G.R. No.

148339 February 23, 2005 option of the grantee for another period of twenty- xxx
five (25) years upon such expiration.
LUCENA GRAND CENTRAL TERMINAL, SECTION 3. – a) Section 1 of Ordinance No. 1557,
INC., petitioner, xxx Series of 1995, is hereby amended to read as
vs. follows:
JAC LINER, INC., Respondent. SECTION 4. – Responsibilities and Obligations of
the City Government of Lucena. – During the Buses, mini-buses, and jeepney type mini-buses
DECISION existence of the franchise, the City Government of from other municipalities and/or local government
Lucena shall have the following responsibilities and units going to Lucena City are directed to proceed
CARPIO MORALES, J.: obligations: to the Common Terminal located at Diversion Road,
Brgy. Ilayang Dupay, to unload and load
xxx passengers.
Respondent, JAC Liner, Inc., a common carrier
operating buses which ply various routes to and
from Lucena City, assailed, via a petition for (c) It shall not grant any third party any privilege xxx
prohibition and injunction1 against the City of and/or concession to operate a bus, mini-bus and/or
Lucena, its Mayor, and the Sangguniang jeepney terminal. c) Section 3 of Ordinance No. 1557,
Panlungsod of Lucena before the Regional Trial Series of 1995, is hereby amended to read
Court (RTC) of Lucena City, City Ordinance Nos. xxx as follows:
1631 and 1778 as unconstitutional on the ground
that, inter alia, the same constituted an invalid Passenger buses, mini-buses, and jeepney
Ordinance No. 17783
exercise of police power, an undue taking of private type mini-buses coming from other
property, and a violation of the constitutional municipalities and/or local government
prohibition against monopolies. The salient AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE ENTRANCE
units shall utilize the facilities of the Lucena
provisions of the ordinances are: TO THE CITY OF LUCENA OF ALL BUSES, MINI-
Grand Central Terminal at Diversion Road,
BUSES AND OUT-OF-TOWN PASSENGER Brgy. Ilayang Dupay, this City, and no
Ordinance No. 16312 JEEPNEYS AND FOR THIS PURPOSE, other terminals shall be situated inside
AMENDING ORDINACE NO. 1420, SERIES OF or within the City of Lucena;
1993, AND ORDINANCE NO. 1557, SERIES OF
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING THE LUCENA 1995
GRAND CENTRAL TERMINAL, INC., A d) Section 4 of Ordinance No. 1557,
FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT, FINANCE, Series of 1995, is hereby amended to read
xxx
ESTABLISH, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN A as follows:
COMMON BUS-JEEPNEY TERMINAL FACILITY
IN THE CITY OF LUCENA SECTION 1. – The entrance to the City of Lucena
Passenger buses, mini-buses, and jeepney
of all buses, mini-buses and out-of-town passenger
type mini-buses coming from other
jeepneys is hereby regulated as follows:
xxx municipalities and/or local government
units shall avail of the facilities of the
SECTION 1. – There is hereby granted to the (a) All buses, mini-buses and out-of-town Lucena Grand Central Terminal which is
passenger jeepneys shall be prohibited hereby designated as the officially
Lucena Grand Central Terminal, Inc., its successors
from entering the cityand are hereby sanctioned common terminal for the City of
or assigns, hereinafter referred to as the "grantee",
a franchise to construct, finance, establish, operate, directed to proceed to the common Lucena;
and maintain a common bus-jeepney terminal terminal, for picking-up and/or dropping of
facility in the City of Lucena. their passengers.
e) Section 5 of Ordinance No. 1557,
Series of 1995, is hereby amended to read
(b) All temporary terminals in the City of as follows:
SECTION 2. – This franchise shall continue for a
Lucena are hereby declared
period of twenty-five years, counted from the
inoperable starting from the effectivity of
approval of this Ordinance, and renewable at the
this ordinance.
The Lucena Grand Central Terminal is the perm WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, situated, constructed, maintained or
anent common terminal as this is the entity whi judgment is hereby rendered, as follows: established inside or within the City of
ch was giventhe exclusive franchise by the San Lucena; and furthermore,
gguniang Panglungsod under Ordinance No. 16 1. Declaring City Ordinance No. 1631 as
31; (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) valid, having been issued in the exercise of 5. The Motion to Dismiss filed by the
the police power of the City Government of Intervenor, Lucena Grand Central
These ordinances, by granting an exclusive Lucena insofar as the grant of franchise to Terminal Inc., dated October 19, 1998, is
franchise for twenty five years, renewable for the Lucena Grand Central Terminal, Inc., to hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
another twenty five years, to one entity for the construct, finance, establish, operate and
construction and operation of one common bus and maintain common bus-jeepney terminal SO ORDERED. (Emphasis and underscoring
jeepney terminal facility in Lucena City, to be located facility in the City of Lucena; supplied)8
outside the city proper, were professedly aimed
towards alleviating the traffic congestion alleged to 2. But however, declaring the provision of Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration9 of the trial
have been caused by the existence of various bus Sec. 4(c) of Ordinance No. 1631 to the court’s order having been denied by Order of August
and jeepney terminals within the city, as the effect that the City Government shall not 6, 1999,10 it elevated it via petition for review under
"Explanatory Note"-Whereas Clause adopting grant any third party any privilege and/or
Ordinance No. 1778 states: Rule 45 before this Court.11 This Court, by
concession to operate a bus, mini-bus Resolution of November 24, 1999,12 referred the
and/or jeepney terminal, as illegal and ultra petition to the Court of Appeals with which it has
WHEREAS, in line with the worsening traffic vires because it contravenes the provisions concurrent jurisdiction, no special and important
condition of the City of Lucena, and with the purpose of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known reason having been cited for it to take cognizance
of easing and regulating the flow of the same, it is as "The Local Government Code"; thereof in the first instance.
imperative that the Buses, Mini-Buses and out-of-
town jeepneys be prohibited from maintaining 3. Declaring City Ordinance No. 1778 as By Decision of December 15, 2000,13 the appellate
terminals within the City, but instead directing to null and void, the same being also an ultra court dismissed the petition and affirmed the
proceed to the Lucena Grand Central Terminal for vires act of the City Government of challenged orders of the trial court. Its motion for
purposes of picking-up and/or dropping off their Lucena arising from an invalid, oppressive
passengers;4 reconsideration14 having been denied by the
and unreasonable exercise of the police appellate court by Resolution dated June 5,
power, more specifically, declaring illegal 2001,15 petitioner once again comes to this Court via
Respondent, who had maintained a terminal within [sections 1(b), 3(c) and 3(e)]; petition for review,16 this time assailing the Decision
the city, was one of those affected by the and Resolution of the Court of Appeals.
ordinances. 4. Ordering the issuance of a Writ of
Prohibition and/or Injunction directing the Decision on the petition hinges on two issues, to wit:
Petitioner, Lucena Grand Central Terminal, Inc., respondents public officials, the City Mayor (1) whether the trial court has jurisdiction over the
claiming legal interest as the grantee of the and the Sangguniang Panglungsod of case, it not having furnished the Office of the
exclusive franchise for the operation of the common Lucena, to cease and desist from Solicitor General copy of the orders it issued therein,
terminal,5 was allowed to intervene in the petition implementing Ordinance No. 1778 and (2) whether the City of Lucena properly
before the trial court. insofar as said ordinance prohibits or exercised its police power when it enacted the
curtails petitioner from maintaining and subject ordinances.
In the hearing conducted on November 25, 1998, operating its own bus terminal subject to
all the parties agreed to dispense with the the conditions provided for in Ordinance
Petitioner argues that since the trial court failed to
presentation of evidence and to submit the case for No. 1557, Sec. 3, which authorizes the
serve a copy of its assailed orders upon the Office
resolution solely on the basis of the pleadings construction of terminal outside the
of the Solicitor General, it never acquired jurisdiction
filed.6 poblacion of Lucena City; and
over the case, it citing Section 22, Rule 3 of the
likewise, insofar as said ordinance
Rules which provides:
directs and compels the petitioner to
By Order of March 31, 1999,7 Branch 54 of the use the Lucena Grand Central Terminal
Lucena RTC rendered judgment, the dispositive Inc., and furthermore, insofar as it SEC. 22. Notice to the Solicitor General.—In any
portion of which reads: action involving the validity of any treaty,
declares that no other terminals shall be

2
law, ordinance, executive order, presidential it was filed. The Solicitor General has issued a patronize its terminal does not lie.21 Lim v.
decree, rules or regulations, the court in its Certification to that effect.17 There was thus Pacquing22 instructs:
discretion, may require the appearance of the compliance with above-quoted rules.
Solicitor General who may be heard in person or . . . [T]his Court cannot look into allegations that PD
through representative duly designated by him. Respecting the issue of whether police power was No. 771 was enacted to benefit a select group which
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied) properly exercised when the subject ordinances was later given authority to operate the jai-alai under
were enacted: As with the State, the local PD No. 810. The examination of legislative
Furthermore, petitioner invokes Sections 3 and 4 government may be considered as having properly motivation is generally prohibited. (Palmer v.
of Rule 63 which respectively provide: exercised its police power only if the following Thompson, 403 U.S. 217, 29 L. Ed. 2d 438 [1971]
requisites are met: (1) the interests of the public per Black, J.) There is, in the first place, absolute
SEC. 3. Notice on Solicitor General. – In any action generally, as distinguished from those of a particular lack of evidence to support ADC’s allegation of
which involves the validity of a statute, executive class, require the interference of the State, and (2) improper motivation in the issuance of PD No. 771.
order or regulation, or any other governmental the means employed are reasonably necessary for In the second place, as already averred, this Court
regulation, the Solicitor General shall be notified by the attainment of the object sought to be cannot go behind the expressed and proclaimed
the party assailing the same and shall be entitled to accomplished and not unduly oppressive upon purposes of PD No. 771, which are reasonable and
be heard upon such question. individuals. Otherwise stated, there must be a even laudable. (Underscoring supplied)23
concurrence of a lawful subject and lawful
method.18 This leaves for determination the issue of whether
SEC. 4. Local government ordinances. – In any
action involving the validity of a local government the means employed by the Lucena Sangguniang
ordinance, the corresponding prosecutor or attorney That traffic congestion is a public, not merely a Panlungsod to attain its professed objective were
of the local government unit involved shall be private, concern, cannot be gainsaid. In Calalang v. reasonably necessary and not unduly oppressive
similarly notified and entitled to be heard. If such Williams19 which involved a statute authorizing the upon individuals.
ordinance is alleged to be unconstitutional, the Director of Public Works to promulgate rules and
Solicitor General shall also be notified and entitled regulations to regulate and control traffic on national With the aim of localizing the source of traffic
to be heard. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) roads, this Court held: congestion in the city to a single location,24 the
subject ordinances prohibit the operation of all bus
Nowhere, however, is it stated in the above-quoted In enacting said law, therefore, the National and jeepney terminals within Lucena, including
rules that failure to notify the Solicitor General about Assembly was prompted by considerations those already existing, and allow the operation of
the action is a jurisdictional defect. of public convenience and welfare. It was inspired only one common terminal located outside the city
by a desire to relieve congestion of traffic, which is, proper, the franchise for which was granted to
to say the least, a menace to public safety. Public petitioner. The common carriers plying routes to and
In fact, Rule 3, Section 22 gives the courts in any
welfare, then, lies at the bottom of the enactment of from Lucena City are thus compelled to close down
action involving the "validity" of any ordinance, inter
said law, and the state in order to promote the their existing terminals and use the facilities of
alia, "discretion" to notify the Solicitor General.
general welfare may interfere with personal liberty, petitioner.
with property, and with business and
Section 4 of Rule 63, which more specifically deals occupations.20 (Emphasis supplied) In De la Cruz v. Paras,25 this Court declared
with cases assailing the constitutionality, not just the
unconstitutional an ordinance characterized by
validity, of a local government ordinance, directs
The questioned ordinances having been enacted overbreadth. In that case, the Municipality of
that the Solicitor General "shall also be notified and
with the objective of relieving traffic congestion in Bocaue, Bulacan prohibited the operation of all night
entitled to be heard." Who will notify him, Sec. 3 of
the City of Lucena, they involve public interest clubs, cabarets and dance halls within its jurisdiction
the same rule provides — it is the party which is for the protection of public morals. Held the Court:
warranting the interference of the State. The first
assailing the local government’s ordinance.
requisite for the proper exercise of police power is
thus present. It cannot be said that such a sweeping exercise of
More importantly, however, this Court finds that no
a lawmaking power by Bocaue could qualify under
procedural defect, fatal or otherwise, attended the
Respondent’s suggestion to have this Court look the termreasonable. The objective of fostering publi
disposition of the case. For respondent actually
behind the explicit objective of the ordinances c morals, a worthy and desirable end can be attain
served a copy of its petition upon the Office of the
which, to it, was actually to benefit the private ed by a measure thatdoes not encompass too wide
Solicitor General on October 1, 1998, two days after
interest of petitioner by coercing all bus operators to a field. Certainly the ordinance on its face is chara

3
cterized by overbreadth. Thepurpose sought to be suspended or revoked. x x x (Emphasis and In the subject ordinances, however, the scope of the
achieved could have been attained by reasonable r underscoring supplied)28 proscription against the maintenance of terminals is
estrictions rather than by an absoluteprohibition. so broad that even entities which might be able to
The admonition in Salaveria should be heeded: As in De la Cruz29 and Lupangco,30 the ordinances provide facilities better than the franchised terminal
"The Judiciary should not lightly set aside legislative assailed herein are characterized by overbreadth. are barred from operating at all.
action when there is not a clear invasion of personal They go beyond what is reasonably necessary to
or property rights under the guise of police solve the traffic problem. Additionally, since the Petitioner argues, however, that other solutions for
regulation." It is clear that in the guise of a police compulsory use of the terminal operated by the traffic problem have already been tried but
regulation, there was in this instance a clear petitioner would subject the users thereof to fees, proven ineffective. But the grant of an exclusive
invasion of personal or property rights, personal in rentals and charges, such measure is unduly franchise to petitioner has not been shown to be the
the case of those individuals desirous of patronizing oppressive, as correctly found by the appellate only solution to the problem.
those night clubs and property in terms of the court. 31 What should have been done was to
investments made and salaries to be earned by determine exactly where the problem lies and then
those therein employed. (Underscoring supplied)26 While the Sangguniang Panlungsod, via Ordinance
to stop it right there. No. 1557,34 previously directed bus owners and
operators to put up their terminals "outside the
In Lupangco v. Court of Appeals,27 this Court, in The true role of Constitutional Law is to effect an poblacion of Lucena City," petitioner informs that
declaring unconstitutional the resolution subject equilibrium between authority and liberty so that said ordinance only resulted in the relocation of
thereof, advanced a similar consideration. That rights are exercised within the framework of the law terminals to other well-populated barangays,
case involved a resolution issued by the and the laws are enacted with due deference to thereby giving rise to traffic congestion in those
Professional Regulation Commission which rights. (Underscoring supplied)32 areas.35Assuming that information to be true, the
prohibited examinees from attending review classes Sangguniang Panlungsod was not without remedy.
and receiving handout materials, tips, and the like It could have defined, among other considerations,
three days before the date of examination in order A due deference to the rights of the individual thus
requires a more careful formulation of solutions to in a more precise manner, the area of relocation to
to preserve the integrity and purity of the licensure avoid such consequences.
societal problems.
examinations in accountancy. Besides being
unreasonable on its face and violative of academic
From the memorandum33 filed before this Court by As for petitioner’s argument that the challenged
freedom, the measure was found to be more
sweeping than what was necessary, viz: petitioner, it is gathered that the Sangguniang ordinances were enacted pursuant to the power of
Panlungsod had identified the cause of traffic the Sangguniang Panlungsod to "[r]egulate traffic on
congestion to be the indiscriminate loading and all streets and bridges; prohibit encroachments or
Needless to say, the enforcement of Resolution No. obstacles thereon and, when necessary in the
105 is not a guarantee that the alleged leakages in unloading of passengers by buses on the streets of
the city proper, hence, the conclusion that the interest of public welfare, authorize the removal of
the licensure examinations will be eradicated or at encroachments and illegal constructions in public
least minimized. Making the examinees suffer by terminals contributed to the proliferation of buses
obstructing traffic on the city streets. places":36 Absent any showing, nay allegation, that
depriving them of legitimate means of review or the terminals are encroaching upon public roads,
preparation on those last three precious days when they are not obstacles. The buses which
they should be refreshing themselves with all that Bus terminals per se do not, however, impede or
indiscriminately load and unload passengers on the
they have learned in the review classes and help impede the flow of traffic. How the outright
city streets are. The power then of the Sangguniang
preparing their mental and psychological make-up proscription against the existence of all terminals,
Panlungsod to prohibit encroachments and
for the examination day itself — would be like apart from that franchised to petitioner, can be obstacles does not extend to terminals.1a\^/phi1.net
uprooting the tree to get rid of a rotten branch. considered as reasonably necessary to solve the
What is needed to be done by the respondent is traffic problem, this Court has not been enlightened.
to find out the source of such leakages and stop If terminals lack adequate space such that bus Neither are terminals public nuisances as petitioner
it right there. If corrupt officials or personnel should drivers are compelled to load and unload argues. For their operation is a legitimate business
passengers on the streets instead of inside the which, by itself, cannot be said to be injurious to the
be terminated from their loss, then so be it. Fixers or
terminals, then reasonable specifications for the rights of property, health, or comfort of the
swindlers should be flushed out. Strict guidelines to
size of terminals could be instituted, with permits to community.
be observed by examiners should be set up and if
violations are committed, then licenses should be operate the same denied those which are unable to
meet the specifications. But even assuming that terminals are nuisances
due to their alleged indirect effects upon the flow of

4
traffic, at most they are nuisance per accidens, The Court is not unaware of the resolutions of
not per se. various barangays in Lucena City supporting the
establishment of a common terminal, and similar
Unless a thing is nuisance per se, however, it may expressions of support from the private sector,
not be abated via an ordinance, without judicial copies of which were submitted to this Court by
proceedings, as was done in the case at bar. petitioner. The weight of popular opinion, however,
must be balanced with that of an individual’s rights.
In Estate of Gregoria Francisco v. Court of
Appeals,37 this Court held: There is no question that not even the strongest
moral conviction or the most urgent public need,
subject only to a few notable exceptions, will excuse
Respondents can not seek cover under the general
the bypassing of an individual's rights. It is no
welfare clause authorizing the abatement of
exaggeration to say that a person invoking a right
nuisances without judicial proceedings. That tenet
guaranteed under Article III of the Constitution is a
applies to a nuisance per se, or one which affects
majority of one even as against the rest of the nation
the immediate safety of persons and property and who would deny him that right.40
may be summarily abated under the undefined law
of necessity (Monteverde v. Generoso, 52 Phil. 123
[1982]). The storage of copra in the quonset WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.
building is a legitimate business. By its nature, it
can not be said to be injurious to rights of property,
of health or of comfort of the community. If it be a
nuisance per accidens it may be so proven in a
hearing conducted for that purpose. It is not per se
a nuisance warranting its summary abatement
without judicial
intervention.l^vvphi1.net (Underscoring
supplied)38 1awphi1.nét

In Pampanga Bus Co., Inc. v. Municipality of

Tarlac39 where the appellant-municipality similarly
argued that the terminal involved therein is a
nuisance that may be abated by the Municipal
Council via an ordinance, this Court held: "Suffice it
to say that in the abatement of nuisances the
provisions of the Civil Code (Articles 694-707) must
be observed and followed. This appellant failed to
do."

As for petitioner’s claim that the challenged

ordinances have actually been proven effective in
easing traffic congestion: Whether an ordinance is
effective is an issue different from whether it is
reasonably necessary. It is its reasonableness, not
its effectiveness, which bears upon its
constitutionality. If the constitutionality of a law were
measured by its effectiveness, then even tyrannical
laws may be justified whenever they happen to be
effective.

5
Searches and Seizures prostitutes shown in salacious poses as well as boys On 14 March 1988, petitioners filed an Urgent
and girls engaged in the sex act. There were also Petition for Release Under Bond alleging that their
G.R. No. 82544 June 28, 1988 posters and other literature advertising the child health was being seriously affected by their
prostitutes. continuous detention. Upon recommendation of the
Board of Commissioners for their provisional
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR
The "Operation Report," on Andrew Harvey and release, respondent ordered the CID doctor to
HABEAS CORPUS OF: ANDREW HARVEY,
Richard Sherman dated 29 February 1988 stated: examine petitioners, who certified that petitioners
JOHN SHERMAN and ADRIAAN VAN DEL
were healthy.
ELSHOUT, petitioners,
vs. xxx xxx xxx
HONORABLE COMMISSIONER MIRIAM On 22 March 1988, petitioners filed a Petition for
DEFENSOR SANTIAGO, COMMISSION ON Bail which, however, respondent denied considering
ANDREW MARK HARVEY was found
IMMIGRATION AND DEPORTATION, respondent. the certification by the CID physician that petitioners
together with two young boys.
were healthy. To avoid congestion, respondent
ordered petitioners' transfer to the CID detention cell
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.: RICHARD SHERMAN was found with at Fort Bonifacio, but the transfer was deferred
two naked boys inside his room. pending trial due to the difficulty of transporting them
A petition for Habeas Corpus. to and from the CID where trial was on-going.
In respect of Van Den Elshout the "After Mission
Petitioners Andrew Harvey and John Sherman, 52 Report," dated 27 February 1988 read in part: On 4 April 1988 petitioner Andrew Harvey filed a
and 72 years, respectively, are both American Manifestation/Motion stating that he had "finally
nationals residing at Pagsanjan, Laguna, while Noted: agreed to a self-deportation" and praying that he be
Adriaan Van Elshout, 58 years old, is a Dutch citizen "provisionally released for at least 15 days and
also residing at Pagsanjan, Laguna. placed under the custody of Atty. Asinas before he
There were two (2) children ages 14 & 16
which subject readily accepted having voluntarily departs the country." On 7 April 1988, the
The case stems from the apprehension of been in his care and live-in for quite Board of Special Inquiry — III allowed provisional
petitioners on 27 February 1988 from their sometime. release of five (5) days only under certain
respective residences by agents of the Commission conditions. However, it appears that on the same
on Immigration and Deportation (CID) by virtue of date that the aforesaid Manifestation/ Motion was
On 4 March 1988, deportation proceedings were filed, Harvey and his co-petitioners had already filed
Mission Orders issued by respondent
instituted against petitioners for being undesirable the present petition.
Commissioner Miriam Defensor Santiago of the
aliens under Section 69 of the Revised
CID. Petitioners are presently detained at the CID
Detention Center. Administrative Code (Deportation Case No. 88-13).
The "Charge Sheet" read inter alia: On 4 April 1988, as heretofore stated, petitioners
availed of this Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Petitioners were among the twenty-two (22) A Return of the Writ was filed by the Solicitor
Wherefore, this Office charges the General and the Court heard the case on oral
suspected alien pedophiles who were apprehended
respondents for deportation, as argument on 20 April 1988. A Traverse to the Writ
after three months of close surveillance by CID
undesirable aliens, in that: they, being was presented by petitioners to which a Reply was
agents in Pagsanjan, Laguna. Two (2) days after
pedophiles, are inimical to public morals, filed by the Solicitor General.
apprehension, or on 29 February 1988, seventeen
public health and public safety as
(17) of the twenty-two (22) arrested aliens opted for
provided in Section 69 of the Revised
self-deportation and have left the country. One was Petitioners question the validity of their detention on
Administrative Code.
released for lack of evidence; another was charged the following grounds:
not for being a pedophile but for working without a
valid working visa. Thus, of the original twenty two On 7 March 1988, Warrants of Arrest were issued
by respondent against petitioners for violation of 1) There is no provision in the Philippine Immigration
(22), only the three petitioners have chosen to face
Sections 37, 45 and 46 of the Immigration Act and Act of 1940 nor under Section 69 of the Revised
deportation.
Section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code On Administrative Code, which legally clothes the
the same date, the Board of Special Inquiry III Commissioner with any authority to arrest and
Seized during petitioners apprehension were rolls of detain petitioners pending determination of the
commenced trial against petitioners.
photo negatives and photos of the suspected child

6
existence of a probable cause leading to an In this case, the arrest of petitioners was based on activity) in which children are the preferred sexual
administrative investigation. probable cause determined after close surveillance object" (Webster's Third New International
for three (3) months during which period their Dictionary, 1971 ed., p. 1665) [Solicitor General's
2) Respondent violated Section 2, Article III of the activities were monitored. The existence of probable Return of the Writ, on p. 101. While not a crime
1987 Constitution prohibiting unreasonable cause justified the arrest and the seizure of the under the Revised Penal Code, it is behavior
searches and seizures since the CID agents were photo negatives, photographs and posters without offensive to public morals and violative of the
not clothed with valid Warrants of arrest, search and warrant (See Papa vs. Mago, L-27360, February 28, declared policy of the State to promote and protect
seizure as required by the said provision. 1968,22 SCRA 857; People vs. Court of First the physical, moral, spiritual, and social well-being
Instance of Rizal, L-41686, November 17, 1980, 101 of our youth (Article II, Section 13, 1987
SCRA 86, cited in CRUZ, Constitutional Law, 1987 Constitution).
3) Mere confidential information made to the CID ed., p. 143). Those articles were seized as an
agents and their suspicion of the activities of incident to a lawful arrest and, are therefore,
petitioners that they are pedophiles, coupled with At any rate, the filing by petitioners of a petition to
admissible in evidence (Section 12, Rule 126,1985 be released on bail should be considered as a
their association with other suspected pedophiles, Rules on criminal Procedure).
are not valid legal grounds for their arrest and waiver of any irregularity attending their arrest and
detention unless they are caught in the act. They estops them from questioning its validity (Callanta v.
further allege that being a pedophile is not But even assuming arguendo that the arrest of Villanueva, L-24646 & L-24674, June 20, 1977, 77
punishable by any Philippine Law nor is it a crime to petitioners was not valid at its inception, the records SCRA 377; Bagcal vs. Villaraza, L-61770, January
be a pedophile. show that formal deportation charges have been 31, 1983, 120 SCRA 525).
filed against them, as undesirable aliens, on 4
March 1988. Warrants of arrest were issued against The deportation charges instituted by respondent
We reject petitioners' contentions and uphold them on 7 March 1988 "for violation of Section 37,
respondent's official acts ably defended by the Commissioner are in accordance with Section 37(a)
45 and 46 of the Immigration Act and Section 69 of of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, in relation
Solicitor General.
the Administrative Code." A hearing is presently to Section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code.
being conducted by a Board of Special Inquiry. The Section 37(a) provides in part:
There can be no question that the right against restraint against their persons, therefore, has
unreasonable searches and seizures guaranteed by become legal. The Writ has served its purpose. The
Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, is (a) The following aliens shall be arrested
process of the law is being followed (Cruz vs.
available to all persons, including aliens, whether upon the warrant of the Commissioner of
Montoya, L-39823, February 25, 1975, 62 SCRA
accused of crime or not (Moncado vs. People's Immigration and Deportation or any other
543). "were a person's detention was later made by
Court, 80 Phil. 1 [1948]. One of the constitutional officer designated by him for the purpose
virtue of a judicial order in relation to criminal cases
requirements of a valid search warrant or warrant of and deported upon the warrant of the
subsequently filed against the detainee, his petition
arrest is that it must be based upon probable cause. Commissioner of Immigration and
for hebeas corpus becomes moot and academic"
Probable cause has been defined as referring to Deportation after a determination by the
(Beltran vs. Garcia, L-49014, April 30, 1979, 89
"such facts and circumstances antecedent to the Board of Commissioners of the existence of
SCRA 717). "It is a fumdamental rule that a writ
issuance of the warrant that in themselves are the ground for deportation as charged
of habeas corpus will not be granted when the
sufficient to induce a cautious man to rely on them against the alien;
confinement is or has become legal, although such
and act in pursuance thereof." (People vs. Syjuco confinement was illegal at the beginning" (Matsura
64 Phil. 667 [1937]; Alverez vs. CFI, 64 Phil. 33 vs. Director of Prisons, 77 Phil. 1050 [1947]). xxx xxx xxx
[1937]).
That petitioners were not "caught in the act" does The foregoing provision should be construed in its
The 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure also provide not make their arrest illegal. Petitioners were found entirety in view of the summary and indivisible
that an arrest wit a warrant may be effected by a with young boys in their respective rooms, the ones nature of a deportation proceeding, otherwise, the
peace officer or even a private person (1) when such with John Sherman being naked. Under those very purpose of deportation proceeding would be
person has committed, actually committing, or is circumstances the CID agents had reasonable defeated.
attempting to commit an offense in his presence; grounds to believe that petitioners had committed
and (2) when an offense has, in fact, been "pedophilia" defined as "psychosexual perversion Section 37(a) is not constitutionally proscribed
committed and he has personal knowledge of facts involving children" (Kraft-Ebbing Psychopatia (Morano vs. Vivo, L-22196, June 30, 1967, 20
indicating that the person to be arrested has Sexualis p. 555; Paraphilia (or unusual sexual SCRA 562). The specific constraints in both the
committed it (Rule 113, Section 5).

7
1935 1 and 1987 2 Constitutions, which are warrants of arrest by the Commissioner of "The requirement of probable cause, to be
substantially Identical, contemplate prosecutions Immigration, solely for purposes of investigation and determined by a Judge, does not extend to
essentially criminal in nature. Deportation before a final order of deportation is issued, conflicts deportation proceedings." (Morano vs. Vivo, supra,
proceedings, on the other hand, are administrative with paragraph 3, Section I of Article III of the citing Tiu Chun Hai vs. Commissioner, infra). There
in character. An order of deportation is never Constitution" (referring to the 1935 Constitution) 3 is need be no "truncated" recourse to both judicial and
construed as a punishment. It is preventive, not a not invocable herein. Respondent Commissioner's administrative warrants in a single deportation
penal process. It need not be conducted strictly in Warrant of Arrest issued on 7 March 1988 did not proceedings.
accordance with ordinary Court proceedings. order petitioners to appear and show cause why
they should not be deported. They were issued The foregoing does not deviate from the ruling
It is of course well-settled that deportation specifically "for violation of Sections 37, 45 and 46 in Qua Chee Gan vs. Deportation Board (G. R. No.
proceedings do not constitute a criminal of the Immigration Act and Section 69 of the Revised 10280, September 30, 1963, 9 SCRA 27 [1963])
action. The order of deportation is not a Administrative Code." Before that, deportation reiterated in Vivo vs. Montesa, supra, that "under
punishment, (Maliler vs. Eby, 264 U.S., 32), proceedings had been commenced against them as the express terms of our Constitution (the 1935
it being merely the return to his country of undesirable aliens on 4 March 1988 and the arrest Constitution), it is therefore even doubtful whether
an alien who has broken the conditions was a step preliminary to their possible deportation. the arrest of an individual may be ordered by any
upon which he could continue to reside authority other than a judge if the purpose is merely
within our borders (U.S. vs. De los Santos, Section 37 of the Immigration Law, which to determine the existence of a probable cause,
33 Phil., 397). The deportation proceedings empowers the Commissioner of leading to an administrative investigation." For, as
are administrative in character, (Kessler vs. Immigration to issue warrants for the arrest heretofore stated, probable cause had already been
Stracker 307 U.S., 22) summary in nature, of overstaying aliens is constitutional. The shown to exist before the warrants of arrest were
and need not be conducted strictly in arrest is a stop preliminary to the issued.
accordance with the ordinary court deportation of the aliens who had violated
proceedings (Murdock vs. Clark, 53 F. [2d], the condition of their stay in this country. What is essential is that there should be a specific
155). It is essential, however, that the (Morano vs. Vivo, L-22196, June 30, 1967, charge against the alien intended to be arrested and
warrant of arrest shall give the alien 20 SCRA 562). deported, that a fair hearing be conducted (Section
sufficient information about the charges 37[c]) with the assistance of counsel, if desired, and
against him, relating the facts relied upon. To rule otherwise would be to render the authority that the charge be substantiated by competent
(U.S. vs. Uhl 211 F., 628.) It is also given the Commissioner nugatory to the detriment evidence. Thus, Section 69 of the Revised
essential that he be given a fair hearing of the State. Administrative Code explicitly provides:
with the assistance of counsel, if he so
desires, before unprejudiced investigators
The pertinent provision of Commonwealth Sec. 69. Deportation of subject of foreign
(Strench vs. Pedaris, 55 F. [2d], 597; Ex
Act No. 613, as amended, which gives power. A subject of a foreign power
parte Jew You On, 16 F. [2d], 153).
authority to the Commissioner of residing in the Philippines shall not be
However, all the strict rules of evidence
Immigration to order the arrest of an alien deported, expelled, or excluded from said
governing judicial controversies do not
temporary visitor preparatory to his Islands or repatriated to his own country by
need to be observed; only such as are
deportation for failure to put up new bonds the President of the Philippines except
fumdamental and essential like the right of
required for the stay, is not unconstitutional. upon prior investigation, conducted by said
cross-examination. (U.S. vs. Hughes, 104
Executive or his authorized agent, of the
F. [2d], 14; Murdock vs. Clark, 53 F. [2d],
xxx xxx xxx ground upon which such action is
155.) Hearsay evidence may even be
contemplated. In such a case the person
admitted, provided the alien is given the
concerned shall be informed of the charge
opportunity to explain or rebut it (Morrell vs. ... Such a step is necessary to enable the or charges against him and he shall be
Baker, 270 F., 577; Sercerchi vs. Ward, 27 Commissioner to prepare the ground for his allowed not less than 3 days for the
F. Supp., 437). (Lao Tang Bun vs. Fabre 81 deportation under Section 37[al of
Phil. 682 [1948]). preparation of his defense. He shall also
Commonwealth Act 613. A contrary have the right to be heard by himself or
interpretation would render such power counsel, to produce witnesses in his own
The ruling in Vivo vs. Montesa (G. R. No. 24576, nugatory to the detriment of the State. (Ng behalf, and to cross-examine the opposing
July 29, 1968, 24 SCRA 155) that "the issuance of Hua To vs. Galang, G. R. No. 10145, witnesses.
February 29, 1964, 10 SCRA 411).

