1.

) STOP AND FRISK

‣ When there is a genuine reason for the police officer to believe that a certain person has illegal firearms or is
carrying illegal drugs in his possession.
‣ 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 officer's experience
and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person detained has weapons concealed about him.
‣ The act of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street, interrogate him, and pat him for weapon(s) 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 latter's outer clothing for possibly
concealed weapons. The apprehending police officer must have a genuine reason, in accordance with the police
officer's experience and the surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person to be held has weapons
(or contraband) concealed about him. It should therefore be emphasized that a search and seizure should
precede the arrest for this principle to apply.
‣ What is, therefore, essential is that a genuine reason must exist, in light of the police officer's experience and
surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person who manifests unusual suspicious conduct has
weapons or contraband concealed about him.
‣ RATIONALE —
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
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. (Esquillo vs People 2010)
‣ SEE — Terry vs Ohio
‣ 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
‣ SEE — Posadas vs CA (1990)
‣ The Court held that there were many instances where a search and seizure could be effected without
necessarily being preceded by an arrest, one of which was stop-and-frisk. In said case, members of the
Integrated National Police of Davao stopped petitioner, who was carrying a buri bag and acting suspiciously.
They found inside petitioner's bag one .38-cal. revolver with two rounds of live ammunition, two live
ammunitions for a .22-cal. gun and a tear gas grenade.
‣ 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 simply shrug his shoulders and allow a crime to occur.
NOTE —Philippine Jurisprudence has already expanded this scope of the Stop and Frisk Doctrine by including not just
weapons but also the seizure of illegal drugs in the event of a stop and frisk. (SEE Manalili vs CA 1997)

2.) SEARCH DURING EXIGENT AND EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES

‣ When the exigent and emergency circumstances justify a search without a warrant

‣ SEE — People vs De Gracia (1994)

‣ There was general chaos and disorder at that time because of simultaneous and intense firing within the
vicinity of the office and in the nearby Camp Aguinaldo which was under attack by rebel forces.
‣ Under the foregoing circumstances, it is out considered opinion that the instant case falls under one of the
exceptions to the prohibition against a warrantless search. In the first place, the military operatives, taking into
account the facts obtaining in this case, had reasonable ground to believe that a crime was being committed.
There was consequently more than sufficient probable cause to warrant their action.
‣ Furthermore, under the situation then prevailing, the raiding team had no opportunity to apply for and secure
a search warrant from the courts. The trial judge himself manifested that on December 5, 1989 when the raid
was conducted, his court was closed. Under such urgency and exigency of the moment, a search warrant could
lawfully be dispensed with.