WARRANTLESS ARREST: HOT PURSUIT

PEOPLE v. DE LARA
G.R. 949553, September 5, 1995
FACTS: Because of the reprimand given by Gen. im, !apt. !ab"ayan instructed
Sgt. #avid to p"an a buy$bust operation and to form a si%$man team &ith 'fc. (artin
)ro"fo, *r. as the poseur$buyer. +t around 4,45 '.(. of the same day, the team,
together &ith their con-dentia" informant, &ent to Garrido Street. .pon arriving
thereat, they strategica""y positioned themse"ves. 'fc. )ro"fo, *r. and the con-dentia"
informant proceeded to the house of appe""ant "ocated at /o. 0012 Garrido Street,
&here they sa& him standing outside. 3he con-dentia" informant introduced 'fc.
)ro"fo, *r. to appe""ant as an interested buyer of mari4uana. +ppe""ant as5ed 'fc.
)ro"fo, *r. 67"an ang bibi"hin ninyo86. 'fc. )ro"fo, *r. rep"ied, 63&o foi"s6 handing at the
same time the mar5ed t&enty$peso bi"" to appe""ant. 3he "atter, after p"acing the
money in the right poc5et of his pants, &ent inside his house. (inutes "ater,
appe""ant came bac5 and handed t&o foi"s &rapped in onion paper. 7t &as after he
handed the t&o foi"s to 'fc. )ro"fo, *r., that he sensed the presence of the po"ice
operatives. 9e then tried to retrieve the t&o foi"s but 'fc. )ro"fo, *r. prevented him
from doing so. #uring the scu:e, one foi" &as torn. +ppe""ant sho&ed the arresting
o;cers a b"ue p"astic bag &ith &hi"e "ining containing prohibited drugs. + receipt of
the artic"es sei<ed &as made by 'fc. )ro"fo, *r.
3hereafter, the team, together &ith appe""ant, proceeded to the ='# head>uarters
for investigation. 3hereat, Sgt. #avid ordered 'fc. )ro"fo, *r. to commence the
investigation of appe""ant.
ISSUE: =as there a va"id arrest8
HELD: +ppe""ant &as caught red$handed in de"ivering t&o tin foi"s of mari4uana to
'at. )ro"fo, *r., the poseur$buyer. +pp"ying the aforementioned provision of "a&,
appe""ant?s arrest &as "a&fu""y e@ected &ithout need of a &arrant of arrest.
"Having caught the appellant in fagante a! a e!ult "# the $u%&$u!t
"peati"n' the p"lice(en )ee n"t "nl% auth"i*e+ $ut )ee al!" un+e
"$ligati"n t" appehen+ the +ug pu!he even )ith"ut a )aant "# ae!t"
The p"lice(en,! ent% int" the h"u!e "# appellant )ith"ut a !each
)aant )a! in h"t&pu!uit "# a pe!"n caught c"((itting an "-en!e in
fagante. The ae!t that #"ll")e+ the h"t&pu!uit )a! vali+.
DRUG, ALCOHOL AND BLOOD TESTS
SOCIAL .USTICE SOCIET/ 0. DA12EROUS DRU2 3OARD
52A S!R+ 411
Bmataas, daming issues ,C
FACTS: 7n these 5indred petitions, the constitutiona"ity of Section 31 of Repub"ic +ct
/o. BR+C 9115, other&ise 5no&n as the !omprehensive #angerous #rugs +ct of
0AA0, insofar as it re>uires mandatory drug testing of candidates for pub"ic o;ce,
students of secondary and tertiary schoo"s, o;cers and emp"oyees of pub"ic and
private o;ces, and persons charged before the prosecutorDs o;ce &ith certain
o@enses, among other persona"ities, is put in issue.
