WARRANTLESS SEARCH

PEOPLE VS LEANGSIRI

FACTS:

The petitioner was charged for violation of Sec. 11 of RA 9165. SPO1 Tan and
Tangcoy (an agent) saw the petitioner crossing a “No Jaywalking” portion of Roxas
Boulevard. The police accosted him and told him to cross at the pedestrian crossing
area. The petitioner picked up something from the ground which prompted Tangcoy
to frisk him resulting in the recovery of a knife, then he conducted a thorough
search on the petitioner’s body and found a plastic sachet of what he suspected as
shabu.

RTC convicted the petitioner which was affirmed by CA.

The petitioner contended that the shabu seized is inadmissible as evidence because
it was obtained as a result of his unlawful arrest and violation of his right against
unreasonable search and seizure.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the shabu recovered from the petitioner is inadmissible as evidence.

RULING:

The petitioner was acquitted. The court reversed and set aside the RTC and CA
decision.

The petitioner failed to prove that a lawful warrantless arrest preceded the search
conducted on the petitioner’s body. There must be a valid warrantless search and
seizure pursuant to an equally valid warrantless arrest which must precede the
search. The law requires that there be first a lawful arrest before a search can be
made – the process cannot be reversed.

Sec. 5, Rule 113 of Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides the exceptions
wherein a person may be lawfully arrested without a warrant that (1) the person to
be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is
actually committing or is attempting to commit a crime and (2) such overt act is
done in the presence of or within the view of the arresting officer.

The prosecution has the burden to prove the legality of the warrantless arrest from
which the corpus delicti of the crime –shabu was obtained. Without a valid
warrantless search, the alleged shabu shall be inadmissible as evidence against
him.

LUZ VS PEOPLE

FACTS:
PO2 Emmanuel Alteza saw the accused driving a motorcycle without a helmet and
flag down the accused for violating a municipal ordinance which requires all
motorcycle drivers to wear helmet while driving. PO2 Alteza invited the accused to
come inside their sub-station since he was flagged down almost in front of the
substation. While he and SPO1 Raford Brillante were issuing a citation ticket for the
violation of the municipal ordinance, he noticed that the accused was enasy and
kept on getting something from his jacket. This alerted the police and they ordered
the accused to take out the contents of the pocket of his jacket. A metal container
which contained 4 sachets of shabu, 2 of which are empty while the other 2
contained suspected shabu was found on his possession.

Luz was charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs but entered a plea of
not guilty. He raised the defense of planting of evidence and extortion. RTC
convicted him and CA affirmed the decision.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the search and seizure of the alleged subject shabu is valid.

RULING:

The petition was granted. The RTC and CA decision were reversed and set aside.

The court ruled that there was no valid arrest of petitioner. He was flagged down
for committing a traffic violation. He was not ipso facto and solely for this reason,
arrested.

Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he or she may be bound
to answer for the commission of an offense. Under RA 4136 or the Land
Transportation and Traffic Code, the general procedure for dealing with a traffic
violation is not the arrest of the offender but the confiscation of the driver’s license
of the latter. The PNP Operations Manual provides that in the occasion of traffic
violations, the officer must immediately issue a Traffic Citation Ticket or Traffic
Violation. While the accused was waiting for PO3 Alteza to write the citation ticket,
it could not be said to have been “under arrest”. He was brought to the sub-station
because of its proximity to the place where he was flagged down.

Requirements for a valid arrest were not complied with. In Berkemer v. McCarty,
US court noted that Miranda warnings must also be given to a person apprehended
due to a traffic violation. There being no valid arrest, the warrantless search that
resulted from it was likewise illegal.

The court enumerated when a warrantless search is allowed:

1. A warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest

2. Search of evidence in plain view
3. Search of a moving vehicle
4. Consented warrantless search
5. Customs search
 6. A “stop and frisk” search
7. Exigent and emergency circumstances.

In this case, the evidence seized was not in plain view. It was not a consented
warrantless search; consent must be unequivocal, specific and intelligently given.
In case of consented warrantless search, the following characteristics of the person
giving consent and the environment in which the consent is given.

a. Age of the defendant;

b. Whether the defendant was in a public or a secluded location;
c. Whether the defendant objected to the search or passively looked on;
d. The education and intelligence of the defendant;
e. The presence of coercive police procedures
f. The defendant’s belief that no incrimination evidence would be found;
g. Nature of the police questioning
h. The environment in which the questioning took place;
i. The possibly vulnerable subjective state of the person consenting

These circumstances weigh heavily against finding of valid consent to a warrantless

search.

The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Any
evidence obtained in violation of said right shall be inadmissible for any purpose in
any proceeding. While the power to search and seize may at times be necessary to
the public welfare, still it must be exercised and the law implemented without
contravening the constitutional rights of citizens, for the enforcement of no statute
is of sufficient importance to justify indifference to the basic principles of
government.

“the purposes of the safeguards prescribed by Miranda are to ensure the police do
not coerce or trick captive suspects into confessing.”

MIGUEL VS PEOPLE

FACTS:

Bahoyo and Velasquez, Bantay Bayan operative in a barangay in Makati were on

rounds when they received a report about a man showing off his private parts in a
street. The man turned out to be the accused, a visibly intoxicated person that
time. when they asked for the identification card of the accused, a pack of
cigarettes and two pieces of rolled paper containing dried marijuana leaves. The
operatives seized the items and brought Miguel to the police station.

The RTC convicted petitioner of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs.

ISSUE:
Whether or not CA correctly upheld the petitioner’s conviction for illegal possession
of dangerous drugs.

RULING:

The court reversed the RTC and CA decision and acquitted Miguel.

The court ruled that the Bantay bayan operatives conducted illegal search on the
person of petitioner. The acts of the Bantay Bayan or any barangay-based or other
volunteer organizations in the nature of watch groups have the color of a state-
related function. Hence, they should be deemed as law enforcement authorities for
the purpose of applying the Bill of Rights under the 1987 Constitution.

One of the recognized exceptions to the need of a warrant before a search may be
effected is a search incidental to a lawful arrest. The law requires that there first be
a lawful arrest before a search can be made – the process cannot be reversed. In a
warrantless arrest made pursuant to Sec. 5(a), Rule 113 of Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure, or an arrest of a suspect in flagrante delicto, the arresting
officer must have personal knowledge of the fact of the commission of an offense is
essential. But in this case, the reports that the BB received was that the accused
was showing his private part in a public place; instead of being charged for this
offense, he was charged for violation of RA 9165.

DELA CRUZ VS PEOPLE

FACTS:

The petitioner was caught in flagrante delicto carrying three revolvers and four
ammunitions in his bag went through the x-ray machine in the Cebu Domestic Port
during a routine baggage x-ray as a security procedure. He was found guilty of
violating the Gun Ban under Commission on Elections Reso. No. 7764 in relation to
Sec. 261 of BP Blg. 881.

ISSUES:

Whether or not petitioner waived his right against unreasonable searches and
seizures;

Whether or not there was a valid search and seizure in this case.

RULING: