16 People vs. Molina, G.R. No.

133917, February 19, 2001

FACTS
● For automatic review is the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, finding accused-appellants Nasario
Molina y Manamata lias "Bobong" and Gregorio Mula y Malagura alias "Boboy," guilty of violation of Sec 8 RA
6425 for possessing 946.9g of marijuana.
● SPO1 Marino Paguidopon received an information regarding the presence of an alleged marijuana pusher in Davao
City. The first time he came to see the said marijuana pusher in person was during the first week of July 1996.
● His informer pointed to the motorcycle driver, accused-appellant Mula, as the pusher. As to accused- appellant
Molina, SPO1 Paguidopon had no occasion to see him before the arrest. Moreover, the names and addresses of the
accused-appellants came to the knowledge of SPO1 Paguidopon only after they were arrested.
● SPO1 Paguidopon received an information that the alleged pusher will be passing at NHA, Maa, Davao City
any time that morning. 7:30 in the morning of August 8, 1996
● team composed of SPO4 Dionisio Cloribel, SPO2 Paguidopon, and SPO1 Pamplona proceeded to the house of
SPO1 Paguidopon where they would wait for the alleged pusher to pass by.
● A trisikad with Mula and Molina was stopped. At that point, Mula handed a black bag to Molina.
● Subsequently, SPO1 Pamplona introduced himself as a police officer and asked accused-appellant Molina to open
the bag. Molina replied, "Boss, if possible we will settle this. " SPO1 Pamplona insisted on opening the bag,
which revealed dried marijuana leaves inside.
ISSUES
W/N THE MARIJUANA IS INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE FOR HAVING BEEN SEIZED IN VIOLATION OF
APPELLANTS' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES;
HELD:
YES. Search and seizure may be made without a warrant and the evidence obtained therefrom may be admissible in the
following instances:
(1) search incident to a lawful arrest;
(2) search of a moving motor vehicle;
(3) search in violation of customs laws;
(4) seizure of evidence in plain view;
(5) when the accused himself waives his right against unreasonable searches and seizures; and
(6) stop and frisk situations (Terry search).
In the case at bar, the court a quo anchored its judgment of conviction on a finding that the warrantless arrest of
accused-appellants, and the subsequent search conducted by the peace officers, are valid because accused-appellants
were caught in flagrante delicto in possession of prohibited drugs. This brings us to the issue of whether or not the
warrantless arrest, search and seizure in the present case fall within the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement.
As applied to in flagrante delicto arrests, it is settled that "reliable information" alone, absent any overt act
indicative of a felonious enterprise in the presence and within the view of the arresting officers, are not sufficient
to constitute probable cause that would justify an in flagrante delicto arrest.
Clearly, to constitute a valid in flagrante delicto arrest, two requisites must concur:
(1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just 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.
While SPO1 Paguidopon claimed that he and his informer conducted a surveillance of accused-appellant Mula, SPO1
Paguidopon, however, admitted that he only learned Mula's name and address after the arrest. With respect to accused-
appellant Molina, SPO1 Paguidopon admitted that he had never seen him before the arrest. Ato ning I settle sir is an
equivocal statement which standing alone will not constitute probable cause to effect an inflagrante delicto arrest.
What is more, it is doubtful if SPO1 Paguidopon indeed recognized accused-appellant Mula. It is worthy to note that,
before the arrest, he was able to see Mula in person only once, pinpointed to him by his informer while they were on the
side of the road. These circumstances could not have afforded SPO1 Paguidopon a closer look at accused-appellant Mula,
considering that the latter was then driving a motorcycle when SPO1 Paguidopon caught a glimpse of him. With respect
to accused-appellant Molina, SPO1 Paguidopon admitted that he had never seen him before the arrest.
Evidently, SPO1 Paguidopon, who acted as informer of the arresting officers, more so the arresting officers
themselves, could not have been certain of accused-appellants identity, and were, from all indications, merely
fishing for evidence at the time of the arrest.

Wherefore, accused-appellants are hereby ACQUITTED.

