Malacat v CA 283 SCRA 159

(December 12, 1997)

Facts: On 27 August 1990, at about 6:30 p.m.,
allegedly in response to bomb threats reported
seven days earlier, Rodolfo Yu of the Western
Police District, Metropolitan Police Force of the
Integrated National Police, Police Station No. 3,
Quiapo, Manila, was on foot patrol with three other
police officers (all of them in uniform) along
Quezon Boulevard, Quiapo, Manila, near the
Mercury Drug store at Plaza Miranda. They
chanced upon two groups of Muslim-looking men,
with each group, comprised of three to four men,
posted at opposite sides of the corner of stop and
frisk, where a warrant and seizure can be effected
without necessarily being preceded by an arrest
and whose object is either to maintain the status
quo momentarily while the police officer seeks to
obtain more information; and that the seizure of
the grenade from Malacat was incidental to a lawful
arrest. The trial court thus found Malacat guilty of
the crime of illegal possession of explosives under
Section 3 of PD 1866, and sentenced him to suffer
the penalty of not less than 17 years, 4 months and 1
day of Reclusion Temporal, as minimum, and not
more than 30 years of Reclusion Perpetua, as
maximum. On 18 February 1994, Malacat filed a
notice of appeal indicating that he was appealing to
the Supreme Court. However, the record of the case
was forwarded to the Court of Appeals (CA-GR CR
15988). In its decision of 24 January 1996, the
Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. Manalili
filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court.
Quezon Boulevard
near the Mercury Drug Store. These men were
acting suspiciously with their eyes moving very
fast. Yu and his companions positioned themselves
at strategic points and observed both groups for
about 30 minutes. The police officers then
approached one group of men, who then fled in
different directions. As the policemen gave chase,
Yu caught up with and apprehended Sammy
Malacat y Mandar (who Yu recognized, inasmuch
as allegedly the previous Saturday, 25 August 1990,
likewise at Plaza Miranda, Yu saw Malacat and 2
others attempt to detonate a grenade). Upon
searching Malacat, Yu found a fragmentation
grenade tucked inside the latters front waist line.
Yus companion, police officer Rogelio Malibiran,
apprehended Abdul Casan from whom a .38 caliber
revolver was recovered. Malacat and Casan were
then brought to Police Station 3 where Yu placed an
X mark at the bottom of the grenade and
thereafter gave it to his commander. Yu did not
issue any receipt for the grenade he allegedly

recovered from Malacat. On 30 August 1990,

Malacat was charged with violating Section 3 of
Presidential Decree 1866. At arraignment on 9
October 1990, petitioner, assisted by counsel de
officio, entered a plea of not guilty. Malacat denied
the charges and explained that he only recently
arrived in Manila. However, several other police
officers mauled him, hitting him with benches and
guns. Petitioner was once again searched, but
nothing was found on him. He saw the grenade only
in court when it was presented. In its decision
dated 10 February 1994 but promulgated on 15
February 1994, the trial court ruled that the
warrantless search and seizure of Malacat was akin
to a
Issue: Whether the search made on Malacat is
valid, pursuant to the exception of stop and frisk.
Held: The general rule as regards arrests, searches
and seizures is that a warrant is needed in order to
validly effect the same. The Constitutional
prohibition against unreasonable arrests, searches
and seizures refers to those effected without a
validly issued warrant, subject to certain
exceptions.
As
regards valid
warrantless
arrests, these are found in Section 5, Rule
113 of the Rules of Court. A warrantless
arrest
under
the
circumstances
contemplated under Section 5(a) has been
denominated as one in flagrante delicto,
while that under Section 5(b) has been
described as a hot pursuit arrest. 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. These two types of warrantless searches
differ in terms of the requisite quantum of proof
before they may be validly effected and in their
allowable scope. In a search incidental to a lawful
arrest, as the precedent arrest determines the
validity of the incidental search. 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. A genuine

reason must exist, in light of the police officers

experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant
the belief that the person detained has weapons
concealed about him. 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 selfpreservation 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 Yus claim that Malacat
was a member of the group which attempted to
bomb Plaza Miranda 2 days earlier. This claim is
neither supported by any police report or record
nor corroborated by any other police officer who
allegedly chased that group. Second, there was
nothing in Malacats 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. Malacat and his companions were merely
standing at the corner and were not creating any
commotion or trouble. 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. What is
unequivocal then are blatant violations of Malacats
rights solemnly guaranteed in Sections 2 and 12(1)
of Article III of the Constitution

