Case 1

G.R. No. 242889. March 14, 2022

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LENG HAIYUN, DANG

HUIYIN, LIU WEN XION A.K.A. "LUI XIN," AND LEI GUANG FENG, ACCUSED-
APPELLANTS.

FACTS:

In 2013, a gasoline boy named Michael Claveria reported a suspicious incident involving
a vehicle and four foreigners, identified as Leng Haiyun, et al., who were arrested after
breaking bottles at a gasoline station in Pasuquin, Ilocos Norte. Police Inspector Joseph
Tayaban and Police Senior Inspector Joseph Baltazar contacted the police at the
COMELEC checkpoint in Barangay Davila, Pasuquin, and requested an intercept of the
vehicle. When the vehicle stopped at the checkpoint, police officers approached the
driver's side and signaled the driver to lower the tinted window. The group was arrested,
and while alighting, they found several firearms in plain view. The Provincial Police
Office, led by Police Superintendent Jerico Baldeo and Police Chief Inspector Jay De
Guzman, searched the vehicle, finding an MP5 submachinegun and other firearms,
explosives, and plate numbers. Leng Haiyun, et al. denied the allegations, claiming no
firearms were found inside the vehicle. The RTC convicted them for illegal possession of
explosives and violation of the election gun ban, but dismissed the case for illegal
possession of firearms. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, stating that the
report of the gasoline boy was not the sole basis for the warrantless arrest.

ISSUE:

The essential issue in the instant case is whether there was a valid warrantless
arrest, and search, and seizure conducted by the police officers.

RULING:
 The appeal is unmeritorious and the validity of the warrantless arrest and search is
upheld.
 The accused-appellants are found guilty of illegal possession of explosives and violation
of the election gun ban.

CASE 2

G.R. No. 170672 August 14, 2009

 JUDGE FELIMON ABELITA III, Petitioner,
vs.
P/SUPT. GERMAN B. DORIA and SPO3 CESAR RAMIREZ, Respondents.

FACTS:

Judge Felimon Abelita III filed a complaint for damages against P/Supt. Doria and SPO3
Ramirez, alleging that they allegedly demanded they proceed to the Provincial PNP
Headquarters. The petitioner, suspicious of the request, told the respondents to proceed
after bringing his wife home. SPO3 Ramirez forcibly took the key to the petitioner's car,
searched without a warrant, and seized a licensed shotgun. The petitioner presented the
shotgun's license to the respondents, who then produced a.45 caliber pistol. The
petitioner was arrested and detained without any charges at the PNP special detention
cell.

P/Supt. Doria reported a shooting incident in Barangay Nursery, which led to the
investigation of a firearms case. A team led by SPO3 Ramirez was dispatched to
investigate, and a wounded William Sia was injured. The implicated petitioner and his
wife left the scene. Doria informed the petitioner of the incident report and asked him to
go to police headquarters. The petitioner sped up his vehicle and chased him to his
residence. Police found a gun in the vehicle and shotgun at the back. The police
confiscated the firearms and arrested the petitioner. He was charged with illegal
possession of firearms and frustrated murder. An administrative case was also filed
against him.

The trial court dismissed the petitioner's complaint in 2004. The court found the petitioner
involved in the shooting incident in Barangay Nursery and that the police officers believed
he was involved. The court ruled that the arrest and seizure of firearms were valid and
legal, and the testimonies of respondents were more credible. The court rejected the
petitioner's claim of frame-up as weak and insufficient. The court concluded that the
petitioner's claim for damages under Article 32 of the Civil Code is not warranted under
the circumstances. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied.

ISSUE:
Whether the warrantless arrest and warrantless search and seizure were illegal under
Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure;

RULING:

The petition has no merit.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the police officers and denied Judge Abelita's
petition.

Ratio:
1.

The warrantless arrest and search and seizure were lawful under Section 5, Rule 113 of
the Rules of Court.

