Roldan vs. Arca to People vs. Doria

HON. ARSENIO N. ROLDAN, JR., and THE PHIL. NAVY, vs. HON. FRANCISCO ARCA, and MORABE, DE GUZMAN & COMPANY, FACTS: - Respondent company filed a case against Roldan, Jr. for the recovery of fishing vessel Tony Lex VI which had been seized and impounded by petitioner Fisheries Commissioner through the Philippine Navy. The CFI Manila granted it, thus respondent company took Possession of the vessel Tony Lex VI. - Petitioner requested the Philippine Navy to apprehend vessels Tony Lex VI and Tony Lex III, also respectively called Srta. Winnie and Srta. Agnes, for alleged violations of some provisions of the Fisheries Act. On August 5 or 6, 1965, the two fishing boats were actually seized for illegal fishing with dynamite. The Fiscal filed an ex parte motion to hold the boats in custody as instruments and therefore evidence of the crime, and cabled the Fisheries Commissioner to detain the vessels. On October 2 and 4, likewise, the CFI of Palawan ordered the Philippine Navy to take the boats in custody. Judge Francisco Arca issued an order granting the issuance of the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction and issued the preliminary writ upon the filing by the company of a bond of P5,000.00 for the release of the two vessels. On 19 October 1965, the Commission and the Navy filed a motion for reconsideration of the order issuing the preliminary writ Judge Arca denied the said motion for reconsideration. The Commission and the Navy filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction to restrain Judge Arca from enforcing his order dated 18 October 1965, and the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction there under issued. ISSUE: WON a police officer can search without warrant HELD: YES. Search and seizure without search warrant of vessels and air crafts for violations of the customs laws have been the traditional exception to the constitutional requirement of a search warrant, because the vessel can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the search warrant must be sought before such warrant could be secured; hence it is not practicable to require a search warrant before such search or seizure can be constitutionally effected. The same exception should apply to seizures of fishing vessels breaching our fishery laws. They are usually equipped with powerful motors that enable them to elude pursuing ships of the Philippine Navy or Coast Guard. Under our Rules of Court, a police officer or a private individual may, without a warrant, arrest a person (a) who has committed, is actually committing or is about to commit an offense in his presence; (b) who is reasonably believed to have committed an offense which has been actually

committed; or (c) who is a prisoner who has escaped from confinement while serving a final judgment or from temporary detention during the pendency of his case or while being transferred from one confinement to another. In the case at bar, the members of the crew of the two vessels were caught in flagrante illegally fishing with dynamite and without the requisite license. Thus their apprehension without a warrant of arrest while committing a crime is lawful. Consequently, the seizure of the vessel, its equipment and dynamites therein was equally valid as an incident to a lawful arrest. In the case at bar, the members of the crew of the two vessels were caught in flagrante illegally fishing with dynamite and without the requisite license. Thus their apprehension without a warrant of arrest while committing a crime is lawful. Consequently, the seizure of the vessel, its equipment and dynamites therein was equally valid as an incident to a lawful arrest. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. LO HO WING alias PETER LO, LIM CHENG HUAT alias ANTONIO LIM and REYNALDO TIA y SANTIAGO, defendants. LO HO WING alias PETER LO FACTS: - Peter Lo, together with Lim Cheng Huat alias Antonio Lim and Reynaldo Tia, were charged with a violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. Only Peter Lo and Lim Cheng Huat were convicted. - In July 1987, the Special Operations Group, a unit of the Criminal Investigation Service (CIS) of the Philippine Constabulary (PC), received a tip from one of its informers about an organized group engaged in the importation of illegal drugs, smuggling of contraband goods, and gunrunning. After an evaluation of the information received, a project codenamed "OPLAN SHARON 887" was created to bust the suspected syndicate. As part of the operations, the recruitment of confidential men and "deep penetration agents' was carried out. One of those recruited was Reynaldo Tia. The latter offered his services to Lim as his ompanion for his business nips abroad. In the course of their meetings in China, Tia was introduced to Peter Lo whom Tia found out to be the person he was to accompany to China in lieu of Lim. As a "deep penetration agent," Tia regularly submitted reports of his undercover activities on the suspected criminal syndicate. - Tia and Peter went to Guangzhou. They went to a local store where Peter purchased 6 tin cans of tea. Tia saw the paper tea bags when the cans were opened for examination during the purchase. Afterwards, they returned to the hotel. Peter kept the cans of tea in his hotel room. That evening, Tia went to Peter's room to talk to him. Upon entering, he saw two other men with Peter. One was fixing the tea bags, while the other was burning substance on a piece of aluminum foil using a cigarette lighter. Peter joined the second man and sniffed the smoke emitted by the burning substance.

Tia asked the latter what they would be bringing back to the Philippines. He was informed that their cargo consisted of Chinese drugs. - When the 2 arrived in the Phil., the car of the operatives overtook the taxicab ridden by Peter and Tia and cut into its path forcing the taxi driver to stop his vehicle, approached the taxicab, and asked the driver to open the baggage compartment. 3 pcs. of luggage were retrieved. They requested from the suspects permission to search their luggage. A tin can of tea was taken out of the red traveling bag of Peter. During the investigation, a total of 56 paper tea bags with white crystalline powder were found and tested and was found out that it was metamphetamine. ISSUE: WON the warrantless search and seizure made against is illegal HELD: The search and seizure must be supported by a valid warrant, is not an absolute rule. There are at least 3 well-recognized exceptions: [1] a search incidental to an arrest, [2] a search of a moving vehicle, and [3] seizure of evidence in plain view. The circumstances of the case clearly show that the search in question was made as regards a moving vehicle. Therefore, a valid warrant was not necessary to effect the search on appellant and his co-accused. A warrantless search of a moving vehicle is justified on the ground that "it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought." In the instant case, it was firmly established from the factual findings of the trial court that the authorities had reasonable ground to believe that appellant would attempt to bring in contraband and transport it within the country. The belief was based on intelligence reports gathered from surveillance activities on the suspected syndicate, of which appellant was touted to be a member. . The discharge of accused Tia was based on Section 9, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court, which reads in part: Sec. 9. Discharge of the accused to be state witness. — When two or more persons are jointly charged with the commission of any offense, upon motion of the prosecution before resting its case,the court may direct one or more of the accused to be discharged with their consent so that they may be witnesses for the state . . People vs. Balingan [GR 105834, 13 February 1995] Facts: On 31 August 1988, the Narcotics Intelligence Division of the Baguio City Police Station received a telephone call from an unnamed male informant. He passed the information that Jean Balingan y Bobbonan was going to Manila with a bag filled with marijuana. Acting on the information, then P/Lt. Manuel Obrera formed a surveillance team to monitor Balingan's movements. The team as deployed at different places in Baguio City, including Balingan's house on Brookside and bus stations. Cpl. Garcia soon reported seeing Balingan move out from her residence at Brookside and board a taxicab which proceeded to the direction of Bonifacio Street. Balingan was wearing a pink dress and carrying a gray luggage with orange or yellow belts.

She also reported the make and plate number of the taxicab which Balingan boarded. Upon receiving the report, Lt. Obrera ordered Cpl. Garcia to proceed to the Philippine Rabbit Terminal in case Balingan would go there. Pat. Kimay, who must have intercepted Cpl. Garcia's message, also reported that the taxicab described by the latter passed along Bonifacio Rotunda. Lt. Obrera instructed him to move out and proceed to the Police Checkpoint at Kennon Road going to the Philippine Military Academy. From his post at the Dangwa Bus Station, Pat. Bueno informed Lt. Obrera that Balingan boarded a Dangwa Bus with plate number NTU-153 bound for Manila. Lt. Obrera promptly proceeded to the bus station to verify the report. There, he went up the bus described by Pat. Bueno, and he saw Balingan on the third or fourth seat behind the driver's seat. In the luggage carrier above her head was the gray luggage earlier described by Cpl. Garcia. He then left and positioned himself with Ong at the Lakandula burned area to wait for the bus to depart. At about 11:00 a.m., the bus moved out (on its way) to Manila via Kennon Road. Lt. Obrera instructed Pat. Kimay, who was at the Kennon Road Checkpoint, to stop the bus when it reaches the place. Meanwhile, Lt. Obrera and Lt. Ong tailed the bus at about 15 to 20 meters behind. As instructed, Pat. Kimay stopped the bus at the Kennon Road Checkpoint. That was already at 11:30 a.m. Lt. Obrera and Pat. Ong arrived at the Checkpoint less than a minute after the bus did and immediately boarded it. Lt. Obrera announced a routinary check-up. Pat. Ong identified himself as a policeman to Balingan and asked her permission to check her luggage, she did not respond and just looked outside the window. He opened the luggage in the luggage carrier overhead and above Balingan and found suspected marijuana in it. He pulled out the luggage and turned it over to Lt. Obrera. Thereupon, Lt. Obrera tried to arrest Balingan but the latter resisted and tried to bite his hand and furthermore held tightly onto the window pane. Lt. Obrera asked Pat. Ong to fetch Cpl. Garcia from the Philippine Rabbit Terminal in the City proper, so that she would be the one to bring out Balingan from the bus. In the meantime, he remained inside the bus holding the confiscated luggage while the other passengers alighted from the bus. After some 30 minutes, Garcia arrived and pulled Balingan out of the bus and brought her to the Baguio City Police Station and there locked her up in jail. On 24 October 1988, Balingan was charged with Violation of Sec. 4, Art. II of Republic Act 6425, otherwise known as "The Dangerous Drugs Act. On 4 April 1989, Balingan was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. After trial, Balingan was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 4, and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment; to pay a fine of P20,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and to pay the costs. Balingan appealed. Issue: Whether the search conducted in the Dangwa bus, subsequent to police surveillance pursuant to an informant’s tip, is valid. Held: The search and seizure herein happened in a moving, public vehicle. The rules governing search and seizure have over the years been steadily liberalized whenever a moving vehicle is the object of the search on the basis

