Case Title: People v.

Araza y Sagun
Date: November 17, 2014
Where Filed: RTC San Pero Laguna
Crime Charged: Violation of Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act of
2002
Doctrine: Valid Warrantless arrest, Plain View Doctrine
Facts:
At around 8:00 p.m. of August 28, 2002,PO1 Talacca accompanied the
Barangay Chairman, Barangay Tanods and several members of the
barangay council in confiscating a video karera machine inside the
house of a certain Alejandro Sacdo (Sacdo). While confiscating said
machine, PO1 Talacca saw nine persons, including Araza, sniffing
shabuor engaging in a pot session inside the house of Sacdo. He
arrested and frisked them. Recovered from the pocket of Araza was a
small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substance which PO1 Talacca suspected to be shabu. PO1
Talacca immediately seized said sachet and brought Araza and his
companions to the police station. He turned over the said sachet to the
chief investigator, Larry Cabrera (Cabrera), who marked the same with
the initials "RSA" in his presence.
The prosecution was supposed to alsopresent Police Senior Inspector
Donna Villa Huelgas (P/Sr. Insp. Huelgas), the Forensic Chemist who
examined the confiscated white crystalline substance, but her
testimony was dispensed with after the defense agreed to the following
stipulations: 1) Chemistry Report No. D-2028-02; 2) the name of
suspect Rommel Araza y Sagun ;3) the specimen submitted; 4)
findings; 5) conclusion; 6) the name and signature of P/Sr. Insp.
Huelgas; 7) the request for laboratory examination; 8) the name of
suspect Rommel Araza y Sagun; 9) the evidence submitted; 10) the
stamp mark; 11) the half-size white envelope; 12) the plastic sachet;
and 13) the small heat-sealed plastic sachets.
RTC: Araza is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
CA: Affirmed the RTC
Issue:
WON the item confiscated from his pocket a valid evidence.
Held:
As to the admissibility of the shabuseized from Araza, it is crucial to
ascertain whether the search that yielded the alleged contraband was

lawful. The Constitution states that failureto secure a judicial warrant

prior to the actual search and consequent seizure would render it
unreasonable and any evidence obtained therefrom shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. This constitutional
prohibition, however, admits of the following exceptions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest;

Search of evidence in "plain view";
Search of a moving vehicle;
Consented warrantless search;
Customs search;
Stop and Frisk; and
Exigent and emergency circumstances.

In this case, there is sufficient evidence to prove that the warrantless

search of Araza was effected as an incident to a lawful arrest.
PO1 Talacca testified that he saw Araza and his companions sniffing
substance that seemed to be shabu inside the premises where a video
karera machine was being confiscated by the barangay officials for
whom he provided security. He thus entered the room, effected their
arrest and conducted a body search on them. Upon searching the
person of Araza, PO1 Talacca recovered from him a plastic sachet
containing white crystalline substance. Araza and the seized item were
then brought to the police station. After a laboratory examination, the
white crystalline substance insidethe sachet was found positive for
shabu.
Considering the foregoing, Arazawas clearly apprehended inflagrante
delictoas he was then committing a crime (sniffing shabu) in the
presence of PO1 Talacca. Hence, his warrantless arrest is valid
pursuant to Section 5(a) of the above-quoted Rule 113 of the Rules of
Court. And having been lawfully arrested, the warrantless search that
followed was undoubtedly incidental to a lawful arrest, which as
mentioned, is an exception to the constitutional prohibition on
warrantless search and seizure. Conversely, the shabuseized from
Araza is admissible in evidence toprove his guilt of the offense
charged.

Case Title: People v. Mariacos

Date: June 16, 2010
Where Filed: RTC San Fernando City, La Union
Crime Charged: Violation of Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act of
2002
Doctrine: Warrantless Search, Moving Vehicle Search
Facts:
On October 2005 the San Gabriel Police Station of La Union, conducted
a checkpoint, composed of The Chief of Police, PO2 Pallayoc, and other
policemen, near the police station at the poblacion to intercept 94 a
suspected transportation of marijuana from Barangay Balbalayang, La
Union. When the checkpoint did not yield any suspect or marijuana,
the Chief of Police instructed PO2 Pallayoc to proceed to Barangay
Balbalayang to conduct surveillance operation. There PO2 Pallayoc met
with a secret agent of the Barangay Intelligence Network who informed
him that a baggage of marijuana had been loaded on a passenger
jeepney that was about to leave for the poblacion. The agent
mentioned three (3) bags and one (1) blue plastic bag. Further, the
agent described a backpack bag with an "O.K." marking. PO2 Pallayoc
then boarded the said jeepney and positioned himself on top thereof.
While the vehicle was in motion, he found the black backpack with an
"O.K." marking and peeked inside its contents and found bricks of
marijuana wrapped in newspapers. He then asked the other
passengers on top of the jeepney about the owner of the bag, but no
one knew. When the jeepney reached the poblacion, PO2 Pallayoc
alighted together with the other passengers. Unfortunately, he did not
notice who took the black backpack from atop the jeepney. He only
realized a few moments later that the said bag and three (3) other
bags, including a blue plastic bag, were already being carried away by
two (2) women. He caught up with the women and introduced himself
as a policeman. He told them that they were under arrest, but one of
the women got away. PO2 Pallayoc brought the woman, who was later
identified as accusedappellant Belen Mariacos, and the bags to the
police station.

