Rule 126 or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits of the

Searches and Seizures offense; or c) Used or intended to be used as the

Criminal Procedure means of committing an offense.
A closer look at the search warrants, it
World Wide Web Corp. v. People; G.R. No. 161106 described what items are to be seized against
–266; 13 January 2014 Worldwide Web Corp. and the particular persons
who are conducting the operations therein, in the
On the search warrants issued, Worldwide
particular business address of 11/F IBM Plaza
Web Corp. and Planet Internet Corp. were alleged to
Building, No. 188 Eastwood City, Cyberpark Libis,
be conducting illegal toll bypass operations (piggy-
Quezon City, to name a few: 1) computers or any
backing) that amounts to theft, and violation of P.D.
equipment or device capable of accepting
No. 401, to the damage of PLDT.
information, applying the process of the information
Petitioners moved to quash the search and supplying the results of this process; 2)
warrants on the ground that, among others, the Software, Diskettes, Tapes or equipment or device
search warrants were general warrants as ‘the used for recording or storing information; and 2)
descriptions therein of the objects to be seized are so Manuals, application forms, access codes, billing
broad and all-encompassing as to give the statements, receipts, contracts, communications and
implementing officers wide discretion over which documents relating to securing and using telephone
articles to seize.’ The RTC granted the motion to lines and/or equipment (Search Warrant No. Q-01-
quash, ruling that the warrants were general 3856). Another with Search Warrant No. Q-01-3857,
warrants. On appeal before the CA, it was reversed where it specifically states to whom it shall be served
and set aside, upholding the validity of the search against and in what particular business address to
warrants. search the specified items to seize. The same with
Search Warrant No. Q-01-3858.
On the issue of the validity of the warrants,
the Court ruled that the search warrants VALID. Before the authorities applied for the search
Under Sec. 3, Rule 126 of Rules of Court, ‘a search warrants, they conducted ocular inspection of the
warrant may be issued for the search and seizure of premises of petitioners and was then able to confirm
personal property: a) Subject of the offense; b) Stolen that they had utilized various telecommunications

1
equipment consisting of computers, lines, cables, when it enables the police officers to readily identify
antennas, modems, or routers, multiplexers, PABX the properties to be seized and leaves them with no
or switching equipment, and support equipment discretion regarding the articles to be seized. In this
such as software, diskettes, tapes, manuals and other case, considering that items that looked like
documentary records to support the illegal toll "innocuous goods" were being used to pursue an
bypass operations. illegal operation that amounts to theft, law
enforcement officers would be hard put to secure a
With PLDT’s level of expertise in said field, it
search warrant if they were required to pinpoint
was able to establish the connection between the
items with one hundred percent precision. In People
items to be search as identified in the warrants and
v. Veloso, the Court pronounced that "the police
the crime of theft of its telephone services and
should not be hindered in the performance of their
business. Although the CA, in its ruling, observed
duties, which are difficult enough of performance
that targets of the search warrants were not illegal
under the best of conditions, by superficial
per se, and that they were "innocuous goods", the
adherence to technicality or far-fetched judicial
police officers were given blanket authority to
interference."
determine whether the objects were legal or not, as
in fact even pieces of computer equipment not Thus, the Supreme Court finds it proper to
involved in telecommunications or Internet service uphold the CA decision, and outright dismiss these
were confiscated. According to the OSG, assuming instant petitions.
that the seized items could also be used for other
People of The Philippines vs. Cogaed
legitimate businesses, the fact remains that the items
G.R. No. 200334, July 30, 2014
were used in the commission of an offense.
A search warrant fulfills the requirement of FACTS:
particularity in the description of the things to be There are two sets of facts that may be found in this
seized when the things described are limited to those case. One is according to the prosecution. The other
that bear a direct relation to the offense for which the one is according to Cogaed’s testimony during trial.
warrant is being issued. The things to be seized must
be described with particularity. Technical precision
of description is not required. The warrant is valid

2
Version of the Prosecution gayam ti nagyanna,” which translates to “Marvin is a
According to the prosecution, a police officer fool, this is what is contained in the bag.” SPO1
of San Gabriel Police Station in La Union received a Taracatac arrested Cogaed and Dayao and brought
text message from an unidentified civilian informer them to the police station. Cogaed and Dayao were
that one Marvin Buya would be transporting still carrying their respective bags inside the station.
marijuana to the Poblacion of San Grabriel, La
While at the station, the Chief of Police and
Union.
Investigator requested Cogaed and Dayao to empty
The police organized checkpoints in order to their bags. Inside Cogaed’s sack was suspected
intercept the suspect and assigned a certain SPO1 marijuana fruiting tops and inside Dayao’s yellow
Taracatac to set up a checkpoint in the waiting area bag was a brick of suspected marijuana.
of passengers from San Gabriel bound for San
The PNP Crime Laboratory performed the
Fernando City.
tests and found that the objects obtained were
A passenger jeepney arrived at SPO1 Taracatac’s indeed marijuana. A total of 17.429 kilograms were
checkpoint. The jeepney driver disembarked and collected from Cogaed’s and Dayao’s bags
signalled to SPO1 Taracatac indicating the two male
Version of Cogaed
passengers who were carrying marijuana. SPO1
According to Cogaed’s testimony during trial,
Trarcatac approached the two male passengers who
he was waiting for a jeepney to take him to the
were later identified as Victor Cogaed and Santiago
Poblacion of San Gabriel so he could buy pesticide.
Dayao. Cogaed was carrying a blue bag and a sack
He boarded a jeepney and recognized Dayao, his
while Dayao was holding a yellow bag.
younger brother’s friend. Upon arrival at the
SPO1 Taracatac asked Cogaed and Dayao Poblacion of San Gabriel, Dayao and Cogaed
about the contents of their bags. Cogaed and Dayao alighted from the jeepney. Dayao allegedly asked for
told SPO1 Taracatac that they did not know since Cogaed’s help in carrying his things, which included
they were transporting the bags as a favor for their a travelling bag and a sack. Cogaed agreed because
barriomate named Marvin. After this exchange, they were both going to the market. This was
Cogaed opened the blue bag, revealing three bricks whenSPO1 Taracatac approached them, and when
of what looked like marijuana. Cogaed then SPO1 Taracatac asked Cogaed what was inside
muttered, “nagloko daytoy nga Marvinen, kastoy met thebags, Cogaed replied that he did not know. SPO1

3
Taracatac then talked to Dayao, however, Cogaed jeepney and there was no outward indication that
was not privy to their conversation. Thereafter, called for his arrest. Since the arrest was illegal, the
SPO1 Taracatac arrested Dayao and Cogaed and warrantless search should also be considered illegal.
brought them to the police station.[36] These facts
However, the trial court stated that
were corroborated by an eyewitness, Teodoro
notwithstanding the illegality of the arrest, Cogaed
Nalpu-ot, who was standing across the parking lot
waived his right to object to such irregularity when
where Cogaed was apprehended.
he did not protest when SPO1 Taracatac, after
At the police station, Cogaed said that SPO1 identifying himself, asked him to open his bag.
Taracatac hit him on the head. The bags were also
In the CA
opened, but Cogaed never knew what was inside. It
Cogaed appealed the trial court’s decision.
was only later when Cogaed learned that it was
However, the Court of Appeals denied his appeal
marijuana when he and Dayao were charged with
and affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Court of
illegal possession of dangerous drugs under
Appeals found that Cogaed waived his right against
Republic Act No. 9165.
warrantless searches when without any prompting
In the RTC from SPO1 Taracatac, [he]voluntarily opened his
The case was raffled to Regional Trial Court, Branch bag. Hence, he appealed the case before the Supreme
28 of San Fernando City, La Union. Cogaed and Court.
Dayao pleaded not guilty. The case was dismissed
ISSUES:
against Dayao because he was only 14 years old at
1. Whether or not there was a valid search
that time and was exempt from criminal liability
and seizure of marijuana against Cogaed?
under the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006.
Trial against Cogaed ensued. The Regional Trial 2. Whether or not Cogaed has validly waived
Court found Cogaed guilty. his constitutional rights when he did not
object when the police asked him to open
The trial court judge initially found Cogaed’s arrest his bags?
illegal considering that Cogaed at that time was not,
at the moment of his arrest, committing a crime nor
RULING:
was shown that he was about to do so or that had
just done so. He just alighted from the passenger

