Case #35

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. COURT OF APPEALS

291 SCRA 400
G.R. No. 126379 June 26, 1998
Facts:
S/Insp PNP James Brillantes applied for search warrant before Branch
261, RTC of Quezon City against Mr. Azfar Hussain, who had allegedly in his
possession firearms and explosives at Abigail Variety Store, Apt. 1207 Area F,
Bagong Buhay Avenue, Sapang Palay, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan.
Search Warrant No. 1068 (95) against Mr. Hussain was issued not at
Abigail Variety Store but at Apt. No. 1, immediately adjacent (to) Abigail
Variety Store resulting in the arrest of four (4) Pakistani nationals and in the
seizure of their personal belongings, papers and effects such as wallet, wrist
watches, pair of shoes, jackets, t-shirts, belts, sunglasses and travelling bags
including cash amounting to $3,550.00 and P1,500.00 aside from
US$5,175.00 (receipted) which were never mentioned in the warrant.
Three days after the warrant was served, a return was made without
mentioning the personal belongings, papers and effects including cash
belonging to the private respondents. There was no showing that lawful
occupants were made to witness the search.
Private respondents upon arraignment, pleaded not guilty to the
offense charged; and submitted their "Extremely Urgent Motion (To Quash
Search Warrant and to Declare Evidence Obtained Inadmissible),"
According to the private respondents in their pleading, an ocular
inspection of the premises searched was conducted by respondent Judge and
the following facts had been established as contained in the order, to wit:
1) That the residence of all the accused is at Apartment No. 1 which is
adjacent to the Abigail's Variety Store;
2) That there is no such number as "1207" found in the building as it is
correspondingly called only as "Apartment No. 1, 2, 3 and 4;"

3) That Apartment No. 1 is separate from the Abigail's Variety Store;

4) That there are no connecting doors that can pass from Abigail's
Variety Store to Apartment No. 1;
5) That Abigail's Variety Store and Apartment No. 1 have its own
respective doors used for ingress and egress.
The respondent Judge issued its order duly granting the motion to
quash search warrant.
Issue:
Whether or not that particular apartment had been specifically
described in the warrant.
Held:
At the time of the application for a search warrant, there were at least
five (5) distinct places in the area involved: the store known as "Abigail's
Variety Store," and four (4) separate and independent residential apartment
units. These are housed in a single structure and are contiguous to each
other although there are no connecting doors through which a person could
pass from the interior of one to any of the others. Each of the five (5) places
is independent of the others, and may be entered only through its individual
front door. Admittedly, the police officers did not intend a search of all five
(5) places, but of only one of the residential units at the rear of Abigail's
Variety Store: that immediately next to the store (Number 1).
However, despite having personal and direct knowledge of the physical
configuration of the store and the apartments behind the store, the police
officers failed to make Judge Bacalla understand the need to pinpoint
Apartment No. 1 in the warrant. Even after having received the warrant
which directs that the search be "limited only to the premises herein
described," "Abigail Variety Store Apt 1207" thus literally excluding the
apartment units at the rear of the store they did not ask the Judge to
correct said description. They seem to have simply assumed that their own
definite idea of the place to be searched clearly indicated, according to
them, in the sketch they claim to have submitted to Judge Bacalla in support
of their application was sufficient particularization of the general
identification of the place in the search warrant.

The place to be searched, as set out in the warrant, cannot be

amplified or modified by the officers' own personal knowledge of the
premises, or the evidence they adduced in support of their application for
the warrant. Such a change is proscribed by the Constitution which
requires inter alia the search warrant to particularly describe the place to be
searched as well as the persons or things to be seized. It would concede to
police officers the power of choosing the place to be searched, even if it not
be that delineated in the warrant. It would open wide the door to abuse of
the search process, and grant to officers executing a search warrant that
discretion which the Constitution has precisely removed from them. The
particularization of the description of the place to be searched may properly
be done only by the Judge, and only in the warrant itself; it cannot be left to
the discretion of the police officers conducting the search.

Case #36
NATHANIEL S. MANIPON, JR., vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
143 SCRA 267
G.R. No. L-58889 July 31, 1986
Facts:
Manipon was charged with violation of Presidential Decree No. 46 for
having demanded and received P l,000.00 from Dominguez, a private
individual, for a favor extended by him to the latter, i.e., by not enforcing the
garnishment order issued to Comtrust which was his official duty. However, in
an amended information, the charge was changed to direct bribery under the
Revised Penal Code.
Manipon contends that the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting him of
direct bribery, in not giving credence to the defense theory that there was
novation of the money judgment and in admitting illegally-obtained
evidence.
Issue:
Whether or not the P1, 000.00 was illegally seized because there was
no valid March warrant and therefore inadmissible.

Held:
The rule that searches and seizures must be supported by a valid
warrant is not an absolute rule. There are at least three exceptions to the
rule recognized in this jurisdiction. These are: 1) search incidental to an
arrest, 2) search of a moving vehicle, and 3) seizure of evidence in plain
view.
In the case at bar, the records show that NISA Sub-Station Commander
Colonel Luisito Sanchez held a final briefing among his men and some
operatives from the Benguet Philippine Constabulary concerning the planned
entrapment. NISA Agent Caesar Murla testified that he saw Dominguez give
the marked money to Manipon which the latter accepted and counted.
The search and seizure of the P1,000.00 from Manipon would therefore
fall within the first exception. The search was made as an incident to a lawful
arrest. An officer making an arrest may take from the person arrested any
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 escaping, or which may be used in
evidence in the trial of the case.
The evident purpose of this exception is both to protect the arresting
officer against physical harm from the person being arrested who might be
armed with a concealed weapon and also to prevent the person arrested
from
destroying
evidence
within
his
reach.
The instant petition was denied for lack of merit.

