Case No. 330 RULING: No. It is not valid.

Pursuant to Section 2, of Article FACTS:

PARTICULARITY OF DESCRIPTION III of the Constitution, "The right of the people to be secure in The shooting incident by armed men in Lanao led to the
People vs. Veloso, 48 Phil. 169, No. 23051 October 20, their persons, houses, papers, and effects against issuance of a warrant of arrest. Petitioners assert that the
1925 unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, respondent Judge issued a warrant of arrest against fifty (50)
  and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, to be “John Does” transgressing the Constitutional provision
MAINT POINT: The law, constitutional and statutory, determined by the judge after examination under oath or requiring that such warrants should particularly describe the
requires that the search warrant shall not issue unless affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may persons or things to be seized.
the application "particularly" describe the person to be produce, and particularly describing the place to be
seized. searched, and the persons or things to be seized." In the ISSUE: Whether or not the John Doe arrest warrant is valid?
case at bar, the affidavit, which served as the exclusive basis
FACTS: of the search warrant, is insufficient and fatally defective by RULING: No. The Court ruled that Said warrant is voided to
Veloso, a congressman and the manager of the reason of the manner in which the oath was made. the extent that it is issued against fifty (50) “John Does.”
Parliamentary Club alleged to be a gambling house, was Therefore, the Court held that the search warrant in question Insofar as said warrant is issued against fifty (50) John Does
found guilty of the crime of resistance of the agents of and the subsequent seizure of the books, documents and not one of whom the witnesses to the complaint could or
authority. Detective Geronimo applied for and obtained a other papers are illegal and do not in any way warrant the would identify, it is of the nature of a general warrant, one of
search warrant from Judge Garduño to search the building deprivation to which the petitioner was subjected. a class of writs long proscribed as unconstitutional and once
located at No. 124 Calle Arzobispo, City of Manila. Once anathematized as totally subversive of the liberty of the
inside the   Parliamentary   Club,   nearly fifty persons were Case No. 332 subject.
apprehended by the police. One of them was Congressman PARTICULARITY OF DESCRIPTION
Veloso who resisted arrest because the warrant indicated a Corro vs. Lising, 137 SCRA 541, No. L-69899 July 15, Case No. 334
John Doe and that the police had no right to search the 1985 PARTICULARITY OF DESCRIPTION
house.  Stonehill vs. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383, No. L-19550 June 19,
MAINT POINT: Warrants of arrest should particularly 1967
ISSUE: Whether or not the John Doe warrants are valid? describe the person or persons to be seized
MAINT POINT: Search warrants authorizing the seizure
RULING: Yes. Those warrants are valid. John Doe search FACTS: of books of accounts and records "showing all the
warrants should be the exception and not the rule. The Rommel Corro filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus to business transactions" of certain persons, regardless of
police should particularly describe the place to be searched review the order of Judge Esteban Lising of the Regional whether the transactions were legal or illegal,
and the person or things to be seized, wherever and Trial Court of Quezon City, Br. XCV. On September 29, contravene the explicit command of the Bill of Rights
whenever it is feasible. The police should not be hindered in 1983, respondent Regional Trial Court Judge Esteban Lising that the things to be seized should be particularly
the performance of their duties, which are difficult enough to of Quezon City, upon application filed by Lt. Col. Berlin described and defeat its major objective of eliminating
perform under the best of conditions, by superficial Castillo of the Philippine Constabulary Criminal Investigation general warrants. 
adherence to a technicality or far-fetched judicial Service, issued Search Warrant No. Q-00002 authorizing the
interference. search and seizure of Philippine Times paraphernalia, under FACTS:
the crime of inciting to sedition defined and penalized under Respondents herein secured a total of 42 search warrants
Case No. 331 Article 142 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by PD against petitioners herein and or the corporations of which
PARTICULARITY OF DESCRIPTION 1835. they were officers, to search books of accounts, financial
Alvarez vs. Court of First Instance of Tayabas, 64 Phil. records, vouchers, correspondence, receipts, ledgers,
33, No. 45358 January 29, 1937 ISSUE: Whether or not the said warrant is valid? journals, portfolios, credit journals, typewriters, and other
documents and/or papers showing all business transactions
MAINT POINT: The affidavit to be presented, which shall RULING: No. The Court found no basis for the issuance of including disbursements receipts, balance sheets and profit
serve as the basis for determining whether probable the search warrant, absent of the existence of probable and loss statements and Bobbins (cigarette wrappers), for
cause exists and whether the warrant should be issued, cause. A search warrant should particularly describe the violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws,
must contain a particular description of the place to be place to be searched and the things to be seized. In the case Internal Revenue (Code) and the Revised Penal Code. 
searched and the person or thing to be seized. at bar, the search warrant under consideration was in the
nature of a general warrant which is constitutionally ISSUE: Whether or not the search warrants, and the
FACTS: objectionable. WHEREFORE, Search Warrant No. Q-00002 searches and seizures made are valid?
Petitioner Alvarez asks that the warrant issued by Judge issued by the respondent judge on September 29, 1983, is
Gutierrez ordering the search and seizure of certain declared null and void. RULING: No. The Court ruled that the search warrants,
accounting documents at any time of day and night as well searches and seizures are invalid. The Constitutional
as the order authorizing the agents of the Anti-Usury Board Case No. 333 mandates: (1) that no warrant shall issue but upon probable
to retain the articles seized be declared illegal and set aside PARTICULARITY OF DESCRIPTION cause, to be determined by the judge in the manner set forth
and the items be returned to him. Pangandaman vs. Casar, 159 SCRA 599, No. L-71782 in said provision; and (2) that the warrant shall particularly
April 14, 1988  describe the things to be seized. In the case at bench, none
ISSUE: Whether or not the search and seizure warrant is of these requirements has been complied with in the
valid? MAINT POINT: Warrants of arrest should particularly contested warrants. They violate the Constitution, and
describe the person or persons to be seized hence, are invalid.
 convinced that there is a probable cause for a case of A certain Rodrigo Abos reported to the Bureau of Internal
copyright infringement and unfair competition committed by Revenue (BIR) that petitioners Unifish Packing Corporation
Case No. 335 Maxicorp, issued the corresponding warrant. Maxicorp and Uy Chin Ho alias Frank Uy were engaged in activities
PARTICULARITY OF DESCRIPTION argues that the warrants issued against it are too broad in constituting violations of the National Internal Revenue
People vs. Martinez, 235 SCRA 171, G.R. Nos. 105376-77 scope and lack the specificity required with respect to the Code. 3 search warrants were issued for different violations.
August 5, 1994  objects to be seized.  The authorities searched in the premises. Petitioners
contend that there are several defects in the subject
MAINT POINT: Regardless of the alleged defect of the ISSUE: Whether or not THE SEARCH WARRANTS ARE warrants that command their nullification. They point out
search warrant in erroneously designating his first “GENERAL WARRANTS”? inconsistencies in the description of the place to be searched
name, the seized articles may still be used as evidence in Search Warrant A-1, as well as inconsistencies in the
against the accused-appellant, having been obtained RULING: Yes. The exclusionary rule found in Section 3(2) of names of the persons against whom Search Warrants A-1
from him and as such, fruits of a lawful search incidental Article III of the Constitution renders inadmissible in any and A-2 were issued. They claim that the things to be seized
to a valid arrest.  proceeding all evidence obtained through unreasonable were not described with particularity. These defects,
searches and seizure. Thus, all items seized under according to petitioners, render the objects seized
FACTS: paragraph (c) of the search warrants, not falling under inadmissible in evidence
Accused-appellant Alexander Martinez, alias Abelardo paragraphs a, b, d, e or f, should be returned to Maxicorp.
Martinez y Montesor, was charged with (1) violation of the ISSUE: Whether or not a mistake in the identification of the
Dangerous Drugs Act and possession of illegal firearms in owner of the place invalidates the warrant?
the Zamboanga City RTC after a buy bust operation. The Case No. 337
accused-appellant argues that he is not the person named in PARTICULARITY OF DESCRIPTION RULING: Not if the place if properly described (Bernas p.47)
the search warrant issued in connection with the buy-bust Burgos v. Chief of Staff, AFP 133 SCRA 890 The rule is that a description of a place to be searched is
operation, his name being Abelardo Martinez and not   sufficient if the officer with the warrant can, with reasonable
Alexander Martinez.  MAINT POINT: Typographical error in specifying the effort, ascertain and identify the place intended and
address to search is not sufficient to invalidate a search distinguish it from other places in the community. Any
ISSUE: Whether or not the wrong name in the search warrant where the address intended to be searched also designation or description known to the locality that points
warrant in a buy bust operation invalidates the search? appears on the face of the warrant out the place to the exclusion of all others, and on inquiry
leads the officers unerringly to it, satisfies the constitutional
RULING: No. The Court held that such cannot render the FACTS: requirement. In this case, it was not shown that a street
articles seized inadmissible as evidence in court. As a matter The military applied for a search warrant for 2 addresses of similarly named Hernan Cortes could be found in Cebu City.
of fact the information filed identify him as “Alexander the newspaper WE Forum: 728 units C, RMS Building Nor was it established that the enforcing officers had any
Martinez alias Abelardo Martinez y Montesor, accused.” The Quezon Avenue, QC and No 19, Road 3, Project 6, QC 2 difficulty in locating the premises of Petitioner Corporation.
accused-appellant was arrested as a result of a “buy-bust” warrants nonetheless were made of the RMS Building That Search Warrant A-1 therefore, inconsistently identified
operation and the ensuing search of the premises was made address. The search of the latter is sought to be invalidated the city where the premise to be searched is, is not a defect
as an incident to a lawful arrest. It is therefore clear that on the ground that the place was not sufficiently described. that would spell the warrant’s invalidation in this case.
regardless of the alleged defect of the search warrant in Case No. 339
erroneously designating his first name, the seized articles ISSUE: Whether or not the not sufficiently described place is PARTICULARITY OF DESCRIPTION
may still be used as evidence against accused-appellant, enough to invalidate the search warrant? Yousex Al-Ghoul v. CA GR 126859 Sept. 4 , 2001
having been obtained from him and as such, fruits of a lawful  
search incidental to a valid arrest. RULING: No. The defect pointed out is obviously a
typographical error. In determining the sufficiency of the MAINT POINT: Items recovered without particularity of
Case No. 336 description of the address, the executing officer’s prior description in search warrant cannot automatically be
PARTICULARITY OF DESCRIPTION knowledge of the intended in warrant is relevant. In this used as evidence.
Microsoft Corp. v. Maxicorp (2004) case, the executing officer was also the affiant on whose
affidavit of the warrant had been issued. Therefore he knew FACTS:
MAINT POINT: All evidence obtained through where the addresses referred to. Judge Geronimo S. Mangay, presiding judge of the Regional
unreasonable searches and seizure are inadmissible in Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 125,
court due to lack of specificity. Kalookan City, issued search warrants 54-953 and 55-954
Case No. 338 for the search and seizure of certain items in Apartment No.
FACTS: PARTICULARITY OF DESCRIPTION 2 at 154 Obiniana Compound, Deparo Road, Kalookan City.
An agent of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Frank Uy v. BIR , 344 SCRA 36 The police found unlicensed firearms and explosive and a
conducted a surveillance against Maxicorp, Inc. He observed   caliber in Apartment 8 in the same area. Petitioners contend
that Microsoft Softwares (Windows Operating Systems) were MAINT POINT: The rule is that a description of a place to that the search and seizure orders violated Sections 2 and 3
being produced and packaged within the premises of be searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant of the Bill of Rights because the place searched and articles
Maxicorp. They then bought a computer unit from Maxicorp. can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the seized were not described with particularity. Solicitor General
The unit was pre-installed with a pirated copy of Windows, place intended and distinguish it from other places in avers that the search of Apartment 2 was legal, and the
Using it as evidence. a computer technician, who showed the community. items seized therein are admissible in evidence. However
the judge that the software in the computer unit bought by OSG agrees with petitioner since there was no mention of
Samiano from Maxicorp was pirated. The RTC judge, FACTS: Apartment No. 8. 
 deposition, Judge Asuncion issued the contested warrant Note: A search warrant is defined in our jurisdiction as an
ISSUE: Whether or not items recovered from Apartment no. against Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines order in writing issued in the name of the People of the
8 cannot be used as evidence? (PICOP), herein petitioner, by only stating “PICOP Philippines signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer,
COMPOUND”, Thus, an appeal is made by herein petitioner commanding him to search for personal property and bring it
RULING: Yes. We note that the Court of Appeals ruled to quash the warrant made by Judge Asuncion on the before the court.
that petitioners waived their right to raise any attack on ground that it does state particularity the place where such
the validity of the search warrants at issue by their warrant is to be enforced. 1. Before the criminal action is filed with the appropriate
failure to file a motion to quash. But, in conducting the court, a court which has no territorial jurisdiction over the
search at Apartment No. 8, not just Apartment No. 2 as ISSUE: Whether or not the statement “PICOP COMPOUND” crime may validly entertain an application for and thereafter
ordered specifically in the search warrants, the police complies with the particularity description in a search warrant issue a search warrant in connection with the commission of
committed a gross violation we cannot condone. Thus, as required by the constitution. such crime; and
we conclude that the gun seized in Apartment No. 8 cannot
be used in evidence, but those articles including guns, RULING: No. The warrant only contains PICOP compound, 2. After the filing of the criminal action, the court with which it
ammunitions, and explosives seized in Apartment No. 2 are which has multiple building and structures. The warrant was filed has primary jurisdiction to issue search warrants
admissible in evidence. failed to indicate what building or particular location in that necessitated by and for purposes of said case; however,
compound where the search warrant is to be made. In view under extreme and compelling circumstances, another court
of the manifest objective of the constitutional safeguard may issue a search warrant in connection with said case.
Case No. 340
against unreasonable search, the Constitution and the Rules
PARTICULARITY OF DESCRIPTION
limit the place to be searched only to those described in the TINGKAHAN
People v. CA – 291 SCRA 400
warrant. CASE NO. 343
 
ART 3 SEC2: PARTICULARITY OF DESCRIPTION
People v. Estrada
MAINT POINT: The Constitution requires inter alia the
search warrant to particularly describe the place to be TINGKAHAN
CASE NO. 342 FACTS: A search warrant was made and 52 boxes of drugs
searched as well as the persons or things to be seized.
ART 3 SEC2: PARTICULARITY OF DESCRIPTION were confiscated. In the search warrant, it failed to indicate
Malalaon v. CA whether such drugs are fake, misbranded, adulterated or
FACTS:
unregistered. The accused now asking for the return of such
A petition for certiorari has been filed to invalidate the order
*an issue regarding RTC’s territorial jurisdiction to issue a drugs on the ground that there was an unreasonable search
of Judge Casanova which quashed search warrant issued by
warrant, outside the topic. warrant for the warrant to failed to particular indicate the item
Judge Bacalla and declared inadmissible for any purpose the
to be seized.
items seized under the warrant. An application for a search
warrant was made by S/Insp Brillantes against Mr. Azfar FACTS: An application for a search warrant was made by Lt.
Salboro of the CAPCOM Northern Center before the RTC of ISSUE: Whether or not the invalidity of the warrant, for
Hussain who had allegedly in his possession firearms and
Kalookan City. That a violation of PD 1866 or the illegal failure to particularly indicate the item to be seized, is subject
explosives at Abigail Variety Store, Apt 1207 Area F. Bagon
possession of firearms and ammunition is perpetrated at to the return of the confiscated drugs. 
Buhay Avenue, Sarang Palay, San Jose Del Monte,
Bulacan. The following day Search Warrant No. 1068 was Newport, Quezon City. After the search, herein petitioners
argue that the warrant was issued outside their jurisdiction, Ruling: No. Although the search warrant was declared
issued but was served not at Abigail Variety Store but at Apt.
that only the RTC located in RTC may issue such warrant illegal for not complying with the requirement of particularity
No. 1, immediately adjacent to Abigail Variety Store resulting
because it is the only court that has jurisdiction over the area of description in a warrant. The confiscated items cannot be
in the arrest of 4 Pakistani nationals and the seizure of a
where the search warrant was initiated.  returned as the possessor thereof, the accused, have not
number of different explosives and firearms.
acquired a licensed to possess the items, though they are
ISSUE: Whether or not the court may take cognizance of an legal. 
ISSUE: Whether or not there has been unreasonable search
and seizure committed by the police for having searched a application of a search warrant in connection with an offense
allegedly committed outside its territorial jurisdiction and to TINGKAHAN
place that is different from that stated in the warrant and that
issue warrant to conduct a search on a place likewise CASE NO. 344
there was only a typographical error in the address?
outside its territorial jurisdiction.  ART 3 SEC2: ONLY A JUDGE MAY ISSUE A WARRANT
Salazar v. Achacoso
RULING: Yes. The case at bar, however, does not deal with
the correction of an “obvious typographical error” involving RULING: Yes. Petitioners argument that the search warrant
is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the issuing judge is FACTS: Then Secretary of Labor and public respondent
ambiguous descriptions of the place to be searched, but the
erroneous. It would be an exacting imposition upon the herein Tomas D. Achacoso issued a warrant to seized the
search of a place different from that clearly and without
law enforcement authorities or the prosecutorial documents and paraphernalia used by hererin petitioner in
ambiguity identified in the search warrant.
agencies to unerringly determine where they should running his illegal recruitment agency. The warrant was
apply for a search warrant in view of the uncertainties made in pursuance of PD 1920 and EO 1022, which was
TINGKAHAN
and possibilities as to the ultimate venue of a case enacted during the Marcos Era. 
CASE NO. 341
ART 3 SEC2: PARTICULARITY OF DESCRIPTION under the foregoing rules. It would be doubly so if
compliance with that requirement would be under pain of ISSUE: Whether or not the Secretary of Labor may issue a
Paper Industries v. Asuncion
nullification of said warrant should they file their application warrant of search and arrest. 
FACTS: Police inspector Pascua applied for a search therefor in and obtain the same. 
warrant before the RTC of Quezon City. After having the joint
RULING: No. The Secretary of Labor, not being a judge, to do so, he will issue a warrant for their arrest and will cause his status was changed to that of an immigrant based on his
may no longer issue search or arrest warrants. Hence, the the confiscation of their bond. representation that he is financially capable and will invest in
authorities must go through the judicial process. The 1987 the Philippines. However, petitioner has not made any
constitution also made it clear under Sec 2 of Article 3 that ISSUE: Whether or not the issuance of the warrant of arrest investment and has engaged only in French tutoring and
such warrant of search and arrest may only be done by a by the Commissioner is valid. practice of acupressure. Respondent CID Commissioner
Judge.  Ramon J. Liwag received a sworn complaint from petitioner’s
RULING: Yes. Power to deport aliens is an attribute of landlord, accusing petitioner of being an undesirable alien for
TINGKAHAN  sovereignty planted on the accepted maxim of international “committing acts inimical to public safety and progress.”
Case No. 345 law, that every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent Respondent issued a warrant of arrest against petitioner
ART. III, SEC. 2, ONLY A JUDGE MAY ISSUE WARRANT in sovereignty, and essential to self-preservation, to forbid after the latter twice refused to go to the CID headquarters
Republic v. Sandiganbayan the entrance of foreigners within its dominions. Article III of for verification of his status.
the Constitution, does not require judicial intervention in
FACTS: The Presidential Commission on Good Governance the execution of a final order of deportation issued in ISSUE: Whether or not the warrant of arrest issued and
(PCGG) issued separate orders against private respondents accordance with law. The constitutional limitation petitioner’s subsequent arrest were valid and legal.
Sipalay Trading Corporation and Allied Banking Corporation contemplates an order of arrest in the exercise of judicial
to effect their sequestration. PCGG also issued a “Search power as a step preliminary or incidental to prosecution or RULING: No. Petitioner was “invited” by a combined team of
and Seizure Order” against Allied Banking Corporation. On proceeding for a given offense or administrative action, not CID agents and police officers at his apartment unit on the
the basis of the PCGG’s order which read in part, “you are as a measure indispensable to carry out a valid decision by a strength of a mission order issued by the Commissioner on
hereby directed to submit for search and seizure all bank competent official, such as a legal order of deportation, Immigration based on a sworn complaint of a single
documents in the above-mentioned premises which our issued by the Commissioner of Immigration, in pursuance of individual. The essential requisite of probable cause was
representative may find necessary and relevant to the a valid legislation. The constitutional guarantee set forth conspicuously absent. It is essential that there should
investigation being conducted by this Commission,” Allied in Article III of the Constitution requiring that the issue be a specific charge against the alien to be deported and
contended that this is not one for sequestration but is of probable cause be determined by a judge does not arrested. 
particularly a general search warrant which fails to meet the extend to deportation proceedings.
constitutional requisites for its valid issuance. TINGKAHAN 
TINGKAHAN  Case No. 349
ISSUE: Whether or not PCGG may validly issue a search Case No. 347 ART. III, SEC. 2, ONLY A JUDGE MAY ISSUE WARRANT
and seizure order. ART. III, SEC. 2, ONLY A JUDGE MAY ISSUE WARRANT Board of Commissioners v. Judge dela Rosa
  Sy v. Commissioner of Immigration
RULING: No. The PCGG has no authority to issue the order. FACTS: Santiago Gatchalian, grandfather of William
It is not a judge, as clarified by the Court in “Baseco,” and FACTS: Chiu Wan Hong, a Chinese citizen, came to the Gatchalian, was recognized by the BOI as a native born
the PCGG cannot be considered as “such other responsible Philippines and was admitted as a non-immigrant or Filipino citizen. William Gatchalian, then a twelve year old
officer as may be authorized by law” because Executive temporary visitor. Over five (5) years later, the Commissioner minor, arrived in Manila and sought admission as Filipino
Order No. 1 did not expressly nor impliedly grant the PCGG of Immigration caused petitioner who now claims to be citizen which was eventually granted by the board of special
the power to issue search warrants/orders. Only a “judge” Aurora Villamin Sy, to be arrested preparatory to inquiry. The then Secretary of Justice issued a memorandum
and “such other responsible officer as may be proceedings for her deportation for overstaying. Petitioner directing the Board of Commissioners to review all cases
authorized by law” were empowered by the Freedom claimed that she is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus where entry was allowed on the ground that the entrant was
Constitution to issue search warrants. because the warrant for her deportation is allegedly illegal or a Philippine citizen, including that of respondents Gatchalian.
void. Having been issued in compliance with a decision of Petitioner Board reversed the decision of the Board of
TINGKAHAN the Board of Commissioners of Immigration, the legality of Special Inquiry, admitting respondents Gatchalian as Filipino
Case No. 346 said warrant depends upon that of said decision.  citizens. Petitioner Commissioner of Immigration issued a
ART. III, SEC. 2, ONLY A JUDGE MAY ISSUE WARRANT mission order commanding the arrest of respondent William
Esteban Morano, Chan Sau Wah, and Fuh Yan Fun v. ISSUE: Whether or not the warrant issued by the Gatchalian.
Hon. Martiniano Vivo Commissioner is valid.
ISSUE: Whether or not the warrant of arrest issued by
FACTS: Chan Sau Wah, a Chinese citizen arrived in the RULING: Yes. The Supreme Court held that the Bureau of Commissioner of Immigration was valid.
Philippines to visit her cousin. She arrived in the Philippines Immigration may issue a warrant of arrest only for the
with Fu Yan Fun, her minor son by the first marriage. She purpose of carrying out a final decision of deportation or RULING: No. A warrant of arrest issued by the
and her minor son were permitted only into the Philippines when there is sufficient proof of the guilt of the alien. Commissioner of Immigration, to be valid, must be for the
under a temporary visitor's visa for two months and after they sole purpose of executing a final order of deportation. A
posted a cash bond of 4,000 pesos. Months later, she TINGKAHAN  warrant of arrest issued by the Commissioner of
married Esteban Morano, a native-born Filipino citizen. To Case No. 348 Immigration for purposes of investigation only is null
prolong their stay in the Philippines, Chan Sau Wah and Fu ART. III, SEC. 2, ONLY A JUDGE MAY ISSUE WARRANT and void for being unconstitutional. A reading of the
Yan Fun obtained several extensions. Upon the expiration of Lucien Tran Van Nghia v. Liwag mission order/warrant of arrest issued by the
the last extension, a letter from the Commissioner of Commissioner of Immigration clearly indicates that the
Immigration ordered Chan Sau Wah and her son to leave the FACTS: Petitioner, Lucien Tran Van Nghia, is a French same was issued only for purposes of investigation of
country upon a certain date with a warning that upon failure national with temporary address in Sta. Ana, Manila. the suspects, respondent Gatchalian included.
Originally admitted to the Philippines as a temporary visitor,
TINGKAHAN  the information and the resolution attached thereto, filed by This is an exception to the rule that only a judge may issue a
Case No. 350 the Ombudsman without other supporting evidence, in warrant. the Commissioner of Immigration may issue
Art III Sec 2. Only a Judge May Issue a Warrant violation of Art III Sec 2 of the Constitution and settled warrants of arrest only after a determination by the
Harvey v. Santiago jurisprudence. Board of Commissioners of the... existence of the
ground for deportation as charged against the alien... to
FACTS: Petitioners Harvey, Sherman (both Americans) and ISSUE: May a judge issue a warrant of arrest solely on the be valid, must be for the sole purpose of executing a
Van Elshout (Dutch) were suspected alien pedophiles after 3 basis of the report and recommendation of the investigating final order of deportation.
months of close surveillance by the Commission of prosecutor, without personally determining probable cause
Immigration and Deportation (CID) agents. Respondent by independently examining sufficient evidence submitted by TINGKAHAN 
Commissioner Miriam Defensor Santiago issued Warrants of the parties during the preliminary investigation? Case No. 353
Arrest against petitioners for violation of Sections 37, 45 and Art III Sec 2. Of Whatever Nature and for Any Purpose
46 of the Immigration Act and Section 69 of the Revised RULING: NO. Art III Sec 2 states that xxx no search Material Distributions (Phil.), Inc. v. Judge Felipe
Administrative Code.  Petitioners question the validity of their warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon Natividad and Lope Sarreal
detention as there is no provision in the Philippine probable cause to be determined personally by the
Immigration Act of 1940 nor under Section 69 of the Revised judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the FACTS: Lope Sarreal filed a complaint seeking a money
Administrative Code, which legally clothes the Commissioner complainant and the witnesses he may produce xxx.  judgment against petitioners Material Distributors (Phil.) Inc.
with any authority to arrest and detain petitioners pending Following established doctrine and procedure, the judge and Harry Lyons, and filed a motion for the production and
determination of the existence of a probable cause leading to shall: (1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting inspection of the books or papers of said petitioners, which
an administrative investigation. documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of the respondent Judge granted and consequently required
probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of the petitioners to produce the same. Petitioners argued that
ISSUE: Whether or not the arrest was valid. arrest; or (2) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable Sarreal is not entitled to the production and inspection of the
cause, he may disregard the fiscals report and require the said documents because his only purpose, was to find out if
RULING: YES. One of the constitutional requirements of submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in a case of falsification has been made. Sarreal contended
a valid search warrant or warrant of arrest is that it must arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable that the inspection of said documents was to enable him to
be based upon probable cause. The 1985 Rules on cause.  In the instant case, the public respondent relied fully designate with particularity in the subpoena duces tecum, to
Criminal Procedure also provide that an arrest wit a warrant and completely upon the resolution of the graft investigation be obtained in connection with the trial of the case, the
may be effected by a peace officer or even a private person officer and the memorandum of the reviewing prosecutor, specific books and papers containing the entry of receipts
(1) when such person has committed, actually committing, or attached to the information. It had no other documents from and payments made by the petitioners, such books and
is attempting to commit an offense in his presence; and (2) which to sustain its own conclusion that probable cause papers being material to the case.
when an offense has, in fact, been committed and he has exists and issued challenged warrant of arrest on the sole
personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be basis of the prosecutors findings and recommendation. ISSUE: Whether or not the production and inspection of the
arrested has committed it (Rule 113, Section 5). The arrest books and papers would violate the petitioners’ right against
of petitioners was based on probable cause determined after TINGKAHAN  unreasonable searches and seizure of whatever nature and
close surveillance for 3 months, which justified the arrest and Case No. 352 for any purpose.
the seizure of the photo negatives, photographs and posters ART. III, SEC. 2, ONLY A JUDGE MAY ISSUE WARRANT
without warrant.  Further, that petitioners were not "caught in Board of Commissioners v. Judge dela Rosa RULING: NO. The orders in question, issued in virtue of the
the act" does not make their arrest illegal because they provisions of Rule 21 of the Rules of Court, pertain to a civil
found with young boys in their respective rooms, and FACTS: Santiago Gatchalian, grandfather of William procedure that cannot be identified or confused with the
Sherman was even naked. Under those circumstances the Gatchalian, was recognized by the BOI as a native born unreasonable searches prohibited by the Constitution. But in
CID agents had reasonable grounds to believe that Filipino citizen. William Gatchalian, then a twelve year old the erroneous hypothesis that the production and inspection
petitioners had committed "pedophilia" defined as minor, arrived in Manila and sought admission as Filipino of books and documents in question is tantamount to a
"psychosexual perversion involving children". citizen which was eventually granted by the board of special search warrant, the procedure outlined by Rule 21 and
inquiry. The then Secretary of Justice issued a memorandum followed by respondent Judge placed them outside the realm
TINGKAHAN  directing the Board of Commissioners to review all cases of the prohibited unreasonable searches. Sarreal has an
Case No. 351 where entry was allowed on the ground that the entrant was interest in the books and documents in question because
Art III Sec 2. Only a Judge May Issue a Warrant a Philippine citizen, including that of respondents Gatchalian. such contain evidence material to the matters involving the
Ho v. People Petitioner Board reversed the decision of the Board of issues between him and petitioners, that justice will be better
Special Inquiry, admitting respondents Gatchalian as Filipino served if all the facts pertinent to the controversy are placed
FACTS: Petitioners were charged in an information with a citizens. Petitioner Commissioner of Immigration issued a before the trial court. Rule 21 of the Rules of Court: xxx
violation of Section 3 of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt mission order commanding the arrest of respondent William Upon motion of any party showing good cause therefor, the
Practices Act) before the Sandiganbayan. Attached to the Gatchalian court may (a) order any party to produce and permit the
information were the resolution of Graft Investigation Officer inspection of any designated documents, papers, books
(GIO) Labrador and the memorandum of Special ISSUE: Whether the Board of Commissioners can issue a oraccounts which constitute or contain evidence material to
Prosecution Officer (SPO) Tamayo. Pursuant to such warrant any matter involved in the action and which are in his
information, the Sandiganbayan issued a warrant of arrest possession, custody or control xxx
against petitioners who questioned such issuance, alleging RULING: YES, The Commissioner of Immigration and
that in determining probable cause for the issuance of the Deportation may issue warrants to carry out a final finding of TINGKAHAN 
warrant for their arrest, the Sandiganbayan merely relied on a violation. It is issued after a proceeding has taken place. Case No. 354
 Art III Sec 2. Of Whatever Nature and for Any Purpose Camara denied entrance for lack of a search warrant. The police officers themselves, it is clear that they had at least 1
Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling (U.S. Case) inspector returned twice more, again without a search day to obtain a warrant to search appellant’s farm. Their
warrant, and was again denied entry. A complaint was informant had revealed his name to them. The place where
NOTE: Walling was the federal official authorized by law to subsequently filed against Camara, and he was arrested for the cannabis plants were planted was pinpointed. From the
investigate whether certain businesses were acting violating a city code. information in their possession, they could have
consistently with the Federal Labor Standards Act. convinced a judge that there was probable cause to
ISSUE: Whether or not Camara has a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a warrant. But they did not.
FACTS: The instant case concerns Administrator Walling’s refuse an inspection without a warrant.   Instead, they uprooted the plants and apprehended the
right to judicial enforcement of subpoenas duces tecum (an accused on the excuse that the trip was a good six
order to compel the production of documents).  The RULING: YES. Administrative searches of the kind at issue hours and inconvenient to them. 
subpoenas sought the production of specified records to here are significant intrusions upon the interests protected by
determine whether petitioners were violating the Fair Labor the Fourth Amendment, that such searches, when TINGKAHAN 
Standards Act. Petitioners, newspaper publishing authorized and conducted without a warrant procedure, lack Case No. 358
corporations, refused to have their books and records the traditional safeguards which the Fourth Amendment ART III SEC 2: Warrantless Search and Seizure
examined, claiming that the enforcement of the subpoenas guarantees to an individual. In other words, building People v. Oliver Edano
would permit the Administrator to conduct general fishing inspection by administrative officers shall comply with the
expeditions into petitioners' books, records and papers, in warrant procedure.  FACTS: Oliver arrived on board a space wagon driven by
order to secure evidence that they have violated the Act, Siochi. The informant approached Oliver and talked to him
without a prior charge or complaint and simply to secure TINGKAHAN  inside the vehicle. Afterwards, the informant waved at PO3
information upon which to base one, all allegedly in violation Case No. 356 Corbe. When PO3 Corbe was approaching the appellant, the
of the search and seizure provisions ART III SEC 2: Warrantless Search and Seizure latter went out of the vehicle and ran away. They chased the
People v. Aminuddin  appellant; PO3 Corbe was able to grab Oliver, causing the
ISSUE: Whether or not the enforcement of the subpoenas latter to fall on the ground. PO3 Corbe recovered a "knot-
duces tecum would violate the provisions on search and FACTS: On the basis of a tip, Aminuddin was arrested and tied" transparent plastic bag from the appellant’s right hand,
seizure. searched upon disembarking from M/V Wilcon in Iloilo City. while PO3 Alcancia seized a gun tucked in the appellant’s
The detention and search yielded marijuana. The officers waist. The other members of the police arrested Siochi.
RULING: NO. The records in the instant case present no were not armed with a warrant although the officers had at Thereafter, the police brought the appellant, Siochi and the
question of actual search and seizure, but raise only the least two days to obtain a warrant. seized items to the police station for investigation.
question whether orders of court for the production of
specified records have been validly made; and no sufficient ISSUE: Whether or not the search and seizure was valid.  ISSUE: Whether or not the search and seizure was valid. 
showing appears to justify setting them aside. No officer or
other person has sought to enter petitioners' premises RULING: NO. As a general rule, an officer shall first obtain a RULING: NO. In this case, a peace officer or a private
against their will, to search them, or to seize or examine their warrant before conducting a search and seizure. In this case, person may, without a warrant, arrest a person when, in
books, records or papers without their assent, otherwise than the officers had all the time to obtain a warrant. his presence, the person to be arrested has committed,
pursuant to orders of court authorized by law. The very is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an
purpose of the subpoena and of the order, as of the TINGKAHAN  offense. Considering that the appellant’s warrantless arrest
authorized investigation, is to discover and procure Case No. 357 was unlawful, the search and seizure that resulted from it
evidence, not to prove a pending charge or complaint, but ART III SEC 2: Warrantless Search and Seizure was likewise illegal. Thus, the alleged plastic bag containing
upon which to make one. Further, petitioners were People v. Valdez white crystalline substances seized from him is inadmissible
corporations. The only records or documents sought were in evidence, having come from an invalid search and
corporate ones and were relevant to the authorized inquiry, FACTS: Abe Valdez was allegedly caught in flagrante delicto seizure. Moreover, trying to run away when no crime has
the purpose of which was to determine two issues, whether and without authority of law, planted, cultivated and cultured been overtly committed, and without more, cannot be
petitioners were subject to the Act and, if so, whether they 7 fully grown marijuana plants. The prosecution presented its evidence of guilt.
were violating it. These were subjects of investigation witnesses, all members of the police force, who testified how
authorized by Section 11(a) of the act. It is not to be doubted the information was received, the commencement of their TINGKAHAN 
that Congress could authorize investigation of these matters. operation and its details under the specific instruction of Case No. 359
Inspector Parungao. Accordingly, they found appellant alone ART III SEC 2: Warrantless Search and Seizure
TINGKAHAN  in his nipa hut. They, then, proceeded to look around the Dale Grady v. North Carolina
Case No. 355 area where appellant had his kaingin and saw 7 five-foot
ART III SEC 2: Of Whatever Nature and for Any Purpose high, flowering marijuana plants in two rows. They uprooted FACTS: Dale Grady was convicted of two sexual offenses.
Camara v. Municipal Court the seven marijuana plants, took photos of appellant After being released for the second time, a trial court civilly
standing beside the cannabis plants and arrested him.  committed Grady to take part in North Carolina’s satellite-
FACTS: A housing inspector from San Francisco’s health based monitoring program for the duration of his life. The
department entered an apartment building to conduct a ISSUE: Whether or not the search and seizure was valid.  program required participants to wear a GPS monitoring
routine inspection to locate possible code violations. The bracelet so that authorities can make sure that participants
building manager informed the inspector that Camara might RULING: NO. In the instant case, there was no search are complying with prescriptive schedule and location
be using his space contrary to permitted policy. The warrant issued by a judge after personal determination of the requirements. Grady challenged the constitutionality of the
inspector approached Camara to enter the area, but the existence of probable cause. From the declarations of the program and argued that the constant tracking amounted to
an unreasonable search. Both the trial court and the North Sony Music v. Judge Espanol, GR 156804, March 14,
Carolina Court of Appeals held that wearing a GPS monitor FACTS: This is a petition for prohibition with preliminary 2005
did not amount to a search. injunction to prohibit the military and police officers
represented by public respondents from conducting "Areal FACTS: In a criminal complaint filed against private
ISSUE: Whether or not the use of GPS monitoring bracelet Target Zonings" or "Saturation Drives" in Metro Manila. The respondents for infringing on the petitioner Sony Music Inc.’s
constitutes a search. petitioners claim that the saturation drives follow a common copyright as testified by the agent who conducted the
pattern of human rights abuses. preliminary investigation. However, the answers of the
RULING: YES. The Court held that participation in the North Agent, particularly those relating to how they knew that the
Carolina program amounted to a search because requiring ISSUE: Whether or not the saturation drive conducted by the compact discs they purchased or received were illegal,
someone to wear a bracelet that tracks the person’s police force violated the rights guaranteed under Section 2. unauthorized or infringing, were based on certifications and
whereabouts constitutes a “physical occupation of private not personal knowledge. 
property for the purpose of obtaining information.” RULING: No. Where there is large scale mutiny or actual
rebellion, the police or military may go in force to the combat ISSUE: Whether or not the presumption of regularity is
areas, enter affected residences or buildings, round up availing in aid of the search process when an officer
suspected rebels and otherwise quell the mutiny or rebellion undertakes to justify it.
without having to secure search warrants and without
violating the Bill of Rights. RULING: NO. To prevent stealthy encroachment upon, or
gradual depreciation of the right to privacy, a liberal
The individual's right to immunity from such invasion of his construction in search and seizure cases is given in favor of
TINGKAHAN  body was considered as "far outweighed by the value of its the individual. Consistent with this postulate, the
CASE NO. 360 deterrent effect" on the evil sought to be avoided by the presumption of regularity is unavailing in aid of the search
ART. III SEC 2: WARRANTLESS SEARCHES AND police action. process when an officer undertakes to justify it.
SEIZURES
WHEN IS A SEARCH A SEARCH? A core requisite before a warrant shall validly issue is the
Valmonte v General De Villa Case No 362 existence probable cause, that should be known by the one
ADIL who wishes to obtain such warrant. The more decisive
FACTS: As part of its duty to maintain peace and order, the SECTION 2. No presumption of regularity in search consideration determinative of whether or not a
National Capital Region District Command (NCRDC) cases probable cause obtains to justify the issuance of a
installed checkpoints in various parts of Valenzuela, Metro People v. Tudtud, GR 144037, Sept 26, 2003 search warrant is that they had personal knowledge that
Manila. Petitioners  herein aver that, because of the the discs were actually infringing, pirated or
installation of said checkpoints, the residents of Valenzuela FACTS: Upon report that Tudtud, an alleged Marijuana unauthorized copies. Based as it were on hearsay and
are worried of being harassed and of their safety being seller, is about to engage in another transaction of selling, a false information, its issuance of the search warrant was
placed at the arbitrary, capricious and whimsical disposition team of Davao police officers sought and cornered Tudtud without probable cause and, therefore, invalid.
of the military manning the checkpoints, considering that and his company and asked if they can see the contents of
their cars and vehicles are being subjected to regular the box to which Tudtud said “it was alright”. When the
searches and check-ups, especially at night or at dawn, bundles were unwrapped, there contained marijuana leaves. Case No 364
without the benefit of a search warrant and/or court order. ADIL
ISSUE: Whether or not the search and arrest conducted by
ISSUE: Whether or not the installation of the checkpoints is the police officers were valid and lawful. SECTION 2. d. Instances of warrantless searches and
constitutional. seizures
RULING: No. There was no waiver of right on the part of the People v. Sevilla, 229 SCRA 625
appellee. For a lawful waiver of right against unreasonable
RULING: Yes. No proof has been presented before the
searches and seizures to be effective the following requisites FACTS: Both Sevilla and Gaspar were arrested, and the
Court to show that, in the course of their routine checks, the
must be present: (1) It must appear that the rights exist; bricks of dried marijuana leaves and flowering tops
military indeed committed specific violations of petitioners'
(2) The person involved had knowledge, actual or confiscated without a warrant of arrest. The prosecution
right against unlawful search and seizure or other rights. Not
constructive, of the existence of such right; (3) Said claims that it is incidental to the lawful arrest of Sevilla who
all searches and seizures are prohibited. Those which are
person had an actual intention to relinquish the right.  had been long wanted by the police authorities, and so,
reasonable are not forbidden. What constitutes a
reasonable or unreasonable search and seizure in any relying on the presumption that the arresting officers
Here, the prosecution failed to establish the second and performed their official duties regularly and rejecting
particular case is purely a judicial question, third requisites. The fact that a person failed to object to
determinable from a consideration of the circumstances appellants defense of denial.
a search does not amount to permission thereto. Courts
involved. A reasonable search is not to be determined indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver of ISSUE: Whether or not the warrantless search and seizure
by any fixed formula but is to be resolved according to fundamental constitutional rights. was valid.
the facts of each case.
RULING: No. The Court is of the irresistible conclusion that
Case No 361 Case No 363 there was no probable cause for conducting an extensive
ADIL ADIL search in the house occupied by appellants. The law
SECTION 2 When is a search a “search”? SECTION 2. No presumption of regularity in search attaches to the fundamental right of an individual against
Guazon v. De Villa – 181 SCRA 623 cases unreasonable searches and seizures. 
Of course, there are certain cases where the law itself allows said vehicle. The target of the search was the person who rifle inside the vehicle. Then the rifle was seen. The other
a search even in the absence of a warrant, to wit: 1. Search matched the description given by the person who called the firearms were voluntarily surrendered by Robin. Now,
which is incidental to a lawful arrest (Rule 126, Section RPSB Hotline,  i.e., the person wearing a collared white shirt Robin’s defense was that his arrest was illegal and
12, Rules of Court); 2. Seizure of evidence in plain view; 3. with green stripes, red ball cap, and carrying a blue sack. consequently, the firearms and ammunitions taken in the
Search of a moving vehicle; 4. Consented warrantless Therefore, the search conducted in the instant case course thereof are inadmissible in evidence under the
search; 5. Customs search; 6. Stop and Frisk; 7. Exigent cannot be characterized as a search of a moving vehicle. exclusionary rule.
and emergency circumstances.
Case No 366 ISSUE:    W/N the firearms and ammunitions seized from
ADIL petitioner without a search warrant is an inadmissible
Case No 365 SECTION 2. i. Incidental to a lawful arrest evidence
ADIL Sec. 12, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court 
RULING:    NO. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful
SECTION 2. d. Instances of warrantless searches and Section 12. Delivery of property and inventory thereof to arrest is recognized under Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules
seizures court; return and proceedings thereon. — (a) The officer of Court and by prevailing jurisprudence. But the tests for a
People v. Sapla, GR No. 244045, June 16, 2020 must forthwith deliver the property seized to the judge who valid warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest are: (1)
issued the warrant, together with a true inventory thereof the item to be searched was within the arrestee’s custody or
FACTS: The accused-appellant was charged with violation duly verified under oath. area of immediate control; (2) the search was
of Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 for contemporaneous with the arrest. 
possession of 4 bricks of marijuana leaves. The evidence for (b) Ten (10) days after issuance of the search warrant, the
prosecution established that an officer on duty received a issuing judge shall ascertain if the return has been made, Once the lawful arrest was effected, the police may
phone call from a concerned citizen that a certain male and if none, shall summon the person to whom the warrant undertake a protective search of the passenger compartment
individual would be transporting marijuana from Kalinga to was issued and require him to explain why no return was and containers in the vehicle which are within petitioner’s
Isabela Province. The joint operation was thereafter called made. If the return has been made, the judge shall ascertain grabbing distance regardless of the nature of the offense.
and a checkpoint was strategically placed to intercept the whether section 11 of this Rule has been complained with
individual. Later, a jeep passed by the checkpoint and was and shall require that the property seized be delivered to
flagged to stop by the side of the road. The officers CASE NO. 368
him. The judge shall see to it that subsection (a) hereof has
requested to open the blue sack in the jeep to which they ADIL
been complied with.
found the bricks of marijuana. Sapla was then arrested.  ART III, SEC 2: WARRANTLESS SEARCHES AND
SEIZURES; Incidental to a Lawful Arrest
(c) The return on the search warrant shall be filed and kept
ISSUE: Whether or not there was a valid search and seizure ESPANO VS COURT OF APPEALS
by the custodian of the log book on search warrants who
conducted by the police officers. shall enter therein the date of the return, the result, and other
actions of the judge.
RULING: No. In order for the search of vehicles in a MAIN POINT: An exception rule of freedom against
checkpoint to be non-violative of an individual’s right against A violation of this section shall constitute contempt of court. unreasonable searches and seizures provided in Article III,
unreasonable searches, the search must be limited to the (11a) Sec 2 of the Constitution is a warrantless search incidental to
following: (a) where the officer merely draws aside the a lawful arrest for dangerous weapons or anything which
curtain of a vacant vehicle which is parked on the public Section 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. — A person may be used as proof of the commission of an offense. It
fair grounds; (b) where the officer simply looks into a lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons may extend beyond the person of the one arrested to include
vehicle; (c) where the officer flashes a light therein or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the premises or surroundings under his immediate control. In
without opening the car’s doors; (d) where the the commission of an offense without a search warrant. the case at bar, the ten cellophane bags of marijuana
occupants are not subjected to a physical or body seized at petitioner’s house after his arrest at Pandacan
search; (e) where the inspection of the vehicles is and Zamora Streets do not fall under the said
limited to a visual search or visual inspection; and (f) exceptions.
where the routine check is conducted in a fixed area. CASE NO. 367
Routine inspections do not give the authorities carte blanche ADIL FACTS:    Police operatives went to Zamora and Pandacan
discretion to conduct intrusive warrantless searches in the
absence of probable cause. When a vehicle is stopped Streets, Manila to confirm reports of drug pushing in the
ART III, SEC 2: WARRANTLESS SEARCHES AND area. They saw petitioner Rodolfo Espano selling
and subjected to an extensive search, as opposed to a SEIZURES; Incidental to a Lawful Arrest “something” to another person. After the alleged buyer left,
mere routine inspection, such a warrantless search has Padilla v. CA, GR 121917 March 12, 1997 they approached petitioner, identified themselves as
been held to be valid only as long as the officers
conducting the search have reasonable or probable policemen, and frisked him. The search yielded two plastic
cause to believe before the search that they will find the cellophane tea bags of marijuana. When asked if he had
instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime, in the more marijuana, he replied that there was more in his house.
vehicle to be searched. The situation presented in the FACTS:    Robin Padilla was involved in a hot pursuit and a The policemen went to his residence where they found ten
instant case cannot be considered as a search of a moving hit-and-run incident. When stopped and apprehended, the more cellophane tea bags of marijuana. When convicted,
vehicle. It cannot be seriously disputed that the target of the police saw the revolver tucked in the left waist of Robin. The petitioner raised the inadmissibility of the seized evidence.
search conducted was not the passenger jeepney boarded police insisted that the gun be shown in the office if it was
legal. A magazine clip of a rifle was also found in his ISSUE: W/N the evidence seized by the policemen were
by accused-appellant Sapla nor the cargo or contents of the
possession which made the police suspect that there is a admissible
RULING:  YES – DURING ARREST. NO – SEARCH IN  ART III, SEC 2: WARRANTLESS SEARCHES AND accused. Cuenco appealed questioning his conviction
THE HOUSE. The articles seized from petitioner DURING SEIZURES; Incidental to a Lawful Arrest because of the illegality of the search made in his
HIS ARREST were valid under the doctrine of search made PEOPLE VS LEANGSIRI house. Appellant insinuates a frame-up.
incidental to a lawful arrest. A peace officer may, without a
warrant, arrest a person caught in flagranti as a result of a FACTS:    Suchinda Leangsiri was arrested in the NAIA in ISSUE: W/N the search of the house consequent to a lawful
buy-bust operation, and the marijuana thereby seized after the act of bringing into the country heroin. In his arrest, he arrest is valid
searching the latter are admissible in evidence, being the informed the arresting officers that the heroin is meant to
fruits of the crime. The warrantless search made in his deliver to three other people (Amidu and 2 others) in Las RULING & MP:. Yes. The search of the house is valid as the
house, however, which yielded ten cellophane bags of Palmas Hotel in Manila. In Las Palmas Hotel,  the officers latter is still within the permissible area of search. The arrest
marijuana became unlawful since the police officers also went to the room of Amidu, searching for evidence and of appellant has been made in the course of a buy-bust
were not armed with a search warrant at the time. subsequently confiscated a telephone address bearing the operation, thus, in flagrante delicto.  
name of Leangsiri, other possessions and documents of
Amidu were also confiscated.  In lawful arrests, it becomes both the duty and the right of
CASE NO. 369 the apprehending officers to conduct a warrantless search
ADIL ISSUE:         W/N the piece of paper found in Amidu’s hotel not only on the person of the suspect but also in the
 ART III, SEC 2: WARRANTLESS SEARCHES AND room, with the name “SUCHINDA LEANGSIRI” written on it permissible area within his reach, i.e., that point which is
SEIZURES; Incidental to a Lawful Arrest is admissible within the effective control of the person arrested, or that
PEOPLE VS DE LARA which may furnish him with the means of committing
violence or of escaping.
RULING:  NO. The inadmissibility of evidence obtained
FACTS: Appellant was arrested in a buy-bust operation. in a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest
During the investigation, he was forced to sign the ALMONTE
outside the suspect’s person and the premises under CASE NO. 0372
photocopy of the marked twenty-peso bill, Receipt of his immediate control admits of an exception. The
Property Seized, and the Booking and Information Sheet exception obtains when the Plain View Doctrine applies
which were all presented and admitted in evidence, in ART III, SEC 2: WARRANTLESS SEARCHES AND
as explained in People vs. Musa, in this wise: “x x x SEIZURES; Incidental to a Lawful Arrest  
absence of his counsel. He was subsequently convicted Objects in the plain view of an officer who has the right
and sentenced to life imprisonment. In his appeal, appellant People v. Che Chun Ting – 328 SCRA 592
to be in the position to have that view are subject to
questions the legality of his arrest and the seizure of seizure and may be presented as evidence.”.  In the case
prohibited drugs found inside his house. Furthermore, he at bar, appellants were arrested in Room 504 of the Las
claims that he was not assisted by counsel during his FACTS:  NARCOM deployed a team of agents for the
Palmas Hotel. The piece of paper bearing Leangsiri’s name
custodial interrogation. entrapment and arrest of Che Chun Ting, with the
was obtained through a warrantless search of Room 413 of
cooperation a suspected drug courier who was
the same hotel, and found tucked within the pages of
apprehended, and revealed the source of the drugs. Upon
ISSUE: W/N arrest and the seizure of prohibited drugs found appellant Amidu’s telephone and address book. Clearly, the
entrapment, the NARCOM agents immediately arrested Che
inside his house was legal warrantless search is illegal and the piece of paper bearing
Chun Ting. A black bag with several plastic bags containing
Leangsiri’s name cannot be admitted as evidence against
a white crystalline substance was seized. The accused and
appellants. The inadmissibility of this evidence will not,
RULING: YES. A peace officer or a private person may, the evidence were brought to Camp Crame. The contents of
however, exculpate appellants. Its exclusion does not
without a warrant, arrest a person; a) When, in his presence, the bank were tested and found positive for shabu. The
destroy the prosecution’s case against appellants. The
the person to be arrested has committed, is actually Defense denied the allegation. It contended that Unit 122 is
remaining evidence still established their guilt beyond
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;  b) When owned by Nimfa Ortiz and that Che Chun Ting lived at a
reasonable doubt. 
an offense has in fact just been committed and he has house located at Parañaque. Further, 2 NARCOM officers
personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be suddenly forced their way inside and searched the premises
arrested has committed it xxx. In the case at bench, ALMONTE without search warrant. 
appellant was caught red-handed in delivering two tin foils of CASE NO. 0371
marijuana to Pat. Orolfo, Jr., the poseur-buyer. Applying the ISSUE: W/N search of Unit 122 is within the purview of the
aforementioned provision of law, appellant’s arrest was ART III, SEC 2: WARRANTLESS SEARCHES AND warrantless search incidental to an arrest
lawfully effected without need of a warrant of arrest.  SEIZURES; Incidental to a Lawful Arrest  
People v. Cuenco – GR 128277, Nov. 16, 19982014 RULING & MP:. NO. The search in Unit 122 and the seizure
A contemporaneous search may be conducted upon the therein of shabu were illegal for being violative of one's basic
person of the arrestee and the immediate vicinity where the FACTS: Police officers hatched a plan that a buy-bust. The constitutional right and guarantee against unreasonable
arrest was made. The seizure of the plastic bag containing informant introduced PO1 Camantigue to Cuenco. searches and seizures, and thus are inadmissible in
prohibited drugs was the result of appellantÊs arrest inside Camantigue relayed that he wanted to buy marijuana. evidence under the exclusionary rule. A warrantless search
his house. Cuenco got the money, called his common-law wife, Florida should be limited to the premises and surroundings that are
Fajardo, and instructed her to get marijuana. Fajardo went under the immediate control of the accused. Unit 122 is not
inside the house and when she returned, she handed even the house of the accused but that of his girlfriend. The
CASE NO. 370 inadmissibility of such however does not totally exonerate
Camantigue the marijuana. The police officers arrested
ADIL the accused. His arrest was lawful and the seized bag of
Cuenco and proceeded with the search, in the course of
which, SPO1 Sarmiento found a box which contained dried shabu was admissible in evidence, being the fruit of the
flowering tops of marijuana. The trial court convicted both crime.
 People v. Evaristo, 216 SCRA 413 view of the police officers, could lawfully be arrested and
searched without the corresponding arrest and search
ALMONTE FACTS: Peace officers heard burst of gunfire. Proceeding to warrants. A crime was thus committed in the presence of the
CASE NO. 0373 the approximate source of the same, they saw one Baraquiel policemen. Further, when one voluntarily submits to a search
Rosillo who was firing gun into the air. He ran to the nearby and consent to have it made of his person or premises, he is
ART III, SEC 2: WARRANTLESS SEARCHES AND house of Evaristo. Rosillo escaped thru the window. As the precluded from later voluntary surrender to the search and
SEIZURES; Incidental to a Lawful Arrest  patrol was still in pursuit of Rosillo, they investigated in the seizure without warrant, deemed waiver of one’s
People [Link] Chan, G.R. No. 189272, January 21, 2015 house of Evaristo where they were given permission to constitutional right relative thereto.
enter. They accidentally discovered the firearms in the
FACTS: Two policemen, after receiving radio message from latter’s possession. Accused-appellant found guilty of illegal ALMONTE
the Barangay Captain, headed towards Ambil Island, possession of firearms contended that the seizure of the CASE NO. 0376
Oriental Mindoro and noticed 1 fishing boat and 1 speed evidence is inadmissible because it was not authorized by a
boat anchored side by side. They noticed 1 person on the valid warrant. ART III, SEC 2: WARRANTLESS SEARCHES AND
fishing boat and 2 on the other, who were transferring cargo SEIZURES; Plain View 
from the former to the latter. As they moved closer, the ISSUE: W/N the evidence obtained without warrant in an Roan v. Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687
fishing boat sped away. The officers were only able to reach accidental discovery of the evidence is admissible.
the speed boat and found the respondents with transparent, FACTS: The challenged search warrant was issued by the
plastic bags containing shabu. They didn’t know how to RULING & MP:. Yes. The firearms seized was valid and respondent judge on a specific date. The petitioner's house
speak English, the officers had to get an interpreter to tell lawful for being incidental to a lawful arrest. An offense was was searched two days later but none of the articles listed in
them of their Miranda rights. The Trial Court found the committed in the presence or within the view of an officer, the warrant was discovered. However, the officers
respondents guilty and the CA affirmed the said decision. within the meaning of the rule authorizing an arrest without a conducting the search found in the premises one Colt
Respondents’ contention: there was a violation of their warrant. What constitutional provisions prohibit are Magnum revolver and eighteen live bullets which they
constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and unreasonable searches and seizures. Yet, one of the confiscated and were used as the bases of the charge
seizures. The warrantless arrest and the consequent search exceptions is the plain view doctrine which provides that against the petitioner. Respondent Judge said that when a
and seizure on their persons and possessions are objects inadvertently falling in the plain view of an officer who police officer personally filed his application for a search
unjustified, hence, the confiscated bags of regulated drugs has the right to be in that view, are subject to seizure and warrant, he appeared before him in the company of his 2
were inadmissible against them. may be introduced as evidence. witnesses.

