PEOPLE v DIAZ

FACTS: Manuel Diaz, Eddie Luto and Arnold Angquilo were convicted for the crime of
robbery with homicide. Armed with handguns, they entered the office of Ferdinand
Furigay y Pua and attacked him by shooting which caused his immediate death.
They robbed and took the latters pistol and the stores day earnings, all in total
amount of P67,000, to the damage and prejudice of the said offended party in the
total amount of P72,000.
ISSUE: whether or not the court erred when it admitted in evidence the gun, five
bullets, and magazine taken from them by the police at the time of their arrest
which there was no warrant
HELD: their objection is too late. For failing to object to the admissibility of said
evidence during their formal offer, they have waived their right against admissibility.
Amidst a waiver, the trial court did not err in admitting the evidence. Their
conviction is affirmed.

PEOPLE v DAMASO
FACTS: Basilio Damaso was charged for possessing a M14 Rifle in furtherance,
incident or connection to the crime of subversion. The counsel for Damaso
interposed his objections to the admissibility of the prosecutions evidence on the
grounds of its being hearsay, immaterial or irrelevant and illegal for lack of a search
warrant. The legality of a search and seizure conducted at his house at night when
he was not around was assailed on the ground that it violated constitutional rights
against unreasonable search and seizures.
ISSUE: whether or not constitutional immunity may be waived by another person
HELD: The constitutional immunity from unreasonable searches and seizures, being
personal, cannot be waived by anyone except the person whose rights are invaded
or one who is expressly authorized to do so in his or her behalf. In the case at bar,
appellant was not in his house and his alleged helper allowed the authorities to
enter. There is no evidence to establish the fact that Luz Morados was indeed
appellants helper, or if it was true that she was his helper, that the appellant had
given her (or Luz Tanciangco) authority to open his house in his absence. Without
this evidence, the authorities intrusion into the appellants dwelling cannot be
given any color of legality. While the power to search and seizure is necessary to the
public welfare, still it must be exercised and the law enforced without transgressing
the constitutional rights of the citizens, for the enforcement of no statute is of
sufficient importance to justify indifference to the basic principles of government. As
a consequence, the search conducted by the authorities was illegal. It would have

been different if the situation demanded urgency which could have prompted the
authorities to dispense with a search warrant, but the record is silent on this point.
Appellant is acquitted.