PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

IDEL AMINNUDIN y AHNI

G.R.No. 74869 July 6, 1988

Facts:

The police agents in Iloilo received a tip from a reliable informer that the accused,
Amminudin, was on a vessel bound for Iloilo and is carrying with him marijuana. The
said vessel was to arrive few days after such tip. On the day of the arrival, the agents
then waited at the port for the vessel. Upon arrival of the vessel and when the suspect
disembarked, they immediately frisked him and searched hios bag which contained the
marijuana. Subsequently, the Amminudin was arrested. During the train, the accused
that alleged that he was arbitrarily arrested and immediately handcuffed and that his
bag was confiscated without a search warrant.

Held: The Supreme Court Held that warrantless arrest allowed under Rule 113 of the
rules of court not justified unless the accused was caught in flagrante or a crime was
about to be committed or had just been committed.

In the present case, 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 his
arrival was certain. And from the information they have received, they could have
persuaded a judge that there was a probable cause, indeed, to justify the issuance of a
warrant. Yet they did nothing. The Bill of Rights was ignored altogether because the PC
lieutenant who was the head of the arresting team had determine on his own authority
that a search warrant was not necessary. The evidence of probable cause should be
determined by a judge and not law enforcement agents.

In People v. Aminnudin,[77] this Court likewise held the warrantless arrest and
subsequent search of appellant therein illegal, given the following circumstances:

“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. What he was doing
was descending the gangplank of the M/V Wilcon 9 and there was no outward
indication that he called for his arrest. To all appearances, 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.”

Thus, notwithstanding tips from confidential informants and regardless of the fact that
the search yielded contraband, the mere act of looking from side to side while holding
ones abdomen,[79] or of standing on a corner with ones eyes moving very fast, looking at
every person who came near,[80] does not justify a warrantless arrest under said Section
5 (a). Neither does putting something in ones pocket,[81] handing over ones
baggage,[82] riding a motorcycle,[83] nor does holding a bag on board
a trisikad[84]sanction State intrusion. The same rule applies to crossing the street per se.

G.R. No. 186529 August 3, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
vs.
JACK RACHO Y RAQUERO, Appellant.

FACTS:
A confidential agent of the police transacted through cellular phone with Racho
for the purchase of shabu. Racho called up the agent and informed him that he was on board a
Genesis bus and would arrive in Baler, Aurora. Having alighted from the bus, appellant was about to
board a tricycle when the team of police authorities approached him and invited him to the police
station. As he pulled out his hands from his pants’ pocket, a white envelope slipped there from
which, when opened, yielded a small sachet containing the suspected drug.

Racho was charged in two separate informations, one for violation of Section
5 of RA 9165, for transporting or delivering & and the second, of Section 11 of the same
law for possessing of dangerous drugs.

HELD:
Reliable information alone is not sufficient probable cause to effect a
valid warrantless arrest. The SC required the showing of some overt act indicative of the criminal
design.

PEOPLE VS. ARUTA [288 SCRA 626;

G.R. NO. 120515; 13 APR 1998]
Facts:
On Dec. 13, 1988, P/Lt. Abello was tipped off by his informant that a certain
“Aling Rosa” will be arriving from Baguio City with a large volume of marijuana and
assembled a team. The next day, at the Victory Liner Bus terminal they waited for
the bus coming from Baguio, when the informer pointed out who “Aling Rosa” was,
the team approached her and introduced themselves as NARCOM agents. When
Abello asked “aling Rosa” about the contents of her bag, the latter handed it out to
the police. They found dried marijuana leaves packed in a plastic bag marked “cash
katutak”.
Instead of presenting its evidence, the defense filed a demurrer to evidence
alleging the illegality of the search and seizure of the items. In her testimony, the
accused claimed that she had just come from Choice theatre where she watched a
movie “Balweg”. While about to cross the road an old woman asked her for help in
carrying a shoulder bag, when she was later on arrested by the police. She has no
knowledge of the identity of the old woman and the woman was nowhere to be found.
Also, no search warrant was presented. The trial court convicted the accused in violation
of the dangerous drugs of1972.
Held:
The following cases are specifically provided or allowed by law:

1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules
of Court and by prevailing jurisprudence

2. Seizure of evidence in "plain view," the elements of which are: (a) a prior valid intrusion based on
the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official
duties; (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where
they are; (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent, and (d) "plain view" justified mere
seizure of evidence without further search;

3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the government, the vehicle's inherent mobility
reduces expectation of privacy especially when its transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly
reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause that the occupant committed a criminal
activity;

4. Consented warrantless search;

5. Customs search;

6. Stop and Frisk;

7. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances

People vs. Tudtud GR 144037

September 23, 2003

FACTS:
Sometime during the months of July and August 1999, the Toril Police Station,
Davao City received a report from a “civilian asset” named Bobong Solier about a certain
Noel Tudtud. Solier related that his neighbours have been complaining about
Tudtud, who was allegedly responsible for the proliferation of marijuana in their area.
Relating to the report, the police conducted surveillance in Solier’s neighbourhood in
Sapa, Toril, Davao City. For 5 days, they gathered information and leared that Tudtud
was involved in illegal drugs. According to his neighbours, Tudtud was engaged in
selling marijuana.
Solier informed the police that Tudtud had headed to Cotabato and would be
back later that day with new stocks of marijuana. Solier described Tudtud as big bodied
and short, and usually wore a hat. At around 4:00 pm that same day, a team of
policemen posted themselves at the corner of Saipon and McArthur Highway to await.
Tudtud’s arrival. All wore civilian clothes. About 8:00 pm, 2 men disembarked from a
bus and helped each other carry a carton marked “King Flakes.” Standing some 5 feet
away from the men, PO1 Desierto and PO1 Floreta observed that one of the men fit
Tudtud’s description. The same man also toted a plastic bag. PO1Floreta and PO1
Desierto then approached the suspects and identified themselves as police officers. PO1
Desierto informed them that the police had received information that stocks of illegal
drugs would be arriving that night. The man who resembled Tudtud’s description
denied that he was carrying any drugs. PO1 Desierto asked if he could see the contents
of the box. Tudtud then said “it was alright” and let them see the box which contained
bundles of dried fish, one wrapped in a plastic bag and another in newspapers. When
the bundles were unwrapped, there contained marijuana leaves.

The police arrested Tudtud and his comapanion. They were charged with illegal
possession of prohibited drugs before the RTC of Davao City which convicted the
accused.

ISSUE: Whether or not Tudtud’s implied acquiescence (Tudtud’s statement of “it’s

alright”) is considered a waiver.

RULING:
NO. The right against unreasonable searched and seizures is secured by Sec. 2,
Art. 3 of the Constitution. Appellants implied acquiescence, if at all, could not have been
more than mere passive conformity given under coercive or intimidating circumstances
and is, thus, considered no consent at all within the purview of the constitutional
guarantee. Consequently,appellants lack of objection to the search and seizure
is not tantamount to a waiver of his constitutional right or a voluntary
submission to the warrantless search and seizure.
As the search of appellant’s box does not come under the recognized exceptions to a
valid warrantless search, the marijuana leaves obtained thereby are inadmissible in
evidence. And as there is no evidence other than the hearsay testimony of the arresting
officers and their informant, the conviction of appellants cannot be sustained.

Finally, there is an effective waiver of rights against unreasonable searches and seizures
if the following requisites are present:

1. It must appear that the rights exist;

2. The person involved had knowledge, actual or constructive, of the existence of such
right;
3. Said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right.
Here, the prosecution failed to establish the second and third requisites. Records
disclose that when the police officers introduced themselves as such and requested
appellant that they see the contents of the carton box supposedly containing the
marijuana, appellant Tudtud said it was alright. He did not resist and opened the box
himself.
Acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights is not to be presumed. The fact that a
person failed to object to a search does not amount to permission thereto.

Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City is REVERSED. Appellants Noel
Tudtud y Paypa and Dindo Bolong y Naret are ACQUITTED for insufficiency of
evidence.

Advertisements
PP v Nuevas, G.R. No. 170233 February 22, 2007

FACTS: Res po nd e n t s J e su s N u ev a s , R ey n al d o D in an d F er n an do
Ino c en c io w e re apprehended by PO3 Teofilo B. Fami and SPO3 Cesar B.
Cabling after bricks of marijuana were seized from them on the morning of
September 27, 1997 in Olongapo City. Accused Jesus Nuevas voluntarily gave the bag
containing bricks of dried marijuana leaves. With respect to the confiscation of 2 ½
kilos of marijuana and the apprehension of accused Reynaldo Din and Fernando
Inocencio, it was a result of a continued op erat ion by t he t eam w hich t his
t ime w as l e d by ac cu sed N u ev as t o g et some concession from the team for
his own earlier apprehension. As the apprehension of Nuevas was upon a probable
cause, in the same vein was the apprehension of Reynaldo Din and Fernando Inocencio
and the recovery from them [of] 2½ kilos of dried marijuana leaves.

HELD: In this case, Nuevas, Din and Inocencio were not committing a crime in the
presence of the police officers. Moreover, police officers Fami and Cabling did not have
personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the persons to be arrested had
committed an offense. The searches conducted on the plastic bag then cannot be said to
be merely incidental to a lawful arrest. Reliable information alone is not sufficient to
justify a warrantless arrest under Section 5(a), Rule 113. The rule requires, in addition,
that the accused perform some overt act that would indicate that he has committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.[41]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MOLINA

FACTS:

Sometime in June 1996, SPO1Paguidopon received information regarding

the presence of an alleged marijuana pusher in Davao City. 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. In the morning of August 8,1996, SPO1 Paguidopon received an
information that the alleged pusher will be passing at NHA, Ma-a, Davao City. He called
for assistance at the PNP proceed to the house of SPO1 Marino Paguidopon where they would wait
for the alleged pusher to pass by. At around 9:30 in the morning of August 8, 1996, a “trisikad”
carrying the accused-appellants passed by. At that instance, SPO1Paguidopon pointed to the
accused-appellants as the pushers. The police officers then ordered the “trisikad” to
stop. SPO1Pamplona 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. Thereafter, accused-appellants Mula and Molina were handcuffed by
the police officers. Accused-appellants contended that the marijuana allegedly seized from
them is inadmissible as evidence for having been obtained in violation of their constitutional
right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Held:

SPO1 Paguidopon admitted that he had never seen him before the arrest. The Court holds
that the arrest of accused-appellants does not fall under the exceptions allowed by the
rules. Hence, the search conducted on their person was likewise illegal. Consequently,
the marijuana seized by the peace officers could not be admitted as evidence.
WHEREFORE accused are ACQUITTED.

Malacat vs. CA
G.R. No. 124595 December 12, 1997

FACTS
Rodolfo Yu of the Western Police District, Metropolitan Police Force of the
Integrated National Police, Police Station No. 3, Quiapo, Manila, testified that on 27
August 1990, at about 6:30 p.m., in response to bomb threats reported seven days
earlier, he was on foot patrol with three other police officers (all of them in uniform)
along Quezon Boulevard, Quiapo, Manila, near the Mercury Drug store at Plaza
Miranda. They chanced upon two groups of Muslim-looking men, with each group,
comprised of three to four men, posted at opposite sides of the corner of Quezon
Boulevard near the Mercury Drug Store.These men were acting suspiciously with [t]heir
eyes moving very fast.[6]
Yu and his companions positioned themselves at strategic points and observed both
groups for about thirty minutes. The police officers then approached one group of men,
who then fled in different directions. As the policemen gave chase, Yu caught up with
and apprehended petitioner. Upon searching petitioner, Yu found a fragmentation
grenade tucked inside petitioners front waist line.[7] Yus companion, police officer
Rogelio Malibiran, apprehended Abdul Casan from whom a .38 caliber revolver was
recovered. Petitioner and Casan were then brought to Police Station No. 3 where Yu
placed an X mark at the bottom of the grenade and thereafter gave it to his
commander.[8]

HELD:
Mere suspicions are not sufficient to validate the warrantless arrest.
 PEOPLE V. MENGOTE - 210 SCRA 174 TejasG.R. No. 8759,
June 22, 1992
Facts: The Western Police District received a telephone call from an informer that there
were three suspicious looking persons at the corner of Juan Luna and North
Bay Boulevard in Tondo, Manila. A surveillance team of plainclothesmen was forthwith
dispatched to the place. The patrolmen saw two men looking from side to side, one of
whom holding his abdomen. They approached the persons and identified themselves as
policemen, whereupon the two tried to run but unable to escape because the other
lawmen surrounded them. The suspects were then searched. One of them the accused-
appellant was found with a .38 caliber with live ammunitions in it, while his companion
had a fan knife. The weapons were taken from them and they were turned over to the
police headquarters for investigation. An information was filed before the RTC
convicting the accused of illegal possession of firearm arm. A witness testified that the
weapon was among the articles stolen at his shop, which he reported to the police
including the revolver. For his part, Mengote made no effort to prove that he owned the
fire arm or that he was licensed to possess it but instead, he claimed that the weapon
was planted on him at the time of his arrest. He was convicted for violation of P.D.1866
and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. In his appeal he pleads that the weapon was
notadmissible as evidence against him because it had been illegally seized and therefore
the fruit of a poisonous tree.
Issue: Whether or not the warrantless search and arrest was illegal.

Held: An evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure inadmissible in

any proceeding for any purpose as provided by Art. III sec 32 of the Constitution. Rule
113 sec.5 of the Rules of Court, provides arrest without warrant lawful when: (a) the
person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting
to commit an offense, (b) when the offense in fact has just been committed, and he has
personal knowledge of the facts indicating the person arrested has committed it and (c)
the person to be arrested has escaped from a penal establishment or a place where he is
serving final judgment or temporarily confinedwhile his case is pending, or has escaped
while being transferred from oneconfinement to another.

These requirements have not been established in the case at bar. At the time of the
arrest in question, the accused appellant was merely looking from side to side and
holding his abdomen, according to the arresting officers themselves. There was
apparently no offense that has just been committed or was being actually committed or
at least being attempt by Mengote in their presence. Moreover a person may not be
stopped and frisked in a broad daylight or on a busy street on unexplained suspicion.

Judgment is reversed and set aside. Accused-appellant is acquitted.

 People v. Binad Sy Chua,[87] this Court declared invalid the arrest of the accused, who
was walking towards a hotel clutching a sealed Zest-O juice box. For the exception in
Section 5 (a), Rule 113 to apply, this Court ruled, two elements must concur: (1) the
person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating 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. Reliable information alone is
insufficient.