ISSUE: W/N not there was a violation of the respondents’ ISSUE:  W/N  the search warrant and seizure of illegal
constitutional right on unreasonable search and that the ALMONTE articles were violative of constitutional guarantee.
confiscated bags were inadmissible against them. CASE NO. 0375
RULING & MP:. Yes. The respondents cannot even claim
RULING & MP:. : NO. The Court did not find the consequent ART III, SEC 2: WARRANTLESS SEARCHES AND that they stumbled upon the revolver and the bullets for the
warrantless search and seizure UNREASONABLE in view of SEIZURES; Plain View  fact is that these things were deliberately sought and were
the fact that the bags containing the drugs were in plain view People v. Tabar, 222 SCRA 144 (1993) not in plain view when they were taken. Hence, the rule
of arresting officers, one of the judicially recognized having been violated and no exception being applicable, the
exceptions to the requirement of obtaining a search warrant. FACTS: Respondent-accused, Carmelina Tabar, was conclusion is that the petitioner’s pistol and bullets were
charged, together with her nephew, Rommel Arriesgado, for confiscated illegally and therefore protected by the
PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. She placed the packs exclusionary principle.
The objects falling in the plain view of the officer, who has of marijuana sticks under the rolled pair of pants which she
the right to be in the position to have that view, are subject to was then carrying at the time she hurriedly left her shanty ALMONTE
seizure and may be presented as evidence. after noticing the arrest of Rommel. She was asked by the CASE NO. 0377
Requisites: policement to spread it out, then the package containing the
a)    The law enforcement officer in search of the evidence packs of marijuana sticks were thus exposed. The accused ART III, SEC 2: WARRANTLESS SEARCHES AND
has a prior justification for an intrusion, or is in a position were then convicted of the offense charged against them in SEIZURES; Plain View 
from which he can view a particular area the trial court. On appeal, respondent presented her United Laboratories v. Isip – GR 163858 (June 28, 2005)
b)    The discovery of the evidence in the plain view is argument that the lower court erred in admitting the evidence
inadvertent, and against her when there wasn’t any search warrant. FACTS:  UNILAB sought the help of the NBI, which
c)    It is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he Therefore, violating the constitutional guarantee against thereafter filed an application for the issuance of search
observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband, or unreasonable searches and seizures. warrant. The warrant specifically authorized the officers only
otherwise subject to seizure. to seize counterfeit Revicon multivitamins, finished or
ISSUE: W/N there was a violation against the constitutional unfinished, and the documents used in recording,
guarantee of individuals against unreasonable searches and manufacture and distribution of the said vitamins. The
seizures. implementing officers failed to find any counterfeit Revicon
ALMONTE multivitamins, and instead seized sealed boxes which, when
CASE NO. 0374 opened at the place where they were found, turned out to
RULING & MP:. No. The accused, who voluntarily unrolled
the pair of pants with the package containing packs of contain Inoflox and Disudrin. The respondents then filed a
ART III, SEC 2: WARRANTLESS SEARCHES AND motion to quash the search warrant or to suppress evidence,
SEIZURES; Plain View  marijuana sticks, thereby exposing the same to the plain
alleging that the seized items are considered to be fruit of a proclaims its contents, whether by its distinctive petitioners in view of the warrantless search of the fishing
poisonous tree, and therefore inadmissible for any purpose configuration, its transparency, or if its contents are obvious boat and the subsequent arrest of petitioners. 
in any proceeding, which the petitioners opposed alleging to an observer, then the contents are in plain view and may
that the boxes of Disudrin and Inoflox were seized under the be seized. ISSUE: W/N search of the fishing boat was lawful.
plain view doctrine. 
ALMONTE RULING & MP:. Yes. Search and seizure without search
ISSUE: W/N seizure of the sealed boxes which, when CASE NO. 0379 warrant of vessels and aircrafts for violations of customs
opened, contained Disudrin syrup and Inoflox, were valid laws have been the traditional exception to the constitutional
under the plain view doctrine. ART III, SEC 2: WARRANTLESS SEARCHES AND requirement of a search warrant. It is rooted on the
SEIZURES; Plain View  recognition that a vessel and an aircraft, like motor vehicles,
RULING & MP:. NO. It is true that things not described in the Del Rosario v. People, GR 142295, May 31, 2001 can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in
warrant may be seized under the plain view doctrine. The which the search warrant must be sought and secured. A
petitioner and the NBI failed to prove that the plain view fishing vessel found to be violating fishery laws may be
doctrine applies to the seized items. The doctrine is not an FACTS: Petitioner appeals via certiorari from a decision of seized without a warrant on two grounds: firstly, because
exception to the warrant. It merely serves to supplement the the Court of Appeals affirming with modification the decision they are usually equipped with powerful motors that enable
prior justification — whether it be a warrant for another of the RTC and finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt them to elude pursuit, and secondly, because the seizure
object, hot pursuit, search as an incident to a lawful arrest or of violation illegal possession of firearms. Petitioner submits would be an incident to a lawful arrest.
some other legitimate reason for being present, unconnected that the search conducted at his residence was illegal as the
with a search directed against the accused. It would be search warrant was issued in violation of the Constitution ANOOS
needless to require the police to obtain another warrant.  and consequently, the evidence seized was inadmissible. He CASE NO. 381
also submits that he had a license for the .45 caliber firearm
ALMONTE and ammunition seized in his bedroom. The other firearm,
CASE NO. 0378 a .22 caliber revolver seized in a drawer at the kitchen of his
house, a magazine for 5.56 mm. cal. Armalite rifle, and two
ART III, SEC 2: WARRANTLESS SEARCHES AND ART III SEC 2: D. INSTANCES OF WARRANTLESS
2-way radios found in his daughter’s bedroom, were either
SEIZURES; Plain View  SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
planted by the police or illegally seized, as they were not
People v. Doria – GR 125299, Jan. 22, 1999  (lll. Moving Vehicle)
mentioned in the search warrant.
BAGALIHOG V. FERNANDEZ 198 SCRA 614
FACTS: A buy-bust operation was conducted by the police ISSUE: W/N not the seizure of items not mentioned in the
which caught accused Doria red-handed of selling prohibited FACTS: Petitioner was the owner of a motorcycle suspected
search warrant was illegal.
drugs and during the operation, the police officers searched to be the get-away vehicle of the assailant of the late Rep.
for the marked bills that they used in buying said drugs which Moises Espinosa who was shot shortly after disembarking at
RULING & MP:. Yes. The Supreme Court said that the
happened to be in the house of Gaddao, according to Doria. the airport. Witnesses said that one of the gunmen fled on a
search warrant was no authority for the police officers to
When they reached her house, the police officers came upon motorcycle. Petitioner’s house was searched with his
seize the firearm which was not mentioned, much less
a box. The box's flaps was open and inside the box was consent but the search proved fruitless by the members of
described with particularity, in the warrant. In this case, the
something wrapped in plastic. The plastic wrapper and its the Philippine Constabulary. The motorcycle was seized two
firearm was not found unintentionally and in plain view. It
contents appeared similar to the marijuana earlier "sold" to days after the killing and impounded the same on the
was found as a result of a meticulous search in the kitchen of
him by "Jun.". The police peeked inside the box and found suspicion that it was one of the vehicles used by the killers.
petitioner’s house. This firearm, to emphasize, was not
that it contained ten (10) bricks of what appeared to be dried There was no warrant for the seizure obtained by the
mentioned in the search warrant. Hence, the seizure was
marijuana leaves. Both accused were convicted of the crime respondent. When petitioner sought to recover the vehicle,
illegal.  True that as an exception, the police may seize
charged.  police claimed that it was needed for the prosecution. 
without warrant illegally possessed firearm or any
contraband for that matter, inadvertently found in plain view.  ISSUE: W/N the warrantless search and seizure of the
ISSUE: W/N the warrantless arrest of Gaddao, the search of
her person and house, and the admissibility of the pieces of motorcycle was lawful. 
evidence obtained therefrom was valid under the plain view RULING: NO. The Supreme Court ruled that the
doctrine. ALMONTE confiscation, without warrant, was unlawful. The
CASE NO. 0380 constitutional provision protects not only those who appear
RULING & MP:. No. Accused-appellant Gaddao was not to be innocent but also those who appear to be guilty but are
caught red-handed during the buy-bust operation to give ART III, SEC 2: WARRANTLESS SEARCHES AND nevertheless presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.
ground for her arrest. She was not committing any crime. SEIZURES; Moving Vehicle  The necessity for the immediate seizure of the motorcycle
The marijuana was not in plain view and its seizure without Hizon v. Court of Appeals, 265 SCRA 517 (1996) had not been established; neither can the vehicle be
the requisite search warrant was in violation of the law and detained on the ground that it is a prohibited article.
the Constitution. In other words, if the package is such that FACTS:  The PNP Maritime Group boarded and inspected a  
an experienced observer could infer from its appearance that big fishing boat with the consent of the boat captain. In the
it contains the prohibited article, then the article is deemed in course of the inspection, the police discovered a large
plain view. Where the object seized was inside a closed aquarium full of live lapu-lapu and assorted fish weighing ANOOS
package, the object itself is not in plain view and therefore approximately one ton at the bottom of the boat.  Some of CASE No. 382
cannot be seized without a warrant. However, if the package the fishes were tested to contain cyanide. The petitioners
primarily question the admissibility of the evidence against
 ART III SEC 2: D. INSTANCES OF WARRANTLESS prosecuted, he claimed that he was arrested and searched RULING: Yes. Accused was searched and arrested while
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES without warrant, making the marijuana allegedly found in his transporting prohibited drugs hence, the search made upon
 (lll. Moving Vehicle) possession inadmissible as evidence against him under the his personal effects falls under paragraph 1 of warrantless
Aniag, Jr v. COMELEC, 237 SCRA 424 Bill of Rights. search incidental to a lawful arrest (i.e when in his presence,
the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
FACTS: Pursuant to the COMELEC Gun Ban, petitioner ISSUE: W/N the warrantless arrest and search upon the committing, or is attempting to commit an offense). The
(Congressman of the 1st District of Bulacan) instructed his person of the petitioner is legal. information received by NARCOM plus respondent’s
driver to return the two firearms issued to him to the suspicious failure to produce his passport led the officers to
Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Representative. The driver RULING: No. The petitioner was not caught in flagrante nor believe that he was hiding something illegal. There was
was apprehended by the PNP at a checkpoint outside the was a crime about to be committed or had just been probable cause which justified the warrantless search made
Batasan Complex after PNP searched the car and found two committed to justify the warrantless arrest allowed under on the personal effects of the respondent. Where the search
firearms in the trunk of the car.  When prosecuted, petitioner Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. Even expediency could not is made pursuant to a lawful arrest, there is no need to
questioned the manner which PNP conducted the search. be invoked to dispense with the obtention of the warrant as obtain a search warrant. 
He contended, among others, that the firearms were not PC officers received the tip from their informant two days
tucked in the waist nor within the immediate reach of his before the arrest within which they can persuade the judge
driver but instead neatly packed in their gun cases and that there was probable cause to justify the issuance of the
wrapped in a bag kept in the trunk of the car. Hence, the warrant of arrest and search. 
search of his car that yielded the evidence for the
prosecution was violative of Section 2 Article III of the ANOOS
Constitution. CASE No. 385

ISSUE: W/N the extensive search at a checkpoint was

violative of the Constitutional proscription against ANOOS ART III SEC 2: D. INSTANCES OF WARRANTLESS
unreasonable searches and seizures. CASE NO. 384 SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
 (lll. Moving Vehicle)
RULING: Yes. An extensive search without warrant could People v. Lo Ho Wing, G.R. No. 88017
only be resulted to if the officers conducting the search had ART III SEC 2: D. INSTANCES OF WARRANTLESS
reasonable cause to believe before the search that either the SEARCHES AND SEIZURES FACTS: Special Operations Group received a tip from one of
motorist was a law offender or that they would find the  (lll. Moving Vehicle) its informers about an organized group, of which the
instrumentality or evidence pertaining to the commission of a People v. Malmstedt, G. R. No.  91107 respondent was a member, engaged in the importation of
crime in the vehicle to be searched. The existence of illegal drugs. Respondent, together with the deep penetration
probable cause justifying the warrantless search is FACTS: Due to persistent reports that vehicles coming from agent hired by the operatives, arrived in Manila from China.
determined by the facts of the case. In the case at bar, Sagada were transporting marijuana and other prohibited They rode a taxicab from the airport but were intercepted by
records did not show that the manner by which the package drugs, checkpoints were set-up at Tublay Mountain the readily awaiting operative team. The taxi driver was
was bundled led the PNP to suspect that it contained Province. Furthermore, an information was received by the asked to open the back compartment of the vehicle and the
firearms. Commanding Officer of Narcotics Command (NARCOM) that operatives requested permission from the respondent and
a Caucasian coming from Sagada had in his possession his companion to search the luggage contained therein. Tin
prohibited drugs. The bus where respondent Mikael cans containing 56 teabags of Metamphetamine (shabu)
Malmstedt (Swedish national) was riding was stopped for were found inside the luggage. On appeal after conviction,
inspection. NARCOM officer noticed a bulge on respondent’s he contended that the warrantless search and seizure made
waist. Suspecting it to be a gun, he was asked to present his against him was illegal. That the anti-narcotics agents had
ANOOS passport and identification papers but he failed to do so. He both time and opportunity to secure a search warrant given
CASE No. 383 was then required to bring out whatever it was bulging on his that they were informed of the date and time of his arrival
waist which turned out to be a pouch bag containing hashish two days prior.
(derivative of marijuana) wrapped in brown packing tape. He
ART III SEC 2: D. INSTANCES OF WARRANTLESS was invited outside the bus for questioning. But before he ISSUE: W/N the search and seizure made against the
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES alighted, he got two travelling bags from the luggage carrier respondent is illegal.
 (lll. Moving Vehicle) which upon inspection of the officer contained two teddy
People v. Aminuddin, 163 SCRA 402 bears stuffed with hashish. He was brought to the RULING: No. The circumstances of the case showed that
headquarters for further investigation. Seeking the reversal the search in question was made as regards as moving
FACTS: Petitioner was arrested by PC officers after of the trial court’s decision finding him guilty of violation of vehicle. Therefore, a valid warrant was not necessary to
disembarking from M/V Wilcon 9 at 8:30PM in Iloilo City. The Dangerous Drugs Act, he argued that the search of his effect the search on respondent and his co-accused.
PC officers (had earlier received a tip from their informer) personal effects was illegal because it was made without a Warrantless search of a moving vehicle is justified on the
who were in fact waiting for him, simply accosted him, search warrant and therefore, the prohibited drugs ground that it is not practicable to secure a warrant because
inspected his bag, and finding what looked like marijuana discovered in his custody were inadmissible as evidence. the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or
leaves, took him to their headquarters for investigation. The jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. Based on
two bundles of suspected articles were confiscated and ISSUE: W/N the warrantless search was legal. intelligence reports gathered from surveillance activities, the
taken to the NBI laboratory for investigation. When authorities had reasonable ground to believe that respondent
would attempt to bring contraband and transport it within the ART III SEC 2: D. INSTANCES OF WARRANTLESS cargo of the vehicle are or have been instruments or the
country. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES subject matter or the proceeds of some criminal offense.
ANOOS  (lll. Moving Vehicle)
CASE NO. 386 People vs CFI, 101 SCRA 86

FACTS: A light blue Dodge car speed away after giving the
ART III SEC 2: D. INSTANCES OF WARRANTLESS
toll receipt. The Regional Anti-Smuggling Action Center
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
(RASAC) gave a chase, overtook them and ordered them to
 (lll. Moving Vehicle)
stop but Sgt. Hope made a U-turn and tried to escape. An
People v. Saycon – 236 SCRA 325
inspection of the dodge car revealed boxes containing more
or less 4,441 wrist watches and more or less 11,075 watch
FACTS: NARCOM agents had conducted a test-buy which
bracelets which were all untaxed. At the time Hope and
confirmed that Saycon was engaged in transporting and
Medina were apprehended, the RASAC Agents were not
selling of “shabu”. The police authorities did not arrest him
armed with a warrant of arrest and seizure.
on that occasion but his identity as drug courier or distributor
was established. A confidential information that he would ISSUE:  W/N items seized in a moving vehicle without a
probably board MV Doña Virginia from Manila to Dumaguete warrant of seizure are admissible for evidence.
City was received by the officers on the same morning he
arrived. Pursuant to this, a checkpoint was set at the Pier RULING: Yes, searches and seizures without warrant are
where Saycon was identified by NARCOM police officer. He valid if made upon probable cause.  The RASAC agents
was invited to Coast Guard Headquarter where he was were vested with authority under the Tariff and Customs
asked to open his bag which was found to contain a Code, they did not exceed such authority. The Court also
Marlboro pack containing suspected “shabu”. He was then ANOOS
held that there were rare cases which can be exempted from
arrested without warrant and brought to the NARCOM office, CASE NO. 389
the requirement of a warrant, such as that of a moving
together with his bag and the suspected shabu which was vehicle as it is not being practicable to secure a judicial
later brought to PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. In warrant before searching a vehicle, since such vehicle can
seeking reversal of the trial court’s conviction of him, he be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which ART III SEC 2: D. INSTANCES OF WARRANTLESS
argued that the search of his bag was illegal due to lack of the warrant may be sought. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
warrant thus, the shabu discovered in his possession was  (lll. Moving Vehicle)
inadmissible as evidence.    Mustang Lumber vs CA G.R. No. 104988. June 18, 1996

ISSUE: W/N the arrest and search upon the person of the
respondent is illegal. FACTS: Petitioner's truck with Plate No. CCK-322 was
ANOOS coming out from the petitioner's lumberyard loaded with
RULING: No.  There was probable cause for the authorities CASE NO. 388 lauan and almaciga lumber of different sizes and dimensions
to believe that Saycon would be carrying or transporting which were not accompanied with the required invoices and
prohibited drugs upon arriving in Dumaguete City. transport documents, the truck together with its cargo were
Warrantless search and arrest would be constitutionally ART III SEC 2: D. INSTANCES OF WARRANTLESS impounded at the DENR.
permissible only if the officer conducting the search had SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
reasonable or probable cause to believe that the accused  (lll. Moving Vehicle)
was violating some law. Probable cause in the case at bar People vs Barros G.R. No. 90640    March 29, 1994 ISSUE: W/N the seizure was lawfully conducted.
consisted of two parts, the test-buy conducted by police
authorities and the confidential information received on the FACTS: Bonifacio Barros was charged with violating the
day of his arrest. Also it was not possible for the NARCOM RULING: Yes, the seizure of such truck and its cargo was a
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 for possession of four (4) kilos
agents and the Coastguard Officers to obtain a judicial valid exercise of the power vested upon a forest officer or
of marijuana while being a passenger to Baguio City.
search warrant or warrant of arrest given that it was only in employee. The search was conducted on a moving vehicle.
Petitioner now questions the judgment for ignoring manifest
the morning of his arrival that the specific information Search of a moving vehicle is one of the five doctrinally
absence of the mandatory warrant in the arrest and search.
confirming his arrival was received by authorities. accepted exceptions to the constitutional mandate that no
ISSUE:  W/N items seized in a moving vehicle without a search or seizure shall be made except by virtue of a warrant
warrant of seizure are admissible for evidence. issued by a judge after personally determining the existence
of probable cause.
RULING: No, record failed to show probable cause for the
peace officers to search the carton box allegedly owned by
ANOOS appellant Barros. When, a vehicle is stopped and subjected ANOOS
CASE NO. 387 to an extensive search, such a warrantless search is CASE NO. 390
permissible only if the officers conducting the search have
reasonable or probable cause to believe, before the search,
that either the motorist is a law-offender or the contents or
 ART III SEC 2: D. INSTANCES OF WARRANTLESS ART. III, SEC. 2: Consent/Waiver FACTS: M/V Jolo Lema (chartered by Velasco) was
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES Caballes v. Court of Appeals, GR 136292, Jan 15, 2002 searched by the authorities and they discovered that the
 (lll. Moving Vehicle) vessel is carrying smuggled copra and coffee. Another task
People vs Lacerna G.R. No. 109250. September 5, 1997 FACTS: Suspecting that the jeep driven by Caballes was force headed to Velasco’s rented hotel room (he was not
loaded with smuggled goods, 2 police officers flagged down there), raided the said room and seized documents. They
the vehicle. They checked the cargo and they discovered were allowed entry inside the room by Ibañez who appeared
FACTS: Noriel and Marlon Lacerna were inside a taxi when bundles of galvanized conductor wires exclusively owned by to be Velasco’s wife but turned out to be a manicurist.
a group of police signaled them to park on the side of the NPC. Then, Caballes and the vehicle were brought to the
road for inspection. The police officers went about searching Police Station and was incarcerated for 7 days in the ISSUE: Whether there was consent to allow the warrantless
the luggages and found several blocks of marijiuana.  Municipal Jail.  search and seizure.

ISSUE: W/N the warrantless search without consent is valid. RULING/MP: YES. Ibañez executed an affidavit as
ISSUE: W/N the search seizure was lawfully conducted. “Velasco’s wife.” 
Ruling/MP: NO. The evidence is lacking that the petitioner
intentionally surrendered his right against unreasonable There was an attempt on the part of petitioners to counteract
RULING: Yes, though probable cause is not evident, we searches. The manner by which the 2 police officers the same by an affidavit of one Corazon Velasco, who stated
hold that appellant and his baggage were validly searched. allegedly obtained the consent of petitioner for them to that she is the legal wife. The officers of the law could not be
The police expressly sought appellants permission for the conduct the search leaves much to be desired. They were blamed if they would act on the appearances. There was a
search. Only after appellant agreed to have his person and informing, nay, imposing upon herein petitioner that they will person inside who from all indications was ready to accede
baggage checked did the actual search commence. It was search his vehicle. The “consent” given under intimidating or to their request. Even common courtesy alone would have
his consent which validated the search, waiver being a coercive circumstances is no consent within the purview of precluded them from inquiring too closely as to why she was
generally recognized exception to the rule against the constitutional guaranty. there. Under all the circumstances, therefore, it can readily
warrantless search be concluded that there was consent sufficient in law to
dispense with the need for a search warrant. 