+s far as pertinent, the cha""enged section reads as fo""o&s,
SE!. 31. +uthori<ed #rug 3esting. $ +uthori<ed drug testing sha"" be done by any
government forensic "aboratories or by any of the drug testing "aboratories
accredited and monitored by the #)9 to safeguard the >ua"ity of the test resu"ts. %
% % 3he drug testing sha"" emp"oy, among others, t&o B0C testing methods, the
screening test &hich &i"" determine the positive resu"t as &e"" as the type of drug
used and the con-rmatory test &hich &i"" con-rm a positive screening test. % % %
3he fo""o&ing sha"" be sub4ected to undergo drug testing,
% % %
BcC Students of secondary and tertiary schoo"s. $ Students of secondary and tertiary
schoo"s sha"", pursuant to the re"ated ru"es and regu"ations as contained in the
schoo"Ds student handboo5 and &ith notice to the parents, undergo a random drug
testing % % %F
BdC );cers and emp"oyees of pub"ic and private o;ces. $ );cers and emp"oyees of
pub"ic and private o;ces, &hether domestic or overseas, sha"" be sub4ected to
undergo a random drug test as contained in the companyDs &or5 ru"es and
regu"ations, % % % for purposes of reducing the ris5 in the &or5p"ace. +ny o;cer or
emp"oyee found positive for use of dangerous drugs sha"" be dea"t &ith
administrative"y &hich sha"" be a ground for suspension or termination, sub4ect to
the provisions of +rtic"e 0G0 of the abor !ode and pertinent provisions of the !ivi"
Service a&F
% % %
BfC +"" persons charged before the prosecutorDs o;ce &ith a crimina" o@ense having
an imposab"e pena"ty of imprisonment of not "ess than si% B1C years and one B1C day
sha"" undergo a mandatory drug testF
BgC +"" candidates for pub"ic o;ce &hether appointed or e"ected both in the nationa"
or "oca" government sha"" undergo a mandatory drug test.
ISSUE: +re these provisions constitutiona"8
HELD: 'imente"Ds contention is &e"" $ ta5en. +ccording"y, Sec. 31BgC of R+ 9115
shou"d be, as it is hereby dec"ared as, unconstitutiona". 7t is basic that if a "a& or an
administrative ru"e vio"ates any norm of the !onstitution, that issuance is nu"" and
void and has no e@ect. 3he !onstitution is the basic "a& to &hich a"" "a&s must
conformF no act sha"" be va"id if it conHicts &ith the !onstitution. 7n the discharge of
their de-ned functions, the three departments of government have no choice but to
yie"d obedience to the commands of the !onstitution. =hatever "imits it imposes
must be observed.
Sec. 456g7 "# RA 895:' a! !"ught t" $e i(ple(ente+ $% the a!!aile+
CO;ELEC e!"luti"n' e-ectivel% enlage! the <uali=cati"n e<uie(ent!
enu(eate+ in the Sec. 4' At. 0I "# the C"n!tituti"n. +s couched, said Sec.
31BgC unmista5ab"y re>uires a candidate for senator to be certi-ed i""ega" $ drug
c"ean, obvious"y as a pre $ condition to the va"idity of a certi-cate of candidacy for
senator or, &ith "i5e e@ect, a condition sine >ua non to be voted upon and, if proper,
be proc"aimed as senator $ e"ect. 3he !)(EE! reso"ution comp"etes the chain &ith
the proviso that 6InJo person e"ected to any pub"ic o;ce sha"" enter upon the duties
of his o;ce unti" he has undergone mandatory drug test.6 Kie&ed, therefore, in its
proper conte%t, Sec. 31BgC of R+ 9115 and the imp"ementing !)(EE! Reso"ution
add another >ua"i-cation "ayer to &hat the 19G2 !onstitution, at the minimum,
re>uires for membership in the Senate. =hether or not the drug $ free bar set up
under the cha""enged provision is to be hurd"ed before or after e"ection is rea""y of
no moment, as getting e"ected &ou"d be of "itt"e va"ue if one cannot assume o;ce
for non $ comp"iance &ith the drug $ testing re>uirement.