8
The denial by respondent Commissioner of WHEREFORE, the Petition is dismissed and the Anita Reyes then asked the appellant if she
petitioners' release on bail, also challenged by them, Writ of Habeas Corpus is hereby denied. could examine and inspect the packages.
was in order because in deportation proceedings, Appellant, however, refused, assuring her
the right to bail is not a matter of right but a matter G.R. No. 81561 January 18, 1991 that the packages simply contained books,
of discretion on the part of the Commissioner of cigars, and gloves and were gifts to his
Immigration and Deportation. Thus, Section 37(e) of friend in Zurich. In view of appellant's
the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940 provides that PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee representation, Anita Reyes no longer
"any alien under arrest in a deportation proceeding vs. insisted on inspecting the packages. The
may be released under bond or under such other ANDRE MARTI, accused-appellant. four (4) packages were then placed inside
conditions as may be imposed by the Commissioner a brown corrugated box one by two feet in
of Immigration." The use of the word "may" in said The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. size (1' x 2'). Styro-foam was placed at the
provision indicates that the grant of bail is merely Reynaldo B. Tatoy and Abelardo E. Rogacion for bottom and on top of the packages before
permissive and not mandatory on the part of the accused-appellant. the box was sealed with masking tape, thus
Commissioner. The exercise of the power is wholly making the box ready for shipment
discretionary (Ong Hee Sang vs. Commissioner of (Decision, p. 8).
Immigration, L-9700, February 28,1962, 4 SCRA
442). "Neither the Constitution nor Section 69 of the Before delivery of appellant's box to the
Revised Administrative Code guarantees the right of Bureau of Customs and/or Bureau of
BIDIN, J.:
aliens facing deportation to provisional liberty on Posts, Mr. Job Reyes (proprietor) and
bail." (Tiu Chun Hai et al vs. Deportation Board, 104 husband of Anita (Reyes), following
Phil. 949 [1958]). As deportation proceedings do not This is an appeal from a decision * rendered by the
standard operating procedure, opened the
partake of the nature of a criminal action, the Special Criminal Court of Manila (Regional Trial boxes for final inspection. When he opened
constitutional guarantee to bail may not be invoked Court, Branch XLIX) convicting accused-appellant appellant's box, a peculiar odor emitted
by aliens in said proceedings (Ong Hee Sang vs. of violation of Section 21 (b), Article IV in relation to therefrom. His curiosity aroused, he
Commissioner of Immigration, supra). Section 4, Article 11 and Section 2 (e) (i), Article 1 squeezed one of the bundles allegedly
of Republic Act 6425, as amended, otherwise containing gloves and felt dried leaves
known as the Dangerous Drugs Act.
Every sovereign power has the inherent power to inside. Opening one of the bundles, he
exclude aliens from its territory upon such grounds pulled out a cellophane wrapper protruding
as it may deem proper for its self-preservation or The facts as summarized in the brief of the from the opening of one of the gloves. He
public interest (Lao Tan Bun vs. Fabre 81 Phil. 682 prosecution are as follows: made an opening on one of the cellophane
[1948]). The power to deport aliens is an act of wrappers and took several grams of the
State, an act done by or under the authority of the On August 14, 1987, between 10:00 and contents thereof (tsn, pp. 29-30, October 6,
sovereign power (In re McCulloch Dick, 38 Phil. 41 11:00 a.m., the appellant and his common- 1987; Emphasis supplied).
[1918]). It is a police measure against undesirable law wife, Shirley Reyes, went to the booth
aliens whose continued presence in the country is of the "Manila Packing and Export Job Reyes forthwith prepared a letter
found to be injurious to the public good and the Forwarders" in the Pistang Pilipino reporting the shipment to the NBI and
domestic tranquility of the people (Forbes vs. Complex, Ermita, Manila, carrying with requesting a laboratory examination of the
Chuoco Tiaco et al., 16 Phil. 534 [1910]). them four (4) gift wrapped packages. Anita samples he extracted from the cellophane
Particularly so in this case where the State has Reyes (the proprietress and no relation to wrapper (tsn, pp. 5-6, October 6, 1987).
expressly committed itself to defend the tight of Shirley Reyes) attended to them. The
children to assistance and special protection from all appellant informed Anita Reyes that he was He brought the letter and a sample of
forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation, and sending the packages to a friend in Zurich, appellant's shipment to the Narcotics
other conditions prejudicial to their development Switzerland. Appellant filled up the contract Section of the National Bureau of
(Article XV, Section 3[2]). Respondent necessary for the transaction, writing Investigation (NBI), at about 1:30 o'clock in
Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation, in therein his name, passport number, the the afternoon of that date, i.e., August 14,
instituting deportation proceedings against date of shipment and the name and
petitioners, acted in the interests of the State. 1987. He was interviewed by the Chief of
address of the consignee, namely, Narcotics Section. Job Reyes informed the
"WALTER FIERZ, Mattacketr II, 8052 NBI that the rest of the shipment was still in
Zurich, Switzerland" (Decision, p. 6)

9
 his office. Therefore, Job Reyes and three Thereafter, an Information was filed against warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue
(3) NBI agents, and a photographer, went appellant for violation of RA 6425, otherwise known except upon probable cause to be
to the Reyes' office at Ermita, Manila (tsn, as the Dangerous Drugs Act. determined personally by the judge after
p. 30, October 6, 1987). examination under oath or affirmation of the
After trial, the court a quo rendered the assailed complainant and the witnesses he may
Job Reyes brought out the box in which decision. produce, and particularly describing the
appellant's packages were placed and, in place to be searched and the persons or
the presence of the NBI agents, opened the things to be seized.
In this appeal, accused/appellant assigns the
top flaps, removed the styro-foam and took following errors, to wit:
out the cellophane wrappers from inside Sec. 3. (1) The privacy of communication
the gloves. Dried marijuana leaves were and correspondence shall be inviolable
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN
found to have been contained inside the except upon lawful order of the court, or
ADMITTING IN EVIDENCE THE
cellophane wrappers (tsn, p. 38, October 6, when public safety or order requires
1987; Emphasis supplied). ILLEGALLY SEARCHED AND SEIZED otherwise as prescribed by law.
OBJECTS CONTAINED IN THE FOUR
PARCELS.
The package which allegedly contained (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of
books was likewise opened by Job Reyes. this or the preceding section shall be
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN
He discovered that the package contained inadmissible for any purpose in any
CONVICTING APPELLANT DESPITE proceeding.
bricks or cake-like dried marijuana leaves.
THE UNDISPUTED FACT THAT HIS
The package which allegedly contained
RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
tabacalera cigars was also opened. It Our present constitutional provision on the
WHILE UNDER CUSTODIAL
turned out that dried marijuana leaves were guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure
PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT
neatly stocked underneath the cigars (tsn, had its origin in the 1935 Charter which, worded as
OBSERVED.
p. 39, October 6, 1987). follows:
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT
The NBI agents made an inventory and The right of the people to be secure in their
GIVING CREDENCE TO THE
took charge of the box and of the contents persons, houses, papers and effects
EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT ON
thereof, after signing a "Receipt" against unreasonable searches and
HOW THE FOUR PARCELS CAME INTO
acknowledging custody of the said effects seizures shall not be violated, and no
(tsn, pp. 2-3, October 7, 1987). HIS POSSESSION (Appellant's Brief, p.
1; Rollo, p. 55) warrants shall issue but
upon probable cause, to be determined by
Thereupon, the NBI agents tried to locate appellant the judge after examination under oath or
1. Appellant contends that the evidence subject of
but to no avail. Appellant's stated address in his affirmation of the complainant and the
the imputed offense had been obtained in violation
passport being the Manila Central Post Office, the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
of his constitutional rights against unreasonable
agents requested assistance from the latter's Chief describing the place to be searched, and
search and seizure and privacy of communication
Security. On August 27, 1987, appellant, while the persons or things to be seized. (Sec. 1
(Sec. 2 and 3, Art. III, Constitution) and therefore [3], Article III)
claiming his mail at the Central Post Office, was
argues that the same should be held inadmissible in
invited by the NBI to shed light on the attempted
evidence (Sec. 3 (2), Art. III).
shipment of the seized dried leaves. On the same was in turn derived almost verbatim from the Fourth
day the Narcotics Section of the NBI submitted the Amendment ** to the United States Constitution. As
dried leaves to the Forensic Chemistry Section for Sections 2 and 3, Article III of the Constitution
such, the Court may turn to the pronouncements of
laboratory examination. It turned out that the dried provide:
the United States Federal Supreme Court and State
leaves were marijuana flowering tops as certified by Appellate Courts which are considered doctrinal in
the forensic chemist. (Appellee's Brief, pp. 9- Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure this jurisdiction.
11, Rollo, pp. 132-134). in their persons, houses, papers and
effects against unreasonable searches and Thus, following the exclusionary rule laid down
seizures of whatever nature and for any in Mapp v. Ohio by the US Federal Supreme
purpose shall be inviolable, and no search

10
Court (367 US 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed. 1081 As this Court held in Villanueva v. Querubin (48 the owner thereof found marijuana instead, without
[1961]), this Court, in Stonehill v. Diokno (20 SCRA SCRA 345 [1972]: the knowledge and participation of police
383 [1967]), declared as inadmissible any evidence authorities, was declared admissible in prosecution
obtained by virtue of a defective search and seizure 1. This constitutional right (against for illegal possession of narcotics.
warrant, abandoning in the process the ruling earlier unreasonable search and seizure) refers to
adopted in Moncado v. People's Court (80 Phil. 1 the immunity of one's person, whether And again in the 1969 case of Walker v. State (429
[1948]) wherein the admissibility of evidence was citizen or alien, from interference by S.W.2d 121), it was held that the search and seizure
not affected by the illegality of its seizure. The 1973 government, included in which is his clauses are restraints upon the government and its
Charter (Sec. 4 [2], Art. IV) constitutionalized residence, his papers, and other agents, not upon private individuals (citing People v.
the Stonehill ruling and is carried over up to the possessions. . . . Potter, 240 Cal. App.2d 621, 49 Cap. Rptr, 892
present with the advent of the 1987 Constitution. (1966); State v. Brown, Mo., 391 S.W.2d 903
. . . There the state, however powerful, (1965); State v. Olsen, Or., 317 P.2d 938 (1957).
In a number of cases, the Court strictly adhered to does not as such have the access except
the exclusionary rule and has struck down the under the circumstances above noted, for Likewise appropos is the case of Bernas v.
admissibility of evidence obtained in violation of the in the traditional formulation, his house, US (373 F.2d 517 (1967). The Court there said:
constitutional safeguard against unreasonable however humble, is his castle. Thus is
searches and seizures. (Bache & Co., (Phil.), Inc., outlawed any unwarranted intrusion by The search of which appellant complains,
v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823 [1971]; Lim v. Ponce de Leon, government, which is called upon to refrain however, was made by a private citizen —
66 SCRA 299 [1975]; People v. Burgos, 144 SCRA from any invasion of his dwelling and to
1 [1986]; Roan v. Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687 the owner of a motel in which appellant
respect the privacies of his life. . . . (Cf. stayed overnight and in which he left
[1987]; See also Salazar v. Hon. Achacoso, et al., Schermerber v. California, 384 US 757
GR No. 81510, March 14, 1990). behind a travel case containing the
[1966] and Boyd v. United States, 116 US evidence***complained of. The search was
616 [1886]; Emphasis supplied). made on the motel owner's own initiative.
It must be noted, however, that in all those cases Because of it, he became suspicious,
adverted to, the evidence so obtained were In Burdeau v. McDowell (256 US 465 (1921), 41 S called the local police, informed them of the
invariably procured by the State acting through the Ct. 547; 65 L.Ed. 1048), the Court there in bag's contents, and made it available to the
medium of its law enforcers or other authorized construing the right against unreasonable searches authorities.
government agencies. and seizures declared that:
The fourth amendment and the case law
On the other hand, the case at bar assumes a (t)he Fourth Amendment gives protection applying it do not require exclusion of
peculiar character since the evidence sought to be against unlawful searches and seizures, evidence obtained through a search by a
excluded was primarily discovered and obtained by and as shown in previous cases, its private citizen. Rather, the amendment only
a private person, acting in a private capacity and protection applies to governmental action. proscribes governmental action."
without the intervention and participation of State Its origin and history clearly show that it
authorities. Under the circumstances, can was intended as a restraint upon the The contraband in the case at bar having come into
accused/appellant validly claim that his activities of sovereign authority, and was possession of the Government without the latter
constitutional right against unreasonable searches not intended to be a limitation upon other transgressing appellant's rights against
and seizure has been violated? Stated otherwise, than governmental agencies; as against unreasonable search and seizure, the Court sees
may an act of a private individual, allegedly in such authority it was the purpose of the no cogent reason why the same should not be
violation of appellant's constitutional rights, be Fourth Amendment to secure the citizen in
invoked against the State? admitted against him in the prosecution of the
the right of unmolested occupation of his offense charged.
dwelling and the possession of his
We hold in the negative. In the absence of property, subject to the right of seizure by
process duly served. Appellant, however, would like this court to believe
governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed
that NBI agents made an illegal search and seizure
by the Constitution cannot be invoked against the
State. of the evidence later on used in prosecuting the
The above ruling was reiterated in State v. case which resulted in his conviction.
Bryan (457 P.2d 661 [1968]) where a parking
attendant who searched the automobile to ascertain

11
The postulate advanced by accused/appellant made by the owner there is no unreasonable search law enforcers, is involved. In sum, the protection
needs to be clarified in two days. In both instances, and seizure within the constitutional meaning of the against unreasonable searches and seizures
the argument stands to fall on its own weight, or the term. cannot be extended to acts committed by private
lack of it. individuals so as to bring it within the ambit of
That the Bill of Rights embodied in the Constitution alleged unlawful intrusion by the government.
First, the factual considerations of the case at bar is not meant to be invoked against acts of private
readily foreclose the proposition that NBI agents individuals finds support in the deliberations of the Appellant argues, however, that since the provisions
conducted an illegal search and seizure of the Constitutional Commission. True, the liberties of the 1935 Constitution has been modified by the
prohibited merchandise. Records of the case clearly guaranteed by the fundamental law of the land must present phraseology found in the 1987 Charter,
indicate that it was Mr. Job Reyes, the proprietor of always be subject to protection. But protection expressly declaring as inadmissible any evidence
the forwarding agency, who made search/inspection against whom? Commissioner Bernas in his obtained in violation of the constitutional prohibition
of the packages. Said inspection was reasonable sponsorship speech in the Bill of Rights answers the against illegal search and seizure, it matters not
and a standard operating procedure on the part of query which he himself posed, as follows: whether the evidence was procured by police
Mr. Reyes as a precautionary measure before authorities or private individuals (Appellant's Brief,
delivery of packages to the Bureau of Customs or First, the general reflections. The protection p. 8, Rollo, p. 62).
the Bureau of Posts (TSN, October 6 & 7, 1987, pp. of fundamental liberties in the essence of
15-18; pp. 7-8; Original Records, pp. 119-122; 167- constitutional democracy. Protection The argument is untenable. For one thing, the
168). against whom? Protection against the constitution, in laying down the principles of the
state. The Bill of Rights governs the government and fundamental liberties of the people,
It will be recalled that after Reyes opened the box relationship between the individual and the does not govern relationships between individuals.
containing the illicit cargo, he took samples of the state. Its concern is not the relation Moreover, it must be emphasized that the
same to the NBI and later summoned the agents to between individuals, between a private modifications introduced in the 1987 Constitution
his place of business. Thereafter, he opened the individual and other individuals. What the (re: Sec. 2, Art. III) relate to the issuance of either a
parcel containing the rest of the shipment and Bill of Rights does is to declare some search warrant or warrant of arrest vis-a-vis the
entrusted the care and custody thereof to the NBI forbidden zones in the private sphere responsibility of the judge in the issuance thereof
agents. Clearly, the NBI agents made no search and inaccessible to any power holder. (SeeSoliven v. Makasiar, 167 SCRA 393 [1988];
seizure, much less an illegal one, contrary to the (Sponsorship Speech of Commissioner Circular No. 13 [October 1, 1985] and Circular No.
postulate of accused/appellant. Bernas , Record of the Constitutional 12 [June 30, 1987]. The modifications introduced
Commission, Vol. 1, p. 674; July 17, 1986; deviate in no manner as to whom the restriction or
Second, the mere presence of the NBI agents did Emphasis supplied) inhibition against unreasonable search and seizure
not convert the reasonable search effected by is directed against. The restraint stayed with the
Reyes into a warrantless search and seizure The constitutional proscription against unlawful State and did not shift to anyone else.
proscribed by the Constitution. Merely to observe searches and seizures therefore applies as a
and look at that which is in plain sight is not a search. restraint directed only against the government and Corolarilly, alleged violations against unreasonable
Having observed that which is open, where no its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law. search and seizure may only be invoked against the
trespass has been committed in aid thereof, is not Thus, it could only be invoked against the State to State by an individual unjustly traduced by the
search (Chadwick v. State, 429 SW2d 135). Where whom the restraint against arbitrary and exercise of sovereign authority. To agree with
the contraband articles are identified without a unreasonable exercise of power is imposed. appellant that an act of a private individual in
trespass on the part of the arresting officer, there is violation of the Bill of Rights should also be
not the search that is prohibited by the constitution If the search is made upon the request of law construed as an act of the State would result in
(US v. Lee 274 US 559, 71 L.Ed. 1202 [1927]; Ker enforcers, a warrant must generally be first secured serious legal complications and an absurd
v. State of California 374 US 23, 10 L.Ed.2d. 726 if it is to pass the test of constitutionality. However, interpretation of the constitution.
[1963]; Moore v. State, 429 SW2d 122 [1968]). if the search is made at the behest or initiative of the
proprietor of a private establishment for its own and Similarly, the admissibility of the evidence procured
In Gandy v. Watkins (237 F. Supp. 266 [1964]), it private purposes, as in the case at bar, and without by an individual effected through private seizure
was likewise held that where the property was taken the intervention of police authorities, the right equally applies, in pari passu, to the alleged
into custody of the police at the specific request of against unreasonable search and seizure cannot be violation, non-governmental as it is, of appellant's
the manager and where the search was initially invoked for only the act of private individual, not the constitutional rights to privacy and communication.

12
2. In his second assignment of error, appellant was utilized in the finding of conviction. Appellant's also a Swiss national, was likewise convicted for
contends that the lower court erred in convicting him second assignment of error is therefore misplaced. drug abuse and is just about an hour's drive from
despite the undisputed fact that his rights under the appellant's residence in Zurich, Switzerland (TSN,
constitution while under custodial investigation were 3. Coming now to appellant's third assignment of October 8, 1987, p. 66; Original Records, p. 244;
not observed. error, appellant would like us to believe that he was Decision, p. 21; Rollo, p. 93).
not the owner of the packages which contained
Again, the contention is without merit, We have prohibited drugs but rather a certain Michael, a Evidence to be believed, must not only proceed from
carefully examined the records of the case and German national, whom appellant met in a pub the mouth of a credible witness, but it must be
found nothing to indicate, as an "undisputed fact", along Ermita, Manila: that in the course of their 30- credible in itself such as the common experience
that appellant was not informed of his constitutional minute conversation, Michael requested him to ship and observation of mankind can approve as
rights or that he gave statements without the the packages and gave him P2,000.00 for the cost probable under the circumstances (People v. Alto,
assistance of counsel. The law enforcers testified of the shipment since the German national was 26 SCRA 342 [1968], citing Daggers v. Van Dyke,
that accused/appellant was informed of his about to leave the country the next day (October 15, 37 N.J. Eg. 130; see also People v. Sarda, 172
constitutional rights. It is presumed that they have 1987, TSN, pp. 2-10). SCRA 651 [1989]; People v. Sunga, 123 SCRA 327
regularly performed their duties (See. 5(m), Rule [1983]); Castañares v. CA, 92 SCRA 567 [1979]).
131) and their testimonies should be given full faith Rather than give the appearance of veracity, we find As records further show, appellant did not even
and credence, there being no evidence to the appellant's disclaimer as incredulous, self-serving bother to ask Michael's full name, his complete
contrary. What is clear from the records, on the and contrary to human experience. It can easily be address or passport number. Furthermore, if
other hand, is that appellant refused to give any fabricated. An acquaintance with a complete indeed, the German national was the owner of the
written statement while under investigation as stranger struck in half an hour could not have merchandise, appellant should have so indicated in
testified by Atty. Lastimoso of the NBI, Thus: pushed a man to entrust the shipment of four (4) the contract of shipment (Exh. "B", Original Records,
parcels and shell out P2,000.00 for the purpose and p. 40). On the contrary, appellant signed the
Fiscal Formoso: for appellant to readily accede to comply with the contract as the owner and shipper thereof giving
undertaking without first ascertaining its contents. more weight to the presumption that things which a
As stated by the trial court, "(a) person would not person possesses, or exercises acts of ownership
You said that you investigated Mr. and Mrs. over, are owned by him (Sec. 5 [j], Rule 131). At this
Job Reyes. What about the accused here, simply entrust contraband and of considerable value
at that as the marijuana flowering tops, and the cash point, appellant is therefore estopped to claim
did you investigate the accused together otherwise.
with the girl? amount of P2,000.00 to a complete stranger like the
Accused. The Accused, on the other hand, would
not simply accept such undertaking to take custody Premises considered, we see no error committed by
WITNESS: the trial court in rendering the assailed judgment.
of the packages and ship the same from a complete
stranger on his mere say-so" (Decision, p. 19, Rollo,
Yes, we have interviewed the accused p. 91). As to why he readily agreed to do the errand, WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction finding
together with the girl but the accused appellant failed to explain. Denials, if appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
availed of his constitutional right not to give unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, crime charged is hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.
any written statement, sir. (TSN, October 8, are negative self-serving evidence which deserve
1987, p. 62; Original Records, p. 240) no weight in law and cannot be given greater
evidentiary weight than the testimony of credible G.R. No. 142531 October 15, 2002
The above testimony of the witness for the witnesses who testify on affirmative matters (People
prosecution was not contradicted by the defense on v. Esquillo, 171 SCRA 571 [1989]; People vs. Sariol, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,
cross-examination. As borne out by the records, 174 SCRA 237 [1989]). vs.
neither was there any proof by the defense that DANILO ASIS y FONPERADA and GILBERT
appellant gave uncounselled confession while being Appellant's bare denial is even made more suspect FORMENTO y SARICON, appellant.
investigated. What is more, we have examined the considering that, as per records of the Interpol, he
assailed judgment of the trial court and nowhere is was previously convicted of possession of hashish DECISION
there any reference made to the testimony of by the Kleve Court in the Federal Republic of
appellant while under custodial investigation which Germany on January 1, 1982 and that the PANGANIBAN, J.:
consignee of the frustrated shipment, Walter Fierz,

13
Circumstantial evidence that merely arouses one (1) gold necklace discovered that the steel door of the store was
suspicions or gives room for conjecture is not locked from the outside. When he opened the steel
sufficient to convict. It must do more than just raise and undetermined items door, he found everything to be normal except for
the possibility, or even the probability, of guilt. It the inner door which had always been left open but
must engender moral certainty. Otherwise, the which was closed at that time with only a chair
or all in the total amount of P20,000.00 blocking it.
constitutional presumption of innocence prevails,
and the accused deserves acquittal. more or less, belonging to said YU HING
GUAN @ ROY CHING against his will, to
the damage and prejudice of the said "When he removed the blocking chair, he
The Case owner in the aforesaid amount more or less discovered the body of his uncle, Yu Hing Guan
of P20,000.00, Philippine Currency, and as a.k.a. Roy Ching (victim), lying prostrate on the
For automatic review before this Court is the March a result thereof, he sustained mortal stab ground with a knife embedded on his nape. He
8, 2000 Decision1 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) wounds which were the direct and closed the door and proceeded to Luneta, where
of Manila (Branch 54) in Criminal Case No. 98- immediate cause of his death."6 [his] mother exercises, to inform her of what he saw.
163090, finding Danilo Asis y Fonperada and After informing [his] mother, Huang first went to the
Gilbert2 Formento y Saricon guilty beyond Chinatown Police Station and reported the incident;
When arraigned on July 9, 1998, both appellants
reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide thereafter, he went to another station located in
pleaded not guilty.7 Found to be deaf-mutes, they
aggravated by abuse of confidence, superior Soler corner Reina Regente to report the incident
were assisted, not only by a counsel de oficio,8 but again.
strength and treachery. The decretal portion of the also by an interpreter from the Calvary Baptist
Decision reads as follows: Church. After due trial, appellants were found guilty
and sentenced to death. "Diana Yu, the sister of the victim, testified that on
"WHEREFORE, the two (2) accused are found February 9, 1998, before 8:30 o’clock in the
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of evening, she was in the office of her brother where
The Facts
Robbery with Homicide with the generic aggravating she was working at 1042 Benavidez St., Binondo,
circumstances of abuse of confidence, superior Manila. She saw the two appellants, namely: Danilo
Version of the Prosecution Asis and Gilbert Formento, and her brother (the
strength and treachery; and each is sentenced to
death under Article 294, par. 1 of the Revised Penal victim), who are all deaf-mutes, talking in sign
Code; they are also ordered to jointly and severally In its Brief,9 the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) language. She testified that Danilo Asis frequented
pay P100,000.00 as damages to the heirs of the detailed the facts in the following manner: the office of the victim, while Gilbert Formento came
victim."3 only on the night of February 9, 1998. At around
"The prosecution presented nine (9) witnesses. 8:30 o’clock in the evening, she left the office,
Although none of them had actually seen the crime leaving both appellants and the victim behind. The
Appellants were charged in an Information4 dated following morning, at around 7:30 o’clock in the
February 18, 1998, worded as follows:5 committed, strong and substantial circumstantial
evidence abound linking beyond reasonable doubt morning, her son, George Huang, informed her of
both appellants to the crime. her brother’s (victim’s) death. Upon learning of said
"That on or about February 10, 1998, in the City of incident, she went to the office where she saw her
Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring brother’s body. She discovered that the sales
and confederating together and mutually helping "As culled from the records, hereunder are the proceeds of the preceding day were missing and the
each other, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully pertinent facts of the case: necklace of her brother (victim) which he always
and feloniously, with intent to gain and by means of wore was also missing.
force and violence upon person, to wit: by then and "George Huang, the nephew of the victim Yu Hing
there stabbing one YU HING GUAN @ ROY CHING Guan a.k.a. Roy Ching, always passes by the store "On re-direct examination, Diana testified that she
with a bladed instrument on the different parts of the of the victim at 1042 Benavidez Street, Binondo, suspected both appellants, especially Gilbert
body thereafter take, rob and carry away the Manila to bring food stuff, ice and other things to his Formento, to have perpetrated the crime because of
following, to wit: uncle and mother, Diana Yu, who work[s] in the the fact that she saw the pair of shorts of the victim
office of said store. in the bag of appellant Gilbert Formento.
Cash money in the amount of P20,000.00
"On February 9, 1998, at around 6:30 o’clock in the "Jimmy Pagaduan testified that he was a helper in
one (1) wristwatch morning, Huang arrived at the victim’s store and the Yu Hing Guan Auto Supply for five years

14
already. He saw the two appellants everyday in the brought Danilo Asis to the police station for interpreters, Ms. Theta Figuerres and Mrs. Nelda
store of the victim. Furthermore, he testified that as investigation, who expectedly denied having Bahena. Roy Ching was his friend since 1995. On
far as he knows, Danilo Asis owed the victim PhP anything to do with the killing of the victim. February 9, 1998, he went to the store of Roy Ching
3,000.00 and that he saw a list thereof which the because he was called by Ching to help him in his
victim showed him. On February 9, 1998, he left the "During investigation (February 10, 1998), SPO1 store. When he arrived at Ching’s store, Gilbert
store at around 6:00 o’clock in the evening and he Balatbat noticed that there was a bloodstain in Asis’ Formento was there already. The three of them
saw both appellants conversing with the victim. T-shirt. drank beer. He left the store at 9:00 p.m., ahead of
Gilbert Formento. He proceeded to PICC to help his
"SPO2 Pablo Ileto of WPD Homicide Section friend Nestor, a cigarette vendor.
"During the presentation of prosecution witness Dr.
testified that on February 11, 1998, he was at Olga Bausa, they stipulated that the bloodstains
Barangay Sto. Ni[ñ]o, Hagunoy, Bulacan together found in the white t-shirt with a lettering of ‘Collorrific’ "He denied killing Ching. When he went back to Roy
with Sgt. Napoleon Timbol, PO3 Luis Chico, and and in the short pants were human Ching’s store at 10 a.m. the following day, he felt
witness, Diana Yu. The three (3) of them were trying blood."10 (Citations omitted) depressed upon knowing that Roy Ching was dead.
to locate the whereabouts of appellant Gilbert He was arrested and incarcerated on that same
Formento in connection with the death of Yu Hing day."12 (Citations omitted)
Version of the Defense
Guan a.k.a. Roy Ching. They coordinated with the
Hagunoy Bulacan police and searched the area. Ruling of the Trial Court
Diana Yu saw Gilbert Formento in a delivery truck On the other hand, appellants’ version of the facts is
and she pointed him to them. Thereafter, they as follows:11
invited Gilbert Formento to their office at the WPD The RTC held that the "crime charged and proved is
Homicide Section. But before going to the WPD robbery with homicide under Article 294, No. 1 of the
"GILBERT FORMENTO is a deaf-mute who is one
station, they first brought Gilbert Formento to his Revised Penal Code."13 It ruled that "although no
of the accused in this case. He testified through sign
house. Upon reaching the house, Diana Yu asked witnesses to the actual killing and robbery were
interpreter, Mrs. Nelda Bahena. On February 9,
from the wife of the suspect for the stolen money. presented, the circumstantial evidence including the
1998 at about 11 am., he was in the house of Roy
However, they could not understand each other, so recovery of bloodstained clothing from both accused
Ching[.] They talked about things and events. When
the wife gave Diana Yu the bag of Gilbert Formento definitely proved that the two (2) x x x committed the
he left the house of Ching he proceeded to Bulacan
crime."14 Finally, the RTC also appreciated the
where Diana Yu noticed the pair of shorts which while Asis went to Luneta. He denied having in
aggravating circumstances of abuse of confidence,
belonged to the victim. PO2 Ileto noticed what possession of the clothes of Ching found with him in
appears to be blood stains on the pair of shorts. superior strength and treachery and thus sentenced
Bulacan. A policeman met him in his house in Sto. both appellants to the supreme penalty of death.
Nino, Hagunoy, Bulacan. They handcuffed him
"SPO1 Benito Cabatbat testified that he, together immediately. He was whipped for the first time in his
life. He was brought to Manila at Funeraria Paz. The Hence, this automatic review before us.15
with SPO1 Alfredo Opriasa, SPO1 Raul Olavario,
the photographer SPO2 Tabio, and fingerprint relatives of Roy Ching were pointing to him while he
technician Domingo Daclan of the District Crime was being whipped by the two policemen. Issues
Laboratory Division went to the crime scene to
conduct the investigation on February 10, 1998. "NESTOR PAGLINAWAN is a friend of Danilo Asis. In their Brief, appellants fault the trial court with the
Upon arriving at the scene, they saw the victim lying He is a vendor who vends at the PICC area. He following assignment of errors:
prostrate on the ground, barefooted, and clad only testified that accused-appellant Danilo Asis
in brief. occasionally help[s] him in vending by guarding his "I
selling items and preparing coffee. He
"After photographing the victim, the team went communicated with accused-appellant Asis through
The trial court gravely erred in finding the accused-
upstairs where traces of blood were seen on the sign language. He had known Asis for five years. On
appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
second and third floors. February 9, 1998, at about 10:00 p.m., Danilo Asis
crime of robbery with homicide notwithstanding the
was with him at the PICC. Accused-appellant Asis
stayed with him until 7:00 am of the following day. insufficiency of the circumstantial evidence
"During the course of investigation, SPO1 Cabatbat presented by the prosecution.
received a phone call from a relative informing him
that one of the suspects, appellant Danilo Asis, went "DANILO ASIS is a deaf-mute and one of the
"II
back to the scene of the crime. Afterwards, they accused in this case. He testified through sign

15
The trial court gravely erred in concluding that evidence is akin to a tapestry; it should be made up We disagree. It escapes this Court how the recovery
evident premeditation, treachery and conspiracy of strands which create a pattern when of a bloodstained pair of shorts allegedly owned by
attended the killing of Roy Ching. interwoven."21 This pattern should be reasonably the victim should give rise to the presumption that
consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is one of the appellants was the "taker and doer of the
"III guilty and at the same time totally inconsistent with whole act"25 of robbery with homicide. By itself, the
the proposition that he or she is innocent.22 retrieval of the pair of shorts does not prove that
appellants, or even just one of them, robbed the
The trial court gravely erred in not considering the
The Rules on Evidence23 allow conviction by trouser owner of cash and jewelry and also killed
physical infirmities of the two accused-appellants him, as charged in the Information. Neither does it
who are deaf-mutes."16 means of circumstantial evidence as follows:
show that appellants, or one of them, perpetrated
the aggression leading to the victim’s death.
The Court’s Ruling "SEC. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient.
— Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for
conviction if: Furthermore, the ownership of the pair of shorts was
The appeal is meritorious. The prosecution’s not definitively determined. And even granting for
evidence does not prove the guilt of appellants the sake of argument that it indeed belonged to the
beyond reasonable doubt; hence, their (a) There is more than one circumstance;
victim, still, there is no evidence to prove that it was
constitutional right to be presumed innocent taken from him on the night of the homicide. Neither
remains and must be upheld. (b) The facts from which the inferences can it be ruled out that he might have lent it or gave
are derived are proven; and it to either one of the two. It was neither
Main Issue: extraordinary nor impossible for him to have allowed
(c) The combination of all the Appellant Formento to use it, considering that they
Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence circumstances is such as to produce a were friends, and that they shared a commonality as
conviction beyond reasonable doubt." deaf-mutes.
In the present appeal, two things stand out: first,
there were no eyewitnesses to the robbery or to the Bloodstained Trousers The OSG harps on the bloodstains found on the
homicide; and second, none of the items allegedly shorts. But as testified to by the pathologist26 who
stolen were recovered or presented in evidence. The prosecution argues that the strongest piece of examined them, although the origin was human
evidence damning appellants is the victim’s blood, the blood grouping could not be
bloodstained pair of short pants recovered from the determined.27 Thus, its mere presence on the pair
Appellants argue that the pieces of circumstantial of shorts did not in any way support the
evidence submitted by the prosecution are bag of Gilbert Formento. It argues that since the
trousers were recovered from one of the appellants, prosecution’s theory linking appellants to the crime.
insufficient to prove their guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. The prosecution counters that these pieces then Rule 131 (j) of the Revised Rules of Court
of evidence, taken together, necessarily lead to their should apply. The said provision is worded, thus: Evidence Is Inadmissible
conviction.
"Sec. 3. Disputable presumptions. In any event, appellants’ argument of illegal search
Certainly, it is not only by direct evidence that the and seizure cannot simply be brushed aside,
accused may be convicted of the crime The following presumptions are satisfactory if considering the guarantee so sacredly enshrined in
charged.17 Circumstantial evidence is resorted to uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and our Constitution.
when direct testimony would result in setting felons overcome by other evidence:
free and deny proper protection to the There is no question that appellants were collared
community.18 The former is not a "weaker form of xxx xxx xxx without any arrest warrant. Neither was there any
evidence vis-à-vis the latter."19 The accused may be valid search warrant obtained against them.
convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence, However, they never questioned the legality of their
(j) That a person found in possession of a thing arrest through a motion to quash the Information.
provided the proven circumstances constitute an
taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the Instead, they entered a plea of not guilty and
unbroken chain leading to one fair reasonable
taker and the doer of the whole act; otherwise, that participated in the trial. Settled is the rule that any
conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion
things which a person possesses, or exercises acts objection involving the arrest or the trial court’s
of all others, as the guilty person.20"Circumstantial
of ownership over, are owned by him;"24 procedure of acquiring jurisdiction over the person

16
of the accused must be made before the The OSG’s argument loses even more cogency Prosecution Witness PO2 Pablo Ileto, the victim’s
arraignment; otherwise, the objection is deemed when evaluated against the well-settled principles sister and appellant’s wife "cannot understand each
waived.28 on searches and seizures without warrants. other."37 Eventually, appellant’s wife gave the
belongings of Gilbert Formento where the
Indeed, appellants do not now question the legality To constitute a valid waiver, it must be shown that bloodstained shorts of the victim were
of their arrest. What they object to is the introduction first, the right exists; second, the person involved recovered.38 How can the surrender of appellant’s
of the bloodstained pair of shorts allegedly had knowledge, actual or constructive, of the belongings in this case be voluntary, when the
recovered from the bag of Appellant Formento. existence of such a right; and third, the person had person surrendering them did not even understand
They argue that the search was illegally done, an actual intention to relinquish the right.33 How the person she was communicating with?
making the obtainment of the pair of shorts illegal could Appellant Formento have consented to a
and taints them as inadmissible. The prosecution, warrantless search when, in the first place, he did To be sure, the OSG cannot even use the argument
on the other hand, contends that it was the wife of not understand what was happening at that that the search was made by a private individual, the
appellant who voluntarily surrendered the bag that moment? The prosecution witnesses themselves victim’s sister, and thereby skirt the issue of
contained the bloodstained trousers of the testified that there was no interpreter to assist him - constitutional protection against unlawful searches
victim.29 Her act, it claims, constituted a valid - a deaf-mute -- during the arrest, search and by the State.
consent to the search without a warrant.30 seizure. Naturally, it would seem that he indeed
consented to the warrantless search, as the The victim’s sister herself testified against this
We clarify. Primarily, the constitutional right against prosecution would want this Court to believe. argument as follows:
unreasonable searches and seizures, being a
personal one, cannot be waived by anyone except As early as 1938, Justice Jose P. Laurel pointed out "ATTY. FONTANILLA
the person whose rights are invaded or who is in Pasion vda. de Garcia v. Locsin:
expressly authorized to do so on his or her
Q So Gilbert Formento was not wearing
behalf.31 In the present case, the testimonies of the "As the constitutional guaranty is not dependent the alleged trouser[s]?
prosecution witnesses show that at the time the upon any affirmative act of the citizen, the courts do
bloodstained pair of shorts was recovered, not place the citizen in the position of either
Appellant Formento, together with his wife and A The bag was given by his mother or his
contesting an officer’s authority by force, or waiving
mother, was present. Being the very subject of the wife, sir.
his constitutional rights; but instead they hold that a
search, necessarily, he himself should have given peaceful submission to a search or seizure is not a
consent. Since he was physically present, the consent or an invitation thereto, but is merely a Q To whom?
waiver could not have come from any other person. demonstration of regard for the supremacy of the
law."34 A To the policemen, sir.
The OSG cites Lopez v. Commissioner of
Customs,32 which validated a waiver of a This point becomes even more pronounced in the Q And they searched this, is that right?
warrantless search, when a woman thought to be present case, in which appellant is a deaf-mute, and
the wife of the accused -- but who later turned out to there was no interpreter to explain to him what was
be a manicurist -- surrendered to the police the A Yes sir."39
happening. His seeming acquiescence to the
papers belonging to the appellant. The instant search without a warrant may be attributed to plain
appeal, however, presents a different situation, and simple confusion and ignorance. This testimony clearly forecloses the assertion that
because here the accused himself was present it was not the police authorities who conducted the
when the search was made. Hence, consent should search. This testimony in fact belies that of PO2
Verily, "courts indulge every reasonable Pablo Ileto40 that it was the prosecution witness who
have been obtained from or given by him. In Lopez,
the accused was not present when the search was presumption against waiver of fundamental was talking to appellant’s wife, and who conducted
made; hence, the consent given by the occupant of constitutional rights and x x x we do not presume the search that yielded the bloodstained shortpants.
acquiescence [to] the loss of fundamental rights."35
the hotel room was deemed the consent of the
accused who was then renting the space. All told, the bloodstained pair of shorts was a piece
Neither can the OSG claim that appellant’s wife of evidence seized on the occasion of an unlawful
voluntarily surrendered the bag that contained the search and seizure. Thus, it is tainted and should
bloodstained trousers of the victim.36 As admitted by thus be excluded for being the proverbial fruit of the

17
poisonous tree.41 In the language of the casts doubts on whether it was appellant who owed mutes. Furthermore, appellants question the non-
fundamental law, it shall be inadmissible in evidence the victim or the other way around. presentation of the results of the tests conducted on
for any purpose in any proceeding.42 the fingerprints lifted from the crime scene.
The Public Attorney’s Office, the defense counsel,
Bloodstained Shirt correctly points out that the victim himself had made Appellants Pointed to Each Other?
the entries in his logbook which served as bases for
The prosecution then contends that when the other the prosecution’s averment that appellant owed him Finally, we do not find any evidence that appellants
appellant, Danilo Asis, was brought to the police some amount. The sister, who was explaining the indeed pointed to one another as the author of the
station for investigation the following day, the police entries, admitted that she had no personal crime charged. In fact, even during their cross-
found bloodstain on his shirt. knowledge thereof. More important, their veracity examination, neither of them specifically shifted the
was never established. Neither were the erasures or blame to the other. When questioned by the public
scratches thereon sufficiently explained. prosecutor, they even denied having done so.
Again, this fact cannot be taken as an indication of
guilt on the part of Appellant Asis. It does not point
to the conclusion that he was involved in the crime To show that there was sufficient motive to commit All told, to sustain a conviction for the complex crime
charged against him. We cannot agree that since the crime charged, the prosecution uses the of robbery with homicide, which is primarily an
there was bloodstain on his clothing, ergo, he testimony of Asis that he got "madder and madder" offense against property, it is essential that the
committed the robbery and the attendant killing. At at the victim. This statement is too speculative to robbery be proved beyond reasonable
most, this piece of circumstantial evidence, taken deserve serious consideration. doubt.48 Proof of the homicide alone is not sufficient
with the other one, may lead to suspicion. But courts to support a conviction for the aforesaid complex
do not rely on circumstantial evidence that merely The Last Persons Seen crime.49
arouses suspicion or conjecture.43 For
circumstantial evidence to lead to conviction, it must Talking with the Victim Essential to robbery is the taking, with intent to gain,
do more than just raise the mere possibility or even of personal property belonging to another by means
probability of guilt.44 It must engender moral of violence or intimidation against another person by
certainty. It is also argued that appellants were the last
persons seen with the victim; ergo, the suspicion the use of force upon things. There is robbery with
that they were the authors of the crime. Admittedly, homicide when, by reason or on the occasion of a
Motive for the Crime this circumstance may raise a speculation, but it is robbery with the use of violence against or
insufficient to establish their guilt. As this Court has intimidation of persons, homicide is also
The prosecution then attempts to ascribe motive to consistently stressed, mere suspicions and committed.50
appellants by arguing that one of them, Appellant speculations can never be the bases of conviction
Asis, allegedly owed the victim P6,070.45 in a criminal case.47 Accordingly, in robbery with homicide cases, the
prosecution needs to prove these elements: (a) the
Indeed, motive becomes material when the Neither is the mere presence of appellants at the taking of personal property is perpetrated by means
evidence is circumstantial or inconclusive, and there locus criminis sufficient to implicate them. Their of violence or intimidation against a person; (b) the
is some doubt on whether a crime has been being at the store of the victim was not unusual, as property taken belongs to another; (c) the taking is
committed or whether the accused has committed testified to by the witnesses. In fact, it was characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi;
it.46 But the prosecution’s contention again fails, as established that he and appellants had known one and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason
the fact of indebtedness was never conclusively another well, and that they had regularly met at his thereof, the crime of homicide -- here used in its
established. According to the sister of the victim, store. Moreover, there was paucity of evidence generic sense -- is committed.51
Asis still owed her brother the amount of P6,070. indicating that, other than appellants, no other
Yet, during the testimony of the said appellant, it person had or could have had access to the store Robbery Completely
was shown that it was actually the victim who had where he was robbed and killed.
been indebted to the former. The prosecution, in Unsubstantiated
fact, uses this testimony of Asis to bolster its claim As they themselves correctly observe, their
that he became "madder and madder" at the victim. complicity in the crime becomes even more doubtful
Coming from the prosecution itself, this argument The prosecution tried its best to prove the crime of
because, as testified to by his sister, the neighbors homicide, even if unsuccessfully, but in the process,
heard shouts; these could not have come from deaf- it left the crime of robbery totally unsubstantiated.