2.
 The police officers had personal knowledge of facts indicating that Judge Abelita was
involved in the shooting incident.
 They had reasonable grounds to believe that the firearms were evidence of a crime.
 Therefore, the arrest and seizure were justified.
3.

The police officers are not civilly liable for damages under Articles 32 (4) and (9) of the
Civil Code.

4.
 The trial court found that Judge Abelita was lawfully arrested without a warrant and that
the firearms were validly seized.
 The court also rejected Judge Abelita's claim of being framed-up.
 Since the police officers were presumed to be performing their duties in accordance with
the law, they cannot be held civilly liable for their actions.
5.

The defense of res judicata does not apply in this case.

6.
 While the present case and the administrative case are based on the same facts, there is
no identity of parties between the two cases.
 The administrative case was filed by a different person against Judge Abelita, and the
police officers were not parties to that case.
 Therefore, the findings in the administrative case are not conclusive in this case.

CASE 3

G.R. No. 113447 October 9, 1997

ALAIN MANALILI y DIZON, petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS:
On April 11, 1988, Kalookan City Police Station Anti-Narcotics Unit officers, conducted
surveillance on A. Mabini street in front of Kalookan City Cemetery due to the information
about drug activities.

Police officers encountered a herein petitioner at Kalookan City Cemetery wherein the
latter was observed to have reddish eyes and to be walking in a swaying manner. They
approached petitioner for acting and asked about his possessions which the latter
resisted. Petitioner showed his wallet, which was found to contain crushed marijuana
residue. Pat Romeo Espiritu examined the wallet and its contents.Petitioner was arrested
by the Kalookan City Police Headquarters Anti-Narcotics Unit and was found to be the
accused.

Cpl. Wilfredo Tamondong confiscated the wallet and suspected marijuana, which was
sent to the NBI Forensic Chemistry Section for analysis. Aida Pascual conducted
microscopic and chemical examinations on the specimen, identifying it as "crushed
marijuana leaves." The specimens gave positive results, and a final report was prepared.
Pat. Lumabas carried the certification to Cpl. Tamondong, who prepared a referral slip for
the City Fiscal of Kalookan City. Pat. Espiritu testified that the appellant was
apprehended.

ISSUE:

WON the admissibility of the evidence against petitioner (2) the credibility of prosecution
witnesses and the rejection by the trial and the appellate courts of the defense of
extortion, and (3) the sufficiency of the prosecution evidence to sustain his conviction.

RULING:

The petition has no merit.

Stop-and-frisk is an exception to the general rule against a search without a warrant,

where police officers briefly stop a suspicious individual to determine their identity or
maintain the status quo while obtaining more information. In this case, Patrolman Espiritu
and his companions observed the appellant's suspicious behavior and found marijuana in
his possession. The elements of illegal possession of marijuana include being in
possession of a prohibited item or object, not authorized by law, and knowingly
possessed the drug. The substance found in the appellant's possession was identified by
NBI Forensic Chemist Aida Pascual as crushed marijuana leaves. The appellant's
awareness of his lack of authority to possess these leaves was undeniable, as he was
high on drugs when stopped by the policemen and resisted when asked to show and
identify the thing he was holding. This behavior clearly shows that the appellant knew
that he was holding marijuana and that it was prohibited by law.

CASE 4

G.R. No. 91107 June 19, 1991

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
MIKAEL MALMSTEDT, *defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
Mikael Malmstedt, a Swedish national, visited the Philippines for the third time in
December 1988. He arrived in Baguio City on 7 May 1989 and stayed in Sagada for two
days before taking the first available bus to Baguio City. On 11 May, he planned a late
afternoon trip to Angeles City and then proceeded to Manila for his flight on 13 May 1989.