;A1DATOR/' RA1DO; A1D SUSPICIO1LESS DRU2 TESTI12 OF STUDE1TS
ARE CO1STITUTIO1AL: Guided by Kernonia and Board of Education, the !ourt is
of the vie& and so ho"ds that the provisions of R+ 9115 re>uiring mandatory,
random, and suspicion"ess drug testing of students are constitutiona". 7ndeed, it is
&ithin the prerogative of educationa" institutions to re>uire, as a condition for
admission, comp"iance &ith reasonab"e schoo" ru"es and regu"ations and po"icies. 3o
be sure, the right to enro"" is not abso"uteF it is sub4ect to fair, reasonab"e, and
e>uitab"e re>uirements.
(an+at"% $ut an+"( +ug te!t pe!ci$e+ $% Sec. 45 "# RA 895: #"
">ce! an+ e(pl"%ee! "# pu$lic an+ pivate ">ce! i! .USTIFIA3LE: *ust as
in the case of secondary and tertiary "eve" students, the mandatory but random
drug test prescribed by Sec. 31 of R+ 9115 for o;cers and emp"oyees of pub"ic and
private o;ces is 4usti-ab"e, a"beit not e%act"y for the same reason. 3he !ourt notes
in this regard that petitioner S*S, other than saying that 6sub4ecting a"most
everybody to drug testing, &ithout probab"e cause, is unreasonab"e, an
un&arranted intrusion of the individua" right to privacy,6has fai"ed to sho& ho& the
mandatory, random, and suspicion"ess drug testing under Sec. 31BcC and BdC of R+
9115 vio"ates the right to privacy and constitutes un"a&fu" andLor unconsented
search under +rt. 777, Secs. 1 and 0 of the !onstitution. 'etitioner asernaDs "ament is
4ust as simp"istic, s&eeping, and gratuitous and does not merit serious
consideration.
In the ca!e "# pe!"n! chage+ )ith a ci(e $e#"e the p"!ecut"?! ">ce'
a (an+at"% +ug te!ting can neve $e an+"( " !u!pici"nle!!: =e -nd
the situation entire"y di@erent in the case of persons charged before the pub"ic
prosecutorDs o;ce &ith crimina" o@enses punishab"e &ith si% B1C years and one B1C
day imprisonment. 3he operative concepts in the mandatory drug testing are
6randomness6 and 6suspicion"ess.6 7n the case of persons charged &ith a crime
before the prosecutorDs o;ce, a mandatory drug testing can never be random or
suspicion"ess. 3he ideas of randomness and being suspicion"ess are antithetica" to
their being made defendants in a crimina" comp"aint. 3hey are not random"y pic5edF
neither are they beyond suspicion. =hen persons suspected of committing a crime
are charged, they are sing"ed out and are imp"eaded against their &i"". 3he persons
thus charged, by the bare fact of being ha"ed before the prosecutorDs o;ce and
peaceab"y submitting themse"ves to drug testing, if that be the case, do not
necessari"y consent to the procedure, "et a"one &aive their right to privacy. T"
i(p"!e (an+at"% +ug te!ting "n the accu!e+ i! a $latant atte(pt t"
hane!! a (e+ical te!t a! a t""l #" ci(inal p"!ecuti"n' c"nta% t" the
!tate+ "$@ective! "# RA 895:. #rug testing in this case &ou"d vio"ate a personsD
right to privacy guaranteed under Sec. 0, +rt. 777 of the !onstitution. =orse sti"", the
accused persons are veritab"y forced to incriminate themse"ves.
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION: PRIOR RESTRAINT
SOCIAL AEATHER STATIO1 v. CO;ELEC
352 S!R+ 499
FACTS: 'etitioners brought this action for prohibition to en4oin the !ommission on
E"ections from enforcing M5.4 of R.+. /o. 9AA1 BNair E"ection +ctC, &hich provides,
Surveys a@ecting nationa" candidates sha"" not be pub"ished -fteen B15C days before
an e"ection and surveys a@ecting "oca" candidates sha"" not be pub"ished seven B2C
days before an e"ection.