18
More glaring is the fact that the Information charged In the final analysis, the circumstances narrated by This Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules
appellants "as conspiring and confederating the prosecution engender doubt rather than moral of Court seeks to set aside the June 13, 2011
together and mutually helping each other."52 Yet, certainty on the guilt of appellants. Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.
the RTC Decision found them both guilty of the CR No. 30457 which affirmed the October 25, 2006
crime charged without any pronouncement as to the In view of the above findings, we deem it Judgment3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
presence of conspiracy. To serve effectively as a unnecessary to deal with the other issues raised by Branch 43 of Virac, Catanduanes in Criminal Case
basis for conviction, conspiracy must be proved as appellants. Nos. 3463 and 3464) convicting both petitioners for
convincingly as the criminal act itself.53 Violation of Presidential Decree (PD) No.
1602 as amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 9287,
WHEREFORE, the automatically appealed otherwise known as "An Act Increasing the
Had the alleged conspiracy to commit the crime Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila
been established, then the precise modality of each Penalties for Illegal Numbers Games Amending
(Branch 54) in Criminal Case No. 98-163090 is SET
individual conspirator becomes secondary. The Certain Provisions of PD 1602 and for Other
ASIDE. Danilo Asis and Gilbert Formento are
applicable rule in conspiracy is that the act of one Purposes." Petitioner Martin T. Villamor (Villamor)
ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt, and ordered
shall be deemed to be the act of all.54 The degree of was convicted as a collector of bets in the illegal
immediately RELEASED from custody, unless they
actual participation in the commission of the crime numbers game of "lotteng" under Section 3(c) of RA
are being held for some other lawful cause.
is immaterial.55 However, since there was neither 9287, while petitioner Victor G. Bonaobra
proof nor finding of conspiracy, then the extent of (Bonaobra) was convicted as a coordinator,
The director of the Bureau of Corrections is controller, or supervisor under Section 3(d) of the
the individual participation of each appellant should
have been clearly delineated. ORDERED to implement this Decision forthwith and said Jaw. The RTC sentenced Villamor to suffer the
to INFORM this Court, within five (5) days from penalty of imprisonment from eight (8) years and
receipt hereof, of the date appellants were actually one (1) day as minimum to nine (9) years as
In criminal cases, the prosecution has the onus released from confinement. Costs de oficio. maximum, while Bonaobra was sentenced to suffor
probandi of establishing the guilt of the
the penalty of imprisonment of ten (10) years and
accused.56 Ei incumbit probatio non qui negat. He
G.R. No. 200396 one (1) day as minimum to eleven (11) years as
who asserts -- not he who denies -- must maximum.
prove.57 The burden must be discharged by the
prosecution on the strength of its own evidence, not MARTIN VILLAMOR y TAYSON, and VICTOR
on the weakness of that for the defense.58 Hence, BONAOBRA y GIANAN, Petitioners Factual Antecedents
circumstantial evidence that has not been vs
adequately established, much less corroborated, PEOPLE OF THE PIDLIPPINES, Respondents Villamor was charged with violation of Section 3(c)
cannot be the basis of conviction.59 Suspicion alone of RA 9287 for collecting and soliciting bets for an
is insufficient, the required quantum of evidence DECISION illegal numbers game locally known as "lotteng' and
being proof beyond reasonable doubt.60 Indeed, possessing a list of various numbers, a calculator, a
"the sea of suspicion has no shore, and the court cellphone, and cash. The charge stemmed from the
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
that embarks upon it is without rudder or following lnformation:4
compass."61
The Constitution guarantees the right of the people That on or ahout the 17th day of June 2005 in the
It must be stressed that in our criminal justice to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and morning, in barangay Francia, municipality of Virac,
system, the overriding consideration is not whether effects against unreasonable searches and seizures province of Catanduanes, Philippines, \vi thin the
the court doubts the innocence of the accused, but of whatever nature and for any purpose.1 A mere tip jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the said accused
whether it entertains a reasonable doubt as to their from an unnamed informant does not vest police with intent [to] gain thru illegal means did then and
guilt.62 Where there is no moral certainty as to their officers with the authority to barge into private there, [ willfully ], unlawfully and feloniously engage,
guilt, they must be acquitted even though their homes without first securing a valid warrant of arrest collect [and] solicit x x x bets for illegal numbers
innocence may be questionable. The constitutional or search warrant. While there are instances where game locally known as "Lotteng" by having in his
right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty can arrests and searches may be made without a possession [a] calculator, cellphone, [list] of various
be overthrown only by proof beyond reasonable warrant, the Court finds that the constitutionally- numbers and money and lotteng paraphernalias.
doubt.63 protected right against unreasonable searches and
seizures was violated in the case at bar.
CONTRARY TO LAW.

19
Another Information5 was filed in the same court Info1mation,7 the incriminatory paragraph of which of counting bets, described by the Bicol
charging Bonaobra with violation of the same law, states: term "revisar," which means collating and
committed as follows: examining numbers placed in "papelitos," which are
That on or about the 17th day of June 2005 in the slips of paper containing bet numbers, and counting
That on or about the 17th day of June 2005 in the morning, in barangay Francia, municipality of Virac, money bets.
morning, in barangay Francia, municipality of Virac, province of Catanduanes, Philippines, within the
province of Catanduanes, Philippines, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the said accused When they entered the gate of the compound, they
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the said accused acting as manager and operator with intent [to] gain introduced themselves as police officers and
with intent [to] gain thru illegal means did then and thru illegal means did then and there, [willfully], confiscated the items found on the table consisting
there, [willfully], unlawfully and feloniously maintain unlawfully and feloniously maintain and operate of cash amounting to ₱l,500.00 in different
and operate illegal numbers game locally known as illegal numbers game locally known as "lotteng" denominations, the "papelitos," a calculator, a
"lotteng" while in possession of gambling while in possession of gambling paraphernalia, such cellular phone, and a pen. Petitioners were then
paraphernalias, such as [a] calculator, cellphone, as [a] calculator, cellphone, lists of variott5 numbers brought to Camp Francisco Camacho where they
list of various numbers and cash in the amount of and cash in the amount of ₱l,500,00 representing were investigated for illegal gambling.
₱1,500.00 representing collection of bets. colleciion of bets. Subsequently, a case was filed against the
petitioners before the Office of the Provincial
CONTRARY TO LAW. CONTRARY TO LAW. Prosecutor.

Petitioners filed t1eir respective Motions for When separately arraigned, Villamor, on October 4, Version of the Defense
Reinvestigation, which were both granted by the 2005 and Bonaobra, on November 29, 2005, both
RTC. Subsequently, the Office of the Provincial pleaded not guilty to the respective charges filed The defense presented six witnesses, namely
Prosecutor issued separate Resolutions both dated against them. After the pre-trial conference, a joint Villamor, Bonaobra, Demetrio Bonaobra. the
September 13, 2005 amending the Informations in trial on the merits followed. brother of Bonaobra, Florencio Bonaobra
both cases. (Florencio), the father of Bonaobra, Juan Vargas,
Version of the Prosecution and Jonah Bonaobra (Jonah), the wife of Bonaobra.
In the Amended Information, the phrase "acting as Their testimonies are summarized below.
a collector" was included to charge Villamor as a The prosecution presented four witnesses, namely:
collector in an illegal numbers game. The Amended Domingo Tejerero (Tejerero), Provincial Director, On June 17, 2005, at around 8:30 a.m., Villamor
Information6 provides: Police Superintendent Francisco went to Bonaobra's house to pay a debt he owed to
Penaflor (PD Peñaflor), SP04 Severino Malasa, Jr., the latter's wife, Jonah. At that time, Bonaobra was
That on or about the 17th day of June 2005 in the and POI David Adrian Saraspi (POI Saraspi). Culled having coffee with his father Florencio inside their
morning, in barangay Francia, municipality of Virac, from the records were the following facts: house. Villamor gave Bonaobra ₱2,000.00 which
province of Catanduanes, Philippines, within the the latter placed on top of the table. Bonaobra then
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the said accused went outside the house to answer his cellphone.
On June 17, 2005, at around 9:00 a.m., PD Peñaflor
acting as a collector with intent [to] gain thru illegal When Bonaobra was at the door, a man later
received a call from an infonnant regarding an
means[,] did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and identified as PD Peñaflor kicked the fence of
ongoing illegal numbers game at Barangay Francia,
foloniously engage, collect and solicit bets for illegal Bonaobra's house, grabbed Bonaobra's right arm,
Virac, Catanduanes, specifically at the residence of
numbers game locally known as "Lotteng" by having and said, "Caught in the act ka!" Florencio went
Bonaobra. A team composed of PD Peñaflor,
in his possession [a] calculator, cellphone, [list] of outside and asked PD Peñaflor if he had a search
Saraspi, PO 1 Rolando Ami, a driver, and a civilian
various numbers and money and lotteng warrant. Two more men entered the house and took
asset proceeded to Bonaobra's residence to confirm
paraphernalias. the money from the table. Petitioners were then
the report.
made to board the service vehicle and brought in for
investigation at the police headquarters.
CONTRARY TO LAW. Upon arrival at the target area, the team parked their
service vehicle outside the compound fenced by Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On the other hand, Bonaobra was charged as a bamboo slats installed two inches apart which
manager or operator in the Amended allowed them to see the goings on inside. According
to the police officers, they saw petitioners in the act

20
On October 25, 2006, the RTC of Virac, SO ORDERED9 correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed
Catanduanes, Branch 43 rendered its Judgment judgment, or even reverse the trial court's decision
finding petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Ruling of the Court of Appeals [based on] x x x grounds other than those that the
committing illegal numbers game locally known parties raised as errors."12
as ''lotteng," a variant of the game Last
On June 13, 2011, the CA affirmed the RTC's
Two,8 respectively as a collector or agent under The Court finds that the right of the petitioners
Decision. The CA brushed aside Bonaobra's
Section 3(c), and as a coordinator, controller, or against unreasonable searches and seizures was
supervisor under Section 3(d), of RA 9287. argument that his right to due process was violated
when he was convicted of a crime different from that violated by the arresting officers when they barged
with which he was charged. The CA held that the into Bonaobra's compound without a valid warrant
The RTC gave credence to the testimonies of the classification of a maintainer, manager, or operator of arrest or a search warrant. While there are
arresting officers and held that petitioners were includes a coordinator, controller, or exceptions to the rule requiring a warrant for a valid
caught in flagrante delicto committing an illegal supervisor.10The CA ratiocinated that to hold a search and seizure, none applies in the case at bar.
numbers game locally known as "lotteng," a variant maintainer guilty of the lesser offense of acting as a Consequently, the evidence obtained by the police
of Last Two. The RTC held that petitioners were coordinator will not be violative of his right to be officers is inadmissible against the petitioners, the
seen by the arresting officers in the act of counting informed of the nature and cause of his accusation same having been obtained in violation of the said
bets before the arrest was made inside Bonaobra' s since the graver offense of acting as a maintainer right.
compound. 1he petitioners were also caught necessarily includes being a coordinator.
holding "'papelitos," which contained the three rows Section 2, Article Ill of the 1987 Constitution requires
of two-number combinations. Since the winning a judicial warrant based on the existence of
combination in "lotteng" is taken from the first two With respect to Villamor, the CA gave more weight
and credence to the testimonies of the arresting probable cause before a search and an arrest may
numbers of the winning combinations in the daily be effected by law enforcement agents. Without the
draw of the lotto in the Philippine Charity officer who were presumed to have acted regularly
in the performance of their official functions. The said warrant, a search or seizure becomes
Sweepstakes, the RTC held that the number unreasonable within the context of the Constitution
combinations shown in the ''papelitos" were meant CA held that Villamor' s denials cannot prevail over
the positive assertions of the police officers who and any evidence obtained on the occasion of such
to correspond to the lotto results. unreasonable search and seizure shall be
caught him in the act of revising and counting bets.
inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any
The RTC further held that Villamor's participation in proceeding.13"Evidence obtained and confiscated
The CA disposed the case as follows:
the illegal numbers game was that of a collector on the occasion of such an unreasonable search
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision
since he brought bet money to Bonaobra while the and seizure is tainted and should be excluded for
appealed from is affirmed. being the proverbial fruit of the poisonous tree."14
latter was that of a coordinator, controller, or
supervisor after it was shown that he received the SO ORDERED.11
money from Villamor. Hence, this Petition.
In this case, the apprehending officers claim that
petitioners were caught in flagrante delicto, or
Issue
The dispositive part of the Judgment of the RTC caught in the act of committing an offense. PD
reads: Peñaflor and his team of police officers claim that
The main issue in this case is whether the petitioners were committing the offense of illegal
petitioners' conviction for violation of RA 9287 as numbers game when they were arrested without a
WHEREFORE, applying the Indeterminate
collector or agent under Section 3(c) for Villamor, warrant.
Sentence Law, this Court hereby SENTENCES
and as coordinator, controller, or supervisor m1der
Martin Villamor to suffer a penalty of imprisonment
Section 3(d) for Bonaobra, should be upheld.
from eight (8) years and one (1) day as minimum to We are not persuaded.
nine (9) years as maximum, and Victor Bonaobra to
suffer a penalty of ten (10) years and one (1) day as Our Ruling
Under Section 5 of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court,
minimum to eleven (11) years as maximum. a lawful arrest may be effected even without a
Likewise, the money amounting to ₱l,500.00 and We find the Petition meritorious. warrant of arrest in the following instances:
the other personal properties used as gambling
paraphernalia, like the calculator, ballpen and In criminal cases, an appeal throws the entire "case
cellular phone are confiscated in favor of the state. wide open for review and the reviewing tribunal can

21
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. - A petitioners. PO 1 Saraspi's testimony during cross A No, sir.
peace officer or a private person may, without a examination reveals the following: Q Because you do not know the contents of that and
warrant, arrest a person: you are not sure whether those are gambling
ATTY. SAMONTE: paraphernalia you went inside, is that right?
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be A After we introduced ourselves that we are [sic]
arrested has committed, is actually police officers we entered the compound.
Q While you were outside the compound of
committing, or is attempting to commit an Q Meaning to say you were outside the compound
Bonaobra, what was your distance to accused
offense; and saying you are policemen?
Martin Villamor and Victor Bonaobra?
A We entered first and we introduced ourselves.
Q Which is first, going inside or introducing
(b) When an offense has in fact just been A More or less fifteen (15) to twenty (20) meters. yourselves?
committed, and he has probable cause to A While entering we were also introducing ourselves
believe based on personal knowledge of simultaneously.
Q Is it not that the compound of Bonaobra is
facts or circumstances that the person to be Q When you reached inside, what did you
arrested has committed it; and surrounded with fence?
A Yes, sir. determine?
Q Bamboo fence, right? A We determined that there were lotteng
(c) When the person to be arrested is a A Yes, sir, without a gate. paraphernalia on the table.
prisoner who has escaped from a penal Q Are you sure it's without a gate? Q That is the only time that you determined that
establishment or place where he is serving A Probably it was open. those were gambling paraphernalia?
final judgment or temporarily confined while Q Can you determine the height of the fence? A No, even on the [sic] outside we identified it
his case is pending, or has escaped while A Between 5'7" to 5'9". already.
being transferred from one confinement to Q More than your height? Q A while ago you said at a distance of 15 to 10
another. A Yes, sir. meters you can determine whether they were in
Q Can you tell us whether you can see what the possession of the illegal gambling paraphernalia?
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, person is doing inside the compound while you are A What I am trying to say is that I cannot identify
the person arrested without a warrant shall be outside? those that are written on the 'papelitos' at the
forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or A The fence is made up [sic] of bamboo and there distance and I saw the calculator, the money bets.
jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance were gaps as far as the fence is concerned that is Q So what you saw within a distance of 15 to 10
with Section 7 of Rule 112. why when we alighted from the Frontier we saw meters are calculators, money and cellphone?
what was inside the compound. A Yes, sir.
In warrantless arrests made pursuant to Section Q And the space of each bamboo, can you Q Do you consider money gambling paraphernalia?
5(a), Rule 113, two elements must concur, namely determine [sic]? A Yes, sir.
"(a) the person to be arrested must execute an overt A One and half to two inches apart. Q So every time you see money you will consider
act indicating that he has just committed, is actually Q When you were already outside the compound that a gambling paraphernalia?
committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and what were the accused doing? A In other situations.
(b) such overt act is done in the presence or within A They were sitting and they were revising. Q How about calculator, do you consider calculator
the view of the arresting officer."15 Q Were they seated with [sic] a table? gambling paraphernalia?
A They were sitting and Victor Bonaobra was A Yes, sir.
without a shirt. Q When you go to a department store there are
After a judicious review of the records of the case, calculators, do you consider those calculators
Q What were they holding?
the Court finds that there was no valid warrantless gambling paraphernalia?
A 'Papelitos'.
arrest on petitioners.1âwphi1 It was not properly A If you are going to consolidate all these items in a
Q What else?
established that petitioners had just committed, or table all of these are gambling paraphernalia
A While they were holding 'papelitos' the monies
were actually committing, or attempting to commit a Q So when you consolidate these items and papers
were just on the table.
crime and that said act or acts were done in the Q At the distance of 15 to 10 meters can you and calculators, if you see those items at Century
presence of the arresting officers. Based on the determine the contents of the 'papelitos'? Trading, will you consider those as gambling
testimonies of PO1 Saraspi and PD Peñaflor, they A No, sir. paraphernalia?16
were positioned some 15 to 20 meters away from Considering that 15 to 20 meters is a significant
Q So you are not sure whether those are gambling
paraphernalia? distance between the police officers and the

22
petitioners, the Court finds it doubtful that the police During his direct examination, Bonaobra testified A He shouted at my father, "Di na kailangan yan"
officers were able to determine that a c1iminal that he was only answering his cellphone when PD (That is not needed).18
activity was ongoing to allow them to validly effect Peñaflor barged into his compound and arrested
an in flagrante delicto warrantless arrest and a him. The relevant portions of his testimony reveals
search incidental to a warrantless arrest thereafter. the following: From the circumstances above, it is highly suspect
The police officers even admitted that the that PD Peñaflor had witnessed any overt act
compound was surrounded by a bamboo fence 5'7" ATTY SAMONTE: indicating that the petitioners were actually
to 5'9" in height, which made it harder to see what committing a crime. While PD Peñaflor claims that
was happening inside the compound. It appears that he caught the petitioners in the act of collecting bets
the police officers acted based solely on the Q At around 9:00 a.m. of June 17, 2005, what were
you doing if you still remember? and counting bet money, this observation was highly
information received from PD Peñaflor's informant improbable given the distance of the police from the
and not on personal knowledge that a crime had just A I stood up and I went out and made [sic] three
steps from the door to answer the cellphone and petitioners and the fact that the compound was
been c01m11itted, was actually being committed, or surrounded by a bamboo fence.
was about to be committed in their presence. The later on I was surprised when the police whom I
Court finds it doubtful that the police officers could not identify, kicked the door.
Q Mr. Witness, which door [are you] referring to For his part, Villamor claimed that he was at the
witnessed any overt act before entering the private
[that] was kicked by the police? Bonaobra compound to repay his loan to Jonah.
home of Bonaobra immediately preceding the
A The gate outside of our fence. The prosecution, through Prosecutor Tañon, even
arrest. PO1 Saraspi even admitted that from his
xxxx admitted this fact during Jonah's direct examination.
position outside the compound, he could not read
Q You said a while ago that the policeman kicked The following exchange between the prosecution
the contents of the so-called "papelitos;" yet, upon
the door of your fence x and the defense was quite revealing:
seeing the calculator, phone, papers and money on
xx who was that policeman, if you know him?
the table, he readily concluded the same to be
A: Provincial Director Peñaflor. ATTY. SAMONTE:
gambling paraphernalias.
Q: Who was with PD Peñaflor on [sic] that particular
On the part of PD Peñaflor, he likewise admitted that
time, if any, Mr. Witness?
from his position outside the compound, he could Your Honor, please, [may] I respectfully offer the
A Two (2) persons in civilian clothes.
not determine the activities of the persons inside. It testimony of Jona[h] Bonaobra to show that she is
xx xx
was only after he had illegally entered the the ·wife of Victor Bonaobra; that at around 8:30
Q After PD Peñaflor kicked the door of your fence,
compound, since he was not armed with a warrant, a.m. of June 17, 2005 she was inside their residence
what happened next, Mr. Witness?
that he supposedly saw the gambling paraphernalia. at Bonaobra's compound, Francia, Virac,
A He held my hand and he seized my cellphone.
PD Peñaflor's testimony in this regard is as follows: Catanduances and on that particular time and date,
xxxx
Q Can you tell the Honorable Court, Mr. Witness, Martin Villamor arrived to pay his debt and she
Q After PD Peñaflor seized your cellphone, what
the distance of the house of Victor Bonaobra to that personally witnessed the unlawful act committed by
else did he do?
place where you parked your vehicle when you the policemen who entered their dwelling on that
A He said, "caught in the act."
arrived in the vicinity? particular lime and date and such other matters
Q Which comes first, Mr. Witness, the utterance
A When I parked my vehicle in front of the relative thereto, Your Honor.
made by PD Peñaflor that you were caught in the
compound because that is a street, the distance
act or the utterance made by your father whether
from the street to that place where there is an on- COURT:
they had a warrant?
going 'revisar' of 'lotteng', more or less 15 to 20
meters, I believe, from the gate. A When my father asked them whether they have a
Q So, you did not immediately go inside the warrant. Any comment from the prosecution?
compound of Victor Bonaobra? Q And what was the answer of PD Peñaflor when
A Yes, sir. I verified first if there is really [sic] persons your father asked that question? PROS. TAÑON:
in the compound. A He said, "caught in the act."
Q So, at that distance of 15 to 20 meters, you were Q And what was the reply of your father?
A My father said that what you am doing is wrong, We will admit that she is the wife of Victor Bonaobra;
able to verify what they were doing on the particular that on Jw1e 17, 2005 at 8:30 in the morning she
that is prohibited.
1ime, Mt. Witness? was inside the residence of Bonaobra's compound;
Q And what did PD Peñaflor answered [sic] to your
A No, sir.17 that accused Martin Villamor arrived to pay his debt.
father?
We are to contest on that she personally witnessed
the unlawful act.

23
A1TY. SAMONTE: is inadmissible in evidence consonant with Article Virac, Catanduanes, Branch 43 in Criminal Case
III, Section 3(2) of the 1987 Constitution, 'any Nos. 3463 and 3464 is hereby REVERSED and SET
To clarify that, the prosecution is admitting the fact evidence obtained in violation of this or the ASIDE. Petitioners Martin Villamor y Tayson and
that Martin arrived to pay the loan on that particular preceding section shall be inadmissible for any Victor Bonaobra y Gianan are ACQUITTED and are
day? purpose in any proceeding'. ordered to be immediately RELEASED from
detention, unless they are confined for any other
Without the confiscated shabu, appellant's lawful cause.
PROS. TAÑON:
conviction cannot be sustained based on the
remaining evidence. Thus, an acquittal is warranted, The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is
Yes, Your Honor.
despite the waiver of appellant of his right to DIRECTED to IMPLEMENT this Decision and to
question the illegality of his arrest by entering a plea report to this Court the action taken hereon within
COURT: and his active participation in the trial of the case. five days from receipt.
As earlier mentioned, the legality of an arrest affects
Okay, so that we can proceed to the other only the jurisdiction of the court over the person of G.R. No. 205926 July 22, 2015
matters.19 (Emphasis supplied) the accused. A waiver of an illegal, warrantless
arrest does not carry with it a waiver of the
inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal ALVIN COMERCIANTE y GONZALES, Petitioner,
From the exchange above, it is clear that the vs.
prosecution admitted that Villamor went to warrantless arrest. (Emphasis supplied)
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
Bonaobra's house to pay his loan to Jonah. Thus, at
the exact moment of the arrest, neither Bonaobra, In this case, the prosecution failed to clearly
who was answering his cellphone, nor Villarr1or, establish the acts that constitute the offense of DECISION
who was paying his loan. was performing any overt illegal gambling as a collector or an agent under
act constitutive of a crime. Section 3(c), and as a coordinator, controller, or PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
supervisor under Section 3(d), of RA 9287. Under
Verily, the warrantless arrest conducted by PD the said law, a collector or agent is "any person who Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari 1 are
Peñaflor and his team was unlawful as the same collects, solicits or produces bets in behalf of his/her the Decision 2 dated October 20, 2011 and the
does not satisfy the requirements of an in flagrante principal for any illegal numbers game who is Resolution 3dated February 19, 2013 of the Court of
delicto arrest. Consequently, the search and seizure usually in possession of gambling Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 32813, which
of the effects found inside the house of Bonaobra paraphernalia."21 On the other hand, a coordinator, affirmed in toto the Judgment 4dated July 28, 2009
are likewise illegal since there could be no valid controller, or supervisor is defined as, ''any person of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City,
search incident to an illegal warrantless arrest. who exercises control and supervision over the Branch 213 (RTC) in Crim. Case No. MC-03-7242-
Thus, evidence seized from Bonaobra's house is collector or agent."22 The prosecution merely relied D convicting petitioner Alvin Comerciante y
inadmissible for being a fruit of the poisonous tree. on the alleged illegal gambling paraphernalia found Gonzales (Comerciante) of the crime of illegal
and confiscated inside the house of Bonaobra and Possession of Dangerous Drugs defined and
not on the specific overt acts that constitute the penalized under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act
The Court is aware that any question regarding the offense.
legality of a warrantless arrest must be raised before No. (RA) 9165, 5 otherwise known as the
arraignment. Failure to do so constitutes a waiver of Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
the right to question the legality of the arrest All told, the evidence purportedly seized from the
especially when the accused actively participated Bonaobra compound is inadmissible in evidence The Facts
during trial as in this case. However, we have since it was obtained in violation of Section 3(2),
clarified that such waiver is only confined to the Article III of the 1987 Constitution. Since the alleged
illegal gambling paraphernalia is the very corpus On July 31, 2003, an Information was filed before
defects of the arrest and not on the inadmissibility of the RTC charging Comerciante of violation of
the evidence seized during an illegal arrest. delicti of the crime charged, the Court acquits
petitioners. Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, to wit:
In People v. Racho,20 the Court held that:

WHEREFORE, the June 13, 2011 Decision of the That on or about the 30th day of July 2003, in the
Obviously, this is an instance of seizure of the 'fruit City of Mandaluyong, Philippines, a place within the
of the poisonous tree', hence, the confiscated item Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 30457 which
affirmed the Judgment of the Regional Trial Court of jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-

24
named accused, not having been lawfully taken to a police station. There, the police officers Dissatisfied, Comerciante moved for
authorized to possess any dangerous drugs, did claimed to have confiscated illegal drugs from them reconsideration 16 which was, however, denied in a
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and were asked money in exchange for their Resolution 17 dated February 19, 2013. Hence, this
and knowingly have in his possession, custody and release. When they failed to accede to the demand, petition. 18
control Two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic they were brought to another police station to
sachet (sic) each containing 0.15 gram (sic) and undergo inquest proceedings, and thereafter, were The Issue before the Court
0.28 gram (sic) of white crystalline substance with a charged with illegal possession of dangerous
total of 0.43 grams which was found positive to the drugs. 10
test for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride commonly The core issue for the Court's resolution is whether
known as "shabu", a dangerous drug. or not the CA correctly affirmed Comerciante's
The RTC Ruling conviction for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA
9165.
CONTRARY TO LA W. 6 In. a Judgment 11 dated July 28, 2009, the RTC
found Comerciante guilty beyond reasonable doubt In his petition, Comerciante essentially contends
According to the prosecution, at around 10 o'clock of violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, and that P03 Carag did not effect a valid warrantless
in the evening of July 30, 2003, Agent Eduardo accordingly, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of arrest on him. Consequently, the evidence gathered
Radan (Agent Radan) of the NARCOTICS group imprisonment for twelve (12) years and one (1) day as a result of such illegal warrantless arrest, i.e., the
and P03 Bienvy Calag II (P03 Calag) were aboard a to twenty (20) years, and ordered him to pay a fine plastic sachets containing shabu should be
motorcycle, patrolling the area while on their way to in the amount of ₱300,000.00.12 rendered inadmissible, necessarily resulting in his
visit a friend at Private Road, Barangay Hulo, acquittal. 19
Mandaluyong City. Cruising at a speed of 30 The R TC found that P03 Calag conducted a valid
kilometers per hour along Private Road, they warrantless arrest on Comerciante, which yielded On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor
spotted, at a distance of about 10 meters, two (2) two (2) plastic sachets containing shabu. In this General, on behalf of respondent People of the
men - later identified as Comerciante and a certain relation, the R TC opined that there was probable Philippines, maintains that Comerciante's
Erick Dasilla 7 (Dasilla) - standing and showing cause to justify the warrantless arrest, considering warrantless arrest was validly made pursuant to the
"improper and unpleasant movements," with one of that P03 Calag saw, in plain view, that Comerciante "stop and frisk" rule, especially considering that he
them handing plastic sachets to the other. Thinking was carrying the said sachets when he decided to was caught in flagrante delicto in possession of
that the sachets may contain shabu, they approach and apprehend the latter. Further, the illegal drugs. 20
immediately stopped and approached Comerciante RTC found that absent any proof of intent that P03
and Dasilla At a distance of around five (5) meters, Calag was impelled by any malicious motive, he
P03 Calag introduced himself as a police officer, The Court's Ruling
must be presumed to have properly performed his
arrested Comerciante and Dasilla, and confiscated duty when he arrested Comerciante.13
two (2) plastic sachets containing white crystalline The petition is meritorious.
substance from them. A laboratory examination
Aggrieved, Comerciante appealed to the CA.
later confirmed that said sachets contained Section 2, Article III 21 of the Constitution mandates
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. 8 that a search and seizure must be carried out
The CA Ruling
through or on the strength of a judicial warrant
After the prosecution rested its case, Dasilla filed a predicated upon the existence of probable cause; in
demurrer to evidence, which was granted by the In a Decision 14 dated October 20, 2011 the CA the absence of such warrant, such search and
RTC, thus his acquittal. However, due to affirmed Comerciante's conviction. It held that P03 seizure becomes, as a general rule, "unreasonable"
Comerciante's failure to file his own demurrer to Calag had probable cause to effect the warrantless within the meaning of said constitutional provision.
evidence, the RTC considered his right to do so arrest of Comerciante, given that the latter was To protect people from unreasonable searches and
waived and ordered him to present his evidence.9 committing a crime in flagrante delicto; and that he seizures, Section 3 (2), Article III 22 of the
personally saw the latter exchanging plastic sachets Constitution provides an exclusionary rule which
with Dasilla. According to the CA, this was enough instructs that evidence obtained and confiscated on
In his defense, Comerciante averred that P03 Calag
to draw a reasonable suspicion that those sachets the occasion of such unreasonable searches and
was looking for a certain "Barok", who was a
might be shabu, and thus, P03 Calag had every seizures are deemed tainted and should be
notorious drug pusher in the area, when suddenly,
reason to inquire on the matter right then and excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous
he and Dasilla, who were just standing in front of a
there.15 tree. In other words, evidence obtained from
jeepney along Private Road, were arrested and

25
unreasonable searches and seizures shall be knowledge of the arresting officer, there is probable Q: And who were with you while you were
inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any cause that said suspect was the perpetrator of a patrolling?
proceeding. 23 crime which had just been committed; ( c) arrest of A: Eduardo Radan, Ma' am.
a prisoner who has escaped from custody serving Q: And who is this Eduardo Radan?
The exclusionary rule is not, however, an absolute final judgment or temporarily confined during the A: He is an agent of the Narcotics Group, ma'am.
and rigid proscription. One of the recognized pendency of his case or has escaped while being Q: While you were along Private Road, Hulo,
exceptions established by jurisprudence is a search transferred from one confinement to another. 26 Mandaluyong City, what unusual incident that
incident to a lawful arrest. 24 In this instance, the law happened if any?
requires that there first be a lawful arrest before a For a warrantless arrest under Section 5 (a) to A: We spotted somebody who was then as if
search can be made - the process cannot be operate, two (2) elements must concur, namely: (a) handing a plastic sachet to someone.
reversed. 25 Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised the person to be arrested must execute an overt act xxxx
Rules on Criminal Procedure lays down the rules on indicating that he has just committed, is actually Q: Now how far were you when you saw this
lawful warrantless arrests, as follows: committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and incident from these two male persons you already
( b) such overt act is done in the presence or within identified?
the view of the arresting officer. 27 On the other A: About ten (10) meters away ma'am.
SEC.5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. - A
hand, Section 5 (b) requires for its application that Q: What were their positions in relation to you
peace officer or a private person may, without a
at the time of the arrest, an offense had in fact just when you saw them in that particular act?
warrant, arrest a person:
been committed and the arresting officer had A: They were quite facing me then.
personal knowledge of facts indicating that the 0: What was the speed of your motorcycle when
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be accused had committed it.28 you were traversing this Private Road, Hulo,
arrested has committed, is actually Mandaluyong City?
committing, or is attempting to commit an A: About thirty (30) kilometers per hour, ma'am.
offense; In both instances, the officer's personal knowledge
Q: And who was driving the motorcycle?
of the fact of the commission of an offense is
A: Eduardo Radan, ma'am.
absolutely required. Under Section 5 (a), the officer
(b) When an offense has just been Q: When you spotted them as if handing something
himself witnesses the crime; while in Section (b), he
committed and he has probable cause to to each other, what did you do?
knows for a fact that a crime has just been
believe based on personal knowledge of A: We stopped ma'am.
committed. 29
facts or circumstances that the person to be Q: And how far were you from them when you
arrested has committed it; and stopped, more or less?
A judicious review of the factual milieu of the instant A: We passed by them for a short distance before
case reveals that there could have been no lawful we stopped ma'am.
(c) When the person to be arrested is a
warrantless arrest made on Comerciante. P03 Q: And after you passed by them and you said you
prisoner who has escaped from a penal
Calag himself admitted that he was aboard a stopped, what was the reaction of these two male
establishment or place where he is serving
motorcycle cruising at a speed of around 30 persons?
final judgment or is temporarily confined
kilometers per hour when he saw Comerciante and A: They were surprised, ma'am.
while his case is pending, or has escaped
Dasilla standing around and showing "improper and xxxx
while being transferred from one
unpleasant movements," with one of them handing Q: And what was their reaction when you said you
confinement to another.
plastic sachets to the other. On the basis of the introduced yourself as police officer?
foregoing, he decided to effect an arrest. P03 A: They were surprised.
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, Calag's testimony on direct examination is Q: When you say "nabigla" what was their reaction
the person arrested without a warrant shall be revelatory: that made you say that they were surprised?
forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or A: They were stunned.
jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance Q: After they were stunned, what did you do next,
Pros. Silao:
with Section 7 of Rule 112. police officer?
Q: Now on July 30, 2003 around 10:00 o'clock in
the evening, kindly tell the court where were you? A: I arrested them, ma' am. I invited them.
The aforementioned provision provides three (3) A: We were then conducting our patrol on a Q: What did you say to them? How did you invite
instances when a warrantless arrest may be lawfully motorbike ma' am. them? In short, napakasimple Lang ng tanong ko
effected: (a) arrest of a suspect in flagrante delicto; xxxx sa yo eh. Did you say anything?
(b) arrest of a suspect where, based on personal Court:

26
Mr. Witness, stop making unnecessary drugs when he was still assigned in the province are xxxx
movements, just listens. insufficient to create a conclusion that what he
Pros. Silao: Are you fit to testify? May sakit ka ba o purportedly saw in Comerciante was indeed Normally, "stop and frisk" searches do not give the
wala? Witness: Wala po. shabu. 32 law enforcer an opportunity to confer with a judge to
Pros. Silao: Eh, bakit di ka makapagsalita? determine probable cause. In Posadas v. Court of
Court: You keep touching your eyes. Just relax. Neither has the prosecution established that the Appeals, one of the earliest cases adopting the
Answer the question, ano sinabi mo sa kanila? rigorous conditions set forth in Section 5 (b), Rule "stop and frisk" doctrine in Philippine jurisprudence,
Pros. Silao: Are you fit to testify? Wala ka bang 113, have been complied with, i.e., that an offense this court approximated the suspicious
sakit? had in fact just been committed and the arresting circumstances as probable cause:
Witness: Wala po. officer had personal knowledge of facts indicating
xxxx that the accused had committed it. As already
Q: From what portion of his body, I am referring to The probable cause is that when the petitioner acted
discussed, the factual backdrop of the instant case suspiciously and attempted to flee with the buri bag
Alvin Comerciante did you recover the plastic failed to show that P03 Calag had personal
sachet? there was a probable cause that he was concealing
knowledge that a crime had been indisputably something illegal in the bag and it was the right and
A: From his hand ma'am. committed by Comerciante. Verily, it is not enough duty of the police officers to inspect the same.
Q: Left or right hand? that the arresting officer had reasonable ground to
Pros. Silao: You cannot recall? Hindi mo believe that the accused had just committed a crime;
matandaan. Sabihin mo Kung Hindi mo For warrantless searches, probable cause was
a crime must, in fact, have been committed first,
matandaan, no problem. Kaliwa, kanan or you which does not obtain in this case. 33 defined as "a reasonable ground of suspicion
cannot recall? 30 supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in
themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe
In this relation, the Court finds respondent's that the person accused is guilty of the offense with
(Emphases and underscoring supplied) assertion that there was a valid "stop and frisk" which he is charged.
search made on Comerciante untenable. In People
On the basis of such testimony, the Court finds it v. Cogaed, 34 the Court had an opportunity to
exhaustively explain "stop and frisk" searches: Malacat v. Court of Appeals clarifies the
highly implausible that P03 Calag, even assuming
requirement further. It does not have to be probable
that he has perfect vision, would be able to identify
cause, but it cannot be mere suspicion. It has to be
with reasonable accuracy - especially from a "Stop and frisk" searches (sometimes referred to as a genuine reason to serve the purposes of the "stop
distance of around 10 meters, and while aboard a Terry searches) are necessary for law and frisk" exception:
motorcycle cruising at a speed of 30 kilometers per enforcement.1a\^/phi1 That is, law enforcers should
hour - miniscule amounts of white crystalline be given the legal arsenal to prevent the
substance inside two (2) very small plastic sachets Other notable points of Terry are that while probable
commission of offenses. However, this should be
held by Comerciante. The Court also notes that no cause is not required to conduct a "stop and frisk," it
balanced with the need to protect the privacy of
other overt act could be properly attributed to nevertheless holds that mere suspicion or a hunch
citizens in accordance with Article III, Section 2 of
Comerciante as to rouse suspicion in the mind of the Constitution. will not validate a "stop and frisk." A genuine reason
P03 Calag that the former had just committed, was must exist, in light of the police officer's experience
committing, or was about to commit a crime. Verily, and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief
the acts of standing around with a companion and The balance lies in the concept of "suspiciousness" that the person detained has weapons concealed
present where the police officer finds himself or about him.
handing over something to the latter cannot in any
herself in. This may be undoubtedly based on the
way be considered criminal acts. In fact, even if
experience of the police officer. Experienced police
Comerciante and his companion were showing In his dissent for Esquillo v. People, Justice
officers have personal experience dealing with
"improper and unpleasant movements" as put by Bersamin reminds us that police officers must not
criminals and criminal behavior. Hence, they should
P03 Calag, the same would not have been sufficient rely on a single suspicious circumstance. There
have the ability to discern - based on facts that they
in order to effect a lawful warrantless arrest under should be "presence of more than one seemingly
themselves observe - whether an individual is acting
Section 5 (a), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on innocent activity, which, taken together, warranted a
in a suspicious manner. Clearly, a basic criterion
Criminal Procedure. 31 That his reasonable reasonable inference of criminal activity." The
would be that the police officer, with his or her
suspicion bolstered by (a) the fact that he had seen Constitution prohibits "umeasonable searches and
personal knowledge, must observe the facts leading
his fellow officers arrest persons in possession of seizures." Certainly, reliance on only one suspicious
to the suspicion of an illicit act.
shabu; and (b) his trainings and seminars on illegal circumstance or none at all will not result in a

27
reasonable search. [35]] (Emphases and Ombudsman) and the SANDIGANBAYAN violation of Section 3 (g) of R.A. 3019 as amended
underscoring supplied) (Second Division), respondents. be filed against respondent Rolando S. Narciso
before the Sandiganbayan.
In this case, the Court reiterates that Comerciante' DECISION
s acts of standing around with a companion and It is likewise recommending that the case against
handing over something to the latter do not PANGANIBAN, J.: the other respondents be DISMISSED for
constitute criminal acts.1âwphi1 These insufficiency of evidence.
circumstances are not enough to create a May a judge issue a warrant of arrest solely on
reasonable inference of criminal activity which the basis of the report and recommendation of the However, after a review of the above
would constitute a "genuine reason" for P03 Calag investigating prosecutor, without personally resolution, Special Prosecution Officer Leonardo P.
to conduct a "stop and frisk" search on the former. determining probable cause by independently Tamayo (hereafter, SPO Tamayo) recommended
In this light, the "stop and frisk" search made on examining sufficient evidence submitted by the that both Rolando Narciso and Doris Teresa Ho be
Comerciante should be deemed unlawful. parties during the preliminary investigation? charged with violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A.
The Case 3019. The resolution of GIO Labrador, as modified
In sum, there was neither a valid warrantless arrest This is the main question raised in these two by the memorandum[5] of SPO Tamayo, was
nor a valid "stop and frisk" search made on consolidated petitions for certiorari under Rule 65 of approved by Ombudsman Conrado M. Vasquez on
Comerciante. As such, the shabu purportedly the Rules of Court challenging the Sandiganbayans May 5, 1992. Thus, herein petitioners were charged
seized from him is rendered inadmissible in August 25, 1992 Resolution[1] which answered the accordingly before the Sandiganbayan in an
evidence for being the proverbial fruit of the said query in the affirmative. information[6] filed on May 18, 1992. Attached to
poisonous tree. Since the confiscated shabu is the the information were the resolution of GIO Labrador
very corpus delicti of the crime charged, and the memorandum of SPO Tamayo.The said
Comerciante must necessarily be acquitted and information reads:
exonerated from all criminal liability. The Facts
Both petitions have the same factual The undersigned Special Prosecution Officer III,
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. backdrop. On August 8, 1991, the Anti-Graft League Office of the Special Prosecutor, hereby accuses
Accordingly, 'the Decision dated October 20, 2011 of the Philippines, represented by its chief ROLANDO NARCISO and DORIS TERESA HO,
and the Resolution dated February 19, 2013 of the prosecutor and investigator, Atty. Reynaldo L. President of National Marine Corporation, of
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 32813 are Bagatsing, filed with the Office of the Ombudsman violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, as amended,
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, a complaint[2] against Doris Teresa Ho, Rolando S. committed as follows:
petitioner Alvin Comerciante y Gonzales is hereby Narciso (petitioners in G.R. Nos. 106632 and
ACQUITTED of the crime of violating Section 11, 106678, respectively), Anthony Marden, Arsenio That on or about April 4, 1989, and for sometime
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The Director of Benjamin Santos and Leonardo Odoo.The prior and/or subsequent thereto, in the City of
the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause his complaint was for alleged violation of Section 3 (g) Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
immediate release, unless he is being lawfully held of Republic Act 3019[3] prohibiting a public officer Honorable Court, the above-named accused
for any other reason. from entering into any contract or transaction on ROLANDO NARCISO, a public officer, being then
behalf of the government if it is manifestly and the Vice-President of the National Steel Corporation
grossly disadvantageous to the latter, whether or (NSC), a government-owned or controlled
[G.R. No. 106632. October 9, 1997] not the public officer profited or will profit corporation organized and operating under the
DORIS TERESA HO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF thereby. After due notice, all respondents therein Philippine laws, and DORIS TERESA HO, a private
THE PHILIPPINES (represented by the filed their respective counter-affidavits with individual and then the President of National Marine
Office of the Special Prosecutor of the supporting documents. On January 8, 1992, Graft Corporation (NMC), a private corporation organized
Ombudsman) and the SANDIGANBAYAN Investigation Officer Titus P. Labrador (hereafter, and operating under our Corporation law, conspiring
(Second Division), respondents. GIO Labrador) submitted his resolution[4] with the and confederating with one another, did then and
[G.R. No. 106678. October 9, 1997] following recommendations: there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally, with evident
ROLANDO S. NARCISO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE bad faith and through manifest partiality, cause
OF THE PHILIPPINES (represented by the WHEREFORE, all premises considered, it is undue injury to the National Steel Corporation
Office of the Special Prosecutor of the respectfully recommended that an information for (NSC), by entering without legal justification into a
negotiated contract of affreightment

28
disadvantageous to the NSC for the haulage of its in form and substance based on the facts and The pertinent provision of the Constitution
products at the rate of P129.50/MT, from Iligan City evidence adduced by both parties during the reads:
to Manila, despite their full knowledge that the rate preliminary investigation. To require this Court to
they have agreed upon was much higher than those have the entire record of the preliminary Section 2 [, Article III]. The right of the people to be
offered by the Loadstar Shipping Company, Inc. investigation to be produced before it, including the secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
(LSCI) and Premier Shipping Lines, Inc. (PSLI), in evidence submitted by the complainant and the against unreasonable searches and seizures of
the amounts of P109.56 and P123.00 per Metric accused-respondents, would appear to be an whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
Ton, respectively, in the public bidding held on June exercise in futility. inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of
30, 1988, thereby giving unwarranted benefits to the arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be
National Marine Corporation, in the total sum of One Thus, these petitions. determined personally by the judge after
Million One Hundred Sixteen Thousand Fifty Two examination under oath or affirmation of the
Pesos and Seventy Five Centavos (P1,116,052.75), The Issue complainant and the witnesses he may produce and
Philippine Currency, to the pecuniary damage and Petitioner Ho raises this sole issue: particularly describing the place to be searched and
prejudice of the NSC in the aforestated sum. The the persons or things to be seized. (Underscoring
said offense was committed by Rolando S. Narciso May a judge determine probable cause and issue supplied.)
in the performance of his official functions as Vice- [a] warrant of arrest solely on the basis of the
President of the National Steel Corporation. resolution of the prosecutor (in the instant case, the In explaining the object and import of the
Office of the Special Prosecutor of the Ombudsman) aforequoted constitutional mandate, particularly the
CONTRARY TO LAW. who conducted the preliminary power and the authority of judges to issue warrants
investigation, without having before him any of the of arrest, the Court elucidated in Soliven vs.
evidence (such as complainants affidavit, Makasiar[9]:
Acting on the foregoing information, the
Sandiganbayan issued the now questioned warrant respondents counter-affidavit, exhibits, etc.) which
of arrest against Petitioners Ho and may have been submitted at the preliminary What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive
Narciso. Petitioner Ho initially questioned the investigation?[7] and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to
issuance thereof in an Urgent Motion to Recall satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. In
Warrant of Arrest/Motion for Reconsideration which In his separate petition, Rolando S. Narciso satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause
was adopted by Petitioner Narciso. They alleged adopts the foregoing and raises no other distinct for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the judge is
that the Sandiganbayan, in determining probable issue. not required to personally examine the complainant
cause for the issuance of the warrant for their arrest, and his witnesses. Following established doctrine
merely relied on the information and the resolution Petitioners Ho and Narciso similarly contend and procedure, he shall: (1) personally evaluate the
attached thereto, filed by the Ombudsman without that a judge, in personally determining the existence report and the supporting documents submitted by
other supporting evidence, in violation of the of probable cause, must have before the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause
requirements of Section 2, Article III of the him sufficient evidence submitted by the parties, and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest;
Constitution, and settled jurisprudence. Respondent other than the information filed by the investigating or (2) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable
Sandiganbayan denied said motion in the prosecutor, to support his conclusion and justify the cause, he may disregard the fiscals report and
challenged Resolution. It ratiocinated in this wise: issuance of an arrest warrant. Such evidence require the submission of supporting affidavits of
should not be merely described in a prosecutors witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to
resolution. Citing People vs. Inting,[8] petitioners the existence of probable cause.[10] [underscoring
Considering, therefore, that this Court did not rely insist that the judge must have before him the report, supplied]
solely on the certification appearing in the the affidavits, the transcripts of stenographic notes
information in this case in the determination of (if any), and all other supporting documents which
whether probable cause exists to justify the We should stress that the 1987 Constitution
are material in assisting the judge to make his requires the judge to determine probable cause
issuance of the warrant of arrest but also on the determination.
basis predominantly shown by the facts and personally. The word personally does not appear in
evidence appearing in the resolution/memorandum the corresponding provisions of our previous
of responsible investigators/ prosecutors, then the Constitutions. This emphasis shows the present
recall of the warrant of arrest, or the reconsideration The Courts Ruling Constitutions intent to place a greater degree of
sought for, cannot be granted. More so, when the responsibility upon trial judges than that imposed
information, as filed, clearly shows that it is sufficient The petitions are meritorious. under the previous Charters.

29
 While affirming Soliven, People vs. resolution or the Prosecutors certification thereof.[18] At this stage of the criminal proceeding,
Inting[11] elaborated on what determination of presupposes that the records of either the the judge is not yet tasked to review in detail the
probable cause entails, differentiating the judges COMELEC or the Prosecutor have been submitted evidence submitted during the preliminary
object or goal from that of the prosecutors. to the Judge and he relies on the certification or investigation. It is sufficient that he personally
resolution because the records of the investigation evaluates such evidence in determining probable
First, the determination of probable cause is a sustain the recommendation. We added, The cause.[19] In Webb vs. De Leon,[20] we stressed
function of the Judge. It is not for the Provincial warrant issues not on the strength of the certification that the judge merely determines the probability, not
Fiscal or Prosecutor nor for the Election Supervisor standing alone but because of the records which the certainty, of guilt of the accused and, in doing
to ascertain. Only the Judge and the Judge alone sustain it. Summing up, the Court said: so, he need not conduct a de novo hearing. He
makes this determination. simply personally reviews the prosecutors initial
We reiterate the ruling in Soliven vs. Makasiar that determination finding probable cause to see if it is
the Judge does not have to personally examine the supported by substantial evidence.
Second, the preliminary inquiry made by a
Prosecutor does not bind the Judge. It merely complainant and his witnesses. The Prosecutor In the recent case of Roberts Jr. vs. Court of
assists him to make the determination of probable can perform the same functions as a commissioner Appeals,[21] this Courts application of the dictum
cause. The Judge does not have to follow what the for the taking of the evidence.However, there laid down in Soliven -- affirmed and fortified
Prosecutor presents to him. By itself, the should be a report and necessary documents in Inting, Lim Sr., Allado and Webb -- should lay to
Prosecutors certification of probable cause is supporting the Fiscals bare certification. All of rest the issue raised in the instant
ineffectual. It is the report, the affidavits the these should be before the Judge. petitions. In Roberts Jr., this Court, through Mr.
transcripts of stenographic notes (if any), and all Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., set aside the order of
other supporting documents behind the Prosecutors The extent of the Judges personal examination of the respondent judge directing inter alia the
certification which are material in assisting the the report and its annexes depends on the issuance of warrants of arrest against the accused,
Judge to make his determination. circumstances of each case. We cannot determine reasoning that said judge did not personally
beforehand how cursory or exhaustive the Judges determine the existence of probable cause, since he
And third, Judges and Prosecutors alike should examination should be. The Judge has to exercise had only the information, amended information, and
distinguish the preliminary inquiry which determines sound discretion for, after all, the personal Joint Resolution as bases thereof. He did not have
probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of determination is vested in the Judge by the the records or evidence supporting the prosecutors
arrest from the preliminary investigation proper Constitution. It can be as brief or as detailed as the finding of probable cause.
which ascertains whether the offender should be circumstances of each case require. To be sure, the
Judge must go beyond the Prosecutors certification In like manner, herein Respondent
held for trial or released. Even if the two inquiries are
and investigation report whenever necessary. He Sandiganbayan had only the information filed by the
conducted in the course of one and the same
should call for [the] complainant and [the] witnesses Office of the Ombudsman, the thirteen-page
proceeding, there should be no confusion about the
themselves to answer the courts probing questions resolution of the investigating officer and the three-
objectives. The determination of probable cause for
when the circumstances of the case so page memorandum of the prosecution officer, when
the warrant of arrest is made by the Judge. The
require.[15][underscoring supplied] it issued the warrant of arrest against the
preliminary investigation proper -- whether or not
petitioners. The latter two documents/reports even
there is reasonable ground to believe that the
had dissimilar recommendations -- the first indicting
accused is guilty of the offense charged and, The above rulings in Soliven, Inting and Lim
only Petitioner Narciso, the second including
therefore, whether or not he should be subjected to Sr. were iterated in Allado vs. Diokno[16] where we
Petitioner Ho. This alone should have prompted the
the expense, rigors and embarrassment of trial -- is explained again what probable cause
public respondent to verify, in the records and other
the function of the Prosecutor.[12] means. Probable cause for the issuance of a
documents submitted by the parties during the
warrant of arrest is the existence of such facts and
preliminary investigation, whether there was
And clarifying the statement in People vs. circumstances that would lead a reasonably
sufficient evidence to sustain the Ombudsmans
Delgado[13] -- that the trial court may rely on the discreet and prudent person to believe that an
action charging both petitioners with violation of
resolution of the COMELEC to file the information, offense has been committed by the person sought
Sec. 3(e) of Anti-Graft law. But in its initial
by the same token that it may rely on the certification to be arrested.[17] Hence, the judge, before issuing
justification of the issuance of the warrant, the
made by the prosecutor who conducted the a warrant of arrest, must satisfy himself that based
Sandiganbayan simply said:
preliminary investigation, in the issuance of the on the evidence submitted there is sufficient proof
warrant of arrest -- this Court underscored in Lim Sr. that a crime has been committed and that the
person to be arrested is probably guilty JUSTICE ESCAREAL:
vs. Felix[14] that [r]eliance on the COMELEC

30
 xxx xxx xxx respective recommendation which led the Second, since their objectives are different, the
Honorable Conrado M. Vasquez to approve the judge cannot rely solely on the report of the
But in this particular case we believe there is recommendations of Deputy Special Prosecutor prosecutor in finding probable cause to justify the
a prima facie case based on our examination of the Jose de G. Ferrer and Special Prosecutor Aniano A. issuance of a warrant of arrest. Obviously and
resolution because we believe, we think the Desierto for the filing of the information in the case understandably, the contents of the prosecutors
Ombudsman will not approve a resolution just like at bar. report will support his own conclusion that there is
that, without evidence to back it up.[22] reason to charge the accused of an offense and hold
xxx xxx xxx him for trial. However, the judge must
decide independently. Hence, he must have
In attempting to further justify its challenged supporting evidence, other than the
action, the public respondent explained in its Considering, therefore, that this Court did not rely
prosecutors bare report, upon which to legally
assailed Resolution: solely on the certification appearing in the sustain his own findings on the existence (or
information in this case in the determination of nonexistence) of probable cause to issue an arrest
In the instant case, there are attached to the whether probable cause exists to justify the order. This responsibility of determining personally
information, two (2) Memorandum/Resolution (sic) issuance of the warrant of arrest but also on the and independently the existence or nonexistence of
emanating from the Offices of the Ombudsman and basis predominantly shown by the facts and
probable cause is lodged in him by no less than the
the Special Prosecutor (Pp. 4-6, 7-19, respectively, evidence appearing in the resolution/memorandum
most basic law of the land. Parenthetically, the
Record) which clearly and indubitably of responsible investigators/ prosecutors, then the
prosecutor could ease the burden of the judge and
established, firstly, the conduct of a due and proper recall of the warrant of arrest, or the reconsideration
speed up the litigation process by forwarding to the
preliminary investigation, secondly, the approval by sought for, cannot be granted. More so, when the
latter not only the information and his bare resolution
proper officials clothed with statutory authority; information, as filed, clearly shows that it is sufficient
finding probable cause, but also so much of the
and thirdly, the determination and ascertainment of in form and substance based on the facts and
records and the evidence on hand as to enable His
probable cause based on the documentary evidence adduced by both parties during the
Honor to make his personal and separate judicial
evidence submitted by the complainant (Anti-Graft preliminary investigation. To require this Court to finding on whether to issue a warrant of arrest.[25]
League of the Philippines), foremost among which have the entire record of the preliminary
is the Contract of Affreightment entered into investigation to be produced before it, including the Lastly, it is not required that
between National Steel Corporation (NSC), and evidence submitted by the complainant and the the complete or entire records of the case during
National Marine Corporation (NMC) and the COA- accused-respondents, would appear to be an the preliminary investigation be submitted to and
NSC audit report, together with the counter- exercise in futility.[23] examined by the judge.[26] We do not intend to
affidavits of accused Rolando Narciso and NMC unduly burden trial courts by obliging them to
officials, among whom is accused-movant. Outlined In light of the aforecited decisions of this Court, examine the complete records of every case all the
in detail in the aforesaid Resolution of Titus P. such justification cannot be upheld. Lest we be too time simply for the purpose of ordering the arrest of
Labrador, Graft Investigation Officer II, which was repetitive, we only wish to emphasize three vital an accused. What is required, rather, is that the
reviewed by Attys. Romeo I. Tan and Arturo Mojica, matters once more: First, as held in Inting, the judge must have sufficient supporting documents
Director, Community Coordination Bureau and determination of probable cause by the prosecutor (such as the complaint, affidavits, counter-affidavits,
Assistant Ombudsman, PACPO, [respectively,] are is for a purpose different from that which is to be sworn statements of witnesses or transcripts of
the facts leading to the questioned transaction made by the judge. Whether there is reasonable stenographic notes, if any) upon which to make his
between NSC and NMC, together with an evaluation ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the independent judgment or, at the very least, upon
of the propriety and legality of the bidding process offense charged and should be held for trial is what which to verify the findings of the prosecutor as to
involved therein and which revealed that there were the prosecutor passes upon. The judge, on the the existence of probable cause. The point is: he
supposed non-compliance with proper bidding other hand, determines whether a warrant of arrest cannot rely solely and entirely on the prosecutors
procedures. GIO Labradors findings and should be issued against the accused, i.e. whether recommendation, as Respondent Court did in this
recommendations, extensively set out in his there is a necessity for placing him under immediate case. Although the prosecutor enjoys the legal
thirteen-page resolution, is complemented by the custody in order not to frustrate the ends of presumption of regularity in the performance of his
three-page Memorandum of Special Prosecution justice.[24] Thus, even if both should base their official duties and functions, which in turn gives his
Officer II Leonardo P. Tamayo, both of which findings on one and the same proceeding or report the presumption of accuracy, the
meticulously delved into the merits and demerits of evidence, there should be no confusion as to their Constitution, we repeat, commands the judge
the evidence presented by the complainant and distinct objectives. to personally determine probable cause in the
accused-respondents and which resulted in their issuance of warrants of arrest. This Court has

31
consistently held that a judge fails in his bounden finding of probable cause. But it stubbornly stood assails the following orders and warrant issued by
duty if he relies merely on the certification or the pat on its position that it had essentially complied respondent judge Hon. Juanita Guerrero of the
report of the investigating officer. with its responsibility.Indisputably, however, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa City,
procedure it undertook contravenes the Constitution Branch 204, in Criminal Case No. 17-165,
True, in Webb vs. De Leon, we found that the and settled jurisprudence. Respondent Court entitled "People vs. Leila De Lima, et al.:" (1)
painstaking recital and analysis of the parties palpably committed grave abuse of discretion the Order dated February 23, 2017 finding probable
evidence made in the DOJ Panel Report satisfied in ipso facto issuing the challenged warrant of arrest cause for the issuance of warrant of arrest against
both judges that there [was] probable cause to issue on the sole basis of the prosecutors findings and petitioner De Lima; (2) the Warrant of Arrest against
warrants of arrest against petitioners. This recommendation, and without determining on its De Lima also dated February 23, 2017; (3)
statement may have been wrongly construed by the own the issue of probable cause based on evidence the Order dated February 24, 2017 committing the
public respondent to mean that the narration or other than such bare findings and recommendation. petitioner to the custody of the PNP Custodial
description of portions of the evidence in the Center; and finally, (4) the supposed omission of the
prosecutors report may serve as sufficient basis to WHEREFORE, the petitions are GRANTED and respondent judge to act on petitioner's Motion to
make its own independent judgment. What it should the assailed Resolution is SET ASIDE. The warrant Quash, through which she questioned the
bear in mind, however, is that, aside from the 26- issued by the Sandiganbayan (Second Division) on jurisdiction of the RTC.2
page report of the DOJ panel, the sworn statements May 20, 1992 in Case No. 17674 for the arrest of
of three witnesses and counter-affidavits of the Petitioners Doris Teresa Ho and Rolando Narciso
petitioners in Webb were also submitted to the trial is hereby declared NULL AND VOID. Antecedents
court, and the latter is presumed to have reviewed
these documents as well, prior to its issuance of the The facts are undisputed. The Senate and the
G.R. No. 229781
warrants of arrest. House of Representatives conducted several
inquiries on the proliferation of dangerous drugs
In the instant case, the public respondent SENATOR LEILA M. DE LIMA, Petitioner syndicated at the New Bilibid Prison (NBP), inviting
relied fully and completely upon the resolution of the vs. inmates who executed affidavits in support of their
graft investigation officer and the memorandum of HON. JUANITA GUERRERO, in her capacity as testimonies.3 These legislative inquiries led to the
the reviewing prosecutor, attached to the Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of filing of the following complaints with the
information filed before it, and its conjecture that the Muntinlupa City, Branch 204, PEOPLE OF THE Department of Justice:
Ombudsman would not have approved their PHILIPPINES, P/DIR. GEN. RONALD M. DELA
recommendation without supporting evidence. It ROSA, in his capacity as Chief of the Philippine
a) NPS No. XVI-INV-16J-00313,
had no other documents from either the complainant National Police, PSUPT. PHILIP GIL M.
entitled "Volunteers against Crime and
(the Anti-Graft League of the Philippines) or the PHILIPPS, in his capacity as Director,
Corruption (VACC), represented by Dante
People from which to sustain its own conclusion that Headquarters Support Service, SUPT. ARNEL
Jimenez vs. Senator Leila M. De Lima, et
probable cause exists. Clearly and ineluctably, JAMANDRON APUD, in his capacity as Chief,
al.;"
Respondent Courts findings of the conduct of a due PNP Custodial Service Unit, and ALL PERSONS
and proper preliminary investigation and the ACTING UNDER THEIR CONTROL,
approval by proper officials clothed with statutory SUPERVISION, INSTRUCTION OR DIRECTION b) NPS No. XVI-INV-16J-00315,
authority are not equivalent to IN RELATION TO THE ORDERS THAT MAY BE entitled "Reynaldo Esmeralda and Ruel
the independent and personal responsibility ISSUED BY THE COURT, Respondents Lasala vs. Senator Leila De Lima, et al.;"
required by the Constitution and settled
jurisprudence. At least some of the documentary DECISION c) NPS No. XVI-INV-16K-00331,
evidence mentioned (Contract of Affreightment entitled "Jaybee Nifio Sebastian,
between National Steel Corporation and National represented by his wife Roxanne
Marine Corporation, the COA-NSC audit report, and VELASCO, JR., J.:
Sebastian, vs. Senator Leila M De Lima, et
counter-affidavits of Rolando Narciso and NMC al.;" and
officials), upon which the investigating officials of the For consideration is the Petition for Certiorari and
Ombudsman reportedly ascertained the existence Prohibition with Application for a Writ of Preliminary
d) NPS No. XVI-INV-16K-00336,
of probable cause, should have been physically Injunction, and Urgent Prayer for Temporary
entitled "National Bureau of Investigation
present before the public respondent for its Restraining Order and Status Quo Ante
(NBI) vs. Senator Leila M. De Lima, et al. "4
examination, to enable it to determine on its own Order1 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed by
whether there is substantial evidence to support the petitioner Senator Leila De Lima. In it, petitioner

32
Pursuant to DOJ Department Order No. 790, the Panel over the complaints against her. The weekly "tara" each from the high profile inmates in
four cases were consolidated and the DOJ Panel of petitions, docketed as CA-G.R. No. 149097 and CA- the New Bilibid Prison.19
Prosecutors (DOJ Panel),5 headed by Senior G.R. No. SP No. 149385, are currently pending with
Assistant State Prosecutor Peter Ong, was directed the Special 6th Division of the appellate On February 20, 2017, petitioner filed a Motion to
to conduct the requisite preliminary investigation.6 court.15Meanwhile, in the absence of a restraining Quash,20mainly raising the following: the RTC lacks
order issued by the Court of Appeals, the DOJ Panel jurisdiction over the offense charged against
The DOJ Panel conducted a preliminary hearing on proceeded with the conduct of the preliminary petitioner; the DOJ Panel lacks authority to file the
December 2, 2016,7 wherein the petitioner, through investigation16 and, in its Joint Resolution dated Information; the Information charges more than one
her counsel, filed an Omnibus Motion to February 14, 2017,17 recommended the filing of offense; the allegations and the recitals of facts do
Immediately Endorse the Cases to the Office of the Informations against petitioner De Lima. not allege the corpus delicti of the charge; the
Ombudsman and for the Inhibition of the Panel of Accordingly, on February 17, 2017, Information is based on testimonies of witnesses
Prosecutors and the Secretary of Justice ("Omnibus three Informations were filed against petitioner De who are not qualified to be discharged as state
Motion").8 In the main, the petitioner argued that the Lima and several co-accused before the RTC witnesses; and the testimonies of these witnesses
Office of the Ombudsman has the exclusive ofMuntinlupa City. One of the Infonnations was are hearsay.21
authority and jurisdiction to hear the four complaints docketed as Criminal Case No. 17-16518 and raffled
against her. Further, alleging evident partiality on off to Branch 204, presided by respondent judge.
On February 23, 2017, respondent judge issued the
the part of the DOJ Panel, the petitioner contended This Information charging petitioner for violation of
presently assailed Order 22finding probable cause
that the DOJ prosecutors should inhibit themselves Section 5 in relation to Section (jj), Section 26(b),
for the issuance of warrants of arrest against De
and refer the complaints to the Office of the and Section 28 of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165,
Lima and her co-accused. The Order stated, viz.:
Ombudsman. contained the following averments:

That within the period from November 2012 to After a careful evaluation of the herein Information
A hearing on the Omnibus Motion was conducted and all the evidence presented during the
on December 9, 2016,9 wherein the complainants, March 2013, in the City of Muntinlupa, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, preliminary investigation conducted in this case by
YACC, Reynaldo Esmeralda (Esmeralda) and Ruel the Department of Justice, Manila, the Court finds
Lasala (Lasala), filed a Joint Comment/Opposition accused Leila M. De Lima, being then the Secretary
of the Department of Justice, and accused Rafael sufficient probable cause for the issuance of
to the Omnibus Motion. 10 Warrants of Arrest against all the accused LEILA M.
Marcos Z. Rages, being then the Officer-in-Charge
DE LIMA, RAFAEL MARCOS Z. RAGOS and
of the Bureau of Corrections, by taking advantage of
On December 12, 2016, petitioner, in turn, RONNIE P ALISOC DAYAN.
their public office, conspiring and confederating with
interposed a Reply to the Joint
accused Ronnie P. Dayan, being then an employee
Comment/Opposition filed by complainants VACC, WHEREFORE, let Warrants of Arrest be issued
of the Department of Justice detailed to De Lima, all
Esmeralda and Lasala. In addition, petitioner against the abovementioned accused.
of them having moral ascendancy or influence over
submitted a Manifestation with Motion to First
inmates in the New Bilibid Prison, did then and there
Resolve Pending Incident and to Defer Further
commit illegal drug trading, in the following manner: SO ORDERED.23
Proceedings. 11
De Lima and Ragos, with the use of their power,
position, and authority, demand, solicit and extort Accordingly, the questioned Warrant of Arrest dated
During the hearing conducted on December 21, money from the high profile inmates in the New February 23, 2017 ,24 which contained no
2016, petitioner manifested that she has decided Bilibid Prison to support the senatorial bid of De recommendation for bail, was issued against
not to submit her counter-affidavit citing the Lima in the May 2016 election; by reason of which, petitioner.
pendency of her two motions.12 The DOJ Panel, the inmates, not being lawfully authorized by law
however, ruled that it will not entertain belatedly filed and through the use of mobile phones and other
counter-affidavits, and declared all pending electronic devices, did then and there willfully and On February 24, 2017, the PNP Investigation and
incidents and the cases as submitted for resolution. unlawfully trade and traffic dangerous drugs, and Detection Group served the Warrant of Arrest on
Petitioner moved for but was denied reconsideration thereafter give and deliver to De Lima, through petitioner and the respondent judge issued the
by the DOJ Panel.13 Ragos and Dayan, the proceeds of illegal drug assailed February 24, 2017 Order,25 committing
trading amounting to Five Million (₱5,000,000.00) petitioner to the custody of the PNP Custodial
Pesos on 24 November 2012, Five Million Center.
On January 13, 2017, petitioner filed before the
Court of Appeals a Petition for Prohibition and (₱5,000,000.00) Pesos on 15 December 2012, and
Certiorari14assailing the jurisdiction of the DOJ One Hundred Thousand (₱100,000.00) Pesos

33
On February 27, 2017, petitioner repaired to this raised. The Court then heard the parties in oral C. Whether or not petitioner, in filing the present
court via the present petition, praying for the arguments on March 14, 21, and 28, 2017.29 petition, violated the rule against forum shopping
following reliefs: given the pendency of the Motion to Quash the
In the meantime, the OSG filed a Manifestation Information before the Regional Trial Court of
a. Granting a writ of certiorari annulling and setting dated March 13, 2017,30 claiming that petitioner Muntinlupa City in Criminal Case No. 17-165 and
aside the Order dated 23 February 2017, falsified the juratsappearing in the: (1) Verification the Petition for Certiorari filed before the Court of
the Warrant of Arrest dated the same date, and and Certification against Forum Shopping page of Appeals in C.A. G.R. SP No. 149097, assailing the
the Order dated 24 February 2017 of the Regional her petition; and (2) Affidavit of Merit in support of preliminary investigation conducted by the DOJ
Trial Court - Branch 204, Muntinlupa City, in her prayer for injunctive relief. The OSG alleged that Panel.
Criminal Case No. 17-165 entitled People of the while the advertedjurats appeared to be notarized
Philippines versus Leila M De Lima, et al.; by a certain Atty. Maria Cecille C. Tresvalles-Cabalo Substantive Issues:
on February 24, 2017, the guest logbook31 in the A. Whether the Regional Trial Court or the
b. Granting a writ of prohibition enjoining and PNP Custodial Center Unit in Camp Crame for Sandiganbayan has the jurisdiction over the
prohibiting respondent judge from conducting February 24, 2017 does not bear the name of Atty. violation of Republic Act No. 9165 averred in the
further proceedings until and unless the Motion to Tresvalles-Cabalo. Thus, so the OSG maintained, assailed Information.
Quash is resolved with finality; petitioner De Lima did not actually appear and
swear before the notary public on such date in B. Whether or not the respondent gravely abused
Quezon City, contrary to the allegations in her discretion in finding probable cause to issue
c. Issuing an order granting the application for the
the jurats. For the OSG, the petition should the Warrant of Arrest against petitioner.
issuance of temporary restraining order (TRO) and therefore be dismissed outright for the falsity
a writ of preliminary injunction to the proceedings; committed by petitioner De Lima.
and C. Whether or not petitioner is entitled to a
Temporary Restraining Order and/or Status Quo
In compliance with an Order of this Court, petitioner Ante Order in the interim until the instant petition is
d. Issuing a Status Quo Ante Order restoring the
filed the Affidavit of Atty. Maria Cecille C. resolved or until the trial court rules on the Motion
parties to the status prior to the issuance of the
Tresvalles-Cabalo dated March 20, 201732 to shed to Quash.
Order and Warrant of Arrest, both dated February light on the allegations of falsity in petitioner'sjurats.
23, 201 7, thereby recalling both processes and
restoring petitioner to her liberty and freedom.26 OUR RULING
The parties simultaneously filed their respective
Memoranda on April 17, 2017.33
On March 9, 2017, the Office of the Solicitor General Before proceeding to a discussion on the outlined
(OSG), on behalf of the respondents, interposed its issues, We shall first confront the issue of the
Comment to the petition.27 The OSG argued that the The Issues alleged falsification committed by petitioner in
petition should be dismissed as De Lima failed to the jurats of her Verification and Certification
show that she has no other plain, speedy, and From the pleadings and as delineated in this against Forum Shopping and Affidavit of Merit in
adequate remedy. Further, the OSG posited that the Court's Advisory dated March 10, 201734 and support of her prayer for injunctive relief.
petitioner did not observe the hierarchy of courts discussed by the parties during the oral arguments,
and violated the rule against forum shopping. On the issues for resolution by this Court are: In her Affidavit, Atty. Tresvalles-Cabalo disproves
substantive grounds, the OSG asserted inter the OSG's allegation that she did not notarize the
alia that the RTC has jurisdiction over the offense Procedural Issues: petitioner's Verification and Certification against
charged against the petitioner, that the respondent A Whether or not petitioner is excused from Forum Shopping and Affidavit of Merit in this wise:
judge observed the constitutional and procedural compliance with the doctrine on hierarchy of courts
rules, and so did not commit grave abuse of considering that the petition should first be filed 4. On February 24, 2017 at or around nine in the
discretion, in the issuance of the assailed orders and with the Court of Appeals.
warrant.28 morning (9:00 AM), I went to PNP, CIDG, Camp
Crame, Quezon City to notarize the Petition as
B. Whether or not the pendency of the Motion to discussed the previous night.
On petitioner's motion, the Court directed the Quash the Information before the trial court renders
holding of oral arguments on the significant issues the instant petition premature. 5. I met Senator De Lima when she was brought to
the CIDG at Camp Crame and I was informed that

34
the Petition was already signed and ready for to the jurats (i.e., the certifications of the notary records." "A pleading required to be verified which x
notarization. public at the end of the instruments) signed by Atty. x x lacks a proper verification, shall be treated as an
Tresvalles-Cabalo that the documents were unsigned pleading." Meanwhile, Section 5, Rule 7 of
6. I was then provided the Petition by her staff. I "SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me." the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "[t]he
examined the signature of Senator De Lima and plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in
confirmed that it was signed by her. I have known Such clear breach of notarial protocol is highly the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a
the signature of the senator given our personal censurable36 as Section 6, Rule II of the 2004 claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed
relationship. Nonetheless, I still requested from her Rules on Notarial Practice requires the affiant, thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that
staff a photocopy of any of her government-issued petitioner De Lima in this case, to sign the he has not theretofore commenced any action or
valid Identification Cards (ID) bearing her instrument or document in the presence of the filed any claim involving the same issues in any
signature. A photocopy of her passport was notary, viz.: court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the
presented to me. I compared the signatures on the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim
Petition and the Passport and I was able to verify is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending
SECTION 6. Jurat. - "Jurat" refers to an act in action or claim, a complete statement of the present
that the Petition was in fact signed by her. which an individual on a single occasion:
Afterwards, I attached the photocopy of her status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn
Passport to the Petition which I appended to my that the same or similar action or claim has been
Notarial Report/Record. (a) appears in person before the notary public and filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five
presents an instrument or document; (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid
complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed."
7. Since I already know that Sen. De Lima caused
(b) is personally known to the notary public or "Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements
the preparation of the Petition and that it was her
identified by the notary public through competent shall not be curable by mere amendment of the
who signed the same, I stamped and signed the
evidence of identity as defined by these Rules; complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be
same.
cause for the dismissal of the case without
(c) signs the instrument or document in the prejudice, unless otherwise provided x x x."
8. To confirm with Senator De Lima that I have
presence of the notary; and
already notarized the Petition, I sought entry to the In this case, when petitioner De Lima failed to sign
detention facility at or around three in the afternoon
(d) takes an oath or affirmation before the notary the Verification and Certification against Forum
(3:00 PM). x x x
public as to such instrument or Shopping in the presence of the notary, she has
document.(Emphasis and underscoring supplied.) likewise failed to properly swear under oath the
xxxx contents thereof, thereby rendering false and null
the jurat and invalidating the Verification and
While there is jurisprudence to the effect that "an Certification against Forum Shopping. The
11. Since I was never cleared after hours of
irregular notarization merely reduces the evidentiary significance of a proper jurat and the effect of its
waiting, I was not able to talk again to Senator De
value of a document to that of a private document, invalidity was elucidated in William Go Que
Lima to confirm the notarization of the Petition. I
then decided to leave Camp Crame.35 which requires /roof of its due execution and Construction v. Court of Appeals,39where this Court
authenticity to be admissible as evidence,"37 the held that:
same cannot be considered controlling in
At first glance, it is curious that Atty. Tresvalles- determining compliance with the requirements of
Cabalo who claims to have "stamped and signed Sections 1 and 2, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. In .this case, it is undisputed that the
the [Verification and Certification and Affidavit of Both Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 6538 require that the Verification/Certification against Forum Shopping
Merit]" inside Camp Crame, presumably in De petitions for certiorari and prohibition must be attached to the petition for certiorari in CA-G.R. SP
Lima's presence, still found it necessary to, hours verified and accompanied by a "sworn certificate of No. 109427 was not accompanied with a valid
later, "confirm with Senator De Lima that [she had] non-forum shopping." affidavit/properly certified under oath. This was
already notarized the Petition." Nonetheless, because the jurat thereof was defective in that it did
assuming the veracity of the allegations narrated in not indicate the pertinent details regarding the
In this regard, Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil affiants' (i.e., private respondents) competent
the Affidavit, it is immediately clear that petitioner
De Lima did not sign the Verification and Procedure states that "[a] pleading is verified by an evidence of identities.
Certification against Forum Shopping and Affidavit affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and
of Merit in front of the notary public. This is contrary that the allegations therein are true and correct of
his personal knowledge or based on authentic

