VALID SEARCH WITHOUT WARRANT
CASE DIGEST (Valmonte vs. de Villa)
TOPIC: WARRANTLESS SEARCH
POSADAS vs. CA
G.R. No. 89139, 02 Aug 1990
Gancayco, J.
__________________________________________________________________
RELEVANT PROVISIONS & OTHERS
SECTION 5 RULE 113, RULES OF COURT
Arrest without warrant, when lawful. — 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; - IN
FLAGRANTE DELICTO
(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; - HOT PURSUIT 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. -
ESCAPING PRISONER
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.
Not all searches and seizures are prohibited. Those which are
reasonable are not forbidden. A reasonable search is not to be determined by
any fixed formula but is to be resolved according to the facts of each case.
Example: "Stop and Search" without a search warrant at military or
police checkpoints.
Between the inherent right of the state to protect its
existence and promote public welfare and an individual's right against a
warrantless search which is however reasonably conducted, the former
The manning of checkpoints by the military is susceptible of
abuse by the men in uniform in the same manner that all governmental
power is susceptible of abuse. But, at the cost of occasional inconvenience,
discomfort and even irritation to the citizen, the checkpoints during these
abnormal times, when conducted within reasonable limits, are part of the
price we pay for an orderly society and a peaceful community.
FACTS:
The validity of a warrantless search on the person of petitioner is put into issue
in this case.
Members of the Integrated National Police (INP) of the Davao Metrodiscom
assigned with the Intelligence Task Force, Pat. Ursicio Ungab and Pat. Umbra Umpar
conducted surveillance along Magallanes Street, Davao City. While in the vicinity of
Rizal Memorial Colleges they 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 unsuccessful. They then checked the "buri" bag of the petitioner where they
found one (1) caliber .38 Smith & Wesson revolver with Serial No. 770196, two (2)
rounds of live ammunition for a .38 caliber gun, a smoke (tear gas) grenade, and two (2)
live ammunitions for a .22 caliber gun. They brought the petitioner to the police station
for further investigation. In the course of the same, the petitioner was asked to show
the necessary license or authority to possess firearms and ammunitions found in his
possession but he failed to do so. He was then taken to the Davao Metrodiscom office
and the prohibited articles recovered from him were indorsed to M/Sgt. Didoy the
officer then on duty. He was prosecuted for illegal possession of firearms and
ammunitions in the Regional Trial Court of Davao City.

ISSUE

WON THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH WAS VALID.

RULING

YES. The warrantless search was valid.

In justifying the warrantless search of the buri bag then carried by the
petitioner, under Section 12, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court, a person lawfully arrested
may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything used as proof of a commission of
an offense without a search warrant. It is further alleged that the arrest without a
warrant of the petitioner was lawful under the circumstances. (see Section 5 Rule 113)

In the case at bar, there is no question that, indeed, it is reasonable

considering that 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.

It is too much indeed to require the police officers to search the bag in the
possession of the petitioner only after they shall have obtained a search warrant for the
purpose. Such an exercise may prove to be useless, futile and much too late.

Clearly, the search in the case at bar can be sustained under the exceptions
heretofore discussed, and hence, the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable
searches and seizures has not been violated.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED with costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED..