People v.

Padilla Paragraph (a) requires that the person be arrested (i) after he has committed or while he is actually committing or is at least attempting to commit an offense, (ii) in the presence of the arresting officer or private person.[29] Both elements concurred here, as it has been established that petitioner's vehicle figured in a hit and run - an offense committed in the "presence" of Manarang, a private person, who then sought to arrest petitioner. It must be stressed at this point that "presence" does not only require that the arresting person sees the offense, but also when he "hears the disturbance created thereby AND proceeds at once to the scene."[30] As testified to by Manarang, he heard the screeching of tires followed by a thud, saw the sideswiped victim (balut vendor), reported the incident to the police and thereafter gave chase to the erring Pajero vehicle using his motorcycle in order to apprehend its driver. After having sent a radio report to the PNP for assistance, Manarang proceeded to the Abacan bridge where he found responding policemen SPO2 Borja and SPO2 Miranda already positioned near the bridge who effected the actual arrest of petitioner. [31] Moreover, when caught in flagrante delicto with possession of an unlicensed firearm (Smith & Wesson) and ammunition (M-16 magazine), petitioner's warrantless arrest was proper as he was again actually committing another offense (illegal possession of firearm and ammunitions) and this time in the presence of a peace officer.[37] Besides, the policemen's warrantless arrest of petitioner could likewise be justified under paragraph (b) as he had in fact just committed an offense. There was no supervening event or a considerable lapse of time between the hit and run and the actual apprehension. Moreover, after having stationed themselves at the Abacan bridge in response to Manarang's report, the policemen saw for themselves the fast approaching Pajero of petitioner,[38] its dangling plate number (PMA 777 as reported by Manarang), and the dented hood and railings thereof.[39] These formed part of the arresting police officer's personal knowledge of the facts indicating that petitioner's Pajero was indeed the vehicle involved in the hit and run incident. Verily then, the arresting police officers acted upon verified personal knowledge and not on unreliable hearsay information.[40] Another justification is a search of a moving vehicle (third instance). In connection therewith, a warrantless search is constitutionally permissible when, as in this case, the officers conducting the search have reasonable or probable cause to believe, before the search, that either the motorist is a law-offender (like herein petitioner with respect to the hit and run) or the contents or cargo of the vehicle are or have been instruments or the subject matter or the proceeds of some criminal offense.[63] Amarga v. Abbas Wherefore, the petition is granted and the Respondent Judge ordered to proceed with criminal case No. 1131 in accordance with law, it being understood that, if within ten days after notice by the Respondent Judge, the Petitioner still fails or refuses to present other necessary evidence, the dismissal will stand for lack of prosecution. Buchanan v. Viuda de Esteban the fact of the prosecution and the fact that the defendant was himself to prosecutor, or that he instigated its commencement, and that it finally terminated in his acquittal; that, in bringing it, the prosecutor had acted without probable cause, and that he was actuated by a legal malice, i.e., by improper or sinister motives. but not so much on the theory of probable cause as on the ground that, under such circumstances, there was no intent to accuse falsely. If the charge, although false, was made with an honest belief in its truth and justice, and there were reasonable grounds on which such a belief could be founded, the accusation could not be held to have been false in the legal sense. Placer v. Villanueva Following receipt of said informations, respondent judge issued an order setting on April 5, 1982 the hearing of said criminal cases for the purpose of determining the propriety of issuing the corresponding warrants of arrest. After said hearing, respondent issued the questioned orders dated April 13, 15, 16 and 19, 1982, requiring petitioners to submit to the court the affidavits of the prosecution witnesses and other documentary evidence in support of the informations to aid him in the exercise of his power of judicial review of the findings of probable cause by petitioners. 3 The informations filed by petitioners in Branch II likewise remained dormant because of respondent's firm refusal to issue the corresponding warrants of arrest for want of affidavits of the witnesses. The issue to be resolved is whether or not the respondent city judge may, for the purpose of issuing a warrant of arrest, compel the fiscal to submit to the court the supporting affidavits and other documentary evidence presented during the preliminary investigation. The issuance of a warrant is not a mere ministerial function; it calls for the exercise of judicial discretion on the part of the issuing magistrate. Luna v. Plaza The respondent Judge examined the prosecution witnesses by reading to them "all over again the questions and answers" in their statements in writing, and the witnesses-affiants declared before said Judge that the questions were propounded by T-Sgt. Candido Patosa, and that the answers were made by them. The affiants further declared before respondent Judge that their answers were true, and were freely and voluntarily made; that they fully understood the questions and answers, and that they were willing to sign their respective affidavits. The affiants signed their respective affidavits in the presence of the respondent Judge, who also signed after the usual procedure of administering the oath. : (1) personally examine the complainant and witnesses with "searching questions and answers", which means that the judge must