CASE 391
BENITEZ CASE 393 CASE 395
ARTICLE III, SECTION 2 CONSENT OR WAIVER BENITEZ BENITEZ
De Garcia v. Locsin, 65 PHIL 689
ART. III, SEC. 2: Consent/Waiver ART. III, SEC. 2: Consent/Waiver
FACTS: Almeda, an agent of the Anti-Usuary Board, People v. Agbot, 106 SCRA 325 People v. Damaso, 212 SCRA 457
obtained a search warrant to search the person, house or
store of the petitioner. They went to the office of the FACTS: Antonio Agbot was charged and convicted of FACTS: A group police entered the dwelling of Damaso
petitioner and, after showing the search warrant to the murder for the death of her sister Leona. The police officers without a valid warrant when the latter was absent. They
petitioner's bookkeeper and, without the presence of the went to the scene of the crime, took the “paltik” gun with requested the alleged helpers of Damaso in the house to
petitioner who was ill and confined at the time, proceeded Antonio’s permission, and brought him to the station. He allow them to look around. In one of the rooms, they saw
with the execution thereof. It was argued that the petitioner admitted the crime and thus, he was convicted. He subversive materials which they confiscated. They likewise
had waived her constitutional right by her acquiescence after appealed his case asserting that there was no search brought the alleged helpers found in the house to the
the search and seizure. warrant when the gun was taken from the house and cannot headquarters for investigation, and they revealed that
be used as an evidence against him. Damaso was the lessee of the house and owned the items
ISSUE: Whether or not there was a valid waiver. confiscated. 
ISSUE: Whether the seizure was valid.
RULING/MP: NO. The constitutional immunity against ISSUE: Whether the search was valid. 
RULING/MP: YES. The verity of his admission of guilt
unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal right
having been firmly established, the contention that the
which may be waived. The waiver may be either express or
confiscation or seizure of the gun was illegal clearly RULING: NO. The constitutional immunity from
implied.
becomes devoid of factual or legal basis. Further, the taking unreasonable searches and seizures, being a personal one,
of his gun from his house with his acquiescence and consent cannot be waived by anyone except the person whose rights
No express waiver has been made in this case. It is urged,
would not constitute a violation of an his constitutional right are invaded or one who is expressly authorized to do so in
however, that there has been a waiver by implication. To
against admissibility of illegally seized objects. his or her behalf. In the case at bar, Damaso was not in his
constitute a waiver of a constitutional right, it must appear,
house at that time his alleged helper allowed the authorities
first, that the right exists; secondly, that the persons involved
to enter it. No evidence that would establish the fact that the
had knowledge, either actual or constructive, of the CASE 394 persons were indeed the Damaso’s helper or that Damaso
existence of such right; and, lastly, that said person had an BENITEZ had given  authority to open his house in his absence. 
actual intention to relinquish the right. 
ART. III, SEC. 2: Consent/Waiver
CASE 392 Lopez, Velasco v. Commissioner of Customs, 68 SCRA CASE 396
BENITEZ 320 (1975) BENITEZ
 ART. III, SEC. 2: Consent/Waiver inadmissible in evidence against them. The Court ruled that RULING: NO. When one voluntarily submits to a search or
People v. Asis, Formento, GR 142531, October 15, 2002 the case at bar does not fall on the exceptions for a consents to have it made on his person or premises, he is
warrantless search. The qualified consent did not result to an precluded from later complaining thereof. The right to be
FACTS: Asis and Formento were charged for the crime of effective and valid waiver against unreasonable searches secure from unreasonable search may, like every right, be
Robbery with homicide of Yu Hing Guan. They were found and seizures. waived and such waiver may be made either expressly or
guilty and sentenced to death. Upon review by SC, they impliedly.
objected to the introduction of a bloodstained shorts of the
victim allegedly recovered from the bag of Formento CASE NO. 398 First, they never protested when police officers opened the
arguing that the search was illegally done. The prosecution BENITEZ tin can loaded in the appellants vehicle and found eight (8)
contended that it was Formento’s wife who voluntarily bundles. Appellants did not raise any protest when they,
surrendered the bag that contained the bloodstained shorts. ART III SEC. 2 E. Warrantless Searches and Seizures; iv. together with their cargo of drugs and their vehicle, were
Such act constituted a valid consent to the search without a Consent or waiver brought to the police station for investigation and subsequent
warrant. People v. Omaweng, 213 SCRA 462 prosecution. Second, appellants effectively waived their
constitutional right against the search and seizure in
ISSUE: Whether Formento has given consent to the FACTS: Layong and his teammate, Constable David question by their voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of
recovery of the bloodstained shorts. Osborne Famocod (sic), saw and flagged down a cream- the trial court, when they entered a plea of not guilty upon
colored Ford Fiera driven by Omaweng. Former asked arraignment and by participating in the trial.
RULING: NO. Primarily, the constitutional right against permission to inspect the vehicle including a cream-colored
unreasonable searches and seizures, being a personal one, bag and appellant acceded to the request. 41 plastic packets CASE NO. 400
cannot be waived by anyone except the person whose rights of different sizes containing pulverized substance (illegal BENITEZ
are invaded or who is expressly authorized to do so on his or drugs) were found and confiscated. Omaweng contends the
her behalf. In the present case, the testimonies of the confiscated items were inadmissible as evidence as they ART III SEC. 2 E. Warrantless Searches and Seizures; iv.
prosecution witnesses show that at the time the bloodstained were acquired in violation of his constitutional right against Consent or waiver
shorts was recovered, Formento, together with his wife and unreasonable search and seizure.  People v. Ramos, 222 SCRA 557
mother, was present. Being the very subject of the search,
necessarily, he himself should have given consent. Since he ISSUE: W/N Omaweng’s constitutional right against FACTS: Following a tip from an informer, police operatives
was physically present, the waiver could not have come from unreasonable search and seizure was violated. patrolled Miranda Subdivision for a possible engagement
any other person. The person who is the subject of the with the suspects of a series of armed robbery incidents.
search must be the one who should give the consent to a RULING: NO. Accused was not subjected to any search Accompanied by one of the victims, the lawmen chanced
search, not anybody else present. which may be stigmatized as a violation of his Constitutional upon petitioner Felimon Ramos who the victim identified as
right against unreasonable searches and seizures. He one of the armed men he encountered during the robbery.
willingly gave prior consent to the search and voluntarily When accosted and frisked by the lawmen, Ramos yielded in
CASE NO. 397 agreed to have it conducted on his vehicle and travelling his waistline a .38 caliber snub nosed “paltik” revolver loaded
BENITEZ bag. Thus, the accused waived his right against with two (2) live bullets. At the police headquarters, Ramos
unreasonable searches and seizures. The right to be secure admitted involvement in the robbery incidents.
ART III SEC. 2 E. Warrantless Searches and Seizures; iv. from unreasonable search may, like every right, be waived
Consent or waiver and such waiver may be made either expressly or impliedly. ISSUE: WON there was a violation of the constitutional right
Spouses Veroy v. Layague, GR 95632, June 18, 1992 against unreasonable search and seizure.

FACTS: Capt. Obrero, based on an information that rebel RULING: NO. The evidence for the prosecution clearly
soldiers are allegedly hiding inside, raided and entered the CASE NO. 399 discloses that accused Ramos voluntarily allowed himself to
house of the Veroys, without warrant, after calling petitioner BENITEZ be frisked and that he gave the gun to the ones who arrested
and acquiring permission to search the house subject to the him. On cross-examination, counsel for Ramos did not
condition that Major Macasaet, a long-time family friend, ART III SEC. 2 E. Warrantless Searches and Seizures; iv. suggest or insinuate, even obliquely, that Ramos did not
must be there during the search. A .45 caliber gun and other Consent or waiver voluntarily allow himself either to be frisked or dispossessed
effects were confiscated, which were the basis of the charge People v. Correa, 285 SCRA 679 of the gun by the person who arrested him
of illegal possession of firearms against them. The Spouses
Veroy assailed the admissibility of the evidence on the FACTS: Accused appellants were caught in the possession When one voluntarily submits to a search or consents to
ground that that while Capt. Obrero had permission to enter of 8 bundles of dried flowering tops of Marijuana wrapped in have it made of his person or premises, he is precluded from
their house, it was merely for the purpose of ascertaining the pieces of papers and plastic tapes when they were stopped later complaining thereof. The right to be secure from
presence of the alleged "rebel" soldiers. in an avenue by police operatives. Appellants assail the unreasonable search may, like every right, be waived and
admission of the seized marijuana flowering tops as such waiver may be made either expressly or impliedly.
ISSUE: WON the evidence were obtained in violation of their evidence against them, arguing that the same was the fruit
constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure. of an illegal search conducted without any search warrant.
RULING: YES. The permission did not include the authority ISSUE: WON the seized marijuana were fruits of an illegal DINALAGAN
to conduct a room to room search inside the house. The search. CASE NO. 401
items taken were, therefore, products of an illegal search,
violative of their constitutional rights. As such, they are
 ARTICLE III SECTION 2: Instances of Warrantless
Searches ARTICLE III SECTION 2: Instances of Warrantless
CONSENT/WAIVER Searches
People vs Tudtud CONSENT/WAIVER
MAIN POINT People vs Tabar DINALAGAN
    The Bill of Rights is the bedrock of constitutional CASE NO. 403
government. If people are stripped naked of their rights as MAIN POINT
human beings, democracy cannot survive and government     When one voluntarily submits to a search and consent to
becomes meaningless. This explains why the Bill of Rights, have it made of his person or premises, he is precluded from
contained as it is in Article III of the Constitution, occupies a later complaining. The right to be secure from unreasonable
ARTICLE III SECTION 2: Instances of Warrantless
position of primacy in the fundamental law way above the search may, like every right, be waived and such waiver may
Searches
articles on governmental power. be made either expressly or impliedly.
CONSENT/WAIVER
People vs Encinada
FACTS
MAIN POINT
Tudtud was reported to have been allegedly FACTS     The implied acquiescence to the search, if there was any,
responsible for the proliferation of marijuana in their area.     Tabar was charged with the selling of marijuana sticks, could not have been more than mere passive conformity
Police gathered information and learned that Tudtud was cigarettes and drugs to people. The trial court discredited the given under intimidating or coercive circumstances and is
involved in illegal drugs. A man who identified himself as a bare denials of Tabar and unfavorably considered against thus considered no consent at all within the purview of the
police officer approached him, pointing a gun. Tudtud raised her an admission that she had been arrested before by the constitutional guarantee. Appellants silence should not be
his arms and asked, Sir, what is this about. The man CANU for possession of marijuana, was charged for the lightly taken as consent to such search.
answered that he would like to inspect the plastic bag Tudtud violation of Section 8, Article II of R.A. No. 6425 and was
was carrying, and instructed Tudtud to open the bag, which convicted therein, but is now on probation. Tabar challenged FACTS
revealed several pairs of pants. On appeal, Tudtud assigned, the decision of the trial court on grounds that evidence was     SPO4 Bolonia received a tip from an informant that
among other errors, the admission in evidence of the seized from her without any warrant.  Encinada would be arriving in Surigao bringing with him
marijuana leaves, which they claim were seized in violation
marijuana. Upon arrival, he was forcibly stopped by persons
of their right against unreasonable searches and seizures. ISSUE/S who ordered the passengers to disembark. Thereafter, all
The RTC justified the warrantless search of appellant’s     Whether or not the trial court erred in admitting the the baggage of the passengers and the driver were ordered
belongings under the first exception, as a search incident to evidence to stand in a line for which a body search was made
a lawful arrest. RULING individually. After the search was made, the accused was
    No. The evidence for the prosecution discloses that the singled out in the line and ordered to board the service
ISSUE/S appellant placed the packs of marijuana sticks under the vehicle of the police and was brought to the PNP Police
    Whether or not the warrantless search and seizure in the rolled pair of pants which she was then carrying at the time Station. Encinada was openly protesting to the action taken
case at bar is constitutional as it is part of one of the she hurriedly left her shanty after noticing the arrest of by the police authorities and demanded from the
exceptions Rommel(accomplice). When she was asked to spread it out, apprehending officers a copy of a search warrant and/or
which she voluntary did, the package containing the packs of warrant of arrest for the search made and for his
RULING marijuana sticks were thus exposed in plain view to the apprehension; In the police headquarters, the accused was
    No. Appellant’s implied acquiescence, if at all, could not member of the team. A crime was thus committed in the made to undergo custodial investigation for which a plastic
have been more than mere passive conformity given under presence of the policemen. bag was presented to him allegedly containing the subject
coercive or intimidating circumstances and is, thus,
marijuana leaves.
considered no consent at all within the purview of the
constitutional guarantee. Consequently, appellant’s lack of
ISSUE/S
objection to the search and seizure is not tantamount to a
    Whether or not the lower court erred in finding that
waiver of his constitutional right or a voluntary submission to
search and the arrest of the accused without a warrant would
the warrantless search and seizure.
fall under the doctrine of warrantless search as incident to a
lawful arrest

RULING
    No. In this case, appellant was not committing a crime in
the presence of the Surigao City policemen. Moreover, the
lawmen did not have personal knowledge of facts indicating
that the person to be arrested had committed an offense.
The search cannot be said to be merely incidental to a lawful
arrest. Raw intelligence information is not a sufficient ground
for a warrantless arrest. Bolonias’ receipt of the intelligence
information regarding the culprit’s identity, the particular
DINALAGAN crime he allegedly committed and his exact whereabouts
CASE NO. 402 underscored the need to secure a warrant for his arrest. But
he failed or neglected to do so. Such failure or neglect
cannot excuse him from violating a constitutional right of the reasonable ground for the NARCOM agents to suspect and may effect search and seizure without a search warrant in
appellant. conclude that she was committing a crime. It was only when the enforcement of customs laws.
the informant pointed to accused-appellant and identified her
to the agents as the carrier of the marijuana that she was
singled out as the suspect. The NARCOM agents would not
have apprehended accused-appellant were it not for the
furtive finger of the informant because, as clearly illustrated
by the evidence on record, there was no reason whatsoever
for them to suspect that accused-appellant was committing a
crime, except for the pointing finger of the informant. 

DINALAGAN
CASE NO. 404 DINALAGAN
CASE NO. 406
ARTICLE III SECTION 2: Instances of Warrantless DINALAGAN
Searches CASE NO. 405 Art III Sec 2: Warrantless Searches and Seizures;
CONSENT/WAIVER Custom Search
People vs Aruta ARTICLE III SECTION 2: Instances of Warrantless Pacis vs. Pamaran
MAIN POINT Searches
Unreasonable searches and seizures are the CUSTOMS SEARCH
menace against which the constitutional guarantees afford Papa vs Mago MAIN POINT: The collector of customs has the requisite
full protection. While the power to search and seize may at authority to issue a warrant of seizure and detention for an
times be necessary to the public welfare, still it may be Automobile whose duties and taxes not been paid for. In
exercised and the law enforced without transgressing the exercising this authority, the Collector has not violated the
constitutional rights of the citizens, for the enforcement of no constitutional right against unreasonable search and
statute is of sufficient importance to justify indifference to the MAIN POINT
seizures and he may not be prosecuted for criminal offense
basic principles of government     The guaranty of freedom from unreasonable searches and
of usurpation of judicial function. 
seizures is construed as recognizing a necessary difference
FACTS between a search of a dwelling house or other structure in
Accused-appellant was arrested and charged with respect of which a search warrant may readily be obtained.
violating Act No. 6425. Lt. Abello was tipped off by his A search of a ship, motorboat, wagon, or automobile for FACTS: Respondent Ricardo Santos is an owner of a car
informant that a certain Aling Rosa would be arriving from contraband goods, where it is not practicable to secure a which he bought from a tax-exempt individual. He paid
Baguio City the following day with a large volume of warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the P311.00 for customs duty and taxes. Pedro Pacis, the Acting
marijuana. Acting on said tip, he formed a team that led to locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. Collector of Customs, received a letter stating that Santos'
the search and seizure of Aruta. Aruta claimed that car was a hot car. The amount collectible was P2,500.00, not
immediately prior to her arrest, she had just come from just P311.00.  Based on such discrepancy, Pacis instituted
Choice Theater. In the middle of the road, Lt. Abello and Lt. seizure proceedings and issued a warrant of seizure and
FACTS
Domingo arrested her and asked her to go with them to the detention. The car was taken by agents who were authorized
Mago, the owner of the goods that were seized,
NARCOM Office. Moreover, she added that no search to do so by virtue of the said warrant. Santos wrote to Pacis
when the truck transporting the goods was intercepted by the
warrant was shown to her by the arresting officers. After the about the seizure. Santos also  filed a case of usurpation of
BOC who was acting under a tip, questioned the validity of
prosecution made a formal offer of evidence, the defense judicial authority of against Pacis. Manuel Pamaran, an
the search conducted by them since. He also questioned if
filed a Comment and/or Objection to Prosecutions Formal Assistant Fiscal, proceeded with the charge against Pacis.
the BOC had jurisdiction over the forfeited goods. The items
Offer of Evidence contesting the admissibility of the items were allegedly misdeclared and undervalued and was said to
seized as they were allegedly a product of an unreasonable ISSUE: May petitioner effect the seizure without any search
be released the following day from the customs zone of the
search and seizure. warrant issued by a component court?
port and loaded on two trucks, police officers intercepted and
seized said trucks.
ISSUE/S RULING: YES. 
    Whether or not     the trial court erred in not finding that The Tariff and Customs Code does not require said warrant
ISSUE/S
the warrantless search resulting to the arrest of accused- in the instant case. The Code authorizes persons having
    Whether or not the search conducted by the BOC is valid
appellant violated the latter’s constitutional rights police authority under Section 2203 of the Tariff and
Customs Code to such search and seizure. Except in the
RULING
RULING case of the search of a dwelling house, persons exercising
    Yes. Except in the case of the search of a dwelling house,
    Yes. Accused-appellant was merely crossing the street police authority under the customs law may effect search
persons exercising police authority under the customs law
and was not acting in any manner that would engender a and seizure without a search warrant in the enforcement of
customs laws.
 While no search warrant had been obtained for that purpose, sound. Mylene Cabunoc, who was a civilian employee of the
when Gatward checked in his bag as his personal luggage National Action Committee on Hijacking and Terrorism
as a passenger of KLM Flight 806 he thereby agreed to the (NACHT) and the frisker duty called Canton’s attention. They
inspection thereof in accordance with customs rules and subsequently checked Canton. Cabunoc felt something
regulations, an international practice of strict observance, bulging in several parts of Canton. This was reported
and waived any objection to a warrantless search. His thereafter to her supervisor. Canton was requested to go the
subsequent arrest, although likewise without a warrant, was comfort room for a physical examination wherein she was
justified since it was effected upon the discovery and asked to take her clothes off. The packages that she carried
recovery of the heroin in his bag, or in flagrante delicto. The was examined and turned out to be 998.2809 grams of
conviction of U Aung Win is likewise unassailable. The methamphetamine hydrochloride or SHABU, a regulated
evidence thus presented convincingly proved his having drug, without the corresponding prescription or license. She
imported into this country the heroin found in his luggage was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating the
which he presented for customs examination upon his arrival Article 3, Section 16 of the RA 6425 or the Dangerous Drugs
at the international airport.  Act. Canton filed for Motion for reconsideration but this was
denied.

ISSUES: Whether or not there was a valid search and

arrest. 

RULING: YES 
The  search was made pursuant to routine airport security
procedure, which is allowed under Section 9 of Republic Act
No. 6235, “ Every ticket issued to a passenger by the airline
DINALAGAN or air carrier concerned shall contain among others the
CASE NO. 407 following condition printed thereon: “Holder hereof and his
hand-carried luggage(s) are subject to search for, and
Art III Sec 2: Warrantless Searches and Seizures; seizure of, prohibited materials or substances.  which shall
Custom Search constitute a part of the contract between the passenger and
People vs. Gatward the air carrier. In this case, after the metal detector
alarmed, R.A. No. 6235 authorizes search for prohibited
FACTS: In 30 August 1994, U Aung Win, a Passenger of materials or substances. Corollarily, her subsequent
the Thai Airways which had just arrived from Bangkok, arrest, although likewise without warrant, was justified
Thailand, presented his luggage for examination to Customs since it was effected upon the discovery and recovery of
Examiner Busran Tawano. When opened, the bag revealed DINALAGAN “shabu” in her person in flagrante delicto.
two packages containing the substance neatly hidden in CASE NO. 408
between its partitions. Representative samples of the
substance were examined by 2 chemists of the Crime Art III Sec 2: Warrantless Searches and Seizures;
Laboratory Service of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Custom Search
and concluded that the entire substance, with a total weight People vs. Susan Canton
of 5,579.80 grams, is heroin. During the investigation of U
Aung Win, the agents of the Customs Police and the
Narcotics Command (NARCOM) gathered the information
that U Aung Win had a contact in Bangkok and that there
were other drug couriers in the Philippines. The members of MAIN POINT: Persons may lose the protection of the search
the team were able to establish the identity of other two and seizure clause by exposure of their persons or property
persons as Nigel Richard Gatward and one Zaw Win Naing to the public in a manner reflecting a lack of subjective
who were scheduled to leave for Bangkok. While on board, expectation of privacy, which expectation society is prepared DINALAGAN
Gatward was requested to disembark and was invited by the to recognize as reasonable. Travelers are often notified CASE NO. 409
police officers for investigation. Gatward’s luggage, with his through airport public address systems, signs, and notices in
consent, was subjected to x-ray examination and there also their airline tickets that they are subject to search and, if any Art III Sec 2: Warrantless Searches and Seizures;
found powdery substance which was concluded to be prohibited materials or substances are found, such would be Custom Search
5,237.70 grams of heroin by the chemists.  subject to seizure. These announcements place passengers People vs. Johnson
on notice that ordinary constitutional protections against
ISSUE: Whether Gatward’s and U Aung Win’s luggages may warrantless searches and seizures do not apply to routine
be searched without warrant. airport procedures. 

RULING AND MAIN POINT: YES.  FACTS: February 12, 1998 at the NAIA, Canton was a MAIN POINT: Persons may lose the protection of the search
departing passenger bound to go to Saigon, Vietnam. She and seizure clause by exposure of their persons or property
passed through a metal detector which emitted a beeping to the public in a manner reflecting a lack of subjective
expectation of privacy, which expectation society is prepared The fact that only the state can grant a license
to recognize as reasonable. agreement, license or lease does not make the
state the owner of all the logs and timber products
produced in the Philippines including those
FACTS: Leila Johnson was arrested at the airport after she produced in private woodlands.
was found to have in her possession more than 500 grams
of shabu when she was initially frisked by a security Ownership is not an essential element of the offense as
personnel at a gate in the airport. The security personnel felt defined in Section 60 of P.D. No. 705. Thus, the failure of the
something hard in respondent’s abdominal area and when information to allege the true owner of the forest products is
asked she said that she had to wear 2 girdles because of an not material; it was sufficient that it alleged that the taking
operation. Unconvinced, the security personnel went to her was without any authority or license from the government.
supervisor. Subsequently, after a thorough search on
respondent, packets of shabu were seized from her.
Accused (respondent) was subsequently convicted and
sentenced to reclusion perpetua. In the present appeal, BUKLASAN
respondent contended that the search made upon her was CASE NO. 411
not valid and that her constitutional rights were infringed
when such search was conducted. Stop and frisk situation

ISSUE: Whether or not a valid search and arrest was made. Malacat: “Where a police officer observes unusual
conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light
RULING: YES.  of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and
The constitutional right of the accused was not violated as that the person with whom he is dealing may be armed
she was validly arrested without warrant pursuant to the and that the person with whom he is dealing may be
DINALAGAN
provisions of Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules of armed and presently dangerous, where in the course of
CASE NO. 410
Criminal Procedure which provides: investigation of this behavior he identifies himself as a
Sec. 5.  Arrest without warrant; when lawful.  A peace officer policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where
Art III Sec 2: Warrantless Searches and Seizures;
or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to
Custom Search
(a) when in his presence, the person to be dispel his reasonable fear for his own or other’s safety,
PEOPLE V. CFI
arrested has committed, is actually committing, or he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in
is attempting to commit an offense; the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the
(b) when an offense has in fact just been outer clothing of such person in an attempt to discover
committed, and he has personal knowledge of FACTS weapons which might be used to assault him.”
facts indicating that the person to be arrested has The private respondents were charged with the crime of
committed it; and… qualified theft of logs, under Section 68 of Presidential BUKLASAN
Decree No. 705. They entered the privately-owned land of CASE NO. 412
one Felicitacion Pujalte, then illegally cut, gather, take, steal Stop and frisk situation
and carry away therefrom, without the consent of the said
owner and without any authority under a license agreement, Malacat (1997): Probable cause is not required. However,
lease license or permit, 60 logs of different species, mere suspicion or a hunch is not enough. Rather, a
consisting of about 541.48 cubic meters, with total value of “genuine reason must exist, in light of the police
P50,205.52 including government charges. The trial court officer’s experience and surrounding conditions, to
dismissed the information. warrant the belief that the person detained has weapons
  concealed about him.”
ISSUE

whether the information charged an offense BUKLASAN

CASE NO. 413

RULING ART. III, SEC. 2: Warrantless Searches and Seizures VI.

Stop and Frisk Situation
Terry vs. Ohio
1. Yes, the failure of the information to allege that the
logs taken were owned by the state is not fatal. It FACTS: The officer noticed the Petitioner talking with
should be noted that the logs subject of the another individual on a street corner while repeatedly
complaint were taken not from a public forest but walking up and down the same street. The officer believed
from a private woodland registered in the name of that the Petitioner and the other men were “casing” a store
complainant’s deceased father, Macario Prudente. for a potential robbery. The officer decided to approach the
men for questioning, and given the nature of the behavior the FACTS: SPO3 Jose Nio in conducting an intelligence patrol 3. There was at all no ground, probable or otherwise, to
officer decided to perform a quick search of the men before proceeded to Barangay Onion to stop any potential believe that petitioner was armed with a deadly weapon.
questioning. A quick frisking of the Petitioner produced a disturbance in the area where they met the group of Solayao When the policemen approached the accused and his
concealed weapon and the Petitioner was charged with who was then drunk and wearing a camouflage uniform, companions, they were not yet aware that a hand grenade
carrying a concealed weapon. suspicion arised. Solayao’s companions, upon seeing the was tucked inside his waistline. They did not see any bulging
government agents, fled. Confiscated from Solayao is a object in his person. Mere suspicions are not sufficient to
ISSUE:  WON a search for weapons without probable cause homemade firearm and was charged with illegal possession validate warrantless arrest. While probable cause is not
for arrest is an unreasonable search. of firearm.- Solayao was found guilty, then he appealed to required to conduct a "stop and frisk," it nevertheless
the court against the admissibility of the firearm as evidence holds that mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a
RULING/MP: No. it is a reasonable search when an as it was the product of an unlawful warrantless search. "stop and frisk." A genuine reason must exist, in light of
officer performs a quick seizure and a limited search for the police officer's experience and surrounding
weapons on a person that the officer reasonably ISSUE: WON the trial court erred in admitting in evidence conditions, to warrant the belief that the person detained
believes could be armed. A typical beat officer would be the homemade firearm has weapons concealed about him. 
unduly burdened by being prohibited from searching
individuals that the officer suspects to be armed. An RULING/MP: No. Firearm is admissible as evidence. There BUKLASAN
officer may perform a search for weapons without a are many instances where a search and seizure can be CASE NO. 417
warrant, even without probable cause, when the officer effected without necessarily being preceded by an
reasonably believes that the person may be armed and arrest, one of which is stop-and-frisk in the case at bar. ART. III, SEC. 2: Warrantless Searches and Seizures VI.
dangerous. There was justifiable cause to "stop and frisk" accused- Stop and Frisk Situation
appellant when his companions fled upon seeing the Manalili vs. CA
BUKLASAN government agents. Under the circumstances, the
CASE NO. 414 government agents could not possibly have procured a FACTS:  Police Anti-Narcotics Unit of Kalookan City
search warrant first. Suspicion also arouse when the conducted surveillance along Mabini Street after receiving
ART. III, SEC. 2: Warrantless Searches and Seizures VI. group was spotted dressed in camouflage. An officer information that drug addicts were roaming around said area.
Stop and Frisk Situation may perform a search for weapons without a warrant, The policemen chanced upon the petitioner, in front of the
Posadas vs. CA even without probable cause, when the officer cemetery who appeared high on drugs. The petitioner had
reasonably believes that the person may be armed and reddish eyes and was walking in a swaying manner.
FACTS: While Pat. Ungab and Umpar were conducting a dangerous. Petitioner was trying to avoid the policemen, but the officers
surveillance along Magallanes Street,Davao City, they were able to introduce themselves and asked him what he
spotted petitioner carrying a "buri" bag and they noticed him BUKLASAN was holding in his hands. Policeman Espiritu found
to beacting [Link] approached the petitioner and CASE NO. 416 suspected crushed marijuana residue inside his wallet. He
identified themselves asmembers of the INP. Petitioner kept the wallet and its marijuana contents and took petitioner
attempted to flee but his attempt to get away wasthwarted by ART. III, SEC. 2: Warrantless Searches and Seizures VI. to headquarters to be further investigated. 
the two notwithstanding his [Link] then checked Stop and Frisk Situation
the "buri" bag of the petitioner where they found unlicensed Malacat vs. CA ISSUE: WON search and seizure conducted was valid
firearms.
FACTS: Petitioner was arrested for having in his possession RULING: Yes. The search was valid, being akin to a stop-
ISSUE: WON the warrantless arrest and search was valid a hand grenade after he was searched by a group of and-frisk. The police, from his experience as a member of
policemen when he was said to be acting suspiciously with the Anti-Narcotics Unit of the Caloocan City Police, such
RULING/MP: Yes. The search in the case at bar is his eyes moving fast together with other Muslim-looking men suspicious behavior of petitioner was characteristic of drug
reasonable considering that it is effected on the basis of a in a Plaza. When the policemen approached the group of addicts who were high. The policemen therefore had
probable cause. When the petitioner acted suspiciously and men, they scattered in all directions which prompted the sufficient reason to stop petitioner to investigate if he was
attempted to flee with the buri bag there was a probable police to give chase and petitioner was then apprehended actually high on drugs. During such investigation, they found
cause that he was concealing something illegal in the bag and a search was made on his person. He was then marijuana in petitioners possession and is an admissible
and it was the right and duty of the police officers to inspect convicted under PD 1866 in the lower court. He contended evidence against him.A stop-and-frisk is defined as the
the [Link] assailed search and seizure is justified as that the lower court erred in holding that the search made on vernacular designation of the right of a police officer to
akin to a "stop and frisk" situation whose object is either him and the seizure of the hand grenade from him was an stop a citizen on the street, interrogate him, and pat him
to determine the identity of a suspicious individual or to appropriate incident to his arrest. for weapon(s).
maintain the status quo momentarily while the police
officer seeks to obtain more information. ISSUE: WON the search and seizure conducted by the BUKLASAN
police was valid. CASE NO. 418
BUKLASAN ART 3, SEC 2: Stop and frisk
CASE NO. 415 RULING/MP: No. There are at least three (3) reasons why People v Aruta
the stop-and-frisk was invalid. 1. There is grave doubt that
ART. III, SEC. 2: Warrantless Searches and Seizures VI. Malacat is a member of the group which attempted to bomb FACTS: P/Lt. Abello was tipped off by his informant that a
Stop and Frisk Situation the plaza 2. There was nothing in petitioner’s behaviour or certain “Aling Rosa” will be arriving from Baguio City with a
People vs. Solayao conduct which could have reasonably elicited even mere large volume of marijuana and assembled a team. The next
suspicion other than that his eyes were moving very fast and day they waited for the bus, When Abello asked “aling Rosa”
about the contents of her bag, the latter handed it out to the that the person detained has weapons concealed about RULING/MP: No. “Stop and frisk” are conducted to
police. They found dried marijuana leaves packed in a plastic him. Finally, a stop-and-frisk serves a two-fold interest: prevent the occurrence of a crime. Its object is either to
bag marked “cash katutak”. Instead of presenting its (1) the general interest of effective crime prevention and determine the identity of a suspicious individual or to
evidence, the defense filed a demurrer to evidence alleging detection, which underlies the recognition that a police maintain the status quo temporarily while the police officer to
the illegality of the search and seizure of the items. In her officer may, under appropriate circumstances and in an obtain more information. The balance lies in the concept
testimony, the accused claimed that she had just come from appropriate manner, approach a person for purposes of of"suspiciousness". Experienced police officers have the
theatre While about to cross the road an old woman asked investigating possible criminal behavior even without ability to discern whether an individual is acting in a
her for help in carrying a shoulder bag, when she was later probable cause; and (2) The safety and self-preservation suspicious manner and the search is illegal because of
on arrested by the police. She has no knowledge of the which permit the police officer to take steps to assure himself the absence of the requisite of “suspiciousness.”
identity of the old woman and Also, no search warrant was that the person with whom he deals is not armed with a
presented during investigation deadly weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used
against the police officerIn this case, accused-appellant was GRAVADOR
not, at the moment of his arrest, committing a crime nor was CASE NO. 421
it shown that he was about to do so or that he had just done
so and there was no overtact that called for his arrest.  It was ART 3, SEC 2: Exigent and Emergency Circumstances
ISSUE: WON the warrantless search is in violation of Art 3
only when the informer pointed to him as the carrier of the People v De Gracia
Sec 2
marijuana that he suddenly became suspect and so subject
to apprehension  FACTS: Reform the Armed Forces Movement-Soldiers of
the Filipino People (RAM-SFP) staged a coup d’état on
against the Government.  At that time, various government
RULING/MP: Yes. There was no indicator that could have establishments and military camps in Metro Manila were
aroused the suspicion of the NARCOM agents as to cause being bombarded. The search team raided the Eurocar
them to "stop and frisk" accused-appellant. She was merely Sales Office (and confiscated 6 cartons of M-16 ammunition,
crossing the street when apprehended. There was no legal BUKLASAN
5 bundles of C-4 dynamites, M-shells of different calibers,
basis to effect a warrantless arrest of the accused’s bag, CASE NO. 420
and molotov.) Obenia, who first entered the establishment,
there was no probable cause and the accused was not found De Gracia holding a C-4 and suspiciously peeping
lawfully arrested. The seized marijuana was illegal and ART 3, SEC 2: Stop and frisk
through the door in the office of a certain Colonel
inadmissible evidence The Stop and frisk rule, should not People v Victor Cogaed Y Romana
Matillano, No search warrant was secured by the raiding
become unbridled licenses for law enforcement officers team because, according to them, there was so much
FACTS: Police Senior Inspector Sofronio Bayan received a
to trample upon the constitutionally guaranteed right of disorder considering that the nearby Camp Aguinaldo was
text message from an unidentified civilian informer that one
persons against unreasonable search and seizures. The being mopped up by the rebel forces and there was
Marvin Buya (also known as Marvin Bugat) would be
essential requisite of probable cause must still be simultaneous firing within the vicinity of the Eurocar office,
transporting marijuana. The police organized checkpoints in
satisfied before a warrantless search and seizure can be aside from the fact that the courts were closed.
order “to intercept the suspect.” A passenger jeepney from
lawfully conducted.
Barangay Lun-Oy arrived at the checkpoint. The jeepney
driver disembarked and signaled to SPO1 Taracatas ISSUE: WON the warrantless search is valid.
BUKLASAN indicating a male passenger was carrying marijuana. SPO1
Taracatas approached the male passenger who was RULING: Yes. The military operatives had reasonable
CASE NO. 419 ground to believe that a crime was being committed because
ART 3, SEC 2: Stop and frisk identified as Victor who was carrying a blue bag. SPO1
Taracatas asked Victor about the contents of his bag and he of existence of probable cause, where the smell of marijuana
People v Sy Chua emanated from a plastic bag owned by the accused, or
said he did not know since he was transporting the bag as a
favor to his barrio mate named Marvin. After this exchange, where the accused was acting suspiciously, and attempted
FACTS: The police received information that the accused
Victor opened the blue bag revealing three bricks of to flee. Furthermore, the raiding team had no opportunity to
will distribute illegal drugs that evening at the Thunder Inn
marijuana. SPO1 arrested Victor and was brought to the apply for and secure a search warrant from the courts. The
Hotel and its vicinities. The police officer had to act quickly
police station. The RTC and the CA found Victor guilty trial judge himself manifested that when the raid was
and there was no more time to secure a search warrant. The
beyond reasonable doubt for violation of RA 9165 when conducted, his court was closed. Under such urgency and
search is valid being akin to a stop-and-frisk.
Victor waived his right against warrantless searches “without exigency of the moment, a search warrant could lawfully be
prompting from SPO1 Taracatac, he voluntarily opened his dispensed with. The absence of a judicial warrant is valid
bag. by the exigencies of the situation that involves the
survival of society and its government and duly
ISSUE: WON the stop& frisk is a valid in the case at bar constituted authorities.  

GRAVADOR
ISSUE: WON there was a valid search and seizure of CASE NO. 422
marijuana
RULING/MP: No.   stop-and-frisk is a limited protective
search of outer clothing for weapons. However, mere ART 3, SEC 2: Exigent and Emergency Circumstances
suspicion or a hunch will not validate a stop-and-frisk. A Lacerna v DDB
genuine reason must exist, in light of the police officers
experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief
FACTS: Sec. 36 of R.A. No. 9165 imposes the requirement airports. In fact, Eanna’s plane ticket carried a proviso
of mandatory, suspicionless and random drug RULING: Yes. It is basic that if a law or an administrative allowing airport authorities to check on his person and
tests nationwide among all high school and college students, rule violates any norm of the Constitution, that issuance is baggage pursuant to the requirement of Section 9 of RA No.
all public and private officers, workers and employees, all null and void and has no effect. Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165, as 6235
local and national candidates for elective and appointive sought to be implemented by the assailed COMELEC
government positions, and all respondents facing preliminary resolution, effectively enlarges the qualification requirements GRAVADOR
investigations of the criminal complaints filed against them enumerated in the Sec. 3, Art. VI of the Constitution. The CASE NO. 425 (Not a case, base on syllabus, just main
with an imposable penalty exceeding 6 years and 1 day. right of a citizen in the democratic process of election should point I guess..)
not be defeated by unwarranted impositions of requirements
ISSUE: WON the mandatory drug testing violates the right to not otherwise specified in the Constitution. It may of course A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant,
privacy & the right against unreasonable searches. be argued, in defense of the validity of Sec. 36(g) of RA arrest a person:
9165, that the provision does not expressly state that a. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested
RULING: Yes.  To impose mandatory drug testing is a non-compliance with the drug test imposition is a has committed, is actually committing, or
blatant attempt to violate a person’s right to privacy and disqualifying factor or would work to nullify a certificate attempting to commit an offense;
forced to incriminate themselves. The constitutional of candidacy. This argument may be accorded b. When an offense has in fact been committed, and
validity of the mandatory, random, and suspicionless drug plausibility if the drug test requirement is optional. But he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that
testing for students emanates primarily from the waiver of the particular section of the law, without exception, the person to be arrested has committed it; and
their right to privacy when they seek entry to the school, and made drug-testing on those covered mandatory, c. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who
from their voluntary submitting their persons to the parental necessarily suggesting that the obstinate ones shall has escaped from a penal establishment or place
authority of school authorities. In case of private and public have to suffer the adverse consequences for not where he is serving final judgment or temporarily
employees, the constitutional soundness of the mandatory, adhering to the statutory command. And since the confined while his case is pending or has escaped
random and suspicious drug testing proceeds from the provision deals with candidates for public office, it stands to while being transferred from one confinement to
reasonableness of the drug test policy and requirement. reason that the adverse consequence adverted to can only another
However, there is no valid justification for mandatory drug refer to and revolve around the election and the assumption
testing for persons accused of crimes punishable with at of public office of the candidates. The mandatory drug test GRAVADOR
least 6 years and one day imprisonment as they are singled requirements as a pre-condition for the validity of a CASE NO. 426
out and impleaded against their will. The operative certificate of candidacy of electoral candidates not
concepts in the mandatory drug testing are established under the Constitution, e.g. local ART. III, SEC. 2: WARRANTLESS ARRESTS
“randomness” and “suspicionless.” government positions, is valid. IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO
People v. Dela Cruz
GRAVADOR GRAVADOR
CASE NO. 423 CASE NO. 424 FACTS: After receiving a confidential report from an
informant, a "buy-bust" operation was conducted by the 13th
ART. III, SEC. 2: WARRANTLESS SEARCHES AND ART. III, SEC. 2: WARRANTLESS ARREST- Narcotics Regional Unit through a team with P/Pfc. Adolfo
SEIZURES ADMINISTRATIVE SEARCH Arcoy as poseur-buyer and Pat. Deogracias Gorgonia to
INSTANCES OF WARRANTLESS SEARCHES AND People v. O’Cochlain, GR No. 229071, 10 December 2018 catch the pusher/s. P/Pfc. Adolfo Arcoy acted as the poseur-
SEIZURES; buyer to buy marijuana worth P10.00 from the two accused
EXIGENT AND EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES; FACTS: In the final security checkpoint inside the Laog City Juan de la Cruz and Reynaldo Beltran. After ascertaining
DRUG, ALCOHOL AND BLOOD TESTS International Airport, the Security Screening officer was that the foil of suspected marijuana was really marijuana,
Pimentel Jr. v. COMELEC instructed to conduct a pat down search on Eanna, who Arcoy gave the prearranged signal to his teammates who
agreed. Eanna was frisked, while he raised his hands by were strategically positioned in the vicinity, and they
FACTS: In these consolidated petitions, (one of which is stretching sideward to the level of his shoulders with palms converged at the place, identified themselves as NARCOM
AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR., vs. COMMISSION ON open, two rolled sticks of what appeared to be dried agents and effected the arrest of De la Cruz and Beltran.
ELECTIONS) the constitutionality of Section 36(g) of Marijuana leaves was seized from his possession. Eanna Accused-appellants were charged in the RTC with violations
Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the was charged with illegal possession of Marijuana under Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972). 
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, insofar as it Section 11, Article 11 of RA  9165 or The Comprehensive From this decision, accused Juan de la Cruz y Gonzales and
requires mandatory drug testing of candidates for public Dangerous Drug Act of 2002. co-accused Reynaldo Beltran y Aniban interposed the
office, students of secondary and tertiary schools, officers instant appeal.
and employees of public and private offices, and persons ISSUE: WON the search and seizure of an illegal
charged before the prosecutor's office with certain offenses, possession of drug during a routine airport inspection is a ISSUE: Whether or not the Buy-Bust Operation being done
among other personalities, is put in issue. In essence, constitutionally reasonable administrative search. to enforce Republic Act 6425 is unconstitutional and any
Pimentel claims that Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 and COMELEC evidence acquired under such method should not be
Resolution No. 6486 illegally impose an additional RULING: Yes, the search upon his person was not admissible in court.
qualification on senatorial candidates.  unreasonable but actually was an exception to the
prescription against warrantless search and seizures. It was RULING: No. There being no violation of the constitutional
ISSUE: Whether or not Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 should be justified as it proceeded from a duty or right that was right against unreasonable search and seizure, the
declared unconstitutional insofar as it imposed an additional enforced in accordance with the aviation rules and confiscated articles are admissible in evidence. While the
qualification on senatorial candidates. regulations to maintain peace, order and security at the Court is not unmindful of the fact that the common modus
operandi of narcotic agents in utilizing poseur-buyers does RULING: No. The Court has carefully reviewed the
not always commend itself as the most reliable way to go No as to the warrantless arrest of appellant Gaddao, the contentions of the parties in their respective pleadings, and it
after violators of the Dangerous Drugs Act, the proliferation search of her person and residence, and the seizure of the finds that the record of the instant cases would show that the
of drug addiction and trafficking has already reached an box of marijuana and marked bills. Our Constitution persons in whose behalf these petitions for habeas corpus
alarming level and experience has proven entrapment to be proscribes search and seizure without a judicial warrant and have been filed, had freshly committed or were actually
an effective means of apprehending drug peddlers as any evidence obtained without such warrant is inadmissible committing an offense, when apprehended, so that their
exemplified by this case. The Solicitor General explains that for any purpose in any proceeding. Search and seizure may arrests without a warrant were clearly justified, and that they
a buy-bust operation is the method employed by peace be made without a warrant and the evidence obtained there are, further, detained by virtue of valid informations filed
officers to trap and catch a malefactor in flagrante delicto from may be admissible in the following instances:  (1) against them in court.  In Espiritu vs. Lim, the release on
which is essentially a form of entrapment since the peace search incident to a lawful arrest; 2) search of a moving habeas corpus of the petitioner Deogracias Espiritu, who is
officer neither instigates nor induces the accused to commit motor vehicle;  (3) search in violation of customs laws;  (4) detained by virtue of an Information for Violation of Article
a crime. Entrapment is the employment of such ways and seizure of evidence in plain view; (5) when the accused 142 of the Revised Penal Code (Inciting to Sedition) filed
means for the purpose of trapping or capturing a lawbreaker himself waives his right against unreasonable searches and with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, is similarly not
from whose mind the criminal intent originated. While it is seizures.  Accused-appellant Gaddao was not caught red- warranted. The arrest of a person without a warrant of arrest
conceded that in a buy-bust operation, there is seizure handed during the buy-bust operation to give ground for her or previous complaint is recognized in law. The occasions
of evidence from one's person without a search warrant, arrest under Section 5 (a) of Rule 113. She was not or instances when such an arrest may be effected
needless to state a search warrant is not necessary, the committing any crime. Contrary to the finding of the trial without a warrant are clearly spelled out under Section 5
search being incident to a lawful arrest. A peace officer court, there was no occasion at all for appellant Gaddao to paragraphs (a) and (b) of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court,
may, without a warrant, arrest a person when, in his flee from the policemen to justify her arrest in "hot pursuit.” In as amended, when the person arrested is caught in
presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is fact, she was going about her daily chores when the flagrante delicto, viz., in the act of committing an
actually committing or is attempting to commit an policemen pounced on her. offense; or when an offense has just been committed
offense. It is a matter of judicial experience that in the and the person making the arrest has personal
arrest of violators of the Dangerous Drugs Act in a buy- GRAVADOR knowledge of the facts indicating that the person
bust operation, the malefactors were invariably caught CASE NO. 428 arrested has committed it.
red-handed. 
ART. III, SEC. 2: WARRANTLESS ARRESTS GRAVADOR
GRAVADOR IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO CASE NO. 429
CASE NO. 427 Espiritu v. Lim
ART. III, SEC. 2: WARRANTLESS ARRESTS
ART. III, SEC. 2: WARRANTLESS ARRESTS FACTS: 8 petitions have been consolidated because of the IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO
IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO similarity of issues raised, praying for the issuance of the writ Umil v. Fidel Ramos
People v. Doria of habeas corpus ordering the respective respondents to
produce the bodies of the persons named therein. FACTS: Military agents were dispatched to the St. Agnes
FACTS: Accused-appellants Doria and Gaddao were Particularly in Espiritu v. Lim, Deogracias Espiritu through tri- Hospital, Roosevelt Avenue, Quezon City, to verify a
charged with violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. media, was heard urging all drivers and operators to go on confidential information which was received by their office,
A buy-bust operation was conducted by the police which nationwide strike to force the government to give into their about a "sparrow man" (NPA member) who had been
caught accused Doria red-handed of selling prohibited drugs demands to lower the prices of spare parts, commodities, admitted to the said hospital with a gunshot wound. That the
and during the operation. The police officers searched for the water and the immediate release from detention of the wounded man in the said hospital was among the 5 male
marked bills that they used in buying said drugs which president of the PISTON (Pinag-isang Samahan ng Tsuper "sparrows" who murdered 2 CAPCOM mobile patrols the day
happened to be in the house of Gaddao, according to Doria. Operators Nationwide). Further, Espiritu, taking the place of before at about noon, before a road hump along Macanining
When they reached her house, the police officers came upon PISTON president Medardo Roda likewise announced the St., Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City. The wounded man's
a box which contained ten (10) bricks of what appeared to be formation of the Alliance Drivers Association to go on name was listed by the hospital management as "Ronnie
dried marijuana leaves. nationwide strike. In their respective Returns, the Javellon," 22 years old of Block 10, Lot 4, South City Homes,
respondents uniformly assert that the privilege of the writ of Biñan, Laguna however it was disclosed later that the true
ISSUE: Whether or not the warrantless arrest of Doria and habeas corpus is not available to the petitioners as they name of the wounded man was Rolando Dural. In view of
Gaddao as well as the search of the latter’s person and have been legally arrested and are detained by virtue of valid this verification, Rolando Dural was transferred to the
house was valid. informations filed in court against them. The petitioners Regional Medical Services of the CAPCOM, for security
counter that their detention is unlawful as their arrests were reasons. While confined thereat, he was positively identified
RULING: Yes as to warrantless arrest of accused-appellant made without warrant and, that no preliminary investigation by the eyewitnesses as the one who murdered the 2
Doria. Warrantless arrests are allowed in three instances as was first conducted, so that the informations filed against CAPCOM mobile patrols.
provided by Section 5 of Rule 113. Under Section 5 (a), a them are null and void.
person may be arrested without a warrant if he "has ISSUE: Whether or Not Rolando Dural was lawfully arrested.
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to ISSUE: Whether or not the persons detained have been
commit an offense." Appellant Doria was caught in the act illegally arrested or arbitrarily deprived of their constitutional RULING: Yes. It clearly appears that Dural was not arrested
of committing an offense. When an accused is right to liberty, and that the circumstances attending these while in the act of shooting the two (2) CAPCOM soldiers
apprehended in flagrante delicto as a result of a buy- cases warrant their release on habeas corpus. aforementioned nor was he arrested just after the
bust operation, the police are not only authorized but commission of the said offense for his arrest came a day
duty-bound to arrest him even without a warrant. after the said shooting incident; seemingly, his arrest without
warrant is unjustified, however Dural was arrested for were given money treated with ultraviolet powder. One of the buy-bust operation conducted by another group in the same
being a member of the NPA, an outlawed subversive agents went to said location, asked for a certain Don. vicinity, and knowledge of their presence might alarm other
organization. Subversion, being a continuing offense, Thereafter, the Don, herein accused, met with him and “a drug pushers who may be present therein. When the other
the arrest without warrant is justified as it can be said certain object wrapped in a plastic” later identified as group informed Sgt. Mugot that their operation failed, he and
that he was committing an offense when arrested. The marijuana was given in exchange for P200. The agent went his companions forthwith arrested both appellants and
crimes rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to back to headquarters and made a report, based on which, a brought them to their headquarters.
commit such crimes, and crimes or offenses committed in team was subsequently organized and a raid was conducted
furtherance therefore in connection therewith constitute in the house of the father of the accused. During the raid, the ISSUE: WON there was a valid warrantless arrest.
direct assaults against the state and are in the nature of NARCOM agents were able to confiscate dried marijuana RULING: Yes. A peace officer or a private person may
continuing crimes. leaves and a plastic syringe among others. There was no effect an arrest without a warrant when an offense has in
authorization by any search warrant. The accused was found fact just been committed, and he has personal
GRAVADOR positive of ultraviolet powder. The lower court, considering knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be
CASE NO. 430 the evidences obtained and testimonies from the arrested has committed it. Sgt. Mugot had personal
prosecution, found him guilty of violating the Dangerous knowledge of the commission of the crime, having been
ART III SEC 2: WARRANTLESS ARRESTS Drugs Act of 1972 and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. present in the locus criminis and having actually witnessed
IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO the unlawful transaction. The interval between the
People vs. Sucro ISSUE: WON the arrest and seizure were illegally commission of the crime and the time of the arrests was only
conducted.  four to five minutes. A buy-bust operation is a form of
FACTS: Fulgencio was monitoring activities of appellant entrapment employed by peace officers to apprehend a
Sucro because of an information that Sucro was selling RULING: Yes. The NARCOM agents’ procedure in the malefactor in flagrante delicto, that is, to catch him red-
marijuana. Sucro was seen to have talked and exchanged entrapment of the accused failed to meet the qualification handed while selling marijuana to a person acting as a
things three times. During the transaction with the 3rd buyer, that the suspected drug dealer must be caught red-handed poseur-buyer.
Macabante, police officers intercepted. Macabante saw the in the act of selling marijuana to a person posing as a buyer,
police and threw a tea bag of marijuana on the ground. since the operation was conducted after the actual DELOS REYES
Macabante admitted buying the marijuana from Sucro. The exchange. Said raid also violated accused’ right against CASE NO. 433
police thereafter arrested Sucro without an arrest warrant. unreasonable search and seizure, as the situation did not fall
Recovered were 19 sticks and 4 teabags of marijuana.  in the circumstances wherein a search may be validly made Art III Sec. 2 Warrantless Arrest – In Flagrante Delicto
even without a search warrant, i.e. when the search is People v. Alolod, 266 SCRA 154
ISSUE: WON appellant’s arrest without warrant is lawful. incidental to a lawful arrest; when it involves prohibited
articles in plain view. The NARCOM agents could not have FACTS: Accused Alolod was found guilty of Robbery with
HELD: YES. A peace officer or private person may, without justified their act by invoking the urgency and necessity Homicide and Illegal Possession of Firearm. A passenger
warrant, arrest a person: of the situation because the testimonies of the jeepney driven by one Alberto Juan was cruising along
a. When in his presence, the person to be arrested prosecution witnesses reveal that the place had already Quirino Highway. On board were four (4) passengers
has committed, is actually committing, or is been put under surveillance for quite some time. Had it including accused Alolod.  All of a sudden Alolod grabbed
attempting to commit an offense; been their intention to conduct the raid, then they the plastic bag held by one of the passengers. The latter
b. When an offense has in fact just been committed, should, because they easily could, have first secured a resisted. Alolod then pulled out a gun and shot de Vera
and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating search warrant during that time. point-blank. As a result, blood oozed from the body of de
that the person to be arrested has committed it; Vera. But, despite his wound, he insisted on wrestling with
Alolod for the possession of the bag until the latter fired a
It would suffice if the overt acts were to be seen by a DELOS REYES second shot. As they grappled they fell from the jeepney. As
police officer, although from a distance. Fulgencio, within CASE NO. 432 Alolod and de Vera continued to struggle, SPOI Eduardo
a distance of 2 meters saw Sucro conduct his nefarious Liberato arrived but Alolod succeeded in running away with
activity, and the fact that Macabante, was caught throwing Art III Sec. 2 Warrantless Arrest – In Flagrante Delicto the bag. Liberato pursued Alolod until he caught up with him.
the marijuana stick and when confronted, readily admitted People v. Yap, 229 SCRA 787 Accused now comes on appeal contending that the trial court
that he bought the same from accused-appellant clearly erred in appreciating evidence for the prosecution that were
indicates that Sucro had just committed an illegal act of FACTS: Accused-appellant Yap were charged with a manifestly "fruits of the poisonous tree."
which the police officers had personal knowledge. violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act for having sold in
Ozamiz City six sticks of marijuana for a consideration of ISSUE: WON there was a valid warrantless arrest.
10php. 2 buy-bust operations were scheduled to be
DELOS REYES RULING: Yes. The police officers, particularly SPOI
conducted simultaneously inside the public market of
CASE NO. 431 Liberato, appropriately responded to the call of duty by
Ozamiz City. Upon seeing appellant Yap, poseur-buyer
Raterta approached and offered to buy marijuana, immediately chasing the suspected criminal. A peace officer
Art III Sec. 2 Warrantless Arrest – In Flagrante Delicto may effect warrantless arrest when in his presence the
whereupon six sticks thereof were delivered to him after he
People v. Rodrigueza, 205 SCRA 791 person to be arrested has committed, is actually
handed the marked ten-peso bill to Yap. Immediately after
the consummation of said sale of the six sticks of marijuana, committing, or is attempting to commit an offense or, an
FACTS: NARCOM agents staged a buy-bust operation, after offense has just in fact been committed, and he has
Sgt. Mugot, who was four to five meters away, saw appellant
gaining information that there was an ongoing illegal traffic of reasonable knowledge of the facts indicating that the
go inside the public market. They did not immediately arrest
prohibited drugs in Tagas, Albay. The participating agents person to be arrested has committed it. SPOI Liberato
the latter as they were still waiting for the result of the other
arrived when accused Alolod and victim Romeo de Vera broad daylight or on a busy street on unexplained MP: For warrantless arrest under paragraph (a) of Section 5
were still wrestling with each other. As the officer suspicion. (in flagrante delicto arrest) to operate, two elements must
approached them Alolod ran away so that Liberato had no concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt
recourse but pursue him until he was arrested. That was a act indicating that he has just committed, is actually
legitimate arrest without warrant. Alolod was actually DELOS REYES committing, or is attempting tocommit a crime; and (2) such
committing a crime in the presence of the police officer or at CASE NO. 435 overt act is done in the presence or withinthe view of the
least had just committed it, and the police officer had arresting officer.
personal knowledge of the facts indicating that Alolod had Art III Sec. 2 Warrantless Arrest – In Flagrante Delicto  
committed the crime. In this case, the warrantless arrest People v. Elamparo – 329 SCRA FACTS: Petitioner was charged with violation of RA 9165.
being legal, any evidence gathered as a result thereof Prosecution claims that arresting officers allegedly caught
cannot be considered "fruit of a poisonous tree;" FACTS: Joel Elamparo has been convicted with Illegal him coming out of the house of certain Jacinta Mariano who
consequently, it is admissible. Possession of Drugs and penalized with reclusion perpetua. is contended to be selling prohibited drugs. The officers
The case was raised for automatic review. further claimed that they chased the tricycle and after
DELOS REYES catching up with it, they requested Rizaldy to alight and
CASE NO. 434 Police Officer Baldonado of Caloocan City Police received a noticed that he was holding a match box., SPO1 Amposta
report from an informant that "some people are selling shabu while examining it found a small transparent plastic sachet
Art III Sec. 2 Warrantless Arrest – In Flagrante Delicto and marijuana somewhere in Bagong Bario, Caloocan City." which contained a white crystalline substance. Suspecting
People v. Mengote – 210 SCRA 174 Thus, Baldonado organized a buy-bust team and deployed that the substance was a regulated drug, the group accosted
at a known "market" for buyers of marijuana. Thereafter, a Rizaldy and the tricycle driver. The group brought the two to
FACTS: The Western Police District received a call from an runner approached the poseur-buyer to confirm an order. the police station.  Defense on the other hand claimed that
informer that there were 3 suspicious looking persons at the The runner then left and returned with the marijuana. petitioner was on his way home together with Darwin Reyes
corner of Juan Luna and North Bay Boulevard in Tondo, Gaviola, the poseur-buyer and buy bust team member then after transporting a passenger with his passenger jeep, when
Manila. A surveillance team was forthwith dispatched. The handed over the marked money and arrested the runner who they were apprehended by 4 armed men who claimed to be
patrolmen saw two men looking from side to side, one of freed himself and ran. police claiming that he bought drugs from Alapan. 
whom holding his abdomen. They approached the persons  
and identified themselves as policemen, whereupon the two The buy-bust team pursued the runner, who ran inside a RTC rendered its decision finding that Sanchez was caught
tried to run but unable to escape because the other lawmen bungalow-type house with steel gate. Having trapped the in flagrante delicto, In actual possession of shabu. Sanchez
surrounded them. The suspects were then searched. One of runner inside the house, the police officers frisked him and appealed before the CA but the latter upheld RTC’s decision.
them the accused-appellant was found with a .38 caliber with recovered the marked money. The police officers likewise MR of petitioner was likewise denied. Hence the petition
live ammunitions in it, while his companion had a fan knife. found Joel Elamparo repacking five bricks of "marijuana" where Sanchez raised the issue
An information was filed before the RTC convicting the wrapped in a newspaper on top of the round table inside the  
accused of illegal possession of firearm arm. Accused claims house. Elamparo was then arrested. ISSUE:  W/N the warrantless arrest and search on him were
that the weapon was planted on him at the time of his arrest. invalid due to the absence of probable cause on the part of
In his appeal he pleads that the weapon was not admissible ISSUE: WON the warrantless arrest of Elamparo valid? the police officers to effect an in flagrante delicto arrest
as evidence against him because it had been illegally seized. under Section 15, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court?
RULING: Yes. The members of the buy bust team  were  
ISSUE: WON the warrantless search and arrest was illegal. justified in running after him and entering the house RULLING: Yes. The evidence on record reveals that no
without a search warrant for they were hot in the heels overt physical act could be properly attributed to
of a fleeing criminal. Once inside the house, the police Sanchez as to rouse suspicion in the minds of the police
officers cornered Spencer and recovered the buy-bust operatives that he had just committed, was committing,
HELD: Yes. An evidence obtained as a result of an illegal
money from him. They also caught appellant in flagrante or was about to commit a crime. Sanchez was merely
search and seizure is inadmissible in any proceeding for any
delicto repacking the marijuana bricks which were in full seen by the police operatives leaving the residence of a
purpose. An arrest without warrant is lawful when: (a) the
view on top of a table. known drug peddler, and boarding a tricycle that proceeded
person to be arrested has committed, is actually
towards the direction of Kawit, Cavite. Such acts cannot in
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense, (b)
Five generally accepted exceptions to the right against any way be considered criminal acts. In fact, even if Sanchez
when the offense in fact has just been committed, and
warrantless searches and seizures have been judicially had exhibited unusual or strange acts, or at the veryleast
he has personal knowledge of the facts indicating the
formulated: (1) search incidental to a lawful arrest, (2) search appeared suspicious, the same would not have been
person arrested has committed it and (c) the person to
of moving vehicles, (3) seizure in plain view, (4) customs considered overt acts in order for the police officers to effect
be arrested has escaped from a penal establishment or a
searches, and (5) waiver by the accused themselves of their a lawful warrantless arrest under paragraph (a) of Section 5,
place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily
right against unreasonable search and seizure. This case Rule 113.
confined while his case is pending, or has escaped
falls squarely under the plain view doctrine DELOS REYES
while being transferred from one confinement to
CASE NO. 437
another. These requirements have not been established in
the case at bar. At the time of the arrest in question, the DELOS REYES
CASE NO. 436 Art III Sec. 2 Warrantless Arrest – Hot Pursuit
accused appellant was merely looking from side to side and
Go v. CA – 206 SCRA 138
holding his abdomen, according to the arresting officers
Art III Sec. 2 Warrantless Arrest – In Flagrante Delicto FACTS:  Petitioner entered a one-way street and travelled in
themselves. There was apparently no offense that has just
Rizaldy Sanchez  Y  Cajili v. People,  G.R.  No. 204589, the “wrong” direction. When Magauan (victim) and
been committed or was being committed in their presence.
November 19, 2014 petitioner’s cars almost nearly bumped each other, petitioner
Moreover, a person may not be stopped and frisked in a
alighted from his car, walked over and shot Maguan inside the evening of the same day of the incident, he, together with things and inconsistent with the aforestated purpose of
his car. Petitioner then boarded his car and left the scene. A some other officers, arrested Manlulu (without warrant) on a buy-bust operation. It is rather absurd on his part to let
security guard at a nearby restaurant was able to take down the information given by Manlapaz (witness).  appellant escape without having been subjected to the
petitioner's car plate number. The police arrived shortly sanctions imposed by law. It is, in fact, a dereliction of duty
thereafter at the scene of the shooting (plate number turned ISSUE: Whether or not the arrest of Manlulu, without by an agent of the law.
out to be registered in petitioner’s wife name). Eventually, warrant, was valid.
the victim succumbed to his wounds. Six (6) days after the
shooting incident, petitioner presented himself before the RULING/ MAIN POINT: No. In the instant case, neither did DELOS REYES
San Juan Police Station to verify news reports that he was Pat. Perez have "personal knowledge," nor was the CASE NO. 440
being hunted by the police and has been positively identified offense "in fact just been committed." The killing took
by an eyewitness to the shooting. The police forthwith place at one o'clock in the morning. The arrest and the Art III Sec. 2 Warrantless Arrest – Hot Pursuit
detained him. Hence, counsel for petitioner filed with the consequent search and seizure came at around seven People v. Enrile, 222 SCRA 586
Prosecutor an omnibus motion for immediate release o'clock that evening, some nineteen hours later. This
alleging that the warrantless arrest of petitioner was instance cannot come within the purview of a valid FACTS: Enrile was charged for the violation of the
unlawful. warrantless arrest. Moreover, while Pat. Perez may have Dangerous Drugs Act. The issue stemmed when Abugatal
personally gathered the information which led to the arrest of (Enrile’s co-accused but killed because of an attempted jail
ISSUE: Whether or not the warrantless arrest made by the Manlulu, that is not enough. The law requires "personal break), who was caught from a buy-bust operation, together
police was lawful. knowledge." Obviously, "personal gathering of with the policemen, went to a house where Enrile was
information" is different from "personal knowledge." The staying. Thereafter, the former pointed he latter and accused
RULING/MAIN POINT::  No. Under the Sec. 5, Rule 113, rule requires that the arrest immediately follows the him as the source of the marijuana confiscated from the
Rules on Criminal Procedure, a peace officer or a private commission of the offense, not some nineteen hours mentioned operation. This then caused the policemen to
person may, without warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in later. immediately arrest herein accused Enrile absent any warrant
his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is of arrest. Hence, accused challenges the trial court’s
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; decision for violation of the Constitutional right against
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed , and he DELOS REYES unlawful arrest. 
has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to CASE NO. 439
be arrested has committed it; and (c) When the person to be ISSUE: Whether or not the warrantless arrest made against
arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal Art III Sec. 2 Warrantless Arrest – Hot Pursuit Enrile is valid.
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or People v. Rodrigueza, 205 SCRA 791 (1992)
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has RULING/MAIN POINT: No. Abugatal’s
escaped while being transferred from one confinement to FACTS: Accused-appellant Rodrigueza was found guilty of a accusation/confession against Enrile  is in itself  does not
another. The "arrest" effected six (6) days after the violation (possession and sale of marijuana leaves) of the justify Enrile's warrantless arrest and search. Under Rule
shooting be reasonably regarded as effected "when the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. The issue stemmed when an 113, Section 5, of the Rules of Court, paragraphs (a) and (b)
shooting had in fact just been committed" could not be informer told a Narcotics Regional Unit of an ongoing illegal are clearly inapplicable. Paragraph (b) is also not in point
within the meaning of Section 5(b). Moreover, none of the traffic of prohibited drugs involving herein accuse. After a because the policemen who later arrested Enrile at his
"arresting" officers had any "personal knowledge" of facts buy-bust operation conducted against accused, a team was house had no personal knowledge that he was the source
indicating that petitioner was the gunman who had shot ordered to arrest the accused even without warrant of arrest of marijuana. According to the policemen themselves, what
Maguan. The information had been derived from statements when the latter was apprehended. However, the next day happened was that they asked Abugatal who gave him the
made by alleged eyewitnesses to the shooting and such after the arrest, Rodrigueza was released from detention.  marijuana and were told it was Enrile. It was for this reason
does not constitute "personal knowledge." Thus, it must be that they proceeded to Enrile's house and immediately
the arresting officer who shall have personal knowledge ISSUE: Whether or not the warrantless arrest made against arrested him. What the policemen should have done was
of the crime.  Rodrigueza was valid. secure a search warrant on the basis of the information
supplied by Abugatal, and then, with such authority,
DELOS REYES RULING/MAIN POINT: No. A buy-bust operation is a form of proceeded to search and, if the search was fruitful, arrest
CASE NO. 438 entrapment employed by peace officers to trap and catch a Enrile. Enrile was not caught in flagrante delicto.
malefactor in flagrante delicto. Applied to the case at bar, the
Art III Sec. 2 Warrantless Arrest – Hot Pursuit term in flagrante delicto requires that the suspected drug FARGAS
People v. Manlulu, 231 SCRA 701 (1994) dealer must be caught redhanded in the act of selling Case No. 441
marijuana or any prohibited drug to a person acting or posing Hot Pursuit 
FACTS: Herein accused were convicted by the trial court of as a buyer. In the instant case, however, the procedure People v. Jayson, 282 SCRA 166 (1997)
the crime of Murder. Alfaro, the victim, was stabbed by Alfaro adopted by the NARCOM agents failed to meet this FACTS: 
(accused) in the chest with a 6-inch double-bladed knife then qualification. Based on the very evidence of the     Patrolmen received a radio message that there was a
Manlulu (accused) followed suit and stabbed Alfaro in the prosecution, after the alleged consummation of the sale of shooting incident in Ihaw-Ihaw on Bonifacio Street.
abdomen several times with an ice pick. Moreover, Samson dried marijuana leaves, CIC Taduran immediately released Because of this, they proceeded to the scene and saw the
(using the gun of Alfaro) also shot the victim in the neck. The appellant Rodrigueza instead of arresting and taking him victim. Bystanders pointed to accused-appellant as the
incident happened during a drinking session and at around into his custody. This act of CIC Taduran, assuming one who had shot Jordan. They then arrested accused-
one o'clock in the morning. Nonetheless, Patrolman arguendo that the supposed sale of marijuana did take appellant. Hence, there was a warrantless arrest conducted.
Reynaldo Perez recounted that at around seven o'clock in place, is decidedly contrary to the natural course of
ISSUE:      Accused Samus, a farmer in the land in Laguna, was     NO. 2 conditions must concur for a warrantless arrest to
    W/N the warrantless arrest was valid. found guilty for the killing of Balisi, the 62-yo neighbor of be valid: first, the offender has just committed an offense
Samus’ father, and her 6-year old grandson by strangling and, second, the arresting peace officer or private person
RULING:  and banging their heads to a concrete which caused their has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to
    Yes. The Supreme Court has held in analogous death. Senior Inspector Garcia received an order to be arrested has committed it. It has been held that “personal
circumstances from several decided cases that a warrantless investigate the murder then discovered that the elder Balisi’s knowledge of Facts’ in arrests without a warrant must be
arrest is valid when an offense has in fact just been earrings were missing. On September 10, the Criminal based upon probable cause, which means an actual belief or
committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts Investigation Group (CIC) went to the Vallejo’s house where reasonable grounds of suspicion”.
indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it Samus was sighted and asked permission to enter, which
provided that the incident only happened moments before was granted. Samus was seen crawling on the roof then FARGAS
the arrest and attendant by other related circumstances such jumped from the roof. They ordered him to stop. The CIG Case No. 445
as the fleeing of accused or obvious manifestations of the closed in on Samus, who admitted the killings upon a query Hot Pursuit 
crime connecting the accused to the incident. In the case at from Rolly Vallejo. People v. Gorente, 219 SCRA 756
bar there was a shooting. The policemen summoned to the FACTS: 
scene of the crime found the victim. Accused-appellant was ISSUE:      Valenzuela Police Station patrolman Urrutia received a
pointed to them as the assailant only moments after the     W/N the warrantless arrest was valid. report from the Palo Police Detachment about a mauling
shooting. In fact accused-appellant had not gone very far incident. The patrolman went to the Valenzuela District
(only ten meters away from the Ihaw-Ihaw), although he was RULING:  Hospital where the victim was brought. He was informed by
then fleeing. The arresting officers thus acted on the basis of     NO. The killing of the Balisis was not done in the presence that the victim died on [Link] Urrutia with police
personal knowledge of the death of the victim and of facts of the arresting officers. In order for a warrantless arrest to team proceeded to where the mauling incident took place
indicating that accused-appellant was the assailant. be valid, the peace officer or private individual must: 1.) and found a piece of wood with blood stains, a hollow block
when, in their presence, the person to be arrested has and two roaches of marijuana. Witness informed them that
Case No. 442 committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit, she saw the killing and she pointed to Gerente as one of the
Hot Pursuit  an offense; 2.) when an offense has just been committed, three men who killed Blace. The policemen proceeded to the
People v. Del Rosario, GR 127755, April 14, 1999 and they have probable cause to believe, based on personal house of the Gerente who was then sleeping. Gerente was
FACTS:  knowledge of facts or circumstances, that the person to be arrested without a warrant.
    Accused Rosario, a tricycle driver, was found guilty as co- arrested has committed it and 3.) when the person to be
principal for committing the special complex crime of arrested is a prisoner who has escaped while being ISSUE: 
Robbery with Homicide for having robbed Bernas, a 66-yo transferred from one confinement to another, or from a penal     W/N the policemen had personal knowledge of the facts
businesswoman. Rosario pleaded not guilty on the ground establishment where he or she is serving final judgment or is rendering the warrantless arrest valid.
that he was unable to flee the scene of the crime or to assist temporarily confined while the case is pending. None of
the victim because he was being threatened at gun point by these circumstances was present when the CIG arrested RULING: 
Accused Santos that if he reports the incident to the police, Samus. He was not a prisoner.     YES. The arrest without warrant was lawful. The
his family would be in danger. During the police raid a day policemen arrested Gerente only some 3 hours after Gerente
after, Rosario was handcuffed by the police because FARGAS and his companions had killed Blace. They saw Blace dead
allegedly they had already gathered enough evidence Case No. 444 in the hospital and when they inspected the scene of the
against him. Hot Pursuit  crime, they found the instruments of death. A peace officer
People v. Cubcubin, GR 136267, October 2, 2001 or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
ISSUE:  FACTS:  a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
    W/N the warrantless arrest was valid.     Cavite PNP station received a report that a man had been committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit
killed along Julian Felipe Boulevard; an alleged witness saw an offense” ;(b) When an offense has in fact just been
RULING:  Cubcubin and the victim coming out of the Sting Cafe; the committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts
    NO. Respondent was arrested during the police raid at the waitress at the Sting Café said that the man who was last indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it.
place of accused Marquez, his arrest was invalid because he seen with the victim was lean, mustachioed, dark-
wasn’t caught in the act or caught immediately after the complexioned and was wearing a white t-shirt and a pair of
consummation of the act. Therefore, his arrest was outside brown short pants; a tricycle driver told them that the
the ambit of the exception on warrantless arrests because he physical description given by the waitress fitted Cubcubin,
was arrested on the day after the commission of the offense. and who said he knew where Cubcubin lived and
The appreciable lapse of time requires a warrantless arrest, accompanied the police team to Cubcubin’s house. SPO1 FARGAS
also the arresting officers had no personal knowledge of the Malinao, Jr. found a bloodied white t-shirt upon entering the Case No. 446
offense committed. house. When he picked up the t-shirt, two spent .38 caliber Hot Pursuit 
shells fell from it. Padilla v. CA, GR 121917, March 12, 1997
FARGAS FACTS: 
Case No. 443 ISSUE:      Robin Padilla was involved in a hit and run accident in Oct
Hot Pursuit      W/N an arrest without personal knowledge that a criminal 26, 1992 as reported to the police. The police stationed
People v. Samus, GR 135957, April 14, 1999 committed the act is valid. themselves at the Abacan bridge in response said report, he
FACTS:  was later on apprehended there. Upon arrest 4 high powered
RULING:  firearms and ammunitions were found in his possession.
Padilla claimed papers of guns were at home. His arrest for the surveillance. After two days the police apprehended Hot Pursuit 
hit and run incident modified to include grounds of Illegal Sucro and was charge in violation of the Dangerous Drugs People v. Sequino – 264 SCRA 79
Possession of firearms. He had no papers. Act. The Accused now contends that his arrest was illegal,  
being a violation of his rights granted under Section 2, FACTS: 
ISSUE:  Artilce III of the 1987 Constitution.     A robbery had took place after some armed men tried to
    W/N Padilla’s arrest was valid. stop the delivery of wages to a hacienda in Cebu.
ISSUE:  After the robbery the police received a report and found the
RULING:      W/N there is a violation of the constitutional right. getaway motorcycle without the perpetrators but they
    YES. The exigent circumstances of - hot pursuit, a fleeing found a paper which was a biodata containing the “Melvida,
suspect, a moving vehicle, the public place and the RULING:  Nenito” and the entry for the father’s name filled in
raining nighttime - all created a situation in which speed is     No. An offense is committed in the presence or within the with “Elpidio Melvida”. Luna the policeman took Melvida to
essential and delay improvident. Moreover, when view of an officer, within the meaning of the rule the police station instead kept him there the whole
caught in flagrante delicto with possession of an unlicensed authorizing an arrest without a warrant, when the officer sees night and placed a bail only then he was allowed to leave.
firearm and ammunition. Petitioner’s warrantless arrest was the offense, although at a distance, or hears the During the investigation Melvina was without a counsel.
proper as he was again actually committing another offense disturbances created thereby and proceeds at once to the
(illegal possession of firearm and ammunitions) and this time scene thereof. When a police officer sees the offense, ISSUE: 
in the presence of a peace officer. although at a distance, or hears the disturbances created     W/N a valid warrantless arrest was effected.
thereby, and proceeds at once to the scene thereof, he may
FARGAS effect an arrest without a warrant. RULING: 
Case No. 447     No. Luna’s basis for arresting Melvida was the bio-data
Hot Pursuit  FARGAS sheet with Melvida’s name on it found at the crime
People v. Burgos – 144 SCRA 1 Case No. 449 scene. By no means can this indicate that Melvida
FACTS:  Hot Pursuit  committed the offense charged. It does not even connote
    Burgos was charged with illegal possession of firearms People v. Briones – 202 SCRA 708 that
and accused to be a member of the NPA. This FACTS:  Melvida was at the crime scene for the biodata sheet could
allegation was made after the surrender of a former member     Briones, Javier and Allied conspired and stole money from have been obtained by anyone and left at the crime
of the NPA Masinlok. Mainsinlok claims that Burgos the Sps Gutirrez. During the commission of the scene long before or after the crime was committed. Luna,
forced him to join the NPA and threaten to kill his family. robbery the accused-appellants hit the spouses with different therefore, had no personal knowledge of facts indicating
Burgos was then arrested without a warrant. The police objects that resulted to their death. The following Melvida’s guilt; at best, he had an unreasonable suspicion.
also searched his house without a search warrant however morning the “eye witness” disclosed the information the Melvida’s arrest was thus illegal. Where a policeman had no
they found gun buried underneath the land where the police. The police formed teams and apprehended the personal knowledge of facts indicating a suspect’s guilt—at
house is located. Burgos denies the allegation charges culprits thereafter. best, only an Unreasonable suspicion—then the warrantless
against him he contend that it was Masinlok who buried the arrest effected was illegal
gun himself. ISSUE: 
    W/N the accused- appellant were under an invalid since
ISSUE:  there was no warrant. LAUGHTON
    W/N Burgos warrantless arrest justified. CASE 451
RULING:  Hot pursuit
RULING:      Yes. It is unequivocally clear that no valid arrest was People v. Nazareno – 260 SCRA 256
    NO. Under Section 6(a) of Rule 113, the officer arresting a made on the accused-appellants, the arrest having
person who has just committed, is committing, been made without any warrant at all. Neither can the FACTS: Bunye rode a tricycle and crossed the road then
or is about to commit an offense must have personal appellants’; arrest qualify as a lawful arrest without a One of the men jumped out of a tricycle and shot Bunye at
knowledge of that fact. The offense must also be committed warrant under Sec. 5 (b) of Rule 113 of the Rules on the back of the head. When Bunye fell face down, the
in Criminal Procedure because the police officer who effected assailant fired another shot at Bunye’s head. Then, the other
his presence or within his view. Personal knowledge required the man approached Bunye and shot him in the head. The
of an officer arresting a person who has just committed, is arrest indubitably had no personal knowledge of facts tricycle drivers executed sworn affidavits relating what they
committing, or is about to commit an offense indicating that the person to be arrested has committed the had witnessed. The two described the assailants and stated
crime. It is eyewitness Francisco who had such personal that they could recognize the killers if they saw them again.
FARGAS knowledge, In like manner, We cannot accept appellee’s Ramil Regala, Narciso Nazareno, Orlando Hular and Manuel
Case No. 448 bare allegation that Briones was a fugitive from justice at the Laureaga were arrested. Regala and Nazareno were put in a
Hot Pursuit  time of the latter’s arrest because it is not supported police line-up. They were identified and pointed to as the
People v. Sucro – 195 SCRA 388 by the evidence on record. In sum, therefore, the warrantless assailants. Accused-appellants claim that their arrests
FACTS:  arrest of the appellants is illegal. Mere allegations and without warrant were illegal and justify the nullification of the
    Pat. Roy Fulgencio, a member of the INP, Kalibo, Aklan, without the proper authorities witnessing the actual crime proceedings of the trial court.
was under surveillance and saw the accused Sucro constitutes to illegal arrest.
selling drugs in a chapel. Seeing the transaction made he ISSUE: W/N Accused-appellants claim that their arrests
radioed his commanding officer but was told to continue FARGAS without warrant were illegal and justify the nullification of the
Case No. 450 proceedings of the trial court tenable.
 case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from
RULING/MP: NO. The contention is untenable. The ISSUE:    W/N the arrest without a warrant is justifiable in the one confinement to another.
warrantless arrest of accused-appellant Narciso Nazareno case at bar. 
was upheld by this Court in 1990 in a petition for habeas LAUGHTON
corpus. It was alleged that Nazareno’s arrest was illegal RULING/MP: YES. The Court notes that during the trial, CASE 455
because it was made without warrant fourteen days after the Alvario consistently protested his warrantless arrest. Suffice Hot pursuit
killing of Romulo Bunye II. This Court dismissed the petition. it to say that his arrest falls within the purview of Rule 113, People v. Olivarez – GR 77865, Dec. 4, 1998
He filed a motion for reconsideration which the Court also Section 5(b) of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. The
denied on the ground that the warrantless arrest was in personal knowledge of the arresting officers in the case at FACTS: A robbery with homicide was allegedly made by the
accordance with Rule 113, §5(b) of the Revised Rules of bar was culled from the information supplied by the victim accused in a house located in Tanada Subdivision
Criminal Procedure. When an offense has just been herself who pointed to Alvario as the man who raped her at Venezuela, Metro Manila. During the investigation, Olivarez
committed and he has probable cause to believe based on the time of his arrest. A warrantless arrest may be made by was pointed out. In pursuit of the accused, the PNP went to
personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the police officers based on their personal knowledge culled its former employer where the workers stated that Olivarez
person to be arrested has committed it.  from the information supplied by the victim herself who has not been reporting since the incident. Later on, upon
pointed to the suspect as the man who raped her at the time receiving reliable information, the arresting officers went to
LAUGHTON of his arrest. the address where they found the accused and without
CASE 452 warrant or order, asked the latter to come with them to the
Hot pursuit LAUGHTON police precinct and conducted an investigation.
People v. Mahusay – 282 SCRA 80 CASE 454
Hot pursuit ISSUE: W/N not the invitation of the accused to the police
FACTS: On April 19, 1988, in Leyte, the house of the Larranaga v. CA – 287 SCRA 521 precinct is a prohibition that is not wanting in a warrantless
Bughao family was entered by men, herein accused, and arrest.
took items from their dwelling and raped one of the FACTS: Francisco Larranaga (aka Paco) was arrested
daughters, Marilou. Immediately the day after the without warrant by PNP CIG at Center for Culinary Arts. The RULING/MP: YES. Probably aware of the illegality of the
unfortunate event, the family went to Integrated National arrest was made in connection with the kidnapping and arrest they made, the arresting officers testified that
Police to report the case. Which prompted the quick dispatch serious illegal detention of 2 women.  However, upon the appellants were merely invited to the police precinct. Such
of officers and later, without any warrant, arrested the assistance of Paco’s counsel, asked that they furnish a copy invitation, however, when construed in the light of the
accused. of the affidavits and be given 20 days to file their defense, circumstances is actually in the nature of an arrest designed
and that Paco should be subjected to a regular preliminary for the purpose of conducting an interrogation. Mere
ISSUE: W/N the arrest is of hot pursuit where a warrant of investigation, not undergo an inquest investigation. However, invitation is covered by the proscription on a warrantless
arrest is not necessary. this was denied by the City Prosecutor of Cebu. arrest because it is intended for no other reason than to
conduct an investigation.
RULING/MP: NO. Their contention is wrong that what ISSUE: W/N the warrantless arrest is lawful. 
transpired is of the nature of a hot pursuit, thus the case LAUGHTON
does not warrant a warrantless arrest. Under Section 5(b) of RULING/MP: NO. The records do not show that the CASE 456
Rule 113 of Rules on Criminal Procedure., two conditions petitioner was “lawfully arrested.” For one, the petitioner was Hot pursuit
must concur for a warrantless arrest to be valid: first, the not arrested on September 15, 1997, as his counsel Cadua v. CA – 312 SCRA 703
person to be arrested must have just committed an offense, persuaded the arresting officers that he would instead be
and second, the arresting peace officer or private person presented in the preliminary investigation to be conducted in FACTS: PO3 Joselito Burdeous and companions received a
must have personal knowledge of facts indicating that the Cebu City on September 17, 1997. For another, the arresting radio call, during their duty, that there was an alleged holdup
person to be arrested is the one who committed the offense. officers had no legal authority to make a warrantless arrest in the vicinity of Fairview, Quezon City. Upon arriving at the
In the instant case, the second condition is not attendant. of the petitioner.  : Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A place, the police officers found two (2) complainants and
peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, asked them to board their patrol car. Upon exchange of
LAUGHTON arrest a person:  information, the complainants were able to describe herein
CASE 453 accused, Cadua. While patrolling with the complainants, they
Hot pursuit (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has were able to identify the accused and found that he was
People  v. Alvario – 275 SCRA 529 committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit holding an unlicensed firearm in his possession, which then
an offense; proceeded his arrest without a warrant. 
FACTS: Esterlina, the offended party, looking for a job as a
house helper. During the search, with the assistance of a ISSUE: W/N the warrantless is valid. 
friend, found an opening in one of the residences in Bel-Air (b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has
Subdivision, Makati. The one who hired her was herein probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of
facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has RULING/MP: YES. The findings of the trial court, accepted
accused. After days of being employed, Alvario routinely by the appellate court. Through police dispatch to the scene
went inside the room of Esterlina with a gun, and started committed it; and
of a crime report and in the presence of complainants, it was
raping her. After gaining courage, she called her sister who ascertained that a robbery had just been committed, and the
then reported such a heinous act to the authorities. Alvario (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has arresting officers had personal knowledge that petitioner was
was then arrested at his residence without a warrant of escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is directly implicated as a suspect. Personal knowledge of facts
arrest. serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his in arrests without warrant must be based upon probable
cause, which means an actual belief or reasonable grounds accused-appellant who was then the barangay captain. RULING/MP: NO. The NBI agents in the case at bar tried to
of suspicion. During the said surveillance, they saw two (2) tall plants in arrest Narag and Taparan four days after the commission of
the backyard of the accused-appellant which they suspected the crime. They had no personal knowledge of any fact
LAUGHTON to be marijuana plants. A team was immediately formed. The which might indicate that the two students were probably
CASE 457 team proceeded at the residence of accused despite failure guilty of the crime. What they had were the supposed
Hot pursuit to obtain a search warrant. Police officers alleged that the positive identification of two alleged eyewitnesses, which is
People v. Cubcubin – 360 SCRA accused-appellant opened the gate and permitted them to insufficient to justify the arrest without a warrant by the NBI.
come in. Compacion, however, contended that after he Where the NBI agents only had the supposed positive
FACTS: The Cavite City Police Station has received a opened the gate, four (4) persons who he thought were identification of two alleged eyewitnesses, the same is
telephone call that a person had been shot. For this reason, members of the military, entered the premises then went insufficient to justify an arrest without a warrant.
a police team responded to the call and found the victim inside the house. One of the four men told him to sit in the
slumped dead on his tricycle. A tricycle driver then told a living room. Some went upstairs while the others went LAUGHTON
police officer that the accused-appellant and the victim were around the house. None of them asked for his permission to CASE 460
last seen together coming out of a café located about a search his house. Hot pursuit
kilometer and a half away from the crime scene. A waitress People v. Acol – 232 SCRA 406
at the said café told the investigators that she had seen the ISSUE: W/N there was a valid search in the backyard of the
accused arrive together with the victim but did not know if accused. FACTS: Percival Tan was driving his jeepney when two men
they left together. She described the accused-appellant in boarded the vehicle, together with two other companions,
which then another tricycle driver told the investigators that RULING/MP: NO. While the right to be secure from announced a hold-up. After the incident, Percival Tan and
he knows a person that fits the description given by the unreasonable search and seizure may, like every right, be his passengers went to Fort Bonifacio to report the crime. A
waitress and told them where his house is. As the police waived either expressly or impliedly, such waiver must team was formed to track down the culprits. Tan saw four
went to the house and upon entering, SPO1 Malinao noticed constitute a valid waiver made voluntarily, knowingly and persons, one of whom was wearing his stolen jacket, walking
a “bloodied” shirt. As he picked up the shirt, two (2) spent .38 intelligently—the act of the accused in allowing the members casually towards Fort Bonifacio; he told the police authorities
caliber shells fell. As they proceeded the search, PO3 Estoy of the police force to enter his premises and his consequent to waylay said persons. After the officers introduced
found on top of a plastic water container a homemade Smith silence during the unreasonable search and seizure could themselves, the four men scampered to different directions
and Wesson caliber .38 revolver and five live ammunition. not be construed as voluntary submission or an implied but three of them, namely, Tirso Acol, Pio Boses, and Albert
The police station then took custody of Cubcubin and the acquiescence to warrantless search and seizure especially Blanco, were apprehended. Acol and Boses were each
evidence was found. After an evaluation of the evidence, a so when members of the raiding team were intimidatingly found in possession of an unlicensed .38 caliber revolver
formal criminal complaint was filed against the accused- numerous and heavily armed. An accused is not presumed with bullets. After the arrest, the three men were brought to
appellant. to have waived the unlawful search simply because he failed Fort Bonifacio and were identified by Tan and the
to object—a peaceful submission to a search or seizure is passengers as the hold-uppers. Acol and Boses denied the
ISSUE: W/N the warrantless arrest of the accused-appellant not a consent or an invitation thereto, but is merely a charges alleging that they were arrested without cause and
was valid. demonstration of regard for the supremacy of the law. were forced to admit ownership of guns which were shown to
them.
RULING/MP: NO. Two conditions must concur for a LAUGHTON
warrantless arrest to be valid: first, the offender has just CASE 459 ISSUE: W/N there was a valid arrest on the basis of the
committed an offense and, second, the arresting peace Hot pursuit circumstances.
officer or private person has personal knowledge of facts Posadas v. Ombudsman – 341 SCRA
indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. It RULING/MP: YES. This falls under the exception which
has been held that “‘personal knowledge of facts’ in arrests FACTS: Dennis Venturina, a member of Sigma Rho at the states “when an offense has in fact been committed, and the
without a warrant must be based upon probable cause, University of the Philippines, was killed in a rumble between arresting officer has personal knowledge of facts indicating
which means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of his fraternity and another fraternity. Petitioner Posadas, then that the person to be arrested has committed it.” The police
suspicion.” The arresting officers did not have ‘personal Chancellor of U.P. Diliman asked the Director of the NBI for team was formed and dispatched to look for the persons
knowledge of the facts as their knowledge of the assistance in determining the persons responsible for the responsible for the crime on account of the information
circumstance from which they allegedly inferred that the crime. With that, respondent Dizon, Chief of the Special related by Tan that they had just been robbed. And since the
accused was probably guilty was based entirely on what they Operations Group of the NBI and his men went to U.P. and, accused's arrest was lawful, it follows that the search made
had been told by others. They merely relied on information on the basis of the supposed positive identification of two incidental thereto was valid. Moreover, the unlicensed
given to them by others. alleged eyewitnesses; they attempted to arrest Francis Carlo firearms were found when the police team apprehended the
Taparan and Raymundo Narag, officers/members of the accused for the robbery and not for illegal possession of
LAUGHTON Scintilla Juris Fraternity, as suspects in the killing of firearms and [Link] arrest and seizure was
CASE 458 Venturina. It appears that the two suspects had come that valid where it was done by a police team dispatched to look
Hot pursuit day to the U.P. Police Station for a peace talk between their for persons responsible for the crime based on information
People v. Compacion – 361 SCRA 540 fraternity and the Sigma Rho Fraternity. related by victims who have just been robbed. 