4
 1. The Supreme Court ruled that this was not Further, the Court said that the balance lies in the
a reasonable search within the meaning of concept of “suspiciousness” present in the situation
the Constitution. According to the Court, where the police officer finds himself or herself in.
the evidence used against the accused This may be undoubtedly based on the experience of
should be excluded consistent with Article the police officer. Experienced police officers have
III, Section 3 (2) of the Constitution. There personal experience dealing with criminals and
being no possible admissible evidence, the criminal behavior. Hence, they should have the
accused should be acquitted, the Court ability to discern — based on facts that they
declared. themselves observe — whether an individual is
acting in a suspicious manner. Clearly, a basic
2. The alleged waiver of constitutional rights criterion would be that the police officer, with his or
by Cogaed was invalid. It was not done by her personal knowledge, must observe the facts
the accused intelligently, knowingly, and leading to the suspicion of an illicit act.
without improper pressure or coercion.
The Court observed that the jeepney driver had to
point to Cogaed. He would not have been identified
Stop and Frisk Searches by the police officers otherwise. The Court thus laid
According to the Supreme Court, the search down the RULE, to wit: “It is the police officer who
involved in this case was initially a “stop and frisk” should observe facts that would lead to a
search, but it did not comply with all the reasonable degree of suspicion of a person. The
requirements of reasonability required by the police officer should not adopt the suspicion
Constitution. initiated by another person. This is necessary to
The Court explained that “stop and frisk” searches justify that the person suspected be stopped and
(sometimes referred to as Terry searches are reasonably searched. Anything less than this
necessary for law enforcement. That is, law enforcers would be an infringement upon one’s basic right to
should be given the legal arsenal to prevent the security of one’s person and effects.”
commission of offenses. However, this should be
balanced with the need to protect the privacy of No Valid Waiver
citizens in accordance with Article III, Section 2 of According to the Court, there can be no valid waiver
the Constitution. of Cogaed’s constitutional rights even if assuming
5
that he did not object when the police asked him to Searches and seizure incident to a lawful arrest are
open his bags. governed by Section 13, Rule 126 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure, to wit:
The Court explained that Cogaed’s silence or
lack of aggressive objection was a natural reaction to Section 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. A person
a coercive environment brought about by the police lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous
officer’s excessive intrusion into his private space. weapons or anything which may have been used or
The prosecution and the police carry the burden of constitute proof in the commission of an offense
showing that the waiver of a constitutional right is without a search warrant.
one which is knowing, intelligent, and free from any
The Plain View Doctrine is actually the exception to
coercion. In all cases, such waivers are not to be
the inadmissibility of evidence obtained in a
presumed.
warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest outside
The Supreme Court laid down the RULE, viz: the suspect's person and premises under his
“For a valid waiver by the accused of his or her immediate control.
constitutional right, it is not sufficient that the
This is so because "objects in the 'plain view' of an...
police officer introduce himself or herself, or be
officer who has the right to be in the position to have
known as a police officer. The police officer must
that view are subject to seizure and may be
also inform the person to be searched that any
presented as evidence.
inaction on his or her part will amount to a waiver
of any of his or her objections that the
circumstances do not amount to a reasonable
search. The police officer must communicate this
clearly and in a language known to the person who
is about to waive his or her constitutional rights.
There must be an assurance given to the police
officer that the accused fully understands his or her G.R. No. 197788 February 29, 2012
rights. The fundamental nature of a person’s
RODEL LUZ y ONG, Petitioner,
constitutional right to privacy requires no less.
vs.

6
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. accused opened the container, he noticed a cartoon
cover and something beneath it; and that upon his
Under R.A. 4136, or the Land Transportation and Traffic
instruction, the accused spilled out the contents of
Code, the general procedure for dealing with a traffic
the container on the table which turned out to be
violation is not the arrest of the offender, but the
four (4) plastic sachets, the two (2) of which were
confiscation of the driver’s license of the latter.
empty while the other two (2) contained suspected
FACTS: shabu.
PO2 Emmanuel L. Alteza, who was then assigned as Petitioner, assisted by counsel, entered a plea of "Not
a traffic enforcer saw the accused driving a guilty" to the charge of illegal possession of
motorcycle without a helmet; that this prompted him dangerous drugs.
to flag down the accused for violating a municipal
During trial, petitioner testified for himself and
ordinance which requires all motorcycle drivers to
raised the defense of planting of evidence and
wear helmet while driving said motor vehicle; that
extortion.
he invited the accused to come inside their sub-
station since the place where he flagged down the RTC convicted petitioner of illegal possession of
accused is almost in front of the said sub-station; that dangerous drugs. It found the prosecution evidence
while he and SPO1 Rayford Brillante were issuing a sufficient to show that he had been lawfully arrested
citation ticket for violation of municipal ordinance, for a traffic violation and then subjected to a valid
he noticed that the accused was uneasy and kept on search, which led to the discovery on his person of
getting something from his jacket; that he was two plastic sachets later found to contain shabu. The
alerted and so, he told the accused to take out the RTC also found his defense of frame-up and
contents of the pocket of his jacket as the latter may extortion to be weak, self-serving and
have a weapon inside it; that the accused obliged unsubstantiated.
and slowly put out the contents of the pocket of his
Upon review, the CA affirmed the RTC’s Decision.
jacket which was a nickel-like tin or metal container
about two (2) to three (3) inches in size, including Petitioner claims that there was no lawful search and
two (2) cellphones, one (1) pair of scissors and one seizure, because there was no lawful arrest. He
(1) Swiss knife; that upon seeing the said container, claims that the finding that there was a lawful arrest
he asked the accused to open it; that after the was erroneous, since he was not even issued a