People v Aruta
288 SCRA 626 (1998)
Facts: On Dec. 13, 1988, P/Lt. Abello was tipped
off by his informant that a certain Aling Rosa will
be arriving from Baguio City with a large volume
of marijuana and assembled a team. The next day,
at the Victory Liner Bus terminal they waited for
the bus coming fromBaguio, when the informer
pointed out who Aling Rosa was, the team
approached her and introduced themselves as

NARCOM agents. When Abello asked aling Rosa

about the contents of her bag, the latter handed it
out to the police. They found dried marijuana
leaves packed in a plastic bag marked cash
katutak.
Instead of presenting its evidence, the defense filed
a demurrer to evidence alleging the illegality of the
search and seizure of the items. In her testimony,
the accused claimed that she had just come from
Choice theatre where she watched a movie
Balweg. While about tocross the road an old
woman asked her for help in carrying a shoulder
bag, when she was later on arrested by the police.
She has no knowledge of the identity of the old
woman and the woman was nowhere to be found.
Also, no search warrant was presented.
The trial court convicted the accused in violation of
the dangerous drugs of 1972

Issue: Whether or Not the police correctly

searched and seized the drugs from the accused.

Held: The following cases are specifically provided

or allowed by law:
1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest
recognized under Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules
of Court 8 and by prevailing jurisprudence
2. Seizure of evidence in "plain view," the elements
of which are: (a) a prior valid intrusion based on
the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are
legally present in the pursuit of their official duties;
(b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by
the police who had the right to be where they are;
(c) the evidence must be immediately apparent, and
(d) "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence
without further search;
3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by
the government, the vehicle's inherent mobility
reduces expectation of privacy especially when its
transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly
reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause
that the occupant committed a criminal activity;
4. Consented warrantless search;
5. Customs search;
6. Stop and Frisk;
7. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances.

region where the warrant shall be enforced.

The essential requisite of probable cause must still
be satisfied before a warrantless search and seizure
can be lawfully conducted.
The accused cannot be said to be committing a
crime, she was merely crossing the street and was
not acting suspiciously for the Narcom agents to
conclude that she was committing a crime. There
was no legal basis to effect a warrantless arrest of
the accuseds bag, there was no probable cause and
the accused was not lawfully arrested.
The police had more than 24 hours to procure a
search warrant and they did not do so. The seized
marijuana was illegal and inadmissible evidence.

RULE 113, RULES OF COURT

Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A
peace officer or a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested
has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed, and
he has probable cause to believe based on personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person
to be arrested has committed it; 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 is
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or
has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another.
In cases falling under paragraph (a) and (b) above,
the person arrested without a warrant shall be
forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or
jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance
with section 7 of Rule 112.

RULE 126, RULES OF COURT

However, if the criminal action has already been

filed, the application shall only be made in the court
where the criminal action is pending.
Section 7. Right to break door or window to effect
search. The officer, if refused admittance to the
place of directed search after giving notice of his
purpose and authority, may break open any outer
or inner door or window of a house or any part of a
house or anything therein to execute the warrant or
liberate himself or any person lawfully aiding him
when unlawfully detained therein.
Section 12. Delivery of property and inventory
thereof to court; return and proceedings thereon.
(a) The officer must forthwith deliver the property
seized to the judge who issued the warrant, together
with a true inventory thereof duly verified under
oath.
(b) Ten (10) days after issuance of the search
warrant, the issuing judge shall ascertain if the
return has been made, and if none, shall summon
the person to whom the warrant was issued and
require him to explain why no return was made. If
the return has been made, the judge shall ascertain
whether section 11 of this Rule has been
complained with and shall require that the property
seized be delivered to him. The judge shall see to it
that subsection (a) hereof has been complied with.
(c) The return on the search warrant shall be filed
and kept by the custodian of the log book on search
warrants who shall enter therein the date of the
return, the result, and other actions of the judge.
A violation of this section shall constitute contempt
of court.

