Facts

The petitioner, Jose Maria M. Asuncion, was charged with possession of regulated drugs under
the Dangerous Drugs Act. The case originated from a patrol conducted by the Malabon Police
Anti-Narcotics Unit based on reports from a confidential informer. The informer pointed out a
gray Nissan car and informed the police that the occupant had shabu in his possession. The
police immediately flagged down the car and found the petitioner, known as Vic Vargas in the
movies, as the driver. A search of his vehicle yielded a plastic packet containing white substance
suspected to be shabu. Another plastic packet containing the same substance was found in his
underwear during a frisk at the police headquarters. The trial court found the petitioner guilty
beyond reasonable doubt, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling.

Issue
The main issue raised in the case is the constitutionality of the petitioner's arrest and the
admissibility of the evidence against him. The petitioner argues that his arrest was
unconstitutional because it was conducted without a valid warrant.

Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled that while the general rule is that search and seizure must be supported
by a valid warrant, there are exceptions to this rule. One of these exceptions is the search of a
moving vehicle. In this case, the petitioner's vehicle was "flagged down" by the police upon
identification, and the search was conducted as regards a moving vehicle. The police were
justified in searching the petitioner's automobile without a warrant because the situation
demanded immediate action. Furthermore, the petitioner consented to the search, making it a
valid warrantless search. Therefore, the prohibited drugs found as a result of the search were
admissible in evidence.

Ratio
The Court begins by stating that no arrest, search, and seizure can be made without a valid
warrant issued by a competent judicial authority, as mandated by the fundamental law of the
land. However, there are exceptions to this rule, such as the search of a moving vehicle. In this
case, the petitioner's vehicle was flagged down by the police, and they were justified in searching
it without a warrant due to the immediate action required by the situation.

The Court cites the case of People v. Lo Ho Wing, which explains the rationale for exempting
searches of moving vehicles from the requirement of a search warrant. The Court also notes that
the police officers sought the petitioner's permission to search the car, to which he agreed.
Therefore, the drugs found as a result of the valid warrantless search and the petitioner's consent
are admissible as evidence.

The petitioner argues for the application of the rule in the case of People v. Idel Aminnudin,
which held that warrantless arrests could not be justified unless the accused was caught in
flagrante delicto or a crime was about to be committed or had just been committed. However, the
Court distinguishes the present case from the Aminnudin case based on the different factual
circumstances. The police authorities were uncertain about the petitioner's arrival time, the type
of vehicle he would be in, and had previous encounters with him where he evaded arrest. The
Court concludes that the police officers did not have time to apply for a search warrant when
they suddenly sighted the petitioner's vehicle, and the flagging down of the vehicle was
necessary due to the dictates of urgency.

The Court also upholds the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and finds that their positive
testimonies, along with the evidence presented, meet the quantum of proof needed to find the
petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The Court gives scant consideration to the petitioner's
defense, which consisted of mere denials, and notes that clear and convincing evidence is
required for the defense of being framed-up in drug-related cases.

Summary
In conclusion, the Court denies the motion for reconsideration and affirms the decision of the
appellate court. The Court agrees with the penalty imposed on the petitioner for the possession of
prohibited drugs. The Court emphasizes the exceptions to the general rule of search and seizure
requiring a valid warrant, particularly the search of a moving vehicle. The Court also highlights
the importance of the credibility of witnesses, particularly the apprehending police officers, in
drug-related cases. The Court finds that the petitioner's arrest and the subsequent search were
justified and that the evidence obtained as a result of the search is admissible.