FACTS: Acting on a confidential tip supplied by a police ISSUE: W/N the attempted arrest of the student suspects by
informant that accused-appellant was growing and cultivating the NBI could be validly made without a warrant. LOTA
marijuana plants, police officers of the Narcotics Command Case No. 461
(NARCOM) conducted a surveillance of the residence of
 ART. III, SEC. 2, WARRANTLESS ARREST: estopped from questioning the legality of his arrest. Besides, allowed. Larkins’ detention has become legal by virtue of the
PROCEDURAL RULES this issue is being raised for the first time by appellant. He complaint before the trial court.
People v. Rabang did not move for the quashal of the information before the
  trial court on this ground. Consequently, any irregularity  
FACTS: After the happening of a stabbing incident which attendant to his arrest, if any, was cured when he voluntarily
caused the death of one and the injury of the witness, herein submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the trial court by
accused-appellant was held in custody by police officers entering a plea of not guilty and by participating in the trial. LOTA
upon the giving of testimony. Upon the case reaching the Case No. 464
Supreme Court, appellant assailed the legality of his arrest Art III Sec 2. Procedural Rules
LOTA People v. Buluran
by the police investigators allegedly for the reason that it Case No. 463
“was based solely on the basis of the tip and say-so from a Art III Sec 2. Procedural Rules
telephone informant who refused to identify himself.” Velasco v. CA FACTS: Appellants Buluran and Valenzuela were charged
  with the crime of murder. Upon arraignment, they entered a
ISSUE: Whether or not the appellant may assail the legality plea of not guilty but were later convicted of the crime
of his arrest during trial. FACTS: A warrant of arrest was issued against accused charged. Appellants now argue that their warrantless arrest,
  Larkins for violation of BP 22. Later, a certain Desiree Alinea lack of counsel during custodial investigation, and the lack of
RULING: No. The Court considers that appellant is estopped filed a complaint-affidavit before the NBI accusing Larkins of preliminary investigation render the criminal proceedings
from questioning the legality of his arrest. An examination of rape, pursuant to such, Larkins was arrested and detained, against them illegal for violation of their constitutional rights.
the record reveals that this issue is being raised for the first but Judge Padolina later issued an order for his release.
time by appellant before this Court. He had not moved for Special Investigators Resurreccion and Erum refused, as
Larkins was still detained for another cause, which was rape. ISSUES: (1) W/N appellants may still question the validity of
the quashing of the information before the trial court on this their arrest; (2) W/N their constitutional rights were violated
ground. Thus, any irregularity attendant to his arrest was Consequently, Alinea filed a complaint for rape with the RTC.
Larkins filed a motion for its dismissal based on the alleged during custodial investigation for lack of counsel; (3) W/N the
cured when he voluntarily submitted himself to the lack of preliminary investigation render the proceedings in
jurisdiction of the trial court by entering a plea of not guilty illegality of his warrantless arrest, which was denied. Hence,
his common-law wife filed a petition for habeas corpus which the trial court invalid.
and by participating in the trial.
  the CA granted because the complaint presented to the NBI
by Desiree Alinea on the basis of which Larkins was RULING:
MAIN POINT: Any irregularity attendant to an arrest is cured
when the accused voluntarily submits himself to the detained without a warrant of arrest for rape did not meet the
jurisdiction of the trial court by entering a plea of not guilty legal requirements provided for in Rule 113 of the Rules of (1)    Appellants are estopped from questioning the
and by participating in the trial. Court. Petitioners insist that the petition for habeas corpus validity of their respective arrests since they never
could no longer be granted because Larkins had already raised this issue before arraignment. Any
been charged with the crime of rape. objection involving a warrant of arrest or the
 
acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of
LOTA ISSUE: Whether or not a petition for habeas corpus should an accused must be made before he enters
Case No. 462 be granted in the case at bar, in view of the accused’s illegal his plea, otherwise the objection is deemed
Art III Sec 2. Procedural Rules arrest and detention.  waived.
People v. Lopez
RULING: NO. Even if the arrest of a person is illegal, (2)    There is no violation of the constitutional rights of
FACTS: Accused Lopez was charged with the murder of supervening events may bar his release or discharge the accused during custodial investigation since
Jesus Reyes. On arraignment, he entered a plea of not from custody. What is to be inquired into is the legality neither one executed an extrajudicial confession
guilty and a trial ensued where the RTC later found him of his detention as of, at the earliest, the filing of the or admission. Any allegation of violation of
guilty of the said charge. Appellant, in the instant petition, application for a writ of habeas corpus, for even if the rights during custodial investigation is
challenges the trial court’s decision because he insists that detention is at its inception illegal, it may, by reason of relevant and material only to cases in which
he is innocent and raises the question of his arrest without a some supervening events be no longer illegal at the time an extrajudicial admission or confession
warrant. of the filing of the application. Among such supervening extracted from the accused becomes the
events is the filing of a complaint or information for the basis of their conviction.
offense for which the accused is detained, as in the instant
ISSUE: Whether or not the accused may still assail the case. By then, the restraint of liberty is already by virtue of (3)    The failure to accord appellants their right to
illegality of his arrest. the complaint or information and, therefore, the writ of preliminary investigation did not render the
habeas corpus is no longer available. It is to be noted that, in proceedings invalid. While the right to
RULING: NO. It is well-settled that any objection all the petitions here considered, Criminal charges have preliminary investigation is a substantive
involving a warrant of arrest or procedure in the been filed against petitioner. The rule is, that if a person right, nevertheless, the right to preliminary
acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody of investigation is deemed waived when the
of an accused must be made before he enters his plea, an officer under process issued by a court or judge, and accused fails to invoke it before or at the time
otherwise the objection is deemed waived. When that the court or judge had jurisdiction to issue the of entering a plea at arraignment. Appellants
accused-appellant was arrested and a case was filed against process or make the order, or if such person is charged only raised said issue during appeal. 
him, he pleaded not guilty upon arraignment, participated in before any court, the writ of habeas corpus will not be
the trial and presented his evidence. Appellant is thus
Additional Readings: (e) Any waiver by a person arrested or detained under LOTA 
  the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, Case No. 466
As per syllabus: or under custodial investigation, shall be in writing and Art III Section. Arrest
  signed by such person in the presence of his counsel; People v. Alunday, G.R. No. 181546, 3 September 2008,
Ø  ARREST – RULE 113 of Rules of Criminal otherwise the waiver shall be null and void and of no 564 SCRA 135
Procedure effect.
Ø  Section 2 of Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution FACTS: The Intelligence Section of the Police Provincial
Ø  RA. 7438: AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS (f) Any person arrested or detained or under custodial Office of the Mountain Province received a report from a
OF PERSON ARRESTED, DETAINED OR investigation shall be allowed visits by or conferences confidential informant that there was an existing marijuana
UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION AS WELL with any member of his immediate family, or any plantation within the vicinity of Mt. Churyon. After a series of
AS THE DUTIES OF THE ARRESTING, medical doctor or priest or religious minister chosen by validations, the existence of the subject plantation was finally
DETAINING AND INVESTIGATING OFFICERS, him or by any member of his immediate family or by his confirmed.
AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR counsel, or by any national non-governmental
VIOLATIONS THEREOF organization duly accredited by the Commission on The Police Director ordered a contingent of policemen to the
Human Rights of by any international non-governmental subject plantation and upon arriving at the area saw Ricardo
organization duly accredited by the Office of the Alunday cutting and gathering marijuana leaves. The police
Section 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or President. The person's "immediate family" shall include took Alunday to the hut where they saw a woman, an M16
Under Custodial Investigation; Duties of Public Officers. his or her spouse, fiancé or fiancée, parent or child, rifle and some dried marijuana leaves.
– brother or sister, grandparent or grandchild, uncle or
aunt, nephew or niece, and guardian or ward.
ISSUE: Is the warrantless arrest valid?
(a) Any person arrested detained or under custodial
investigation shall at all times be assisted by counsel.
RULING: Yes. Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court
(b) Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting provides that a peace officer or a private person may,
LOTA 
under his order or his place, who arrests, detains or without a warrant, arrest a person when, in his presence, the
investigates any person for the commission of an person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing,
Case No. 465 or is attempting to commit, an offense. Section 5(a) refers to
offense shall inform the latter, in a language known to Art III Section. Arrest
and understood by him, of his rights to remain silent arrest in flagrante delicto. In flagrante delicto means caught
AAA v. Carbonell, G.R. No. 171465, 8 June 2007, 524 in the act of committing a crime. This rule, which warrants
and to have competent and independent counsel, SCRA 496
preferably of his own choice, who shall at all times be the arrest of a person without warrant, requires that the
allowed to confer privately with the person arrested, person arrested has just committed a crime, or is committing
detained or under custodial investigation. If such person FACTS: In a rape case, private complainant failed to appear it, or is about to commit an offense, in the presence or within
cannot afford the services of his own counsel, he must 4 consecutive orders to take the witness stand in order to view of the arresting officer.
be provided with a competent and independent counsel satisfy the judge for the existence of probable cause for the
by the investigating officer. issuance of a warrant of arrest.  LOTA 

(c) The custodial investigation report shall be reduced to Judge Carbonell dismissed Criminal Case No. 6983 for lack Case No. 467
writing by the investigating officer, provided that before of probable cause on the ground that the complainant and Art III Section 2. Warrantless Arrests - Hot Pursuit
such report is signed, or thumbmarked if the person her witnesses failed to take the witness stand. He claims that People v. Joselito Del Rosario
arrested or detained does not know how to read and under Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, no
write, it shall be read and adequately explained to him warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause “to Facts: Accused Rosario, a tricycle driver, was found guilty
by his counsel or by the assisting counsel provided by be determined personally by the judge after examination as co-principal for committing the special complex crime of
the investigating officer in the language or dialect under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the Robbery with Homicide for having robbed Bernas, a 66-yo
known to such arrested or detained person, otherwise, witnesses he may produce.” businesswoman.
such investigation report shall be null and void and of
no effect whatsoever. ISSUE: W/N Judge Carbonell was right in dismissing the Witness Alonzo, also a tricycle driver testified that there were
case due to lack of probable cause. two men who alighted from the tricycle. Who are, accused
(d) Any extrajudicial confession made by a person Visaya who snatched the victim’s purse, and accused
arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall RULING: No. Judge Carbonell committed grave abuse of Marquez who chased away the man who was trying to assist
be in writing and signed by such person in the presence discretion. The Supreme Court explained that this the victim. Victim was shot on the head. Afterwards, they
of his counsel or in the latter's absence, upon a valid constitutional provision does not mandatorily require the boarded the tricycle. Alonzo reported the incident to the
waiver, and in the presence of any of the parents, elder judge to personally examine the complainant and her police. Rosario pleaded not guilty on the ground that he was
brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, witnesses. Instead, he may opt to personally evaluate the unable to flee the scene of the crime or to assist the victim
the municipal judge, district school supervisor, or priest report and supporting documents submitted by the because he was being threatened at gun point by Accused
or minister of the gospel as chosen by him; otherwise, prosecutor or he may disregard the prosecutor’s report and Santos that if he reports the incident to the police, his family
such extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses. would be in danger.  During the police raid a day after,
evidence in any proceeding. Rosario was handcuffed by the police because allegedly
they had already gathered enough evidence against him.  the person to be arrested has committed it provided that the Case No. 470
Rosario alleged that his arrest was unlawful because there incident only happened moments before the arrest and Art III Section. Arrest
was no warrant of arrest. attendant by other related circumstances such as the fleeing Pestilos v. Generoso, G.R. No. 182601, 10 November
of accused or obvious manifestations of the crime 2014, 739 SCRA 337
Issue: W/N an arrest a day after the commission of the connecting the accused to the incident. In the case at bar  
crime without a warrant is a lawful warrantless arrest. there was a shooting. The policemen summoned to the FACTS: The petitioners were indicted for attempted murder.
scene of the crime found the victim. Accused-appellant was Petitioners filed an Urgent Motion for Regular Preliminary
Ruling: NO. Respondent was arrested during the police raid pointed to them as the assailant only moments after the Investigation on the ground that there no valid warrantless
at the place of accused Marquez, his arrest was invalid shooting. In fact accused-appellant had not gone very far arrest took place. The RTC denied the motion and the CA
because he wasn’t caught in the act or caught immediately (only ten meters away from the Ihaw-Ihaw), although he was affirmed the denial.
after the consummation of the act. Therefore, his arrest was then fleeing. The arresting officers thus acted on the  
outside the ambit of the exception on warrantless basis of personal knowledge of the death of the victim Records show that an altercation ensued between the
arrests because he was arrested on the day after the and of facts indicating that accused-appellant was the petitioners and Atty. Moreno Generoso. The latter called the
commission of the offense. The appreciable lapse of assailant. Central Police District to report the incident and acting on
time requires a warrantless arrest, also the arresting this report, SPO1 Monsalve dispatched SPO2 Javier to go to
officers had no personal knowledge of the offense the scene of the crime and render assistance. SPO2,
committed.  LOTA together with augmentation personnel arrived at the scene of
the crime less than one hour after the alleged altercation and
Main point in bold. Detailed version below. saw Atty. Generoso badly beaten.
Case No. 469  
ART III SEC 2: Warrantless Search and Seizure Petitioners aver that they were not validly arrested without a
People v. Oliver Edano warrant.
2 stringent requirements before a warrantless arrest can be  
effected: (1) an offense has just been committed; and (2) the  
FACTS: Oliver arrived on board a space wagon driven by ISSUE: W/N the warrantless arrest is valid.
person making the arrest has personal knowledge of facts Siochi. The informant approached Oliver and talked to him
indicating that the person to be arrested had committed it.  
inside the vehicle. Afterwards, the informant waved at PO3 RULING: YES. the petitioners were validly arrested without a
Hence, there must be a large measure of immediacy Corbe. When PO3 Corbe was approaching the appellant, the
between the time the offense was committed and the time of warrant. Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of
latter went out of the vehicle and ran away. They chased the Criminal Procedure provides that: when an offense has just
the arrest, and if there was an appreciable lapse of time appellant; PO3 Corbe was able to grab Oliver, causing the
between the arrest and the commission of the crime, a been committed, and he has probable cause to believe
latter to fall on the ground. PO3 Corbe recovered a "knot- based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that
warrant of arrest must be secured. tied" transparent plastic bag from the appellant’s right hand, the person to be arrested has committed it. the arresting
while PO3 Alcancia seized a gun tucked in the appellant’s officers went to the scene of the crime upon the complaint of
  waist. The other members of the police arrested Siochi. Atty. Generoso of his alleged mauling; the police officers
Thereafter, the police brought the appellant, Siochi and the responded to the scene of the crime less than one (1) hour
seized items to the police station for investigation. after the alleged mauling; the alleged crime transpired in a
  community where Atty. Generoso.
ISSUE: Whether or not the search and seizure was valid.  
   
RULING: NO. In this case, a peace officer or a private
LOTA  person may, without a warrant, arrest a person when, in
his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, NICANOR
CASE NO. 468 is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an
ARTICLE III, SEC. 2: Hot Pursuit offense. Considering that the appellant’s warrantless CASE 471
People v. Jayson arrest was unlawful, the search and seizure that resulted
  from it was likewise illegal. Thus, the alleged plastic bag RULE 126 OF REVISED RULES ON CRIMINAL
FACTS: Patrolmen received a radio message that there was containing white crystalline substances seized from him is PROCEDURE
a shooting incident in Ihaw-Ihaw on Bonifacio Street. inadmissible in evidence, having come from an invalid
Because of this, they proceeded to the scene and saw the search and seizure. Moreover, trying to run away when no
victim. Bystanders pointed to accused-appellant as the one crime has been overtly committed, and without more, SEARCH AND SEIZURE
who had shot Jordan. They then arrested accused-appellant. cannot be evidence of guilt.
Hence, there was a warrantless arrest conducted.    
 
ISSUE: Whether or not the warrantless arrest was valid. SECTION 1. Search warrant defined.—A search warrant
  is an order in writing issued in the name of the People of
RULING/ MAIN POINT:: Yes. The Supreme Court has held the Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a
in analogous circumstances from several decided cases that peace officer, commanding him to search for personal
a warrantless arrest is valid when an offense has in fact just property described therein and bring it before the court.
been committed, and he has personal knowledge (even if did (1)
not personally witnessed the crime) of facts indicating that LOTA
 to believe that they exist, he shall issue the warrant, no return was made. If the return has been made, the
which must be substantially in the form prescribed by judge shall ascertain whether section 11 of this Rule has
SEC. 2. Court where application for search warrant shall these Rules. (5a) been complied with and shall require that the property
be filed.—An application for search warrant shall be filed seized be delivered to him. The judge shall see to it that
with the following: subsection (a) hereof has been complied with.
SEC. 7. Right to break door or window to effect search.
—The officer, if refused admittance to the place of
(a) Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime directed search after giving notice of his purpose and (c) The return on the search warrant shall be filed and
was committed. authority, may break open any outer or inner door or kept by the custodian of the log book on search
window of a house or any part of a house or anything warrants who shall enter therein the date of the return,
therein to execute the warrant or liberate himself or any the result, and other actions of the judge.
(b) For compelling reasons stated in the application, any person lawfully aiding him when unlawfully detained
court within the judicial region where the crime was therein. (6)
committed if the place of the commission of the crime is A violation of this section shall constitute contempt of
known, or any court within the judicial region where the court. (11a)
warrant shall be enforced.
SEC. 8. Search of house, room, or premises to be made SEC. 13. Search incident to lawful arrest.—A person
in presence of two witnesses.—No search of a house, lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous
However, if the criminal action has already been filed, room, or any other premises shall be made except in the
the application shall only be made in the court where the weapons or anything which may have been used or
presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member constitute proof in the commission of an offense without
criminal action is pending. (n) of his family or in the absence of the latter, two a search warrant.
witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the
SEC. 3. Personal property to be seized.—A search same locality. (7a)
warrant may be issued for the search and seizure of
personal property: SEC. 14. Motion to quash a search warrant or to
suppress evidence; where to file.—A motion to quash a
SEC. 9. Time of making search.—The warrant must search warrant and/or to suppress evidence obtained
(a) Subject of the offense; direct that it be served in the day time, unless the thereby may be filed in and acted upon only by the court
affidavit asserts that the property is on the person or in where the action has been instituted. If no criminal
(b) Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits of the place ordered to be searched, in which case a action has been instituted, the motion may be filed in
the offense; or direction may be inserted that it be served at any time of and resolved by the court that issued the search
the day or night. (8) warrant. However, if such court failed to resolve the
(c) Used or intended to be used as the means of motion and a criminal case is subsequently filed in
committing an offense. (2a) SEC. 10. Validity of search warrant.—A search warrant another court, the motion shall be resolved by the latter
shall be valid for ten (10) days from its date. Thereafter, court.
it shall be void. (9a)
SEC. 4. Requisites for issuing search warrant. —A
search warrant shall not issue except upon probable SEC. 11. Receipt for the property seized.—The officer NICANOR
cause in connection with one specific offense to be seizing property under the warrant must give a detailed
determined personally by the judge after examination receipt for the same to the lawful occupant of the CASE NO 472
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the premises in whose presence the search and seizure
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing were made, or in the absence of such occupant, must, in
the presence of at least two witnesses of sufficient age “A.M. No. 21-06-08-SC (Rules on the Use of Body-Worn
the place to be searched and the things to be seized Cameras in the Execution of Warrants)
which may be anywhere in the Philippines. (3a) and discretion residing in the same locality, leave a
receipt in the place in which he found the seized
property. (10a)  
SEC. 5. Examination of complainant; record. —The
judge must, before issuing the warrant, personally SEC. 12. Delivery of property and inventory thereof to SECTION 3. Use of Body-Worn Cameras During Arrest.
examine in the form of searching questions and court; return and proceedings thereon. —(a) The officer — At least one body-worn camera and one alternative
answers, in writing and under oath, the complainant and must forthwith deliver the property seized to the judge recording device, or such number as necessary to
the witnesses he may produce on facts personally who issued the warrant, together with a true inventory capture and record the relevant incidents during
known to them and attach to the record their sworn thereof duly verified under oath. execution of the warrant shall be worn by members of
statements, together with the affidavits submitted. (4a) the team making the arrest by virtue of a warrant.
Should a body-worn camera be unavailable, at least two
(b) Ten (10) days after issuance of the search warrant, alternative recording devices must be used. The officers
the issuing judge shall ascertain if the return has been having such cameras shall ensure that they are worn in
SEC. 6. Issuance and form of search warrant. —If the a conspicuous location and in a manner that maximizes
judge is satisfied of the existence of facts upon which made, and if none, shall summon the person to whom
the warrant was issued and require him to explain why thelr ability to capture a recording of the arrest. Both
the application is based or that there is probable cause
video and audio recording functions of the cameras 3. The fact that persons subject of the recording were ISSUE: W/N the issuance is valid
shall be activated as soon as the officers arrive at the notified of the use of body-wom cameras or alternative
place of arrest. Unless provided in Rule 4, Section 10 of recording devices; RULING/MP: Yes. Probable cause is determined based on
these Rules, the cameras shall not be deactivated until evidence showing that more likely than not, a crime has
the arrest has been fully concluded and the arresting 4. The date, time, place, and other circumstances been committed and that it was committed by the offender.
officers have delivered the person arrested to the surrounding the first instance of retrieval or download of In the case at bar, probable cause existed which justified the
nearest police station or jail pursuant to Rule 113, the recordings from the cameras; issuance of the search warrants in question.
Section 3 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
5. The names and positions of the persons who had CASE 474
Where a peace officer effectuates an arrest under Rule possession of and access to the recordings, including
113, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Criminal details of such access, from the time of their taking until
Procedure and insofar as it is practicable, the arrest NICANOR
their deposit with the court;
shall be recorded using body-wom cameras or
alternative recording devices in the same manner as an   SEC 2: SEARCH AND SEIZURE
arrest made with a warrant. 6. The fact of redaction of personal identifiers appearing
in the recording whenever applicable, the special
circumstances justifying such redaction, and the details People vs Cogaed          
Further, in cases of warrantless arrests effected under redacted, pursuant to Rule
Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act G.R. No. 200334               July 30, 2014
of 2002, as amended, the media representative may be
allowed to record the operation, subject to the custody 4, Section 4 of these Rules;
 
requirements under Rule 4, Sections 1, 2, and 3 of these
Rules. In case of malfunction, damage, or unavailability 7. Whenever applicable, a certification that both
of body-wom cameras, resort to alternative recording unredacted and redacted files containing the recordings FACTS: A police officer “received a text message from an
devices may be allowed. Reasons for resorting to such are submitted to the court; unidentified civilian informer” that one Marvin Buya  would be
alternative devices shall be explained in the affidavit to transporting marijuana.” Thereafter, the police officers
be submitted to the court under Section 4 of this Rule. 8. The names and positions of the officers who will be established a checkpoint. The jeepney driver disembarked
delivering the recordings to the court; and signaled to the police officer indicating the two male
passengers who were carrying marijuana. The police officer
SECTION 4. Affldavit of Arrest and Submission of
asked passengers Cogaed and Dayao about the contents of
Recordings to Court. 9 Reasonable ground in case of noncompliance with any their bags. Cogaed opened the blue bag, revealing three
of the requirements on the use of body-worn cameras or bricks of what looked like marijuana.
— Upon filing of the report under Rule 113, Section 4 of alternative recording devices, including all acts
the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, all recordings undertaken showing genuine and sufficient efforts
exerted to ensure compliance with these Rules. ISSUE: W/N there was a valid search and seizure of
from the body-wom cameras or alternative recording
marijuana.
devices used during the execution of the warrant shall
be stored in an external media storage device and In case of death, physical disability, resignation, or
simultaneously deposited in a sealed package with the severance of ties with the agency of the officers whose RULING/MP: No. The search was made without a warrant
issuing court, provided that the officer may, Resolution body-worn cameras or alternative recording devices and does not constitute a valid warrantless search. The
13 A.M. No. 21-06-08-SC with leave of court, retain a were used in the execution of the warrant, any member Constitution provides that every person has the right against
back-up copy for justifiable reasons for a period not of the arresting team shall make the affidavit. unreasonable search and seizure. In this case, there was no
exceeding 15 days. In case of redaction of personal valid search since there was no search warrant. Moreover,
identifiers in the recordings pursuant to Rule 4, Section the search made does not fall squarely to the exceptions or
 NICANOR valid warrantless search.
4 of these Rules, both the unredacted and the redacted
files shall be submitted to the court. The report shall be
accompanied by affidavits of the officers whose body- 473  CASE 475
worn cameras or alternative recording devices were
used to capture the recordings, and the affidavits shall  SEC 2: SEARCH AND SEIZURE NICANOR
state: WORLDWIDE WEB CORPORATION vs PEOPLE
G.R. No. 161106               January 13, 2014 
 SEC 2: SEARCH AND SEIZURE
1. The date, time, and place of the recording;
FACTS: A search warrant was issued to search the
premises of herein petitioner World Wide Web Corporation PEOPLE vs. CALANTIAO
2. The manner by which the recording was taken and
stored, and when applicable, the fact of unavailability of as well as the premises of Planet Internet. The application
body-worn cameras and that a resort to alternative for the search warrants alleged that petitioners were G.R. No. 203984               June 18, 2014
recording devices was necessary, and the conducting illegal toll bypass operations that amounted to
circumstances detailing the non-activation, interruption, theft and violation of P.D. No. 401 to damage and prejudice  
or sudden termination of the recording; the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT)
FACTS: EDWIN LOJERA approached PO1 NELSON container inside petitioner’s pocket. Clearly, the evidence A perusal of the records shows that the applicant police
MARIANO while on duty and asked for police assistance was not immediately [Link] was there a officers failed to secure the endorsement of any of the
regarding a shooting incident. When they reached the place consented warrantless search. The subject items seized enumerated key officers of the PNP in any of the search
and while approaching said vehicle, two armed men alighted during the illegal arrest are inadmissible. warrants they secured from Judges Sabarre and Cabalona.
therefrom, fired their guns towards them (police officers) and
ran away. PO1 Mariano and PO3 Ramirez chased them but   CASE 478
they were subdued and recovered from the accused a black
bag containing two (2) bricks of dried marijuana.
CASE 477 NICANOR
 
NICANOR  ART III SEC 3: RIGHT TO PRIVACY 
ISSUE: W/N marijuana found in his possession is admissible
as evidence against him   SEC 2: SEARCH AND SEIZURE DISINI vs. THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE

RULING/MAIN POINT: Yes. In the case at bar, the CONFUSED CITIZEN VS ARGUELLES G.R. No. 203335               February 11, 2014
marijuana was found in a black bag in Calantiao’s
possession and within his immediate control. In lawful  
arrests, it becomes both the duty and the right of the
apprehending officers to conduct a warrantless search not FACTS: After hearing the applicant and his witnesses, Judge  
only on the person of the suspect, but also in the permissible Sabarre issued Search Warrant against Espinosa, Sr and to
area within the latter’s reach. Otherwise stated, a valid arrest be served at the Sub-Provincial Jail in Baybay, Leyte. FACTS:The Philippine Congress enacted Republic Act
allows the seizure of evidence or dangerous weapons either November 5, 2016, the search warrants were served. PCI (R.A.) 10175 or known as theCybercrime Prevention Act of
on the person of the one arrested or within the area of his Laraga reported that during the implementation of the search 2012 which seeks to protect individuals from crimes or
immediate control. warrant against Espinosa at Cell No. 1, "respondent fired unlawful acts that can be committed through the
upon the raiding team that resulted to a firefight causing his [Link] in these consolidated cases, contended
  untimely death. Items seized "during the conduct of the crime that this law violated certain constitutional rights thus praying
scene by the SOCO" include "one (1) unit firearm chamber that it be declared void and unconstitutional.
CASE 476 loaded) with six ( 6) live ammos and a transparent
cellophane containing suspected shabu, and other
paraphernalia." ISSUE: W/N provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of
NICANOR 2012 violated freedom of expression and privacy
 