35
Under Section 6, Rule II of AM. No. 02-8-13-SC 63 similar action has been filed or is pending in cognizance of this Court.42 In Salum bides, Jr. v.
dated July 6, 2004, entitled the "2004 Rules on another forum. Office of the Ombudsman,43the Court held thus:
Notarial Practice" (2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice), ajurat refers to an act in which an xxxx The Court has distinguished the effects of non-
individual on a single occasion: compliance with the requirement of verification and
Case law states that "[v]erification is required to that of certification against forum shopping.
xxxx secure an assurance that the allegations in the A defective verification shall be treated as an
petition have been made in good faith or are true unsigned pleading and thus produces no legal
In Fernandez v. Villegas (Fernandez), the Court and correct, and not merely speculative." On the effect, subject to the discretion of the court to allow
pronounced that noncompliance with the verification other hand, "[t]he certification against forum the deficiency to be remedied, while the failure to
requirement or a defect therein "does not shopping is required based on the principle that a certifv against forum shopping shall be cause for
necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. party-litigant should not be allowed to pursue dismissal without prejudice, unless otherwise
The court may order its submission or correction or simultaneous remedies in different fora." The provided, and is not curable by amendment of the
act on the pleading if the attending circumstances important purposes behind these requirements initiatory pleading. (Emphasis and italicization from
are such that strict compliance with the Rule may be cannot be simply brushed aside absent any the original.)
dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may sustainable explanation justifying their relaxation.
be served thereby." "Verification is deemed In this case, proper justification is especially called Notably, petitioner has not proffered any reason to
substantially complied with when one who has for in light of the serious allegations of forgery as to justify her failure to sign the Verification and
ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the the signatures of the remaining private Certification Against Forum Shopping in the
allegations in the complaint or petition signs the respondents, i.e., Lominiqui and Andales. Thus, by presence of the notary. There is, therefore, no
verification, and when matters alleged in the petition simply treating the insufficient submissions before justification to relax the rules and excuse the
have been made in good faith or are true and it as compliance with its Resolution dated August petitioner's non-compliance therewith. This Court
correct." Here, there was no substantial compliance 13, 2009 requiring anew the submission of a had reminded parties seeking the ultimate relief
with the verification requirement as it cannot be proper verification/certification against forum of certiorari to observe the rules, since
ascertained that any of the private respondents shopping, the CA patently and grossly ignored nonobservance thereof cannot be brushed aside
actually swore to the truth of the allegations in the settled procedural rules and, hence, gravely as a "mere technicality."44 Procedural rules are not
petition for certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No. 109427 abused its discretion. All things considered, the to be belittled or simply disregarded, for these
given the lack of competent evidence of any of their proper course of action was for it to dismiss the prescribed procedures ensure an orderly and
identities. Because of this, the fact that even one of petition.40 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.) speedy administration of justice.45 Thus, as
the private respondents swore that the allegations in in William Go Que Construction, the proper course
the pleading are true and correct of his knowledge Without the presence of the notary upon the of action is to dismiss outright the present petition.
and belief is shrouded in doubt. signing of the Verification and Certification against
Forum Shopping, there is no assurance that the Even if We set aside this procedural infirmity, the
For the same reason, neither was there substantial petitioner swore under oath that the allegations in petition just the same merits denial on several
compliance with the certification against forum the petition have been made in good faith or are other grounds.
shopping requirement. In Fernandez, the Court true and correct, and not merely speculative. It
explained that "non-compliance therewith or a must be noted that verification is not an empty PETITIONER DISREGARDED THE HIERARCHY
defect therein, unlike in verification, is generally not ritual or a meaningless formality. Its import must OF COURTS
curable by its subsequent submission or correction never be sacrificed in the name of mere
thereof, unless there is a need to relax the Rule on expedience or sheer caprice,41as what apparently
Trifling with the rule on hierarchy of courts is
the ground of 'substantial compliance' or presence happened in the present case. Similarly, the
of 'special circumstances or compelling reasons."' absence of the notary public when petitioner looked upon with disfavor by this Court.46 It will not
Here, the CA did not mention - nor does there exist allegedly affixed her signature also negates a entertain direct resort to it when relief can be
- any perceivable special circumstance or proper attestation that forum shopping has not obtained in the lower courts.47 The Court has
compelling reason which justifies the rules' been committed by the filing of the petition. Thus, repeatedly emphasized that the rule on hierarchy
relaxation. At all events, it is uncertain if any of the the petition is, for all intents and purposes, an of courts is an important component of the orderly
private respondents certified under oath that no unsigned pleading that does not deserve the administration of justice and not imposed merely
for whimsical and arbitrary reasons.48 In The
Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on

36
Elections,49the Court explained the reason for the The Court of Appeals is primarily designed as an Unfortunately, none of these exceptions were
doctrine thusly: appellate court that reviews the determination of sufficiently established in the present petition so as
facts and law made by the trial courts. It is to convince this court to brush aside the rules on
The Court must enjoin the observance of the policy collegiate in nature. This nature ensures more the hierarchy of courts.
on the hierarchy of courts, and now affirms that the standpoints in the review of the actions of the trial
policy is not to be ignored without serious court. But the Court of Appeals also has original Petitioner's allegation that her case has sparked
consequences. The strictness of the policy is jurisdiction over most special civil actions. Unlike national and international interest is obviously not
designed to shield the Court from having to deal the trial courts, its writs can have a nationwide covered by the exceptions to the rules on hierarchy
with causes that are also well within the scope. It is competent to determine facts and, of courts. The notoriety of a case, without more, is
competence of the lower courts, and thus leave ideally, should act on constitutional issues that may not and will not be a reason for this Court's
time for the Court to deal with the more not necessarily be novel unless there are factual decisions. Neither will this Court be swayed to
fundamental and more essential tasks that the questions to determine. relax its rules on the bare fact that the petitioner
Constitution has assigned to it. The Court may act belongs to the minority party in the present
on petitions for the extraordinary writs of certiorari, This court, on the other hand, leads the judiciary by administration. A primary hallmark of an
prohibition and mandamus only when absolutely breaking new ground or further reiterating - in the independent judiciary is its political neutrality. This
necessary or when serious and important reasons light of new circumstances or in the light of some Court is thus loath to perceive and consider the
exist to justify an exception to the policy. confusion of bench or bar - existing precedents. issues before it through the warped prisms of
Rather than a court of first instance or as a political partisanships.
xxxx repetition of the actions of the Court of Appeals,
this court promulgates these doctrinal devices in That the petitioner is a senator of the republic does
order that it truly performs that role.50 (Emphasis not also merit a special treatment of her case. The
The doctrine that requires respect for the hierarchy supplied.)
of courts was created by this court to ensure that right to equal treatment before the law accorded to
every level of the judiciary performs its designated every Filipino also forbids the elevation of
roles in an effective and efficient manner. Trial Nonetheless, there are recognized exceptions to petitioner's cause on account of her position and
courts do not only determine the facts from the this rule and direct resort to this Court were status in the government.
evaluation of the evidence presented before them. allowed in some instances. These exceptions were
They are likewise competent to determine issues of summarized in a case of recent vintage, Aala v. Further, contrary to her position, the matter
law which may include the validity of an ordinance, Uy, as follows: presented before the Court is not of first
statute, or even an executive issuance in relation to impression. Petitioner is not the first public official
the Constitution. To effectively perform these In a fairly recent case, we summarized other well- accused of violating RA 9165 nor is she the first
functions, they are territorially organized into defined exceptions to the doctrine on hierarchy of defendant to question the finding of probable
regions and then into branches. Their writs courts. Immediate resort to this Court may be cause for her arrest. In fact, stripped of all political
generally reach within those territorial boundaries. allowed when any of the following grounds are complexions, the controversy involves run-of-the
Necessarily, they mostly perform the all-important present: (1) when genuine issues of mill matters that could have been resolved with
task of inferring the facts from the evidence as constitutionality are raised that must be addressed ease by the lower court had it been given a chance
these are physically presented before them. In immediately; (2) when the case involves to do so in the first place.
many instances, the facts occur within their transcendental importance; (3) when the case is
territorial jurisdiction, which properly present the novel; (4) when the constitutional issues raised are In like manner, petitioner's argument that the rule
"actual case" that makes ripe a determination of better decided by this Court; (5) when time is of the on the hierarchy of court should be disregarded as
the constitutionality of such action. The essence; (6) when the subject of review involves her case involves pure questions of law does not
consequences, of course, would be national in acts of a constitutional organ; (7) when there is no obtain. One of the grounds upon which petitioner
scope. There are, however, some cases where other plain, speedy, adequate remedy in the anchors her case is that the respondent judge
resort to courts at their level would not be practical ordinary course of law; (8) when the petition erred and committed grave abuse of discretion in
considering their decisions could still be appealed includes questions that may affect public welfare, finding probable cause to issue her arrest. By itself,
before the higher courts, such as the Court of public policy, or demanded by the broader interest this ground removes the case from the ambit of
Appeals. of justice; (9) when the order complained of was a cases involving pure questions of law. It is
patent nullity; and (10) when the appeal was established that the issue of whether or not
considered as an inappropriate remedy.51 probable cause exists for the issuance of warrants

37
for the arrest of the accused is a question of fact, Order dated 24 February 2017 of the Regional Trial Moreover, petitioner under paragraphs (c) and (d)
determinable as it is from a review of the CourtBranch 204, Muntinlupa City, in Criminal prayed for a TRO and writ of preliminary injunction
allegations in the Information, the Resolution of the Case No. 17-165 entitled People of the Philippines and a status quo ante order which easily reveal her
Investigating Prosecutor, including other versus Leila M De Lima et al.; real motive in filing the instant petition-to restore to
documents and/ or evidence appended to the "petitioner her liberty and freedom."
Information.52 This matter, therefore, should have b. Granting a writ of prohibition enjoining and
first been brought before the appellate court, which prohibiting respondent judge from conducting Nowhere in the prayer did petitioner explicitly ask
is in the better position to review and determine further proceedings until and unless the Motion to for the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 17-165.
factual matters. Quash is resolved with finality; What is clear is she merely asked the respondent
judge to rule on her Motion to Quash before issuing
Yet, petitioner harps on the supposed judicial c. Issuing an order granting the application for the the warrant of arrest.
efficiency and economy of abandoning the rule on issuance of temporary restraining order (TRO) and
the hierarchy of courts in the present case. Indeed, a writ of preliminary injunction to the proceedings; In view of the foregoing, there is no other course of
the Court has considered the practical aspects of and action to take than to dismiss the petition on the
the administration of justice in deciding to apply the ground of prematurity and allow respondent Judge
exceptions rather than the rule. However, it is all to rule on the Motion to Quash according to the
d. Issuing a Status Quo Ante Order restoring the
the more for these practical considerations that the desire of petitioner.
parties to the status prior to the issuance of the
Court must insist on the application of the rule and
Order and Warrant of Arrest, both dated February
not the exceptions in this case. As petitioner
herself alleges, with the President having declared 23, 201 7, thereby recalling both processes and This Court, in Solid Builders Inc. v. China Banking
the fight against illegal drugs and corruption as restoring petitioner to her liberty and Corp., explained why a party should not pre-empt
freedom.55 (Emphasis supplied) the action of a trial court:
central to his platform of government, there will be
a spike of cases brought before the courts
involving drugs and public officers.53 As it now Under paragraph (a), petitioner asks for a writ Even Article 1229 of the Civil Code, which SBI and
stands, there are 232,557 criminal cases involving of certiorari annulling the Order dated February 23, MFII invoke, works against them. Under that
drugs, and around 260,796 criminal cases 2017 finding probable cause, the warrant of arrest provision, the equitable reduction of the penalty
involving other offenses pending before the R and the Order dated February 24, 2017 committing stipulated by the parties in their contract will be
TCs.54 This Court cannot thus allow a precedent petitioner to the custody of the PNP Custodial based on a finding by the court that such penalty is
allowing public officers assailing the finding of Center. Clearly petitioner seeks the recall of said iniquitous or unconscionable. Here, the trial court
probable cause for the issuance of arrest warrants orders to effectuate her release from detention and has not yet made a ruling as to whether the penalty
to be brought directly to this Court, bypassing the restore her liberty. She did not ask for the dismissal agreed upon by CBC with SBI and MFII is
appellate court, without any compelling reason. of the subject criminal case. unconscionable. Such finding will be made by the
trial court only after it has heard both parties and
THE PRESENT PETITION IS PREMATURE More importantly, her request for the issuance of a weighed their respective evidence in light of all
writ of prohibition under paragraph (b) of the prayer relevant circumstances. Hence, for SBI and MFII to
"until and unless the Motion to Quash is resolved claim any right or benefit under that provision at
The prematurity of the present petition is at once this point is premature.59 (Emphasis supplied)
with finality," is an unmistakable admission that the
betrayed in the reliefs sought by petitioner's
RTC has yet to rule on her Motion to Quash and
Prayer, which to restate for added emphasis,
provides: the existence of the RTC's authority to rule on the In State of Investment House, Inc. v. Court of
said motion. This admission against interest binds Appeals,60the Court likewise held that a petition
the petitioner; an admission against interest being for certiorari can be resorted to only after the
WHEREFORE, premises considered, and in the the best evidence that affords the greatest certainty court a quo has already and actually rendered its
interest of substantial justice and fair play, of the facts in dispute.56 It is based on the decision. It held, viz.:
Petitioner respectfully prays the Honorable Court presumption that "no man would declare anything
that judgment be rendered: against himself unless such declaration is true. We note, however, that the appellate court never
"57 It can be presumed then that the declaration actually ruled on whether or not petitioner's right
a. Granting a writ of certiorari annulling and setting corresponds with the truth, and it is her fault if it had prescribed. It merely declared that it was in a
aside the Order dated 23 February 2017, does not.58 position to so rule and thereafter required the
the Warrant of Arrest dated the same date, and the

38
parties to submit memoranda. In making such a prematurity in those cases. Instead, what was (a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity
declaration, did the CA commit grave abuse of stressed therein was that the lower courts had not of any treaty, international or executive agreement,
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction? It did yet made, nor was not given the opportunity to law, presidential decree, proclamation, order,
not. make, a ruling before the parties came before this instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question.
forum.
xxxx (b) All cases involving the legality of any tax,
Indeed, the prematurity of the present petition impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed
All things considered, this petition cannot be over-emphasized considering that in relation thereto.
is premature. The CA has decided nothing and petitioner is actually asking the Court to rule on
whatever petitioner's vehement objections may be some of the grounds subject of her Motion to (c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower
(to any eventual ruling on the issue of prescription) Quash. The Court, if it rules positively in favor of court is in issue.
should be raised only after such ruling shall have petitioner regarding the grounds of the Motion to
actually been promulgated. Quash, will be preempting the respondent Judge
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed
from doing her duty to resolve the said motion and
is reclusion perpetua or higher.
even prejudge the case. This is clearly outside of
The situation evidently does not yet call for a
the ambit of orderly and expeditious rules of
recourse to a petition for certiorari under Rule (e) All cases in which only an error or question of
procedure. This, without a doubt, causes an
65.61(Italicization from the original. Emphasis law is involved. (Emphasis supplied.)
inevitable delay in the proceedings in the trial court,
supplied.)
as the latter abstains from resolving the incidents
until this Court rules with finality on the instant In the palpable absence of a ruling on the Motion
An analogous ruling was made by this Court petition. to Quash -- which puts the jurisdiction of the lower
in Diaz v. Nora, where it ruled in this wise: court in issue -- there is no controversy for this
Without such order, the present petition cannot Court to resolve; there is simply no final judgment
x x x In the case of the respondent labor arbiter, he satisfy the requirements set before this Court can or order of the lower court to review, revise,
has not denied the motion for execution filed by the exercise its review powers. Section 5 (2)(C) of reverse, modify, or affirm. As per the block letter
petitioner. He merely did not act on the same. Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution explicitly provision of the Constitution, this Court cannot
Neither had petitioner urged the immediate requires the existence of "final judgments and exercise its jurisdiction in a vacuum nor issue a
resolution of his motion for execution by said orders of lower courts" before the Court can definitive ruling on mere suppositions.
arbiter. In the case of the respondent NLRC, it was exercise its power to "review, revise, reverse,
not even given the opportunity to pass upon the modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari" in "all Succinctly, the present petition is immediately
question raised by petitioner as to whether or not it cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is dismissible for this Court lacks jurisdiction to review
has jurisdiction over the appeal, so the records of in issue," viz.: a non-existent court action. It can only act to
the case can be remanded to the respondent labor protect a party from a real and actual ruling by a
arbiter for execution of the decision. lower tribunal. Surely, it is not for this Court to
SECTION 5. The Supreme Court shall have the
following powers: negate "uncertain contingent future event that may
Obviously, petitioner had a plain, speedy and not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur
adequate remedy to seek relief from public at all," as the lower court's feared denial of the
(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases
respondents but he failed to avail himself of the subject Motion to Quash.63
affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and
same before coming to this Court. To say the least,
consuls, and over petitions for certiorari,
the petition is premature and must be struck The established rule is that courts of justice will
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas
down.62 (Emphasis supplied.) take cognizance only of controversies "wherein
corpus.
actual and not merely hypothetical issues are
The dissents would deny the applicability of the involved."64 The reason underlying the rule is "to
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on
foregoing on the ground that these were not prevent the courts through avoidance of premature
appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of
criminal cases that involved a pending motion to adjudication from entangling themselves in abstract
Court may provide, final judgments and orders of
quash. However, it should be obvious from the lower courts in: disagreements, and for us to be satisfied that the
afore-quoted excerpts that the nature of the cases case does not present a hypothetical injury or a
had nothing to do with this Court's finding of

39
claim contingent upon some event that has not and It is settled that forum shopping exists when a party We emphasize that the grave evil sought to be
indeed may never transpire."65 repetitively avails himself of several judicial avoided by the rule against forum-shopping is the
remedies in different courts, simultaneously or rendition by two competent tribunals of two separate
Even granting arguendo that what is invoked is the successively, all substantially founded on the same and contradictory decisions. To avoid any
original jurisdiction of this Court under Section 5 (1) transactions and the same essential facts and confusion, this Court adheres strictly to the rules
of Article VIII, the petition nonetheless falls short of circumstances, and all raising substantially the against forum shopping, and any violation of these
the Constitutional requirements and of Rule 65 of same issues either pending in, or already resolved rules results in the dismissal of a case. The acts
the Rules of Court. In the absence of a final adversely by, some other court. It is considered an committed and described herein can possibly
judgment, order, or ruling on the Motion to Quash act of malpractice as it trifles with the courts and constitute direct contempt.70
challenging the jurisdiction of the lower court, there abuses their processes.68 Thus, as elucidated
is no occasion for this Court to issue the in Luzon Iron Development Group Corporation v. This policy echoes the last sentence of Section 5,
extraordinary writ of certiorari. Without a judgment Bridgestone Mining and Development Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, which states that "[i]f
or ruling, there is nothing for this Court to declare Corporation,69forum shopping warrants the the acts of the party or his counsel clearly
as having been issued without jurisdiction or in immediate dismissal of the suits filed: constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the
grave abuse of discretion. same shall be ground for summary dismissal with
Forum shopping is the act of litigants who prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt as
Furthermore, it is a basic requirement under Rule repetitively avail themselves of multiple judicial well as a cause for administrative sanctions."
65 that there be "[no] other plain, speedy and remedies in different fora, simultaneously or
adequate remedy found in law."66 Thus, the failure successively, all substantially founded on the same The test to determine the existence of forum
to exhaust all other remedies, as will be later transactions and the same essential facts and shopping is whether the elements of litis
discussed, before a premature resort to this Court circumstances; and raising substantially similar pendentia, or whether a final judgment in one case
is fatal to the petitioner's cause of action. issues either pending in or already resolved amounts to res judicata in the other. Forum
adversely by some other court; or for the purpose of shopping therefore exists when the following
increasing their chances of obtaining a favorable elements are present: (a) identity of parties, or at
Petitioner even failed to move for the decision, if not in one court, then in another. The
reconsideration of the February 23 and 24, 2017 least such parties representing the same interests in
rationale against forum-shopping is that a party both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and
Orders she is currently assailing in this Petition. As
should not be allowed to pursue simultaneous reliefs prayed for, the relief being founded on the
this Court held in Estrada v. Office of the
remedies in two different courts, for to do so would same facts; and (c) the identity of the two preceding
Ombudsman, "[a] motion for reconsideration allows
constitute abuse of court processes which tends to particulars, such that any judgment rendered in the
the public respondent an opportunity to correct its
degrade the administration of justice, wreaks havoc other action will, regardless of which party is
factual and legal errors x x x [it] is mandatory
upon orderly judicial procedure, and adds to the successful, amount to res judicata in the action
before the filing of a petition for certiorari."67The
congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the under consideration.71
reasons proffered by petitioner fail to justify her courts.
present premature recourse.
Anent the first requisite, there is an identity of parties
xxxx when the parties in both actions are the same, or
Various policies and rules have been issued to
curb the tendencies of litigants to disregard, nay there is privity between them, or they are
violate, the rule enunciated in Section 5 of Article What is essential in determining the existence of successors-in-interest by title subsequent to the
VIII of the Constitution to allow the Court to devote forum-shopping is the vexation caused the courts commencement of the action litigating for the same
its time and attention to matters within its and litigants by a party who asks different courts thing and under the same title and in the same
jurisdiction and prevent the overcrowding of its and/or administrative agencies to rule on similar or capacity.72
docket. There is no reason to consider the related causes and/or grant the same or
proceedings at bar as an exception. substantially similar reliefs, in the process creating Meanwhile, the second and third requisites obtain
the possibility of conflicting decisions being where the same evidence necessary to sustain the
rendered upon the same issues. second cause of action is sufficient to authorize a
PETITIONER VIOLATED THE RULE AGAINST
FORUM SHOPPING recovery in the first, even if the forms or the nature
xxxx of the two (2) actions are different from each other.
If the same facts or evidence would sustain both, the
two (2) actions are considered the same within the

40
rule that the judgment in the former is a bar to the petitions for certiorari from the rule against forum petitioner's view, declaring that the Information
subsequent action; otherwise, it is not.73 shopping. charged against the petitioner is Direct Bribery.

All these requisites are present in this case. With the presence of the first two requisites, the third The respondents, on the other hand, maintain that
one necessarily obtains in the present case. Should the R TC has exclusive jurisdiction to try violations
The presence of the first requisite is at once we grant the petition and declare the RTC without of RA 9165, including the acts described in the
apparent. The petitioner is an accused in the jurisdiction over the offense, the RTC is bound to Information against the petitioner. The
criminal case below, while the respondents in this grant De Lima's Motion to Quash in deference to Sandiganbayan, so the respondents contend, was
case, all represented by the Solicitor General, have this Court's authority. In the alternative, if the trial specifically created as an anti-graft court. It was
substantial identity with the complainant in the court rules on the Motion to Quash in the interim, the never conferred with the power to try drug-related
criminal case still pending before the trial court. instant petition will be rendered moot and academic. cases even those committed by public officials. In
fact, respondents point out that the history of the
In situations like the factual milieu of this instant laws enabling and governing the Sandiganbayan
As for the second requisite, even a cursory reading
petition, while nobody can restrain a party to a case will reveal that its jurisdiction was streamlined to
of the petition and the Motion to Quash will reveal
before the trial court to institute a petition address specific cases of graft and corruption,
that the arguments and the reliefs prayed for are plunder, and acquisition of ill-gotten wealth.
essentially the same. In both, petitioner advances for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court,
the RTC's supposed lack of jurisdiction over the still such petition must be rejected outright because
offense, the alleged multiplicity of offenses included petitions that cover simultaneous actions are Before discussing the issue on jurisdiction over the
in the Information; the purported lack of the corpus anathema to the orderly and expeditious processing subject matter, it is necessary to clarify the crime
delicti of the charge, and, basically, the non- and adjudication of cases. with which the petitioner is being charged. For
existence of probable cause to indict her. And, ease of reference, the Information filed with the R
removed of all non-essentials, she essentially prays On the ground of forum shopping alone, the TC is restated below:
for the same thing in both the present petition and petition merits immediate dismissal.
the Motion to Quash: the nullification of the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Information and her restoration to liberty and THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT HAS
freedom. Thus, our ruling in Jent v. Tullet Prebon JURISDICTION Plaintiff,
(Philippines), Inc. 74 does not apply in the present Versus Criminal Case No. 17-165
case as the petition at bar and the motion to quash
Even discounting the petitioner's procedural lapses,
pending before the court a quo involve similar if not LEILA M. DE LIMA
(NPS No. XVI-INV-16J-00315 and
this Court is still wont to deny the instant petition on
the same reliefs. What is more, while Justice NPS No. XVl-INV-16K-00336)
substantive grounds. (66 Laguna de Bay corner Subic Bay Drive, For: Violation of the
Caguioa highlights our pronouncement South Bay Village, Paraiiaque City and/or Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
in Jent excepting an "appeal or special civil action Room 502, GSIS Building, Financial Act of 2002,Section 5, in relation
Center, Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City), to Section 3(jj), Section 26 (b), and
for certiorari" from the rule against the violation of Petitioner argues that, based on the allegations of RAFAEL MARCOS Z. RAGOS (c/o Section 28, Republic Act No.
forum shopping, the good justice overlooks that the the Information in Criminal Case No. 17-165, the National Bureau of Investigation, Taft 9165 (lllegal Drug Trading)
Avenue, Manila) and RONNIE P ALISOC
phrase had been used with respect to forum Sandiganbayan has the jurisdiction to try and hear DAY AN, (Barangay Galarin, Urbiztondo,
shopping committed through successive actions by the case against her. She posits that the Information Pangasinan), Accused

a "party, against whom an adverse judgment or charges her not with violation of RA 9165 but with
order has [already] been rendered in one Direct Bribery-a felony within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan given her rank as x--------------------------------
forum."75 The exception with respect to an "appeal
or special civil action for certiorari" does not apply the former Secretary of Justice with Salary Grade -----x
where the forum shopping is committed 31. For the petitioner, even assuming that the crime
by simultaneous actions where no judgment or described in the Information is a violation of RA INFORMATION
order has yet been rendered by either forum. To 9165, the Sandiganbayan still has the exclusive
restate for emphasis, the RTC has yet to rule on the jurisdiction to try the case considering that the acts The undersigned Prosecutors, constituted as a
Motion to Quash. Thus, the present petition and the described in the Information were intimately related Panel pursuant to Department Orders 706 and 790
motion to quash before the R TC to her position as the Secretary of Justice. Some dated October 14, 2016 and November 11, 2016,
are simultaneous actions that do not exempt justices of this Court would even adopt the respectively, accuse LEILA M. DE LIMA, RAFAEL
MARCOS Z. RAGOS and RONNIE P ALISOC DAY

41
AN, for violation of Section 5, in relation to Section People, 77 the designation of the offense in the The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine
3 (jj), Section 26 (b) and Section 28, Republic Act Information is a critical element required under ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos
No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court in (₱500,000.00) to Ten million pesos
Dangerous Act of 2002, committed as follows: apprising the accused of the offense being (₱10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any
charged, viz.: person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell,
That within the period from November 2012 to trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to
March 2013, in the City of Muntinlupa, Philippines, The offense charged can also be elucidated by another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, consulting the designation of the offense as any dangerous drug, including any and all species
accused Leila M. De Lima, being then the Secretary appearing in the Information. The designation of the of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity
of the Department of Justice, and accused Rafael offense is a critical element required under Sec. 6, involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such
Marcos Z. Ragos, being then the Officer-in-Charge Rule 110 of the Rules of Court for it assists in transactions.
of the Bureau of Corrections, by taking advantage of apprising the accused of the offense being charged.
their public office, conspiring and confederating with Its inclusion in the Information is imperative to avoid xxxx
accused Ronnie P. Dayan, being then the employee surprise on the accused and to afford him of the
of the Department of Justice detailed to De Lima, all opportunity to prepare his defense accordingly. Its SECTION 26. Attempt or Conspiracy. - Any attempt
of them having moral ascendancy or influence over import is underscored in this case where the or conspiracy to commit the following unlawful acts
inmates in the New Bilibid Prison, did then and there preamble states that the crime charged is of "Acts shall be penalized by the same penalty prescribed
commit illegal drug trading, in the following manner: of Lasciviousness in relation to Section 5(b) of for the commission of the same as provided under
De Lima and Ragos, with the use of their power, R.A. No.7610."78(Emphasis supplied.) this Act:
position, and authority demand, solicit and extort
money from the high profile inmates in the New Further, a reading of the provisions of RA 9165 xxxx
Bilibid Prison to support the Senatorial bid of De under which the petitioner is prosecuted would
Lima in the May 2016 election; by reason of which, convey that De Lima is being charged as a
the inmates, not being lawfully authorized by law (b) Sale, trading, administration, dispensation,
conspirator in the crime of Illegal Drug
and through the use of mobile phones and other Trading. The pertinent provisions of RA 9165 read: delivery, distribution and transportation of any
electronic devices, did then and there willfully and dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and
unlawfully trade and traffic dangerous drugs, and essential chemical;
SECTION 3. Definitions. - As used in this Act, the
thereafter give and deliver to De Lima, through
following terms shall mean:
Ragos and Dayan, the proceeds of illegal drug xxxx
trading amounting to Five Million (₱5,000,000.00)
Pesos on 24 November 2012, Five Million xxxx
SECTION 28. Criminal Liability of Government
(₱5,000,000.00) Pesos on 15 December 2012, and Officials and Employees. - The maximum penalties
One Hundred Thousand (₱l00,000.00) Pesos (jj) Trading. - Transactions involving the illegal of the unlawful acts provided for in this Act shall be
weekly "tara" each from the high profile inmates in trafficking of dangerous drugs and/or controlled imposed, in addition to absolute perpetual
the New Bilibid Prison. precursors and essential chemicals using disqualification from any public office, if those
electronic devices such as, but not limited to, text found guilty of such unlawful acts are government
CONTRARY TO LAW.76 messages, e-mail, mobile or landlines, two-way officials and employees.
radios, internet, instant messengers and chat
rooms or acting as a broker in any of such
Notably, the designation, the prefatory statements While it may be argued that some facts may be
transactions whether for money or any other
and the accusatory portions of the Information taken as constitutive of some elements of Direct
consideration in violation of this Act.
repeatedly provide that the petitioner is charged with Bribery under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), these
"Violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs facts taken together with the other allegations in the
Act of 2002, Section 5, in relation to Section 3(jj), xxxx Information portray a much bigger picture, Illegal
Section 26(b), and Section 28, Republic Act No. Drug Trading. The latter crime, described by the
9165." From the very designation of the crime in the SECTION 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
Information itself, it should be plain that the crime Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and (UNODC) as "a global illicit trade involving the
with which the petitioner is charged is a violation of Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or cultivation, manufacture, distribution and sale of
RA 9165. As this Court clarified in Quimvel v. Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. - substances,"79necessarily involves various

42
component crimes, not the least of which is the by the NBP inmates. The minute details of this may be committed through two modes: (1) illegal
bribery and corruption of government officials. An participation and cooperation are matters of trafficking using electronic devices; or (2) acting as
example would be reports of recent vintage evidence that need not be specified in the a broker in any transactions involved in the illegal
regarding billions of pesos' worth of illegal drugs Information but presented and threshed out during trafficking of dangerous drugs.
allowed to enter Philippine ports without the scrutiny trial.
of Customs officials. Any money and bribery that On this score, the crime of "illegal trafficking"
may have changed hands to allow the importation of Yet, some justices remain adamant in their position embraces various other offenses punishable by RA
the confiscated drugs are certainly but trivial that the Information fails to allege the necessary 9165. Section 3(r) of RA 9165 provides:
contributions in the furtherance of the transnational elements of Illegal Drug Trading. Justice Carpio, in
illegal drug trading - the offense for which the particular, would cite cases supposedly
persons involved should be penalized. (r) Illegal Trafficking. - The illegal cultivation, culture,
enumerating the elements necessary for a valid delivery, administration, dispensation, manufacture,
Information for Illegal Drug Trading. However, it sale, trading, transportation, distribution,
Read as a whole, and not picked apart with each should be noted that the subject of these cases was importation, exportation and possession of any
word or phrase construed separately, the "Illegal Sale" of dangerous drugs -- a crime dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and
Information against De Lima goes beyond an separate and distinct from "Illegal Trading" averred essential chemical.
indictment for Direct Bribery under Article 210 of the in the Information against De Lima. The elements of
RPC.80 As Justice Martires articulately explained, "Illegal Sale" will necessary differ from the elements
In turn, the crimes included in the definition of Illegal
the averments on solicitation of money in the of Illegal Trading under Section 5, in relation to
Trafficking of drugs are defined as follows:
Information, which may be taken as constitutive of Section 3(jj), of RA 9165. The definitions of these
bribery, form "part of the description on how illegal two separate acts are reproduced below for easy
drug trading took place at the NBP." The averments reference: (a) Administer. - Any act of introducing any
on how petitioner asked for and received money dangerous drug into the body of any person, with or
from the NBP inmates simply complete the links of without his/her knowledge, by injection, inhalation,
SECTION 3. Definitions. - As used in this Act, the
conspiracy between her, Ragos, Dayan and the following terms shall mean: ingestion or other means, or of committing any act
NBP inmates in willfully and unlawfully trading of indispensable assistance to a person in
dangerous drugs through the use of mobile phones administering a dangerous drug to himself/herself
xxxx unless administered by a duly licensed practitioner
and other electronic devices under Section 5, in
relation to Section 3(jj), Section 26(b), and Section for purposes of medication.
28, of RA 9165. (ii) Sell. - Any act of giving away any dangerous
drug and/or controlled precursor and essential xxxx
On this score, that it has not been alleged that chemical whether for money or any other
consideration.
petitioner actually participated in the actual (d) Chemical Diversion. - The sale, distribution,
trafficking of dangerous drugs and had simply supply or transport of legitimately imported, in-
allowed the NBP inmates to do so is non (jj) Trading. - Transactions involving the illegal transit, manufactured or procured controlled
sequitur given that the allegation trafficking of dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals, in diluted,
of conspiracymakes her liable for the acts of her co- precursors and essential chemicals using electronic mixtures or in concentrated form, to any person or
conspirators. As this Court elucidated, it is not devices such as, but not limited to, text messages, entity engaged in the manufacture of any dangerous
indispensable for a co-conspirator to take a direct e-mail, mobile or landlines, two-way radios, internet, drug, and shall include packaging, repackaging,
part in every act of the crime. A conspirator need not instant messengers and chat rooms or acting as a labeling, relabeling or concealment of such
even know of all the parts which the others have to broker in any of such transactions whether for transaction through fraud, destruction of
perform,81 as conspiracy is the common design to money or any other consideration in violation of this documents, fraudulent use of permits,
commit a felony; it is not participation in all the Act. misdeclaration, use of front companies or mail
details of the execution of the crime. 82 As long fraud.
as the accused, in one way or another, helped and It is obvious from the foregoing that the crime
cooperated in the consummation of a felony, she is of illegal trading has been written in strokes much xxxx
liable as a co-principal.83 As the Information broader than that for illegal sale. In fact, an illegal
provides, De Lima's participation and cooperation sale of drugs may be considered as only one of the
was instrumental in the trading of dangerous drugs possible component acts of illegal trading which (i) Cultivate or Culture. - Any act of knowingly
planting, growing, raising, or permitting the planting,