People v. Claudio
G.R. No. 72564,
April 15, 1988
FACTS:

Section 2. Court where application for search

warrant shall be filed. An application for search
warrant shall be filed with the following:

Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City

convicted the accused Anita Claudio y
Bagtang for violating Sec. 4 of the Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972

a) Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a

crime was committed.
b) For compelling reasons stated in the application,
any court within the judicial region where the crime
was committed if the place of the commission of the
crime is known, or any court within the judicial

Prosecutions witness Danel Obia, a

policeman, testified that while on board the
Victory Liner heading back to his home in
Olongapo, Claudio boarded the same bus
and took the seat in front of him after placing
a woven buri bag made of plastic containing
some vegetables she was carrying at the

back of Obias seat. With the feeling that

there was some unusual, he had the urge to
search the woven plastic bag so when they
reached San Fernando, Pampanga, he
inserted one of his fingers in a plastic bag
located at the bottom of the woven bag and
smelt marijuana. He could recognize the
smell of marijuana because he was assigned
at that time at the ANTI-NARCOTICS Unit. He
did not, however, do anything after he
discovered that there was marijuana inside
the plastic bag of the accused until they
reached Olongapo City and the accused
alighted from the bus. Obina intercepted her
and showed her his ID Identifying himself as
a policeman and told her he will search her
bag because of the suspicion that she was
carrying marijuana inside said bag. Claudio
replied, "Please go with me, let us settle this
at home." However, the witness did not heed
her plea and instead handcuffed her right
hand and with her, boarded a tricycle right
away and brought the suspect to the police
headquarters with her bag appearing to
contain vegetables. At the police
headquarters Investigation Section, the bag
was searched in the presence of Investigator
Cpl. Tiongco, Obia, Claudio and Sgt. Leoncio
Bagang. Inside the plastic bag was found a
big bundle of plastic containing marijuana
weighing about one kilo.
ISSUE:
WON Claudios warrantless search, seizure
and apprehension were unlawful?
RULING:
NO, the warrantless search, seizure and
apprehension were lawful. Rule 113, Sec.
5(a) of the said Rules provides for the in
flagrante delicto arrest, that is, a peace
officer or a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person when, in his
presence, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense. Meanwhile,
its Rule 126, Sec. 12 provides for a
warrantless search incidental to lawful arrest
to be lawful. In other words, a person lawfully
arrested may be searched for dangerous
weapons or anything which may be used as
proof of the commission of an offense,
without a search warrant.
Here, Claudio was caught in flagrante delicto
transporting prohibited drugs. Thus, Pat.
Daniel Obina did not need a warrant to arrest
Claudio. The warrantless search being an
incident to a lawful arrest is in itself lawful
(Nolasco v Pano). Therefore there was no
infirmity in the seizure of the 1.1 kilos of
marijuana.

Thus, warrantless search, seizure and

apprehension were lawful.

People Vs. Tangliben

184 SCRA 220
G.R. No.L-63630
April 6, 1990
Facts: Patrolmen Silverio and Romeo Punzalan were
conducting surveillance at the San Fernando Victory
Liner Terminal. At around 9:30pm they noticed a
person, Medel Tangliben, carrying a traveling bag who
acted suspiciously. They confronted him, inspected
his bag, and there they found marijuana leaves. The
accused was then taken to the Police Headquarters
for further investigations. The TC found Tangliben
guilty of violating sec.4 art. 2 of the RA 6425 or the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.
Issue: Whether or Not there was an unlawful search
due to lack of search warrant.
Held; No. Rule 113 sec. 5 provides the a peace
officer or a private person may w/o a warrant arrest a
person when in his presence the person to be
arrested has committed, is committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense.
In the present case, the accused was found to have
been committing possession of marijuana and can be
therefore searched lawfully even without a search
warrant. Another reason is that this case poses
urgency on the part of the arresting police officers. It
was found out that an informer pointed to the accused
telling the policemen that the accused was carrying
marijuana. The police officers had to act quickly and
there was not enough time to secure a search
warrant.

