Facts: Surveillance at The Terminal Against

G.R. No.
120915 April 3, 1998
Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution

which provides:
THE PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ROSA ARUTA y MENGUIN, accusedappellant.
FACTS
(1) In the morning of December 13,
1988, the law enforcement officers
received information from an informant
named "Benjie" that a certain "Aling
Rosa" would be leaving for Baguio City
on December 14, 1988 and would be
back in the afternoon of the same day
carrying with her a large volume of
marijuana;
(2) At 6:30 in the evening of December
14, 1988, accused-appellant alighted
from a Victory Liner Bus carrying a
traveling bag even as the informant
pointed her out to the law enforcement
officers;
(3) The law enforcement officers
approached
her
and
introduced
themselves as NARCOM agents;
(4) When asked by Lt. Abello about the
contents of her traveling bag, she gave
the same to him;
(5) When they opened the same, they
found dried marijuana leaves;
(6) Accused-appellant was then brought
to the NARCOM office for investigation.
Instead of presenting its evidence, the

defense filed a "Demurrer to Evidence"
alleging the illegality of the search and
seizure of the items thereby violating
accused-appellant's constitutional right
against
unreasonable search
and
seizure as well as their inadmissibility in
evidence.
ISSUE
WON there is unreasonable search and
seizure and unlawful arrest
HELD
YES.
UNLAWFUL
ARREST
UNREASONABLE SEIZURE.
AND
Sec. 2. The right of the people

to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects
against unreasonable searches
and seizures of whatever
nature and for any purpose
shall be inviolable, and no
search warrant or warrant of
arrest shall issue except upon
probable
cause
to
be
determined personally by the
judge 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
persons or things to be seized.
The plain import of the language of the

Constitution, which in one sentence
prohibits unreasonable searches and
seizures and at the same time
prescribes the requisites for a valid
warrant, is that searches and seizures
are normally unreasonable unless
authorized by a validly issued search
warrant or warrant of arrest.
Further, articles which are the product

of unreasonable searches and seizures
are inadmissible as evidence pursuant
to the doctrine pronounced in Stonehill
v. Diokno.
This exclusionary rule was later
enshrined in Article III, Section 3(2) of
the Constitution, thus:
Sec.
3(2).
Any
evidence
obtained in violation of this or
the preceding section shall be
inadmissible in evidence for
any
purpose
in
any
proceeding.
The essential requisite of probable

cause must still be satisfied before a
warrantless search and seizure can be
lawfully conducted.
It generally signifies a reasonable
ground of suspicion supported by
circumstances sufficiently strong in
themselves to warrant a cautious man
to believe that the person accused is
guilty of the offense with which he is
charged. And that the item(s), article(s)
or object(s) sought in connection with
said offense or subject to seizure and
destruction by law is in the place to be
searched.
In People
v. Tangliben, acting
on
information supplied by informers,
police
officers conducted
a
surveillance at the Terminal against

persons
who
may
commit
misdemeanors and those who may be
engaging in the traffic of dangerous
drugs. The policemen noticed a person
carrying a red traveling bag who was
acting suspiciously. They confronted
him and requested him to open his bag
but he refused. Inside the bag were
marijuana leaves wrapped in a plastic
wrapper. The police officers only
knew of the activities of Tangliben
on the night of his arrest.
In instant case, the apprehending

officers
already
had
prior
knowledge from their informant
regarding
Aruta's
alleged
activities. In Tangliben policemen were
confronted with an on-the-spot tip. And
EXCEPTIONS to the requirement of
a warrant of arrest or search
warrant:
1. Warrantless search
incidental to a lawful
arrest recognized under
Section 12, Rule 126 of the
Rules of Court and by
prevailing jurisprudence;
2. Seizure of evidence in
"plain view," the elements of
which are:
(a) a prior valid intrusion
based on the valid
warrantless arrest in
which the police are
legally present in the
pursuit of their official
duties;
(b) the evidence was
inadvertently discovered
by the police who had
the right to be where
they are;
(c) the evidence must be
immediately apparent,
and
(d) "plain view" justified
mere seizure of evidence
without further search;
3. Search of a moving vehicle.
Highly regulated by the
government, the vehicle's
inherent mobility reduces
expectation of privacy
especially when its transit in
public thoroughfares furnishes
a highly reasonable suspicion
amounting to probable cause
that the occupant committed
a criminal activity;
4. Consented warrantless
search;
also, there is no single indication that

Aruta was acting suspiciously.
Also, in present case, the police

officers had reasonable time
within which to secure a search
warrant. Second, Aruta's identity
was priorly ascertained. Third,
Aruta was not acting suspiciously.
Fourth, Aruta, was searched while
In the instant case, the NARCOM

agents were admittedly not armed
with a warrant of arrest. To
legitimize the warrantless search and
seizure of accused-appellant's bag,
accused-appellant must have been
validly arrested under Section 5 of
Rule 113 which provides inter alia:
Sec.
5.
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;
Aruta cannot be said to be committing

a crime. Neither was she about to
commit one nor had she just committed
a crime. Accused-appellant was merely
crossing the street and was not acting
in any manner that would engender a

reasonable ground for the NARCOM
agents to suspect and conclude that
she was committing a crime. It was only
when the informant pointed to accusedappellant and identified her to the
agents as the carrier of the marijuana
that she was singled out as the suspect.
There was no legal basis for the
NARCOM agents to effect a warrantless
search of accused-appellant's bag,
there being no probable cause and the
accused-appellant not having been
lawfully arrested. Stated otherwise, the
arrest being incipiently illegal, it
logically follows that the subsequent
search was similarly illegal, it being
not incidental to a lawful arrest.
Note: Rule 126 sec 2 was not in
this case however in the syllabus
this case was under the said rule.

Facts: Surveillance at The Terminal Against

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Facts: Surveillance at The Terminal Against

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Facts: Surveillance at The Terminal Against

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

120915 April 3, 1998

Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution

THE PEOPLE OF THE

Instead of presenting its evidence, the

Sec. 2. The right of the people

The plain import of the language of the

Further, articles which are the product

The essential requisite of probable

surveillance at the Terminal against

In instant case, the apprehending

also, there is no single indication that

Also, in present case, the police

In the instant case, the NARCOM

Aruta cannot be said to be committing

in any manner that would engender a

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.