 SEC 2: SEARCH AND SEIZURE RULING/MP: YES, the Supreme Court declared three (3)
provisions void for being unconstitutional, to wit Sections 4(c)
ISSUE: W/N the issuance of search warrants directed (3), Section 12, and Section 19. The Court in Section 4(c)(3)
LUZ [Link] against persons already under the custody of a government placed great weight in the protection of commercial speech,
detention facility is proper it is ruled that unsolicited advertisements are legitimate
G.R. No. 197788               February 29, 2012 forms of expression. It ruled that there is no basis to the
  claim that the presence of unsolicited commercial
  communications or spam tend to slow down the efficiency of
RULING/MP: NO. Judges Sabarre should have required the computers, as well as its storage and is considered as a
FACTS: SPO1 caught the accused driving a motorcycle applicants to comply with OCA Circular before issuing the nuisance to the users. Commercial speech is afforded
without a helmet  and while he was  issuing a citation ticket subject search warrants implemented inside the Abuyog protection in this case, further stating that people have the
for violation of municipal ordinance, he told the accused to Pena Facility. right to read one’s email, and the denial of such constitutes
put out the contents of the pocket of his jacket which was a violation of freedom of expression. As to Section 12, the
nickel-like tin or meta. He asked the accused to open it and court found that it failed to provide safeguards to the right to
Paragraph 5, OCA Circular No. 40-2016, provides, among privacy of every individual, as it authority is given to law
upon his instruction, the accused spilled out the contents of others, that the the heads of the National Bureau of
the container on the table which turned out to be two (2) enforcement authorities to gather electronic traffic data
Investigation· (NBI), the Philippine National Police (PNP), the referred as the date, time, size, origin etc. of a certain
contained suspected shabu. Anti-Crirrie Task Force (ACTAF) and the Philippine Drug communication. It is declared as unconstitutional, as it must
'Enforcement Agency (PDEA) shall personally endorse ( or be specific and definite to ensure that the rights of every
 ISSUE: W/N there was a valid search and seizure authorize) all applications for search warrants involving individual are protected
heinous crimes, illegal gambling, illegal possession of ·
RULING/MP: No. In the case at bar, there was no valid firearms and ammunitions as well as violation~ of the
arrest hence, seizure is illegal. In addition, the evidence Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002;
seized, although alleged to be inadvertently discovered, was
not in "plain view." It was actually concealed inside a metal CASE 479
NICANOR phone was seized in the process and searched. On the basis RULING: YES. The Majority emphasized that there is a
of evidence discovered in the phone, he was charged with “recognized privacy interest in the comprehensive
ART III SEC 3: Scope: Tangible and Intangible Objects possession of firearms and attempted murder. Riley moved accounts of one’s movements and location” and that the
to suppress the evidence obtained from the phone. He extended nature of the cell site location information
claimed that it was a violation of his Fourth Amendment collection and inspection, which allowed the
rights, since no warrant had been issued for the search of government to account for the defendants’ movements
the cell phone. This was rejected by the trial court, and this was unreasonable.
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) decision was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal. 
PIEDAD
    Case No. 482

FACTS: Petitioner was convicted under an indictment ISSUE:   W/N the warrantless search of the cell phone of an ART III SEC 3: Factors to Determine Violation of the
charging him with transmitting wagering information by arrested person was a violation of the right to be secure Right to Privacy
telephone across state lines in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1084. against unreasonable search and seizures under the Fourth In the matter of the petition for issuance of the writ of
Evidence of petitioner's end of the conversations, overheard Amendment. habeas of Camilo I. Sabio GR 174340, 
by FBI agents who had attached an electronic listening and
recording device to the outside of the telephone booth from   FACTS: Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago introduced a
which the calls were made, was introduced at the trial. The resolution “directing an inquiry in aid of legislation on the
Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, finding that there anomalous losses incurred by the Philippines Overseas
RULING/MP: YES. It held that a warrantless search of the
was no Fourth Amendment violation, since there was "no Telecommunications Corporations and Philippine
cell phone of an arrested person was not reasonable and
physical entrance into the area occupied by" petitioner. Communications Satellite Corporation Holdings Corporation,
thus violated the Fourth Amendment right to be secure
against unreasonable searches. due to the alleged improprieties in their operations by their
ISSUE: W/N there was a violation in Fourth Amendment respective Board of Directors.” Pursuant to this, Senator
Richard Gordon, wrote Chairman Sabio of the PCGG inviting
The Court held that the digital data stored on a cell phone him to be one of the resource persons in the public meeting.
RULING/MP: [Link] US Supreme Court held that the act of could not itself be used as a weapon to harm an arresting
FBI agents in electronically recording a conversation made by Chairman Sabio declined the invitation and invoked Section
officer or to effectuate the arrestee’s escape. As far as 4(b) of E.O. No. 1 “No member or staff of the Commission
petitioner in an enclosed public telephone booth violated his right preservation of evidence was concerned, the Court held that
to privacy and constituted a “search and seizure”.   Because the shall be required to testify or produce evidence in any
once a cell phone had been seized, there was no longer a judicial, legislative or administrative proceeding concerning
petitioner had a reasonable expectation of privacy in using the risk that the arrestee would delete incriminating data from
enclosed booth to make a personal telephone call, the protection of matters within its official cognizance.”
the phone. Hence, the present case of warrantless search
the Fourth Amendment extends to such area. In the concurring was held to be violative of the right to be secure against
opinion of Mr. Justice Harlan, it was further noted that the unreasonable search and seizures under the Fourth ISSUE: Whether or not the government violate such
existence of privacy right under prior decisions involved a two-fold Amendment. Further, it was held that warrantless search of reasonable expectation of privacy exhibited by the
requirement: first, that a person has exhibited an actual (subjective) cell phones would violate “the privacies of life” of individuals.  PHILCOMSAT directors.  
expectation of privacy; and second, that the expectation be one that
society is prepared to recognize as reasonable (objective).  RULING: NO. In evaluating a claim for violation of the right
PIEDAD
Case No. 481 to privacy, a court must determine whether a person has
(I copied the ruling found in our syllabus) exhibited a reasonable expectation of privacy and, if so,
whether that expectation has been violated by
ART III SEC 3: Scope: Tangible and Intangible Objects unreasonable government intrusion. Obviously, the
CASE 480 US v. Graham  inquiry focuses on petitioners’ acts committed in the
discharge of their duties as officers and directors of the said
NICANOR FACTS: Defendant-Appellants Graham and Jordan were corporations, particularly Philcomsat Holdings Corporation.
charged as co-conspirators in a string of armed robberies. Consequently, they have no reasonable expectation of
ART III SEC 3: Scope: Tangible and Intangible Objects Police caught Graham during the last robbery and privacy over matters involving their offices in a
recognized certain similarities with earlier ones. As a result, corporation where the government has interest.
the government obtained a search warrant for Graham’s Certainly, such matters are of public concern and over
residence; the search uncovered, among other things, two which the people have the right to information.
cell phones. Investigators then obtained two court orders
Riley vs California directed at Sprint/Nextel, the provider of the two cell phones, PIEDAD
which commanded the company to disclose cell site location CASE NO. 483
June 25, 2014 information associated with the defendants' devices.
ART III SEC 3: Factors to Determine Violation of the
FACTS: The petitioner, Riley was stopped by the police for ISSUE: Whether or not government’s warrantless Right to Privacy
traffic violations. This led to a search of his car. He was procurement of extended cell site location information Briccio Pollo v. Chairperson Karina David 
subsequently arrested for possessing firearms. His cell violated the appellants’ right to privacy.
FACTS: CSC Chairperson Karina Constantino-David RULING: No. Enshrined in our Constitution is the inviolable since she "was speaking in response to duty [to protect her
received a document from an anonymous source, making right of the people to be secure in their persons and own interest] and not out of an intent to injure the reputation"
her aware that there is a corrupt official in the Commission. properties against unreasonable searches and seizures, of Syhunliong. Besides, "[t]here was no unnecessary
She then formed personnel and directed them to back up all which is provided for under Section 2, Article III thereof. The publicity of the message beyond [that] of conveying it to the
the files of the computers found therein. Respondent found, exclusionary rule under Section 3(2), Article III of the party concerned."
in Bricio Pollo, petitioner, legal pleading or documents that Constitution also bars the admission of evidence obtained in MP: The rule on privileged communication means that a
are related to administrative cases and were for on the violation of such right. The fact that the present case is communication made in good faith on any subject matter in
behalf of parties who were facing charges. He asserted that administrative in nature does not render the above principle which the communicator has an interest, or concerning
the CSC conducted a fishing expedition and his right to inoperative. which he has a duty, is privileged if made to a person having
privacy was violated and that the source of the complaint a corresponding duty.
was anonymous. The CSC charged Pollo in violation of RA The contention that it was obtained with consent is not
6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public sufficient to have it fall under a valid warrantless search into  PIEDAD
Officials). the personal computer of Atty. Morales. Consent to a search CASE NO. 486
is not to be lightly inferred and must be shown by clear and
 ISSUE: Whether or not the search conducted on petitioner’s convincing evidence with which burden of proving lies with ART. III SEC 3: FACTORS TO DETERMINE VIOLATION
office computer and the copying of his personal files without the State. OF THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY
his knowledge and consent constituted a violation of his Ramirez v CA
constitutional right to privacy. MP: Acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights is not to
be presumed and courts indulge every reasonable FACTS: Petitioner filed a civil case against the private
RULING: NO. In evaluating a claim for violation of the right presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional respondent Ester Garcia alleging that the latter vexed,
to privacy, a court must determine whether a person has rights. To constitute a valid consent or waiver of the insulted and humiliated her in a "hostile and furious mood"
exhibited a reasonable expectation of privacy and, if so, constitutional guarantee against obtrusive searches, it must and in a manner offensive to petitioner's dignity and
whether that expectation has been violated by be shown that (1) the right exists; (2) that the person personality," contrary to morals, good customs and public
unreasonable government intrusion. The SC found that involved had knowledge, either actual or constructive, of the policy evidenced by a tape recording of the said
he had no actual expectation of privacy on his work existence of such right; and (3) the said person had an confrontation. Respondent then filed a criminal case against
computer. He did not have a separate office space, nor actual intention to relinquish the right. the petitioner for violation of RA 4200 or An Act to prohibit
did he use a password for his computer. The CSC also and penalize wiretapping and other related violations of
implemented a policy that its employees on notice that PIEDAD private communication, and other purposes. Petitioner
they have no expectation of privacy in anything on their CASE NO. 485 contends that the said law does not apply as the violation
office computers, and that the CSC may monitor their punished by R.A. 4200 refers to the taping of a
use. communication by a person other than a participant to the
ART. III SEC 3: FACTORS TO DETERMINE VIOLATION
OF THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY communication. RTC ruled in favor of herein petitioner but
PIEDAD Syhunliong v Rivera the CA reversed the decision of the trial court. Hence, the
CASE NO. 484 case at bar.
FACTS: Syhunliong instituted against Rivera a complaint for
ART. III SEC 3: FACTORS TO DETERMINE VIOLATION libel, the origin of the instant petition. The said accused with ISSUE: Whether or not “private communication” in RA 4200
OF THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY a text message saying that she had suffered a lot in also contemplates “private conversation”.
Anonymous Letter-Complaint Against Atty. Miguel collecting her last pay, meant and intended to convey and to
Morales  destroy the good name and reputation of Ramon Syhunliong. RULING: Yes. The statute's intent to penalize all persons
Rivera filed a Motion to Quash. She argued that her text unauthorized to make such recording is underscored by the
FACTS: Atty. Miguel Morales is a clerk of the Court in the message was not prompted by ill will or spite but was merely use of the qualifier "any". Consequently, as respondent
MeTC of Manila charged in an anonymous letter with sent as part of her duty to defend her own interests. RTC Court of Appeals correctly concluded, "even a (person) privy
misconduct for allegedly using working hours filing and denied the said motion and her MR. Upon appeal to the CA, to a communication who records his private conversation
attending to personal cases, using office supplies, equipment the decision was reversed ruling that the matter contained in with another without the knowledge of the latter (will) qualify
and utilities. On a spot investigation conducted, evidences the text message is privileged communication under Article as a violator" under this provision of R.A. 4200.
were discovered on hi personal computer. The accused now 354 of the RPC. Hence, this petition. MP: The law makes no distinction as to whether the party
contends that since the evidences were acquired from his sought to be penalized by the statute ought to be a party
personal computer without any valid search and seizure ISSUE: Whether or not CA committed reversible error in other than or different from those involved in the private
order, such evidence should be considered as the fruits of a ordering the outright dismissal of the case on the putative communication. The nature of the conversations is
poisonous tree as it violated his right to privacy. While the ground that the allegedly libelous text messages were immaterial to a violation of the statute.
investigating officer claims that it was obtained with the privileged communication.
consent of the former.
RULING: No. The Court stresses that the text message
ISSUE: Whether or not the evidences found in Atty. which Rivera sent to Lumapas falls within the purview of a PIEDAD
Morales's personal computer admissible in the present qualified privileged communication. Rivera's text message CASE NO. 487
administrative case against him. falls within the ambit of a qualified privileged communication
 ART. III SEC 3: FACTORS TO DETERMINE VIOLATION RULING & MP: (1) No. The purpose of the writ is to rendering said Minute Resolution. Atty LAURETA was the
OF THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY determine whether a person is being illegally deprived of counsel of Illustre. He circulate copies of the complain to the
Navarro v CA his liberty. If, however, the detention is proven lawful, then press, without any copy furnished the Court, nor the Justices
the habeas corpus proceedings terminate. Petitioners charged. It was made to appear that the Justices were
FACTS: This is a petition for review on certiorari of the themselves admit that they do not question the legality of the charged with graft and corruption. The Tanodbayan
decision of the Court of Appeal affirming the decision of the detention of the detainees. Neither do they dispute the lawful dismissed the complaint. Now, the SC is charging them with
trial court finding petitioner Felipe Navarro guilty beyond indictment of the detainees for criminal and military offenses. [Link] claim that the letters were private
reasonable doubt of homicide based on a voice recording Nonetheless, case law has expanded the writs communication, and that they did not intend to dishonor the
between the petitioner and the deceased inside the police application to circumstances where there is deprivation court.
station the night the incident happened. of a person’s constitutional rights. However, a mere ISSUE: WON privacy of communication was violated
allegation of a violation of one’s constitutional right is RULING: The letters formed part of the judicial record and
not sufficient. (2) No. That a law is required before an are a matter of concern for the entire court. There is no
ISSUE: Whether or not the recording is admissible in view of executive officer could intrude on a citizen’s privacy rights vindictive reprisal involved here. The Court’s authority and
R.A. No. 4200, which prohibits wiretapping. is a guarantee that is available only to the public at large duty under the premises is unmistakable. It must act to
but not to persons who are detained or imprisoned.  By preserve its honor and dignity from the scurrilous attacks of
RULING & MP: Yes. The RA 4200 prohibits the overhearing, the very fact of their detention, pre-trial detainees and an irate lawyer, mouthed by his client, and to safeguard the
intercepting, or recording of private communications. Since convicted prisoners have a diminished expectation of morals and ethics of the legal profession.
the exchange between petitioner Navarro and Lingan was privacy rights. The letters were not in a sealed envelope.
not private as it was inside a police station, its tape recording The inspection of the folded letters is a valid measure as it PIEDAD
is not [Link] is there any question that it was duly serves the same purpose as the opening of sealed letters for CASE NO. 490
authenticated. A voice recording is authenticated by the the inspection of contraband. The letters alleged to have
testimony of a witness (1) that he personally recorded the been read by the ISAFP authorities were not confidential
conversation; (2) that the tape played in court was the one letters between the detainees and their lawyers. ART III, SEC 3: NOT COVERED
he recorded; and (3) that the voices on the tape are those of PEOPLE VS ALBOFERA
the persons such are claimed to belong.  PIEDAD
CASE NO. 889 Facts: Sometime in June or July 1980, accused Albofera
PIEDAD and 3 others killed Teodoro Carancio, a forester. Rodrigo
CASE NO. 488 Esma was at the house of one of the accused but did not
ART III, SEC 3: NOT COVERED participate in the killing. The matter was later brought to the
IN RE: WENCESLAO LAURETA  attention of the authorities by a certain Sisneros and
ART. III SEC 3: RULE ON THE WRIT OF HABEAS DATA accused Albofera was arrested. The accused Lawi-an was
NOT COVERED FACTS: Maravilla Illustre wrote to the justices of the SC, subsequently arrested. Albofera executed an extra-judicial
Alejano v Cabuay  complaining about the dismissal of the her case(aland confession before the Municipal Circuit Judge. He stated
dispute involving large estate) by a minute-resolution. Illustre therein that he was forced to join the NPA movement for fear
FACTS: This is a petition to review which seeks to nullify the claims that it was an unjust resolution deliberately and of his life; that said group had ordered the “arrest” of the
decision rendered by the CA dismissing the petition for knowingly promulgated by the 1stDivision, that it was victim, Carancio, and that the group “sentenced him (the
habeas corpus filed by the counsels of detained officers who railroaded with such hurry beyond the limits of legal and victim) to die by stabbing.” Esma testified against the
committed a coup d’état on the 23rd of July 2003 renouncing judicial ethics. Illustre also threatened in her letter that, “there accused during the trial. While in prison, accused Albofera
their support for the administration and called for the is nothing final in this world. This case is far from finished by sent a letter to Esma. Said letter was thereafter introduced
resignation of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and a long shot.” She threatened that she would call for a press as evidence by prosecution. In his letter, accused Albofera
several cabinet members. conference. Illustre’s letter basically attacks the participation was asking Esma to change his declaration in his Affidavit 
of Justice Pedro Yap in the first division. It was established and testify in his favor instead. Later the accused were
Petitioners bewail the regulation adopted by Gen. Cabuay in that Justice Yap was previously a law partner of Atty. convicted of murder.
the Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Ordonez, now the Solgen and counsel for the opponents.  
Philippines (ISAFP) Detention Center preventing petitioners The letters were referred to the SC en banc. The SC clarified ISSUE: Whether or not the Albofera’s letter to Esma should
as lawyers from seeing the detainees their clients any time of that when the minute-resolution was issued, the presiding be excluded as evidence in light of alleged unwarranted
the day or night. The regulation allegedly curtails the justice then was not Justice Yap but Justice Abad Santos intrusion or invasion of the accused’s privacy.
detainees right to counsel. Petitioners also point out that the (who was about to retire), and that Justice Yap was not  
officials of the ISAFP Detention Center violated the aware that Atty Ordonez was the opponents counsel. It was RULING: No. The production of that letter by the prosecution
detainees right to privacy of communication when the ISAFP also made clear that Justice Yap eventually inhibited himself was not the result of an unlawful search and seizure nor was
officials opened and read the personal letters of Trillanes from the case. Still, Illustre wrote letters to the other justices it through unwarranted intrusion or invasion into Albofera’s
and Capt. Milo Maestrecampo. (Narvasa, Herrera,Cruz), again with more threats to privacy. Albofera admitted having sent the letter and it was
“exposethe kind of judicial performance readily constituting its recipient, Rodrigo Esma himself, who produced and
travesty of justice.”True to her threats, Illustre later filed a identified the same in the course of his testimony in Court.
ISSUE: (1) Whether or not the writ of habeas corpus is the
criminal complaint before the Tanodbayan, charging the Besides, there is nothing really self-incriminatory in the letter.
proper remedy for the petitioner’s complaint at bar.
Justices with knowingly rendering an unjust Minute Albofera mainly pleaded that Esma change his declaration in
(2)  Whether or not opening, inspection and reading of the
Resolution. Justice Yap and Solgen Ordonez were also his Affidavit and testify in his (Albofera’s) favor. Furthermore,
letter of the detainee is an infringement of his right to privacy.
charged of using their influence in the First Division in
nothing Albofera stated in his letter is being taken against and her aides, and classified her as someone who keeps a parties being overheard because, by their very nature, they
him in arriving at a determination of his culpability. Private Army Group (PAG). Contending that her right to are not of common usage and their purpose is precisely for
privacy was violated and her reputation maligned and tapping, intercepting or recording a telephone conversation. 
MAINPOINT: Albofera’s letter is not covered by the Sec 3, destroyed, Gamboa filed a Petition for the issuance of a writ
Art III provision as it was not the result of an unlawful search of habeas data against respondents in their capacities as
and seizure nor was it through unwarranted intrusion or officials of the PNP- Ilocos Norte.  CASE NO. 494 
invasion into Albofera’s privacy.z Art. III, Sec. 3, Exclusionary Rule 
ISSUE: Whether or not the petition for the issuance of writ of SALCEDO-ORTANEZ v. CA 
habeas data is proper when the right to privacy is invoked as
CASE NO. 491  opposed to the state’s interest in preserving the right to life,
ART III, SEC 3: NOT COVERED  FACTS:  Private respondent Rafael Ortanez filed with the
liberty or security.  Quezon City RTC a complaint for annulment of marriage
DR LEE VS P/SUPT ILAGAN 
against petitioner Teresita Salcedo-Ortanez, on grounds of
RULING: NO. The writ of habeas data is an independent and lack of marriage license and/or psychological incapacity of
MP:  As the rules and existing jurisprudence on the matter summary remedy designed to protect the image, privacy,
evoke, alleging and eventually proving the nexus the petitioner.  Among the exhibits offered by private
honor, information, and freedom of information of an respondent were 3 cassette tapes of alleged telephone
between one’s privacy right to the cogent rights to life, individual, and to provide a forum to enforce one’s right to
liberty or security are crucial in habeas data cases, so conversations between petitioner and unidentified persons.
the truth and to informational privacy. It seeks to protect a These tape recordings were made and obtained when
much so that a failure on either account certainly person’s right to control information regarding oneself,
renders a habeas data petition dismissible, as in this private respondent allowed his friends from the military to
particularly in instances in which such information is being wire tap his home telephone.  CA denied the petition
case. collected through unlawful means in order to achieve because tape recordings are not inadmissible per se. 
unlawful ends. ISSUE: Whether or not the recordings of the telephone
FACTS: Neri visited Joy’s condominium and rested for a
while. When he arrived at his office, he noticed his digital conversations are admissible in evidence 
camera missing. On August 23, 2011, Joy confronted him
about a purported sex video she discovered from the digital CASE NO. 493  RULING: NO. Unauthorized tape recordings of telephone
camera showing him and another woman. He denied the ART III, SEC 3: NOT COVERED  conversations not admissible in evidence. RA 4200
video and demanded the return of the camera, but she GAANAN VS IAC  entitled “An Act to Prohibit and Penalize Wire Tapping and
refused. They had an altercation where Neri allegedly Other Related Violations of the Privacy of Communication,
slammed Joy’s head against a wall and then walked away. MP: Mere act of listening to a telephone conversation in and for other purposes” expressly makes such tape
Because of this, Joy filed several cases against him,. The an extension line is not punished by Anti- Wiretapping recordings inadmissible in evidence thus: 
RTC found that her acts of reproducing the same and Law.
showing it to other persons (Napolcom) violated Neri’s right
to privacy and humiliated him.  FACTS: Laconico requested petitioner to secretly listen to CASE NO. 495 
the telephone conversation through a telephone extension Art. III, Sec. 3, Exclusionary Rule 
ISSUE: W/N the right to privacy of Neri was violated  so as to hear personally the proposed conditions for Zulueta v. CA 
complainant’s settlement discussing terms of withdrawal of
RULING: NO. In this case, the Court finds that Ilagan was complaint. Complainant asked Laconico if he was agreeable MP: A person, by contracting marriage, does not shed
not able to sufficiently allege that his right to privacy in life, to the conditions, which the latter answered in affirmative. his/her integrity or his right to privacy as an individual
liberty or security was or would be violated through the When he received the money at a restaurant, complainant and the constitutional protection is ever available to him
supposed reproduction and threatened dissemination of the was arrested by agents of the Philippine Constabulary. or to her. The law insures absolute freedom of
subject sex video. While Ilagan purports a privacy interest in Appellant Laconico executed on the following day an affidavit communication between the spouses by making it privileged.
the suppression of this video, he failed to explain the stating that he heard complainant demand P8,000.00 for the
connection between such interest and any violation of his withdrawal of the case for direct assault. Complainant then FACTS:  Cecilia Zulueta is the wife of Dr. Alfredo Martin.
right to life, liberty or security. charged Laconico with violation of RA 4200 for listening to Zulueta entered the clinic of her husband and forcibly
the telephone conversation without complainants consent.  opened the drawers and cabinet therein and took 157
documents consisting of private correspondence between
ISSUE: W/N extension telephone is among the prohibited Dr. Martin and his alleged paramours, greetings cards,
devices in Section 1 of the Act, such that its use to overhear cancelled checks, diaries, Dr. Martin’s passport, and
CASE NO. 492  a private conversation would constitute unlawful interception photographs.  The documents and papers were seized for
ART III, SEC 3: NOT COVERED  of communications between the two parties using a use in evidence in a case for legal separation and for
GAMBOA VS P/SUPT CHAN telephone line  disqualification from the practice of medicine which Zulueta
had filed against her husband.  Dr. Martin brought the action
MP: It must be emphasized that in order for the privilege RULING: NO. The phrase “device or arrangement” in for recovery of the documents and papers against Zulueta,
of the writ to be granted, there must exist a nexus Section 1 of RA No. 4200, although not exclusive to that with Manila RTC, which ruled in favor of Martin, and ordered
between the right to privacy on the one hand, and the enumerated therein, should be construed to comprehend Zulueta to a immediately return the properties to Dr. Martin. 
right to life, liberty or security on the other.  instruments of the same or similar nature, that is, On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. Zulueta
instruments the use of which would be tantamount to tapping filed the petition for review with the Supreme Court. 
FACTS: Gamboa alleged that the PNP–Ilocos Norte the main line of a telephone. It refers to instruments whose
conducted a series of surveillance operations against her installation or presence cannot be presumed by the party or
ISSUE: Whether or not the privacy of communication and to bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion RULING: NO. In the absence of governmental
correspondence is inviolable even when aggrieved party is of the government. interference, the constitutional right against
the spouse.  unreasonable search and seizure cannot be invoked
FACTS:  Catolico was hired as a pharmacist by petitioner against the State. It governs the relationship between
RULING: YES. The documents and papers are inadmissible Waterous Drug Corporation.  Yung Shin Pharmaceuticals, the individual and the state. Its concern is not the
in evidence. The only exception to the prohibition in the Inc. (YSP, Inc.), a supplier of medicine, sold to Waterous, relation between individuals, between a private
Constitution is if there is a lawful order from a court or when through Catolic, 10 bottles of Voren Tablets. However, individual and other individuals.
public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by previous purchase orders issued to YSP showed that the
law. Any violation of this provision renders the evidence price was lower by Php 64.00 per unit than the original
obtained inadmissible for any purpose in any price.  YSP Accounting Dept. confirmed paying through CASE NO. 499 
proceeding." The intimacies between husband and wife check to Catolico. Catolico denied receiving the same. ART III SEC 3: EXCLUSIONARY RULE 
do not justify any one of them in breaking the drawers and However, a clerk of Waterous confirmed that she saw an PEOPLE V. ARUTA, 288 SCRA 626 
cabinets of the other and in ransacking them for any telltale open envelope with a check payable to Catolico.  Waterous
evidence of marital infidelity.  ordered the termination of Catolico.  NLRC dismissed the MP: The Supreme Court declared that in a search and
petition. Evidence of the respondents (check from YSP) seizure as an incident to a lawful arrest, it is necessary
being rendered inadmissible by virtue of the constitutional for probable cause to be present, and probable cause
CASE NO. 496  right invoked by complainants.  must be based on reasonable ground of suspicion or
Art. III, Sec. 3, Exclusionary Rule  belief that a crime has been committed or is about to be
Ople v. Torres  ISSUE: Whether or not the check is admissible as evidence.  committed.

MP: The right to privacy does not bar all incursions into RULING: YES. The incident involving the opening of the FACTS: On Dec. 13, 1988, P/Lt. Abello was tipped off by his
individual privacy. It requires that the law be narrowly envelope addressed to Catolico does not warrant the informant that a certain “Aling Rose” will be arriving from
focused and a compelling interest justify such application of constitutional provisions. There was no Baguio City with a large volume of marijuana and assembled
intrusions. violation of the right of privacy of communication in this a team. The next day, at the Victory Liner Bus terminal they
case.  waited for the bus coming from Baguio, when the informer
FACTS:  A.O. No. 308 was issued by President Fidel V. pointed out who “Aling Rose” was, the team approached her
Ramos for the Adoption of a National Computerized and introduced themselves as NARCOM agents. When
Identification Reference System. Petitioner filed the instant CASE NO. 498  Abello asked “Aling Rose” about the contents of her bag, the
petition against respondents, on the grounds that: it is a Art. III, Sec. 3, Exclusionary Rule  latter handed it out to the police. They found dried marijuana
usurpation of the power of Congress to legislate, o it People vs. Marti  leaves packed in a plastic bag marked “cash katutak”.
impermissibly intrudes on our citizenry’s protected zone of Instead of presenting its evidence, the defense filed a
privacy.  Petitioner filed the instant petition against MP: The Bill of Rights is not meant to be invoked against demurrer to evidence alleging the illegality of the search and
respondents, then Executive Secretary Ruben Torres and act of private individuals, but it is directed only against seizure of the items. In her testimony, the accused claimed
heads of government agencies, who were charged of the the government and its agencies tasked with the that she had just come from Choice theatre where she
implementation of the subject law.  enforcement of the law. watched a movie “Balweg”. While about to cross the road an
old woman asked her for help in carrying a shoulder bag,
ISSUE: Whether there is a violation of the right to privacy.  FACTS:  Accused-appellant went to a forwarding agency to when she was later on arrested by the police. She has no
send four packages to a friend in Zurich. The proprietress knowledge of the identity of the old woman and the woman
RULING: YES. A.O. No. 308 is unconstitutional. The asked if the packages can be examined. However, he was nowhere to be found. Also, no search warrant was
vagueness of A.O. No. 308 which if implemented will put our refused. Before delivering the packages to the Bureau of presented. The trial court convicted the accused in violation
people’s right to privacy in clear and present danger. In the Customs and the Bureau of Posts, the husband of the of the dangerous drugs of 1972. 
case at bar, the threat comes from which by issuing A.O. No. proprietress opened said boxes for final inspection. From
308 pressures the people to surrender their privacy by giving that inspection, included in the standard operating procedure ISSUE: Whether or Not the police correctly searched and
information about themselves on the pretext that it will and out of curiosity, he took several grams of its contents.  seized the drugs from the accused. 
facilitate delivery of basic services. He brought the said sample to the NBI. The contents, after
examination by forensic chemists, were found to be RULING: NO. The Court invalidated the search and seizure
marijuana flowering tops.  The appellant contended that the made on a woman, “Aling Rose”, who, upon alighting from a
marijuana leaves were fruits of an illegal search and bus, was pointed out by the informant. In this case, the
therefore under exclusionary rule of Sec. 3 (2) of Bill of accused was merely crossing the street and was not acting
CASE NO. 497  Rights.  The appellant was invited by the agents for in any manner which would engender a reasonable ground
Art. III, Sec. 3, Exclusionary Rule  questioning. Later on, the trial court found him guilty of to believe that she was committing or about to commit a
Waterous Drug v.. NLRC  violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.  crime.