The RTC promulgated a decision finding Mariacos guilty as charged.

She appealed her conviction to the CA arguing that the search
conducted on the bag, assuming it was hers, without a search warrant
and with no permission from her, violates heer constitutional rights
against warrantless search. The CA dismissed appellants appeal and
affirmed the RTC decision in toto ruling that Mariacos was caught in
flagrante delicto of "carrying and conveying" the bag that contained
the illegal drugs, and thus held that appellants warrantless arrest was
valid.
Issue:
Whether the warrantless search conducted on the bag of a moving
vehicle was valid
Held:
YES. Mariacos main argument centered on the inadmissibility of the
evidence used against her. Among the instances when a warrantless
search is valid, is search of a moving vehicle. According to
jurisprudence, this had been justified on the ground that the mobility of
motor vehicles makes it possible for the vehicle to be searched to
move out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be
sought. However, such a warrantless search has been held to be valid
only as long as the officers conducting the search have reasonable or
probable cause to believe before the search that they will find the
instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime, in the vehicle to be
searched. The essential requisite of probable cause must be satisfied
before a warrantless search and seizure can be lawfully conducted.
Probable cause is defined as a reasonable ground of suspicion
supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to induce
a cautious man to believe that the person accused is guilty of the
offense charged. It refers to the existence of such facts and
circumstances that can lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to
believe that an offense has been committed, and that the items,
articles or objects sought in connection with said offense or subject to
seizure and destruction by law are in the place to be searched.
The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when, in the absence of actual
belief of the arresting officers, the suspicion that the person to be
arrested is probably guilty of committing the offense is based on actual
facts, i.e., supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves
to create the probable 95 cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. A
reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded on probable cause,

coupled with good faith on the part of the peace officers making the
arrest.
In this case, the vehicle that carried the contraband or prohibited drugs
was about to leave. PO2 Pallayoc had to make a quick decision and act
fast. It would be unreasonable to require him to procure a warrant
before conducting the search under the circumstances. Time was of
the essence in this case. The searching officer had no time to obtain a
warrant. Indeed, he only had enough time to board the vehicle before
the same left for its destination.
It is well to remember that on October 26, 2005, the night before
appellants arrest, the police received information that marijuana was
to be transported from Barangay Balbalayang, and had set up a
checkpoint around the area to intercept the suspects. At dawn of
October 27, 2005, PO2 Pallayoc met the secret agent from the
Barangay Intelligence Network, who informed him that a baggage of
marijuana was loaded on a passenger jeepney about to leave for the
poblacion. Thus, PO2 Pallayoc had probable cause to search the
packages allegedly containing illegal drugs. WHEREFORE, the
foregoing premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02718 is AFFIRMED.

Case Title: Miclat, Jr. v. People

Date: August 31, 2011
Where Filed: RTC Caloocan City
Crime Charged: Violation of Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act of
2002
Doctrine: What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable warrantless
search or seizure is purely a judicial question, determinable from the
uniqueness of the circumstances involved, including the purpose of the
search or seizure, the presence or absence of probable cause, the
manner in which the search and seizure was made, the place or thing
searched, and the character of the articles procured.
Facts:
On November 2002, P/Insp. Valencia called upon his subordinates after
the receiving an INFOREP Memo from Camp Crame relative to the
drug-trading activities being undertaken in Caloocan City involving Abe
Miclat, Wily alias "Bokbok" and one Mic or Jojo. A surveillance team was