of practicality. This is so considering that before a warrant could be obtained, the place, things and persons to be searched must be described to the satisfaction of the issuing judge — a requirement which borders on the impossible in the case of smuggling effected by the use of a moving vehicle that can transport contraband from one place to another with impunity. A warrantless search of a moving vehicle is justified on the ground that "it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought." Unquestionably, the warrantless search herein is not bereft of a probable cause. The Baguio INP Narcotics Intelligence Division received an information that Balingan was going to transport marijuana in a bag to Manila. Their surveillance operations revealed that Balingan, whose movements had been previously monitored by the Narcotics Division, boarded a Dangwa bus bound for Manila carrying a suspicious-looking gray luggage bag. When the moving, public bus was stopped, her bag, upon inspection, yielded marijuana. Under those circumstances, the warrantless search ofBalingan's bag was not illegal.

BENJAMIN D. OBRA and BRIG. GEN. TOMAS DUMPIT, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES JAMES BRETT and JUNE PRILL BRETT,respondents.

FACTS: Petitioner Benjamin D. Obra was, the Regional Director of the Bureau of Mines and Geo-Sciences (BMGS) in Baguio City. Jeannette M. Grybos wrote him a letter on behalf of the Gillies heirs of Palasa-an, Mankayan, complaining that private respondents, spouses James Brett and June Prill Brett, had been conducting illegal mining activities. Petitioner Obra wrote Brig. Gen. Tomas Dumpit, requesting assistance in apprehending a truck allegedly used by private respondents in illegal mining in the area. Petitioner Obra request to Col. Bernardo Estepa, Provincial Commander of Benguet, that the latter “stop momentarily any mining operation or activity, if there be any, of James and June Prill until the controversy or case has been resolved by [the BMGS].” Accordingly, elements of RUC-1 under Major Guillermo Densen and led by SGT. Josefino A. Morales seized, an Isuzu “ELF” truck (ABX-587) belonging to private respondents. The truck was impounded by the military and prevented from leaving the area except on mercy missions to transport sick soldiers and workers to the hospital and when used to buy food supplies for the men inside the camp.[3] Private respondents then filed a complaint [4] for injuction and damages, with an application for temporary restraining order, with the Regional Trial court, Branch 8, of Baguio and Benguet. They alleged that the truck had been seized without prior investigation to determine the existence of probable cause .

ISSUE: WON the warrantless search has a probable cause. HELD: The truck was seized while it was entering the mining area; it was not transporting minerals outside of the area. With regard to the search of moving vehicles, this had been justified on the ground that the mobility of motor vehicles makes it possible for the vehicle to be searched to move out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. This is in no way, however, gives the police officers unlimited discretion to conduct warrantless searches of automobiles in the absence of probable cause. When a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive search, such a warrantless search has been held to be valid as long as the officers conducting the search have reasonable or probable cause to believe before the search that they will find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime in the vehicle to be searched. There could not have been, therefore, any finding of probable cause that the truck was being used for any illegal mining activities. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MARI MUSA y HANTATALU FACTS: Mari Musa was found guilty of selling marijuana in violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. - On December 13, 1989, T/Sgt. Belagra, the leader of a NARCOM team based at Calarian, Zamboanga City, instructed Sgt. Amado Ani to conduct surveillance and test buy on Mari Musa of Suterville, Zamboanga City. Information received from civilian informer was that Musa was engaged in selling marijuana in said place. So Sgt. Amado Ani proceeded to Suterville, in company with a NARCOM civilian informer, to the house of Mari Musa. The same civilian informer had also described to him the appearance of Mari Musa. Arriving at the target site, Sgt. Ani proceeded to the house of Musa, while the rest of the NARCOM group positioned themselves at strategic places about 90 to 100 meters from Mari Musa's house. T/Sgt. Belarga could see what went on between Ani and suspect Musa from where he was. Ani approached Musa, who came out of his house, and asked Ani what he wanted. Ani said he wanted some more stuff. Ani gave Musa the P20.00 marked money. After receiving the money, Musa went back to his house and came back and gave Amado Ani two newspaper wrappers containing dried marijuana. Ani opened the two wrappers and inspected the contents. Convinced that the contents were marijuana, Ani walked back towards his companions and raised his right hand. The two NARCOM teams, riding the two civilian vehicles, sped towards Sgt. Ani. Ani joined Belarga's team and returned to the house. ISSUE: WON the search is valid HELD: While a valid search warrant is generally necessary before a search and seizure may be effected, exceptions to this rule are recognized. Thus, in Alvero v. Dizon, 36 the Court stated that. "[t]he most important exception to