On 11 May 1989, Captain Alen Vasco, the Commanding Officer of the First Regional
Command (NARCOM), ordered a temporary checkpoint at Kilometer 14, Acop, Tublay,
Mountain Province, to check all vehicles from the Cordillera Region. A group of seven
NARCOM officers, in coordination with Tublay Police Station, inspected all vehicles. At
1:30 pm, a bus carrying the accused was stopped, and two NARCOM officers began an
inspection. During the inspection, CIC Galutan noticed a bulge on Malmstedt's waist, and
suspected to be a gun. The officer asked for his passport and other identification papers,
but Malmstedt was unable to present such.

Upon opening a pouch bag, four suspicious-looking objects wrapped in brown packing
tape were found, including one containing hashish, a derivative of marijuana. Two
travelling bags with teddy bears inside were also found to contain hashish, and
representative samples were taken for chemical analysis. The accused was then
arrested and charged with violating the Dangerous Drugs Act after a chemistry report
revealed that the objects examined were hashish.

ISSUE:

WON the search of defendant’s personal effects was illegal because it was made without
a search warrant and, therefore, the prohibited drugs which were discovered during the
illegal search are not admissible as evidence against him.

RULING:

Accused was searched and arrested while transporting prohibited drugs (hashish). A
crime was actually being committed by the accused and he was caught in flagrante
delicto. Thus, the search made upon his personal effects falls squarely under paragraph
(1) of the foregoing provisions of law, which allow a warrantless search incident to a
lawful arrest.7

Probable cause has been defined as such facts and circumstances which could lead a
reasonable, discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed,
and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be
searched.8 The required probable cause that will justify a warrantless search and seizure
is not determined by any fixed formula but is resolved according to the facts of each
case.9

Warrantless search of the personal effects of an accused has been declared by this
Court as valid, because of existence of probable cause, where the smell of marijuana
emanated from a plastic bag owned by the accused,10 or where the accused was acting
suspiciously,11 and attempted to flee.12

CASE 5

G.R. No. 120915 April 3, 1998

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ROSA ARUTA y MENGUIN, accused-appellant.

FACTS:

On December 13, 1988, P/Lt. Abello was notified by his informant, Benjie, that "Aling
Rosa" would arrive with a large volume of marijuana. Abello assembled a team of P/Lt.
Jose Domingo, Sgt. Angel Sudiacal, Sgt. Oscar Imperial, Sgt. Danilo Santiago, and Sgt.
Efren Quirubin. They deployed near the Philippine National Bank building and the Caltex
gasoline station. The team divided into two groups, with one group posting near the PNB
building and the other waiting near the Caltex gasoline station. A Victory Liner Bus with
body number 474 stopped in front of the building, where two females and a male got off.

The accused-appellant, identified as "Aling Rosa," was found to have dried marijuana
leaves in a bag marked "Cash Katutak." The team confiscated the bag and bus ticket,
and a Receipt of Property Seized was prepared. A forensic chemist at the PC/INP Crime
Laboratory found the marijuana specimen positive for marijuana, a prohibited drug. The
prosecution rested its case after the arresting officers' testimonies and the technical
report.

The defense filed a "Demurrer to Evidence" claiming the illegality of the search and
seizure, violating the accused-appellant's constitutional right against unreasonable
search and seizure. However, the trial court denied the "Demurrer to Evidence" without
ruling on the alleged illegality or inadmissibility of the items seized to avoid pre-judgment.
The accused-appellant testified on her behalf, claiming that she was arrested after
helping an old woman carry a shoulder bag. She claimed that the woman was nowhere
to be found after being arrested and that no search warrant was shown to her. The
prosecution presented evidence, but the defense filed a "Comment and/or Objection to
Prosecution's Formal Offer of Evidence" contesting the admissibility of the items seized.
The Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City convicted the accused-appellant of
transporting eight kilograms and 500 grams of marijuana from Baguio City to Olongapo
City, violating Section 4, Article 11 of R.A. No. 6425, as amended, or the Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972. She was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of P20,000.00
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

ISSUE:

The trial court erred in not finding that the warrantless search resulting to the arrest of
accused-appellant violated the latter's constitutional rights.

RULING:

The Court ruled in favor of accused-appellant thus acquitting the latter for lack of
evidence to establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Unreasonable searches and
seizures are the menace against which the constitutional guarantees afford full
protection. While the power to search and seize may at times be necessary to the public
welfare, still it may be exercised and the law enforced without transgressing the
constitutional rights of the citizens, for the enforcement of no statute is of sufficient
importance to justify indifference to the basic principles of government.

The following cases are specifically provided or allowed by law:

1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section 12, Rule 126
of the Rules of Court8 and by prevailing jurisprudence;
2. Seizure of evidence in "plain view," the elements of which are:

(a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are
legally present in the pursuit of their official duties;

(b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be
where they are;

(c) the evidence must be immediately apparent, and

(d) "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence without further search;

3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the government, the vehicle's inherent
mobility reduces expectation of privacy especially when its transit in public thoroughfares
furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause that the occupant
committed a criminal activity;

4. Consented warrantless search;

5. Customs search;9

6. Stop and Frisk;10 and

7. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances.11

CASE 6

Facts:
The case involves the conviction of accused-appellant Ramil Pe aflor for the crime of
murder. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found accused-appellant Pe aflor guilty based on
his extrajudicial confessions obtained during the preliminary investigation. The Court of
Appeals affirmed the conviction, ruling that the confessions were admissible as evidence.

Issue:
The main issue raised in the case is whether the confessions obtained from accused-
appellant Pe aflor were in violation of his right to a competent and independent counsel.

Ruling:
The court ruled that the confessions obtained from accused-appellant Pe aflor were
admissible as evidence. The court found that accused-appellant Pe aflor was not under
custodial investigation when the confessions were obtained, therefore his right to counsel
was not violated. The court also determined that the counsel who assisted accused-
appellant Pe aflor were competent and properly discharged their duties. Furthermore,
even if accused-appellant Pe aflor was under custodial investigation, the court found no
violation of his rights. As a result, the court affirmed accused-appellant Pe aflor's
conviction for murder and ordered him to pay damages to the heirs of the victim.

Ratio:
The court based its decision on the fact that accused-appellant Pe aflor was not under
custodial investigation when the confessions were obtained. The court emphasized that
the right to counsel only applies during custodial investigation, and since accused-
appellant Pe aflor was not in custody at the time, his right to counsel was not violated.
Additionally, the court found that the counsel who assisted accused-appellant Pe aflor
were competent and properly discharged their duties, further supporting the admissibility
of the confessions. The court also addressed the possibility of accused-appellant Pe aflor
being under custodial investigation, but found no violation of his rights in that scenario as
well. Ultimately, the court concluded that the confessions were voluntary and admissible
as evidence, leading to accused-appellant Pe aflor's conviction for murder. The court
also ordered him to pay damages to the heirs of the victim as a consequence of his
actions.

Title CASE 7
People vs. Sapla y Guerrero
Case
G.R. No. 244045
Ponente
CAGUIOA, J
Decision Date
Jun 16, 2020
The Supreme Court reverses the lower court's decision and orders the immediate
release of the accused-appellant in a drug case, ruling that the search conducted by
police officers was invalid due to the lack of a search warrant and probable cause,
emphasizing the importance of the constitutional right against unreasonable searches
and seizures and the presumption of innocence.
OutlineParagraph

Case Digest (G.R. No. 244045)

Facts:
In the case of People v. Sapla y Guerrero, the accused-appellant Jerry Sapla y Guerrero
was charged with violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 or the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The police officers received a tip from an
anonymous informant that the accused would be transporting marijuana. Based on this
unverified tip, the police officers conducted a search of a passenger jeepney that the
accused was in. They found four bricks of suspected dried marijuana leaves in a blue
sack in front of the accused. The accused was subsequently arrested and charged with
drug possession.