18 People vs. Montilla,

G.R. No. 123872, January 30, 1998 FACTS

● Ruben Montilla y Gatdula alias “Joy” was charged before RTC Dasmarinas for violating Sec 4 Art II RA 6425 for
transporting 28 kilos of dried marijuana leaves.
● Appellant was apprehended at around 4:00 A.M. of June 20, 1994 near a waiting shed located at Barangay
Salitran, Dasmariñas, Cavite by SPO1 Concordio Talingting and SPO1 Armando Clarin,
● These two officers later asserted in court that they were aided by an informer in the arrest of appellant. That
informer, according to Talingting and Clarin, had informed them the day before, or on June 19, 1994 at about
2:00 P.M., that a drug courier, whom said informer could recognize, would be arriving somewhere in Barangay
Salitran, Dasmarias from Baguio City with an undetermined amount of marijuana. It was the same informer who
 pinpointed to the arresting officers the appellant when the latter alighted from a passenger jeepney on the
aforestated day, hour, and place
● Montilla claimed during the trial that while he indeed came all the way from Baguio City, disavowed ownership of
the prohibited drugs and stated that he traveled to Dasmariñas, Cavite with only some pocket money and without
any luggage. His sole purpose in going there was to look up his cousin who had earlier offered a prospective job at
a garment factory in said locality.
● Melita Adaci, the cousin, corroborated appellant's testimony about the job offer in the garment factory where she
reportedly worked as a supervisor, although, as the trial court observed, she never presented any document to prove
her alleged employment.
ISSUES
W/n the warrantless search was valid.
HELD
1. of insufficient evidence as no proof was proffered
The pertinent provision of the penal law here involved, in Section 4 of Article II thereof, as amended, is as follows:
SEC. 4. violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, some of the various modes of commission[6] being the sale,
administration, delivery, distribution, and transportation of prohibited drugs as set forth in the epigraph of Section 4,
Article II of said law. The text of Section 4 expands and extends its punitive scope to other acts besides those mentioned
in its headnote by including these who shall sell, administer, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit
or transport any prohibited drug, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions." Section 4 could thus be violated by
the commission of any of the acts specified therein, or a combination thereof, such as selling, administering, delivering,
giving away, distributing, dispatching in transit or transporting, and the like.
As already stated, appellant was charged with a violation of Section 4, the transgressive acts alleged therein and attributed
to appellant being that he administered, delivered, and transported marijuana. The governing rule with respect to an
offense which may be committed in any of the different modes provided by law is that an indictment would suffice if the
offense is alleged to have been committed in one, two or more modes specified therein. This is so as allegations in the
information of the various ways of committing the offense should be considered as a description of only one offense and
the information cannot be dismissed on the ground of multifariousness.[7] In appellant's case, the prosecution adduced
evidence clearly establishing that he transported marijuana from Baguio City to Cavite. By that act alone of
transporting the illicit drugs, appellant had already run afoul of that particular section of the statute, hence,
appellant's asseverations must fail.
As such, the testimony of the informer could be dispensed with by the prosecution, more so where what he would have
corroborated are the narrations of law enforcers on whose performance of duties regularity is the prevailing legal
presumption. Besides, informants are generally not presented in court because of the need to hide their identities and
preserve their invaluable services to the police.
2. an unlawful warrantless search and seizure.
He calls the attention of the Court to the fact that as early as 2:00 P.M. of the preceding day, June 19, 1994, the police
authorities had already been apprised by their so-called informer of appellant's impending arrival from Baguio City,
A legitimate warrantless arrest, as above contemplated, necessarily cloaks the arresting police officer with authority to
validly search and seize from the offender (1) dangerous weapons, and (2) those that may be used as proof of the
commission of an offense.
Even assuming that the policemen were not pressed for time, this would be beside the point for, under these
circumstances, the information relayed was too sketchy and not detailed enough for the obtention of the corresponding
arrest or search warrant. While there is an indication that the informant knew the courier, the records do not reveal that he
knew him by name.
While it is not required that the authorities should know the exact name of the subject of the warrant applied for, there is
the additional problem that the informant did not know to whom the drugs would be delivered and at which particular
part of the barangay there would be such delivery. Neither did this asset know the precise time of the suspect's arrival, or
his means of transportation, the container or contrivance wherein the drugs were concealed and whether the same were
arriving together with, or were being brought by someone separately from, the courier.
On such bare information, the police authorities could not have properly applied for a warrant, assuming that they could
readily have access to a judge or a court that was still open by the time they could make preparations for applying
therefor, and on which there is no evidence presented by the defense. In determining the opportunity for obtaining
warrants, not only the intervening time is controlling but all the coincident and ambient circumstances should be
considered, especially in rural areas. In fact, the police had to form a surveillance team and to lay down a dragnet at the
possible entry points to Barangay Salitran at midnight of that day notwithstanding the tip regarding the "early morning"
arrival of the courier.
3. On the defense argument that the warrantless search conducted on appellant invalidates the evidence obtained from
him, still the search on his belongings and the consequent confiscation of the illegal drugs as a result thereof was justified
as a search incidental to a lawful arrest under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.
Under that provision, 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.
In the case at bar, as soon as appellant had alighted from the passenger jeepney the informer at once indicated to the
officers that their suspect was at hand by pointing to him from the waiting shed. SPO1 Clarin recounted that the informer
told them that the marijuana was likely hidden inside the traveling bag and carton box which appellant was carrying at
the time. The officers thus realized that he was their man even if he was simply carrying a seemingly innocent looking
pair of luggage for personal effects. Accordingly, they approached appellant, introduced themselves as policemen, and
requested him to open and show them the contents of the traveling bag, which appellant voluntarily and readily did. Upon
cursory inspection by SPO1 Clarin, the bag yielded the prohibited drugs, so, without bothering to further search the box,
they brought appellant and his luggage to their headquarters for questioning.
Appellant insists that the mere fact of seeing a person carrying a traveling bag and a carton box should not elicit the
slightest suspicion of the commission of any crime since that is normal. But, precisely, it is in the ordinary nature of
things that drugs being illegally transported are necessarily hidden in containers and concealed from view. Thus, the
officers could reasonably assume, and not merely on a hollow suspicion since the informant was by their side and had so
informed them, that the drugs were in appellant's luggage. It would obviously have been irresponsible, if not downright
absurd under the circumstances, to require the constable to adopt a "wait and see" attitude at the risk of eventually losing
the quarry.
Here, there were sufficient facts antecedent to the search and seizure that, at the point prior to the search, were already
constitutive of probable cause, and which by themselves could properly create in the minds of the officers a well-
grounded and reasonable belief that appellant was in the act of violating the law. The search yielded affirmance both of
that probable cause and the actuality that appellant was then actually committing a crime by illegally transporting
prohibited drugs. With these attendant facts, it is ineluctable that appellant was caught in flagrante delicto, hence his
arrest and the search of his belongings without the requisite warrant were both justified.

