You are on page 1of 5

9. Waiver of an Illegal Arrest is not a waiver of an Illegal Search.

Records have been


established that both the Arrest and the Search were made without a warrant.
People vs. Villanueva 2014
G.R. No. 199042

Facts:
A complaint was filed against Danilo Villanueva for allegedly shooting a
certain Brian Resco. Consequently, police officers proceeded to the house of the
accused, informed him about the blotter, and invited him to the police station.
There, he was subjected to a body search and, in the process, a plastic sachet of
shabu was recovered from the left pocket of his pants.
The RTC and CA convicted him for violation of Dangerous Drugs Act. On
appeal to SC, he pleaded that the arrest and search was effected without a warrant.
Issue:
Whether or not the warrantless arrest is valid
Whether or not a waiver of a warrantless arrest is a waiver of warrantless
search
Held:
1. The warrantless arrest became valid when:
a. Accused did not object before arraignment
b. Accused was arraigned and pleaded not guilty
c. Accused actively participated during trial
2. A waiver of a warrantless arrest is NOT a waiver of warrantless search
a. Consent to a search is not to be lightly inferred, but shown by clear
and convincing evidence.

1.0The 1987 Constitution states that a Search and Consequent seizure must be
carried out with a judicial warrant; otherwise, it becomes unreasonable and any
evidence obtained therefrom shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding
People vs. Sy -2010
G.R. No. 183879

Facts:
Police officers, acting upon a telephone call from a concerned citizen that an
illegal drug trade was going on, proceeded to Zone 3, Barangay Looc, Dumaguete
City. Stephen Sy was seen examining a transparent plastic sachet containing shabu
powder by flicking the same. The accused was approached, informed of his
constitutional rights but tried to escape. He was eventually subdued.
RTC and CA convicted the accused for a violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.
The accused contends that since he was not doing anything illegal at the time
of his arrest that would arose the suspicion of the arresting officers, his subsequent
arrest and the ensuing search upon his person was illegal and, therefore, any
alleged illegal drugs recovered from him cannot be used in trial against him, without
the risk of violating his constitutional right against unlawful search and seizure.
Issue:
Whether or not the warrantless arrest is valid
Held:
Yes, the warrantless arrest is valid.
The accused is estopped from assailing any irregularity of his arrest if he fails
to raise this issue or to move for the quashal of the information against him on this
ground before arraignment. Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the
procedure by which the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused
must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.
Nevertheless, the accused was caught in flagrante delicto. At the time of his
arrest, the police officers were actively performing their duties, since they were
following up a tip that there was an illegal drug trade being conducted in the area.
This fact, coupled with the overt acts of the petitioner, formed sufficient basis on
the part of the police officers to believe that a crime was actually being commited.

1.1 The 1987 Constitution states that a Search and Consequent seizure must be
carried out with a judicial warrant; otherwise, it becomes unreasonable and any
evidence obtained therefrom shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding
People vs. Cogaed 2014
G.R. No. 200334

Facts:

Policer officers set up a checkpoint in the waiting area of passengers due to


an information received in a text message from an unidentified civilian that one
Marvin Buya would be transporting marijuana. Consequently, when a jeepney driver
signaled the police officers indicating that Victor Cogaed is carrying marijuana, the
latter was apprehended. Inside the bag that Coaged was carrying was four rolled
pieces of marijuana fruit tops.
RTC and CA convicted Cogaed for a violation of Dangerous Drugs Act.
Issue:
Whether or not the warrantless arrest is valid
Whether or not the warrantless search is valid
Held:
1. No, the warrantless arrest is invalid.
Stop and frisk is effect when a police officer, with his/her personal knowledge,
observes facts leading to the suspicion of an illicit act.
The probable cause in a stop and frisk is defined as a reasonable ground of
suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a
cautious man to believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense which he is
charged. Moreover, it does not have to be probable cause, but it cannot be mere
suspicion. It has to be a genuine reason to serve the purposes of the stop and
frisk exception.
In the case at bar, the accused was not even the person mentioned by the
informant. Further, the accused was simply a passenger carrying a bag and
traveling aboard a jeepney. Furthermore, the assessment of suspicion was not made
by the police officer but by the jeepney driver.

2. No, the warrantless search is invalid.


Silence should not be lightly take as consent to search. The implied
acquiescence to the search, if there was any, could not have been more than mere
passive conformity given under intimidating or coercive circumstances and is thus
considered not consent at all within the purview of the constitutional guarantee.
1.2A Description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer serving the
warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended and
distinguish it from other places in community.
People vs. Tuan 2010
G.R. No. 176066

Facts:
A search warrant was issued by the Judge of a Municipal Trial Court of Baguio
upon application of SPO2 Fernandez. Fernandez was able to verify the report of two
male informants through a test buy that Estela Tuan had been selling marijuana.
Police officers found marijuana on a movable cabinet and on a built-in cabinet in the
accuseds house. In addition, an unlicensed gun was found.
RTC and CA convicted the accused for violation of Dangerous Drugs Act but
CA acquitted the accused on illegal possession of firearms because there was no
evidence that gun was unlicensed. The absence of license was simply presumed by
the police officers.
The accused questions the non-presentation as witnesses of the two male
informants. Further, that the Search Warrant failed to particularly describe the place
to be searched because the house was a two-storey building compose of several
rooms.
Issue:
Whether or not presentation of informants is essential
Whether or not there is a valid search warrant
Held:
1. No, the presentation of informants is not essential.
The presentation of an informant in an illegal drugs case is not essential for
conviction nor is it indispensable for a successful prosecution because his testimony
would be merely corroborative and cumulative.

2. Yes, the search warrant is valid.


A description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer serving the
warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended and
distinguish it from other places in the community. A designation or description that
points out the place to be searched to the exclusion of all others, and on inquiry
unerringly leads the peace officers to it, satisfies the constitutional requirement of
definiteness.
In the case at bar, there was only one house located at the stated address,
consisting of a structure with two floors and composed of several rooms.

You might also like