43
growing or raising of any plant which is the source With the complexity of the operations involved in no part in the negotiations, never saw the
of a dangerous drug. Illegal Trading of drugs, as recognized and defined customer."85 For the Court, the primary occupation
in RA 9165, it will be quite myopic and restrictive to of a broker is simply bringing "the buyer and the
xxxx require the elements of Illegal Sale-a mere seller together, even if no sale is eventually
component act-in the prosecution for Illegal made. "86 Hence, in indictments for Illegal Trading, it
Trading. is illogical to require the elements of Illegal Sale of
(k) Deliver. - Any act of knowingly passing a
drugs, such as the identities of the buyer and the
dangerous drug to another, personally or
More so, that which qualifies the crime of Illegal seller, the object and consideration.87 For the
otherwise, and by any means, with or without prosecution of Illegal Trading of drugs to prosper,
consideration. Trafficking to Illegal Trading may make it impossible
to provide the details of the elements of Illegal Sale. proof that the accused "act[ed] as a broker" or
By "using electronic devices such as, but not limited brought together the buyer and seller of illegal drugs
xxxx "using electronic devices such as, but not limited to,
to, text messages, email, mobile or landlines, two-
way radios, internet, instant messengers and chat text messages, e-mail, mobile or landlines, two-way
(m) Dispense. - Any act of giving away, selling or rooms," the Illegal Trading can be remotely radios, internet, instant messengers and chat
distributing medicine or any dangerous drug with or perpetrated away from where the drugs are actually rooms" is sufficient.
without the use of prescription. being sold; away from the subject of the illegal sale.
With the proliferation of digital technology coupled The DOJ' s designation of the charge as one for
xxxx with ride sharing and delivery services, Illegal Illegal Drug Trading thus holds sway. After all, the
Trading under RA 9165 can be committed without prosecution is vested with a wide range of
(u) Manufacture. - The production, preparation, getting one's hand on the substances or knowing discretion-including the discretion of whether, what,
compounding or processing of any dangerous drug and meeting the seller or buyer. To require the and whom to charge.88 The exercise of this
and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical, elements of Illegal Sale (the identities of the buyer, discretion depends on a smorgasboard of factors,
either directly or indirectly or by extraction from seller, the object and consideration, in Illegal Trade) which are best appreciated by the prosecutors.89
substances of natural origin, or independently by would be impractical.
means of chemical synthesis or by a combination of As such, with the designation of the offense, the
extraction and chemical synthesis, and shall include The same may be said of the second mode for recital of facts in the Information, there can be no
any packaging or repackaging of such substances, committing Illegal Trading, or trading by "acting as a other conclusion than that petitioner is being
design or configuration of its form, or labeling or broker" in transactions involved in Illegal Trafficking. charged not with Direct Bribery but with violation of
relabeling of its container; except that such terms do In this instance, the accused may neither have RA 9165.
not include the preparation, compounding, physical possession of the drugs nor meet the buyer
packaging or labeling of a drug or other substances and seller and yet violate RA 9165. As pointed out Granting without conceding that the information
by a duly authorized practitioner as an incident to by Justice Perlas-Bernabe, as early as 1916, contains averments which constitute the elements
his/her administration or dispensation of such drug jurisprudence has defined a broker as one who is of Direct Bribery or that more than one offence is
or substance in the course of his/her professional simply a middleman, negotiating contracts relative charged or as ill this case, possibly bribery and
practice including research, teaching and chemical to property with which he has no custody, viz.: violation of RA 9165, still the prosecution has the
analysis of dangerous drugs or such substances authority to amend the information at any time
that are not intended for sale or for any other A broker is generally defined as one who is before arraignment. Since petitioner has not yet
purpose. engaged, for others, on a commission, negotiating been arraigned, then the information subject of
contracts relative to property with the custody of Criminal Case No. 17-165 can still be amended
xxxx which he has no concern; the negotiator between pursuant to Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of
other parties, never acting in his own name, but in Court which reads:
(kk) Use. - Any act of injecting, intravenously or the name of those who employed him; he is strictly
intramuscularly, of consuming, either by chewing, a middleman and for some purposes the agent of SECTION 14. Amendment or Substitution. - A
smoking, sniffing, eating, swallowing, drinking or both parties.84 (Emphasis and underscoring complaint or information may be amended, in form
otherwise introducing into the physiological system supplied.) or in substance, without leave of court, at any time
of the body, any of the dangerous drugs. before the accused enters his plea. After the plea
In some cases, this Court even acknowledged and during the trial, a formal amendment may only
persons as brokers even "where they actually took be made with leave of court and when it can be done

44
without causing prejudice to the rights of the persons if the same shall be found to be manifestly xxxx
accused. out of proportion to his/her lawful income:
Section 90. Jurisdiction. - The Supreme Court shall
Now the question that irresistibly demands an xxxx designate special courts from among the existing
answer is whether it is the Sandiganbayan or the Regional Trial Courts in each judicial region to
RTC that has jurisdiction over the subject matter of During the pendency of the case in the Regional exclusively try and hear cases involving violations of
Criminal Case No. 17-165, i.e., violation of RA Trial Court, no property, or income derived this Act. The number of courts designated in each
9165. therefrom, which may be confiscated and forfeited, judicial region shall be based on the population and
shall be disposed, alienated or transferred and the the number of cases pending in their respective
It is basic that jurisdiction over the subject matter in same shall be in custodia legis and no bond shall be jurisdiction.
a criminal case is given only by law in the manner admitted for the release of the same.
and form prescribed by law.90 It is determined by the The DOJ shall designate special prosecutors to
statute in force at the time of the commencement of xxxx exclusively handle cases involving violations of this
the action.91 Indeed, Congress has the plenary Act.
power to define, prescribe and apportion the
Section 61. Compulsory Confinement of a Drug
jurisdiction of various courts. It follows then that Notably, no other trial court was mentioned in RA
Dependent Who Refuses to Apply Under the
Congress may also, by law, provide that a certain 9165 as having the authority to take cognizance of
Voluntary Submission Program. - x x x
class of cases should be exclusively heard and drug-related cases. Thus, in Morales v. Court of
determined by one court. Such would be a special Appeals,93this Court categorically named the RTC
law that is construed as an exception to the general A petition for the confinement of a person alleged to
as the court with jurisdiction over drug related-
law on jurisdiction of courts.92 be dependent on dangerous drugs to a Center may cases, as follows:
be filed by any person authorized by the Board with
the Regional Trial Court of the province or city where
The pertinent special law governing drug-related Applying by analogy the ruling in People v. Simon,
such person is found.
cases is RA 9165, which updated the rules provided People v. De Lara, People v. Santos, and Ordonez
in RA 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous v. Vinarao, the imposable penalty in this case which
Drugs Act of 1972. A plain reading of RA 9165, as xxxx
involves 0.4587 grams of shabu should not
of RA 6425, will reveal that jurisdiction over drug- exceed prision correccional. We say by analogy
related cases is exclusively vested with the Section 62. Compulsory Submission of a Drug because these cases involved marijuana, not
Regional Trial Court and no other. The designation Dependent Charged with an Offense to Treatment methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). In
of the RTC as the court with the exclusive and Rehabilitation. - If a person charged with an Section 20 of RA. No. 6425, as amended by Section
jurisdiction over drug-related cases is apparent in offense where the imposable penalty is 17 of RA No. 7659, the maximum quantities of
the following provisions where it was expressly imprisonment of less than six (6) years and one (1) marijuana and methamphetamine hydrochloride for
mentioned and recognized as the only court with the day, and is found by the prosecutor or by the court, purposes of imposing the maximum penalties are
authority to hear drug-related cases: at any stage of the proceedings, to be a drug not the same. For the latter, if the quantity involved
dependent, the prosecutor or the court as the case is 200 grams or more, the penalty of reclusion
Section 20. Confiscation and Forfeiture of the may be, shall suspend all further proceedings and perpetua to death and a fine ranging from ₱500,000
Proceeds or Instruments of the Unlawful Act, transmit copies of the record of the case to the to PIO million shall be imposed. Accordingly, if the
Including the Properties or Proceeds Derived from Board. quantity involved is below 200 grams, the imposable
the Illegal Trafficking of Dangerous Drugs and/or penalties should be as follows:
Precursors and Essential Chemicals. - x x x x In the event the Board determines, after medical
examination, that public interest requires that such xxxx
After conviction in the Regional Trial Court in the drug dependent be committed to a center for
appropriate criminal case filed, the Court shall treatment and rehabilitation, it shall file a petition for
Clearly, the penalty which may be imposed for the
immediately schedule a hearing for the confiscation his/her commitment with the regional trial court of
offense charged in Criminal Case No. 96-8443
and forfeiture of all the proceeds of the offense and the province or city where he/she is being would at most be only prision correccional duration
all the assets and properties of the accused either investigated or tried: x x x
is from six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6)
owned or held by him or in the name of some other years. Does it follow then that, as the petitioner

45
insists, the RTC has no jurisdiction thereon in view 129 abolished the Courts of First Instance, Circuit exclusive original jurisdiction over all cases
of the amendment of Section 32 of B.P. Big. 129 by Criminal Courts, and Juvenile and Domestic involving offenses punishable under this Act.
R.A. No. 7691, which vested upon Metropolitan Trial Relations Courts. While, indeed, Section 44
Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit provides that these courts were to be "deemed For those in the dissent, the failure to reproduce the
Trial Courts exclusive original jurisdiction over all automatically abolished" upon the declaration by the phrase "exclusive original jurisdiction" is a clear
offenses punishable with imprisonment not President that the reorganization provided in B.P. indication that no court, least of all the RTC, has
exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount Blg. 129 had been completed, this Court should not been vested with such "exclusive original
of fine and regardless of other imposable accessory lose sight of the fact that the Regional Trial Courts jurisdiction" so that even the Sandiganbayan can
or other penalties? This Section 32 as thus merely replaced the Courts of First Instance as take cognizance and resolve a criminal prosecution
amended now reads: clearly borne out by the last two sentences of for violation of RA 9165.
Section 44, to wit:
xxxx As thoroughly discussed by Justice Peralta in his
xxxx Concurring Opinion, such deduction is unwarranted
The exception in the opening sentence is of special given the clear intent of the legislature not only to
significance which we cannot disregard. x xx The Consequently, it is not accurate to state that the retain the "exclusive original jurisdiction" of the
aforementioned exception refers not only to Section "abolition" of the Courts of First Instance carried with RTCs over violations of the drugs law but to
20 of B.P. Blg. 129 providing for the jurisdiction of it the abolition of their exclusive original jurisdiction segregate from among the several RTCs of each
Regional Trial Courts in criminal cases, but also to in drug cases vested by Section 39 of R.A. No. judicial region some RTCs that will "exclusively try
other laws which specifically lodge in Regional Trial 6425, as amended by P. D. No. 44. If that were so, and hear cases involving violations of [RA 9165)." If
Courts exclusive jurisdiction over specific criminal then so must it be with respect to Article 360 of the at all, the change introduced by the new
cases, e. g., (a) Article 360 of the Revised Penal Revised Penal Code and Section 57 of the Decree phraseology of Section 90, RA 9165 is not the
Code, as amended by R.A. Nos. 1289 and 4363 on on Intellectual Property. On the contrary, in the deprivation of the RTCs' "exclusive original
written defamation or libel; (b) Decree on Intellectual resolution of 19 June 1996 in Caro v. Court of jurisdiction" but the further restriction of this
Property (P. D. No. 49, as amended), which vests Appeals and in the resolution of 26 February 1997 "exclusive original jurisdiction" to select RTCs of
upon Courts of First Instance exclusive jurisdiction in Villalon v. Ba/dado, this Court expressly ruled that each judicial region. This intent can be clearly
over the cases therein mentioned regardless of the Regional Trial Courts have the exclusive original gleaned from the interpellation on House Bill No.
imposable penalty; and (c) more appropriately for jurisdiction over libel cases pursuant to Article 360 4433, entitled "An Act Instituting the Dangerous
the case at bar, Section 39 of RA No. 6425, as of the Revised Penal Code. In Administrative Order Drugs Act of 2002, repealing Republic Act No. 6425,
amended by P.D. No. 44, which vests on Courts of No. 104-96 this Court mandates that: as amended:"
First Instance, Circuit Criminal Courts, and the
Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts concurrent xxxx Initially, Rep. Dilangalen referred to the fact sheet
exclusive original jurisdiction over all cases attached to the Bill which states that the measure
involving violations of said Act. will undertake a comprehensive amendment to the
The same Administrative Order recognizes that
violations of RA. No. 6425, as amended, regardless existing law on dangerous drugs -- RA No. 6425, as
xxxx of the quantity involved, are to be tried and decided amended. Adverting to Section 64 of the Bill on the
by the Regional Trial Courts therein designated as repealing clause, he then asked whether the
That Congress indeed did not intend to repeal these special courts.94 (Emphasis and underscoring Committee is in effect amending or repealing the
special laws vesting exclusive jurisdiction in the supplied) aforecited law. Rep. Cuenco replied that any
Regional Trial Courts over certain cases is clearly provision of law which is in conflict with the
evident from the exception provided for in the provisions of the Bill is repealed and/or modified
Yet, much has been made of the terminology used accordingly.
opening sentence of Section 32 of B.P. Blg. 129, as in Section 90 of RA 9165. The dissents would
amended by RA No. 7691. These special laws are highlight the provision's departure from Section 39
not, therefore, covered by the repealing clause of RA 6425 - the erstwhile drugs law, which In this regard, Rep. Dilangalen suggested that if the
(Section 6) of RA No. 7691. provides: Committee's intention was only to amend RA No.
6425, then the wording used should be "to amend"
Neither can it be successfully argued that Section and not "to repeal" with regard to the provisions that
SECTION 39. Jurisdiction of the Circuit Criminal are contrary to the provisions of the Bill.
39 of RA. No. 6425, as amended by P.D. No. 44, is Court. - The Circuit Criminal Court shall have
no longer operative because Section 44 of B.P. Big.

46
Adverting to Article VIII, Section 60, on Jurisdiction of the law and government prosecutors for The exclusive original jurisdiction over violations of
Over Dangerous Drugs Case, which provides that mishandling and delaying drugs cases. RA 9165 is not transferred to the Sandiganbayan
"the Supreme Court shall designate regional trial whenever the accused occupies a position
courts to have original jurisdiction over all offenses We will address these concerns one by one. classified as Grade 27 or higher, regardless of
punishable by this Act," Rep. Dilangalen inquired whether the violation is alleged as committed in
whether it is the Committee's intention that certain relation to office. The power of the Sandiganbayan
1. The possible creation of drugs courts to handle
RTC salas will be designated by the Supreme Court to sit in judgment of high-ranking government
exclusively drug cases. Any comments?
to try drug-related offenses, although all RTCs have officials is not omnipotent. The Sandiganbayan's
original jurisdiction over those offenses. jurisdiction is circumscribed by law and its limits are
xxxx currently defined and prescribed by RA
Rep. Cuenco replied in the affirmative. He pointed 10660,97 which amended Presidential Decree No.
that at present, the Supreme Court's assignment of THE CHAIRMAN (SEN. BARBERS). We have no (PD) 1606.98 As it now stands, the Sandiganbayan
drug cases to certain judges is not exclusive objection to this proposal, Mr. Chairman. As a has jurisdiction over the following:
because the latter can still handle cases other than matter of fact, this is one of the areas where we
drug-related cases. He added that the Committee's come into an agreement when we were in Japan. SEC. 4. Jurisdiction. - The Sandiganbayan shall
intention is to assign drug-related cases to judges However, I just would like to add a paragraph after exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases
who will handle exclusively these cases assigned to the word "Act" in Section 86 of the Senate versions, involving:
them. Mr. Chairman. And this is in connection with the
designation of special courts by "The Supreme
a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended,
Court shall designate special courts from among the
In this regard, Rep. Dilangalen stated that, at the otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
existing Regional Trial Courts in each judicial region
appropriate time, he would like to propose the Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter
to exclusively try and hear cases involving violations
following amendment; "The Supreme Court shall II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal
of this Act. The number of court designated in each
designate specific salas of the RTC to try exclusively Code, where one or more of the accused are
offenses related to drugs." judicial region shall be based on the population and
officials occupying the following positions in the
the number of pending cases in their respective
government, whether in a permanent, acting or
jurisdiction." That is my proposal, Mr. Chairman.
Rep. Cuenca agreed therewith, adding that the interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the
Body is proposing the creation of exclusive drug offense:
THE CHAIRMAN (REP. CUENCO). We adopt the
courts because at present, almost all of the judges
same proposal.
are besieged by a lot of drug cases some of which (1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the
have been pending for almost 20 positions of regional director and higher, otherwise
years.95 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.) xxxx classified as Grade '27' and higher, of the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of
Per the "Records of the Bilateral Conference THE CHAIRMAN (SEN. BARBERS). I have no 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically including:
Committee on the Disagreeing Provisions of Senate problem with that, Mr. Chairman, but I'd like to call
Bill No. 1858 and House Bill No. 4433," the term your attention to the fact that my proposal is only xxxx
"designation" of R TCs that will exclusively handle for designation because if it is for a creation that
drug-related offenses was used to skirt the would entail another budget, Mr. Chairman. And (2) Members of Congress and officials thereof
budgetary requirements that might accrue by the almost always, the Department of Budget would tell classified as Grade '27' and higher under the
"creation" of exclusive drugs courts. It was never us at the budget hearing that we lack funds, we do Compensation and Position Classification Act of
intended to divest the R TCs of their exclusive not have money. So that might delay the very 1989;
original jurisdiction over drug-related cases. The purpose why we want the RTC or the municipal
Records are clear: courts to handle exclusively the drug cases. That's
why my proposal is designation not creation. (3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the
provisions of the Constitution;
THE CHAIRMAN (REP. CUENCO). x x x [W]e
would like to propose the creation of drug courts to THE CHAIRMAN (REP. CUENCO). Areglado. No
problem, designation. Approved.96 (4) Chairmen and members of the Constitutional
handle exclusively drug cases; the imposition of a
Commissions, without prejudice to the provisions of
60-day deadline on courts within which to decide
the Constitution; and
drug cases; and No. 3, provide penalties on officers

47
(5) All other national and local officials classified as SECTION 27. Criminal Liability of a Public Officer or libel, as illustrated in Morales 101and People v.
Grade '27' and higher under the Compensation and Employee for Misappropriation, Misapplication or Benipayo, 102 the RTC is likewise given "exclusive
Position Classification Act of 1989. Failure to Account for the Confiscated, Seized original jurisdiction to try and decide any criminal
and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant action or proceedings for violation of the Omnibus
b. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Election Code,"103 regardless of whether such
complexed with other crimes committed by the Precursors and Essential Chemicals, violation was committed by public officers occupying
public officials and employees mentioned in Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laborat01y positions classified as Grade 27 or higher in relation
subsection a. of this section in relation to their office. Equipment Including the Proceeds or Properties to their offices. In fact, offenses committed by
Obtained from the Unlawful Act Committed - The members of the Armed Forces in relation to their
penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine office, i.e., in the words of RA 7055,104"service-
c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos connected crimes or offenses," are not cognizable
connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos by the Sandiganbayan but by court-martial.
14-A, issued in 1986. Provided, That the Regional (Pl0,000,000.00), in addition to absolute perpetual
Trial Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction disqualification from any public office, shall be
where the information: (a) does not allege any Certainly, jurisdiction over offenses and felonies
imposed upon any public officer or employee who committed by public officers is not determined
damage to the government or any bribery; or (b)
misappropriates, misapplies or fails to account for solely by the pay scale or by the fact that they were
alleges damage to the government or bribery arising
confiscated, seized or surrendered dangerous committed "in relation to their office." In
from the same or closely related transactions or acts
drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled determining the forum vested with the jurisdiction
in an amount not exceeding One Million pesos
precursors and essential chemicals, to try and decide criminal actions, the laws
(₱l,000,000.00).
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory governing the subject matter of the criminal
equipment including the proceeds or properties prosecution must likewise be considered.
The foregoing immediately betrays that the obtained from the unlawful acts as provided for in
Sandiganbayan primarily sits as a special anti-graft this Act.
court pursuant to a specific injunction in the 1973 In this case, RA 9165 specifies the RTC as the
Constitution.99 Its characterization and continuation court with the jurisdiction to "exclusively try and
Any elective local or national official found to have hear cases involving violations of [RA 9165)."
as such was expressly given a constitutional fiat benefited from the proceeds of the trafficking of
under Section 4, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, This is an exception, couched in the special law
dangerous drugs as prescribed in this Act, or have on dangerous drugs, to the general rule under
which states:
received any financial or material contributions or Section 4(b) of PD 1606, as amended by RA
donations from natural or juridical persons found 10660. It is a canon of statutory construction that a
SECTION 4. The present anti-graft court known as guilty of trafficking dangerous drugs as prescribed in special law prevails over a general law and the latter
the Sandiganbayan shall continue to function and this Act, shall be removed from office and is to be considered as an exception to the
exercise its jurisdiction as now or hereafter may be perpetually disqualified from holding any elective or general.105
provided by law. appointive positions in the government, its divisions,
subdivisions, and intermediaries, including
government-owned or -controlled corporations. Parenthetically, it has been advanced that RA
It should occasion no surprise, therefore, that the
10660 has repealed Section 90 of RA 9165.
Sandiganbayan is without jurisdiction to hear drug-
However, a closer look at the repealing clause of RA
related cases. Even Section 4(b) of PD 1606, as SECTION 28. Criminal Liability of Government 10660 will show that there is no express repeal of
amended by RA 10660, touted by the petitioner and Officials and Employees. - The maximum penalties Section 90 of RA 9165 and well-entrenched is the
the dissents as a catchall provision, does not of the unlawful acts provided for in this Act shall be rule that an implied repeal is disfavored. It is only
operate to strip the R TCs of its exclusive original imposed, in addition to absolute perpetual accepted upon the clearest proof of inconsistency
jurisdiction over violations of RA 9165. As pointed disqualification from any public office, if those found so repugnant that the two laws cannot be
out by Justices Tijam and Martires, a perusal of the guilty of such unlawful acts are government officials enforced.106 The presumption against implied repeal
drugs law will reveal that public officials were never and employees. (Emphasis supplied) is stronger when of two laws involved one is special
considered excluded from its scope. Hence, Section and the other general.107 The mentioned rule in
27 of RA 9165 punishes government officials found Section 4(b) of PD 1606, as amended by RA 10660, statutory construction that a special law prevails
to have benefited from the trafficking of dangerous provides but the general rule, couched in a "broad over a general law applies regardless of the laws'
drugs, while Section 28 of the law imposes the and general phraseology. "100 Exceptions abound. respective dates of passage. Thus, this Court ruled:
maximum penalty on such government officials and Besides the jurisdiction on written defamations and
employees. The adverted sections read:

48
x x x [I]t is a canon of statutory construction that a dangerous drugs, their plant sources, or their Even granting arguendo that the Court declares the
special law prevails over a general law - regardless controlled precursors and essential chemicals. Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the information
of their dates of passage - and the special is to be Without a doubt, not one of the Sandiganbayan subject of Criminal Case No. 17-165, still it will not
considered as remaining an exception to the justices were provided with knowledge and automatically result in the release from detention
general. technical expertise on matters relating to prohibited and restore the liberty and freedom of petitioner.
substances. The R TC has several options if it dismisses the
So also, every effort must be exerted to avoid a criminal case based on the grounds raised by
conflict between statutes. If reasonable construction Hard figures likewise support the original and petitioner in her Motion to Quash.
is possible, the laws must be reconciled in that exclusive jurisdiction of the RTCs over violations of
manner. RA 9165. As previously stated, as of June 30, 2017, Under Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, the trial court
there are 232,557 drugs cases pending before the has three (3) possible alternative actions when
Repeals of laws by implication moreover are not RTCs. On the other hand, not even a single case confronted with a Motion to Quash:
favored, and the mere repugnancy between two filed before the Sandiganbayan from February 1979
statutes should be very clear to warrant the court in to June 30, 2017 dealt with violations of the drugs 1. Order the amendment of the Infonnation;
holding that the later in time repeals the other.108 law. Instead, true to its designation as an anti-graft
court, the bulk of the cases filed before the
2. Sustain the Motion to Quash; or
Sandiganbayan involve violations of RA 3019,
To reiterate for emphasis, Section 4(b) of PD 1606,
entitled the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act"
as amended by RA 10660, is the general law on 3. Deny the Motion to Quash.
and malversation.111 With these, it would not only be
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over crimes and unwise but reckless to allow the tribunal
offenses committed by high-ranking public officers uninstructed and inexperienced with the intricacies
in relation to their office; Section 90, RA 9165 is the The first two options are available to the trial court
of drugs cases to hear and decide violations of RA where the motion to quash is meritorious.
special law excluding from the Sandiganbayan's
9165 solely on account of the pay scale of the Specifically, as to the first option, this court had held
jurisdiction violations of RA 9165 committed by such accused. that should the Information be deficient or lacking in
public officers. In the latter case, jurisdiction is
any material allegation, the trial court can order the
vested upon the RTCs designated by the Supreme
Likewise of special significance is amendment of the Information under Section 4,
Court as drugs court, regardless of whether the
the proviso introduced by RA 10660 which, to Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, which states:
violation of RA 9165 was committed in relation to the
public officials' office. reiterate for emphasis, states:
SECTION 4. Amendment of Complaint or
Provided, That the Regional Trial Court shall have Information. - If the motion to quash is based on an
The exceptional rule provided under Section 90, RA
exclusive original jurisdiction where the information: alleged defect of the complaint or information which
9165 relegating original exclusive jurisdiction to
(a) does not allege any damage to the government can be cured by amendment, the court shall order
RTCs specially designated by the Supreme Court
or any bribery; or (b) alleges damage to the that an amendment be made.
logically follows given the technical aspect of drug-
related cases. With the proliferation of cases government or bribery arising from the same or
involving violation of RA 9165, it is easy to dismiss closely related transactions or acts in an amount not If it is based on the ground that the facts charged do
them as common and untechnical. However, exceeding One million pesos (₱l,000,000.00). not constitute an offense, the prosecution shall be
narcotic substances possess unique characteristics given by the court an opportunity to correct the
that render them not readily identifiable.109 In fact, The clear import of the new paragraph introduced defect by amendment. The motion shall be granted
they must first be subjected to scientific analysis by by RA 10660 is to streamline the cases handled by if the prosecution fails to make the amendment, or
forensic chemists to determine their composition the Sandiganbayan by delegating to the RTCs some the complaint or information still suffers from the
and nature.110Thus, judges presiding over cases involving high-ranking public officials. With same defect despite the amendment.
designated drugs courts are specially trained by the the dissents' proposition, opening the
Philippine Judicial Academy (PhilJa) and given Sandiganbayan to the influx of drug-related cases, The failure of the trial court to order the correction of
scientific instructions to equip them with the proper RA 10660 which was intended to unclog the dockets a defect in the Information curable by an
tools to appreciate pharmacological evidence and of the Sandiganbayan would all be for naught. amendment amounts to an arbitrary exercise of
give analytical insight upon this esoteric subject. Hence, sustaining the RTC's jurisdiction over drug- power. So, this Court held in Dio v. People:
After all, the primary consideration of RA 9165 is the related cases despite the accused's high-ranking
fact that the substances involved are, in fact, position, as in this case, is all the more proper.

49
This Court has held that failure to provide the another prosecution113 or require the release of the by the trial court but as an added ground to overturn
prosecution with the opportunity to amend is an accused from custody. Instead, under Section 5, the latter's ruling.
arbitrary exercise of power. In People v. Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, the trial court can
Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division): When a motion to simply order that another complaint or information In this case, the petitioner did not proceed to trial but
quash is filed challenging the validity and sufficiency be filed without discharging the accused from opted to immediately question the denial of his
of an Information, and the defect may be cured by custody. Section 5, Rule 117 states, thus: motion to quash via a special civil action
amendment, courts must deny the motion to quash for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
and order the prosecution to file an amended Section 5. Effect of sustaining the motion to quash. -
Information. Generally, a defect pertaining to the If the motion to quash is sustained, the court may
failure of an Information to charge facts constituting As a rule, the denial of a motion to quash is an
order that another complaint or information be filed interlocutory order and is not appealable; an appeal
an offense is one that may be corrected by an except as provided in Section 6 of this rule. If the
amendment. In such instances, courts are from an interlocutory order is not allowed under
order is made, the accused, if in custody, shall not Section 1 (b), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. Neither
mandated not to automatically quash the be discharged unless admitted to bail. If no order is
Information; rather, it should grant the prosecution can it be a proper subject of a petition
made or if having been made, no new information is for certiorari which can be used only in the absence
the opportunity to cure the defect through an filed within the time specified in the order or within of an appeal or any other adequate, plain and
amendment. This rule allows a case to proceed such further time as the court may allow for good speedy remedy. The plain and speedy remedy upon
without undue delay. By allowing the defect to be cause, the accused, if in custody, shall be denial of an interlocutory order is to proceed to trial
cured by simple amendment, unnecessary appeals discharged unless he is also in custody for another as discussed above.114 (Emphasis and
based on technical grounds, which only result to charge. underscoring supplied)
prolonging the proceedings, are avoided.
Section 6, Rule 117, adverted to in the foregoing At this juncture, it must be stressed yet again that
More than this practical consideration, however, is provision, prevents the re-filing of an information on
the due process underpinnings of this rule. As the trial court has been denied the opportunity to act
only two grounds: that the criminal action or liability and rule on petitioner's motion when the latter
explained by this Court in People v. Andrade, the has already been extinguished, and that of double
State, just like any other litigant, is entitled to its day jumped the gun and prematurely repaired posthaste
jeopardy. Neither was invoked in petitioner's Motion to this Court, thereby immobilizing the trial court in
in court. Thus, a court's refusal to grant the to Quash filed before the court a quo. its tracks. Verily, De Lima should have waited for the
prosecution the opportunity to amend an
decision on her motion to quash instead of
Information, where such right is expressly granted
The third option available to the trial court is the prematurely filing the instant recourse.
under the Rules of Court and affirmed time and
denial of the motion to quash. Even granting, for the
again in a string of Supreme Court decisions,
nonce, the petitioner's position that the trial court's In the light of the foregoing, the best course of action
effectively curtails the State's right to due
process.112 issuance of the warrant for her arrest is an implied for the Court to take is to dismiss the petition and
denial of her Motion to Quash, the proper remedy direct the trial court to rule on the Motion to Quash
against this court action is to proceed to trial, not to and undertake all the necessary proceedings to
Notably, the defect involved in Dio was the file the present petition for certiorari. This Court
Information's failure to establish the venue - a matter expedite the adjudication of the subject criminal
in Galzote v. Briones reiterated this established case.
of jurisdiction in criminal cases. Thus, in the case at doctrine:
bar where petitioner has not yet been arraigned, the
court a quo has the power to order the amendment RESPONDENT JUDGE DID NOT ABUSE HER
A preliminary consideration in this case relates to DISCRETION IN FINDING PROBABLE CAUSE TO
of the February 17, 2017 Information filed against
the propriety of the chosen legal remedies availed ORDER THE PETITIONER'S ARREST
the petitioner. This power to order the amendment
of by the petitioner in the lower courts to question
is not reposed with this Court in the exercise of
its certiorari powers. the denial of his motion to quash. In the usual course
The basis for petitioner's contention that respondent
of procedure, a denial of a motion to quash filed by
judge committed grave abuse of discretion in
the accused results in the continuation of the trial
Nevertheless, should the trial court sustain the issuing the February 23, 2017 Order115 finding
and the determination of the guilt or innocence of
motion by actually ordering the quashal of the probable cause to arrest the petitioner is two-
the accused. If a judgment of conviction is rendered
Infonnation, the prosecution is not precluded from pronged: respondent judge should have first
and the lower court's decision of conviction is
filing another information. An order sustaining the resolved the pending Motion to Quash before
appealed, the accused can then raise the denial of
motion to quash the information would neither bar his motion to quash not only as an error committed

50
ordering the petitioner's arrest; and there is no Faller119that "[a]s the presiding judge, it was her What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive
probable cause to justify the petitioner's arrest. task, upon the filing of the Information, to first and and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to
foremost determine the existence or non-existence satisfy himself the existence of probable cause. In
Grave abuse of discretion is the capricious and of probable cause for the arrest of the accused." satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause
whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to an for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the judge is
evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to act at This Court's ruling in Miranda v. Tuliao 120does not not required to personally examine the complainant
all in contemplation of the law.116 support the petitioner's position. Miranda does not and his witnesses. Following established doctrine
prevent a trial court from ordering the arrest of an and procedure, he shall: (1) personally evaluate the
accused even pending a motion to quash the report and the supporting documents submitted by
In the present case, the respondent judge had the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause
no positive duty to first resolve the Motion to infonnation. At most, it simply explains that an
accused can seek judicial relief even if he has not and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest;
Quash before issuing a warrant of arrest. There is or (2) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable
no rule of procedure, statute, or jurisprudence to yet been taken in the custody of law.
cause, he may disregard the fiscal's report and
support the petitioner's claim. Rather, Sec.5(a), require the submission of supporting affidavits of
Rule 112 of the Rules of Court117 required the Undoubtedly, contrary to petitioner's postulation, witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to
respondent judge to evaluate the prosecutor's there is no rule or basic principle requiring a trial the existence of probable cause.126
resolution and its supporting evidence within a judge to first resolve a motion to quash, whether
limited period of only ten (10) days, viz.: grounded on lack of jurisdiction or not, before
issuing a warrant of arrest. As such, respondent It must be emphasized, however, that in determining
judge committed no grave abuse of discretion in the probable cause to issue the warrant of arrest
SEC. 5. When warrant of arrest may issue. -
issuing the assailed February 23, 2017 Order even against the petitioner, respondent judge evaluated
before resolving petitioner's Motion to Quash. There the Information and "all the evidence presented
(a) By the Regional Trial Court. - Within ten (10) during the preliminary investigation conducted in
is certainly no indication that respondent judge
days from the filing of the complaint or information, this case." The assailed February 23, 2017 Order is
deviated from the usual procedure in finding
the judge shall personally evaluate the resolution of probable cause to issue the petitioner's arrest. here restated for easy reference and provides,
the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. He may thusly:
immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on
record clearly fails to establish probable cause. If he And yet, petitioner further contends that the
language of the February 23, 2017 Order violated After a careful evaluation of the herein Information
finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of
her constitutional rights and is contrary to the and all the evidence presented during the
arrest, or a commitment order when the complaint
doctrine in Soliven v. Makasiar. 121Petitioner preliminary investigation conducted in this case by
or information was filed pursuant to Section 6 of this
maintains that respondent judge failed to personally the Department of Justice, Manila, the Court finds
Rule. In case of doubt on the existence of probable sufficient probable cause for the issuance of
cause, the judge may order the prosecutor to determine the probable cause for the issuance of
the warrant of arrest since, as stated in the assailed Warrants of Arrest against all the accused LEILA M.
present additional evidence within five (5) days from DE LIMA x x x.127 (Emphasis supplied.)
notice and the issue must be resolved by the court Order, respondent judge based her findings on the
within thirty (30) days from the filing of the complaint evidence presented during the preliminary
or information. investigation and not on the report and supporting As the prosecutor's report/resolution precisely finds
documents submitted by the prosecutor.122 This support from the evidence presented during the
hardly deserves serious consideration. preliminary investigation, this Court cannot consider
It is not far-fetched to conclude, therefore, that had
the respondent judge to have evaded her duty or
the respondent judge waited longer and first
Personal determination of the existence of probable refused to perform her obligation to satisfy herself
attended to the petitioner's Motion to Quash, she
cause by the judge is required before a warrant of that substantial basis exists for the petitioner's
would have exposed herself to a possible
arrest may issue. The Constitution123 and the arrest. "All the evidence presented during the
administrative liability for failure to observe Sec. preliminary investigation" encompasses a broader
5(a), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. Her exercise of Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure124 command
the judge "to refrain from making a mindless category than the "supporting evidence" required to
discretion was sound and in conformity with the be evaluated in Soliven. It may perhaps even be
provisions of the Rules of Court considering that acquiescence to the prosecutor's findings and to
conduct his own examination of the facts and stated that respondent judge performed her duty in
a Motion to Quash may be filed and, thus resolved a manner that far exceeds what is required of her by
by a trial court judge, at any time before the accused circumstances presented by both parties. "125 This
much is clear from this Court's n1ling the rules when she reviewed all the evidence, not
petitioner enters her plea.118 What is more, it is in just the supporting documents. At the very least, she
accord with this Court's ruling in Marcos v. Cabrera- in Soliven cited by the petitioner, viz.:

51
certainly discharged a judge's duty in finding the burden of the judge and speed up the litigation Again, per the February 23, 2017 Order, respondent
probable cause for the issuance of a warrant, as process by forwarding to the latter not only the judge evaluated all the evidence presented during
described in Ho v. People: information and his bare resolution finding probable the preliminary investigation and on the basis
cause, but also so much of the records and the thereof found probable cause to issue the warrant of
The above rulings in Soliven, Inting and Lim, evidence on hand as to enable His Honor to make arrest against the petitioner. This is not surprising
Sr. were iterated in Allado v. Diokno, where we his personal and separate judicial finding on given that the only evidence available on record are
explained again what probable cause means. whether to issue a warrant of arrest. those provided by the complainants and the
Probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of petitioner, in fact, did not present any counter-
arrest is the existence of such facts and Lastly, it is not required that the complete or entire affidavit or evidence to controvert this. Thus, there
circumstances that would lead a reasonably records of the case during the preliminary is nothing to disprove the following preliminary
discreet and prudent person to believe that an investigation be submitted to and examined by the findings of the DOJ prosecutors relative to the
offense has been committed by the person sought judge. We do not intend to unduly burden trial courts allegations in the Information filed in Criminal Case
to be arrested. Hence, the judge, before issuing a by obliging them to examine the complete records No. 17-165:
warrant of arrest, 'must satisfy himself that based on of every case all the time simply for the purpose of
the evidence submitted, there is sufficient proof that ordering the arrest of an accused. What is required, Thus, from November 2012 to March 2013, De
a crime has been committed and that the person to rather, is that the judge must have sufficient Lima[,] Ragos and Dayan should be indicted for
be arrested is probably guilty thereof' At this stage supporting documents (such as the complaint, violation of Section 5, in relation to Section 3Gj),
of the criminal proceeding, the judge is not yet affidavits, counter-affidavits, sworn statements of Section 26(b) and Section 28, of R.A. 9165, owing
tasked to review in detail the evidence submitted witnesses or transcript of stenographic notes, if any) to the delivery of PS million in two (2) occasions, on
during the preliminary investigation. It is sufficient upon which to make his independent judgment or, 24 November 2012 and 15 December 2012, to
that he personally evaluates such evidence in at the very least, upon which to verify the findings of Dayan and De Lima. The monies came inmate Peter
determining probable cause. In Webb v. De the prosecutor as to the existence of probable Co [were] proceeds from illicit drug trade, which
Leon we stressed that the judge merely determines cause. The point is: he cannot rely solely and were given to support the senatorial bid of De Lima.
the probability, not the certainty, of guilt of the entirely on the prosecutor's recommendation, as
accused and, in doing so, he need not conduct a de Respondent Court did in this case. Although the Also in the same period, Dayan demanded from
novo hearing. He simply personally reviews the prosecutor enjoys the legal presumption of Ragos money to support the senatorial bid of De
prosecutor's initial determination finding probable regularity in the performance of his official duties Lima. Ragos demanded and received
cause to see if it is supported by substantial and functions, which in turn gives his report the ₱100,000 tara from each of the high-profile inmates
evidence." presumption of accuracy, the Constitution, we in exchange for privileges, including their illicit drug
repeat, commands the judge to personally trade. Ablen collected the money for Ragos who, in
xxxx determine probable cause in the issuance of turn, delivered them to Dayan at De Lima's
warrants of arrest. This Court has consistently held residence.133
that a judge fails in his bounden duty if he relies
x x x [T]he judge cannot rely solely on the report of
merely on the certification or the report of the
the prosecutor in finding probable cause to justify investigating officer.128 (Emphasis supplied.) The foregoing findings of the DOJ find support in the
the issuance of a warrant of arrest. Obviously and affidavits and testimonies of several persons. For
understandably, the contents of the prosecutor's instance, in his Affidavit dated September 3, 2016,
report will support his own conclusion that there is Notably, for purposes of determining the propriety of NBI agent Jovencio P. Ablen, Jr. narrated, viz.:
reason to charge the accused for an offense and the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the judge is
hold him for trial. However, the judge must decide tasked to merely determine the probability, not the
21. On the morning of 24 November 2012, I received
independently. Hence, he must have supporting certainty, of the guilt of the accused.129 She is given
a call from Dep. Dir. Ragos asking where I was. I
evidence, other than the prosecutor's bare report, wide latitude of discretion in the determination of
told him I was at home. He replied that he will fetch
upon which to legally sustain his own findings on the probable cause for the issuance of warrants of
me to accompany him on a very important task.
existence (or non-existence) of probable cause to arrest.130 A finding of probable cause to order the
issue an arrest order. This responsibility of accused's arrest does not require an inquiry into
determining personally and independently the whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a 22. Approximately an hour later, he arrived at my
existence or nonexistence of probable cause is conviction.131 It is enough that it is believed that the house. I boarded his vehicle, a Hyundai Tucson,
lodged in him by no less than the most basic law of act or omission complained of constitutes the with plate no. RGU910. He then told me that he will
the land. Parenthetically, the prosecutor could ease offense charged.132 deliver something to the then Secretary of Justice,
Sen. Leila De Lima. He continued and said "Nior

52
confidential 'to. Tayong dalawa lang ang 32. On the morning of 15 December 2012, Dep. Dir. 13. While we were in the car, I told Mr. Ablen that
nakakaalam nito. Dadalhin natin yung quota kay Ragos again fetched me from my house and we the important task we will do is deliver Five Million
Lola. SM 'yang nasa bag. Tingnan mo." proceeded to the same house located at Laguna Pesos (Php5,000,000.00) "Quota" to Sen. De Lima.
Bay comer Subic Bay Drive, South Bay Village, I also told him that the money was in the black
23. The black bag he was referring to was in front of Paranaque City. handbag that was on the floor of the passenger seat
my feet. It [was a] black handbag. When I opened (in front of him) and he could check it, to which Mr.
the bag, I saw bundles of One Thousand Peso 33. That time, I saw a plastic bag in front of my feet. Ablen complied.
bills.1âwphi1 I asked Dep. Dir. Ragos "Quota na naman Sir?"Dep.
Dir. Ragos replied "Ano pa nga ba, 'tang ina sila 14. Before noon, we arrived at the house of Sen. De
24. At about 10 o'clock in the morning, we arrived at lang meron. "134 Lima located at Laguna Bay corner Subic Bay Drive,
the house located at Laguna Bay corner Subic Bay South Bay Village, Paranaque City.
Drive, South Bay Village, Paranaque City. Petitioner's co-accused, Rafael Ragos, recounted in
his own Affidavit dated September 26, 2016 a 15. I parked my vehicle in front of the house. Both
25. Dep. Dir. Ragos parked his vehicle in front of the similar scenario: Mr. Ablen and I alighted from the vehicle but I went
house. We both alighted the vehicle but he told me to the gate alone carrying the black handbag
to stay. He then proceeded to the house. 8. One morning on the latter part of November 2012, containing the Five Million Pesos
I saw a black handbag containing a huge sum of (Php5,000,000.00).
26. From our parked vehicle, I saw Mr. Ronnie money on my bed inside the Director's Quarters of
Dayan open the gate. Dep. Dir. Ragos then handed the BuCor. I looked inside the black handbag and 16. At the gate, Mr. Ronnie Dayan greeted me and
the black handbag containing bundles of one saw that it contains bundles of one thousand peso opened the gate for me. I then handed the handbag
thousand peso bills to Mr. Dayan. bills. containing the money to Mr. Dayan.