As to the penalty, Sec 4 provides that transport of at least 750 g of marijuana is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death.
Having no attendant circumstance, Art 63 of RPC applies, in which case the lesser penalty of RP is the imposable penalty.

Wherefore, penalty is MODIFIED from death to reclusion perpetua.

20 Posadas vs. Court of Appeals,188 SCRA 288

FACTS
● Pat. Ursicio Ungab and Pat. Umbra Umpar, were conducting a surveillance along Magallanes Street, Davao City
within the premises of the Rizal Memorial College, spotted petitioner carrying a "buri" bag and they noticed him to
be acting suspiciously.
● They approached the petitioner and identified themselves as members of the INP. Petitioner attempted to flee but
his attempt to get away was thwarted by the two notwithstanding his resistance
● Romeo Posadas y Zamora was charged with illegal possession of firearms and ammunition for possessing one
caliber .38 Smith & Wesson revolver, 2 rounds of live ammo for a .38 caliber gun, a smoke grenade, and 2 ammos
for a .22 caliber gun without necessary licenses.
● It appearing that the accuse d was below eighteen (18) years old at the time of the commission of the offense (Art.
68, par. 2), he is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from TEN (10) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY
of prision mayor to TWELVE (12) Years, FIVE (5) months and Eleven (11) days of Reclusion Temporal, and to
pay the costs.
ISSUES
W/n the items which were confiscated from the possession of the petitioner are inadmissible in evidence against him
there being no lawful arrest or search and seizure,
HELD
NO. The Solicitor General argues that when the two policemen approached the petitioner, he was actually committing or
had just committed the offense of illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions in the presence of the police officers
and consequently the search and seizure of the contraband was incidental to the lawful arrest in accordance with Section
12, Rule 126 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. We disagree.
At the time the peace officers in this case identified themselves and apprehended the petitioner as he attempted to flee
they did not know that he had committed, or was actually committing the offense of illegal possession of firearms and
ammunitions. They just suspected that he was hiding something in the buri bag. They did now know what its contents
were. The said circumstances did not justify an arrest without a warrant.
However, there are many instances where a warrant and seizure can be effected without necessarily being preceded by an
arrest, foremost of which is the "stop and search" without a search warrant at military or police checkpoints, the
constitutionality or validity of which has been upheld by this Court in Valmonte vs . de Villa.
Thus, as between a warrantless search and seizure conducted at military or police checkpoints and the search thereat in
the case at bar, there is no question that, indeed, the latter is more reasonable considering that unlike in the former, it was
effected on the basis of a probable cause. The probable cause is that when the petitioner acted suspiciously and attempted
to flee with the buri bag there was a probable cause that he was concealing something illegal in the bag and it was the
right and duty of the police officers to inspect the same.
Wherefore, petition is DENIED.

