13.) ABRAHAM MICLAT, JR. v. PEOPLEG.R. No.

176077

Facts: Caloocan City Police Station-SDEU received an a information about an illicit and down-right drug-trading
activities being undertaken along Palmera Spring II, Bagumbong, Caloocan City involving Abe Miclat, Wily alias
"Bokbok" and one Mic or Jojo.Immediately, a surveillance team was formed. Thru a small opening in the curtain-
covered window, PO3 Antonio peeped inside and he saw "Abe" arranging several pieces of small plastic sachets
containing shabu. Slowly, said operative inched his way in by gently pushing the door as well as the plywood
covering the same. Upon gaining entrance, PO3 Antonio forthwith introduced himself as a police officer while
"Abe," on the other hand, after being informed of such authority, voluntarily handed over to the former the four
(4) pieces of small plastic sachets the latter was earlier sorting out. PO3 Antonio immediately placed the suspect
under arrest and brought him and the four (4) pieces of plastic sachets of shabu to their headquarters. The suspect
was identified as Abraham Miclat y Cerbo a.k.a "ABE," 19 years old. Thus, an information was filed against the
accused, and upon arraignment, he pleaded not guilty. The RTC convicted the accused with the crime of illegal
possession of drugs which the CA affirmed in toto upon appeal. Hence, this petition where petitioner argues that
being seen in the act of arranging several plastic sachets inside their house by one of the arresting officers who was
peeping through a window is not sufficient reason for the police authorities to enter his house without avalid
search warrant and/or warrant of arrest. He also posits that peeping through a curtain-covered window cannot be
contemplated as within the meaning of the plain view doctrine, rendering the warrantless arrest unlawful.

Issue: Whether or not peeping through a curtain is within the meaning of plain view doctrine as to justify the arrest
of the accused and the seizing of the sachets.

Held: Yes. Verily, no less than the 1987 Constitution mandates that a search and consequent seizure must be
carried out with a judicial warrant; otherwise, it becomes unreasonable, and any evidence obtained therefrom
shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

The right against warrantless searches and seizure, however, is subject to legal and judicial exceptions, namely:
1.)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.) Stop and Frisk; and 7.) Exigent and emergency
circumstances. It is to be noted that petitioner was caught in the act of arranging the heat-sealed plastic sachets in
plain sight of PO3 Antonio and he voluntarily surrendered them to him upon learning that he is a police officer.

The seizure made by PO3 Antonio of the four plastic sachets from the petitioner was not only incidental to a lawful
arrest, but it also falls within the purview of the "plain view" doctrine. Objects falling in plain view of an officer who
has a right to be in a position to have that view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant and may be
introduced in evidence.

The "plain view" doctrine applies when the following requisites concur: (a)the law enforcement officer in search of
the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view particular area; (b)
the discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he
observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. The law enforcement officer
must lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly be in a position from which he can particularly view the area. In
the course of such lawful intrusion, he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused.
The object must be open to eye and hand and its discovery inadvertent.

It is clear, therefore, that an object is in plain view if the object itself is plainly exposed to sight. Since petitioner’s
arrest is among the exceptions to the rule requiring a warrant before effecting an arrest and the evidence seized
from the petitioner was the result of a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest, which incidentally was in
plain view of the arresting officer, the results of the ensuing search and seizure were admissible in evidence to
prove petitioner’s guilt of the offense charged.
PEOPLE VS. MARIACOS

Facts: Respondent was found guilty of violation of the dangerous drugs act.
She was arrested after she was carrying a bag alleged to have prohibited drugs inside. The bag, before it came to
her possession was found inside a passenger jeepney with no owner so the policeman looked inside it only to find
packs of marijuana. The policeman was acting on a report made about the bag by an agent of the Barangay
Intelligence Network.

Issue: WON the warrantless search conducted was valid.

Held:Firstly, this Court opines that the invocation of Section 2, Article III of the Constitution is misplaced. At the
time, when PO2 Pallayoc looked into the contents of the suspicious bags, there was no identified owner. He asked
the other passengers atop the jeepney but no one knew who owned the bags. Thus, there could be no violation of
the right when no one was entitled thereto at that time.
Thirdly, x x x the search was conducted in a moving vehicle. Time and again, a search of a moving vehicle has been
justified on the ground that the mobility of motor vehicles makes it possible for the vehicle to move out of the
locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. Thus, under the facts, PO2 Pallayoc could not be
expected to secure a search warrant in order to check the contents of the bags which were loaded on top of the
moving jeepney. Otherwise, a search warrant would have been of no use because the motor vehicle had already
left the locality.13
The constitutional proscription against warrantless searches and seizures admits of certain exceptions. Aside from
a search incident to a lawful arrest, a warrantless search had been upheld in cases of a moving vehicle, and the
seizure of evidence in plain view.
It is well to remember that in the instances we have recognized as exceptions to the requirement of a judicial
warrant, it is necessary that the officer effecting the arrest or seizure must have been impelled to do so because of
probable cause. The essential requisite of probable cause must be satisfied before a warrantless search and seizure
can be lawfully conducted.17 Without probable cause, the articles seized cannot be admitted in evidence against
the person arrested.18
Probable cause is defined as a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in
themselves to induce a cautious man to believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense charged. It refers to
the existence of such facts and circumstances that can lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that
an offense has been committed, and that the items, articles or objects sought in connection with said offense or
subject to seizure and destruction by law are in the place to be searched. 19

The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when, in the absence of actual belief of the arresting officers, the
suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the offense is based on actual facts, i.e.,
supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to
be arrested. A reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded on probable cause, coupled with good faith on the
part of the peace officers making the arrest.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ESTELA TUAN y BALUDDA, Accused- Appelant G.R. No. 176066,
August 11, 2010  TOPIC: Requisites for issuing search warrant FACTS:

Facts: On January 2000, two informants namely, Tudlong and Lad-ing arrived at the office of CIDG (Criminal
Investigation and Detention Group) in Baguio City, and reported to SPO2 Fernandez, Chief of the Station Drug
Enforcement Unit (SDEU), that a certain "Estela Tuan" had been selling marijuana at Barangay Gabriela Silang,
Baguio City. SPO2 Fernandez set out to verify the report of Tudlong and Lad-ing. On the afternoon of the same day,
he gave Tudlong and Lad-ing P300.00 to buy marijuana, and accompanied the two informants to the accused
Tuan’s house. Tudlong and Lading entered the house, while SPO2 Fernandez waited at the adjacent house. Later,
Tudlong and Lad-ing came out and showed SPO2 Fernandez the marijuana they bought. Upon returning to the
CIDG office, SPO2 Fernandez requested a laboratory examination on the specimen and yielded positive results for
marijuana.
 
SPO2 Fernandez, together with the informants, filed the Application for a Search Warrant before  Judge Iluminada
Cabato-Cortes (Judge Cortes) of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Baguio City on  January 25, 2000. Two
hours later, at around three o’clock, Judge Cortes personally examined SPO2
Fernandez, Tudlong, and Lading, after which, she issued a Search Warrant, which stated Tuan’s residence as “the
house of the accused Estela Tuan at Brgy. Gabriela Silang, Baguio City”. Even though accused Tuan was not around,
the CIDG team was allowed entry into the house by Magno Baludda (Magno), accused’s father, after he was shown
a copy of the Search Warrant. SPO2 Fernandez guarded the surroundings of the house, while SPO1 Carrera and
PO2 Chavez searched inside. They saw, in the presence of Magno, a movable cabinet in Tuan’s room, below of
which they found a brick of marijuana and a firearm. Later Tuan arrived and thereafter, the police officers asked
Tuan to open a cabinet, in which they saw more bricks of marijuana.  The defense, on the other hand, disclaimed
ownership of the bricks and alleged that a Search Warrant was issued for her house because of a quarrel with her
neighbor named Lourdes Estillore (Estillore). The RTC found accused guilty as charged. On appeal, the CA modified
by acquitting Tuan of the charge for illegal possession of firearm but affirming her conviction for illegal possession
of marijuana. Tuan raised the matter to the Supreme Court contending, among others, that the warrant failed to
particularly describe the place because the house was a two-storey building composed of several rooms.

ISSUES: 1. WON there was probable cause for the judge to issue a Search Warrant and whether the search warrant
particularly described the place to be searched.

2. WON the search warrant particularly described the place to be searched.

RULING: 1. YES. The validity of the issuance of a search warrant rests upon the following factors: (1) it must be
issued upon probable cause; (2) the probable cause must be determined by the judge himself and not by the
applicant or any other person; (3) in the determination of probable cause, the judge must examine, under oath or
affirmation, the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may produce; and (4) the warrant issued must
particularly describe the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized.
 