formed headed by SPO4 Palting and is composed of five more

operatives from the Drug Enforcement Unit, namely: PO3 Pagsolingan,
PO2 Modina, PO2 De Ocampo, and herein witness PO3 Antonio. When
the group of SPO4 Palting arrived at the site they were at once led by
their informant to the house of one "Abe." PO3 Antonio then positioned
himself at the perimeter of the house, while the rest of the members of
the group deployed themselves nearby. Thru a small opening in the
curtain-covered window, PO3 Antonio peeped inside and there at a
distance of 1 meters, he saw "Abe" arranging several pieces of small
plastic sachets which he believed to be containing shabu. Slowly, said
operative inched his way in by gently pushing the door as well as the
plywood covering the same. Upon gaining entrance, PO3 Antonio
forthwith introduced himself as a police officer while "Abe," on the
other hand, after being informed of such authority, voluntarily handed
over to the former the four (4) pieces of small plastic sachets the latter
was earlier sorting out. PO3 Antonio immediately placed the suspect
under arrest and brought him and the four (4) pieces of plastic sachets
containing white crystalline substance to their headquarters and
turned them over to PO3 Fernando Moran for proper disposition.
On 2004, the RTC rendered a Decision convicting Miclat Jr. of the crime
of possession of a dangerous drugs. Aggrieved, petitioner sought
recourse before the CA, who in turn affirmed in toto the decision of the
RTC.In affirming the RTC, the CA ratiocinated that contrary to the
contention of the Miclat Jr., the evidence presented by the prosecution
were all admissible against him. Moreover, it was established that he
was informed of his constitutional rights at the time of his arrest. Miclat
Jr. raised the matter to the Supreme Court assailing the legality of his
arrest and the subsequent seizure of the arresting officer of the
suspected sachets of dangerous drugs from him.
Petitioner insists that he was just watching television with his father
and sister when police operatives suddenly barged into their home and
arrested him for illegal possession of shabu. Moreover, being seen in
the act of arranging several plastic sachets inside their house is not
sufficient reason for the police authorities to enter his house without a
valid warrant. In the same vein, peeping through a curtain-covered
window cannot be contemplated as within the meaning of the plain
view doctrine, rendering the warrantless arrest unlawful.
Issue:
Whether peeping through a window can be contemplated as within the
meaning of the plain view doctrine, rendering the warrantless arrest
lawful.
Held:

Yes. An exception to the right guaranteed against warrantless arrest is

that of an arrest made during the commission of a crime. Such
warrantless arrest is considered reasonable and valid under Section 5
(a), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, to wit: peace
office of 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; xxx
For the exception in Section 5 (a), Rule 113 to operate, this Court has
ruled that two (2) elements must be present: (1) the person to be
arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just 93
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime;
and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the
arresting officer.
In the instant case, he was caught in flagrante delicto and the police
authorities effectively made a valid warrantless arrest. Facts reveal
that on the date of the arrest, agents of the Station Drug Enforcement
Unit (SDEU) were conducting a surveillance operation in the area to
verify the reported drug-related activities of several individuals, which
included the Miclat Jr. During the operation, PO3 Antonio, through
petitioners window, saw petitioner arranging several plastic sachets
containing what appears to be shabu in the living room of their home.
The plastic sachets and its suspicious contents were plainly exposed to
the view of PO3 Antonio, who was only about one and one-half meters
from where petitioner was seated. Upon gaining entrance, the
operative introduced himself as a police officer. After which, Miclat Jr.
voluntarily handed over to PO3 Antonio the small plastic sachets.
Considering the circumstances immediately prior to and surrounding
the arrest of the petitioner, petitioner was clearly arrested in flagrante
delicto as he was then committing a crime, violation of the Dangerous
Drugs Act, within the view of the arresting officer.
As to the admissibility of the seized drugs in evidence, it too falls
within the established exceptions. The right against warrantless
searches and seizure, however, is subject to legal and judicial
exceptions, and among them are warrantless search incidental to a
lawful arrest and search of evidence in "plain view". The seizure made
by PO3 Antonio of the four plastic sachets from the petitioner was not
only incidental to a lawful arrest, but it also falls within the purview of
the "plain view" doctrine.
Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in a
position to have that view are subject to seizure even without a search
warrant and may be introduced in evidence. The "plain view" doctrine
applies when the following requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement

officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion

or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the
discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately
apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a
crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. The law
enforcement officer must lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly
be in a position from which he can particularly view the area. In the
course of such lawful intrusion, he came inadvertently across a piece of
evidence incriminating the accused. The object must be open to eye
and hand and its discovery inadvertent.
It is clear, therefore, that an object is in plain view if the object itself is
plainly exposed to sight. Since Miclat Jr.s arrest is among the
exceptions to the rule requiring a warrant before effecting an arrest
and the evidence seized from the petitioner was the result of a
warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest, which incidentally was
in plain view of the arresting officer, the results of the ensuing search
and seizure were admissible in evidence to prove petitioners guilt of
the offense charged.