22 People vs. Tangliben,184 SCRA 220

FACTS
● Appeal from a decision of RTC San Fernando Pampanga convicting Medel Tangliben y Bernardino for violating
Sec 4 Art II RA 6425 for possessing one bag of dried marijuana leaves ~1kg and to transport same to Olongapo.
● Patrolmen Silverio Quevedo and Romeo L. Punzalan of the San Fernando Police Station, together with Barangay
Tanod Macario Sacdalan, were conducting surveillance mission at the Victory Liner Terminal compound located at
Barangay San Nicolas, San Fernando, Pampanga.
● 9:30 pm. Said Patrolmen noticed a person carrying a red traveling bag who was acting suspiciously and they
confronted him.
● that the person was requested by Patrolmen Quevedo and Punzalan to open the red traveling bag but the person
refused, only to accede later on when the patrolmen identified themselves; that found inside the bag were marijuana
leaves
● (selling poultry) that on March 3, 1982, he went to Subic to collect a balance of P100.00 from a customer thereat
and to buy C-rations; that he was able to meet Nena Ballon at 6:00 o'clock in the evening and he stayed in Nena's
house up to 8:00 o'clock because he had a drinking spree with Nena's son; that he tried to catch the 8:00 o'clock trip
to Manila from Olongapo City but he failed and was able to take the bus only by 9:00 o'clock that evening that it
was a Victory Liner Bus that he rode and because he was tipsy, he did not notice that the bus was only bound for
 San Fernando, Pampanga; that upon alighting at the Victory Liner Compound at San Fernando, Pampanga he
crossed the street to wait for a bus going to Manila; that while thus waiting for a bus, a man whom he came to
know later as Pat. Punzalan, approached him and asked him if he has any residence certificate; that when he took
out his wallet, Pat. Punzalan got the wallet and took all the money inside the wallet amounting to P545.00; that Pat.
Punzalan told him that he'll be taken to the municipal building for verification as he may be an NPA member; that
at the municipal building, he saw a policeman, identified by him later as Pat. Silverio Quevedo, sleeping but was
awakened when he arrived that Pat. Quevedo took him upstairs and told him to take out everything from his pocket
saying that the prisoners inside the jail may get the same from him; that inside his pocket was a fifty-peso bill and
Pat. Quevedo took the same, telling him that it shall be returned to him but that it was never returned to him; that he
was thereafter placed under detention and somebody told him that he is being charged with possession of marijuana
and if he would like to be bailed out, somebody is willing to help him; and, that when he was visited by his wife, he
told his wife that Patrolman Silverio Quevedo took away all his money but he told his wife not to complain
anymore as it would be useless.
ISSUES
W/n the marijuana allegedly seized from the accused was a product of an unlawful search without a warrant and is
therefore inadmissible in evidence.
HELD

NO. One of the exceptions to the general rule requiring a search warrant is a search incident to a lawful arrest. Thus,
Section 12 of Rule 126 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure provides:
"Section 12. Search incident to a lawful arrest. 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."
Meanwhile, Rule 113, Sec. 5(a) provides:
" . . 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."
It may be pointed out, however, that although the information stated the weight to be approximately one kilo, the forensic
chemist who examined the marijuana leaves testified that the marijuana weighed only 600 grams. Such amount is not a
considerable quantity as to conclusively confer upon the accused an intent to transport the marijuana leaves.

WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction by the trial court is hereby AFFIRMED but MODIFIED. The appellant is
sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years and fine
of Six Thousand (P6,000.00) Pesos.

there was an informer who pointed to the accused-appellant as carrying marijuana. (TSN, pp. 52-53) Faced with such on-
the-spot information, the police officers had to act quickly. There was not enough time to secure a search warrant. We
cannot therefore apply the ruling in Aminnudin to the case at bar. To require search warrants during on-the-spot
apprehensions of drug pushers, illegal possessors of firearms, jueteng collectors, smugglers of contraband goods, robbers,
etc. would make it extremely difficult, if not impossible to contain the crimes with which these persons are associated.
Accused-appellant likewise asserts that the package of marijuana leaves supposedly seized from him was never
authenticated and therefore should not have been admitted as evidence. He capitalizes on the fact that the marijuana
package brought by patrolman Roberto Quevedo to the PC Crime Laboratory for examination did not contain a tag
bearing the name of the accused. We rule, however, that since Patrolman Quevedo testified that he gave the marijuana
package together with a letter-request for examination, and the forensic chemist Marilene Salangad likewise testified that
she received the marijuana together with the letter-request and said letter-request bore the name of the accused, then the
requirements of proper authentication of evidence were sufficiently complied with. The marijuana package examined by
the forensic checklist was satisfactorily identified as the one seized from accused.
As to doubtfulness of evidence, well-settled is the rule that findings of the trial court on the issue of credibility of
witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to great respect and accorded the highest consideration by the appellate court.
These prosecution witnesses have no motive to fabricate the facts and to foist a very serious offense against the accused.
The knowledge on what these witnesses testified to were (sic) acquired by them in the official performance of their duties
and then, (sic) being no showing that they are prejudiced against the accused, their testimonies deserve full credit.
Moreover, if there is truth in the testimony of the accused to the effect that Pat. Punzalan got all the money from his
wallet when he was accosted at the Victory Liner Terminal and was told just to keep quiet otherwise he will be "salvaged"
why will Pat. Punzalan still bring the accused to the municipal Building for interrogation and/or verification? Would not
Pat. Punzalan be exposing his identity to the accused? This is unnatural. And this is also true on the testimony to the
accused that Pat. Silverio Quevedo got his fifty-peso bill arid never returned the same to him. If the policemen really got
any money from the accused and that the marijuana leaves do not belong to the accused, why will the two policemen still
produce in Court as evidence that expensive-looking traveling red bag (Exhibit G) taken from the accused and which
contained the marijuana in question if the instant case is a mere fabrication?
As already stated, all the evidence, oral and documentary, presented by the prosecution in this case were all based on
personal knowledge acquired by the prosecution witnesses in the regular performance of their official duties and there is
nothing in their testimonies to show that they are bias (sic) or that they have any prejudice against the herein accused.
Between the testimonies of these prosecution witnesses and that of the uncorroborated and self-serving testimony of the
accused, the former should prevail. (Rollo, p. 13)
Likewise, the appellant chose to limit his defense to his own testimony. He could have availed himself through
compulsory court processes of several witnesses to buttress his defense. Since not one other witness was presented nor
was any justification for the non-appearance given, the inadequacy of his lone and uncorroborated testimony remains. It
cannot prevail vis-a-vis the positive testimonies given by the prosecution witnesses.

We take exception, however, to the trial court's finding that:

The dried marijuana leaves found in the possession of the accused weighs one (1) kilo, more or less. The intent to
transport the same is clear from the testimony of Pat. Silverio Quevedo who declared, among other things, that when he
confronted the accused that night, the latter told him that he (accused) is bringing the marijuana leaves to Olongapo City.
Moreover, considering the quantity of the marijuana leaves found in the possession of the accused and the place he was
arrested which is at San Fernando, Pampanga, a place where the accused is not residing, it can be said that the intent to
transport the marijuana leaves has been clearly established. (Rollo, pp. 13-14)

23 People vs. Aminnudin,163 SCRA 402

FACTS
● Idel Aminnudin was arrested shortly after disembarking from M/V Wilcon 9 in Iloilo City and was found guilty of
illegally transporting 3kg marijuana.
● PC officers had earlier received a tip from one of their informers that the accused-appellant was on board a vessel
bound for Iloilo City and was carrying marijuana.
● Aminnudin disclaimed the marijuana, averring that all he had in his bag was his clothing consisting of a jacket, two
shirts and two pairs of pants. 11 He alleged that he was arbitrarily arrested and immediately handcuffed. His bag
was confiscated without a search warrant. At the PC headquarters, he was manhandled to force him to admit he was
carrying the marijuana, the investigator hitting him with a piece of wood in the chest and arms even as he parried
the blows while he was still handcuffed. 12 He insisted he did not even know what marijuana looked like and that
his business was selling watches and sometimes cigarettes. 13 He also argued that the marijuana he was alleged to
have been carrying was not properly Identified and could have been any of several bundles kept in the stock room
of the PC headquarters
● His business was selling watches and sometimes cigarettes.
● The trial court was unconvinced, noting from its own examination of the accused that he claimed to have come to
Iloilo City to sell watches but carried only two watches at the time, traveling from Jolo for that purpose and
spending P107.00 for fare, not to mention his other expenses. Aminnudin testified that he kept the two watches in a
secret pocket below his belt but, strangely, they were not discovered when he was bodily searched by the arresting
officers nor were they damaged as a result of his manhandling.
ISSUES
W/n Aminnudin was arrested and searched without warrant, making the marijuana allegedly found in his possession
inadmissible in evidence.
HELD
YES. The present case presented no such urgency. From the conflicting declarations of the PC witnesses, it is clear that
they had at least two days within which they could have obtained a warrant to arrest and search Aminnudin who was
coming to Iloilo on the M/V Wilcon 9. His name was known. The vehicle was identified. The date of its arrival was
certain. And from the information they had received, they could have persuaded a judge that there was probable cause,
indeed, to justify the issuance of a warrant. Yet they did nothing.
Testimony of Lt. Cipriano Querol, Jr, chief of the arresting team.
A Because we were very very sure that our operation will yield positive result.
Q Is that your procedure that whenever it will yield positive result you do not need a search warrant anymore?
A Search warrant is not necessary. 23
That last answer is a cavalier pronouncement, especially as it comes from a mere lieutenant of the PC. The Supreme
Court cannot countenance such a statement. This is still a government of laws and not of men.
In the case at bar, the accused-appellant was not, at the moment of his arrest, committing a crime nor was it
shown that he was about to do so or that he had just done so.
he was like any of the other passengers innocently disembarking from the vessel. It was only when the informer pointed
to him as the carrier of the marijuana that he suddenly became suspect and so subject to apprehension. It was the furtive
finger that triggered his arrest. The Identification by the informer was the probable cause as determined by the officers
(and not a judge) that authorized them to pounce upon Aminnudin and immediately arrest him.
Without the evidence of the marijuana allegedly seized from Aminnudin, the case of the prosecution must fall.
That evidence cannot be admitted, and should never have been considered by the trial court for the simple fact is that the
marijuana was seized illegally. It is the fruit of the poisonous tree, to use Justice Holmes' felicitous phrase. The search
was not an incident of a lawful arrest because there was no warrant of arrest and the warrantless arrest did not come
under the exceptions allowed by the Rules of Court. Hence, the warrantless search was also illegal and the evidence
obtained thereby was inadmissible.

