People v.

Montilla Held: Yes, the warrantless arrest,

search and seizure was valid.
Facts:
The accused was Ruben What made the warrantless
Montilla y Gatdula, alias “Joy”. He search and seizure valid, that
was charged on August 22, 1994 is to say what made the arrest
for violating Section 4, Article II of preceding the search valid?
the Dangerous Drugs Act No. 1972,
Republic Act. 6425, as amended by 1.) As soon as appellant had
Republic Act No. 7659. alighted from the passenger
jeepney, the informer at once
1.) Accused-appellant was indicated to the officers that their
apprehended on June 20, 1994 suspect was and that the
near a waiting shed located at marijuana was likely hidden inside
Barangay Salitran, Dasmarias, the traveling bag and carton box
Cavite by members of the Cavite which appellant was carrying at the
PNP Command based in Dasmarias. time.
2.) The said members of the PNP 2.) Accordingly, they approached
was aided by an informer when appellant, introduced themselves
they caught Montilla transporting as policemen, and requested him
28 marijuana bricks contained in a to open and show them the
traveling bag and a carton box. contents of the traveling bag,
3.) The informer had informed which appellant voluntarily and
them the day before, or on June 19, readily did.
1994 at about 2:00 P.M., that a 5.) Upon cursory inspection, the
drug courier, whom said informer bag yielded the prohibited drugs,
could recognize, would be arriving so, without bothering to further
somewhere in Barangay Salitran, search the box, they brought
Dasmarias from Baguio City with appellant and his luggage to their
an undetermined amount of headquarters for questioning.
marijuana. 6.) Because of this, there were
4.) The informer pinpointed to the sufficient facts antecedent to the
arresting officers the appellant search and seizure that already
when the latter alighted from a constitutive of probable cause, and
passenger jeepney on the which by themselves could
aforestated day, hour, and place properly create in the minds of the
which lead to the latter’s arrest officers a well-grounded and
and subsequent seizure. reasonable belief that appellant
5.) Accused-appellant now assails was in the act of violating the law.
the validity of the warrantless The search yielded affirmance both
arrest, search and seizure. of that probable cause and the
actuality that appellant was then
Issue: Whether or not the actually committing a crime by
warrantless, search and seizure illegally transporting prohibited
was valid. drugs. With these attendant facts,
it is ineluctable that appellant was
caught in flagrante delicto, the police outpost at Crossing,
hence his arrest and the search of Calamba, Laguna, to follow up an
his belongings without the requisite intelligence report that shabu was
warrant were both justified. being supplied there. Police civilian
reported to them that he saw
Suppose the Supreme Court accused-appellant Luisito Go, also
found that the exception of known as "King Louie", enter the
search incidental to a lawful Flamingo Disco House with two
arrest cannot be women. Panuringan said that he
countenanced, could there spotted a gun tucked in accused-
have been another exception appellant's waist. The policemen
to anchor the validity of the proceeded to the Flamingo.
search and seizure on? 2.) When they arrived, the police
officers informed the owner that
When the officers they were conducting a search for
approached appellant and illegally possessed firearms. Police
introduced themselves as officers saw accused-appellant and
policemen, they asked him about his lady companions seated at a
the contents of his luggage, and table. They identified themselves
after he replied that they contained and asked accused-appellant to
personal effects, the officers asked stand up. When the latter did so,
him to open the traveling bag. the policemen saw the gun tucked
Appellant readily acceded, in his waist. Accused-appellant was
presumably or in all likelihood unable to produce the license. The
resigned to the fact that the law gun was confiscated by the police
had caught up with his criminal officers. Accused-appellant was
activities. When an individual invited to the police precinct for
voluntarily submits to a search or questioning.
consents to have the same
conducted upon his person or 3.) On the way out, accused-
premises, he is precluded from appellant asked permission to
later complaining thereof. bring his car. When accused-
appellant opened the door, police
People v. Luisito Go officers saw pieces of glass tooters
and tin foils on the backseat and
Facts: floor of the car. They asked
accused-appellant why he had
The accused was Luisito Go y these items, but he did not say
Ko. He was charged for violating RA anything. Instead, accused-
6452 (Dangerous Drugs Act) and appellant suggested that they talk
PD 1866 (Illegal/Unlawful the matter over, and intimated that
Possession of Firearms). he had money but officers rejected
his offer. Accused-appellant took
1.) On October 22, 1992 members out a case from the car and opened
of the Intelligence and Follow-up it which contained shiny white
Unit of the Calamba Police, went to substance wrapped in cellophane
and P120,000.00 in cash. The search incidental to a lawful
substance turned out to be shabu arrest cannot be
after its investigation. countenanced, could there
4.) Accused-appellant now assails have been another exception
the validity of the warrantless to anchor the validity of the
arrest, search and seizure. search and seizure on?