7
citation ticket or charged with violation of the city to have been "under arrest." There was no intention
ordinance. Even assuming there was a valid arrest, on the part of PO3 Alteza to arrest him, deprive him
he claims that he had never consented to the search of his liberty, or take him into custody.
conducted upon him.
It also appears that, according to City Ordinance No.
ISSUE: 98-012, which was violated by petitioner, the failure
to wear a crash helmet while riding a motorcycle is
Whether the search conducted is incidental to
penalized by a fine only. Under the Rules of Court
a lawful arrest. NO.
(Rule 112 Section 5 (c)), a warrant of arrest need not
RULING: be issued if the information or charge was filed for
an offense penalized by a fine only. It may be stated
The following are the instances when a warrantless
as a corollary that neither can a warrantless arrest be
search is allowed: (i) a warrantless search incidental
made for such an offense.
to a lawful arrest; (ii) search of evidence in “plain
view”; (iii) search of a moving vehicle; (iv) consented This ruling does not imply that there can be no arrest
warrantless search; (v) customs search; (vi) a “stop for a traffic violation. Certainly, when there is an
and frisk” search; and (vii) exigent and emergency intent on the part of the police officer to deprive the
circumstances. None of the abovementioned motorist of liberty, or to take the latter into custody,
instances, especially a search incident to a lawful the former may be deemed to have arrested the
arrest, are applicable to this case. motorist. In this case, however, the officer’s issuance
(or intent to issue) a traffic citation ticket negates the
Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order
possibility of an arrest for the same violation.
that he or she may be bound to answer for the
commission of an offense. The subject items seized during the illegal arrest are
inadmissible. The drugs are the very corpus delicti of
Under R.A. 4136, or the Land Transportation and
the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
Traffic Code, the general procedure for dealing with
Thus, their inadmissibility precludes conviction and
a traffic violation is not the arrest of the offender, but
calls for the acquittal of the accused.
the confiscation of the driver’s license of the latter.
At the time that he was waiting for PO3 Alteza to
write his citation ticket, petitioner could not be said

8
 168, in relation to Section 170 of Republic Act (R.A.) No.
8293, otherwise known as the Intellectual Property Code
of the Philippines, and/or Section 25 of R.A. No. 623,
otherwise known as An Act To Regulate the Use of Duly
Stamped or Marked Bottles, Boxes, Casks, Kegs, Barrels
and Other Similar Containers) and deposit said
cylinders in different places, one of them a store
called “Edrich Enterprises” located Iriga City, NBI
then, in behalf of Petron and Shell, filed with the
Regional Trial Court of Naga City (RTC-Naga), two
separate Applications for Search Warrant for
Violation of Section 155.1, in relation to Section 170 of
G.R. No. 189669. February 16, 2015. R.A. No. 8293 against respondent and/or its
occupants.
PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM On October 23, 2002, the RTC-Naga City granted
CORPORATION and PETRON CORPORATION, said Applications and Search Warrant were issued.
petitioners, vs. ROMARS INTERNATIONAL On the same day, the NBI served the warrants at the
GASES CORPORATION, respondent. respondent’s premises in an orderly and peaceful
manner, and articles or items described in the
FACTS: warrants were seized.
On November 4, 2002, respondent filed a Motion
Upon learning thru an investigation conducted by to Quash (1ST MOTION) 2 Search Warrants where the
private investigators and NBI(also conducted a tes- only grounds cited were: (a) there was no probable
buy) that Romars International is selling, offering for cause; (b) there had been a lapse of four weeks from
sale, or distributing liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) the date of the test-buy to the date of the search and
by illegally refilling the steel cylinders manufactured seizure operations; (c) most of the cylinders seized
by and bearing the duly registered trademark and were not owned by respondent but by a third
device of petitioner Petron (Violation of Section person; and (d) Edrich Enterprises is an authorized
outlet of Gasul and Marsflame. In an Order dated

9
February 21, 2003, the RTC-Naga denied the Motion to Petitioner appealed but CA reaffirmed RTC’s
Quash. order as regard to quashing search warrants.
However, on March 27, 2003, THRU respondent’s
new counsel, filed an Appearance with Motion for ISSUE NO. 1
Reconsideration (2ND MOTION). It was only in said
Whether or not, the Court of Appeals gravely erred
motion where respondent raised for the first time,
in ruling that venue in an application for search
the issue of the impropriety of filing the
warrant is jurisdictional.
Application for Search Warrant at the RTC-Naga
City when the alleged crime was committed in a RULING:
place within the territorial jurisdiction of the RTC-
Iriga City. YES, CA gravely erred. Question on venue in the
application for the search warrant does not involve
Respondent pointed out that the application filed
a question of jurisdiction over the subject matter,
with the RTC-Naga failed to state any compelling
because the power to issue search warrants is
reason to justify the filing of the same in a court
inherent in all courts.
which does not have territorial jurisdiction over the
place of the commission of the crime, as required by Venue is jurisdictional only in relation to a criminal
Section 2(b), Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of action. It is however, procedural in applications for
Criminal Procedure. search warrant. Application of search warrant
Petitioner opposed the Motion for merely constitutes a criminal not process and is not
Reconsideration, arguing that it was already too late for itself a criminal action. The rule that venue is
respondent to raise the issue regarding the venue of the jurisdictional in criminal cases does not apply
filing of the application for search warrant, as this would thereto.
be in violation of the Omnibus Motion Rule. ANALYSIS:
RTC-Naga GRANTED respondent’s Motion for Evidently, the issue of whether the application
Reconsideration (2ND MOTION), thereby quashing should have been filed in RTC-Iriga City or RTC-
Search Warrants. Naga, is not one involving jurisdiction because, the
power to issue a special criminal process is
inherent in all courts. Thus, issue on venue in the
10
application for search warrant can only be taken NO. Under paragraph (b) thereof, the
cognizance by the court if timely raised in a motion application for search warrant in this case should
to quash the search warrant. have stated compelling reasons why the same was
being filed with the RTC-Naga instead of the RTC-
Iriga City, considering that it is the latter court that
SUB-ISSUE A: has territorial jurisdiction over the place where the
APPLICATION OF SEARCH WARRANT; WHERE alleged crime was committed and also the place
TO FILE; where the search warrant was enforced.

