Scribd
Upload
76 views2 pages

Malacat vs. Ca G.R. No. 123595 December 12, 1997

The Supreme Court ruled that the search and seizure conducted by the police was invalid. While a search incident to a lawful arrest is allowed, the police first need a valid reason to arrest the petitioner. Here, merely acting suspiciously near Plaza Miranda was not enough to justify an arrest. A stop-and-frisk is also permitted if the police have a reasonable suspicion the person is armed and dangerous, but merely hanging out in a public area does not meet this standard. As the arrest and search of the petitioner were unlawful, the evidence obtained from it was inadmissible.

Uploaded by

mixedmary85
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
76 views2 pages

Malacat vs. Ca G.R. No. 123595 December 12, 1997

The Supreme Court ruled that the search and seizure conducted by the police was invalid. While a search incident to a lawful arrest is allowed, the police first need a valid reason to arrest the petitioner. Here, merely acting suspiciously near Plaza Miranda was not enough to justify an arrest. A stop-and-frisk is also permitted if the police have a reasonable suspicion the person is armed and dangerous, but merely hanging out in a public area does not meet this standard. As the arrest and search of the petitioner were unlawful, the evidence obtained from it was inadmissible.

Uploaded by

mixedmary85
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

MALACAT vs.

CA

G.R. No. 123595 December 12, 1997

Facts:

Petitioner was arrested for having in his possession a hand grenade after he was searched by a group of
policemen when he was said to be acting suspiciously and was hanging around Plaza Miranda with his
eyes moving fast together with other Muslim-looking men. When the policemen approached the group
of men, they scattered in all directions which prompted the police to chase them and petitioner was
then apprehended and a search was made on his person.

He was then convicted under PD 1866 in the lower court. Hence, the present petition wherein petitioner
contended that the lower court erred in holding that the search made on him and the seizure of the
hand grenade from him was an appropriate incident to his arrest and that it erred in admitting the hand
grenade as evidence since it was not admissible because it was a product of an unreasonable and illegal
search.

Issue: WON the search and seizure conducted by the police was valid.

Ruling:

The general rule as regards arrests, searches and seizures is that a warrant is needed in order to validly
effect the same. The Constitutional prohibition against unreasonable arrests, searches and seizures
refers to those effected without a validly issued warrant, subject to certain exceptions. As regards valid
warrantless arrests, these are found in Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, which reads, in part:

Sec. 5. Arrest, without warrant; when lawful a peace officer or a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense;

(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating
that the person to be arrested has committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped . . .

A warrantless arrest under the circumstances contemplated under Section 5(a) has been denominated
as one "in flagrante delicto," while that under Section 5(b) has been described as a "hot pursuit" arrest.

Turning to valid warrantless searches, they are limited to the following: (1) customs searches; (2) search
of moving vehicles; (3) seizure of evidence in plain view; (4) consent searches; 33 (5) a search incidental
to a lawful arrest;34 and (6) a "stop and frisk.
At the outset, we note that the trial court confused the concepts of a "stop-and-frisk" and of a search
incidental to a lawful arrest. These two types of warrantless searches differ in terms of the requisite
quantum of proof before they may be validly effected and in their allowable scope.

In a search incidental to a lawful arrest, as the precedent arrest determines the validity of the incidental
search, the legality of the arrest is questioned in a large majority of these cases, e.g., whether an arrest
was merely used as a pretext for conducting a search. 36 In this instance, the law requires that there
first be a lawful arrest before a search can be made the process cannot be reversed. 37 At bottom,
assuming a valid arrest, the arresting officer may search the person of the arrestee and the area within
which the latter may reach for a weapon or for evidence to destroy, and seize any money or property
found which was used in the commission of the crime, or the fruit of the crime, or that which may be
used as evidence, or which might furnish the arrestee with the means of escaping or committing
violence.

We now proceed to the justification for and allowable scope of a "stop-and-frisk" as a "limited
protective search of outer clothing for weapons," as laid down in Terry, thus:

We merely hold today that where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably
to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with
whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the course of investigating this
behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the
initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others' safety, he is
entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the
outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him.
Such a search is a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.

Other notable points of Terry are that while probable cause is not required to conduct a "stop and frisk,"
it nevertheless holds that mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a "stop and frisk." A genuine
reason must exist, in light of the police officer's experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the
belief that the person detained has weapons concealed about him. Finally, a "stop-and-frisk" serves a
two-fold interest: (1) the general interest of effective crime prevention and detection, which underlies
the recognition that a police officer may, under appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate
manner, approach a person for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior even without
probable cause; and (2) the more pressing interest of safety and self-preservation which permit the
police officer to take steps to assure himself that the person with whom he deals is not armed with a
deadly weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against the police officer.

You might also like