 The only issue is compliance with the first and fourth factors, i.e., existence of probable cause; and particular
description of the place to be searched and things to be seized. Probable cause 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. It likewise refers to the existence
of such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense
has been committed 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. Before a search warrant can be issued, it must be
shown by substantial evidence that the items sought are in fact seizable by virtue of being connected with criminal
activity, and that the items will be found in the place to be searched.

 
A magistrate’s determination of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant is paid great
deference by a reviewing court, as long as there was substantial basis for that determination. Substantial basis
means that the questions of the examining judge brought out such facts and circumstances as would lead a
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed, and the objects in
connection with the offense sought to be seized are in the place sought to be searched.Such substantial basis
exists in this case. Judge Cortes found probable cause for the issuance of the Search Warrant for Tuan’s residence
after said judge’
s personal examination of SPO2 Fernandez, the applicant; and Lad-ing and  Tudlong, the informants. SPO2
Fernandez based his Application for Search Warrant not only on the information relayed to him by Lad-ing and
Tudlong. He also arranged for a test buy and conducted surveillance of Tuan.
2. YES.
 
 A description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer serving the warrant can,  with reasonable effort,
ascertain and identify the place intended and distinguish it from other places in the community.
 
 A designation or description that points out the place to be searched to the exclusion of all others, and on inquiry
unerringly leads the peace officers to it, satisfies the constitutional requirement of definiteness.
In the case at bar, the address and description of the place to be searched in the Search Warrant was specific
enough. There was only one house located at the stated address, which was accused-
appellant’s residence, consisting of a structure with two floors
 and composed of several rooms. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated September 21, 2006 of the
Court of  Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00381, is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. No costs.

Esquillo v People

G.R. No. 182010, August 25, 2010

Article III, Section 2

This a petition questioning the validity of the warrantless search conducted by the police against the petitioner.

Facts:

 Police officers were assigned in Malibay, Pasay to conduct surveillance on a notorious snatcher named
“Ryan.” It was during that time the police officers noticed the petitioner. The police saw the petitioner
standing three meters away from them. They saw the latter place inside a yellow cigarette case a plastic
sachet containing a white substance. They approached the petitioner and introduced themselves as police
officer. Subsequently, they inquired regarding the sachet the petitioner placed inside the case. The
petitioner acted suspiciously and even tried to flee. The police officers prevented her from doing so. They
apprised the petitioner of her constitutional rights and then they confiscated the sachet. They marked the
sachet with the initials “SRE” and took the petitioner to the police station.
 The petitioner contends against the police officer’s statement. The petitioner said that she was resting at
home when policemen barged inside and asked her whether or not she knew a certain “Ryan.” She
replied in the negative. Afterwards, she was forcibly taken to the police station and was detained there.
During her detention, the police officers were claiming that there was shabu inside the wallet they seized
from her. In fine, the petitioner was claiming that the evidence was planted.

Issue:

 Whether or not the warrantless arrest was valid.

YES. The circumstances before the eventual arrest gave the police officers a reasonable belief that a search on her
was warranted. The police officer saw IN PLAIN VIEW that the petitioner was placing a plastic sachet containing a
white substance inside her cigarette case. Given the training of police officers, they would likely be drawn to
curiosity and approach her to inquire regarding such matter. The petitioner’s reaction of attempting to flee after
the police officer introduced his self gave more reason for the officer to check the petitioner.

Warrantless searches are valid in these situations: a) consented searches, b) searches incident to a lawful arrest, c)
searches of vessels and aircraft for violation of immigration, custom and drug laws, d) searches of moving vehicles,
e) searches of automobiles at borders, f) the prohibited articles are in plain view, g) searches of buildings to
enforce fire, sanitary and other regulations, h) stop and frisk situations.

In order to execute a valid warrantless search, the officer conducting the search must have a genuine reason to
exist to warrant a belief that a person who manifests unusual suspicious conduct has weapons or contraband
concealed about him. Stop-and-frisk situations have a dual purpose: a) the general interest of crime prevention
and b) the interest of safety and self-preservation.

Sps Marimla vs People

Facts: Special Investigator (SI) Ray Lagasca filed for a search warrant to search the house of petitioners and certain
premises on Maria Aquino St., Pampanga both for violation of Section 16, Article III of RA 6425. All requisites for
the issuance of a valid search warrant were met. After searching petitioners’ house they were able to seize various
amounts of dried flowering tops and cash at around 15,000. An information for violation of RA 6425 was filed
against Petitioners, who in turn filed a motion to quash search warrants and to suppress evidence illegally seized.

Issues:

1. Whether or not the court had jurisdiction to issue the search warrant
2. Whether or not the application for the search warrant was defective considering that it was not personally
endorsed by the NBI Head but only by the Deputy Director
3. Whether AM No. 99-10-09 SC enacted on Jan 25, 2000 was repealed when the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure took effect on December 1, 2000? And that the latter should govern the case.

Ruling:

(1) The public prosecutor was able to point out that the search warrant issued by Judge Mario Guaria III, the
Executive Judge of the Manila Regional Trial Court, is in order considering that AM 99 1009SC allows or authorizes
executive judges and vice executive judges of the Regional Trial Court of Manila and Quezon City to issue warrants
which may be served in places outside their territorial jurisdiction in cases where the same was filed and, among
others, by the NBI.
(2) Under Section 31, Chapter 6, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987, an assistant head or other
subordinate in every bureau may perform such duties as may be specified by their superior or head, as long as it is
not inconsistent with law.

Director Wycocos act of delegating his task of endorsing the application for search warrant to Deputy Director
Nasol is allowed by the above quoted provision of law unless it is shown to be inconsistent with any law. Thus,
Deputy Director Nasols endorsement had the same force and effect as an endorsement issued by Director Wycoco
himself

(3) They argue that the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, which took effect on December 1, 2000, should have
been applied, being the later law. Hence, the enforcement of the search warrant in Angeles City, which was
outside the territorial jurisdiction of RTC Manila, was in violation of the law.

A.M. No. 991009SC authorizes the Executive Judge and Vice Executive Judges of the RTCs of Manila and Quezon
City to act on all applications for search warrants involving heinous crimes, illegal gambling, dangerous drugs and
illegal possession of firearms on application filed by the PNP, NBI, PAOCTF, and REACTTF.

Rule 126 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that the application for search warrant shall be filed
with: (a) any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed, and (b) for compelling reasons, any
court within the judicial region where the crime was committed if the place of the commission of the crime is
known, or any court within the judicial region where the warrant shall be enforced.

A.M. No. 991009SC provides that the guidelines on the enforceability of search warrants provided therein shall
continue until further orders from this Court. In fact, the guidelines in A.M. No. 99 1009SC are reiterated in A.M.
No. 03802SC entitled Guidelines On The Selection And Designation Of Executive Judges And Defining Their Powers,
Prerogatives And Duties, which explicitly stated that the guidelines in the issuance of search warrants in special
criminal cases by the RTCs of Manila and Quezon City shall be an exception to Section 2 of Rule 126 of the Rules of
Court. Petition is dismissed.

PEOPLE V. PUNZALAN

Facts: The prosecution established that on November 3, 2009, at around 4:30 in the morning, Intelligence
Agent 1 Liwanag Sandaan (IA1 Sandaan) and her team implemented a search warrant issued on October 28,
2009 by then Manila RTC Judge Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. to: (i) make an immediate search of the
premises/house of accused-appellants Jerry and Patricia Punzalan, Vima Punzalan, Jaime Punzalan, Arlene
Punzalan-Razon and Felix Razon who are all residents of 704 Apelo Cruz Compound, Barangay 175, Malibay,
Pasay City; and (ii) to seize and take possession of an undetermined quantity of assorted dangerous drugs,
including the proceeds or fruits and bring said property to the court.

Since there are three houses or structures inside the compound believed to be occupied by the accused-
appellants, a sketch of the compound describing the house to be searched was prepared and attached to the
search warrant.

Before proceeding to the target area, they passed by the barangay hall to coordinate with Barangay
Chairman Reynaldo Flores, Kagawad Larry Fabella and Kagawad Edwin Razon. The team likewise brought with
them a media representative affiliated with "Sunshine Radio" to cover the operation. From the barangay hall,
they walked toward the target place using as a guide the sketch they prepared.

When they were already outside the house of Jerry and Patricia Punzalan, which is a three-storey structure,
IA1 Sandaan knocked on the door. A woman, later identified as accused-appellant Patricia Punzalan, slightly
opened the door. When they introduced themselves as PDEA agents and informed the occupant that they
have a search warrant, Patricia immediately tried to close the door but was not successful since the PDEA
agents pushed the door open. The team was able to enter the house of Jerry and Patricia Punzalan who were
both surprised when found inside the house. IO1 Pagaragan showed and read the search warrant in front of
accused-appellants.

Inside the house, the team immediately saw plastic sachets placed on top of the table. Intelligence Officer 1
Pagaragan (IO1 Pagaragan) was able to seize 9 heat-sealed plastic sachets, 2 square-shaped transparent
plastic containers and a small round plastic container. All 3 plastic containers contained smaller heat-sealed
plastic sachets of white crystalline substance of suspected shabu. There were also other paraphernalia, guns,
money and a digital weighing scale. Accordingly, Special Investigator 2 Esteban (SI2 Esteban) and Intelligence
Officer 2 Alvarado (IO2 Alvarado) effected the arrest of accused-appellants Jerry and Patricia Punzalan after
informing them of their constitutional rights. IO1 Pagaragan immediately marked the seized items by placing
the marking "ADP". After searching and marking the evidence found on the first floor, the team, together
with the barangay officials and accused-appellants, proceeded to, and conducted the search on the second
and third floors but found nothing. They went downstairs where they conducted the inventory of recovered
items. IO1 Pagaragan prepared the Receipt/Inventory of Property Seized and a Certification of Orderly Search
which were later signed by the barangay officials.

After their arrest, accused-appellants Jerry and Patricia Punzalan were brought to the PDEA Office in Quezon
City for investigation. IO1 Pagaragan presented the seized evidence to Atty. Benjamin Gaspe, who prepared
the Booking Sheet and Arrest Report, Request for Drug Test/Physical and Medical Examination. Laboratory
examination of the seized pieces of drug evidence gave positive results for the presence of
methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu, a dangerous drug.

Thereafter, the accused-appellants were charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 for
illegal possession of 40.78 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride otherwise known as shabu, a
dangerous drug.

On March 29, 2010, the trial court convicted accused-appellants for violation of Section 11, Article II, R.A. No.
9165. The trial court held that the issuance of a search warrant against the premises of different persons
named therein is valid as there is no requirement that only one search warrant for one premise to be
searched is necessary for its validity. Also, the address of the accused-appellants Jerry and Patricia Punzalan
was clearly and adequately described. A sketch that specifically identifies the places to be searched was
attached to the records and such description of the place was unquestionably accurate that the PDEA agents
were led to, and were able to successfully conduct their operation in the premises described in the search
warrant.

In its findings, the trial court observed that there were actually two phases of the search done in the
Punzalan house. The first or initial search was done at the ground floor of the house, immediately after the
PDEA agents gained entry and was beyond doubt made in the presence of both accused. This is where the
bulk of illegal drugs were found, confiscated and consequently marked. It is of no moment that the barangay
officials were not able to witness the said initial search and their failure to arrive on time to witness the first
or initial search at the ground floor of the Punzalan house, or even their total absence thereat, will not render
the subject search invalid and unlawful inasmuch as their presence is not required.
The second phase of the search was conducted at the upper floors of the house after the markings on the
293 sachets of confiscated specimens were completed by 101 Pagaragan. This was witnessed and
participated in by the barangay officials. Finally, after the search of the entire house was concluded, it is not
disputed that an inventory of all the items seized was conducted by IO1 Pagaragan in compliance with the
provisions of Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.

On appeal, the CA affirmed the conviction of accused-appellants. The CA held that there was a valid search
and seizure conducted and the seized items are admissible in evidence. The prosecution was able to prove all
the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object
which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused
freely and consciously possessed the said drug.

Issue: Whether or not the search conducted was valid

Held: I. Section 8, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:

SEC. 8. Search of house, room, or premises to be made in presence of two witnesses. - No search
of a house, room, or any other premises shall be made except in the presence of the lawful
occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the latter, two witnesses of
sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality.

As correctly ruled by the CA, even if the barangay officials were not present during the initial search, the
search was witnessed by accused-appellants themselves, hence, the search was valid since the rule that "two
witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality" must be present applies only in the
absence of either the lawful occupant of the premises or any member of his family.

To successfully prosecute a case of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be
established: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug;
(2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said
drug. In the case at bench, the prosecution was able to establish with moral certainty the guilt of the
accused-appellants for the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Accused-appellants were caught in
actual possession of the prohibited drugs during a valid search of their house. It bears stressing that aside
from assailing the validity of the search, accused-appellants did not deny ownership of the illegal drugs
seized. They have not proffered any valid defense in the offense charged for violation of the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.