ISSUE: 7s this a prior restraint on freedom of e%pression8
HELD: 3o be sure, M5.4 "ays a prior restraint on freedom of speech, e%pression, and
the press. Because of the preferred status of the constitutiona" rights of speech,
e%pression, and the press, such a measure is vitiated by a &eighty presumption of
inva"idity. 7ndeed, 6any system of prior restraints of e%pression comes to this !ourt
bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutiona" va"idity. . . . 3he Government
Othus carries a heavy burden of sho&ing 4usti-cation for the enforcement of such
restraint.?6 3here is thus a reversa" of the norma" presumption of va"idity that
inheres in every "egis"ation.
/or is there 4usti-cation for the prior restraint &hich M5.4 "ays on protected speech.
7n /ear v. (innesota, 13 it &as he"d, [The] protection even as to previous restraint
is not absolutely unlimited. But the limitation has been recognized only in
exceptional cases . . . . No one would question but that a government might prevent
actual obstruction to its recruiting service or the publication of the sailing dates of
transports or the number and location of troops. n similar grounds! the primary
requirements of decency may be enforced against obscene publications. The
security of the community life may be protected against incitements to acts of
violence and the overthrow by force of orderly government .
3hus, contrary to the c"aim of the So"icitor Genera", the prohibition imposed by M5.4
cannot be 4usti-ed on the ground that it is on"y for a "imited period and is on"y
incidenta". 3he prohibition may be for a "imited time, but the curtai"ment of the right
of e%pression is direct, abso"ute, and substantia". 7t constitutes a tota" suppression
of a category of speech and is not made "ess so because it is on"y for a period of
-fteen B15C days immediate"y before a nationa" e"ection and seven B2C days
immediate"y before a "oca" e"ection.
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION: CONTENT-BASED AND CONTENT NEUTRAL
REGULATIONS: FOR CONTENT-NEUTRAL RESTRICTIONS: O?3RIE1 TEST
SOCIAL AEATHER STATIO1 v. CO;ELEC
352 S!R+ 499
Bsame factsC
Ahat te!t !h"ul+ then $e e(pl"%e+ t" +ete(ine the c"n!tituti"nal
vali+it% "# B:.CD The Unite+ State! Supe(e C"ut' th"ugh Chie# .u!tice
Aaen' hel+ in Unite+ State! v. O,3ien:
EAF g"ven(ent egulati"n i! !u>cientl% @u!ti=e+ E9F i# it i! )ithin the
c"n!tituti"nal p")e "# the 2"ven(entG EHF i# it #uthe! an i(p"tant "
!u$!tantial g"ven(ental intee!tG E4F i# the g"ven(ental intee!t i!
unelate+ t" the !uppe!!i"n "# #ee eIpe!!i"nG an+ ECF i# the inci+ental
e!ticti"n "n allege+ Fi!t A(en+(ent #ee+"(! E"# !peech' eIpe!!i"n
an+ pe!!F i! n" geate than i! e!!ential t" the #utheance "# that
intee!t.
3his is so far the most inHuentia" test for distinguishing content$based from content$
neutra" regu"ations and is said to have 6become canonica" in the revie& of such
"a&s.6 7t is note&orthy that the )?Brien test has been app"ied by this !ourt in at
"east t&o cases.
.nder this test, even if a "a& furthers an important or substantia" governmenta"
interest, it shou"d be inva"idated if such governmenta" interest is 6not unre"ated to
the suppression of free e%pression.6 (oreover, even if the purpose is unre"ated to
the suppression of free speech, the "a& shou"d neverthe"ess be inva"idated if the
restriction on freedom of e%pression is greater than is necessary to achieve the
governmenta" purpose in >uestion.
)ur in>uiry shou"d according"y focus on these t&o considerations as app"ied to M5.4.