27. At that time, I also saw the then DOJ Sec. De 9. I then received a call asking me to deliver the 17. We then proceeded to the main door of the
Lima at the main door of the house. She was black handbag to Mr. Ronnie Dayan. The caller said house where Sen. De Lima was waiting for us. At
wearing plain clothes which is commonly known the black handbag came from Peter Co and it the main door, Mr. Dayan handed the black
referred to as "duster." contains "Limang Manoi<' which means Five Million handbag to Sen. De Lima, who received the same.
Pesos (Php5,000,000.00) as a "manoR' refers to We then entered the house.
One Million Pesos (Php 1,000,000.00) in the
28. The house was elevated from the road and the vernacular inside the New Bilibid Prison.
fence was not high that is why I was able to clearly 18. About thirty minutes after, I went out of the
see the person at the main door, that is, Sen. De house and proceeded to my quarters at the BuCor,
Lima. 10. As I personally know Mr. Dayan and knows that Muntinlupa City.
he stays in the house of the then DOJ Sec. Leila M.
De Lima located at Laguna Bay corner Subic Bay 19. One morning in the middle part of December
29. When Dep. Dir. Ragos and Mr. Dayan reached Drive, South Bay Village, Paranaque City, I knew I
the main door, I saw Mr. Dayan hand the black 2012, I received a call to again deliver the plastic
had to deliver the black handbag to Sen. De Lima at bag containing money from Peter Co to Mr. Ronnie
handbag to Sen. De Lima, which she received. The the said address.
three of them then entered the house. Dayan. This time the money was packed in a plastic
bag left on my bed inside my quarters at the BuCor,
11. Before proceeding to the house of Sen. De Lima Muntinlupa City. From the outside of the bag, I could
30. After about thirty (30) minutes, Dep. Dir. Ragos
at the above[-]mentioned address, I called Mr. Ablen easily perceive that it contains money because the
went out of the house. He no longer has the black bag is translucent.
to accompany me in delivering the money. I told him
handbag with him.
we were going to do an important task.
20. Just like before, I fetched Mr. Ablen from his
31. We then drove to the BuCor Director's Quarters
12. Mr. Ablen agreed to accompany me so I fetched house before proceeding to the house of Sen. De
in Muntinlupa City. While cruising, Dep. Dir. Ragos
him from his house and we proceeded to the house Lima located at Laguna Bay corner Subic Bay Drive,
told me "Nior 'wag kang maingay kahit kanino at of Sen. De Lima at the above-mentioned address. South Bay Village, Paranaque City, where I know I
wala kang nakita ha," to which I replied "Sabi mo e. could find Mr. Dayan.
e di wala akong nakita."

53
21. In the car, Mr. Ablen asked me if we are going committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the WHEREFORE, the instant petition for prohibition
to deliver "quota." I answered yes. assailed Order for petitioner's arrest. and certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The
Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 204
22. We arrived at the house of Sen. De Lima at the Petitioner would later confine herself to the is ordered to proceed with dispatch with Criminal
above[-]mentioned address at noontime. I again contention that the prosecution's evidence is Case N6.17-165.
parked in front of the house. inadmissible, provided as they were by petitioner's
co-accused who are convicted felons and whose PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 180109
testimonies are but hearsay evidence. Petitioner,
23. I carried the plastic bag containing money to the Present:
house. At the gate, I was greeted by Mr. Ronnie
137
Dayan. At that point, I handed the bag to Mr. Dayan. Nowhere in Ramos v. Sandiganbayan - the case CARPIO, J.,
He received the bag and we proceeded inside the relied upon by petitioner - did this Court rule that Chairperson,
house.135 testimonies given by a co-accused are of no value. - versus - NACHURA,
PERALTA,
The Court simply held that said testimonies should
ABAD, and
The source of the monies delivered to petitioner De be received with great caution, but not that they MENDOZA, JJ.
Lima was expressly bared by several felons would not be considered. The testimony of Ramos'
incarcerated inside the NBP. Among them is Peter co-accused was, in fact, admitted in the cited case. JOSEPH JOJO V. GREY, FRANCIS B.
Furthermore, this Court explicitly ruled in Estrada v. GREY, and COURT OF APPEALS-CEBU Promulgated:
Co, who testified in the following manner: CITY, EIGHTEENTH DIVISION,
Office of the Ombudsman138that hearsay evidence
Respondents. July 26, 2010
is admissible during preliminary investigation. The
6. Noong huling bahagi ng 2012, sinabi sa akin ni Court held thusly:
Hans Tanna nanghihingi ng kontribusyon sa x------------------------------------------------------------------
mgaChinese sa Maximum Security ------------------x
Compound ng NBP si dating DOJ Sec. De Thus, probable cause can be established with
Lima para sa kanyang planong pagtakbo sa senado hearsay evidence, as long as there is substantial DECISION
sa 2013 Elections. Dalawang beses akong basis for crediting the hearsay. Hearsay evidence is
nagbigay ng tig-P5 Million para tugunan ang hiling admissible in determining probable cause in a NACHURA, J.:
ni Sen. De Lima, na dating DOJ Secretary; preliminary investigation because such investigation
is merely preliminary, and does not finally adjudicate
rights and obligations of parties.139 (Emphasis Before this Court is a Petition for Review
7. Binigay ko ang mga halagang ito kay Hans supplied.)
Tan para maibigay kay Sen. Leila De Lima na under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by the
datingDOJ Secretary. Sa parehong pagkakataon, People of the Philippines, through the Office of the
sinabihan na lang ako ni Hans Tan na naibigay na Verily, the admissibility of evidence,140 their Solicitor General (OSG), seeking the nullification of
ang pera kay Ronnie Dayan na siyang tumatanggap evidentiary weight, probative value, and the the Court of Appeals (CA) (Cebu City-Eighteenth
ng pera para kay dating DOJ Sec. De Lima Sinabi credibility of the witness are matters that are best Division) Resolution[1] dated March 13, 2007,
rin niHans Tanna ang nagdeliver ng pera ay si left to be resolved in a full-blown trial,141 not during Decision[2] dated May 8, 2007, and
dating OIC ng BuCor na si Rafael Ragos. a preliminary investigation where the technical rules Resolution[3] dated October 8, 2007, in CA-G.R. SP
of evidence are not applied142 nor at the stage of the No. 02558, entitled Mayor Joseph Jojo V. Grey and
determination of probable cause for the issuance of Francis B. Grey v. Hon. Roberto A. Navidad,
8. Sa kabuuan, nakapagbigay ang mga Chinese sa
a warrant of arrest. Thus, the better alternative is to Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of
loob ng Maximum ng PIO Million sa mga huling
proceed to the conduct of trial on the merits for the Calbayog City, Branch 32, and the People of the
bahagi ng taong 2012 kay dating DOJ Sec. De
petitioner and the prosecution to present their Philippines.
Lima para sa kanyang planong pagtakbo sa senado respective evidence in support of their allegations.
sa2013 Elections. Ang mga perang ito ay mula sa
On December 11, 2006, an Information for
pinagbentahan ng illegal na droga.136
With the foregoing disquisitions, the provisional Murder was filed against respondent Joseph Grey,
reliefs prayed for, as a consequence, have to be former Mayor of San Jorge, Samar; his son,
All these, at least preliminarily, outline a case for rejected. respondent Francis Grey; and two others for the
illegal drug trading committed in conspiracy by the death of Rolando Diocton, an employee of the San
petitioner and her co-accused. Thus, the Court Jorge municipal government, before the Regional
cannot sustain the allegation that respondent judge Trial Court (RTC), Branch 41, Gandara, Samar. The

54
Information was accompanied by other supporting Navidad, was a pawn in the political persecution The CA held that Judge Navidad failed to
documents and a motion for the issuance of a being staged against them.[12] In its August 22, 2007 abide by the constitutional mandate for him to
warrant of arrest.[4] Resolution, this Court denied the petition for lack of personally determine the existence of probable
merit and directed Judge Navidad to hear the case cause.[20] According to the CA, nowhere in the
Respondents filed a petition for review with with dispatch.[13] assailed Order did Judge Navidad state his personal
the Secretary of Justice. Meanwhile, RTC Branch assessment of the evidence before him and the
41 Presiding Judge Rosario Bandal denied the Accordingly, Judge Navidad proceeded personal justification for his finding of probable
motion for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. Judge with the preliminary inquiry on the existence of cause. It found that the judge extensively quoted
Bandal found the prosecutions evidence to be probable cause, and, in an Order dated February from the Joint Resolution of the Provincial
insufficient to link respondents to the crime charged. 20, 2007, ruled that the finding of probable cause Prosecutor and the Resolution of the Secretary of
She directed the prosecution to present, within five was supported by the evidence on record. He then Justice, and then adopted these to conclude that
days, additional evidence that would show that issued warrants of arrest against respondents and there was sufficient evidence to support the finding
accused were the assailants or that they conspired, all but one of their co-accused.[14] of probable cause. The CA held that the Constitution
confederated, or helped in the commission of the commands the judge to personally determine the
crime charged.[5] Respondents filed a existence of probable cause before issuing warrants
Petition[15] for Certiorari and Prohibition before the of arrest.[21]
The prosecution then filed an Omnibus CA, alleging that Judge Navidad gravely abused his
Motion for Reconsideration and a motion for the discretion in issuing the February 20, 2007 Order, Moreover, the CA also ruled that the
inhibition of Judge Bandal.[6] The judge inhibited and seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) Information was not supported by the allegations in
herself but denied the motion for reconsideration.[7] and/or a writ of preliminary injunction. They alleged the submitted affidavits.[22] It pointed out that the
that the filing of the murder charges against them on Information charged respondents as principals by
Thereafter, the provincial prosecutor filed a the basis of perjured statements coming from their direct participation, but the complaint-affidavit and
petition for change of venue before this Court, political opponents supporters smacks of political supporting affidavits uniformly alleged that
attaching thereto a letter from the victims wife harassment at its foulest form.[16] Respondents respondents were not at the scene of the
expressing fear for her life and that of the other pointed out that the criminal complaint was filed shooting.[23] The CA further found that the
witnesses.[8] barely two months after Joseph Grey declared his allegations in the complaint-affidavit and supporting
intentions to challenge incumbent Congressman affidavits were insufficient to establish probable
The Secretary of Justice, in a Resolution Reynaldo S. Uy, a former ally, in the May 2007 cause. It said that there was nothing in the affidavits
dated January 4, 2007, dismissed the petition for congressional elections. Likewise, respondents to show acts that would support the prosecutions
review and respondents counter charge of perjury. claimed that one of the witnesses, Urien Moloboco, theory that respondents were also charged as
He found no error to warrant the modification or who executed an affidavit before the Provincial principals by conspiracy.[24]
reversal of the prosecutors resolution. The Prosecutor, was the subject of an Alias Warrant of
Secretary of Justice ruled that the evidence Arrest for murder issued by the RTC of Petitioners motion for reconsideration of
adduced against respondents was sufficient to Gandara, Samar on June 26, 2006, and, hence, the CAs May 8, 2007 Decision was denied in a
establish probable cause for the offense charged. was a fugitive from the law at the time of the filing of Resolution dated October 8, 2007.[25] Hence, this
Respondents motion for reconsideration was denied the criminal complaint against respondents. petition for review.
on January 30, 2007.[9] Respondents maintain that the fact that Moloboco
was not arrested when he executed his affidavit Petitioner argues that respondents
Subsequently, the prosecution withdrew before the prosecutor, spoke of the power and clout committed forum shopping, which would warrant the
their motion for change of venue before this Court, of the witness protectors.[17] outright dismissal of their petition below. Petitioner
citing financial difficulties in bringing witnesses alleges that respondents petition for change of
to Manila.[10] Respondents opposed the motion and The CA Eighteenth Division issued a TRO venue before this Court and their petition for
prayed that all proceedings be suspended until after on March 13, 2007.[18] After oral arguments, the CA prohibition before the CA actually involve the same
the May 14, 2007 elections.[11] issued a Decision[19] dated May 8, 2007, making the subject matter, parties, and issues that of enjoining
TRO permanent, ordering that warrants of arrest be Judge Navidad from proceeding with the trial of the
However, on February 19, 2007, set aside, and dismissing the criminal case without criminal case against them.[26] Moreover, these two
respondents filed their own petition for change of prejudice. proceedings have resulted in conflicting decisions,
venue before this Court, alleging that the presiding with this Court resolving to proceed with the case
judge who took over the case, Judge Roberto and with the CA enjoining the same.[27]

55
 indecent haste with which it issued the Order and and second actions, identity of parties, subject
Petitioner also argues against the CAs Warrants of Arrest, and in its own admission in the matter, and cause of action.[41]
ruling that Judge Navidad failed to personally Order itself.[36] Respondents also maintain that the
determine the existence of probable cause. It said trial court acted whimsically, capriciously, and with A reexamination of the two actions in this case, in
that although the judge adopted the findings of the grave abuse of discretion when it concluded that light of the foregoing jurisprudence, is in order.
prosecutors as to the sufficiency of evidence there was probable cause to issue warrants of arrest
constituting probable cause, the language of the against respondents.[37] Respondents likewise In the petition for change of venue filed on February
Order clearly reflects that the judge himself assert that the trial court committed grave abuse of 19, 2007, respondents prayed for the transfer of the
personally examined the records and found that discretion when it reversed the finding of Judge criminal case to any court in Metro
there was probable cause for the issuance of Bandal, who first heard the case.[38] Manila,[42] alleging that the prosecution was
warrants of arrest.[28] Moreover, the judge was politically motivated and designed to hamper the
correct in finding probable cause based on the The petition is impressed with merit. plan of respondent Joseph Grey to run for a
sworn statements of the witnesses submitted to the congressional seat in the May 2007
court.[29] Petitioner avers that the CA disregarded Initially, we decide the issue of forum shopping elections.[43] They contended that it would be
the fact that the Information alleged raised by petitioner. extremely pernicious to the interest of justice if trial
conspiracy.[30] In any case, petitioner asserts that a of this case and (of) the other two cases are held in
perceived defect in the Information is not Petitioner maintains that respondents committed Samar, especially in the City of Calbayog, where the
jurisdictional as the same may be amended anytime forum shopping when it filed a petition for change of said (Congressman) Reynaldo Uy is a resident and
before arraignment or with leave of court after venue before this Court and a petition for prohibition absolutely wields power.[44] They also asked the
arraignment.[31] before the CA. Court to hold the proceedings in abeyance until after
the May 14, 2007 elections.
Petitioner also claims that respondents had Forum shopping is an act of a party, against
not shown any clear and unmistakable right to the whom an adverse judgment or order has been In its August 22, 2007 Resolution, the Court denied
relief they sought. It said that there are more than rendered in one forum, of seeking and possibly the petition for transfer of venue for lack of merit. It
enough plain, speedy, and adequate remedies getting a favorable opinion in another forum, other also directed Judge Navidad to hear the case with
available to respondents. Their constitutional rights than by appeal or special civil action for certiorari. It dispatch.[45]
are amply protected in the enforcement of the may also involve the institution of two or more
warrants of arrest. They can likewise apply for bail actions or proceedings grounded on the same On March 5, 2007, while their petition for
or move to quash the allegedly defective cause on the supposition that one or the other court change of venue was pending before this Court,
Information.[32] would make a favorable disposition.[39] respondents filed a petition for certiorari before the
CA. They prayed, first, for the issuance of a TRO
Petitioner also argues that this Court has Forum shopping exists where the elements and/or a writ of preliminary injunction to prohibit
laid down the rule that criminal prosecution cannot of litis pendentia are present, and where a final Judge Navidad from proceeding with Criminal Case
be enjoined, and any exception to this rule must be judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in No. 4916 and from causing the implementation of
convincingly established.[33] On the other hand, the the other. The elements of forum shopping are: (a) the warrants of arrest against respondents; and
comparative injury to the People in permanently identity of parties, or at least such parties as would second, for the Court to set aside Judge Navidads
enjoining a criminal case is beyond any of represent the same interest in both actions; (b) February 20, 2007 Order and the corresponding
respondents speculative claim of injury. identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the warrants he issued.[46] The TRO was granted on
relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) March 13, 2007, and the CA Decision making the
Thus, petitioner is praying that the CAs May identity of the two preceding particulars such that same injunction permanent and setting aside the
8, 2007 Decision and October 8, 2007 Resolution be any judgment rendered in the other action will, warrants of arrest was promulgated on May 8, 2007,
reversed and set aside, and the writ of injunction be regardless of which party is successful, amount a few days before the May 14, 2007 elections.
dissolved.[34] to res judicata in the action under consideration.[40]
The CA correctly ruled that respondents were not
In their Comment, respondents assert that The elements of res judicita are: (a) the guilty of forum shopping when they filed the two
the trial court issued its February 20, 2007 Order in former judgment must be final; (b) the court which actions. Respondents raised different issues and
gross violation of the Constitution and prevailing rendered judgment had jurisdiction over the parties sought different reliefs in the two actions, although
jurisprudence on the matter.[35] Respondents claim and the subject matter; (c) it must be a judgment on both were grounded on the same set of facts.
that the trial courts violation is evident in the the merits; and (d) there must be, between the first

56
 The issue in the petition for change of determines probable cause for the issuance of a cause. In satisfying himself of the
venue is whether the trial of the case was to be warrant of arrest and the preliminary investigation existence of probable cause for
moved to another court in light of respondents proper which ascertains whether the offender the issuance of a warrant of arrest,
allegations that the same was being used as a tool should be held for trial or be released. The the judge is not required to
for their political persecution. On the other hand, the determination of probable cause for purposes of personally examine the
issue in the petition for certiorari before the CA was issuing the warrant of arrest is made by the complainant and his
whether Judge Navidad gravely abused his judge. The preliminary investigation proper whether witnesses. Following established
discretion in issuing the February 20, 2007 Order or not there is reasonable ground to believe that the doctrine and procedure, he shall:
and the warrants for respondents arrest. accused is guilty of the offense charged is the (1) personally evaluate the report
function of the investigating prosecutor.[48] and the supporting documents
Thus, this Courts Resolution would not have submitted by the fiscal regarding
amounted to res judicata that would bar the petition The duty of the judge to determine probable the existence of probable cause
for certiorari before the CA. cause to issue a warrant of arrest is mandated by and, on the basis thereof, issue a
Article III, Section 2 of the Philippine Constitution: warrant of arrest; or (2) if on the
We now resolve the substantive issues. basis thereof he finds no probable
Section 2. The right of the cause, he may disregard the
Respondents, in their petition before the people to be secure in their fiscals report and require the
CA, questioned the alleged lack of personal persons, houses, papers, and submission of supporting affidavits
determination of probable cause by Judge Navidad effects against unreasonable of witnesses to aid him in arriving
in issuing the warrants for their arrest. searches and seizures of at a conclusion as to the existence
whatever nature and for any of probable cause.
Judge Navidads Order reads: purpose shall be inviolable, and no
search warrant or warrant of arrest Sound policy dictates this
In this separate, independent shall issue except upon probable procedure, otherwise judges
constitutionally-mandated Inquiry cause to be determined personally would by unduly laden with the
conducted for the purpose of by the judge after examination preliminary examination and
determining the sufficiency of the under oath or affirmation of the investigation of criminal
evidence constituting probable complainant and the witnesses he complaints instead of
cause to justify the issuance of a may produce, and particularly concentrating on hearing and
Warrant of Arrest, the Court describing the place to be deciding cases filed before their
perforce, made a very careful and searched and the persons or courts.[50]
meticulous and (sic) review not things to be seized.
only of the records but also the
evidence adduced by the What the law requires as personal
prosecution, particularly the In Soliven v. Makasiar,[49] the Court determination on the part of a judge is that he should
sworn statements/affidavits of explained that this constitutional provision does not not rely solely on the report of the investigating
Mario Abella, Uriendo Moloboco mandatorily require the judge to personally examine prosecutor.[51] This means that the judge should
and Edgar Pellina.[47] the complainant and her witnesses. Instead, he may consider not only the report of the investigating
opt to personally evaluate the report and supporting prosecutor but also the affidavit and the
documents submitted by the prosecutor or he may documentary evidence of the parties, the counter-
The language of the Order clearly shows that the disregard the prosecutors report and require the affidavit of the accused and his witnesses, as well
judge made his own personal determination of the submission of supporting affidavits of as the transcript of stenographic notes taken during
existence of probable cause by examining not only witnesses.Thus, in Soliven, we said: the preliminary investigation, if any, submitted to the
the prosecutors report but also his supporting court by the investigating prosecutor upon the filing
evidence, consisting mainly of the sworn statements What the Constitution of the Information.[52]
of the prosecutions witnesses. underscores is the exclusive and
personal responsibility of the The Court has also ruled that the personal
It is well to remember that there is a issuing judge to satisfy himself of examination of the complainant and his witnesses is
distinction between the preliminary inquiry which the existence of probable not mandatory and indispensable in the

57
determination of probable cause for the issuance of v. Albano, et al., L-19272, January Castelo, 18 L.J. [1953], cited
a warrant of arrest. The necessity arises only when 25, 1967, 19 SCRA 95); in Raoa v. Alvendia, CA-G.R. No.
there is an utter failure of the evidence to show the 30720-R, October 8, 1962; Cf.
existence of probable cause.[53] Otherwise, the b. When necessary for Guingona, et al. v. City Fiscal, L-
judge may rely on the report of the investigating the orderly administration of 60033, April 4, 1984, 128 SCRA
prosecutor, provided that he likewise evaluates the justice or to avoid oppression or 577); x x x
documentary evidence in support thereof. multiplicity of actions (Dimayuga,
et al. v. Fernandez, 43 Phil. j. When there is clearly no
Contrary to respondents claim, Judge Navidad did 304; Hernandez v. Albano, prima facie case against the
not gravely abuse his discretion in issuing the same. supra; Fortun v. Labang, et al., L- accused and a motion to quash on
38383, May 27, 1981, 104 SCRA that ground has been denied
A perusal of the assailed Order bears out 607); (Salonga v. Pao, et al., L-59524,
this fact. February 18, 1985, 134 SCRA
c. When there is a pre- 438)[; and]
It was only through a review of the judicial question which is sub[-
proceedings before the prosecutor that could have ]judice (De Leon v. Mabanag, 70 [k.] Preliminary injunction
led Judge Navidad to determine that the accused Phil. 202); has been issued by the Supreme
were given the widest latitude and ample Court to prevent the threatened
opportunity to challenge the charge of Murder which d. When the acts of the unlawful arrest of petitioners
resulted, among others, (in) a filing of a counter- officer are without or in excess of (Rodriguez v. Castelo, L-6374,
charge of Perjury.[54] Likewise, his personal authority (Planas v. Gil, 67 Phil. August 1, 1953).[58]
determination revealed no improper motive on the 62);
part of the prosecution and no circumstance which
would overwhelm the presumption of regularity in e. Where the prosecution Respondents insisted that political persecution by
the performance of official functions.[55] Thus, he is under an invalid law, ordinance their political rivals was the underlying reason for the
concluded that the previous Order, denying the or regulation (Young v. Rafferty, filing of criminal charges against them, and used this
motion for the issuance of warrants of arrest, was 33 Phil. 556; Yu Cong Eng v. as basis for asking the appellate court to stop the
not correct.[56] Trinidad, 47 Phil. 385, 389); proceedings in the trial court.

These statements sufficiently establish the f. When double jeopardy Indeed, this Court has recognized that, in certain
fact that Judge Navidad complied with the is clearly apparent (Sangalang v. instances, political persecution or political motives
constitutional mandate for personal determination of People and Avendia, 109 Phil. may have impelled the filing of criminal charges
probable cause before issuing the warrants of 1140); against certain political rivals. But this Court has
arrest. also ruled that any allegation that the filing of the
g. Where the court has no charges is politically motivated cannot justify the
The CA likewise overlooked a fundamental rule we jurisdiction over the offense prohibition of a criminal prosecution if there is
follow in this jurisdiction. It is an established doctrine (Lopez v. City Judge, L-25795, otherwise evidence to support the charges.[59]
that injunction will not lie to enjoin a criminal October 29, 1966, 18 SCRA 616);
prosecution because public interest requires that In this case, the judge, upon his personal
criminal acts be immediately investigated and examination of the complaint and evidence before
prosecuted for the protection of society.[57] h. Where there is a case him, determined that there was probable cause to
of persecution rather than issue the warrants of arrest after the provincial
However, it is also true that various prosecution (Rustia v. Ocampo, prosecution, based on the affidavits presented by
decisions of this Court have laid down exceptions to CA-G.R. No. 4760, March 25, complainant and her witnesses, found probable
this rule, among which are: 1960); cause to file the criminal Information. This finding of
the Provincial Prosecutor was affirmed by the
a. To afford adequate i. Where the charges are Secretary of Justice.
protection to the constitutional manifestly false and motivated by
rights of the accused (Hernandez the lust for vengeance (Recto v.

58
 To establish political harassment, resolution. Any further delay will amount to an and with the qualifying circumstance of treachery,
respondents must prove that the public prosecutor, injustice. evident premeditation, while Ryan 0. Bautista was
not just the private complainant, acted in bad faith in armed with an unlicensed firearm, did then and
prosecuting the case or has lent himself to a scheme WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack,
that could have no other purpose than to place considered, the Court of Appeals Decision dated assault and shoot one Manuel Granados with the
respondents in contempt and disrepute.[60] It must May 8, 2007 and Resolution dated October 8, 2007 use of said unlicensed firearm and inflicting upon the
be shown that the complainant possesses the in CA-G.R. SP No. 02558 are said victim fatal wounds on different parts of his
power and the influence to control the prosecution hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the body, which resulted to his untimely death, to the
of cases.[61] Permanent Injunction is hereby DISSOLVED. The damage and prejudice of his heirs.
Order of
Likewise, the allegation that the filing of the the Regional Trial Court of Calbayog City, Samar, CONTRARY TO LAW.
complaint was politically motivated does not serve dated February 20, 2007, is hereby REINSTATED.
to justify the nullification of the informations where The Regional Trial Court of Calbayog City, Samar,
the existence of such motive has not been is DIRECTED to proceed with hearing, and to The RTC dismissed the case for lack of probable
sufficiently established nor substantial evidence decide Criminal Case No. 4916 with dispatch. cause against petitioner in a Resolution dated
September 5, 2011.
presented in support thereof.[62]
G.R. No. 208001 The prosecution filed a Motion for Reconsideration
Other than their own self-serving claims,
respondents have adduced absolutely no proof of on September 26, 2011 praying for the
the perceived political persecution being waged by P/C SUPT. EDWIN A. PFLEIDER, Petitioner reinstatement of the case, but the Court denied the
their rivals. Respondents have not shown any vs. said motion on October 26, 2011.
evidence of such a grand design. They have not PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent
alleged, much less proved, any ill motive or malice A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
that could have impelled the provincial prosecutor, RESOLUTION Court was therefore filed with the CA. The petition
the judge, and even the Secretary of Justice to have was grounded on grave abuse of discretion
respectively ruled in the way each of them did. In PERALTA, J.: amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, since (a)
short, respondents are holding tenuously only on the questioned resolution and order: (i) discarded
the hope that this Court will take them at their word and ignored vital evidence and the authority of the
and grant the relief they pray for. This Court, This is to resolve the Petition for Review
public prosecutor in determining the existence of
however, cannot anchor its ruling on mere on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
probable cause; (ii) excluded the extra-judicial
allegations. dated July 23, 2013, of petitioner P/C Supt. Edwin
confession executed by petitioner's co-accused,
A. Pfleider (Ret.) assailing the Decision dated
Ryan Bautista, despite the presumed voluntariness
Needless to say, a full-blown trial is to be October 23, 2012 and Resolution dated June 26,
2013, both of the Court of Appeals (CA). and due execution thereof; and (iii) failed to give
preferred to ferret out the truth.[63] If, as respondents weight and consideration to other vital pieces of
claim, there is no evidence of their culpability, then evidence evincing trustworthiness of Bautista's
their petition for bail would easily be granted. The facts follow. extrajudicial confession and establishing petitioner's
Thereafter, the credibility of the prosecutions and complicity; and (b) the manifest presence of
the accuseds respective evidence may be tested An Information for Murder against petitioner and probable cause supports the charge of murder as
during the trial. It is only then that the guilt or Ryan Bautista was filed on April 18, 2011 before the against petitioner.
innocence of respondents will be determined. Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tacloban City, which
Whether the criminal prosecution was merely a tool reads as follows: On March 19, 2012, petitioner filed his
for harassment or whether the prosecutions Comment/Opposition and, on April 23, 2012,
evidence can pass the strict standards set by the That on or about the 15th day of September 2010 or respondent filed its Reply to which petitioner filed a
law and withstand the exacting scrutiny of the court prior thereto, in the City of Tacloban, Philippines and Rejoinder dated May 23, 2012.
will all be resolved at the trial of the case. within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, conspiring, confederating The CA, in its Decision dated October 24, 2012, set
The criminal Information in this case was and by offering a price, reward or consideration to
filed four years ago and trial has yet to begin. The aside the September 5, 2011 Resolution and
Ryan O. Bautista (Crim. Case No. 2010-09-497) October 26, 2011 Order of the trial court, and
victims kin, indeed, all the parties, are awaiting its and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill

59
directed the reinstatement of the Information for COMMENT thereon within ten (10) days from ALLEGEDLY ASSUMED THE POWER TO
Murder against petitioner. notice."3 PROSECUTE VESTED IN THE EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT; AND
Petitioner, on November 26, 2012, filed a Motion for A Motion for Extension4 dated February 4, 2014 was
Reconsideration on the CA's decision. Respondent, filed by the OSG which was granted by this Court in IV.
on the other hand, filed an Urgent Motion for the its Resolution5 dated March 24, 2014.
Issuance of a Warrant of Arrest on November 29, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
2012. Petitioner responded by filing an Opposition The OSG filed its Comment6 dated April 2, 2014, LIKEWISE ERRED IN HOLDING THAT
dated December 8, 2012, and a Supplemental while the petitioner filed his Reply7 dated May 15, PROBABLE CAUSE EXISTS, AND THAT
Motion for Reconsideration dated January 24, 2013. 2014. PROSECUTION WAS ALLEGEDLY ABLE TO
In a Resolution dated February 4, 2013, the CA PROFFER SUFFICIENT BASIS TO ESTABLISH,
resolved, among others, to Note the Office of the MORE LIKELY THAN NOT, A LINK BETWEEN
Petitioner raises the following Assignment of
Solicitor General's (OSG) Motion for the Issuance of PETITIONER AND RYAN BAUTISTA WITH
Errors:
a Warrant of Arrest. RESPECT TO THE KILLING OF MANUEL
GRANADOS.
I.
On March 7, 2013, respondent filed its Comment to
petitioner's motion for Reconsideration and The OSG, in its Comment, posited the following
Supplemental Motion and, in response, petitioner THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS arguments:
filed his Reply dated March 21, 2013. GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING DUE COURSE AND
NOT DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI FILED BY THE OFFICE OF THE I.
The CA, in a Resolution dated June 26, 2013,
SOLICITOR GENERAL AS THE SAME IS NOT
denied the Motion for Reconsideration for lack of
THE PROPER REMEDY, AND CANNOT BE A SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION FOR CERTIORARI
merit, there being no legal and factual basis for the
AVAILED OF AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE LOST UNDER RULE 65 IS THE PROPER REMEDY TO
Court to depart from its earlier ruling reinstating
REMEDY OF AN APPEAL; CORRECT ERRORS OF JURISDICTION WHICH,
Criminal Case No. 2011-04-286 for Murder against
petitioner. IN THIS CASE, ARE DEMONSTRATED BY THE
II. TRIAL COURT IN:
Hence, the present Petition.
ASSUMING THAT PETITION FOR CERTIORARI A. EXERCISING THE EXECUTIVE
CAN BE AVAILED IN LIEU OF A LOST APPEAL, FUNCTION OF DETERMINING THE
This Court, in a Resolution dated September 2, EXISTENSE OF PROBABLE CAUSE IN
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
2013, resolved "to DENY the petition and AFFIRM SUPPORT OF THE MURDER CHARGE;
GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT
the ruling of the Court of Appeals promulgated on
HONORABLE JUDGE ROGELIO SESCON OF
October 23, 2012 for failure to show any reversible
error committed by it when it held that the Regional BRANCH 9, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, B. IGNORING AND DISREGARDING THE
Trial Court, Branch 9 of Tacloban City committed TACLOBAN CITY, COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION OF
grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the case OF DISCRETION WHEN HE DISMISSED THE PETITIONER'S COACCUSED, RYAN
CRIMINAL CASE FOR MURDER WITH NO. 2011- BAUTISTA; AND
against Edwin A. Pfleider despite the presence of
probable cause linking him as one of the 04-268 AGAINST HEREIN PETITIONER FOR
LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE; c. REJECTING THE SAID EXTRA-
perpetrators of the crime charged against
him."1 Thus, petitioner filed a Motion for JUDICIAL CONFESSION DESPITE ITS
Reconsideration dated October 8, 2013. 2 III. PRESUMED AND MANIFEST
VOLUNTARINESS AND DUE
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED EXECUTION;
In a Resolution dated December 11, 2013, this
Court resolved to "GRANT the Motion for IN HOLDING THAT HONORABLE JUDGE
Reconsideration and SET ASIDE the Resolution ROGELIO SESCON ARROGATED UPON II.
dated September 2, 2013, REINSTATE the petition HIMSELF THE EXECUTIVE FUNCTION OF
and to require the Office of the Solicitor General to DETERMINING PROBABLE CAUSE, AND

60
WELL ENTRENCHED IS THE RULE THAT cause by the judge on the other. To have a clearer not the first time that this Court has remanded a
MINOR AND TRIVIAL INCONSISTENCIES IN view on the matter, see the case of Mendoza v. case to the trial court for it to make a ruling on
THE STATEMENTS OF PROSECUTION People of the Philippines, et az.11 whether certain Informations should be dismissed or
WITNESSES DO NOT WEAKEN, BUT RATHER not. 15
STRENGTHEN THEIR CREDIBILITY; It must be emphasized that this Court is not a trier
of facts. The determination of probable cause is and Thus, it is my view that the Petition for Review
III. will always entail a ·review of the facts of the case. on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
The CA, in finding probable cause, did not exactly dated July 23, 2013, of petitioner P/C Supt. Edwin
THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD SHOWS THAT, delve into the facts of the case but raised questions A. Pfleider (Ret.), should have been granted in so
MORE LIKELY THAN NOT, CRIME CHARGED that would entail a more exhaustive review of the far as his prayer to set aside the Decision dated
HAS BEEN COMMITTED AND THAT said facts. It ruled that, "Questions remain as to October 23, 2012 and Resolution dated June 26,
RESPONDENT IS PROBABLY GUILTY OF THE why, among all people, Ryan would implicate 2013, both of the Court of Appeals; and for this
SAME, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT DISMISS THE Pfelider as the inducer and why the other witnesses Court to order that this case be remanded to the
CASE; would associate Pfleider to the crime." 12 From this Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City for the judicial
query, the CA has raised doubt. Under the Revised determination of probable cause and the proper
Rules on Criminal Procedure, disposition of the same case. However, in view of
IV.
the demise of P/C Supt. Edwin A. Pfleider on April
Section 6. When warrant of arrest may issue. - 15, 2017, which effectively extinguished his criminal
THE CIDG IS PRESUMED TO HAVE liability, this case had been rendered moot and
(a) By the Regional Trial Court. - Within ten (10)
PERFORMED ITS OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS academic. Thus, the criminal action against him
days from the filing of the complaint or information,
REGULARLY AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. should just be dismissed, and deemed closed and
the judge shall personally evaluate the resolution of
the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. He may terminated inasmuch as there is no longer a
Basically, what the petitioner and the respondent immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on defendant to stand as the accused.
want from this Court is for it to review the facts and record clearly fails to establish probable cause. If he
to finally determine whether a probable cause really finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review
exists in the case against petitioner for murder. arrest, or a commitment order if the accused has on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
already been arrested pursuant to a warrant issued dated July 23, 2013 of petitioner P/C Supt. Edwin A.
Ordinarily, the determination of probable cause is by the judge who conducted the preliminary Pfleider (Ret.) is hereby GRANTED-insofar as his
not lodged with this Court. Its duty in an appropriate investigation or when the complaint or information prayer to SET ASIDE the Decision dated October
case is confined to the issue of whether the was filed pursuant to section 7 of this Rule. In case 23; 2012 and Resolution dated June 26, 2013, both
executive or judicial determination, as the case may of doubt on the existence of probable cause, the of the Court of Appeals. However, considering the
be, of probable cause was done without or in excess judge may order the prosecutor to present additional demise of P/C Supt. Edwin A. Pfleider, instead of
of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion evidence within five (5) days from notice and the remanding the case to the Regional Trial Court of
amounting to want of jurisdiction.8 This is consistent issue must be resolved by the court within thirty (30) Tacloban city for the determination of probable
with the general rule that criminal prosecutions may days from the filing of the complaint of cause, the criminal action is DISMISSED, there
not be restrained or stayed by injunction, preliminary information. 13 being no defendant to stand as accused. 16
or final.9 There are, however, exceptions to this rule.
Among the exceptions are enumerated in Brocka v. In this case, the judge of the RTC, not finding the G.R. No. 182534
Enrile. 10 existence of probable cause, outrightly dismissed ONGCOMA HADJI HOMAR, Petitioner,
the case. The contrasting findings of the CA and the vs.
However, a close examination of the arguments RTC is well noted and from the very provision of the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
presented by both parties· would show that the Rules of Court, 14 the remedy, in case of doubt, is DECISION
present case does not fall under any of the above- for the judge to order the prosecutor to present
cited exceptions.1âwphi1 Furthermore, in this case, additional evidence. Therefore, in the interest of BRION, J.:
this Court is once again confronted with the often justice, this Court finds it appropriate to remand the
raised issue of the difference between the case to the trial court for its proper disposition, or for
determination of probable cause by the prosecutor a proper determination of probable cause based on Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari
on one hand and the determination of probable the evidence presented by the prosecution. This is filed by Ongcoma Hadji Romar (petitioner) seeking