Section 2, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of It is true that inclusion of the “statement of
Criminal Procedure provides thus: compelling reasons if the application is filed in a
SEC. 2. Court where applications for search warrant court which does not have territorial jurisdiction
shall be filed.—An application for search warrant shall over the place of commission of the crime” is
be filed with the following: mandatory in nature. And absence of such will
(a) Any court within whose territorial render the application defective.
jurisdiction a crime was committed.
Since Section 2, Article III of the 1987
(b) For compelling reasons stated in the Constitution guarantees the right of persons to be
application, any court within the judicial region free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and
where the crime was committed if the place of the search warrants constitute a limitation on this right,
commission of the crime is known, or any court then Section 2, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of
within the judicial region where the warrant shall Criminal Procedure should be construed strictly
be enforced. against state authorities who would be enforcing the
However, if the criminal action has already been search warrants.
filed, the application shall only be made in the court
where the criminal action is pending. (Emphasis On this point, then, petitioner’s application for
supplied) a search warrant was indeed insufficient for failing to
comply with the requirement to state therein the
compelling reasons why they had to file the application in
Was petitioner’s application for a search warrant a court that did not have territorial jurisdiction over the
sufficient? place where the alleged crime was committed.

11
ISSUE NO. 2 and existent at the time of filing of the motion to
Whether or not, the CA gravely erred in ruling quash. Thus 2nd motion filed must be denied.
that respondent’s motion to quash is not subject to
Sub-Issue:
the omnibus motion rule and that may not be waived
and may even be raised for the first time on appeal. WON RTC of Naga has jurisdiction to issue search
warrant?
RULING:
YES, CA gravely erred. The motion to quash the YES. Thus, it was improper for the RTC-Naga to
search warrant which the accused may file shall be have even taken into consideration an issue which
governed by the omnibus motion rule. respondent failed to raise in its motion to quash, as it
did not involve a question of jurisdiction over the
Court has ruled in a number of cases that the
subject matter. It is quite clear that the RTC-Naga
omnibus motion rule is applicable to motions to
had jurisdiction to issue criminal processes such as
quash search warrants. Furthermore, citing Abuan v.
a search warrant.
People, SC stated that “the motion to quash the
search warrant which the accused may file shall be
governed by the omnibus motion rule, provided, PEOPLE v. CASTILLO
however, that objections not available, existent or G.R. No. 204419
known during the proceedings for the quashal of November 07, 2016
the warrant may be raised in the hearing of the
motion to suppress x x x.”
In accordance with the omnibus motion rule, FACTS:
therefore, the trial court could only take cognizance
of an issue that was not raised in the motion to Judge Marcelo C. Cabalbag of the MTC of Gattaran,
quash if xxx the issue was one involving Cagayan issued Search Warrant against Joefrey Jil
jurisdiction over the subject matter. Rabino alias “Jeff” after examining under oath SPO1
RONEL P. SATURNO of the Regional Intelligence
Obviously, the issue of the defect in the Division based at Regional Office 2, Camp Adduru,
application, being not jurisdictional, was available Tuguegarao City, the applicant herein, and his
witness. Judge Cabalbag finds probable cause to

12
believe that a Violation of R.A. 9165 Comprehensive beyond imprisonment of six (6) years. A fortiori,
Dangerous Drug, has been and is being committed MTC Gattaran did not have jurisdiction to entertain
and there are good and sufficient reasons to believe the application for and to issue Search Warrant,
that said accused has in his possession or control an hence is null and void. Search Warrant was ordered
illegal drugs, rySHABU (Methamphetamine and quash and dismissed the case against accused-
PARAPHERNALIAS. Rabino.

Thereafter, to effect the above Search and Seizure Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but the
Order, a search was conducted by elements of the same was denied. Hence, the present petition.
PDEA and officers of the PNP yielding one (1) sachet ISSUE
containing residue of suspected methamphetamine
hydrochloride inside the house of private accused- Whether or not Municipal Trial Court of Gattaran,
Rabino. Thus, an Information was filed against the Cagayan has the authority to issue Search Warrant in
accused for violation of Section 11 of Republic Act cases for violation of R.A. 9165, notwithstanding the
(R.A.) No. 9165. fact that the power to hear and try the offense is
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial
Court.
Before the case was set for arraignment private
respondent Rabino filed a Motion to Quash Search HELD:
Warrant and for Suppression of Illegally Acquired YES. The Supreme Court held that the respondent
Evidence on the grounds, among others, that issuing judge gravely abused his discretion in quashing the
Court must have territorial jurisdiction over the search warrant on a basis other than the accepted
place to be searched. grounds. It must be remembered that a search
The RTC, through respondent Judge Castillo, warrant is valid for as long as it has all the requisites
granted the above motion in its Joint Resolution set forth by the Constitution and must only be
enunciating that the minimum penalty for illegal quashed when any of its elements are found to be
possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride or wanting.
shabu is imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one
(1) day to twenty (20) years, which penalty is way

13
The Supreme Court has provided rules to be (3) the judge must examine, in writing and
followed in the application for a search warrant. under oatn or affirmation, the complainant
Rule 126 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, thus: and the witnesses he or she may produce;
Sec. 2. Court where application for search (4) the applicant and the witnesses testify on
warrant shall be filed. - An application for the facts personally known to them; (5) the
search warrant shall be filed with the warrant specifically describes the place to be
following: searched and the things to be seized.
  Necessarily, a motion to quash a search
(a) Any court within whose territorial warrant may be based on grounds extrinsic of the
jurisdiction a crime was committed. search warrant, such as (1) the place searched or the
property seized are not those specified or described
(b) For compelling reasons stated in the in the search warrant; and (2) there is no probable
application, any court within the judicial cause for the issuance of the search warrant.
region where the crime was committed if
In this case, the application for a search warrant was
the place of the commission of the crime is
filed within the same judicial region where the crime
known, or any court within the judicial
was allegedly committed. For compelling reasons,
region where the warrant shall be
the Municipal Trial Court of Gattaran, Cagayan has
enforced.
the authority to issue a search warrant to search and
seize the dangerous drugs stated in the application
thereof in Aparri, Cagayan, a place that is within the
AS provided for in Sec 2, Art. III of the 1987
same judicial region. The fact that the search warrant
Constitution provides that the requisites for the
was issued means that the MTC judge found
issuance of a search warrant are:
probable cause to grant the said application after the
(1) probable cause is present; latter was found by the same judge to have been
filed for compelling reasons. Therefore, Sec. 2, Rule
(2) such probable cause must be determined
126 of the Rules of Court was duly complied with.
personally by the judge;

14
 MARCELO G. SALUDAY VS Buco asked who the owner of the bag was, to which
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES the bus conductor answered that petitioner and his
GR No. 215305; APRIL 3, 2018 brother were the ones seated at the back. Buco then
requested petitioner to board the bus and open the
SUMMARY: Marcelo G. Saluday (petitioner) found bag. Petitioner obliged and the bag revealed the
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession following contents: (1) an improvised .30 caliber
of high-powered firearm, ammunition, and carbine bearing serial number 64702; (2) one
explosive under PD 1866 magazine with three live ammunitions; (3) one
cacao-type hand grenade; and (4) a ten-inch hunting
FACTS: knife. SCAA Buco then asked petitioner to produce
Bus No. 66 of Davao Metro Shuttle was flagged proof of his authority to carry firearms and
down by Task Force Davao of the explosives. Unable to show any, petitioner was
Philippine Army at a checkpoint near the Tefasco immediately arrested and informed of his rights by
Wharf in Ilang, Davao City. SCAA Junbert M. Buco SCAA Buco.
(Buco), a member of the Task Force, requested all
male passengers to disembark from the vehicle while Petitioner was then brought for inquest before the
allowing the female passengers to remain inside. He Office of the City Prosecutor for Davao City. The
then boarded the bus to check the presence and latter found probable cause to charge him with
intercept the entry of any contraband, illegal illegal possession of highpowered firearm,
firearms or explosives, and suspicious individuals. ammunition, and explosive under PD 1866.

Buco checked all the baggage and personal effects of On direct examination, Saluday claims that it was
the passengers, but a small, grayblack pack bag on only cellphone and he did not own the bag and that
the seat at the rear of the bus caught his attention. He his brother who died in 2009 owns the bag.
lifted the bag and found it too heavy for its small RTC RULING: The trial court declared the
size. Buco then looked at the male passengers lined petitioner in actual or constructive possession of
outside and noticed that a man in a white shirt (later firearm and explosive without authority or license
identified as petitioner) kept peeping through the and was adjudged guilty beyond reasonable doubt
window towards the direction of the bag. of illegal possession of firearm, ammunition, and
explosives under PD 1866.

