38. Nolasco v.
Pano, 139 SCRA 152 (1985) embracing description which includes everything
FACTS:
Milagros Aguilar-Roque was arrested together with
Cynthia Nolasco by the Constabulary Security Group
(CSG). Milagros had been wanted as a high ranking
officer of the CPP. The arrest took place at 11:30
a.m. of August 6, 1984. At noon of the same day, her
premises were searched and 428 documents, a
portable typewriter and 2 boxes were seized.
Earlier that day, Judge Cruz Paño issued a search
warrant to be served at Aguilar-Roque’s leased
residence allegedly an underground house of the
CPP/NPA. On the basis of the documents seized,
charges of subversion and rebellion by the CSG were
filed by but the fiscal’s office merely charged her and
Nolasco with illegal possession of subversive
materials. Aguilar-Roque asked for suppression of
the evidence on the ground that it was illegally
obtained and that the search warrant is void because
it is a general warrant since it does not sufficiently
describe with particularity the things subject of the
search and seizure, and that probable cause has not
been properly established for lack of searching
questions propounded to the applicant’s witness.
ISSUE:
Was the search warrant and subsequent search and
seizure valid?
HELD:
NO, they were violative of petitioners constitutional
right against unreasonable searches and seizure and
to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects as enshrined in Art. III, Sec.2 of the 1987
Constitution.
 It also specifically provides that no Search Warrant
shall issue except upon probable cause to be
determined by the Judge or such other responsible
officer as may be authorized by law, after
examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and
the things to be seized.
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-
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, in fact,
taken also were a portable typewriter and 2 wooden
boxes.
It is thus in the nature of a general warrant and
infringes on the constitutional mandate requiring
particular description of the things to be seized. In the
recent rulings of this Court, search warrants of
similar description were considered null and void for
being too general.
37. Nolasco v. Pano, 147 SCRA 509 (1987)
FACTS:
The  case  at  bar  is  for  the  motion  for  partial 
reconsideration  of  both petitioners and respondents
of the SC’s decision that the questioned search
warrant by petitioners is null and void, that
respondents are enjoined from introducing  evidence 
using  such  search  warrant,  but  such  personalities
obtained  would  still  be  retained,  without 
prejudice  to  petitioner  Aguilar-Roque. 
Respondents contend that the search  warrant is valid
and that it should  be  considered  in  the  context  of 
the  crime  of  rebellion,  where  the warrant was
based.  Petitioners on the other hand, on the part of
petitioner Aguilar-Roque,  contend  that  a  lawful 
search  would  be  justified  only  by  a lawful 
arrest.    And  since  there  was  illegal  arrest  of 
Aguilar-Roque,  the search  was  unlawful  and  that 
the  personalities  seized  during  the  illegal search
should be returned to the petitioner.  The
respondents, in defense, concede that the search
warrants were null and void but the arrests were not.
ISSUE:
Was there a lawful arrest that led to a valid
warrantless search?
HELD: live ammunitions for a .22 caliber gun.  They brought
the petitioner to the police station for further
NO. The dispositive portion of the case reads: investigation. In the course of the same, the petitioner
was asked to show the necessary license or authority
WHEREFORE, Search Warrant No. 80-84 issued on to possess firearms and ammunitions found in his
August 6, 1984 by respondent Executive Judge possession but he failed to do so. He was then taken
Ernani Cruz Paño is hereby annulled and set aside, to the Davao Metrodiscom office and the prohibited
articles recovered from him were indorsed to M/Sgt.
and the Temporary Restraining Order enjoining
Didoy the officer then on duty. He was prosecuted
respondents from introducing evidence obtained for illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions
pursuant to the Search Warrant in the Subversive wherein after a plea of not guilty and trial on the
Documents Case hereby made permanent. The merits a decision was rendered finding petitioner
personalities seized by virtue of the illegal Search guilty of the offense.
Warrant are hereby ordered returned to petitioners.
ISSUE:
"Any evidence obtained in violation of this . . .
section shall be inadmissible for  any  purpose  in  Was petitoner’s right against unreasonable search and
any  proceeding"  (Sec.  4[2]).  This  constitutional seizure was violated?
mandate expressly adopting the exclusionary rule has
proved by historical experience  to  be  the  only  HELD:
practical  means  of  enforcing  the  constitutional
injunction  against  unreasonable  searches  and  No, because the warrantless search and subsequent
seizures  by  outlawing  all evidence illegally seized arrest was valid. Under Section 12, Rule 126 of the
Rules of Court a person lawfully arrested may be
and thereby removing the incentive on the part of
searched for dangerous weapons or anything used as
state  and  police  officers  to  disregard  such  basic  proof of a commission of an offense without a search
rights.  What  the  plain language of the Constitution warrant. It is further alleged that the arrest without a
mandates is beyond the power of the courts to warrant of the petitioner was lawful under the
change  or  modify.  All  the  articles  thus  seized  circumstances.
fall  under  the  exclusionary rule totally and
unqualifiedly and cannot be used against any of the Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal
three petitioners.  Procedure provides as follows:

SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant;

when lawful — A peace officer or a
39. Posadas v. CA, G.R. No. 89139 August 2, 1990 private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person:
FACTS:
(a) When in his presence, the
While 2 police officers were within the premises of person to be arrested has
the Rizal Memorial Colleges they spotted petitioner committed is actually committing,
carrying a "buri" bag and they noticed him to be or is attempting to commit an
acting suspiciously. offense;

They approached the petitioner and identified (b) When an offense has in fact just
themselves as members of the INP. Petitioner been committed, and he has
attempted to flee but his attempt to get away was personal knowledge of facts
thwarted by the two notwithstanding his resistance. indicating that the person to be
arrested has committed it; and
They then checked the "buri" bag of the petitioner
where they found one (1) caliber .38 Smith & (c) When the person to be arrested
Wesson, two (2) rounds of live ammunition for a .38 is a prisoner who has escaped from
caliber gun  a smoke (tear gas) grenade,   and two (2) 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.

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. (6a, 17a)

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.