Posadas vs CA
simply shrug his shoulders and allow a crime to occur.
Facts:
Pat. Ursicio Ungab and Pat. Umbra Umpar, both members of the
Integrated National Police (INP) of the Davao Metrodiscom assigned with
the Intelligence Task Force, were conducting a surveillance along
Magallanes Street, Davao City. While they were within the premises of the
Rizal Memorial Colleges they spotted petitioner carrying a "buri" bag and
they noticed him to be acting suspiciously.
They then checked the "buri" bag of the petitioner where they found one
(1) caliber .38 Smith & Wesson revolver with Serial No. 770196[1]two (2)
rounds of live ammunition for a .38 caliber gun, a smoke (tear gas)
grenade,[3] and two (2) live ammunitions for a .22 caliber gun.
Ruling: "stop and frisk" situation whose object is either to determine the
identity of a suspicious individual or to maintain the status quo
momentarily while the police officer seeks to obtain more information.
This is illustrated in the case of Terry vs. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). The
United States Supreme Court held that "a police officer may in appropriate
circumstances and in an appropriate manner approach a person for the
purpose of investigating possible criminal behaviour even though there is
no probable cause to make an arrest." In such a situation, it is reasonable
for an officer rather than simply to shrug his shoulder and allow a crime to
occur, to stop a suspicious individual briefly in order to determine his
identity or maintain the status quo while obtaining more information.
In upholding the legality of the search, the Court said that to require the
police officers to search the bag only after they had obtained a search
warrant might prove to be useless, futile and much too late under the
circumstances. In such a situation, it was reasonable for a police officer to
stop a suspicious individual briefly in order to determine his identity or to
maintain the status quo while obtaining more information, rather than to
People vs Mengote
Facts:
Rogelio Mengote was convicted of illegal possession of firearms on the
strength mainly of the stolen pistol found on his person at the moment of
his warrantless arrest. In this appeal, he pleads that the weapon was not
admissible as evidence against him because it had been illegally seized and
was therefore the fruit of the poisonous tree. The Government disagrees.
It insists that the revolver was validly received in evidence by the trial
judge because its seizure was incidental to an arrest that was doubtless
lawful even if admittedly without warrant.
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. - A peace officer or private
person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal
knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has
committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a
penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to another.
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person arrested
without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station
or jail, and he shall be proceeded against in accordance with Rule 112,
Section 7
Par. (b) is no less applicable because it's no less stringent requirements
have also not been satisfied. The prosecution has not shown that at the
time of Mengote's arrest an offense had in fact just been committed and
that the arresting officers had personal knowledge of facts indicating that
Mengote had committed it. All they had was hearsay information from the
telephone caller, and about a crime that had yet to be committed.
The truth is that they did not know then what offense, if at all, had been
committed and neither were they aware of the participation therein of the
accused-appellant. It was only later, after Danganan had appeared at the
police headquarters, that they learned of the robbery in his house and of
Mengote's supposed involvement therein.[8] As for the illegal possession
of the firearm found on Mengote's person, the policemen discovered this
only after he had been searched and the investigation conducted later
revealed that he was not its owners nor was he licensed to possess it.
People vs Aruta
Facts: P/Lt. Abello was tipped off by his informant, known only as Benjie,
that a certain "Aling Rosa" would be arriving from Baguio City the following
day, December 14, 1988, with a large volume of marijuana.
Upon inspection, the bag was found to contain dried marijuana leaves
packed in a plastic bag marked "Cash Katutak." The team confiscated the
bag together with the Victory Liner bus ticket to which Lt. Domingo affixed
his signature.
Upon inspection, the bag was found to contain dried marijuana leaves
packed in a plastic bag marked "Cash Katutak." The team confiscated the
bag together with the Victory Liner bus ticket to which Lt. Domingo affixed
his signature.
Ruling: Accused-appellant Aruta cannot be said to be committing a crime.
Neither was she about to commit one nor had she just committed a crime.
Accused-appellant was merely crossing the street and was not acting in
any manner that would engender a reasonable ground for the NARCOM
agents to suspect and conclude that she was committing a crime.
Consequently, there was no legal basis for the NARCOM agents to effect a
warrantless search of accused-appellant's bag, there being no probable
cause and the accused-appellant not having been lawfully arrested. Stated
otherwise, the arrest being incipiently illegal, it logically follows that the
subsequent search was similarly illegal, it being not incidental to a lawful
arrest. The constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and
seizure must perforce operate in favor of accused-appellant. As such, the
articles seized could not be used as evidence against accused-appellant for
these are "fruits of a poisoned tree" and, therefore, must be rejected.
In the absence of probable cause to effect a valid and legal warrantless
arrest, the search and seizure of accused-appellant's bag would also not be
justified as seizure of evidence in "plain view" under the second exception.
The marijuana was obviously not immediately apparent as shown by the
fact that the NARCOM agents still had to request accused-appellant to
open the bag to ascertain its contents.
In the instant case, there was no observable manifestation that could have
aroused the suspicion of the NARCOM agents as to cause them to "stop
and frisk" accused-appellant. To reiterate, accused-appellant was merely
crossing the street when apprehended.
People vs Andaya
Facts: SPO2 Delfin Alea who was conducting surveillance of Pablito
reported that he had arranged to buy shabu from Pablito.The asset
knocked on the door of Pablito's house. Pablito came out. Pablito and the
asset talked briefly. The asset gave Pablito the marked money. The asset
received something from appellant. The pre-arranged signal signifying
consummation of the transaction was given. The team members
approached Pablito and the asset, introduced themselves as police officers
and arrested accused. He was brought to the police station.

Issue: insisting that the search of his house and his person and his arrest by
the police officers violated his constitutional right against unreasonable
searches and seizures

the confidential informant was not a police officer. He was designated to

be the poseur buyer himself. It is notable that the members of the buy-
bust team arrested Andaya on the basis of the pre-arranged signal from
the poseur buyer. The pre-arranged signal signified to the members of the
buy-bust team that the transaction had been consummated between the
poseur buyer and Andaya. However, the State did not present the
confidential informant/ poseur buyer during the trial to describe how
exactly the transaction between him and Andaya had taken place