MP: The constitutional protection against unreasonable ISSUE: Whether or not an act of private individual, allegedly
searches and seizures refer to the immunity of one’s in violation of appellant’s constitutional rights, be invoked CASE NO. 500 
person from interference by government and cannot be against the State?  ART III SEC 4: FACIAL CHALLENGE CONCEPT 
extended to acts committed by private individuals so as
IMBONG V. OCHOA, GR 204819 April 08, 2014 
MP: A facial challenge is an exception to the rule that only operate and maintain various AM and FM broadcast stations The court stresses that all forms of media, whether print
persons who are directly affected by a statute have legal in various locations throughout the nation. Petitioner or broadcast are entitled to this constitutional right,
standing to assail the same. This is only applicable to Santiago C. Divinagracia, alleging that he was a stockholder although the government still has the right to be
statutes involving free speech, impeached on the grounds of of respondent companies, filed two complaints with the NTC protected against broadcasts which incite the listeners
overbreadth or vagueness. Here, the litigants are permitted alleging that despite the provisions of the law mandating the to violently overthrow it. The test for the limitation of
to challenge a statute not because their own rights of free public offering of at least 30% of the common stocks of freedom of expression is the “clear and present danger” rule
expression are violated, but because of a judicial prediction Respondents, both entities had failed to make such offering. – that words are used in such circumstances and are of such
or assumption that the statute’s very existence may cause Petitioner prayed for the cancellation of all the Provisional a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they
others not before the court to refrain from constitutionally Authorities or CPCs of Respondents. The NTC dismissed will bring about the substantive evils that the lawmaker has a
protected speech or expression. both complaints, positing that although it had full jurisdiction right to prevent. The clear and present danger test, however,
to revoke or cancel a Provisional Authority or CPC for does not lend itself to a simplistic and all-embracing
FACTS: Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10354, otherwise known as violations or infractions of the terms and conditions, it interpretation applicable to all utterances in all forums. It
the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of refrained from exercising the same. must take the particular circumstances of broadcast media
2012 (RH Law), was enacted by Congress on December 21, into account. The supervision of radio stations-whether by
2012. Challengers from various sectors of society are ISSUE: Whether or not NTC has the power to cancel government or through self-regulation by the industry itself
questioning the constitutionality of the said Act. The OSG Provisional Authorities and CPCs of entities which Congress calls for thoughtful, intelligent and sophisticated handling.
also assails the propriety of the facial challenge lodged by has issued franchises to operate 
the subject petitions, contending that the RH Law cannot be SAKIR
challenged on its face as it is not a speech regulating RULING: NO. We earlier replicated the various functions of CASE 502
measure.  the NTC, as established by E.O. No. 546. One can readily
notice that even as the NTC is vested with the power to ART III SEC 4: VALID PRIOR RESTRAINT; DANGER TO
ISSUE: Whether the Court may exercise its power of judicial issue CPCs to broadcast stations, it is not expressly NATIONAL SECURITY
review over the controversy regarding facial challenge.  vested with the power to cancel such CPCs, or CHAVEZ V. GONZALES
otherwise empowered to prevent broadcast stations GR No. 168338, February 15, 2008
RULING: YES. While this Court has withheld the application with duly issued franchises and CPCs from operating
of facial challenges to strictly penal statues, it has expanded radio or television stations.  FACTS: Petitioner Chavez seeks to annul void the
its scope to cover statutes not only regulating free speech, proceedings, and to prevent the unlawful, unconstitutional
but also those involving religious freedom, and other and oppressive exercise of authority by the respondents
fundamental rights. The underlying reason for this SAKIR alleging that their acts are violations of the freedom of
modification is simple. For unlike its counterpart in the U.S., CASE 501 expression and of the press, and the right of the people to
this Court, under its expanded jurisdiction, is mandated by information on matters of public concern specifically in
the Fundamental Law not only to settle actual controversies ART III SEC 4: STATE REGULATION OF DIFFERENT relation to information regarding the controversial taped
involving rights which are legally demandable and TYPES OF MASS MEDIA conversion of President Arroyo and for prohibition of the
enforceable, but also to determine whether or not there has EASTERN BROADCASTING CORP. V. DANS, JR.  further commission of such acts, and making of such
been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or 137 SCRA 628, July 19, 1985 issuances, and orders by respondents.
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government. FACTS: This petition was filed to compel the respondents to ISSUE: Whether or not the acts of the respondents are
allow the reopening of Radio Station DYRE which had been violative of the freedom of expression and of the press.
summarily closed on grounds of national security. The
petitioner contended that it was denied due process when it RULING: Yes. Prior restraint refers to official
was closed on the mere allegation that the radio station was governmental restrictions on the press or other forms of
CASE NO. 500-B expression in advance of actual publication or
used to incite people to sedition. It alleged that no hearing
ART III SEC 4: FACIAL CHALLENGE CONCEPT  dissemination. Generally, restraints on freedom of speech
was held and not a bit of proof was submitted to establish a
Divinagracia v. CBS, Inc. GR 162272, April 2009 and expression are evaluated by either or a combination of
factual basis for the closure. The petitioner was not informed
beforehand why administrative action which closed the radio three tests. One of those is the clear and present danger
MP: A facial challenge is an exception to the rule that rule which rests on the premise that speech may be
station was taken against it. No action was taken by the
only persons who are directly affected by a statute have restrained because there is substantial danger that the
respondents to entertain a motion seeking the
legal standing to assail the same. This is only applicable speech will likely lead to an evil the government has a
reconsideration of the closure action.
to statutes involving free speech, impeached on the right to prevent. This rule requires that the evil
grounds of overbreadth or vagueness. Here, the litigants consequences sought to be prevented must be substantive,
ISSUE: Whether or not the closure of DYRE is a violation of
are permitted to challenge a statute not because their “extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely
the constitutional right of freedom of expression.
own rights of free expression are violated, but because high.” In this case, the need to prevent the violation of the
of a judicial prediction or assumption that the statute’s law cannot per se trump the exercise of free speech and free
RULING: Court did not rule on the matter because the
very existence may cause others not before the court to press, a preferred right whose breach can lead to greater
case is already moot and academic since the petitioner
refrain from constitutionally protected speech or expression. evils. For this failure of the respondents alone to offer proof
withdrew his petition. However, the Court issued these
guidelines: to satisfy the clear and present danger test, the Court has no
FACTS: Following the enactment of these franchise laws, option but to uphold the exercise of free speech and free
NTC issued Provisional Authorities allowing them to install, press. There is no showing that the feared violation of the
anti-wiretapping law clearly endangers the national security RULING: Yes. The New Code of Judicial Conduct does not their foremost duty to obey the rule of law should not
of the State. prohibit a judge from joining or maintaining an account in a stand to suffer.
social networking site such as Friendster. Section 6, Canon
SAKIR 4 of the Code recognizes that judges, like any other SAKIR
CASE 503 citizen, are entitled to freedom of expression. This right CASE 506
“includes the freedom to hold opinions without interference
ART III SEC 4: SPEECH/EXPRESSION AND THE and impart information and ideas through any ART III SEC 4: SPEECH/EXPRESSION AND THE
JUDICIARY media regardless of frontiers.” Joining a social networking JUDICIARY
OCA Circular No. 173-2017, Proper Use of Social Media, site is an exercise of one’s freedom of expression. The OCA V. JUDGE ATILLO
17 August 2017 respondent judge’s act of joining Friendster is, therefore, per AM No. RTJ-21-018, September 20, 2021
se not violative of the Code. However, the Code also
MAIN POINT: While judges and court personnel are not imposes a correlative restriction on judges: in the FACTS: This administrative matter concerns the social
prohibited from engaging in social media, they are reminded exercise of their freedom of expression, they should media posts of Respondent Atillo, Jr. on his Facebook
that when they do, they do not thereby shed off their status always conduct themselves in a manner that preserves account that may be considered inappropriate under the
as members of the Judiciary. Using social networking the dignity of the judicial office and the impartiality and New Code of Judicial Conduct and a violation of the OCA
sites is an exercise of freedom of expression; however, independence of the Judiciary. This rule reflects the Circular on Proper Use of Social Media. The subject posts
there are restrictions upon a judge’s conduct inherent in general principle of propriety expected of judges in all of their include pictures of Respondent on his Facebook account
the office. Photographs and commentaries, including “liking” activities, whether it be in the course of their judicial office or showing him half-dressed and revealing tattoos on his upper
and “sharing” posts, that are otherwise acceptable for the in their personal lives. Based on this provision, we hold that bodies that were used as “cover photos” and “profile
general public may be considered inappropriate for members the respondent disregarded the propriety and appearance of pictures” in his profile page. Respondent averred that his
of the Judiciary due to the higher standard of integrity, propriety required of her when she posted  Friendster photos account was hacked and his privacy setting was switched
candor, and fairness reposed on them. As visible of herself wearing an “off-shouldered” suggestive dress and from private to public. He asserted that the pictures were
personification of law and justice, judges and court made this available for public viewing. exclusively meant for his own viewing pleasure and for his
employees have a higher standard of conduct. The standard Facebook friends only.
of conduct expected from members of the Judiciary is much SAKIR
higher than an ordinary man. CASE 505 ISSUE: Whether or not Respondent violated the Code and
the OCA Circular.
SAKIR ART III SEC 4: SPEECH/EXPRESSION AND THE
CASE 504 JUDICIARY RULING: Yes. The Court finds that Respondent had
ESPEJON AND CABONITA V. JUDGE LORREDO breached his duty to avoid impropriety, or even just the
ART III SEC 4: SPEECH/EXPRESSION AND THE AM No. MTJ-22-007, March 9, 2022 appearance of impropriety, when he posted the subject
JUDICIARY pictures showing his half-dressed body and tattooed torso on
LORENZANA V. AUSTRIA FACTS: Complainants charged Judge Lorredo of bias and his Facebook account that eventually became readily
AM No. RTJ-09-2200, April 2, 2014 partiality alleging that the Respondent made remarks accessible to the general public. The Court clarifies that the
showing his prejudgment of the case and obvious bias and impropriety in this case relates solely on Respondent’s act of
FACTS: An administrative complaint was filed by partiality against them and their sexual orientation. They also posting the subject pictures on social media, and it has
Complainant against Judge Austria for, among others, acts averred that the Respondent’s treatment and conduct was absolutely nothing to do with his choice to have tattoos on
of impropriety and conduct unbecoming of a Judge when heavily influenced by his religious beliefs and impressions his body. Simply put, by posting the pictures on Facebook,
Respondent displayed her photographs in a social about homosexuality which he irrelevantly tried to relate to Judge Atillo, Jr. placed himself in a situation where he, and
networking website called “Friendster” and posted her the case. The Respondent maintained that as a Christian, he the status he holds as a sitting judge, became the object of
personal details as an RTC Judge, allegedly for the purpose merely tries his best to guide lawyers and litigants who the public's criticism and ridicule. This is easily evinced by
of finding a compatible partner. She also posed with her appear before his court to arrive at a settlement with the help the very fact that an anonymous person saw fit to send the
upper body barely covered by a shawl, allegedly suggesting of the Bible. He claimed further that he had, so far, settled pictures to the OCA for appropriate disciplinary action. The
that nothing was worn underneath except probably a 101 cases using the Bible. He further added that he was only OCA Circular 173-2017 mandates all members of the
brassiere. Respondent submitted that the photos she posted warning complainants about God's punishment for those who Judiciary who participate in social media to be cautious
in the social networking website “Friendster” could hardly be violate His commandments. and circumspect in posting photographs, lilting posts,
considered vulgar or lewd. She added that an “off- and making comments in public on social networking
shouldered” attire is an acceptable social outfit under ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Lorredo should be held sites like Facebook.
contemporary standards and is not forbidden. She further administratively liable. 
stated that there is no prohibition against attractive ladies SAKIR
being judges; she is proud of her photo for having been RULING: Yes. The Court finds Judge Lorredo CASE 507
aesthetically made. administratively liable for his improper remarks and
overbearing demeanor and unwarranted acts during the ART III SEC 4: PRIVATE AND GOV’T SPEECH (VALID
ISSUE: Whether or not committed acts of impropriety and preliminary conference; and for allowing his religious beliefs PRIOR RESTRAINT)
conduct unbecoming of a Judge and therefore violated the to impair his judicial functions. While judges are not NEAR V. MINNESOTA
Code of Judicial Conduct. completely stripped of their freedom to express, 238 SCRA 31
exercise, or uphold their religious beliefs and
convictions, it goes without saying that in doing so,
FACTS: In a Minneapolis newspaper called The Saturday Daybreak” at his Baltimore theatre without first submitting the G. R. No. 115444
Press, Jay Near and Howard Guilford alleged that the police picture to the State Board of Censors.
chief, the mayor, a prosecutor, and grand jury members FACTS: Petitioner assailed the constitutionality of RA 7716
were neglecting their duties to prosecute known criminal ISSUE: Whether or not the Maryland law is a valid prior (Expanded Value-Added Tax Law) contending that by
activity. The anti-Semitic newspaper suggested that these restraint. removing the exemption of the press from VAT while
authority figures were colluding with Jewish gangs. Despite maintaining those granted to others, the law discriminates
two ensuing assassination attempts on Guilford, the RULING: No. The law provided the danger of unduly against the press. It averred that even nondiscriminatory
newspaper's disclosures resulted in the conviction of a local suppressing protected expression. The board was allowed taxation of constitutionally guaranteed freedom is
gangster. overly broad licensing discretion with a lack of statutory unconstitutional. Furthermore, the discriminatory treatment of
provisions for judicial participation in the procedure to the press is highlighted by the fact that profit-oriented
The prosecutor, Floyd Olson, sought a permanent injunction prohibit a film. The Court established three guidelines as transactions continue to enjoy exemption under RA 7716. 
against The Saturday Press on the grounds that it violated adequate safeguards to protect against undue inhibition of
the Public Nuisance Law because it was malicious, protected expression: 1) place the burden of proving film is ISSUE: Whether or not the Expanded Value-Added Tax Law
scandalous, and defamatory. unprotected expression on the censors; 2) require judicial is a prior restraint to press freedom
determination to impose a valid determination; and 3) require
ISSUE: Whether or not the prohibition of “prior restraint” is prompt determination within a specified time period. Non- RULING: No. Press is not exempt from the taxing power of
absolute. criminal process which requires prior submission of a the State and what the constitutional guarantee of free press
film to a censor avoids constitutional infirmity only if it prohibits are laws which single out the press or target a
RULING: NO. The government does not have the right to takes place under procedural safeguards designed to group belonging to the press for special treatment or which
prohibit negative speech about it if there is some truth obviate dangers of a censorship system. in any way discriminate against the press on the basis of the
to it. There must be a case-specific analysis to determine content of the publication and RA No. 7716 is none of these.
whether the allegations have a basis in truth, although war or SAKIR VAT is not a license tax. It is imposed on the sale, barter,
other types of national emergency may reduce the CASE 509 lease or exchange of goods or properties or the sale or
protections of the press. Although any system of prior exchange of services and the lease of properties purely for
restraint comes to court bearing a heavy presumption ART III SEC 4: PEOPLE V. GOVERNMENT SPEECH; Prior revenue purposes. Since the law granted the press a
against its constitutionality, there are exceptions to the rule. Restraint privilege, the law could take back the privilege without
"When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in New York Times Co. v. US offense to the Constitution.
time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their 403 US 713
utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that Case No. 511 
no Court could regard them as protected by any FACTS: US Government sought to enjoin the New York Salazar 
constitutional right." On similar grounds, the primary Times and the Washington Post from publishing the contents
requirements of decency may be enforced against obscene of a classified study entitled “History of U.S.  Decision- Article III, Sec 4. People v Government Speech (Prior
publications. The security of the community life may be Making Process on Viet Nam Policy”. The Government Restraint)
protected against incitements to acts of violence and the argued that despite the First Amendment’s command, the Alexander v. US – 113 S. Ct. 2766
overthrow by force of orderly government. The constitutional three branches of government can make laws enjoining 125 L. Ed. 2d. 441, 1993
guaranty of free speech does not "protect a man from an publication of current news and abridging freedom of the
injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect press in the name of national security, equity, and
of force.” These limitations are not applicable here. presidential power. FACTS: The petition who was owner of stores and theatres
dealing in sexually explicit materials, was convicted of
SAKIR ISSUE: Whether or not the executive branch may restrain violating federal obscenity laws and the Racketeer
CASE 508 petitioner from publishing the classified material.  Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The
District Court ordered the forfeiture of such assets related to
ART III SEC 4: PEOPLE V. GOVERNMENT SPEECH; Prior RULING: No. The First Amendment tolerates absolutely no his racketeering activity. Petitioner contended that this
Restraint prior restraints of the press predicated upon surmise or forfeiture, which effectively shut down his adult entertainment
Freedman v. Maryland conjecture that untoward consequences may result. Only business, constituted a prior restraint on speech and was
380 US 51 when the Nation is at war can the First Amendment’s ban on overbroad.
prior judicial restraint may be overridden. Any system of
FACTS: Maryland required that all films be submitted to a prior restraint of expression bears a heavy presumption
board censors before being exhibited. The board can against its constitutional validity. Thus, Government ISSUE: Whether or not the forfeiture of petitioner’s assets
disapprove films that were obscene, debased or corrupted carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the constituted a prior restraint on speech
morals or tended to incite crime.  There was no time limit on imposition of such restraint.
the decision-making process. Ronald Freedman challenged RULING/MP: No. The forfeiture in the case at bar is a
Maryland motion picture censorship statute as SAKIR permissible criminal punishment and not a prior restraint
unconstitutional due to the procedure to obtain approval CASE 510 on speech. The order imposed no legal impediment to
which provided no judicial participation for prompt judicial petitioner’s ability to engage in any expressive activity; it
review. However, he did not suggest that prior approval itself ART III SEC 4: PEOPLE V. GOVERNMENT SPEECH; Prior merely prevented him from financing those activities with
was unconstitutional. He exhibited the film “Revenge at Restraint assets derived from his prior racketeering offenses. The
Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance assets in question were not forfeited because they were
obscene but because they were directly related to past FACTS: This is an action by SWS for prohibition to enjoin advocacy of imminent lawless action, and danger to
racketeering violations. The RICO forfeiture statute calls for COMELEC from enforcing 5.4 of R.A. No. 9006 (Fair national security.
the forfeiture of assets because of the financial role they play Election Act),* Petitioners intend to publish the result of the
in the operation the racketeering enterprise. Prior restraint survey up to the last day of election. Petitioners argue that Case No. 515 
refers to administrative and judicial orders forbidding the restriction on the publication of election survey results Salazar 
certain communications when issued in advance of the constitutes a prior restraint on the exercise of freedom Article III, Sec 4. People v Government Speech (Prior
time that such communications are to occur.  of speech without any clear and present danger to Restraint)
justify such restraint. Newsounds Broadcasting v. Dy
GR 170270 and 179411, April 2, 2009
Case No. 512  ISSUE/S:  Whether or not 5.4 R.A. No. 9006 constitutes an
Salazar  unconstitutional abridgment of freedom of speech, FACTS:  Petitioners applied for the renewal of mayor’s
Article III, Sec 4. People v Government Speech (Prior expression, and the press. permit. They were required to submit papers which were
Restraint) previously not required  since property had  always been
INC v. CA, 259 SCRA 529  classified as commercial.            They were subsequently
RULING: Yes, the curtailment of the right of expression is denied zoning clearance, thus no mayor’s permit. RTC
G.R. No. 119673 July 26, 1996 direct, absolute, and substantial because (1) it imposes a Denied their application for mandamus but DAR granted the
prior restraint on the freedom of expression, (2) it is a direct application in favor of petitioners. Respondent Meer, Acting
FACTS: The Respondent Board of Review for Motion and total suppression of a category of expression even City Administrator of Cauayan City, claimed that the DAR
Pictures and Television classified and rated the TV Program though such suppression is only for a limited period, and (3) Order was spurious or void and that there was no basis for
“Ang Iglesia ni Cristo” as X or not for public viewing on the the governmental interest sought to be promoted can be the issuance in their favor of the requisite zoning clearance
ground that they offend and constitute an attack against achieved by means other than the suppression of freedom of needed for the issuance of the mayor’s permit. Respondents
other religions which is expressly prohibited by law.  The expression. went to the property and closed the radio stations.
program  propagates petitioner’s religious beliefs, doctrines Petitioners sought COMELEC to enforce the Omnibus
and practices oftentimes in comparative studies with other * Surveys affecting national candidates shall not be Election Code, which prohibited the closure of radio stations
religions. Petitioner was then required to submit its VTR published fifteen (15) days before an election and surveys during the then-pendency of the election period. The
tapes for review of the Board. Petitioner contended that affecting local candidates shall not be published seven (7) COMELEC issued an order directing the parties to maintain
the Board has no power to review its religious program. days before an election. the status and  allowed the operation of the radio stations,
and petitioners proceeded to operate the stations the
ISSUE: Whether or not the censorship of petitioner’s TV Case No. 514  following day.
Program is a prior restraint on religious speech Salazar 
ISSUE:   Whether or not the acts of closing the radio stations
RULING/MP: Yes. Respondent Board failed to apply the Article III, Sec 4. People v Government Speech (Prior or preventing their operations as an act of prior restraint
clear and present danger rule. The decision of the board Restraint) against speech, expression or of the press.
which was affirmed by CA was bereft of finding of facts to Chavez v. Gonzales
justify the conclusion that the subject program constitutes GR 168338, February 15, 2008 RULING/MP: Yes Prior restraint refers to official
impermissible attacks against another religion. Prior governmental restrictions on the press or other forms of
restraint on speech, including religious freedom, cannot FACTS: In 2004, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo won in expression in advance of actual publication or
be justified by hypothetical fears but only by the the presidential elections against her nearest rival, Fernando dissemination.  While any system of prior restraint comes to
showing of a substantive and imminent evil which has Poe, Jr. The NTC, on one hand, issued a press release court bearing a heavy burden against its constitutionality, not
taken the life of a reality already on ground.  The records warning radio and television stations that those who will air all prior restraints on speech are invalid. Governmental
show that the decision of the respondent Board, affirmed by the Garci Tapes will face suspension or revocation of their action directed at expression must satisfy a greater burden
the respondent appellate court, is completely bereft of license. Petitioner Francisco I. Chavez, as citizen, filed a of justification than governmental action directed at most
findings of facts to justify the conclusion that the subject petition to nullify the “acts, issuances, and orders” of the other forms of behavior.   At the same time, jurisprudence
video tapes constitute impermissible attacks against another NTC and respondent Gonzalez (DOJ Secretary) on the distinguishes between a content-neutral regulation, i.e.,
religion.  grounds that it violated the freedom of expression and the merely concerned with the incidents of the speech, or one
right of the people to information on matters of public that merely controls the time, place or manner, and under
concern. well-defined standards; and a content-based restraint or
 
  censorship, i.e., the restriction is based on the subject
Case No. 513 
ISSUE:  Whether the NTC warning constitutes an matter of the utterance or speech.  Content-based laws
Salazar 
impermissible prior restraint on freedom of expression. are generally treated as more suspect than content-
  neutral laws because of judicial concern with discrimination
Article III, Sec 4. People v Government Speech (Prior
RULING/MP: Yes, it is clear that the challenged acts need to in the regulation of expression.  Content-neutral regulations
Restraint)
be subjected to the clear and present danger rule, as they of speech or of conduct that may amount to speech, are
SWS v. COMELEC
are content-based restrictions. The exceptions, when subject to lesser but still heightened scrutiny.
GR 147571, May 5, 2001
expression may be subject to prior restraint, apply in this
jurisdiction to only four categories of expression namely: a.
pornography, false or misleading advertisement, Case No. 516 
Salazar 
 RULING/MP: Petition Denied. Live radio and television The Diocese of Bacolod v. Comelec, GR No. 205728, 747
Article III, Sec 4. People v Government Speech (Prior coverage of court proceedings shall not be allowed. SCRA 1, Jan 21, 2015 
Restraint) Video footages of court hearings for news purposes shall be
MTRCB v. ABS-CBN restricted and limited to shots of the courtroom, the judicial FACTS:: Petitioners posted a tarpaulin within a private
GR 155282, January 17, 2005 officers, the parties and their counsel taken prior to the compound housing the San Sebastian Cathedral of Bacolod
commencement of official proceedings. No video shots or which is in the front walls of the cathedral within public view.
FACTS: Respondent aired Prosti-tuition, an episode of photographs shall be permitted during the trial proper. The This tarpaulin contains the heading “Conscience Vote”
The Inside Story produced and hosted by respondent courts recognize the constitutionally embodied freedom and lists candidates as either “(Anti-RH) Team Buhay” with a
Legarda. It depicted female students moonlighting as of the press and the right to public information. check mark, or “(Pro-RH) Team Patay” with an “X” mark.
prostitutes to enable them to pay for their tuition fees. Nevertheless, within the courthouse, the overriding The electoral candidates were classified according to their
The Philippine Womens University (PWU) was named as the consideration is still the paramount right of the accused vote on the adoption of Republic Act No. 10354, otherwise
school of some of the students involved and the facade of to due process which must never be allowed to suffer known as the RH Law. Those who voted for the passing of
PWU Building at Taft Avenue, Manila conspicuously served diminution in its constitutional proportions. the law were classified by petitioners as comprising “Team
as the background of the episode. The showing of The   Patay,” while those who voted against it formed “Team
Inside Story caused uproar in the PWU community. Buhay.” Respondents conceded that the tarpaulin was
Chancellor and Trustee of the PWU, and the PWU Parents neither sponsored nor paid for by any candidate. Petitioners
and Teachers Association filed letter-complaints with Case No. 518  also conceded that the tarpaulin contains names of
petitioner MTRCB. Both complainants alleged that the Salazar  candidates for the 2013 elections, but not of politicians who
episode besmirched the name of the PWU and resulted helped in the passage of the RH Law but were not
in the harassment of some of its female students. Article III, Sec 4. People v Government Speech (Prior candidates for that election.
Petitioner asserts that the program violated the PD No. 1986 Restraint)  
and ordered that all subsequent programs of the The Inside Soriano v. Laguardia, GR 164785, April 29, 2009 ISSUE: W/N COMELEC may regulate expressions made by
Story be submitted for approval. private citizens
  FACTS: Petitioner, as host of the program Ang Dating Daan,  
ISSUE:  Whether or not the action of MTRCB is an made obscene remarks against INC. Two days after, before RULING/MP: NO. Respondents cite the Constitution, laws,
impermissible prior restraint on freedom of expression. the MTRCB, separate but almost identical affidavit- and jurisprudence to support their position that they had the
  complaints were lodged against petitioner in connection with power to regulate the tarpaulin. However, the Court held that
RULING/MP: No, the court was not called upon to determine the above broadcast. MTRCB found Soriano liable for his all these provisions pertain to candidates and political
whether petitioner violated Section 4, Article III (Bill of utterances and imposed on him a three-month suspension parties. Petitioners are not candidates. Neither do they
Rights) of the Constitution. Petitioner did not disapprove or from his program. belong to any political party. COMELEC does not have the
ban the showing of the program. Neither did it cancel   authority to regulate the enjoyment of the preferred right to
respondents’ permit. Respondents were merely penalized for ISSUE: W/N Soriano‘s statements during the televised freedom of expression exercised by a non-candidate in this
their failure to submit to petitioner The Inside Story for its ―Ang Dating Daan part of the religious discourse and is case.
review and approval. There Supreme Court need not resolve exempted from governmental restraint
whether MRTCB Rules or other presidential decrees violated  
the Constitution. RULING/MP: NO. The SC ruled that Soriano‘s statement Case No. 520 
can be treated as obscene, at least with respect to the Salazar 
average child, and thus his utterances cannot be
Case No. 517  considered as protected speech. The utterances are Article III, Sec 4. People v Government Speech (Prior
Salazar  considered obscene given the use of television broadcasting Restraint)
Article III, Sec 4. People v Government Speech (Prior as a medium, the time of the show, and the “G” rating of the GMA  Network,  Inc. v. Comelec,  G.R.  No. 205357,
Restraint) show, which are all factors that made the utterances September 2, 2014
Re: Request for Radio-TV Coverage of the Estrada Trial susceptible to children viewers. The Court emphasized on
AM No. 01-4-03-SC, June 29, 2001 how the uttered words could be easily understood by a child FACTS: Petitions before the Court put in issue the alleged
literally rather than in the context that they were used.  The unconstitutionality of Section 9 (a) of COMELEC Resolution
FACTS: This is a request to the Court to allow live media suspension is not a prior restraint, but rather a form of No. 9615 limiting the broadcast and radio advertisements of
coverage of the anticipated trial of the plunder and other permissible administrative sanction or subsequent candidates and political parties for national election positions
criminal cases filed against former President Joseph E. punishment. In affirming the power of the MTRCB to issue to an aggregate total of one hundred twenty (120) minutes
Estrada before the Sandiganbayan in order" to assure the an order of suspension, the majority said that it is a sanction and one hundred eighty (180) minutes, respectively. They
public of full transparency in the proceedings of an that the MTRCB may validly impose under its charter without contend that such restrictive regulation on allowable
unprecedented case in our history running afoul of the free speech clause. broadcast time violates freedom of the press, impairs the
  people’s right to suffrage as well as their right to information
ISSUE: WON live broadcast of court proceedings leads to a Case No. 519  relative to the exercise of their right to choose who to elect
conflict between the right of the people to public information Salazar  during the forthcoming elections.
and the freedom of the press, on the one hand, and, on the  
other, the right of the accused to a fair trial;  Article III, Sec 4. People v Government Speech (Prior Section 9 (a) provides for an “aggregate total” airtime instead
Restraint) of the previous “per station” airtime for political campaigns or
advertisements, and also required prior COMELEC approval
for candidates’ television and radio guesting and Case No. 529
appearances. RULING: YES. Although the Court finds no merit in ruling a PRIOR RESTRAINT
  suspension or dismissal to those who violated the rules Social Weather Stations v COMELEC
ISSUE: W/N Section 9 (a) of COMELEC Resolution No. governing the posting of posters with grievances only within  
9615 on airtime limits is a valid prior government restraint the designated places, the court affirmed that they violated MAINT POINT: Sec 5.4 is invalid because (1) it imposes a
and is constitutional the said rule and must be reprimanded. It is correct to prior restraint on the freedom of expression, (2) it is a
  conclude that those who enter government service are direct and total suppression of a category of expression
RULING/MP: NO. The Court held that the assailed rule on subjected to a different degree of limitation on their freedom even though such suppression is only for a limited
“aggregate-based” airtime limits is unreasonable and to speak their mind; however, it is not tantamount to the period, and (3) the governmental interest sought to be
arbitrary as it unduly restricts and constrains the ability of relinquishment of their constitutional right of expression promoted can be achieved by means other than
candidates and political parties to reach out and otherwise enjoyed by citizens just by reason of their suppression of freedom of expression.
communicate with the people. The contention of leveling the employment. Unarguably, a citizen who accepts public
playing field – does not constitute a compelling state employment must accept certain limitations on his or her FACTS:
interest which would justify such a substantial freedom.  Petitioners brought this action for prohibition to enjoin the
restriction on the freedom of candidates and political Commission on Elections from enforcing
parties to communicate their ideas, philosophies, Section 5.4 of RA. No.9006 (Fair Election Act). Petitioners
Case No. 528
platforms and programs of government. And, this is argue that the restriction on the publication of election survey
PRIOR RESTRAINT
specially so in the absence of a clear-cut basis for the results constitutes a prior restraint on the exercise of
1-United Transport Koalisyon (1-UTAK) v COMELEC
imposition of such a prohibitive measure. freedom of speech without any clear and present danger to
 
  justify such restraint. 
MAINT POINT: The prohibition constitutes a clear prior
There are also a lot of languages and dialects spoken
restraint on the right to free
among the citizens across the country. Accordingly, for a ISSUE: Whether or not Section 5.4 of RA 9006 constitutes
expression of the owners of PUVs and transport terminals. 
national candidate to really reach out to as many of the an unconstitutional abridgment of freedom of speech,
FACTS:
electorates as possible, then it might also be necessary that expression and the press?
1-Utak assails COMELEC’s promulgated Resolution No.
he conveys his message through his advertisements in
9615 which provides that the violation of items 5 and 6 under
languages and dialects that the people may more readily RULING: Yes. It constitutes an unconstitutional
subsection (g) shall be a cause for the revocation of the
understand and relate to. While Comelec is authorized by abridgement of freedom of expression, speech and the
public utility franchise and will make the owner and/or
the Constitution to enforce election laws, it cannot exercise press. It has been held that mere legislative preferences
operator of the transportation service and/or terminal liable
its power w/out limits or reasonable basis. Those governed or beliefs respecting matters of public convenience may
for an election offense under Section 9 of Republic Act No.
by administrative regulations are entitled to a reasonable well support regulation directed at other personal
9006.
and rational basis for any changes in those rules. activities but be insufficient to justify such as
diminishes the exercise of rights so vital to the
TALAVER maintenance of democratic institutions.
Case No. 521 ISSUE: Whether or not Miriam College has the jurisdiction
PRIOR RESTRAINT over the complaints against the students?
Case No. 530
Davao City Water District v Aranjuez
RULING: NO. Said provisions of Resolution No. 9615 are SUBSEQUENT PUNISHMENT
 
null and void for being repugnant to Sections 1 and 4, Article People v Perez
MAINT POINT: Those who enter government service are
III of the 1987 Constitution. The prohibition constitutes a  
subjected to a different degree of limitation on their
clear prior restraint on the right to free expression of the MAINT POINT: Criticism, no matter how severe, on the
freedom to speak their mind; however, it is not
owners of PUVs and transport terminals. As a result of the Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary, is within
tantamount to the relinquishment of their constitutional
prohibition, owners of PUVs and transport terminals are the range of liberty of speech, unless the intention and
right of expression otherwise enjoyed by citizens just by
forcefully and effectively inhibited from expressing their effect be seditious.
reason of their employment.
preferences under the pain of indictment for an election
offense and the revocation of their franchise or permit to FACTS:
FACTS:
operate Isaac Perez, the municipal secretary of Pilar, Sorsogon, and
Private respondents Aranjuez et al., are officers and
Fortunato Lodovice, a citizen of that
members of Nagkahiusang Mamumuno sa Davao City Water
municipality, happening to meet on the morning of April 1,
District (NAMADACWAD). They were charged with several
1992, in the presidencia of Pilar, they became engaged in a
administrative cases due to acts committed during the
discussion regarding the administration of Governor-General
anniversary celebration of DCWD such as wearing of t-shirts
Wood, which resulted in Perez stating seditious statements.
with inscriptions and posting of bond papers outside the
The witnesses for the defense did not deny that an
designated places. The inscriptions and postings bore
altercation took place on the morning of April 1, 1922, in
employees’s grievances. The officers and members of the
which the accused participated. But they endeavored to
NAMADACWAD was found guilty as charged with penalties
explain that the discussion was between Perez and one
ranging from suspension to dismissal from service.
Severo Madrid, the latter maintaining that the fault was due
to the Nacionalista Party, while Perez argued that the
ISSUE: Whether or not government employees’s
Governor-General was to blame. The accused testified that
constitutional right to freedom of speech may be regulated?
the discussion was held in a peaceful manner, and that what
he wished to say was that the Governor-General should be legitimate activities, save this one, is not unduly
removed and substituted by another. narrowed. Neither is there an infringement of their
Case No. 526
freedom to assemble. They can do so, but not for such
SUBSEQUENT PUNISHMENT
ISSUE: Whether or not Subsequent punishment of purpose.
Dennis v. US – 341 US 494
expression can be invoked in the case at bar?
MAINT POINT: Whether an attempt to overthrow the Case No. 528
RULING: Yes. Here, the person maligned by the accused is
government poses a clear and present danger to it should SUBSEQUENT PUNISHMENT
the Chief Executive of the Philippine Islands. In this instance,
not be determined according to whether such an attempt will Eastern Broadcasting v. Dans, Jr. – 137 SCRA 628
the attack on the Governor-General passes the furthest
be likely to be successful. Instead, the appropriate standard  
bounds of free speech was intended. There is a seditious
is whether the gravity of the evil, discounted by its MAINT POINT: Since broadcast radio and TV are the
tendency in the words used, which could easily produce
improbability, warrants a restriction on free speech that is most convenient and popular means of disseminating
disaffection among the people and a state of feeling
needed to avoid the danger.  varying views on public issues, they also deserve
incompatible with a disposition to remain loyal to the
special protection.
Government and obedient to the laws.
FACTS:
Petitioners, leaders of the Communist Party in this country, FACTS: This petition was filed to compel the respondents to
.
were indicted and convicted in a federal district court under 3 allow the reopening of Radio Station DYRE which had been
Case No. 525
of the Smith Act for willfully and knowingly conspiring.  summarily closed on grounds of national security. Petitioner
SUBSEQUENT PUNISHMENT
contended that it was denied due process when it was
Espiritu v. General Lim, GR 85727, October 3, 1991
ISSUE: Whether or not Subsequent punishment of closed on the mere allegation that the radio station was used
 
expression can be invoked in the case at bar? to incite people to sedition. It alleged that no hearing was
MAINT POINT: In the balancing of authority and
held and not a bit of proof was submitted to establish a
freedom, which obviously becomes difficult at times, the
RULING: Yes. The government has a compelling interest in factual basis for the closure. The petitioner also raised the
Court has, in this case, tilted the scale in favor of
preventing its overthrow by force or violence, so it is justified issue of freedom of speech. 
authority but only for purposes of the arrest
in placing some limits on speech to protect that interest,
notwithstanding the First Amendment.  ISSUE: Whether or not the shutting down of the radio station
FACTS:
was unconstitutional?
Espiritu, on 23 November 1988, was arrested without
warrant, on the basis of the attestation of certain witnesses:
RULING: Yes. Broadcast stations deserve the special
that about 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon of 22 November
protection given to all forms of media by the due
1988, at the corner of Magsaysay Boulevard and Velencia Case No. 527 process and freedom of expression clauses of the
St., Sta. Mesa, Manila, Espiritu spoke at a gathering of SUBSEQUENT PUNISHMENT Constitution. The closure of the radio station on
drivers and sympathizers, where he said, among other Gonzales v. COMELEC – 27 SCRA 835 grounds of national security without elaboration of the
things: Bukas tuloy ang welga natin . . . hanggang sa   grounds and without hearing deserves to be condemned
magkagulona. and that the police authorities were present MAINT POINT: In determining the validity of the law, free in no uncertain terms for it is manifest that due process
during the press conference held at the National Press Club speech as a social value must be weighed against the was not observed.
(NPC) on 22 November 1988 where Espiritu called for a political process as a social value.
nationwide strike (of jeepney and bus drivers) on 23
November 1988. Espiritu was arrested without warrant, not FACTS:
for subversion or any "continuing offense," but for The Revised Election Code under RA 4880 was amended to
uttering the above-quoted language which, in the perception include two new sections which prohibits the too early
of the arresting officers, was inciting to sedition. nomination of candidates and limiting the period of election
  campaign or partisan political activity. Petitioners alleges that
RA 4880 is unconstitutional because its enforcement would
ISSUE: Whether or not the the arrest is valid? prejudice basic rights, such as the freedom of speech, the
freedom of assembly and the right to form associations or
RULING: Yes. Many persons may differ as to the validity of Case No. 529
societies for purposes not contrary to law, guaranteed under
such perception and regard the language as falling within SUBSEQUENT PUNISHMENT
the Constitution.
free speech guaranteed by the Constitution. But, then, Ayer Prod. PTY. LTD. V. Judge Capulong – 160 SCRA
Espiritu had not lost the right to insist, during the pre-trial or 865
trial on the merits, that he was just exercising his right to free  
ISSUE: Whether or not the contention was valid? MAINT POINT: The right of privacy of a "public
speech regardless of the charged atmosphere in which it
was uttered. But, the authority of the peace officers to make figure" is necessarily narrower than that of an
RULING: No. The prohibition of too early nomination of ordinary citizen. Private respondent has not retired into
the arrest, without warrant, at the time the words were
candidates presents a question that is not too the seclusion of simple private citizenship. He continues
uttered, or soon thereafter, is still another thing. In the
formidable in character. The right of association is to be a “public figure.”
balancing of authority and freedom, which obviously
affected. Political parties have less freedom as to the
becomes difficult at times, the Court has, in this case, tilted
time during which they may nominate candidates; the FACTS:
the scale in favor of authority but only for purposes of the
curtailment is not such, however, as to render The petitioner proposed motion picture would be essentially
arrest.
meaningless such a basic right. Their scope of a re-enactment of the events that made
possible the EDSA revolution. Petitioners claim that in however, we should not construe said provision as to unduly
producing and “The Four Day Revolution” they are FACTS: Brandenburg, a leader in the Ku Klux Klan, made a restrict the right of the students to free speech. 
exercising their freedom of speech and of expression speech at a Klan rally and was later convicted under an Ohio
protected under our Constitution. Private respondent (Enrile), criminal syndicalism law. The law made illegal advocating MAIN POINT :Section 7 of the Campus Journalism Act to
upon the other hand, asserts a right of privacy and claims "crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism mean that the school cannot suspend or expel a student
that the production and filming of the projected mini-series as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform," solely on the basis of the articles he or she has written,
would constitute an unlawful intrusion into his privacy which as well as assembling "with any society, group, or except when such articles materially disrupt classwork or
he is entitled to enjoy. assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the involve substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others
doctrines of criminal syndicalism."
ISSUE: Whether or not the described motion picture is
unconstitutional as to private respondent’s privacy? ISSUE: Whether or not the law is unconstitutional as it
violates freedom of speech
RULING: No. Private respondent is a “public figure”
precisely because of his participation as a principal RULING:Yes.  SC ruled that (1) speech can be prohibited if TINGKAHAN 
actor in the culminating events of the change of it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless CASE NO. 533
government in February 1986. Because his participation action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action." ART III, SEC 4: SPEECH AND THE ELECTORAL
therein was major in character, a film reenactment of the The criminal syndicalism act made illegal the advocacy and PROCESS
peaceful revolution that fails to make reference to the teaching of doctrines while ignoring whether or not that Sanidad vs. COMELEC 181 SCRA 529; GR 90878,
role played by private respondent would be grossly advocacy and teaching would actually incite imminent January 29, 1990
unhistorical. lawless action. The failure to make this distinction rendered
the law overly broad and in violation of the Constitution. FACTS: On 23 October 1989, RA 6766 (Act providing for an
organic act for the Cordillera Autonomous Region) was
Case No. 530 enacted into law. The plebiscite was scheduled 30 January
MAIN POINT:The Court held that hate speech is protected
SUBSEQUENT PUNISHMENT 1990. The Comelec, by virtue of the power vested by the
under the First Amendment as long as it does not provoke
Kelley v. Johnson – 425 US 238 1987 Constitution, the Omnibus Election Code (BP 881), RA
violence.
6766 and other pertinent election laws, promulgated
MAINT POINT: Choice of organization, dress, and Resolution 2167 to govern the conduct of the plebiscite on
equipment for law enforcement personnel is a decision the said Organic Act. Pablito V. Sanidad, a newspaper
entitled to the same sort of presumption of legislative columnist of “Overview” for the “Baguio Midland Courier”
validity as are state choices designed to promote other TINGKAHAN  assailed the constitutionality of Section 19 (Prohibition on
aims within the cognizance of the State’s police power. CASE NO. 532 columnists, commentators or announcers) of the said
  ART III, SEC 4: SUBSEQUENT PUNISHMENT resolution, which provides “During the plebiscite campaign
FACTS: Miriam College Foundation vs CA period, on the day before and on plebiscite day, no mass
An order had been put into effect requiring that male media columnist, commentator, announcer or personality
members of the police force abide by certain hair-grooming FACTS: Obscene, vulgar, indecent, gross, sexually explicit, shall use his column or radio or television time to campaign
standards. Police officers were forbidden from having beards injurious to young readers, and devoid of all moral values. for or against the plebiscite issues.”
or goatees, and the length of hair and sideburns were This was how some members of the Miriam College
likewise regulated. There was an exception for medical community allegedly described the contents of the ISSUE: Whether or not the regulation violates petitioner’s
need. The action was said to violate Johnson’s First September-October 1994 issue (Vol. 41, No. 14) of Miriam freedom of expression. 
Amendment right of free expression, as well as his Colleges school paper and magazine. Atty. Ricardo
Fourteenth Amendment rights of due process and equal Valmonte, lawyer for the students, submitted a letter to the RULING: YES .We hold that this form of regulation is
protection. Discipline Committee reiterating his clients position that said tantamount to a restriction of petitioner’s freedom of
Committee had no jurisdiction over them. According to Atty. expression for no justifiable reason. While the limitation does
ISSUE: Whether or not the regulated hairstyle of police Valmonte, the Committee was trying to impose discipline on not absolutely bar petitioner’s freedom of expression, it is still
personnel violated Johnson’s rights? his clients on account of their having written articles and a restriction on his choice of the forum where he may
poems in their capacity as campus journalists. Hence, he express his view. No reason was advanced by respondent to
RULING: No. The Court ruled that the regulations were not argued that what applies is Republic Act No. 7079 [The justify such abridgement.  
so irrational as to be deemed “arbitrary,” and therefore Campus Journalism Act] and its implementing rules and
respondent had not been deprived of liberty. On the contrary, regulations. He also questioned the partiality of the members MAIN POINT: Plebiscite issues are matters of public
the Court determined that similarity in appearance of police of said Committee who allegedly had already articulated their concern and importance. The people’s right to be informed
officers was desirable and served as a rational basis for the position against his clients. and to be able to freely and intelligently make a decision
regulations imposed by the police force. would be better served by access to an unabridged
ISSUE: W/ School can suspend or expel the students? discussion of the issues, including the forum. 

TINGKAHAN RULING: NO. Section 7 of the Campus Journalism Act

CASE NO. 531 should be read in a manner as not to infringe upon the
ART III, SEC 4: SUBSEQUENT PUNISHMENT school's right to discipline its students. At the same time,
Brandenburg vs Ohio
TINGKAHAN 
CASE NO.534 ART III, SEC 4: SPEECH AND THE ELECTORAL ISSUE: Whether or not the aforementioned section of RA
ART III, SEC 4: SPEECH AND THE ELECTORAL PROCESS 6646 is unconstitutional for violating freedom of expression. 
PROCESS Adiong vs. COMELEC 207 SCRA 712; GR 103956, March
National Press Club (NPC) vs. COMELEC 207 SCRA 1 31, 1992 RULING: NO. The term political “ad ban,” when used to
describe §11(b) of R.A. No. 6646, is misleading, for even as
FACTS: It is principally argued that Section 11 (b) of RA No. FACTS: Petitioner Blo Umpar Adiong, a senatorial candidate §11(b) prohibits the sale or donation of print space and air
6646 invades and violates freedom of expression. Said in the May 11, 1992 elections, now assails the COMELEC’s time to political candidates, it mandates the COMELEC to
section provides that for “it is unlawful any newspapers, radio Resolution insofar as it prohibits the posting of decals and procure and itself allocate to the candidates space and time
broadcasting or television station, other mass media, or any stickers in “mobile” places like cars and other moving in the media. There is no suppression of political ads but
person making use of the mass media to sell or to give free vehicles (Sec. 21, COMELEC Resolution No. 2347). The only a regulation of the time and manner of advertising. 
of charge print space or air time for campaign or other petitioner believes that with the ban on radio, television and
political purposes except to the Commission on Elections as print political advertisements, he, being a neophyte in the MAIN POINT: Here, there is no total ban on political ads,
provided under Section 90 and 92 of Batas Pambansa Blg. field of politics stands to suffer grave and irreparable injury much less restriction on the content of the speech. Given the
881.” Petitioners who were representatives of mass media with this prohibition. The posting of decals and stickers on fact that print space and air time can be controlled or
assails its constitutionality on the ground that it amounts to cars and other moving vehicles would be his last medium to dominated by rich candidates to the disadvantage of poor
censorship because it single’s out for suppression only inform the electorate that he is a senatorial candidate in the candidates, there is a substantial or legitimate governmental
publications of a particular content and it abridges freedom May 11, 1992 elections.   interest justifying exercise of the regulatory power of the
of speech of candidates. COMELEC.
ISSUE: Whether or not the prohibition of posting of decals
ISSUE: Whether or not the aforementioned section of RA and stickers on “mobile” places except in designated areas
6646 is unconstitutional for violating freedom of expression.  by the COMELEC is unconstitutional. 