Issue: Whether or not the The drugs discovered was as

warrantless, search and seizure a result of a consented search
was valid. because the accused himself lead
the policeman to his own car,
Held: Yes, the warrantless arrest, opened the car himself, and even
search and seizure was valid. tried to bribe the officers when the
illegal drugs was discovered.
Hence, the drugs are admissible in
What made the warrantless evidence.
search and seizure valid, that
is to say what made the arrest However, in the case of People v.
preceding the search valid? Aruta:

The police saw the gun Facts:

tucked in appellant's waist when he Rosa Aruta y Menguin was
stood up which was plainly visible. arrested and charged with violating
No search was conducted as none Section 4, Article II of Republic Act
was necessary. Accused-appellant No. 6425 or the Dangerous Drugs
could not show any license for the Act.
firearm, whether at the time of his
arrest or thereafter. Thus, he was 1.) On December 13, 1988, a
in effect committing a crime in policeman was tipped off by his
the presence of the police informant that a certain Aling Rosa
officers. No warrant of arrest was would be arriving from Baguio City
necessary in such a situation, it the following day with a large
being one of the recognized volume of marijuana. Acting on
exceptions under the Rules. said tip, PNP assembled a team.
2.) Said team proceeded to West
As a consequence of Bajac-Bajac, Olongapo City in the
appellant's valid warrantless arrest, afternoon of December 14, 1988
he may be lawfully searched for and deployed themselves near the
dangerous weapons or anything PNB building along Rizal Avenue
which may be used as proof of the and the Caltex gasoline station.
commission of an offense, without Dividing themselves into two
a search warrant, as provided in groups, one group and the
Rule 126. informant posted themselves near
the PNB building while the other
Suppose the Supreme Court group waited near the Caltex
found that the exception of gasoline station.
3.) While thus positioned, a bus in they could have secured one
front of the PNB building at around without too much difficulty. The
6:30 in the evening of the same person intended to be
day from where two females and a searched has been
male got off. The informant pointed particularized and the thing to
out to the team Aling Rosa who be seized specified. The time
was carrying a travelling bag. was also sufficiently ascertained to
4.) The team approached her and be in the afternoon of December
introduced themselves as NARCOM 14, 1988. Aling Rosa turned out to
agents. When asked about the be accused-appellant and the thing
contents of her bag, Aling Rosa to be seized was marijuana. The
handed it to the agents. vehicle was identified to be a
5.) Upon inspection, the bag was Victory Liner bus. In fact, the
found to contain dried marijuana NARCOM agents purposely
leaves so they confiscated the bag. positioned themselves near the
Accused-appellant was then spot where Victory Liner buses
brought to the NARCOM office for normally unload their passengers.
investigation where a Receipt of Assuming that the NARCOM agents
Property Seized was prepared for failed to particularize the vehicle,
the confiscated marijuana leaves. this would not in any way hinder
6.) Upon examination of the seized them from securing a search
marijuana specimen, it yielded warrant. The above particulars
positive results for marijuana, a would have already sufficed. In any
prohibited drug. After the case, this Court has held that the
presentation of the testimonies of police should particularly describe
the arresting officers and their the place to be searched and the
technical report, the prosecution person or things to be seized,
rested its case. wherever and whenever it is
7.) Accused-appellant now assails feasible.
the validity of the warrantless
arrest, search and seizure. Permissible Area of the Search

Issue: Whether or not the In People v. Che Chun

warrantless, search and seizure Ting, it was held that a person
was valid. lawfully arrested searched for
dangerous weapons or anything
Held: No, the warrantless arrest, which may be used as proof of the
search and seizure was invalid. commission of the offense, without
a search warrant. The search may
Why was the warrantless extend beyond the person of the
search and seizure valid, that one arrested to include the
is to say what made the arrest permissible area or surroundings
preceding the search invalid? within his immediate control. The
accused was admittedly outside
The NARCOM agents did not unit 22 and in the act of delivering
apply for a search warrant when to Mabel Cheung Mei Po a bag of
shabu when he was arrested by the prosecution, the police found the
NARCOM operatives. Moreover, it is gun only after going back to the
borne by the records that Unit 122 house of accused-appellant.
was not even his residence but that
of his girlfriend Nimfa Ortiz, and PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE
that he was merely a sojourner
therein. Hence, it can hardly be In the case of People v.
said that the inner portion of the Musa,1 the Supreme Court
house constituted a permissible surveyed American jurisprudence,
area within his reach or immediate and in which cases, the earlier
control, to justify a warrantless applications of the plain view
search therein. doctrine were made.

The case explained that the Facts:

warrantless search is sanctioned
only with respect to the person Mari Musa was charged of
of the suspect, and things that selling marijuana in violation of
may be seized from him are limited Article II, Section 4 of Republic Act
to "dangerous weapons" or No. 6425, as amended, otherwise
''anything which may be used as known as the Dangerous Drugs Act
proof of the commission of the of 1972.
offense." The search must have
been conducted at about the time 1.) In the morning of December 13,
of the arrest or immediately 1989, NARCOM team based at
thereafter and only at the place Calarian, Zamboanga City
where the suspect was arrested, or conducted surveillance and test
the premises or surroundings buy on a certain Mari Musa of
under his immediate control. Suterville, Zamboanga City.
Information received from civilian
In People v. Cubcubin, it was informer was that this Mari Musa
held that a valid arrest allows only was engaged in selling marijuana
the seizure of evidence or in said place. NARCOM proceeded
dangerous weapons either in the to the house of Mari Musa. A
person of the one arrested or NARCOM agent was able to buy
within the area of his immediate marijuana from Musa.
control. The rationale for such 2.) The next day, a buy-bust was
search and seizure is to prevent planned. They proceeded to the
the person arrested either from house of Mari Musa, while the rest
destroying evidence or from using of the NARCOM group positioned
the weapon against his captor. It is themselves at strategic places
clear that the warrantless search in about 90 to 100 meters from Mari
this case cannot be justified on this Musa's house. Transaction was
ground. For neither the t-shirt nor then made by an agent and musa.
the gun was within the area of After receiving the money, Mari
accused-appellants immediate Musa went back to his house and
control. In fact, according to the 1
came back and gave the dried Unlike Ker v. California,
marijuana. The teams went to the where the marijuana was visible to
house. the police officer's eyes, the
3.) An agent found a plastic bag NARCOM agents in this case could
containing dried marijuana inside it not have discovered the
somewhere in the kitchen. Mari inculpatory nature of the contents
Musa was then placed under arrest of the bag had they not forcibly
and brought to the NARCOM office. opened it. Even assuming then,
that the NARCOM agents
Was such item legally seized inadvertently came across the
by the police officers? Why or plastic bag because it was within
why not? their "plain view," what may be
said to be the object in their "plain
The appellant was arrested view" was just the plastic bag and
and his person searched in the not the marijuana.
living room. Failing to retrieve the
marked money which they hoped May the plain view doctrine be
to find, the NARCOM agents used for exploratory searches?
searched the whole house and Why or why not?
found the plastic bag in the
kitchen. The plastic bag was, The "plain view" doctrine
therefore, not within their "plain may not be used to launch
view" when they arrested the unbridled searches and
appellant as to justify its seizure. indiscriminate seizures nor to