Case #37
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ARMANDO DE LARA Y GALARO
236 SCRA 291
G.R. No. 94953 September 5, 1994

Facts:

Capt. Restituto Cablayan of the National Criminal Investigation Service

(NCIS) of the Western Police District (WPD), instructed Sgt. Enrique David to
conduct a surveillance operation in the vicinity of Garrido and Zamora
Streets at Sta. Ana, Manila, after receiving reports of rampant drug-pushing
in that area.
In compliance thereof, a team led by Sgt. Enrique David, conducted a
surveillance operation and confirmed the reported drug-pushing activities in
that area by the group of appellant and a certain Ricky alias "Pilay". No arrest
was made because the team was instructed by their superior to conduct a
surveillance operation only.
Capt. Cablayan instructed Sgt. David to plan a buy-bust operation and
to
form
a
six-man team with Pfc. Martin Orolfo, Jr. as the poseur-buyer.
Pfc. Orolfo, Jr. and the confidential informant proceeded to the house of
appellant located at No. 2267 Garrido Street. The confidential informant
introduced Pfc. Orolfo, Jr. to appellant as an interested buyer of marijuana.
Armando De Lara was charged, not being authorized by law to sell,
deliver, give away to another or distribute any prohibited drug, did then and
there willfully and unlawfully sell or offer for sale two (2) foils of flowering
tops of marijuana and one (1) plastic bag of flowering tops of marijuana,
which are prohibited drugs.
Appellant denied having sold marijuana to anyone and claimed that
the arresting officers merely planted the marijuana on his person and that
the twenty-peso bill was given to him by the poseur-buyer and that the first
time he saw the blue plastic bag containing prohibited drugs was when he
was at the police station.
Issue:
Whether or not ARMANDO DE LARAS arrest and the seizure of
prohibited drugs found inside his house was legal.
Held:
As to the legality of appellant's arrest, the Court find that the police
operatives acted within the bounds of law.

Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedures dealing

with warrantless arrests provides:
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 in fact just been committed and he has
personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be
arrested has committed it;
In the case at bench, appellant was caught red-handed in delivering
two tin foils of marijuana to Pat. Orolfo, Jr., the poseur-buyer. Applying the
aforementioned provision of law, appellant's arrest was lawfully effected
without need of a warrant of arrest. "Having caught the appellant in
flagrante as a result of the buy-bust operation, the policemen were not only
authorized but were also under obligation to apprehend the drug pusher
even without a warrant of arrest".
The policemen's entry into the house of appellant without a search
warrant was in hot-pursuit of a person caught committing an offense in
flagrante. The arrest that followed the hot-pursuit was valid.
The Court also finds the seizure of the plastic bag of prohibited drugs
found inside appellant's house as valid.
The seizure of the plastic bag containing prohibited drugs was the
result of appellant's arrest inside his house. A contemporaneous search may
be conducted upon the person of the arrestee and the immediate vicinity
where the arrest was made.
Case #38
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. PO2 ALBERT ABRIOL, MACARIO
ASTELLERO, and JANUARIO DOSDOS
367 SCRA 327
G.R. No. 123137

October 17, 2001

Facts:
The Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 10, found appellants
Albert Abriol, Macario Astellero, and Januario Dosdos guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of murder and violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866 on
Illegal Possession of Firearms.
On their conviction for illegal possession of firearms, appellants
contend that the handguns and ammunition allegedly taken from them by
the police officers were illegally seized. They assert that the police had no
warrant to effect a search and seizure, such that these illegally seized
firearms were inadmissible as evidence, and it was error for the trial court to
admit them.
Issue:
Whether or not the handguns and ammunition allegedly taken from the
accused by the police officers were illegally seized.
Held:
There are eight (8) instances where a warrantless search and seizure is
valid. They are: (1) consented searches; (2) as an incident to a lawful
arrest; (3) searches of vessels and aircraft for violation of immigration,
customs, and drug laws; (4) searches of moving vehicles; (5) searches of
automobiles at borders or constructive borders; (6) where the prohibited
articles are in "plain view;" (7) searches of buildings and premises to enforce
fire, sanitary, and building regulations; and (8) "stop and frisk" operations.
In this case, the warrantless search and seizure of the subject
handguns and ammunition is valid for two reasons. It was a search incidental
to a lawful arrest. It was made after a fatal shooting, and pursuit of a fastmoving vehicle seeking to elude pursuing police officers, and a more than
reasonable belief on the part of the police officers that the fleeing suspects
aboard said vehicle had just engaged in criminal activity. The urgent need of
the police to take immediate action in the light of the foregoing exigencies
clearly satisfies the requirements for warrantless arrests under the Rules of
Court. Moreover, when caught in flagrante delicto with firearms and
ammunition which they were not authorized to carry, appellants were
actually violating P.D. No. 1866, another ground for valid arrest under the
Rules.