Wherefore, Aminuddin is hereby ACQUITTED.

24 People vs. Rodriguez, 232 SCRA 498

FACTS
● On July 21, 1981, at about 3:00 o'clock (sic) in the afternoon, Tabaco Police Station received a report from an
unidentified telephone caller that somebody was selling marijuana inside the Wonder Dog Circus.
● Pats. Rogelio Gonzales and Benito Bongalos proceeded to the Wonder Dog Circus near the public market of
Tabaco.
● They spotted appellant Pablo Rodriguez and Gregorio Abrera acting suspiciously. Abrera was putting marijuana
inside his pocket.
● Pat. Gonzales found a small pocket containing marijuana (Exhibit "B") inside the right side pocket of appellant's
pants.
● Abrera voluntarily handed over a plastic tea bag containing marijuana (Exhibit "C") to Pat. Gonzales.
● Abrera voluntarily admitted having possessed the marijuana confiscated from him but pointed at appellant as the
one who gave him the marijuana and blamed appellant for it (Exhibit "D"). Even as appellant heard Abrera making
said statements, appellant kept silent and failed to react.
 ● It was allegedly the Station Commander of the Tabaco Police Station who opted not to press charges against
Abrera.
Rodriguez testified that he and a certain Rogelio "Lilio" Cardano were at the "Wonder Dog Circus" at the bus terminal
of Tabaco, Albay, as they were selling an amplifier. But the policemen did not find any marijuana. Instead, they found in his
bag three (3) fifty-peso bills (P150.00), the price of the amplifier, which was already in the possession of the buyer the owner of
the circus Pat. Gonzales took the amount and returned it to the operator of the circus. Subsequently, the accused and Abrera
were brought to the Police Station, where the accused was locked-up and mauled inside the prison cell . While in prison, the
accused was approached by Pat. Gonzales, who told him that he also had marijuana for sale at P200.00 which he showed him .
The amplifier was brought to the police station and returned to the accused by investigator Colarina. The accused was detained
for one-and-a- half months, while Abrera was not .
● Solicitor General agreed with appellant's posture that the prosecution failed to establish the act of unlawfully
selling, distributing and delivering marijuana as alleged in the Information.
ISSUES
W/n appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for selling and/or possessing marijuana.

HELD
NO. We agree with the Solicitor General's assertion that the prosecution failed to establish that appellant sold, distributed
and delivered Marijuana. The records show that the two prosecution witnesses did not actually see appellant transact any
business dealing with marijuana.
Pat. Bongalos also could not say whether appellant was selling, distributing or delivering marijuana to Abrera when he was placed
under arrest.
The person, who is in the best position to testify whether appellant sold marijuana or not, was Abrera, as he was the person whom
appellant allegedly dealth with. We are placed at a quandary as to why Abrera was not prosecuted together with appellant nor was
he made to testify for the prosecution when he was named as one of the its witnesses. As testified to by the prosecution witnesses,
Abrera was not similarly charged with appellant because Abrera, when investigated, pointed to appellant as the person who gave
him the marijuana. The reliance made by the police investigator on Abrera’s word is simply puzzling.
The sworn statement executed by Abrera, (Exh. D) pointing to appellant as the person who gave him a tinfoil of
marijuana is inadmissible in evidence and has no probative value. The failure of the prosecution to present Abrera in
court although he was named as one of the prosecution witnesses deprived the accused the opportunity to cross-examine
his accuser. ". . . [C]ross-examination is an indispensable instrument of criminal justice to give substance and meaning to
the constitutional right of the accused to confront the witnesses against him and to show that the presumption of
innocence has remained steadfast and firm".
Appellant should likewise be acquitted of the offense of possession of marijuana. Admittedly, Pat. Gonzales searched
appellant without a warrant. It is contended however that the warrantless search was incidental to a lawful arrest. The
arrest of appellant itself was also made without a warrant of arrest. In such a case, the arrest can be justified only if there
was a crime committed in the presence of the arresting officers.
The cardinal rule is that no person may be subjected by the police to a search of his house, body or personal belonging
except by virtue of a search warrant or on the occasion of a lawful arrest ( People v. De la Cruz , 184 SCRA 416 [1990]).
"If a person is searched without a warrant, or under circumstances other than those justifying an arrest without warrant in
accordance with law, merely on suspicion that he is engaged in some felonious enterprise, and in order to discover if he
has indeed committed a crime, it is not only the arrest which is illegal but also, the search on the occasion thereof as
being 'the fruit of the poisonous tree'"
Wherefore, Rodriguez is hereby ACQUITTED.

26 Espano vs. Court of Appeals, 288 SCRA 558

FACTS
● Appeal from CA decision affirming in toto judgment of RTC Manila convicting Rodolfo Espano for violating Sec
8 Art II RA 6425 for possessing 12 plastic cellophane containing 5.5 grams of marijuana, crushed flowering tops.
● July 14, 1991, at about 12:30 a.m., Pat. Romeo Pagilagan, Pat. Wilfredo Aquilino, Simplicio Rivera, and Erlindo
Lumboy went to Zamora and Pandacan Streets, Manila to confirm reports of drug pushing.
● They saw petitioner selling "something" to another person.
● The search yielded two plastic cellophane tea bags of marijuana . When asked if he had more marijuana, he
replied that there was more in his house. The policemen went to his residence where they found ten more
cellophane tea bags of marijuana.
● By way of defense, petitioner testified that on said evening, he was sleeping in his house and was awakened only when the
policemen handcuffed him. He alleged that the policemen were looking for his brother-in-law Lauro, and when they could not
find the latter, he was instead brought to the police station for investigation and later indicted for possession of prohibited
drugs. His wife Myrna corroborated his story.
ISSUES
W/n the evidence seized were inadmissible.
HELD
NO. Petitioner's arrest falls squarely under the aforecited rule of Sec 5(a) Rule 113.
Lastly, the issue on the admissibility of the marijuana seized should likewise be ruled upon. Rule 113 Section 5(a) of the Rules of
Court provides:
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;
x x x x x x x x x.
Petitioners arrest falls squarely under the aforecited rule. He was caught in flagranti as a result of a buy-bust operation conducted by
police officers on the basis of information received regarding the illegal trade of drugs within the area of Zamora and Pandacan
Streets, Manila. The police officer saw petitioner handing over something to an alleged buyer. After the buyer left, they searched
him and discovered two cellophanes of marijuana. His arrest was, therefore, lawful and the two cellophane bags of marijuana seized
were admissible in evidence, being the fruits of the crime. Thus on the basis of Pat. Pagilagans testimony, the prosecution was able
to prove that petitioner indeed committed the crime charged; consequently, the finding of conviction was proper.
As for the ten cellophane bags of marijuana found at petitioners residence, however, the same are inadmissible in evidence.
The 1987 Constitution guarantees freedom against unreasonable searches and seizures under Article III, Section 2 which provides:
It may extend beyond the person of the one arrested to include the premises or surroundings under his immediate control. In this
case, the ten cellophane bags of marijuana seized at petitioners house after his arrest at Pandacan and Zamora Streets do not fall
under the said exceptions.
An exception to the said rule is a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest for dangerous weapons or anything
which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense. It may extend beyond the person of the one arrested to
include the premises or surroundings under his immediate control. In this case, the ten cellophane bags of marijuana
seized at petitioner's house after his arrest at Pandacan and Zamora Streets do not fall under the said exceptions.
The articles seized from petitioner during his arrest were valid under the doctrine of search made incidental to a lawful
arrest. The warrantless search made in his house, however, which yielded ten cellophane bags of marijuana became
unlawful since the police officers were not armed with a search warrant at the time. Moreover, it was beyond the reach
and control of petitioner.
Furthermore, the defense set up by petitioner does not deserve any consideration. He simply contended that he was in his house
sleeping at the time of the incident. This Court has consistently held that alibi is the weakest of all defenses; and for it to prosper, the
accused has the burden of proving that he was not at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission and that it was physically
impossible for him to be there. Moreover, the claim of a frame-up, like alibi, is a defense that has been invariably viewed by the
Court with disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted but difficult to prove, and is a common and standard line of defense in most
prosecutions arising from violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. No clear and convincing evidence was presented by petitioner to
prove his defense of alibi.
Second, petitioner contends that the prosecutions failure to present the alleged informant in court cast a reasonable doubt which
warrants his acquittal. This is again without merit, since failure of the prosecution to produce the informant in court is of no moment
especially when he is not even the best witness to establish the fact that a buy-bust operation had indeed been conducted. In this
case, Pat. Pagilagan, one of the policemen who apprehended petitioner, testified on the actual incident of July 14, 1991, and
identified him as the one they caught in possession of prohibited drugs.

Wherefore, petition is DENIED, judgment is hereby MODIFIED.

27 People vs. Figueroa, 248 SCRA 679

FACTS
● Arturo Figueroa was charged with Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition for possessing one pistol cal .
45 with one magazine and seven live ammos.
● Captain Lodivino Rosario arrived at the residence of accused Arturo Figueroa at Barangay San Juan, SanFrancisco
Subdivision, General Trias, Cavite, to serve a warrant for his arrest issued by the RTC Makati.
● While serving the warrant of arrest, the officers noticed, strewn around, aluminum foil packages of different sizes in
the sala. Suspecting thus the presence of "shabu" in the premises, the arresting officers requested appellant, as well
as his brother and sister, to acquiesce to a search of the house. The search yielded a .45 caliber pistol, a magazine,
seven live ammunitions, and a match box containing an aluminum foil package with "shabu."
ISSUES
W/n admissibility against him of evidence seized following a warrantless search should not be sustained.