The NARCOM agents had to move extend a general exploratory
from one portion of the house to search made solely to find
another before they sighted the evidence of defendant's guilt. The
plastic bag. "plain view" doctrine is usually
applied where a police officer is
What American jurisprudence not searching for evidence against
was used by the Supreme the accused, but nonetheless
Court to compare the present inadvertently comes across an
case? What were the incriminating object.
distinctions drawn by the
Supreme Court? In the more recent case of
People v. Sarap, the Supreme
In the case of Ker vs. Court clearly identified the
California, the police officer had requisites that must be complied
reason to walk to the doorway of with for a proper application of the
the adjacent kitchen and from plain view doctrine.
which position he saw the
marijuana, the NARCOM agents in Facts:
this case went from room to room Melly Sarap y Arcangeles was
with the obvious intention of charged for violating Section 4 of
fishing for more evidence. Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise
known as the Dangerous Drugs Act
 up. Guarino blocked Saraps path
and grabbed from her the green
1.) Armed with a search warrant, plastic bag she was holding. Upon
SPO4 Gelacio R. Guarino and inspection, the plastic bag was
others raided the house of Conrado found to contain two blocks of
Ricaforte at Rizal Street, Poblacion, marijuana fruiting tops. In the
Banga, Aklan on March 2, 1996, meantime, Navida pursued Amar
relative to the reported sale of and arrested him.
marijuana by its occupants, Jonalyn 7.) The marijuana confiscated from
Duran, Joysie Duran and Pepe Sarap was brought to the Iloilo
Casabuena. The three were Headquarters for laboratory
apprehended for illegal possession examination. The chemical analysis
of marijuana and were detained at revealed that the substance was
the Banga Police Station. indeed marijuana or Indian hemp.
2.) In the course of their Consequently, the above-quoted
investigation, the police learned information was filed against Sarap
that a certain Melly from Capiz and and Amar.
one Roger were the suppliers of 8.) Accused-appellant now assails
marijuana and that they will be the validity of the warrantless
back on March 4, 1996. arrest, search and seizure.
3.) The police learned of a certain
Melly from Capiz and one Roger Issue: Whether or not the
were the suppliers of marijuana warrantless, search and seizure
and that they will be back on March was valid.
4, 1996.
4.) On March 4, 1996, Janet Iguiz, Held: No, the warrantless arrest,
caretaker of the house of Conrado search and seizure was invalid.
Ricaforte informed Guarino that
there were two strangers looking What are the requisites of
for the Duran sisters. plain view?
5.) Accordingly, Guarino and
Navida recorded the report in the (a) a prior valid intrusion based on
police blotter and proceeded to the the valid warrantless arrest in
house of Conrado Ricaforte, which which the police are legally present
is more or less three hundred in the pursuit of their official duties;
meters away from the police (b) the evidence was inadvertently
station. discovered by the police who had
6.) When they arrived there, the right to be where they are;
Guarino saw a woman, who turned (c) the evidence must be
out to be accused-appellant Melly immediately apparent;
Sarap, walking in the alley near the (d) plain view justified mere seizure
house. Accused-appellant saw of evidence without further search.
Guarino and Navida in police
uniform and immediately threw Was such item legally seized
away her black canvass bag, which by the police officers? Why or
her companion Roger Amar picked why not?
 In the absence of probable
cause to effect a valid warrantless
arrest, the search of Saraps bag
was also not justified as
seizure of evidence in plain
view under the exception. The
marijuana fruiting tops contained in
the green plastic bag carried by
Sarap were not clearly visible.

Was the warrantless arrest

valid in this case? Why or why
not?

No, there was no probable cause,

so the warrantless arrest was held
to be invalid.

Take the case of People v. Figueroa

for example. Here, the Supreme
Court found that there was a valid
seizure in plain view of a pistol, a
magazine and seven rounds of
ammunition. The .45 caliber pistol,
magazine and rounds of
ammunition were not unlawfully
obtained. The search and seizure
was done admittedly on the
occasion of a lawful arrest. A
significant exception from the
necessity for a search warrant is
when the search and seizure is
effected as an incident to a lawful
arrest.