Case Title: People v. Nuevas

Date: February 22, 2007
Where Filed: RTC Olongapo City
Crime Charged: Illegal Possession of Marijuana

Doctrine: An object is in plain view if it is plainly exposed to sight.

Where the object seized was inside a closed package, the object itself
is not in plain view and therefore cannot be seized without a warrant; if
the package proclaims its contents, whether by its distinctive
configuration, its transparency, or if its contents are obvious to an
observer, then the contents are in plain view and may be seized; if the
package is such that an experienced observer could infer from its
appearance that it contains the prohibited article, then the article is
deemed in plain view. It must be immediately apparent to the police
that the items that they observe may be evidence of a crime,
contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.
Facts:
Police officer received information that a certain male person a man
would make a delivery of marijuana dried leaves. While stationed
thereat, they saw a male person who fit the description, carrying a
plastic bag, who was Nuevas. They confronted the latter and ask. Later
on, Nuevas voluntarily pointed to the police officers a plastic bag
which, when opened, contained marijuana dried leaves and bricks
wrapped in a blue cloth. Nuevas disclosed where the two (2) other
male persons would make the delivery of marijuana weighing more or
less five (5) kilos. The police officers together with Nuevas, then
proceeded the place where according to Nuevas was where his two (2)
companions, Din and Inocencio, could be located. From there, they saw
and approached two (2) persons along the National Highway,
introducing themselves as police officers. Din was carrying a light blue
plastic bag. When asked, Din disclosed that the bag belonged to
Nuevas. Officers then took the bag and upon inspection found inside it
"marijuana packed in newspaper and wrapped therein." are violated.
All of the said materials are confiscated and the 3 are arrested. The
trial court found them guilty with illegal possession of marijuana in
violation of Section 8, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 as amended.
Nuevas, by manifestation, waived his right of appeal. The appellate
court found Fami and Cablings version of how appellants were
apprehended to be categorical and clear. However the other 2 filed
there recourse in the Court of Appeals base on their allegations that
they are not guilty and their constitutional rights against warrantless
arrest. However, the appellate court stated that the search in the
instant case is exempted from the requirement of a judicial warrant as
appellants themselves waived their right against unreasonable
searches and seizures. According to the appellate court, both Cabling
and Fami testified that Din voluntarily surrendered the bag. Appellants
never presented evidence to rebut the same. Thus, in the instant case,
the exclusionary rule does not apply. Hence, the petition.

Issue:
Whether or not the arrest was valid.
Ruling:
No. The conviction or acquittal of appellants rests on the validity of the
warrantless searches and seizure made by the police officers and the
admissibility of the evidence obtained by virture thereof.
In the instances where a warrant is not necessary to effect a valid
search or seizure, or when the latter cannot be performed except
without a warrant, what constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable
search or seizure is purely a judicial question, determinable from the
uniqueness of the circumstances involved, including the purpose of the
search or seizure, the presence or absence of probable cause, the
manner in which the search and seizure was made, the place or thing
searched and the character of the articles procured.
Arrest
must
preced
the
search.
A
search
substantially
contemporaneous with an arrest can make the arrest as the outset of
the search. Reliable information alone is not a sufficient to justify a
warrantless arrest under Sec. 5(a), Rule 113. A peaceful submission to
a search or seizure is not a concent or an invitation thereto, but is
merely a demonstration of regard for the supremacy of the law. A
waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not also mean a waiver of
the inadmissibility of evidence seized during the illegal warrantless
arrest.
In Nuevass case, the Court is convinced that he indeed voluntarily
surrendered the incriminating bag to the police officers. Thus, the
Court would have affirmed Nuevass conviction had he not withdrawn
his appeal.
However, with respect to the search conducted in the case of Din, the
Court finds that no such consent had actually been given. Thus, their
arrest was indeed a violation of their rights. The arrest was an invalid
warrantless arrest.