Pp vs. MALMSTEDT
G.R. No. 91107 June 19, 1991

Facts:
Captain Alen Vasco, the commanding officer
of the first regional command (NARCOM) stationed at
camp Dangwa, ordered his men to set up a temporary
checkpoint for the purpose of checking all vehicles
coming from the Cordillera Region. The order to
establish a checkpoint was prompted by persistent
reports that vehicles coming from Sagada were
transporting marijuana and other prohibited drugs.
And an information also was received about a
Caucasian coming from Sagada had in his
possession prohibited drugs.
In the afternoon the bus where accused was
riding stopped. Sgt. Fider and CIC Galutan boarded
the bus and announced that they were members of
the NARCOM and that they would conduct an
inspection. During the inspection CIC Galutan noticed
a bulge on accused waist. Suspecting the bulge on
accused waist to be a gun, the officer asked for
accuseds passport and other identification papers.
When accused failed to comply, the officer required
him to bring out whatever it was that was bulging o his
waist. And it turned out to be a pouched bag and

when accused opened the same bag the officer

noticed four suspicious looking objects wrapped in
brown packing tape. It contained hashish, a derivative
of marijuana.
Thereafter, the accused was invited outside
the bus for questioning. But before he alighted from
the bus accused stopped to get two travelling bags.
The officer inspects the bag. It was only after the
officers had opened the bags that the accused finally
presented his passport. The two bags contained a
stuffed toy each, upon inspection the stuff toy
contained also hashish.

Probable cause has been defined as such facts and

circumstances which could lead a reasonable,
discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense
has been committed, and that the object sought in
connection with the offense are in the placed sought
to be searched.

Issue:

PEOPLE VS. MONTILLA

G. R. No. 123872 Jan. 30, 1998

Whether or not there is a violation of the

constitutional right against unreasonable search and
seizure
Ruling:
The Supreme Court held that under Section 5
Rule 113 of the Rules of Court provides:
Arrest without warrant; when lawful a peace officer
or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
person:
a) When, in the 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 temporary
confined while his case is pending, or has escaped
while being transferred from one confinement to
another
Accused was searched and arrested while
transporting prohibited drugs. A crime was actually
being committed by the accused and he was caught
in flagrante delicto, thus the search made upon his
personal effects falls squarely under paragraph 1 of
the foregoing provision of law, which allows a
warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest.

When NARCOM received the information that a

Caucasian travelling from Sagada to Baguio City was
carrying with him a prohibited drug, there was no time
to obtain a search warrant.

Facts:
Ruben Montilla, alias Joy was charged for violating
Section 4, Article 2 of the Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972, R. A. No. 6425, as amended by R. A. No. 7659
in an information which
alleges: That on or about 20th day of
June 1994, at Brgy. Salitran, Dasmarinas, Cavite, xxx
the above-named accused, not being authorized by
law, didthen and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, administer, transport and deliver 28 kilos
of dried marijuanaleaves which are considered
prohibited drugs.
Issue:Whether the warrantless search conducted on
appellant invalidates the evidence obtained from him?
Ruling:A legitimate warrantless arrest necessarily
cloaks the arresting officer with authority to validly
search andseize from the offender (1) dangerous
weapons; and (2) those that may be used as proof of
the commission of anoffense. On the defense
argument that the warrantless search conducted on
appellant invalidates the evidenceobtained from him,
still the search on his belongings and the consequent
confiscation of the illegal drugs as aresult thereof was
justified as a search incidental to a lawful arrest under
Section 5 (a) Rule 113 of the Rules of Court