malmstedt for violation of the Dangerous Drugs
Act. During the arraignment, Malmstedt entered a plea of "not guilty." After trial
and on 12 October 1989, the trial court found Malmstedt guilty beyond
reasonable doubt for violation of Section 4, Article II of RA 6425 and sentenced
him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P20,000. Malmstedt sought reversal
of the decision of the trial court.
Issue: Whether or not the personal effects of Malmstedt may be searched
without an issued warrant.
Held:
The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and
seizures. However, where the search is made pursuant to a lawful arrest, there
is no need to obtain a search warrant. A lawful arrest without a warrant may be
made by a peace officer or a private person under the following circumstances.
Section 5 provides that a peace officer or a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested
has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b)
When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal
knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it;
and (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from
a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily
confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from
one confinement to another. In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b)
hereof, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the
nearest police station or jail, and he shall be proceeded against in accordance
with Rule 112, Section 7." Herein, Malmstedt was caught in flagrante delicto,
when he was transporting prohibited drugs. Thus, the search made upon his
personal effects falls squarely under paragraph (1) of the foregoing
provisions of law, which allow a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest.
Held:
Pet. Martin Alagao & his companion policemen had authority to effect
the seizure without any search warrant issued by a competent court. The Tarrif
and Custom Code do not require said search warrant in the instant case. The
Code authorizes persons having police authority under Sec. 2703 "to enter, pass
through or search any land, inclosure, wharehouse, store or building, not being a
dwelling house; and also to inspect, search and examine any vessel or aircraft
and any trunk, package, box or envelope, or any person on board, or stop and
search and examine any vehicle, beast or person suspected of holding or
conveying any dutiable or prohibited article introduec into the Phils. contrary to
law, without mentioning the need of a SW. xxx" Except in the case of a search
of a dwelling house, persons exercising police authority under the Customs law
may effect search and seizure without a SW in the enforcement of customs law.
In the instant case, we note that petitioner Alagao, & his companion policemen
did not have to make any search before tuthey seized the 2 trucks and their
cargo.
But even if there was a search, there is still authority to the effect that no
SW would be needed under the circumstances obtaining in the instant case.
HELD: YES
That search and seizure must be supported by a valid warrant is not an
absolute rule. One of the exceptions thereto is a search of a moving vehicle.
The circumstance of the case clearly show that the serach in question was
made as regards a moving vehicle. Therefore, a valid warrant was not
necessary to effect the search on appellant and his co-accused.
It was firmly established from the factual findings of the court that the
authorities had reasonable ground to believe that appellant would attempt to
bring in contraband and transport within the country. The belief was based on
intelligence reports gathered from surveillance activities on the suspected
syndicate, of which appellant was touted to be amember. Aside from this, they
were also certain as to the expected date and time of arrival of the accused
from China via Hongkong. But such knowledge was insufficient to enable
them to fulfill the requiremnents for the issuance of a search warrant. Still and
all, the important thing is that there was probable cause to conduct the
warrantless search, which must still be present in the case.
and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law. It is not meant to be
invoked against acts of private individuals. It will be recalled that Mr Job Reyes
was the one who opened the box in the presence of the NBI agents in his
place of business. The mere presence of the NBI agents did not convert the
reasonable search effected by Mr. Reyes into a warrantless search and
siezure proscribed by the constitution. Merely to observe and look at that which
is in plain sight is not a search.
The judgement of conviction finding appeallant guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime charged was AFFIRMED.
protection or waiving his right by giving consent to the search and seizure. It
should be stressed, however, that protection is against transgression
committed by the government or its agent. The constitutional proscription
against unlawful searches and seizures applies as a restraint directed only
against the government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the
law. Thus, it could only be invoked against the State to whom the restraint
against arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power is imposed.
In the case before us, the baggage of the accused-appellant was
searched by the vessel security personnel. It was only after they found shabu
inside the suitcase that they called the Philippine Coast Guard for assistance.
The search and seizure of the suitcase and the contraband items was
therefore carried out without government intervention, and hence, the
constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure does not
apply.
There is no merit in the contention of the accused-appellant that the
search and seizure performed by the vessel security personnel should be
considered as one conducted by the police authorities for like the latter, the
former are armed and tasked to maintain peace and order. The vessel security
officer in the case at bar is a private employee and does not discharge any
governmental function.
HELD:
NO. Sec. 11 (I), Art. II of the Revised Chapter of Manila and Sec.
455 (3) (iv) of the LGC clearly provides that power of the Mayor to issue
business licenses and permits necessarily includes the power to suspend,
revoke or even refuse to issue the same. However, the power to
suspend or revoke is expressly premised on the violation of permits and
licenses. The law refers to the violation of the conditions on which the
licenses and permits were issued. Similarly, the power to refuse the
issuance of such is premised on the non-compliance with the prerequisites. The mayor must observe due process in the exercise of such
power, which means that he shall give the applicant or the licensee the
duty to be heard. Even though the mayor has the power to investigate
private commercial establishments for the violations, still, he has no
power to order a police raid in the guise of inspection or investigation.
Lim has no authority to close down Bistro without due process of law. In
this instant case, Lims exercise of power violated Bistros property rights
that are protected under the due process clause of the constitution.
FACTS:
The board issued an EX PARTE ORDER directed against Solar
Textile to immediately cease and desist from utilizing its waste water
pollution source installations. The installations were allegedly discharging
untreated waste water directly into a canal leading to the adjacent
Tullahan Tinejeros River. The ex parte order was signed by Factoran, the
Boards Chair. The order was based on the findings made after
inspection of Solars Plant by the National Pollution Control Commission,
and by the DENR. They found out that the installation generated 30
gallons per minute of wastewater pollutants, in excess of that allowed
under PD 984. The order was received by Solar. A writ of execution was
issued. Solar assailed the order, contending that the same was issued
without due process.
The Board claims that it has authority to issue ex parte orders to
suspend operations, under PD 984, when there is prima facie evidence
of waste water discharge beyond the allowable limits. According to the
investigators reports, there was prima facie evidence.
Solar insists that the order may issue only when there is immediate
threat to life, public health, safety and welfare. It contends that there
was no such finding.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial
court on the ground that Solar had been denied due process by the
Board.
HELD: The Court found that the Order and Writ of Execution were
entirely within the lawful authority of petitioner Board. Ex parte cease
and desist orders are permitted by law and regulations in situations like
here. The relevant pollution control statute and implementing
regulations were enacted and promulgated in the exercise of that
pervasive, sovereign power to protect the safety, health, and general
4.
they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their
own behalf; and
5.
the evidence must be duly considered by the
investigating committee or official designated by the school
authorities to hear and decide the case.