Issue:
The main issue in this case is whether the search conducted by the police officers was
valid.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision and ordered the immediate
release of the accused-appellant. The Court ruled that the search conducted by the
police officers was invalid due to the lack of a search warrant and probable cause.

Ratio:
The Court emphasized that the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and
seizures is a fundamental right and should not be violated. The Court held that the police
officers cannot conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle based solely on an unverified
tip from an anonymous informant. The Court explained that probable cause is an
indispensable requirement for an extensive and intrusive warrantless search of a moving
vehicle. In this case, the police officers did not have probable cause to conduct the
search as they solely relied on the unverified tip. The Court also noted that the search
was discriminatory as it was directed only towards the accused and not the other
passengers of the jeepney. Moreover, the search was not conducted to ensure public
safety but to apprehend a person suspected of transporting illegal drugs.

The Court further clarified that there are instances where warrantless searches and
seizures are allowed, such as when there is a search incidental to a lawful arrest, seizure
of evidence in plain view, search of a moving vehicle, consented warrantless search,
customs search, stop and frisk, and exigent and emergency circumstances. However, in
these instances, the authorities must have probable cause to conduct an extensive and
intrusive search.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court ruled that the search conducted by the police officers
in this case was invalid due to the lack of probable cause. Therefore, the evidence
obtained from the search must be excluded, and the accused-appellant should be
acquitted. The Court emphasized the importance of upholding the constitutional right
against unreasonable searches and seizures and the presumption of innocence.
Case 8

G.R. No. 144293 December 4, 2002

JOSUE R. LADIANA, petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS:

"That on or about the 29th day of December 1989, in the Municipality of Lumban,
Laguna, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, a public officer, being then a member of the Integrated National Police (INP
now PNP) assigned at the Lumban Police Station, Lumban, Laguna, acting in relation to
his duty which is primarily to enforce peace and order within his jurisdiction, taking
advantage of his official position confronted Francisco San Juan why the latter was
removing the steel pipes which were previously placed to serve as barricade to prevent
the entry of vehicles along P. Jacinto Street, Barangay Salac, Lumban, Laguna,
purposely to insure the safety of persons passing along the said street and when
Francisco San Juan told the accused that the latter has no business in stopping him, said
accused who was armed with a firearm, with intent to kill and with treachery, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack and sho[o]t Francisco San Juan with the
firearm hitting Francisco San Juan at his head and neck inflicting upon him fatal wounds
thereby causing the death of Francisco San Juan."7

During his arraignment on May 8, 1992, petitioner, assisted by his counsel de parte, 8 pled
not guilty.9 After due trial, the Sandiganbayan found him guilty of homicide, not murder.
Hence, this Petition

ISSUE:

whether the Counter-Affidavit he executed during the preliminary investigation of this

case is admissible proof showing his complicity in the crime

whether the Sandiganbayan erred in denying his Motion for Leave to File a Demurrer to
Evidence

whether he is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.

RULING:

The Petition is not meritorious.

Petitioner can no longer invoke his constitutional right to be presumed innocent of the
crime charged.45 As far as he is concerned, homicide has already been established. The
fact of death and its cause were established by his admissions coupled with the other
prosecution evidence including the Certificate of Death, 46 the Certificate of Post-Mortem
Examination47 and the Medico-Legal Findings.48 The intent to kill is likewise presumed
from the fact of death. Prior leave to file a demurrer to evidence is discretionary upon the
trial court.51 And, unless there is grave abuse amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
in its denial, the trial court’s resolution may not be disturbed. the accused who had gone
to the police headquarters merely to report the shooting incident did not evince any
desire to admit responsibility for the killing. Thus, he could not be deemed to have
voluntarily surrendered.57 In the absence of sufficient and convincing proof showing the
existence of indispensable circumstances, we cannot appreciate voluntary surrender to
mitigate petitioner’s penalty.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision and Resolution
AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.