cross-examine them in case their affidavits are presented; and (2) said examination must be reduced to writing and form part of the records of the case. that the complaint is supported by the statements of the witnesses under oath in writing in the form of questions and answers and other documents attached to the complaint; that before the issuance of the corresponding warrant of arrest, the respondent judge personally examined the witnesses for the prosecution on their statements taken by T-Sgt. Candido Patosa by reading the questions and answers all over again to the affiants who confirmed to the respondent Judge that the statements contained in their sworn statements are true; that being satisfied that the questions and answers contained in the sworn statements taken by T-Sgt Patosa partake of the nature of his searching questions and answers as required by law, the respondent Judge adopted them as his own personal examination of the witnesses for the purpose of determining the existence of probable cause, the order and the warrant of arrest were issued to take the accused into custody for the commission of the offense charged What would be searching questions would depend on what is sought to be inquired into, such as: the nature of the offense, the date, time, and place of its commission, the possible motives for its commission; the subject, his age, education, status, financial and social circumstances, his attitude toward the investigation, social attitudes, opportunities to commit the offense; the victim, his age, status, family responsibilities, financial and social circumstances, characteristics, etc. The points that are the subject of inquiry may differ from case to case. The questions, therefore, must to a great degree depend upon the Judge making the investigation. At any rate, the court a quo found that respondent judge was "satisfied that the questions and answers contained in the sworn statements taken by T-Sgt. Patosa partake of the nature of his searching questions and answers as required by law," so the respondent Judge adopted them.

Harvey v. Defensor Santiago Petitioners were among the twenty-two (22) suspected alien pedophiles who were apprehended after three months of close surveillance by CID agents in Pagsanjan, Laguna. On 4 March 1988, deportation proceedings were instituted against petitioners for being undesirable aliens under Section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code (Deportation Case No. 88-13). The "Charge Sheet" read inter alia: Wherefore, this Office charges the respondents for deportation, as undesirable aliens, in that: they, being pedophiles, are inimical to public morals, public health and public safety as provided in Section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code. In this case, the arrest of petitioners was based on probable cause determined after close surveillance for three (3) months during which period their activities were monitored. The existence of probable cause justified the arrest and the seizure of the photo negatives, photographs and posters without warrant Those articles were seized as an incident to a lawful arrest and, are therefore, admissible in evidence .But even assuming arguendo that the arrest of petitioners was not valid at its inception, the records show that formal deportation charges have been filed against them, as undesirable aliens, on 4 March 1988. Warrants of arrest were issued against them on 7 March 1988 "for violation of Section 37, 45 and 46 of the Immigration Act and Section 69 of the Administrative Code." A hearing is presently being conducted by a Board of Special Inquiry. The restraint against their persons, therefore, has become legal. "It is a fumdamental rule that a writ of habeas corpus will not be granted when the confinement is or has become legal, although such confinement was illegal at the beginning" Deportation proceedings, on the other hand, are administrative in character. An order of deportation is never construed as a punishment. It is preventive, not a penal process. It need not be conducted strictly in accordance with ordinary Court proceedings. It is of course well-settled that deportation proceedings do not constitute a criminal action. The order of deportation is not a punishment, (Maliler vs. Eby, 264 U.S., 32), it being merely the return to his country of an alien who has broken the conditions upon which he could continue to reside within our borders (U.S. vs. De los Santos, 33 Phil., 397). The deportation proceedings are administrative in character, (Kessler vs. Stracker 307 U.S., 22) summary in nature, and need not be conducted strictly in accordance with the ordinary court proceedings (Murdock vs. Clark, 53 F. [2d], 155). It is essential, however, that the warrant of arrest shall give the alien sufficient information about the charges against him, relating the facts relied upon. (U.S. vs. Uhl 211 F., 628.) It is also essential that he be given a fair hearing with the assistance of counsel, if he so desires, before unprejudiced investigators ( The ruling in Vivo vs. Montesa (G. R. No. 24576, July 29, 1968, 24 SCRA 155) that "the issuance of warrants of arrest by the Commissioner of Immigration, solely for purposes of investigation and before a final order of deportation is issued, conflicts with paragraph 3, Section I of Article III of the Constitution" (referring to the 1935 Constitution) 3 is not invocable herein. Respondent Commissioner's Warrant of Arrest issued on 7 March 1988 did not order petitioners to appear and show cause why they should not be deported. They were issued specifically "for violation of Sections 37, 45 and 46 of the Immigration Act and Section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code." Before that, deportation proceedings had been commenced against them as undesirable aliens on 4 March 1988 and the arrest was a step preliminary to their possible deportation. "The requirement of probable cause, to be determined by a Judge, does not extend to deportation proceedings." VIUDA DE GARCIA, petitioner, vs. LOCSIN In the instant case the existence of probable cause was determined not by the judge himself but by the applicant. All that the judge did was to accept as true the affidavit made by agent Almeda. He did not decide for himself. It does not appear that he examined the

applicant and his witnesses, if any. Even accepting the description of the properties to be seized to be sufficient and on the assumption that the receipt issued is sufficiently detailed within the meaning of the law, the properties seized were not delivered to the court which issued the warrant, as required by law. (See, secs. 95 and 104, G. O. No. 58.) instead, they were turned over to the respondent provincial fiscal and used by him in building up cases against the petitioner. Considering that at the time the warrant was issued there was no case pending against the petitioner, the averment that the warrant was issued primarily for exploration purposes is not without basis. The lower court is, therefore, correct in reaching the conclusion that the search warrant (Exhibit B) was illegally issued by the justice of the peace of Tarlac, Tarlac. Roan v. Gonzales As held in a long line of decisions, the probable cause must refer to only one specific offense. 7As a matter of fact, depositions were taken of the complainant's two witnesses in addition to the affidavit executed by them. 9 Nolasco v. Pano It is at once evident that the foregoing Search Warrant authorizes the seizure of personal properties vaguely described and not particularized. It is an all- embracing description which includes everything conceivable regarding the Communist Party of the Philippines and the National Democratic Front. It does not specify what the subversive books and instructions are; what the manuals not otherwise available to the public contain to make them subversive or to enable them to be used for the crime of rebellion. There is absent a definite guideline to the searching team as to what items might be lawfully seized thus giving the officers of the law discretion regarding what articles they should seize as People v. Veloso The defense, as previously indicated, is planted squarely on the contention that since the name of Veloso did not appear in the search warrant, but instead the pseudonym John Doe was used, Veloso had a legal right to resist the police by force. Such a warrant must, in addition, contain the best descriptio personae possible to be obtained of the person or persons to be apprehended, and this description must be sufficient to indicate clearly the proper person or persons upon whom the warrant is to be served; and should state his personal appearance and peculiarities, give his occupation and place of residence, and any other circumstances by means of which he can be identified zPcoU69. This rule or principle does not prevent the issue and service of a warrant against a party whose name is unknown. In such case the best description possible of the person to be arrested is to be given in the warrant; but it must be sufficient to indicate clearly on whom it is to be served, by stating his occupation, his personal appearance and peculiarities, the place of his residence, or other circumstances by which he can be identified. (1 Chit. Crim. Law, 39, 40.)