the necessity for a search warrant is the right of search and seizure as an incident to a lawful arrest." 37 Rule 126, Section 12 of the Rules of Court expressly authorizes a warrantless search and seizure incident to a lawful arrest, thus: Sec. 12. Search incident to lawful arrest. — A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant. There is no doubt that the warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest authorizes the arresting officer to make a search upon the person of the person arrested. As early as 1909, the Court has ruled that "[a]n officer making an arrest may take from the person arrested any money or property found upon his person which was used in the commission of the crime or was the fruit of the crime or which might furnish the prisoner with the means of committing violence or of escaping, or which may be used as evidence in the trial of the cause . . . " 38 Hence, in a buy-bust operation conducted to entrap a drug-pusher, the law enforcement agents may seize the marked money found on the person of the pusher immediately after the arrest even without arrest and search warrants. 39 In the case at bar, the NARCOM agents searched the person of the appellant after arresting him in his house but found nothing. They then searched the entire house and, in the kitchen, found and seized a plastic bag hanging in a corner. The warrantless search and seizure, as an incident to a suspect's lawful arrest, may extend beyond the person of the one arrested to include the premises or surroundings under his immediate control. 40 Objects in the "plain view" of an officer who has the right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence. 41

PEOPLE vs. FLORENCIO DORIA and VIOLETA GADDAO Facts: •

On December 1995 in Mandaluyong City, the accused mutually helped one another and sold 11 plastic bags of suspected marijuana fruiting tops. Previously on November, members of the North Metropolitan District, Philippine National Police Narcotics Command, received information that one “Jun” was engaged in illegal drug activities in Mandaluyong City. The Narcom agents decided to entrap him in a buybust operation.

•

On December 5, 1995, SPO3 Manlangit arrested “Jun” and the latter led them to his associate, “Neneth”. They took "Neneth” and "Jun," together with the box, its contents and the marked bills and turned them over to the investigator at headquarters. It was only then that the police learned that "Jun" is Florencio Doria while "Neneth" is Violeta

Gaddao. The one brick of dried marijuana leaves recovered from "Jun" plus the ten bricks recovered from "Neneth's" house were examined at the PNP Crime Laboratory and were found to be dried marijuana fruiting tops. •

They were subsequently charged with violation of Section 4, in relation to Section 21 of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.

Issue: WoN the warrantless arrest was valid. (Valid, as regards Doria’s arrest.) Decision: Florencio Doria was convicted and Violeta Gaddao was aquitted. RD: The warrantless arrest of Doria is lawful since he was caught in the act of committing an offense. A person may be arrested without a warrant if he "has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense." The warrantless search and arrest of Gaddao is unlawful. Search and seizure may be made without a warrant and the evidence obtained therefrom may be admissible in the following instances: (1) search incident to a lawful arrest; (2) search of a moving motor vehicle; (3) search in violation of customs laws; (4) seizure of evidence in plain view; (5) when the accused himself waives his right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Gaddao was not caught red-handed during the buy-bust operation to give ground for her arrest under Section 5 (a) of Rule 113. She was not committing any crime; in fact, she was going about her daily chores when the policemen pounced on her. Neither could her arrest be justified under "Personal knowledge" of facts because it must be based upon "probable cause" which means an "actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion." 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. Gaddao was arrested solely on the basis of the alleged identification made by her co-accused. Doria did not point to Gaddao as his associate in the drug business, but as the person with whom he left the marked bills. This identification does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that Gaddao conspired with her co-accused in pushing drugs. Narcom agents had no reasonable grounds to believe that she was engaged in drug pushing. Since the warrantless arrest of Gaddao was illegal, it follows that the search of her person and home and the subsequent seizure of the marked bills and marijuana cannot be deemed legal as an incident to her arrest.