15
CA RULING: The Court of Appeals sustained the unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever
conviction and affirmed the ruling of the trial court. nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and
no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue
Petitioner then filed a Motion for Reconsideration,
except upon probable cause to be determined
the CA denied petitioner's Motion for
personally by the judge after examination under
Reconsideration for being pro forma. Hence,
oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
petitioner filed Petition for Review on Certiorari
witnesses he may produce, and particularly
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
describing the place to be searched and the persons
ISSUES: or things to be seized.
Whether or not the RTC and CA misappreciated the ***when a search is "reasonable," Section 2, Article III
evidence against the petitioner of the Constitution does not apply.
Whether or not the search was illegal The search conducted by the Task Force at a
RULING: military checkpoint constitutes a reasonable search.
No. In the present case, the prosecution proved the The bus inspection conducted by Task Force Davao
negative fact that appellant has no license or permit at a military checkpoint constitutes a reasonable
to own or possess the firearm, ammunition and search. Bus No. 66 of Davao Metro Shuttle was a
explosive. The court ruled that either the testimony vehicle of public transportation where passengers
of a representative of, or a certification from, the have a reduced expectation of privacy. Further,
PNP Firearms and Explosive Office attesting that a SCAA Buco merely lifted petitioner's bag. This visual
person is not a licensee of any firearm would suffice and minimally intrusive inspection was even less
to prove beyond reasonable doubt the second than the standard x-ray and physical inspections
element of possession of illegal firearms. The done at the airport and seaport terminals where
prosecution more than complied when it presented passengers may further be required to open their
both. bags and luggages. Considering the reasonableness
Section 2, Article Ill of the Constitution reads: of the bus search, Section 2, Article III of the
Constitution finds no application, thereby
SEC. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their precluding the necessity for a warrant. As regards
persons, houses, papers, and effects against the warrantless inspection of petitioner's bag, the

16
OSG argues that petitioner consented to the search) conditions to qualify as a valid reasonable search.
thereby making the seized items admissible in First, as to the manner of the search, it must be the
evidence. least intrusive and must uphold the dignity of the
person or persons being searched, minimizing, if not
In this case, petitioner consented to the baggage
altogether eradicating, any cause for public
inspection done by SCAA Buco. When SCAA Buco
embarrassment, humiliation or ridicule. Second,
asked if he could open petitioner's bag, petitioner
neither can the search result from any discriminatory
answered ''yes, just open if' based on petitioner's
motive such as insidious profiling, stereotyping and
own testimony. This is clear consent by petitioner to
other similar motives. In all instances, the
the search of the contents of his bag.
fundamental rights of vulnerable identities, persons
Reasonable search, on the one hand, and a with disabilities, children and other similar groups
warrantless search, on the other, are mutually should be protected. Third, as to the purpose of the
exclusive. While both State intrusions are valid even search, it must be confined to ensuring public safety.
without a warrant, the underlying reasons for the Fourth, as to the evidence seized from the reasonable
absence of a warrant are different. A reasonable search, courts must be convinced that precautionary
search arises from a reduced expectation of privacy, measures were in place to ensure that no evidence
for which reason Section 2, Article III of the was planted against the accused.
Constitution finds no application. Examples include
The search of persons in a public place is valid
searches done at airports, seaports, bus terminals,
because the safety of others may be put at risk. Given
malls, and similar public ·places. In contrast, a
the present circumstances, the Court takes judicial
warrantless search is presumably an "unreasonable
notice that public transport buses and their
search," but for reasons of practicality, a search
terminals, just like passenger ships and seaports, are
warrant can be dispensed with. Examples include
in that category. Aside from public transport buses,
search incidental to a lawful arrest, search of
any moving vehicle that similarly accepts passengers
evidence in plain view, consented search, and
at the terminal and along its route is likewise
extensive search of a private moving vehicle.
covered by these guidelines. Hence, whenever
The inspection of passengers and their effects prior compliant with these guidelines, a routine
to entry at the bus terminal and the search of the bus inspection at the terminal or of the vehicle itself
while in transit must also satisfy the following while in transit constitutes a reasonable search.

17
However, the guidelines do not apply to privately- also conducted a thorough search on the petitioner’s
owned cars. Neither are they applicable to moving body and found and confiscated a plastic sachet
vehicles dedicated for private or personal use, as in containing what he suspected as shabu. Ongcoma
the case of taxis, which are hired by only one or a was then charged for violation of Section 11, Article
group of passengers such that the vehicle can no II of RA 9165 to which he pleaded not guilty during
longer be flagged down by any other person until arraignment. The RTC convicted the petitioner
the passengers on board alight from the vehicle. saying that the policemen were presumed to have
performed their duties regularly in arresting and
conducting a search on the petitiorner. The Court of
Appeals affirmed the RTC’s findings.
Issue: Whether or not the shabu recovered from
Ongcoma is inadmissible as evidence because it was
obtained as a result of unlawful arrest and in
violation of his right against unreasonable search
and seizure.
Ruling: Yes, the Supreme Court held that the shabu
seized from Ongcoma is inadmissible as evidence
Ongcoma vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. because it was obtained as a result of unlawful arrest
182534. September 2, 2015 and it was a violation of his right against
unreasonable search and seizure. The Supreme
Court said that there must be a valid warrantless
Facts: Petitioner Ongcoma Hadji Homar was search and seizure pursuant to an equally valid
accosted by PO1 Eric Tan and civilian agent Ronald warrantless arrest, which must precede the search.
Tangcoy when they saw him crossing a “No For this purpose, the law requires that there be first a
Jaywalking” portion of Roxas Boulevard. PO1 Tan lawful arrest before a search can be made the process
told him to cross at the pedestrian area. The cannot be reversed. To constitute a valid in flagrante
petitioner then picked up something from the delicto arrest, two requisites must concur: (1) the
ground, prompting the policemen to frisk him person to be arrested must execute an overt act
resulting in the recovery of a knife. Thereafter, they indicating that he has just committed, is actually

18
committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and Neither can the presumption of regularity in the
(2) such overt act is done in the presence of or within performance of official duty save the prosecution’s
the view of the arresting officer. In the case at bar, lack of evidence to prove the warrantless arrest and
the prosecution did not proffer any other proof to search. This presumption cannot overcome the
establish that the requirements for a valid in presumption of innocence or constitute proof of guilt
flagrante delicto arrest were complied with. beyond reasonable doubt. Among the constitutional
Particularly, the prosecution failed to prove that the rights enjoyed by an accused, the most primordial
petitioner was committing a crime. yet often disregarded is the presumption of
The respondent failed to specifically identify the area innocence.
where the petitioner allegedly crossed. They merely Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order
stated that the petitioner "crossed the street of Roxas that he or she may be bound to answer for the
Boulevard, in a place not designated for crossing." commission of an offense. It is effected by an actual
They also failed to prove that the portion of Roxas restraint of the person to be arrested or by that
Boulevard where the petitioner crossed was indeed a person’s voluntary submission to the custody of the
"no jaywalking" area. The petitioner was also not one making the arrest.
charged of jaywalking. These are pieces of evidence
that could have supported the conclusion that Conclusion:
indeed the petitioner was committing a crime of Since the shabu was seized during an illegal arrest,
jaywalking and therefore, the subsequent arrest and its inadmissibility as evidence precludes conviction
search on his person was valid. Unfortunately, the and justifies the acquittal of the petitioner. Thus the
prosecution failed to prove this in the present case. Supreme Court granted the petition of Ongcoma and
The filing of a criminal charge is not a condition reversed and set aside the Decision of the Court of
precedent to prove a valid warrantless arrest. Even if Appeals. Petitioner Ongcoma was acquitted.
there is a criminal charge against an accused, the
prosecution is not relieved from its burden to prove
that there was indeed a valid warrantless arrest
preceding the warrantless search that produced the
corpus delicti of the crime.

19
 declared that these two cases are now being
abandoned to settle the issue once and for all.

People v. Sapla G.R. No. 244045, 16 June 2020

The Supreme Court also found the text message to
ISSUE: be double hearsay: (1) the person who actually
Whether or not an informant’s tip is sufficient to received the text message was not presented, and (2)
engender probable cause and police officer may the person who received the text message merely
justify the search as consented search. relayed it to the officers who conducted the
warrantless search and seizure without the latter
HELD:
actually seeing/reading the actual text message.
No. the Supreme Court has always said that a mere
Further, the text message was not preserved. It also
informant’s tip is not sufficient to engender probable
appeared that the phone which received the text
cause. The police officer receiving the informant’s tip
message was not a government issued one – this
must rely on his senses. The police officer must not
belies the claim of the officers that the message was
adopt the suspicion initiated by another person. The
received by their hotline. Based on the testimony of
police officer, with his/her personal knowledge,
the police officers, Sapla hesitated when he was
must observe the facts leading to the suspicion of an
requested to open the blue sack. This only means
illicit act and not merely rely on the information
that he did not give his consent and that his
passed on to him/her.
compliance was vitiated by the presence of the
Law enforcers cannot act solely on the basis of a tip.
police. With all the foregoing, the search and seizure
A tip is still hearsay no matter how reliable it may
conducted was invalid and any evidence obtained
be. It is not sufficient to constitute probable cause in
therefrom is inadmissible. Sapla was acquitted. The
the absence of any other circumstance that will
Supreme Court likewise emphasized the need to
arouse suspicion. The Supreme Court noted that
adhere to strict standards set by the Constitution
there were two previous decisions (Pp. vs
otherwise “A battle waged against illegal drugs that
Maspil and Pp. vs Bagista) which ruled that a
tramples on the rights of the people is not a war on drugs;
confidential tip was sufficient to engender probable
it is a war against the people.” The Bill of Rights 
cause, however, the Supreme Court in this case
should never be sacrificed on the altar of
convenience. Otherwise, the malevolent mantle of

20
the rule of men dislodges the rule of law.
Accordingly, accused-appellant Sapla is acquitted
and is ordered immediately released from
detention. 

21