First. Sec. 5.4 fai"s to meet criterion I3J of the )?Brien test because the causa"
connection of e%pression to the asserted governmenta" interest ma5es such interest
6not unre"ated to the suppression of free e%pression.6 By prohibiting the pub"ication
of e"ection survey resu"ts because of the possibi"ity that such pub"ication might
undermine the integrity of the e"ection, in e@ect, M5.4 sho&s a bias for a particu"ar
sub4ect matter, if not vie&point, by preferring persona" opinion to statistica" resu"ts.
3he constitutiona" guarantee of freedom of e%pression means that the government
has no po&er to restrict e%pression because of its message, its ideas, its sub4ect
matter, or its content. Seco!. Even if the governmenta" interest sought to be
promoted is unre"ated to the suppression of speech and the resu"ting restriction of
free e%pression is on"y incidenta", M5.4 nonethe"ess fai"s to meet criterion I4J of the
)?Brien test, name"y, that the restriction be not greater than is necessary to further
the governmenta" interest.
3o summari<e then, &e ho"d that M5.4 is inva"id because B1C it imposes a prior
restraint on the freedom of e%pression, B0C it is a direct and tota" suppression of a
category of e%pression even though such suppression is on"y for a "imited period,
and B3C the governmenta" interest sought to be promoted can be achieved by
means other than the suppression of freedom of e%pression.
'harmaceutica" and 9ea"th !are +ssociation of the 'hi"ippines v. #u>ue 777, 535
S!R+ 015
B0AA2C
)f breastfeeding, breastmi"5 substitutes and advertisements. 3o &hat e%tent may
the #epartment of
9ea"th, in promoting the hea"th and nutritious needs of chi"dren, regu"ate the
businesses &hich promote
breastmi"5 substitutes as acceptab"e a"ternative to mother?s mi"58
P9ea"th is a "egitimate sub4ect matter for regu"ation by the #)9 Band certain other
administrative
agenciesC in e%ercise of po"ice po&ers de"egated to it. 3he sheer span of
4urisprudence on that matter
prec"udes the need to further discuss it. 9o&ever, hea"th information, particu"ar"y
advertising materia"s
on apparent"y non$to%ic products "i5e breastmi"5 substitutes and supp"ements, is a
re"ative"y ne& area
for regu"ation by the #)9.Q +ccording"y, Pthe #)9Ds po&er under the (i"5 !ode to
contro"
information regarding breastmi"5 vis$a$vis breastmi"5 substitutes is not abso"ute as
the po&erto contro"
does not encompass the po&er to abso"ute"y prohibit the advertising, mar5eting,
and promotion of
breastmi"5 substitutes.Q 7mp"ementing ru"es and regu"ations imposing "abe"ing
re>uirements and
"imitations such as that there be a statement that there is no substitute to
breastmi"5, and that there be
a statement that po&dered infant formu"a may contain pathogenic microorganisms
and must be prepared
and used appropriate"y, as &e"" as a prohibition against hea"th and nutrition c"aims
of increased
emotiona" and inte""ectua" abi"ities of the infant and young chi"d are consistent &ith
the (i"5 !ode.
P3hese provisions of the (i"5 !ode e%press"y forbid information that &ou"d imp"y or
create a be"ief that
there is any mi"5 product e>uiva"ent to breastmi"5 or &hich is humani<ed or
materna"i<ed, as such
information &ou"d be inconsistent &ith the superiorityof breastfeeding.Q !orrect
information as to infant
feeding and nutrition is infused &ith pub"ic interest and &e"fare.
/onethe"ess, in this case &hi"e the !ourt he"d the authority of #)9 to contro"
information regarding
breastmi"5 vis$a$vis breastmi"5 substitutes and supp"ements and re"ated products
cannot be >uestioned,
it dec"ared that the #)9, in imposing an abso"ute prohibition on advertising,
promotion, and mar5eting,
the same &ent beyond its authority since the same &as not &ithin the provisions of
the (i"5 !ode itse"f.