HELD
NO. While we might concede difficulty in readily accepting the statement of the prosecution that the search was
conducted with consent freely given by appellant and members of his household, it should be pointed out, in any case,
that the search and seizure was done admittedly on the occasion of a lawful arrest. A significant exception from the
necessity for a search warrant is when the search and seizure is effected as an incident to a lawful arrest and so, in People
vs. Musa.

Wherefore, judgment is AFFIRMED.

28 Guanzon vs. de Villa,181 SCRA 623

FACTS
● This is a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction to prohibit the military and police o fficers represented
by public respondents from conducting "Areal Target Zonings" or "Saturation Drives" in Metro Manila.
● According to the petitioners, the following "saturation drives" were conducted in Metro Manila:
1. March 5, 1987 at about 9:30 PM in Tindalo, Kagitingan, and Magdalena Streets, Tondo, Manila.
2. June 19, 1987 at about 10:00 PM in Mata Street, Panday Pira Extension and San Sebastian Street,
Tondo, Manila.
3. July 20, 1987 at about 8:00 AM in Bangkusay Street, Tondo, Manila.
4. August 11 to 13, 1987 between 11:00 PM and 2:00 AM in six blocks along Aroma Beach up to Happy
Land, Magsaysay Village, Tondo, Manila.
5. August 19, 1987 at 9:00 PM in Herbosa Extension, Quirino Street, and Pacheco Street, Tondo, Manila.
6. August 28, 1987 at 10:30 PM, in Block 34, Dagat-dagatan, Navotas, Metro Manila.
7. August 30, 1987 at 9:30 PM at Paraiso Extension, Magsaysay Village, Tondo, Manila.
8. October 12, 1987 at 12:00 midnight in Apelo Cruz Compound, Quezon City.
9. October 17, 1987 at 11:00 PM in Quirino Street, Tondo, Manila.
10. October 23, 1987 at 2:30 A.M. in Sun Valley Drive, Manila International Airport, Pasay City.
11. November 1, 1987 at 4:00 A.M. in Cordillera Street, Sta. Mesa, Manila.
12. November 3, 1987 at 5:00 A.M. in Lower Maricaban, Pasay City, Metro Manila.
According to the petitioners, the "areal target zonings" or "saturation drives" are in critical areas pinpointed by the
military and police as places where the subversives are hiding. The arrests range from seven (7) persons during the July
20 saturation drive in Bangkusay, Tondo to one thousand five hundred (1,500) allegedly apprehended onNovember 3
during the drive at Lower Maricaban, Pasay City.

The petitioners claim that the saturation drives follow a common pattern of human rights abuses.
First, the respondents have legal authority to conduct saturation drives. And second, they allege that the accusations of the
petitioners about a deliberate disregard for human rights are total lies.
Insofar as the legal basis for saturation drives is concerned, the respondents cite Article VII, Section 17 and 18 of the
Constitution.
ISSUES
HELD
NO. Herein lies the problem of the Court. We can only guess the truth. Everything before us consists of allegations.
According to the petitioners, more than 3,407 persons were arrested in the saturation drives covered by the petition. No
estimates are given for the drives in Block 34, Dagat-dagatan, Navotas; Apelo Cruz Compound, Pasig; and Sun Valley
Drive near the Manila International Airport area. Not one of the several thousand persons treated in the illegal and
inhuman manner described by the petitioners appears as a petitioner or has come before a trial court to present the kind of
evidence admissible in courts of justice. Moreover, there must have been tens of thousands of nearby residents who were
inconvenienced in addition to the several thousand allegedly arrested. None of those arrested has apparently been
charged and none of those affected has apparently complained.The aerial target zonings in this petition were intended
to flush out subversives and criminal elements particularly because of the blatant assassinations of public officers and
police officials by elements supposedly coddled by the communities where the "drives" were Conducted. It is clear from
the pleadings of both petitioners and respondents, however, that there was no rebellion or criminal activity similar
to that of the attempted coup d' etats. There is no strong showing that the objectives sought to be attained by the "areal
zoning' could not be achieved even as the rights of squatter and low income families are fully protected.A blanket
prohibition such as that sought by the petitioners would limit all police actions to one on one confrontationswhere search
warrants and warrants of arrests against specific individuals are easily procured.
The remedy is not an original action for prohibition brought through a taxpayers' suit. Where not one victim complains
and not one violator is properly charged, the problem is not initially for the Supreme Court. It is basically one for the
executive departments and for trial courts.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby REMANDED to the Regional Trial Courts of Manila, Malabon, and Pasay City.