Case Title: People v. Calantiao

Date: June 18, 2014
Where Filed: RTC Caloocan City
Crime Charged: Violation of Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act of
2002
Doctrine: Plain View Doctrine thus finds no applicability in this case
because the police officers purposely searched him upon his arrest.
The police officers did not inadvertently come across the black bag,
which was in Calantiaos possession; they deliberately opened it, as
part of the search incident to Calantiaos lawful arrest.
Facts:
On November 11, 2003 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any authority of
law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession,
custody and control two bricks of dried marijuana fruiting tops with a total weight of
997 .9 grams, knowing the same to be a dangerous drug.
PO1 Nelson Mariano and PO3 Eduardo Ramirez were on duty; a certain Edwin Lojera
arrived at their office and asked for police assistance regarding a shooting incident. Per
report of the latter, it appears that while driving a towing truck and traversing along
EDSA, Balintawak, Quezon City, he had a traffic dispute (gitgitan) with a white taxi cab
prompting him to follow said vehicle until they reached along 8 th Avenue Street corner C3 Road, Caloocan City. Thereat, the passengers of said taxi cab, one of them was accused
Calantiao, alighted and fired their guns.
PO1 Mariano testified that they immediately responded to said complaint by proceeding
to 5th Avenue corner 8th Street, Caloocan City where they found the white taxi. While
approaching said vehicle, two armed men alighted therefrom, fired their guns towards
them and ran away. PO1 Mariano and PO3 Ramirez chased them but they were subdued.
PO1 Mariano recovered from Calantiao a black bag containing two bricks of dried
marijuana fruiting tops and a magazine of super 38 stainless with ammos, while PO3
Ramirez recovered from Calantiaos companion a .38 revolver.
The suspects and the confiscated items were then turned over to SPO3 Pablo Temena,
police investigator at Bagong Barrio Police Station for investigation. Thereat, PO1
Mariano marked the bricks of marijuana contained in a black bag with his initials, NM.
Thereafter, said specimens were forwarded to the PNP Crime Laboratory for chemical

analysis. The result of the examination conducted by P/SINSP. Jesse Dela Rosa revealed
that the same was positive for marijuana.
On Calantiaos defense the taxi he and his companion Rommel Reyes were riding almost
collided with another car. Reyes then opened the window and made a fuck you sign
against the persons on board of that car. That prompted the latter to chase them and when
they were caught in a traffic jam, PO1 Nelson Mariano; one of the persons on board of
that other car alighted and kicked their taxi. Calantiao and Reyes alighted and PO1
Mariano slapped the latter and uttered some words, police officer poked his gun against
Reyes and when Calantiao tried to grab it, the gun fired. Calantiao and Reyes were then
handcuffed and were brought to the police station. Thereat, they were subjected to body
frisking and their wallets and money were taken. PO1 Mariano then prepared some
documents and informed them that they will be charged for drugs. A newspaper
containing marijuana was shown to them and said police officer told them that it would
be sufficient evidence against them.
Issue:
Whether or not that the allegedly seized items are inadmissible evidence in accordance to
plain view doctrine.
Held:
In People v. Valeroso, this Court had the occasion to reiterate the permissible reach of a
valid warrantless search and seizure incident to a lawful arrest, viz: When an arrest is
made, it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search the person arrested in order to
remove any weapon that the latter might use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape.
Otherwise, the officers safety might well be endangered, and the arrest itself frustrated.
In addition, it is entirely reasonable for the arresting officer to search for and seize any
evidence on the arrestees person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction.
Moreover, in lawful arrests, it becomes both the duty and the right of the apprehending
officers to conduct a warrantless search not only on the person of the suspect, but also in
the permissible area within the latters reached.
Otherwise stated, a valid arrest allows the seizure of evidence or dangerous weapons
either on the person of the one arrested or within the area of his immediate control. The
phrase within the area of his immediate control means the area from within which he
might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence. A gun on a table or in a
drawer in front of one who is arrested can be as dangerous to the arresting officer as one
concealed in the clothing of the person arrested.
In Valeroso, however, the Court held that the evidence searched and seized from him
could not be used against him because they were discovered in a room, different from
where he was being detained, and was in a locked cabinet. Thus, the area searched could
not be considered as one within his immediate control that he could take any weapon or

destroy any evidence against him. In the case at bar, the marijuana was found in a black
bag in Calantiaos possession and within his immediate control. He could have easily
taken any weapon from the bag or dumped it to destroy the evidence inside it. As the
black bag containing the marijuana was in Calantiaos possession, it was within the
permissible area that the apprehending officers could validly conduct a warrantless
search.
The Plain View Doctrine is actually the exception to the inadmissibility of evidence
obtained in a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest outside the suspects person
and premises under his immediate control. This is so because 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. The doctrine is usually applied where a
police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless
inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. It 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 thus finds no applicability in Calantiaos situation because the police officers
purposely searched him upon his arrest. The police officers did not inadvertently come
across the black bag, which was in Calantiaos possession; they deliberately opened it, as
part of the search incident to Calantiaos lawful arrest.