People v. Johnson or a total of FIVE HUNDRED EIGHTY POINT TWO (580.2) grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride. That the above-named accused does not have the corresponding license or prescription to possess or use said regulated drug. There is little question that such searches are reasonable, given their minimal intrusiveness, the gravity of the safety interests involved, and the reduced privacy expectations associated with airline travel.[20] Personal property to be seized. A search warrant may be issued for the search and seizure of personal property: (a) Subject of the offense; (b) Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or fruits of the offense; and (c) Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense. Asuncion v. CA .[9] The prevalent circumstances of the case undoubtedly bear out the fact that the search in question was made as regards a moving vehicle petitioners vehicle was flagged down by the apprehending officers upon identification. Therefore, the police authorities were justified in searching the petitioners automobile without a warrant since the situation demanded immediate action. This Court, in the case of People v. Lo Ho Wing,[10] elucidated on the rationale for the exemption of searches of moving vehicles from the coverage of the requirement of search warrants, to wit: the rules governing search and seizure have over the years been steadily liberalized whenever a moving vehicle is the object of the search on the basis of practicality. This is so considering that before a warrant could be obtained, the place, things and persons to be searched must be described to the satisfaction of the issuing judge a requirement which borders on the impossible in the case of smuggling effected by the use of a moving vehicle that can transport contraband from one place to another with impunity. We might add that a warrantless search of a moving vehicle is justified on the ground that it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. .With this knowledge and experience, the narcotic operatives had reasonable ground to believe that the gray Nissan car referred to by their confidential informant was one of the vehicles being used by their subject so that when the same was pointed to them by their confidential informant, with the information that the occupant thereof was carrying shabu, the operatives had to act quickly. Otherwise, they would again lose their subject whom they reasonably believed to be committing a crime at that instance. There would be no more time for them to secure a search warrant.[16] People v. Binad Sy Chua

Accused was searched and arrested while in possession of regulated drugs (shabu). A crime was actually being committed by the accused and he was caught inflagrante delicto. Thus, the search made upon his personal effects x x x allow a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest. x x x x While it is true that the police officers were not armed with a search warrant when the search was made over the personal affects (sic) of the accused, however, under the circumstances of the case, there was sufficient probable cause for said officers to believe that accused was then and there committing a crime. xxx xxx xxx

In the present case, the police received information that the accused will distribute illegal drugs that evening at the Thunder Inn Hotel and its vicinities. The police officer had to act quickly and there was no more time to secure a search warrant. The search is valid being akin to a stop and frisk.[14] In this instance, the law requires that there first be arrest before a search can be madethe process cannot be reversed.

We now proceed to the justification for and allowable scope of a stop-and-frisk as a limited protective search of outer clothing for weapons, as laid down in Terry, thus: We merely hold today that where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him. Such a search is a reasonable search under the Fourth amendment. Other notable points of Terry are that while probable cause is not required to conduct a stop-and-frisk, it nevertheless holds that mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a stop-and-frisk. A genuine reason must exist, in light of the police officers experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person detained has weapons concealed about him. Finally, a stop-and-frisk serves a two-fold interest: (1) the general interest of effective crime prevention and detection, which underlies the recognition that a police officer may, under appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner, approach a person for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior even without probable cause; and (2) the more pressing interest of safety and self-preservation which permit the police officer to take steps to assure himself that the person with whom he deals is not armed with a deadly weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against the police officer.[16] (Emphasis ours) The police operatives cannot feign ignorance of the alleged illegal activities of accused-appellant. Considering that the identity, address and activities of the suspected culprit was already ascertained two years previous to the actual arrest, there was indeed no reason why the police officers could not have obtained a judicial warrant before arresting accused-appellant and searching his person. Whatever information their civilian asset relayed to them hours before accused-appellants arrest was not a product of an on-the-spot tip which may excuse them from obtaining a warrant of arrest. Accordingly, the arresting teams contention that their arrest of accused-appellant was a product of an on-the-spot tip is untenable. In the same vein, there could be no valid stop-and-frisk in this case. A stop-and-frisk was defined as the act of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street, interrogate him, and pat him for weapon(s)[25] or contraband. The police officer should properly introduce himself and make initial inquiries, approach and restrain a person who manifests unusual and suspicious conduct, in order to check the latters outer clothing for possibly concealed weapons.[26] The apprehending police officer must have a genuine reason, in accordance with the police officers experience and the surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person to be held has weapons (or contraband) concealed about him.[27] It should therefore be emphasized that a search and seizure should precede the arrest for this principle to apply.[28] People v. Macalaba Under the "plain view" doctrine, unlawful objects within 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 in evidence. Nonetheless, the seizure of evidence in plain view must comply with the following requirements: (a) a prior valid intrusion 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) the plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search. 27 As has been repeatedly held, credence shall be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there be evidence to the contrary; moreover in the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute such a serious crime against the accused, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, shall prevail over accuseds selfserving and uncorroborated claim of having been framed.29