RULING: NO. The fundamental purpose of such RULING: YES. The prohibition is null and void. The TINGKAHAN 
“supervision or regulation” has been spelled out in the prohibition unduly infringes on the citizen’s fundamental right CASE NO. 537
Constitution as the ensuring of “equal opportunity, time, and of free speech enshrined in the Constitution (Sec. 4, Article ART III, SEC 4: SPEECH AND THE ELECTORAL
space, and the right to reply,” as well as uniform and III). There is no public interest substantial enough to warrant PROCESS
reasonable rates of charges for the use of such media the kind of restriction involved in this case.  ABS-CBN vs. COMELEC 323 SCRA 811; GR 133486,
facilities, in connection with “public information campaigns January 28, 2000
and forums among candidates.  MAIN POINT: Freedom of expression calls all the more for
the utmost respect when what may be curtailed is the FACTS: COMELEC issued a Resolution approving the
MAIN POINT: The Constitution has expressly authorized the dissemination of information to make more meaningful the issuance of a restraining order to stop ABS CBN or any other
Comelec to supervise or regulate the enjoyment or utilization equally vital right of suffrage.  groups, its agents or representatives from conducting exit
of the franchises or permits for the operation of media of surveys.  The Resolution was issued by  the Comelec
communication and information.  allegedly upon "information from a reliable source that ABS-
CBN (Lopez Group) has prepared a project to conduct radio-
Davide, Jr. J., concurring: Freedom of speech and of the TV coverage of the elections and to make an exit survey of
press or of expression which the Bill of Rights guarantees is the vote during the elections for national officials particularly
not an absolute right now settled.  for President and Vice President, results of which shall be
TINGKAHAN  broadcasted immediately.”  The electoral body believed that
Padilla, J., concurring: It is fundamental that these CASE NO. 536 such project might conflict with the official Comelec count, as
freedoms are not immune to regulation by the state in the ART III, SEC 4: SPEECH AND THE ELECTORAL well as the unofficial quick count of the National Movement
legitimate exercise of its police power.   PROCESS for Free Elections (Namfrel). In other words, they allege that
Osmena vs. COMELEC  288 SCRA 447; GR 132231, the exit survey/poll has a clear and present danger of
Gutierrez, Jr., J., dissenting: R.A. No. 6646 will certainly March 31, 1998 destroying the credibility and integrity of the electoral
achieve one result—keep the voters ignorant of who the process. It also noted that it had not authorized or deputized
candidates are and what they stand for.  FACTS: NPC v. COMELEC (Case No. 522) upheld the ABS-CBN to undertake the exit survey.
validity of §11(b) of R.A. No. 6646 against claims that it
Cruz, J., dissenting: The most important objection to abridged freedom of speech and of the press. Petitioners are ISSUE: Whether the COMELEC Resolution restraining
Section 11 (b) is that it constitutes prior restraint on the NOW seeking a reexamination of the validity of §11(b) of survey polls infringes the Freedom of Speech and of the
dissemination of ideas.  R.A. No. 6646, the Electoral Reforms Law of 1987, which Press. 
prohibits mass media from selling or giving free of charge
Paras., J., dissenting: The freedom to advertise one’s print space or air time for campaign or other political RULING: YES.  Such arguments are purely speculative and
political candidacy in the various forms of media is clearly a purposes, except to the Commission on Elections. clearly untenable. First, by the very nature of a survey, the
significant part of our freedom of expression and of our right Petitioners are candidates for public office in the forthcoming interviewees or participants are selected at random, so that
of access to information.  elections. Petitioner Emilio M.R. Osmeña is candidate for the results will as much as possible be representative or
President of the Philippines, while petitioner Pablo P. Garcia reflective of the general sentiment or view of the community
TINGKAHAN  is governor of Cebu Province, seeking reelection.   or group polled. Second, the survey result is not meant to
CASE NO. 535 replace or be at par with the official Comelec count. Finally,
not at stake here are the credibility and the integrity of the alleging premature campaigning as provided in the Omnibus greater alcoholism. However, the Court concluded that this
elections, which are exercises that are separate and Election Code Section 80 which says “It shall be unlawful for interest was not substantial enough, since there was no
independent from the exit polls.  any person, … to engage in an election campaign or partisan reason to believe that banning the alcoholic content on beer
political activity except during  labels would prevent such social harms. The regulation was
MAIN POINT: A limitation on the freedom of expression may the campaign period. She was found guilty of premature more extensive than necessary, since there were available
be justified only by a danger of such substantive character campaigning.  and effective alternatives that would not violate the First
that the state has a right to prevent.  Amendment. The regulation is unconstitutional because it did
ISSUE: WON petitioner guilty of premature campaigning not increase consumer awareness, but instead blinded the
public to the truth of the alcohol content.
TINGKAHAN  RULING: No. Any act is lawful unless expressly declared
CASE NO. 538 unlawful by law. It is enough that Congress stated that “any MAINPOINT: The regulation violated the First Amendment’s
ART III, SEC 4: SPEECH AND THE ELECTORAL unlawful act or omission applicable to a candidate shall take of protection of commercial speech, that it should not be
PROCESS effect only upon the start of the campaign period.” So, it is false or misleading.
SWS vs. COMELEC lawful if done before the start of the campaign period. This
plain language of the law need not be construed further.
FACTS: Section 1 of R.A. 9006, the Fair Election Act, says Moreover, on the day of the motorcade, she was not yet a
“Surveys affecting national candidates shall not be published candidate for. 
SOLIVEN
15 days before an election and surveys affecting local
MAINPOINT: Prior to the campaign period, even if the CASE NO. 541
candidates shall not be published 7 days before an election.”
candidate has filed his/her certificate of candidacy, he/she is ART. III, SEC. 4: [Link] Speech
The provision as well as the implementing resolution of the
not yet considered as a candidate for purposes other than Cincinnati vs. Discovery Network
COMELEC is challenged as violative of freedom of
expression.  The COMELEC, however, justifies the rule as the printing of ballots. Hence, she cannot be guilty of
premature campaigning for in the first place there is no FACTS:   The case arose when the City of Cincinnati decided to
necessary to prevent the manipulation and corruption of
electoral process by unscrupulous and erroneous survey just candidate to talk about. What she did was an exercise of her revoke permits allowing the Discovery Network to distribute
before election. freedom of expression. advertisements from 38 news racks on city property because
of an ordinance prohibiting the distribution of commercial
ISSUE:  WON the Act violates the freedom of expression handbills on public property. Cincinnati claimed that it served
the significant public interests of safety and aesthetics. The far
RULING: Yes. The power of the COMELEC over media more numerous  (1500) newspaper racks were not affected.
TINGKAHAN  Discovery Networks challenged the legality of the ordinance
franchise is limited to ensuring “equal opportunity, time,
CASE NO. 540 under the First Amendment. 
space and the right to reply” as well as to reasonable rates of
ART III, SEC 4: COMMERCIAL SPEECH
charges for the use of media facilities for “public information
Rubin vs. Coors Brewing ISSUE: WON the ordinances violated the free speech protection
and forums among candidates.” Here the prohibition of
speech is direct, absolute and substantial. Nor does the rule
FACTS: Coors Brewing Co. (Coors) applied to the Bureau of RULING: Yes. The restrictions on the distribution of
pass the O’Brien test for content related regulation because
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for an approval of proposed commercial flyers in news racks violated the First Amendment.
it supresses one type of expression while allowing other
labels. The approval was rejected because it violated the Despite the undisputed fact that flyers were commercial
types such as editorials, etc. and the restriction is greater
Federal Alcohol Administration Act’s (FAAA) prohibition of advertisements, the Court refused to diminish their free speech
than what uis needed to protect government interest
disclosing the alcohol content on beer labels or protections. The removal of a small number of news racks did
because the interest can be protected by narrower restriction
advertisements to prevent “strength wars” among brewers. little to advance the city’s interests in safety and aesthetics. In
such as subsequent punishment.
Coors filed a claim arguing the regulation violated the First
short, it was not a reasonable fit.
Amendment’s protection of commercial speech.  The district
MAINPOINT: No law shall be passed abridging the freedom
court upheld the ban of alcohol content in advertising, but not
of speech, of expression, or of the press . MAINPOINT: Commercial speech remains a lower category of
on labels. The government appealed, and the court of
protected speech, but this decision indicates that governments
appeals affirmed the judgment of the lower court by
cannot ban or restrict it without a reasonable justification.
concluding that the label ban did not prevent strength wars.

ISSUE: Does the Federal Alcohol Administration Act’s

TINGKAHAN  prohibition of displaying alcohol content on beer labels
CASE NO. 539 violate the First Amendment’s protection of commercial SOLIVEN
ART III, SEC 4: SPEECH AND THE ELECTORAL speech? CASE NO. 542
PROCESS
Penera vs. COMELEC RULING: Yes. For the government to regulate commercial ART 3, SEC 4: Commercial Speech
speech, the government must have a substantial interest that Central Hudson Gas v. Public Service Commission New
FACTS:  Petitioner filed her certificate of candidacy on the the regulation directly affects. In this case, the interest the York
day before the prescribed campaign period and thereafter, government intended to protect by banning the display of
had a motorcade convincing the residents to vote for her. alcohol content on beer labels was to limit the “strength FACTS: In 1973, when an oil embargo caused fuel shortages,
Due to this, private respondent filed a petition against her wars” of competing beer companies, which could lead to
the New York Public Service Commission issued a regulation
prohibiting electric companies from advertising to promote SOLIVEN
electricity use. Central Hudson Gas & Electric, a public utility CASE NO. 544 RULING: Section 4(c)(3) prohibits the transmission of
company, challenged the regulation, arguing that its unsolicited commercial electronic communications, commonly
advertisements were commercial speech protected by the First ART 3, SEC 4: Commercial Speech known as spams, the prohibition on transmitting unsolicited
Amendment. (Sec 4: No law shall be passed abridging the City of Laduc v Gilleo communications “would deny a person the right to read his
freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of emails, even unsolicited commercial ads addressed to him.”.
the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government FACTS: A City of Ladue ordinance prohibited homeowners Sections 4(c)(3), 12, and 19 of the Cybercrime Prevention Act
for redress or grievances) from displaying any signs to prevent visual clutter, except for of 2012 as unconstitutional.  It held that Section 4(c)(3)
residence identification, for sale signs and signs warning of violated the right to freedom of expression by prohibiting
ISSUE: WON the ban is in violation of Free Speech safety hazards. Margaret Gilleo hammered a sign into her lawn the electronic transmission of unsolicited commercial
in Ladue City which reads “Say No to War in the Persian Gulf. communications
RULING: yes. in central hudson, the u.s. supreme court ruled Call Congress Now”. When Gilleo learned that the sign violated
that the ban on advertisements for electricity violated the first a city ordinance, she approached the city council for an
amendment. in doing so, the court established a four-part test, exemption and was denied. Gilleo then sued the city, claiming
balancing government and commercial-speech interests to that the ordinance violated her right of free speech. Later, she
determine when commercial- speech regulations encroach on removed the sign and placed it on window that read “For Peace
free-speech rights. if the commercial speech is truthful and in the Gulf.” The City expanded the resolution on the SOLIVEN
relates to a lawful activity, the regulation must directly advance prohibition on signs thus, the sign in the window also violated CASE NO. 546
a substantial government interest and not more extensive than the city ordinance ART. III, SEC. 4: PRIVATE V. GOVERNMENT SPEECH
necessary to serve that interest.  although energy conservation LIBEL; UNPROTECTED SPEECH
represented a substantial government interest, the restriction ISSUE: WON the ban on signs in the City of Ladue is Policarpio v. Manila Times
was more extensive than necessary, as it banned even Unconstitutional
advertisements for products and services that use energy FACTS: Peitioner Policarpio was executive secretary of
efficiently. therefore the prohibition encroached the right to RULING: Yes. While signs pose distinctive problems and thus UNESCO Nat’l Commission. She had filed charges against
free speech  are subject to municipalities' police powers, measures Herminia Reyes, one of her subordinates in the Commission
regulating them affect communication itself. Such a regulation and caused the latter to be separated from the service. Reyes,
SOLIVEN may be challenged on the ground that it restricts speech in turn, filed counter-charges which were referred for
CASE NO. 543 because its exemptions discriminate on the basis of signs' investigation. Pending completion, Reyes filed complaints
messages, or on the ground that it prohibits too much against Policarpio for alleged malversation of public funds and
ART 3, SEC 4: Commercial Speech protected speech. The ordinance forbade most signs but for estafa through falsification of public documents. Policarpio
Pharmaceutical v Sec. of Health allowed others, such as “For Sale” signs, the circuit court filed a libel suit to Manila Times Publishing Co. for publishing
ruled the law is unconstitutional because it failed to be two defamatory, libelous and false articles/news items in
FACTS: Executive Order No. 51 (Milk Code) was issued by content neutral; it favored commercial speech over Saturday Mirror and in the Daily Mirror. The articles contain
President Corazon Aquino, a code adopted by the World Health noncommercial speech. news on Reyes’ charges against Policarpio. CFI dismissed the
Assembly (WHA) that breastfeeding should be supported, SOLIVEN complaint on the ground that petitioner had not proven that
promoted and protected, hence, it should be ensured that CASE NO. 545 respondent had acted maliciously in publishing the articles,
nutrition and health claims are not permitted for breastmilk although portions thereof were inaccurate or false.
substitutes. ART 3, SEC 4: Commercial Speech
Disini v Sec. of Justice ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Manila Times is guilty of
ISSUE: WON the DOH violated the constitutional freedom on FACTS: Petitioner seeks to declare several provisions of the RA having published libelous/defamatory articles,
free trade for breastmilk substitutes 10175, the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 as
unconstitutional and void because it violated the freedom of RULING: Yes. Newspapers must enjoy a certain degrees of
RULING: Yes. The framers of the constitution were well aware speech. The cybercrime law aims to regulate access to and use discretion in determining the manner in which a given event
that trade must be subjected to some form of regulation for the of the cyberspace and because linking with the internet opens should be presented to the public, and the importance to be
public good. Public interest must be upheld over business up a user to communications from others, the ill-motivated can attached thereto, as a news item, and that its presentation in a
interests.  "free enterprise does not call for removal of use the cyberspace for committing theft by hacking into or sensational manner is not per se illegal. Newspapers may
‘protective regulations’." It must be clearly explained and sneakily accessing his bank account or credit card or publish news items relative to judicial, legislative or other
proven by competent evidence just exactly how such defrauding him through false representations. The wicked can official proceedings, which are not of confidential nature,
protective regulation would result in the restraint of trade. use the cyberspace, too, for illicit trafficking in sex or for because the public is entitled to know the truth with respect to
petitioner failed to show that the proscription of milk exposing to pornography guileless children who have access to such proceedings. But, to enjoy immunity, a publication
manufacturers’ participation would hamper the trade of the internet. For this reason, the government has a legitimate containing derogatory information must be not only true,
breastmilk substitutes and failed to demonstrate that the right to regulate the use of cyberspace and contain and punish but, also, fair, and it must be made in good faith and
provisions of the RIRR is unreasomable and oppressive for wrongdoings. without any comments or remarks.  Art. 354, RPC provides
being in restraint of trade that “Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be
MP BOLD ISSUE: WON   the Cybercrime prevention act violated malicious even if it be true, if no good intention & justifiable
freedom of speech motive for making it is shown, except, “A fair and true report,
made in good faith, without any comments or remarks….” In
the case at bar, aside from containing information derogatory
to the petitioner, the articles presented her in a worse
predicament than that in which she in fact was. Said articles
were not a fair and true report of the proceedings therein
alluded to. SOLIVEN
CASE NO. 548
ART. III, SEC. 4: PRIVATE V. GOVERNMENT SPEECH
LIBEL; UNPROTECTED SPEECH SOLIVEN
SOLIVEN CASE NO. 549
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
CASE NO. 547 ART. III, SEC. 4: PRIVATE V. GOVERNMENT SPEECH
ART. III, SEC. 4: PRIVATE V. GOVERNMENT SPEECH FACTS: Sullivan was one of the 3 Commissioners of LIBEL; UNPROTECTED SPEECH
LIBEL; UNPROTECTED SPEECH Montgomery, Alabama, who claimed that he was defamed in a Rosenbloom v. Metromedia Inc.
Lopez v. CA full-page ad entitled, “Heed Their Rising Voices” taken out in
the New York Times. The advertisement charged in part that an FACTS: George Rosenbloom distributed nudist magazines in
FACTS: On the front page of the Manila Chronicle, as well as on the Philadelphia area. Police arrested him at his home on
unprecedented wave of terror had been directed against those
other daily newspapers, was a news story of Fidel Cruz, a obscenity charges and seized several of the magazines. A local
who participated in the civil rights movement in the South.
sanitary inspector assigned to the Babuyan Islands who gave a news broadcast, run by Metromedia, Inc., reported on the
Some of the particulars of the advertisement were false.
“hoax” report informing authorities in Manila that the people in arrest, but failed to use the words “allegedly” or “reportedly” in
Although the advertisement did not mention Sullivan by name,
the Babuyan Islands were living in terror, due to a series of during one broadcast. In subsequent broadcasts, the reporters
he claimed that it referred to him indirectly because he had
killings committed since Christmas of 1955 when in truth, called Rosenbloom and other similar distributors “girlie look
oversight responsibility of the police. New York Times Co.
there were no killers and Fidel Cruz merely wanted peddlers” and “smut distributors”. Eventually, Rosenbloom
claimed that it authorized publication of the advertisement
transportation home to Manila. This Week Magazine of the was acquitted on the obscenity charges. Rosenbloom then sued
because it did not have any reason to believe that its contents
Manila Chronicle devoted a pictorial article in its two issues Metromedia for libel. The district court held that the First
were false. There was no independent effort to check its
regarding the incident. The magazine on both occasions carried Amendment standard, which allowed recovery of damages
accuracy. Sullivan demanded that the corporation retract the
photographs of the person purporting to be Fidel Cruz. only for rendering “knowingly and recklessly” false statements,
advertisement. The jury found the ad libelous per se and
Unfortunately, the pictures that were published on both did not apply because Rosenbloom was not a public official or
actionable without proof of malice and awarded damages to
occasions were that of private respondent Fidel G. Cruz, a figure. The court instead instructed the jury to award damages
Sullivan. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed. New York
businessman contractor from Santa Maria, Bulacan. It turned where Metromedia did not use reasonable care to discern the
Times Co. appealed.
out that the photographs of respondent Cruz and that of Fidel truth before broadcasting. The jury awarded Rosenbloom
Cruz, sanitary inspector, were on file in the library of the ISSUE: Whether or not New York Co. is liable for defamation general and punitive damages, although the district court
Manila Chronicle in accordance with the standard procedure for printing an advertisement which criticized a public official’s reduced the punitive damages. The U.S. Court of Appeals for
observed in other newspaper offices, but when the format was official conduct. the Third Circuit reversed, holding that the knowingly and
prepared, the two photographs were in advertently switched. recklessly false standard applied.
As soon, however, as the inadvertent error was brought to the RULING: No. The Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme
attention of petitioners, the following correction (i.e. the Court) holds that the Constitution delimits a State’s power to ISSUE: Whether or not the knowingly and recklessly false
correct photo) was immediately published along with an award damages for libel in actions brought by public officials standard for defamatory statements apply to private
apology, stating that the mistake was made die to the fact that against critics of their official conduct. In this case, the rule individuals.
they were rushing to meet the deadline of publication. requiring proof of actual malice is applicable. It is not adequate
Respondent Fidel G. Cruz sued petitioners in the CFI of Manila evidence of malice that New York Co. failed to check the RULING: Yes. The US Supreme Court held in this case that the
for the recovery of damages alleging the defamatory character advertisements accuracy. Also, the evidence was “knowingly and recklessly false” standard applied because
of the publication of his picture. constitutionally defective in another respect: it was incapable the story was a matter of public concern. It did not matter
of supporting the jury’s finding that the allegedly libelous that Rosenbloom was a private citizen. The Court also held
ISSUE: Whether or not an action for libel would lie arising from statements were made of and concerning Sullivan. The State that the evidence in the case did not support the damages
the publication of the picture of Fidel G. Cruz. cannot, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, award under the proper constitutional standard.
award damages to a public official for defamatory
RULING: Yes. An action for libel would lie arising from the Additional Information:
falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves
publication of the photograph of Cruz even though the
publisher made a correction of their mistake immediately upon
"actual malice"—that the statement was made with  In libel cases in the US, the difference between
knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of defamation of a public figure versus defamation of a
discovery thereof. Publication of a person's photograph in whether it was true or false. Factual error, content private person is that a private person who claims
connection with an article libelous of a third person, is a defamatory of official reputation, or both, are insufficient defamation only needs to prove that the defamer
libel on the person whose picture is published, where the to warrant an award of damages for false statements acted negligently, while a public figure who claims
acts set out in the article are imputed to such person. While unless "actual malice" is alleged and proved. defamation has to prove that the defamer acted
a newspaper should not be held accountable for honest
mistakes owing to the pressure of a daily deadline, there is no intentionally or recklessly.
Additional Information:
such pressure to meet, and no occasion to act with haste in a
weekly magazine.  In US Laws, the First Amendment guarantees
freedom concerning religion, expression, assembly, SOLIVEN
and the right to petition. CASE NO. 550
 ART. III, SEC. 4: PRIVATE V. GOVERNMENT SPEECH HELD: No. Public figures and officials must show actual
LIBEL; UNPROTECTED SPEECH malice in order to recover damages from intentional infliction RULING: No. Publication regarding judicial action in a
Gertz v. Robert Wlech – 418 US 323 of emotional distress from a publication. Falwell is a public pending case, which tends to impede, embarrass or obstruct
figure and cannot recover damages absent a showing of the the court and constitutes a clear and present danger to the
FACTS: Gertz was hired by a family to sue a police officer who actual malice. Public figures must prove more than administration of justice is not protected by the guarantee of
had killed said family's son. In a magazine, the John Birch outrageous conduct as citizens receive First Amendment press freedom and is punishable as contempt. Freedom of
Society accused Gertz of being a "Leninist" and a "Communist- protections related to speech. More than mere outrageous the press and administration of justice are both equally
fronter" because he chose to clients who were suing a law conduct must be shown. The Court held that deciding sacred and neither should be violated by the other. In order
enforcement officer. Gertz lost the libel suit because the trial otherwise would assign damage awards to political to dispose of judicial business unhampered by publications
judge found that the magazine had not violated the actual cartoonists for caricatures that play up the negative features which reasonably tend to impair the impartiality of the
malice test of their public figures. Hustler Magazine v. Falwell verdicts, the court will not hesitate to exercise the power to
established that Public Figures could not recover damages punish for contempt. His article published comments on a
ISSUE: Whether or not the ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress non-existent decision and obstructed the proper functioning
which necessitates proof of actual malice may be applied in this absent a showing of actual malice. Actual malice requires of the SC. The premature revelation placed the court in an
case that the statement was made with knowledge that it was unfavorable light as an inept and incompetent guardian of its
false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was own confidential proceedings. 
true.
RULING: No. The application of the New York Times v.
Sullivan standard in this case was inappropriate because
Gertz was neither a public official nor a public figure. First,
the recklessness standard applies only to defamation of public TANGGING
figures or public officials. Second, even for private individuals, CASE NO. 553
states may not impose strict liability on news media. And third, TANGGING
any standard of fault less than recklessness limits private CASE NO. 552
persons to actual injury. Because private individuals ART III SEC 4: FREEDOM OF SPEECH
characteristically have fewer effective opportunities for LIBEL (UNPROTECTED SPEECH)
rebuttal than do public officials and public figures, they are In Re Jurado 243 SCRA 299
more vulnerable to injury from defamation. Because they have ART III SEC 4: FREEDOM OF SPEECH
not voluntarily exposed themselves to increased risk of injury LIBEL (UNPROTECTED SPEECH)
from defamatory falsehoods, they are also more deserving of In Re Jurado AM No. 90-5-2373 FACTS: Jurado, a journalist who writes in a newspaper of
recovery general circulation, the “Manila Standard,”had been writing
about alleged improprieties and irregularities in the judiciary
over several months. The case at bar is related to
TANGGING FACTS: Senator JPE et al. were charged by the State with
“controversial case” of “PLDT v. Eastern Telephone
CASE NO. 551 Rebellion complexed with murder, in contravention of the
Philippines, Inc. (ETPI).” In that decision, the Court was
Hernandez doctrine which states that Rebellion absorbs
sharply divided; the vote was 9 to 4, in favor of the petitioner
ART III SEC 4: FREEDOM OF SPEECH murder. While the SC was deliberating their decision, the
PLDT. “Philippine Daily Inquirer” and other newspapers
LIBEL (UNPROTECTED SPEECH) Manila Standard published an article by Atty. Emil Jurado
published a report of the purported affidavit of a Mr. David
Hustler Magazine vs. Falwell stating that “Rebellion complex does not exist SC” and that
Miles Yerkes, an alleged expert in linguistics. He examined
“State back to square one in cases v. Enrile et al.” His article
and analyzed the decision of Justice Gutierrez in relation to a
claimed that the SC had reaffirmed the Hernandez doctrine
few of his prior ponencias and the writings of one of the
by a 14- 1 vote according to “sources in the SC”. He
FACTS: Jerry Falwell was a nationally known minister and lawyers of PLDT, Mr. Eliseo Alampay, to ascertain if the
published another article that stated that the SC was
active commentator on both political and public issues. decision had been written, in whole or in part, by the latter.
expected to promulgate a decision within the day or the next
Hustler Magazine printed a parody article about Falwell Yerkes proffered the conclusion that the Gutierrez decision
day. He divulged information, such as the revised vote of 14-
inferring Falwell and his mother were incestuous and “looks, reads and sounds like the writing of the PLDT’s
0 and that the decision would be penned by Assoc. Justice
immoral drunks. In response, Falwell sued Hustler Magazine counsel.” The Chief Justice issued an administrative order
Narvasa. New articles showed that the SC was “still
claiming damages for libel, invasion of privacy, and “Creating an Ad Hoc Committee to Investigate Reports of
deliberating” on the issue. On that same day, the SC issued
intentional infliction of emotional distress. The federal district Corruption in the Judiciary,” to investigate the said reports of
a resolution branding as false the news reports and claimed
court found for Falwell on the emotional distress claim, corruption in the judiciary. 
that no decision had been signed as of the date, and
awarding him damages in the amount of $150,000. The court
required Atty. Jurado to respond within 5 days why he should
of appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment. Hustler ISSUE: W/N Jurado’s allegations constitute criminal libel.
not be dealt with administratively.  Atty. Jurado claimed
appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari. 
freedom of the press and justified the article on the people’s
HELD: Yes. Jurado’s actuations, in the context in which they
right to know about decisions. 
ISSUE: W/N a public figure can recover damages for a claim were done, demonstrate gross irresponsibility, and
alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress if the public indifference to factual accuracy and the injury that he might
ISSUE: W/N the report and comments in question are
figure does not show actual malice. cause to the name and reputation of those of whom he
protected by freedom of the press and right of the people to
wrote. They constitute contempt of court, directly tending as
know information on matters of a public concern. 
they do to degrade or abase the administration of justice and
the judges engaged in that function. The norm does not this case, petitioner was able to prove the truth of his commentaries on matters of public interest are privileged
require that a journalist guarantee the truth of what he says charges against the barangay official. His allegation was and constitute a valid defense in an action for libel or
or publishes. But the norm does prohibit the reckless based on the letter of NHA Inspector General Fernandez to slander. The doctrine of fair comment means that while in
disregard of private reputation by publishing or circulating petitioners. A rule placing on the accused the burden of general every discreditable imputation publicly made is
defamatory statements without any bona fide effort to showing the truth of allegations of official misconduct and/or deemed false, nevertheless, when the discreditable
ascertain the truth thereof. good motives and justifiable ends for making such imputation is directed against a public person in his public
allegations would not only be contrary to the RPC. It would, capacity, it is not necessarily actionable. It must either be a
Although honest utterances, even if inaccurate, may further above all, infringe on the constitutionally guaranteed freedom false allegation of fact or a comment based on a false
the fruitful exercise of the right of free speech, it does not of expression.  supposition. 
follow that the lie, knowingly and deliberately published
about a public official, should enjoy a like immunity. The
knowingly false statement and the false statement made with
reckless disregard of the truth, do not enjoy constitutional
protection. 
TANGGING TANGGING
CASE NO. 555 CASE NO. 556

TANGGING ARTICLE III, SEC 4: 5. Libel(Unprotected Speech)

ART III SEC 4: FREEDOM OF SPEECH
CASE NO. 554 546 Vicario v. CA
LIBEL (UNPROTECTED SPEECH)
Borjal vs. CA
ART III SEC 4: FREEDOM OF SPEECH Facts: Petitioner was charged with by MTC resp judge, as
LIBEL (UNPROTECTED SPEECH) complaining witness. Allegedly the crime was committed
Vasquez vs. CA when Vicario circulated in the vicinity of the Northern Samar
FACTS: A civil action for damages based on libel was filed Provincial Hospital in Catarman photocopies of page 7 of the
before the court against Borjal and Soliven for writing and 20 March 1992 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer which is
publishing articles that are allegedly derogatory and about the filing of  OMB with the SB graft charges against
FACTS: Petitioner Vasquez and some 37 families from the offensive against Francisco Wenceslao, attacking among the Resp judge who allegedly pocketed the P1,000.00 cash
Tondo Foreshore Area went to see then National Housing others the solicitation letters he send to support a conference bond posted by a respondent in one of several cases
Authority (NHA) General Manager Lito Atienza regarding to be launch concerning resolving matters on transportation pending in his sala. Said article named the respondent.
their complaint against their Barangay Chairman, Jaime crisis that is tainted with anomalous activities. Wenceslao Hence, a complaint was filed by resp against the petitioner
Olmedo, a public official. After the meeting, petitioner and his however was never named in any of the articles nor was the alleging that the latter’s act greatly prejudiced his reputation
companions were interviewed by reporters of the newspaper conference he was organizing. The lower court ordered as a member of the bench and caused him great
Ang Tinig ng Masa. The article was published containing petitioners to indemnify the private respondent for damages distress. Petitioner Vicario on the other hand disclaimed
such statements from the petitioner imputing that Olmedo, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. A petition for responsibility for the distribution of the alleged libelous
through connivance with NHA officials, was able to obtain review was filed before the SC contending that private article, and raised that the libel suit against him was ill-
title to several lots in the area and that he was involved in respondent was not sufficiently identified to be the subject of motivated for he had filed a criminal charge for graft and
illegal activities such as attempted murder, gambling and the published articles. corruption against respondent before the Omb and an admin
stealing. Olmeda filed a complaint for libel. complaint for dishonesty with SC, both due to the latter's
ISSUE: W/N petitioner is guilty of libel. unjustified refusal and failure to return petitioner's cash bond
ISSUE: W/N there is actual malice to warrant criminal liability of P1,000.00. Later RTC found Vicario guilty of libel and
for libel. HELD: No. Malice is further defined as the presence of spite sentenced him to pay a fine of P200.00 with subsidiary
or ill will; when a person acts not out of response to duty, but imprisonment in case of insolvency. On appeal CA
for some unjustifiable motives or bad intentions. Petitioner affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court. Hence, this
RULING: No. Even if the defamatory statement is false, no acted out of a sense of civic duty and in the performance of petition for review on certiorari where petitioner raised the
liability can attach if it relates to official conduct, unless the his job as a newspaperman in exposing alleged anomalies in issue
public official concerned proves that the statement was the government. A reading of the imputations of petitioner
made with actual malice — that is, with knowledge that it Borjal against respondent Wenceslao shows that all these Issue: W/N the news item in question is a privileged matter
was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false necessarily bore upon the latter's official conduct as thus, not a libelous act.
or not. Executive Director of the First National Conference on Land Held: Yes. The prosecution failed to establish express
In this case, the prosecution failed to prove not only that the Transportation (FNCLT). Generally, malice can be presumed malice on the part of petitioner by positive proof, its cause
charges made by petitioner were false but also that petitioner from defamatory words, the privileged character of a perforce must fail. 
made them with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless communication destroys the presumption of malice. The
disregard of whether they were false or not. If the defamatory burden of proving actual malice then lies on private The law presumes that malice is present in every defamatory
statement is made against a public official with respect to the respondent Wenceslao.  imputation; Exemption is a qualifiedly privileged
discharge of his official duties and functions and the truth of communication. Art. 354.  2. A fair and true report, made in
the allegation is shown, the accused will be entitled to an Qualifiedly privileged communications containing defamatory good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial,
acquittal even though he does not prove that the imputation imputations are not actionable unless found to have been legislative or other official proceedings which are not of
was published with good motives and for justifiable ends. In made without good intention justifiable motive. Fair confidential nature, or of any statement, report or speech
delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed TANGGING unauthorized acts.  Petitioner filed a complaint for the crime
by public officers in the exercise of their functions. CASE No. 558 of libel.
Paragraph 2 aforequoted refers to a qualifiedly privileged
communication, the character of which is a matter of defense CASE NO. 548 ISSUE: WON there is an actual malice for the liability to
that may be lost by positive proof of express malice on the ARTICLE III, SEC 4: 5. Libel(Unprotected Speech) arise
part of the accused. Once it is established that the article is Fermin v PP
of a privileged character, the onus of proving actual malice . HELD:  No. In libel cases against public officials, for liability
rests on the plaintiff who must then convince the court that to arise, the alleged defamatory statement must relate to
the offender was prompted by malice or ill will. When this is Facts: Cristy Fermin is the publisher and Bogs Tugas is the official conduct, even if the defamatory statement is false,
accomplished the defense of privilege becomes unavailing. editor-in-chief of Gossip Tabloid. The June 14, 1995 unless the public official concerned proves that the
Since the prosecution failed to establish express malice on headline and lead story of the tabloid says that it is statement was made with actual malice, that is, with
the part of petitioner by positive proof, its cause perforce improbable for Annabelle Rama to go to the US should it be knowledge that it was false or not.  Here, petitioner failed to
must fail. true that she is evading her conviction in an estafa case prove actual malice on the part of the private respondents. 
herein the Philippines for she and husband Eddie have more The statements embodied in the advertisement are covered
problems/cases to confront there. This was said to be due to by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech. This
their, especially Annabelle's, using fellow Filipinos’ money, carries the right to criticize the action and conduct of a public
TANGGING
failure to remit proceeds to the manufacturing company of official.
CASE No. 557
the cookware they were selling and not being on good terms
ARTICLE III, SEC 4: 5. Libel(Unprotected Speech) with the latter. Respondents filed libel cases against DELOS REYES
Pader v. Pp petitioner and Tugas before RTC of QC, Br. 218. CASE NO. 560
RTC held Fermin and Tugas guilty of libel. On appeal CA:
Facts: On April 20, 1995, at about 8:00 p.m., Atty. Benjamin acquitted Tugas on account of non-participation but Fermin's
C. Escolango was conversing with his political leaders at the conviction was affirmed. Fermin's MR was denied hence, the Art III Sec. 4 Libel as Unproteccted Speech
terrace of his house at Morong, Bataan when petitioner petition where she argues that she had no knowledge and Arafiles v. Philippine Journalists, Inc 426 SCRA 336
appeared at the gate and shouted “putang ina mo Atty. participation in the publication of the article, that the article is
Escolango. Napakawalanghiya mo!” The latter was dumb- not libelous and is covered by the freedom of the press. FACTS: Emelita Despuig, an employee of the National
founded and embarrassed. At that time, Atty. Escolango was   Institute of Atmospheric Sciences (NIAS), lodged a complaint
a candidate for vice mayor of Morong, Bataan in the Issue: W/N the article is not libelous and is covered by the against petitioner the NIAS director, for forcible abduction
elections of May 8, 1995. On June 16, 1995 Atty. Escolango freedom of the press. with rape and forcible abduction with attempted rape.
filed with the Municipal Trial Court, Bagac, Bataan a   Emelita executed a sworn affidavit which was later on written
complaint against petitioner for grave oral defamation, to Held: No. petitioner cannot take refuge in the constitutional in the police blotter and perused by Morales. The latter
which petitioner pleaded “not guilty.”  MTC after trial held that guarantee of freedom of speech and of the press. Although a interviewed Emelita. The following day, the article appeared
petitioner was guilty. On appeal, RTC affirmed the decision wide latitude is given to critical utterances made against in the headline of respondent’s newspaper which wrote,
of the Municipal Trial Court in toto.  On appeal the CA public officials in the performance of their official duties, or GOV’T EXEC RAPES COED. About a year following the
affirmed the RTC’s decision but with modification as to the against public figures on matters of public interest, such publication, petitioner instituted a complaint before the RTC
penalty imposed. Hence, this petition.  criticism does not automatically fall within the ambit of against respondents for damages. Petitioner alleged that
constitutionally protected speech. If the utterances are false, because of the article, his reputation was injured.
Issue:  W/N petitioner is guilty of slight or serious oral malicious or unrelated to a public officers performance of his Respondent answered that his write-up was protected by the
defamation. duties or irrelevant to matters of public interest involving constitution on freedom of the press. RTC ruled in favor of
public figures, the same may give rise to criminal and civil petitioner.
Held: No. Unquestionably, the words uttered were liability. While complainants are considered public figures for
defamatory. Considering, however, the factual backdrop of being personalities in the entertainment business, media ISSUE: WON the CA erred in holding that the publication of
the case, the oral defamation was only slight.  The people, including gossip and intrigue writers and the news item was not attended with malice to thus free
expression “putang ina mo” is a common enough utterance commentators such as petitioner, do not have the unbridled respondents of liability for damages.
in the dialect that is often employed, not really to slander but license to malign their honor and dignity by indiscriminately
rather to express anger or displeasure. In fact, more often, it airing fabricated and malicious comments, whether in RULING: No. In actions for damages for libel, it is axiomatic
is just an expletive that punctuates one’s expression of broadcast media or in print, about their personal lives that the published work alleged to contain libelous material
profanity. SC do not find it seriously insulting that after a must be examined and viewed as a whole. Respondents
previous incident involving his father, a drunk Rogelio Pader DELOS REYES could of course have been more circumspect in their choice
on seeing Atty. Escolango would utter words expressing CASE NO. 559 of words as the headline and first seven paragraphs of the
anger. Obviously, the intention was to show his feelings of news item give the impression that a certain director of the
resentment and not necessarily to insult the latter. Being a Art III Sec. 4 Libel as Unproteccted Speech NIAS actually committed the crimes complained of by
candidate running for vice mayor, occasional gestures and Jalandoni v. Drilon, 327 SCRA 107 Emelita.
words of disapproval or dislike of his person are not
uncommon. FACTS: Private respondents published a full-page Every citizen of course has the right to enjoy a good name
advertisement in five major daily newspapers.  These ads and reputation, but we do not consider that the respondents,
contained allegations naming petitioner who was then a under the circumstances of this case, had violated said right
PCGG Commissioner of having committed illegal and or abused the freedom of the press. The newspapers should
be given such leeway and tolerance as to enable them to
courageously and effectively perform their important role in
our democracy. In the preparation of stories, press reporters
and [editors] usually have to race with their deadlines; and
consistently with good faith and reasonable care, they should
not be held to account, to a point of suppression, for honest
mistakes or imperfection in the choice of words.