61
the reversal of the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals After crossing the overpass, a policeman and a Consequently, the subsequent frisking and search
(CA) dated January 10, 2008, and its Resolution civilian stopped and frisked him despite his refusal. done on the petitioner’s body which produced the
dated April 11, 2008 in CA-G.R. CR No. 29364. They poked a gun at him, accused him of being a knife and the shabu were incident to a lawful arrest
These assailed CA rulings affirmed the decision of holdupper, and forced him to go with them. They allowed under Section 13, Rule 126 of the Revised
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parafiaque City, also confiscated the kitchen knife, which he carried Rules of Criminal Procedure.10
Branch 259 in Criminal Case No. 02-0986 which to cut cords. He was likewise investigated for
convicted the petitioner for violation of Republic Act alleged possession of shabu and detained for one The CA likewise ruled that PO1 Tan11 clearly
(RA) No. 9165 entitled "An Act Instituting the day. He was criminally charged before the showed that the petitioner was caught in flagrante
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002." Metropolitan Trial Court of Parañaque City, Branch delicto in possession of shabu.12
77 for the possession of the kitchen knife but he was
The Factual Antecedents eventually acquitted.6
The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration
which was denied by the CA.13 Hence, this appeal.
The petitioner was charged for violation of Section The RTC’s Ruling
11, Article II2 of RA 9165. The Information states The Petitioner’s Position
that on or about August 20, 2002, the petitioner was The RTC convicted the petitioner. It ruled that PO1
found to possess one heat-sealed transparent Tan and C/A Tangcoy were presumed to have
The petitioner argues that the CA erred in affirming
plastic sachet containing 0.03 grams of performed their duties regularly in arresting and
his conviction on the following grounds:
methylamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise conducting a search on the petitioner. The RTC also
known as shabu. The petitioner pleaded not guilty noted that PO1 Eric Tan was straightforward in
during arraignment.3 giving his testimony and he did not show any ill First, the shabu, which was allegedly recovered
motive in arresting the petitioner.7 from the petitioner, is inadmissible as evidence
because it was obtained as a result of his unlawful
PO1 Eric Tan (Tan) was the lone witness for the
arrest and in violation of his right against
prosecution. As stated in the RTC decision, he The RTC also did not believe the petitioner’s
unreasonable search and seizure.
testified that on August 20, 2002, at around 8:50 in defense of denial and ruled that it is a common and
the evening, their Chief, P/Chief Supt. Alfredo C. standard defense ploy in most prosecutions in
Valdez, ordered him and civilian agent (C/A) Ronald dangerous drugs cases. This defense is weak The petitioner has not committed, was not
Tangcoy (Tangcoy) to go to the South Wing, Roxas especially when it is not substantiated by clear and committing and was not attempting to commit any
Boulevard. While proceeding to the area onboard a convincing evidence as in this case.8 crime at the time of his arrest. In fact, no report or
mobile hunter, they saw the petitioner crossing a criminal charge was filed against him for the alleged
"No Jaywalking" portion of Roxas Boulevard. They jaywalking.14
The petitioner filed an appeal with the CA.
immediately accosted him and told him to cross at
the pedestrian crossing area. Second, assuming for the sake of argument that
The CA’s ruling
there was a valid arrest, Section 13, Rule 126 of the
The petitioner picked up something from the ground, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure permits a
The CA dismissed the petition and affirmed the search that is directed only upon dangerous
prompting Tangcoy to frisk him resulting in the
RTC’s findings. weapons or "anything which may have been used or
recovery of a knife. Thereafter, Tangcoy conducted
a thorough search on the petitioner’s body and constitute proof in the commission of an offense
found and confiscated a plastic sachet containing According to the CA, Section 5, paragraph (a) of without a warrant." In the present case, the offense,
what he suspected as shabu. Tangcoy and Tan Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal for which the petitioner was allegedly caught in
executed a sinumpaang salaysay on the incident.4 Procedure enumerates the circumstances when a flagrante delicto, is jaywalking. The alleged
warrantless arrest is legal, valid, and proper. One of confiscated drug has nothing to do with the offense
these is when the person to be arrested has of jaywalking.15
The petitioner was the sole witness for the
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting
defense.5 He testified that on August 20, 2002, he
to commit an offense in the presence of a peace Finally, the non-presentation of Tangcoy, who
was going home at around 6:30 p.m. after selling
officer or a private person. In the present case, the allegedly recovered the shabu from the petitioner,
imitation sunglasses and other accessories at the
BERMA Shopping Center. petitioner committed jaywalking in the presence of renders the prosecution’s evidence weak and
PO1 Tan and C/A Tangcoy; hence, his warrantless uncorroborated. Consequently, the sole testimony
arrest for jaywalking was lawful.9

62
of Tan cannot sustain the petitioner’s conviction For this purpose, the law requires that there be first evidence that could have supported the conclusion
beyond reasonable doubt. a lawful arrest before a search can be made — the that indeed the petitioner was committing a crime of
process cannot be reversed.22 jaywalking and therefore, the subsequent arrest and
The Respondent’s Position search on his person was valid. Unfortunately, the
Section 5, Rule 11323 of the Revised Rules of prosecution failed to prove this in the present case.
In his Comment, the respondent argues that the guilt Criminal Procedure provides the only occasions
of the petitioner was conclusively established when a person may be lawfully arrested without a We clarify, however, that the filing of a criminal
beyond reasonable doubt.16 He reiterates that the warrant. In the present case, the respondent alleged charge is not a condition precedent to prove a valid
warrantless frisking and search on the petitioner’s that the petitioner’s warrantless arrest was due to warrantless arrest. Even if there is a criminal charge
body was an incident to a lawful warrantless arrest his commission of jaywalking in flagrante delicto and against an accused, the prosecution is not relieved
for jaywalking.17 The non-filing of a criminal charge in the presence of Tan and Tangcoy. from its burden to prove that there was indeed a
of jaywalking against the petitioner does not render valid warrantless arrest preceding the warrantless
his arrest invalid.18 To constitute a valid in flagrante delicto arrest, two search that produced the corpus delicti of the crime.
requisites must concur: (1) the person to be arrested
The respondent also assails the petitioner’s defense must execute an overt act indicating that he has just Neither can the presumption of regularity in the
that the shabu is inadmissible as evidence. committed, is actually committing, or is attempting performance of official duty save the prosecution’s
According to the respondent, the petitioner can no to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in lack of evidence to prove the warrantless arrest and
longer question his arrest after voluntarily submitting the presence of or within the view of the arresting search. This presumption cannot overcome the
himself to the jurisdiction of the trial court when he officer.24 presumption of innocence or constitute proof of guilt
entered his plea of not guilty and when he testified beyond reasonable doubt. Among the constitutional
in court.19 The prosecution has the burden to prove the legality rights enjoyed by an accused, the most primordial
of the warrantless arrest from which the corpus yet often disregarded is the presumption of
delicti of the crime - shabu- was obtained. For, innocence. This elementary principle accords every
The Court’s Ruling
without a valid warrantless arrest, the alleged accused the right to be presumed innocent until the
confiscation of the shabu resulting from a contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt; and
We find the petition meritorious. the burden of proving the guilt of the accused rests
warrantless search on the petitioner’s body is surely
a violation of his constitutional right against unlawful upon the prosecution.25
The prosecution failed to prove that a lawful search and seizure. As a consequence, the alleged
warrantless arrest preceded the search conducted shabu shall be inadmissible as evidence against It may not be amiss to point out also the contrary
on the petitioner’s body. him. observation of the Court as regards the findings of
the RTC when it held, rather hastily, that in the
The Constitution guarantees the right of the people On this point, we find that aside from the bare process of accosting the petitioner for jaywalking,
to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and testimony of Tan as quoted by the CA in its decision, Tangcoy recovered from his possession a knife and
effects against unreasonable searches and the prosecution did not proffer any other proof to a small plastic sachet containing shabu.26 The
seizures. Any evidence obtained in violation of establish that the requirements for a valid in testimony of Tan, as quoted in the CA decision, and
these rights shall be inadmissible for any purpose in flagrante delicto arrest were complied with. the findings of the RTC, cast doubt on whether Tan
any proceeding. While the power to search and Particularly, the prosecution failed to prove that the and Tangcoy intended to arrest the petitioner for
seize may at times be necessary to the public petitioner was committing a crime. jaywalking.
welfare, the exercise of this power and the
implementation of the law should not violate the The respondent failed to specifically identify the Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in
constitutional rights of the citizens.20 order that he or she may be bound to answer for
area where the petitioner allegedly crossed. Thus,
Tan merely stated that the petitioner "crossed the the commission of an offense. It is effected by an
To determine the admissibility of the seized drugs in street of Roxas Boulevard, in a place not designated actual restraint of the person to be arrested or by
evidence, it is indispensable to ascertain whether or for crossing." Aside from this conclusion, the that person’s voluntary submission to the custody
not the search which yielded the alleged contraband respondent failed to prove that the portion of Roxas of the one making the arrest. Neither the
was lawful.21 There must be a valid warrantless Boulevard where the petitioner crossed was indeed application of actual force, manual touching of the
search and seizure pursuant to an equally valid a "no jaywalking" area. The petitioner was also not body, or physical restraint, nor a formal declaration
warrantless arrest, which must precede the search. charged of jaywalking. These are pieces of of arrest, is required. It is enough that there be an

63
intention on the part of one of the parties to arrest A: Suspected shabu or methylamphetamine the shabu from the petitioner, for which they
the other, and that there be an intent on the part of hydrochloride. informed him of his constitutional rights and brought
the other to submit, under the belief and him to the police station.
impression that submission is necessary.27 Q: After the drug was recovered from the
possession of that man, what did you do? The indispensability of the intent to arrest an
The pertinent testimony28 of Tan, as quoted by the accused in a warrantless search incident to a lawful
CA, is as follows: A: We brought him to our precinct and informed arrest was emphasized in Luz vs. People of the
him of his constitutional rights and brought him to Philippines.30 The Court held that the shabu
Q: What happened after you obeyed the order of the Parañaque Community Hospital and the confiscated from the accused in that case was
your immediate superior? suspected shabu or methylamphetamine was inadmissible as evidence when the police officer
brought to the PNP Crime Lab at Fort Bonifacio. who flagged him for traffic violation had no intent to
arrest him. According to the Court, due to the lack of
A: At 8:50 in the evening of August 20, 2002, we
intent to arrest, the subsequent search was
saw a male person crossed the street of Roxas Q: Did you come to know the name of that person unlawful.
Boulevard, in a place not designated for crossing. whom you arrested in the morning of August 20,
2002?
This is notwithstanding the fact that the accused,
Q: What did you do when you saw this person
being caught in flagrante delicto for violating an
crossed the street of Roxas Boulevard, in a place A: Yes, sir.
ordinance, could have been therefore lawfully
not designated for crossing?
stopped or arrested by the apprehending officers.
Q: What is his name?
A: We accosted him.
In the light of the discussion above, the
A: Ongcoma Hadji Omar, sir. respondent’s argument that there was a lawful
Q: How did you accost that person? search incident to a lawful warrantless arrest for
Q: Is he the same Ongcoma Hadji Omar y Para, jaywalking appears to be an afterthought in order to
A: We accosted him and pointed to him the right the accused in this case? justify a warrantless search conducted on the
place for crossing. Pero napansin namin siya na person of the petitioner.1avvphi1 In fact, the
parang may kinukuha, so he was frisked by Ronald A: Yes, sir." illegality of the search for the shabu is further
Tangcoy and a knife was recovered from his highlighted when it was not recoveredimmediately
possession. after the alleged lawful arrest, if there was any, but
[emphasis and underscoring supplied] only after the initial search resulted in the recovery
Q: After a knife was recovered by your companions of the knife. Thereafter, according to Tan, Tangcoy
Clearly, no arrest preceded the search on the conducted another search on the person of the
(sic) from that person who allegedly crossed the
wrong side of the street, what happened after that? person of the petitioner. When Tan and Tangcoy petitioner resulting in the alleged confiscation of the
allegedly saw the petitioner jaywalking, they did not shabu. Clearly, the petitioner's right to be secure in
arrest him but accosted him and pointed to him the his person was callously brushed aside twice by the
A: After recovering the knife, nakaalalay lang ako right place for crossing. In fact, according to the arresting police officers.31
and he was frisked again by Tangcoy and a plastic RTC, Tan and Tangcoy "immediately accosted him
sachet was recovered from his possession. and told him to cross [at] the designated area."29 The waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not
also mean a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence
Q: Did you know the contents of that plastic sachet Tan and Tangcoy did not intend to bring the seized during an illegal warrantless arrest.
which your companion recovered from that person petitioner under custody or to restrain his liberty.
who crossed the wrong side of the street? This lack of intent to arrest him was bolstered by the We agree with the respondent that the petitioner did
fact that there was no criminal charge that was filed not timely object to the irregularity of his arrest
A: Yes, sir. against the petitioner for crossing a "no jaywalking" before his arraignment as required by the
area. Rules.1âwphi1 In addition, he actively participated
Q: What about the contents? in the trial of the case. As a result, the petitioner is
From Tan’s testimony, the intent to arrest the deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the
petitioner only came after they allegedly confiscated trial court, thereby curing any defect in his arrest.

64
However, this waiver to question an illegal arrest omnibus motion for immediate release and proper recalled and cancelled; (3) petitioner's omnibus
only affects the jurisdiction of the court over his preliminary investigation,4 alleging that the motion for immediate release and preliminary
person. It is well-settled that a waiver of an illegal, warrantless arrest of petitioner was unlawful and investigation dated 11 July 1991 was treated as a
warrantless arrest does not carry with it a waiver of that no preliminary investigation had been petition for bail and set for hearing on 23 July 1991.
the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an conducted before the information was filed.
illegal warrantless arrest.32 Petitioner also prayed that he be released on On 19 July 1991, petitioner filed a petition
recognizance or on bail. Provincial Prosecutor for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus before the
Since the shabu was seized during an illegal arrest, Mauro Castro, acting on the omnibus motion, wrote Supreme Court assailing the 17 July 1991 Order,
its inadmissibility as evidence precludes conviction on the last page of the motion itself that he contending that the information was null and void
and justifies the acquittal of the petitioner. interposed no objection to petitioner being granted because no preliminary investigation had been
provisional liberty on a cash bond of P100,000.00. previously conducted, in violation of his right to due
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition and process. Petitioner also moved for suspension of all
REVERSE and SET ASIDE the Decision of the On 12 July 1991, petitioner filed an urgent ex- proceedings in the case pending resolution by the
Court of Appeals dated January 10, 2008, and its parte motion for special raffle 5 in order to expedite Supreme Court of his petition; this motion was,
Resolution dated April 11, 2008 in CA-G.R. CR No. action on the Prosecutor's bail recommendation. however, denied by respondent Judge.
29364. Petitioner ONGCOMA HADJI HOMAR is The case was raffled to the sala of respondent
ACQUITTED and ordered immediately RELEASED Judge, who, on the same date, approved the cash On 23 July 1991, petitioner surrendered to the
from detention, unless he is confined for any other bond 6 posted by petitioner and ordered his police.
lawful cause. release. 7 Petitioner was in fact released that same
day.
By a Resolution dated 24 July 1991, this Court
G.R. No. 101837 February 11, 1992 remanded the petition for certiorari, prohibition
On 16 July 1991, the Prosecutor filed with the and mandamus to the Court of Appeals.
Regional Trial Court a motion for leave to conduct
ROLITO GO y TAMBUNTING, petitioner, preliminary investigation8 and prayed that in the
vs. On 16 August 1991, respondent Judge issued an
meantime all proceedings in the court be
THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE HON. order in open court setting the arraignment of
suspended. He stated that petitioner had filed
BENJAMIN V. PELAYO, Presiding Judge, petitioner on 23 August 1991.
before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of
Branch 168, Regional Trial Court, NCJR Pasig, Rizal an omnibus motion for immediate release and
M.M., and PEOPLE OF THE preliminary investigation, which motion had been On 19 August 1991, petitioner filed with the Court of
PHILIPPINES, respondents. granted by Provincial Prosecutor Mauro Castro, Appeals a motion to restrain his arraignment.
who also agreed to recommend cash bail of
P100,000.00. The Prosecutor attached to the On 23 August 1991, respondent judge issued a
motion for leave a copy of petitioner's omnibus Commitment Order directing the Provincial Warden
FELICIANO, J.: motion of 11 July 1991. of Rizal to admit petitioner into his custody at the
Rizal Provincial Jail. On the same date, petitioner
Also on 16 July 1991, the trial court issued an was arraigned. In view, however, of his refusal to
According to the findings of the San Juan Police in
Order 9 granting leave to conduct preliminary enter a plea, the trial court entered for him a plea of
their Investigation Report, 1 on 2 July 1991, Eldon
investigation and cancelling the arraignment set for not guilty. The Trial court then set the criminal case
Maguan was driving his car along j for frustrated
15 August 1991 until after the prosecution shall for continuous hearings on 19, 24 and 26
homicide, filed an information for murder 3 before
have concluded its preliminary investigation. September; on 2, 3, 11 and 17 October; and on 7,
the Regional Trial Court. No bail was
8, 14, 15, 21 and 22 November 1991. 11
recommended. At the bottom of the information, the
Prosecutor certified that no preliminary investigation On 17 July 1991, however, respondent Judge motu
had been conducted because the accused did not proprio issued an Order, 10 embodying the On 27 August 1991, petitioner filed a petition
execute and sign a waiver of the provisions of Article following: (1) the 12 July 1991 Order which granted for habeas corpus 12 in the Court of Appeals. He
125 of the Revised Penal Code. bail was recalled; petitioner was given 48 hours from alleged that in view of public respondent's failure to
receipt of the Order to surrender himself; (2) the 16 join issues in the petition for certiorari earlier filed by
July 1991 Order which granted leave to the him, after the lapse of more than a month, thus
In the afternoon of the same day, 11 July 1991,
counsel for petitioner filed with the Prosecutor an prosecutor to conduct preliminary investigation was

65
prolonging his detention, he was entitled to be d. Since there was a valid information for Revised Penal Code, the Prosecutor was legally
released on habeas corpus. murder against petitioner and a valid justified in filing the information for murder even
commitment order (issued by the trial judge without preliminary investigation.
On 30 August 1991, the Court of Appeals issued the after petitioner surrendered to the
writ of habeas corpus. 13 The petition for certiorari, authorities whereby petitioner was given to On the other hand, petitioner argues that he was not
prohibition and mandamus, on the one hand, and the custody of the Provincial Warden), the lawfully arrested without warrant because he went
the petition for habeas corpus, upon the other, were petition for habeas corpus could not be to the police station six (6) days after the shooting
subsequently consolidated in the Court of Appeals. granted. which he had allegedly perpetrated. Thus, petitioner
argues, the crime had not been "just committed" at
The Court of Appeals, on 2 September 1991, issued On 3 October 1991, the prosecution presented three the time that he was arrested. Moreover, none of the
a resolution denying petitioner's motion to restrain (3) more witnesses at the trial. Counsel for petitioner police officers who arrested him had been an
his arraignment on the ground that that motion had also filed a "Withdrawal of Appearance" 15 with the eyewitness to the shooting of Maguan and
become moot and academic. trial court, with petitioner's conformity. accordingly none had the "personal knowledge"
required for the lawfulness of a warrantees arrest.
On 4 October 1991, the present Petition for Review Since there had been no lawful warrantless arrest.
On 19 September 1991, trial of the criminal case
on Certiorari was filed. On 14 October 1991, the Section 7, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court which
commenced and the prosecution presented its first
Court issued a Resolution directing respondent establishes the only exception to the right to
witness.
Judge to hold in abeyance the hearing of the preliminary investigation, could not apply in respect
criminal case below until further orders from this of petitioner.
On 23 September 1991, the Court of Appeals Court.
rendered a consolidated decision 14 dismissing the
The reliance of both petitioner and the Solicitor
two (2) petitions, on the following grounds:
In this Petition for Review, two (2) principal issues General upon Umil v. Ramos is, in the
need to be addressed: first, whether or not a lawful circumstances of this case, misplaced. In Umil
a. Petitioner's warrantless arrest was valid v. Ramos, by an eight-to-six vote, the Court
warrantless arrest had been effected by the San
because the offense for which he was sustained the legality of the warrantless arrests of
Juan Police in respect of petitioner Go; and second,
arrested and charged had been "freshly petitioners made from one (1) to fourteen days after
whether petitioner had effectively waived his right to
committed." His identity had been the actual commission of the offenses, upon the
preliminary investigation. We consider these
established through investigation. At the issues seriatim. ground that such offenses constituted "continuing
time he showed up at the police station, crimes." Those offenses were subversion,
there had been an existing manhunt for membership in an outlawed organization like the
him. During the confrontation at the San In respect of the first issue, the Solicitor General New People's Army, etc. In the instant case, the
Juan Police Station, one witness positively argues that under the facts of the case, petitioner offense for which petitioner was arrested was
identified petitioner as the culprit. had been validly arrested without warrant. Since murder, an offense which was obviously
petitioner's identity as the gunman who had shot commenced and completed at one definite location
Eldon Maguan on 2 July 1991 had been sufficiently in time and space. No one had pretended that the
b. Petitioner's act of posting bail constituted
established by police work, petitioner was validly fatal shooting of Maguan was a "continuing crime."
waiver of any irregularity attending his
arrested six (6) days later at the San Juan Police
arrest. He waived his right to preliminary
Station. The Solicitor General invokes Nazareno
investigation by not invoking it properly and Secondly, we do not believe that the warrantees
v. Station Commander, etc., et al., 16 one of the
seasonably under the Rules. "arrest" or detention of petitioner in the instant case
seven (7) cases consolidated with In the Matter of
the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Roberto Umil, falls within the terms of Section 5 of Rule 113 of the
c. The trial court did not abuse its discretion etc., v. Ramos, et al. 17 where a majority of the Court 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure which provides
when it issued the 17 July 1991 Order upheld a warrantees arrest as valid although as follows:
because the trial court had the inherent effected fourteen (14) days after the killing in
power to amend and control its processes connection with which Nazareno had been arrested. Sec. 5 Arrest without warrant; when lawful.
so as to make them conformable to law and Accordingly, in the view of the Solicitor General, the — A peace officer or a private person may,
justice. provisions of Section 7, Rule 112 of the Rules of without warrant, arrest a person:
Court were applicable and because petitioner had
declined to waive the provisions of Article 125 of the

66
 (a) When, in his presence, the person to be of Section 5 of Rule 113. It is clear too that Section homicide with the Prosecutor, the latter should have
arrested has committed, is actually 7 of Rule 112, which provides: immediately scheduled a preliminary investigation
committing, or is attempting to commit an to determine whether there was probable cause for
offense; Sec. 7 When accused lawfully arrested charging petitioner in court for the killing of Eldon
without warrant. — When a person is Maguan. Instead, as noted earlier, the Prosecutor
(b) When an offense has in fact just been lawfully arrested without a warrant for an proceed under the erroneous supposition that
committed, and he has personal knowledge offense cognizable by the Regional Trial Section 7 of Rule 112 was applicable and required
of facts indicating that the person to be Court the complaint or information may be petitioner to waive the provisions of Article 125 of
arrested has committed it; and filed by the offended party, peace officer or the Revised Penal Code as a condition for carrying
fiscal without a preliminary investigation out a preliminary investigation. This was substantive
having been first conducted, on the basis of error, for petitioner was entitled to a preliminary
(c) When the person to be arrested is a investigation and that right should have been
prisoner who has escaped from a penal the affidavit of the offended party or
arresting office or person accorded him without any conditions. Moreover,
establishment or place where he is serving since petitioner had not been arrested, with or
final judgment or temporarily confined while without a warrant, he was also entitled to be
his case is pending, or has escaped while However, before the filing of such
released forthwith subject only to his appearing at
being transferred from one confinement to complaint or information, the person the preliminary investigation.
another. arrested may ask for a preliminary
investigation by a proper officer in
accordance with this Rule, but he must sign Turning to the second issue of whether or not
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and petitioner had waived his right to preliminary
(b) hereof, the person arrested without a a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended, with investigation, we note that petitioner had from the
warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the very beginning demanded that a preliminary
nearest police station or jail, and he shall the assistance of a lawyer and in case of
non-availability of a lawyer, a responsible investigation be conducted. As earlier pointed out,
be proceed against in accordance with on the same day that the information for murder was
Rule 112, Section 7. person of his choice. Notwithstanding such
waiver, he may apply for bail as provided in filed with the Regional Trial Court, petitioner filed
the corresponding rule and the with the Prosecutor an omnibus motion for
Petitioner's "arrest" took place six (6) days after the immediate release and preliminary investigation.
investigation must be terminated within
shooting of Maguan. The "arresting" officers fifteen (15) days from its inception. The Solicitor General contends that that omnibus
obviously were not present, within the meaning of motion should have been filed with the trial court and
Section 5(a), at the time petitioner had allegedly not with the Prosecutor, and that the petitioner
shot Maguan. Neither could the "arrest" effected six If the case has been filed in court without a
should accordingly be held to have waived his right
(6) days after the shooting be reasonably regarded preliminary investigation having been first
to preliminary investigation. We do not believe that
as effected "when [the shooting had] in fact just conducted, the accused may within five (5)
waiver of petitioner's statutory right to preliminary
been committed" within the meaning of Section 5(b). days from the time he learns of the filing of
investigation may be predicated on such a slim
Moreover, none of the "arresting" officers had any the information, ask for a preliminary
basis. The preliminary investigation was to be
"personal knowledge" of facts indicating that investigation with the same right to adduce
conducted by the Prosecutor, not by the Regional
petitioner was the gunman who had shot Maguan. evidence in his favor in the manner
Trial Court. It is true that at the time of filing of
The information upon which the police acted had prescribed in this Rule. (Emphasis
petitioner's omnibus motion, the information for
been derived from statements made by alleged supplied)
murder had already been filed with the Regional
eyewitnesses to the shooting — one stated that Trial Court: it is not clear from the record whether
petitioner was the gunman; another was able to take is also not applicable. Indeed, petitioner was not petitioner was aware of this fact at the time his
down the alleged gunman's car's plate number arrested at all. When he walked into San Juan omnibus motion was actually filed with the
which turned out to be registered in petitioner's Police Station, accompanied by two (2) lawyers, he Prosecutor. In Crespo v. Mogul, 19 this Court held:
wife's name. That information did not, however, in fact placed himself at the disposal of the police
constitute "personal knowledge." 18 authorities. He did not state that he was
The preliminary investigation conducted by
"surrendering" himself, in all probability to avoid the
the fiscal for the purpose of determining
It is thus clear to the Court that there was no lawful implication he was admitting that he had slain Eldon
whether a prima facie case exists to
warrantless arrest of petitioner within the meaning Maguan or that he was otherwise guilty of a crime.
warranting the prosecution of the accused
When the police filed a complaint for frustrated

67
is terminated upon the filing of the investigation (attaching to his motion a right to preliminary investigation before his
information in the proper court. In turn, as copy of petitioner's omnibus motion), we arraignment. At the time of his arraignment,
above stated, the filing of said information conclude that petitioner's omnibus motion petitioner was already before the Court of Appeals
sets in motion the criminal action against was in effect filed with the trial court. What on certiorari, prohibition and mandamusprecisely
the accused in Court. Should the fiscal find was crystal clear was that petitioner did ask asking for a preliminary investigation before being
it proper to conduct a reinvestigation of the for a preliminary investigation on the very forced to stand trial.
case, at such stage, the permission of the day that the information was filed without
Court must be secured. After such such preliminary investigation, and that the Again, in the circumstances of this case, we do not
reinvestigation the finding and trial court was five (5) days later apprised of believe that by posting bail petitioner had waived his
recommendations of the fiscal should be the desire of the petitioner for such right to preliminary investigation. In People
submitted to the Court for appropriate preliminary investigation. Finally, the trial v. Selfaison, 23 we did hold that appellants there had
action.While it is true that the fiscal has court did in fact grant the Prosecutor's waived their right to preliminary investigation
the quasi-judicial discretion to determine prayer for leave to conduct preliminary because immediately after their arrest, they filed bail
whether or not a criminal case should be investigation. Thus, even on the (mistaken) and proceeded to trial "without previously claiming
filed in court or not, once the case had supposition apparently made by the that they did not have the benefit of a preliminary
already been brought to Court whatever Prosecutor that Section 7 of Rule 112 of the investigation." 24 In the instant case, petitioner Go
disposition the fiscal may feel should be Revised Court was applicable, the 5-day asked for release on recognizance or on bail and for
proper in the case thereafter should be reglementary period in Section 7, Rule 112 preliminary investigation in one omnibus motion. He
addressed for the consideration of the must be held to have been substantially had thus claimed his right to preliminary
Court. The only qualification is that the complied with. investigation before respondent Judge approved
action of the Court must not impair the the cash bond posted by petitioner and ordered his
substantial rights of the accused., or the We believe and so hold that petitioner did not waive release on 12 July 1991. Accordingly, we cannot
right of the People to due process of law. his right to a preliminary investigation. While that reasonably imply waiver of preliminary investigation
right is statutory rather than constitutional in its on the part of petitioner. In fact, when the Prosecutor
xxx xxx xxx fundament, since it has in fact been established by filed a motion in court asking for leave to conduct
statute, it is a component part of due process in preliminary investigation, he clearly if impliedly
The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is criminal justice. 21 The right to have a preliminary recognized that petitioner's claim to preliminary
that once a complaint or information is filed investigation conducted before being bound over to investigation was a legitimate one.
in Court any disposition of the case [such] trial for a criminal offense and hence formally at risk
as its dismissal or the conviction or of incarceration or some other penalty, is not a mere We would clarify, however, that contrary to
acquittal of the accused rests in the sound formal or technical right; it is a substantive right. The petitioner's contention the failure to accord
discretion of the Court. Although the fiscal accused in a criminal trial is inevitably exposed to preliminary investigation, while constituting a denial
retains the direction and control of the prolonged anxiety, aggravation, humiliation, not to of the appropriate and full measure of the statutory
prosecution of criminal cases even while speak of expense; the right to an opportunity to process of criminal justice, did not impair the validity
the case is already in Court he cannot avoid a process painful to any one save, perhaps, to of the information for murder nor affect the
impose his opinion on the trial court. The hardened criminals, is a valuable right. To deny jurisdiction of the trial court. 25
Court is the best and sole judge on what to petitioner's claim to a preliminary investigation
do with the case before it. . . . 20 (Citations would be to deprive him the full measure of his right
to due process. It must also be recalled that the Prosecutor had
omitted; emphasis supplied) actually agreed that petitioner was entitled to bail.
This was equivalent to an acknowledgment on the
Nonetheless, since petitioner in his The question may be raised whether petitioner still part of the Prosecutor that the evidence of guilt then
omnibus motion was asking for preliminary retains his right to a preliminary investigation in the in his hands was not strong. Accordingly, we
investigation and not for a re-investigation instant case considering that he was already consider that the 17 July 1991 order of respondent
(Crespo v. Mogul involved a re- arraigned on 23 August 1991. The rule is that the Judge recalling his own order granting bail and
investigation), and since the Prosecutor right to preliminary investigation is waived when the requiring petitioner to surrender himself within forty-
himself did file with the trial court, on the 5th accused fails to invoke it before or at the time of eight (48) hours from notice, was plainly arbitrary
day after filing the information for murder, a entering a plea at arraignment. 22 In the instant considering that no evidence at all — and certainly
motion for leave to conduct preliminary case, petitioner Go had vigorously insisted on his no new or additional evidence — had been

68
submitted to respondent Judge that could have through counsel once again reiterated his objection and NULLIFIED, and the Decision of the Court of
justified the recall of his order issued just five (5) to going to trial without preliminary investigation: Appeals dated 23 September 1991 hereby
days before. It follows that petitioner was entitled to petitioner's counsel made of record his "continuing REVERSED.
be released on bail as a matter of right. objection." 29 Petitioner had promptly gone to the
appellate court on certiorari and prohibition to The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor is hereby
The final question which the Court must face is this: challenge the lawfulness of the procedure he was ORDERED to conduct forthwith a preliminary
how does the fact that, in the instant case, trial on being forced to undergo and the lawfulness of his investigation of the charge of murder against
the merits has already commenced, the Prosecutor detention.30 If he did not walk out on the trial, and if petitioner Go, and to complete such preliminary
having already presented four (4) witnesses, impact he cross-examined the prosecution's witnesses, it investigation within a period of fifteen (15) days from
upon, firstly, petitioner's right to a preliminary was because he was extremely loath to be commencement thereof. The trial on the merits of
investigation and, secondly, petitioner's right to be represented by counsel de oficio selected by the the criminal case in the Regional Trial Court shall be
released on bail? Does he continue to be entitled to trial judge, and to run the risk of being held to have SUSPENDED to await the conclusion of the
have a preliminary investigation conducted in waived also his right to use what is frequently the preliminary investigation.
respect of the charge against him? Does petitioner only test of truth in the judicial process.
remain entitled to be released on bail? Meantime, petitioner is hereby ORDERED released
In respect of the matter of bail, we similarly believe forthwith upon posting of a cash bail bond of One
Turning first to the matter of preliminary and so hold that petitioner remains entitled to be Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00). This
investigation, we consider that petitioner remains released on bail as a matter of right. Should the release shall be without prejudice to any lawful order
entitled to a preliminary investigation although trial evidence already of record concerning petitioner's that the trial court may issue, should the Office of
on the merits has already began. Trial on the merits guilt be, in the reasonable belief of the Prosecutor, the Provincial Prosecutor move for cancellation of
should be suspended or held in abeyance and a strong, the Prosecutor may move in the trial court bail at the conclusion of the preliminary
preliminary investigation forthwith accorded to for cancellation of petitioner's bail. It would then be investigation.
petitioner. 26 It is true that the Prosecutor might, in up to the trial court, after a careful and objective
view of the evidence that he may at this time have assessment of the evidence on record, to grant or
deny the motion for cancellation of bail. [G.R. No. 130805. April 27, 2004]
on hand, conclude that probable cause exists; upon
the other hand, the Prosecutor conceivably could PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.
reach the conclusion that the evidence on hand To reach any other conclusions here, that is, to hold TOKOHISA KIMURA and AKIRA
does not warrant a finding of probable cause. In any that petitioner's rights to a preliminary investigation KIZAKI,[1] respondents.
event, the constitutional point is that petitioner and to bail were effectively obliterated by evidence
was not accorded what he was entitled to by way of subsequently admitted into the record would be to
procedural due process. 27 Petitioner was forced to legitimize the deprivation of due process and to DECISION
undergo arraignment and literally pushed to trial permit the Government to benefit from its own wrong AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
without preliminary investigation, with extraordinary or culpable omission and effectively to dilute
haste, to the applause from the audience that filled important rights of accused persons well-nigh to the
the courtroom. If he submitted to arraignment at trial, vanishing point. It may be that to require the State Appellants Tomohisa Kimura and Akira Kizaki
petitioner did so "kicking and screaming," in a to accord petitioner his rights to a preliminary seek reversal of the decision[2] dated June 27,
manner of speaking . During the proceedings held investigation and to bail at this point, could turn out 1997 in Criminal Case No. 94-5606, rendered by the
before the trial court on 23 August 1991, the date ultimately to be largely a ceremonial exercise. But Regional Trial Court (Branch 66), Makati City,
set for arraignment of petitioner, and just before the Court is not compelled to speculate. And, in any finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
arraignment, counsel made very clear petitioner's case, it would not be idleceremony; rather, it would violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No.
vigorous protest and objection to the arraignment be a celebration by the State of the rights and 6425, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, otherwise
precisely because of the denial of preliminary liberties of its own people and a re-affirmation of its known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, and
investigation. 28 So energetic and determined were obligation and determination to respect those rights sentencing each of them to suffer the penalty
petitioner's counsel's protests and objections that an and liberties. of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine
obviously angered court and prosecutor dared him of P500,000.00.
to withdraw or walkout, promising to replace him ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolved to GRANT the
with counsel de oficio. During the trial, before the The Information dated August 8, 1994 against
Petition for Review on Certiorari. The Order of the the accused alleges:
prosecution called its first witness, petitioner trial court dated 17 July 1991 is hereby SET ASIDE

69
The undersigned State Prosecutor of the prepared the buy-bust money consisting of Kizaki who was seated at the passenger seat sped
Department of Justice accuses TOMOHISA one P500.00 bill and five pieces of P100.00 bill.[9] off towards South Superhighway.[21] The police
KIMURA and AKIRA KIZAKI of violation of Section operatives then inspected the contents of the trunk
4, Article II of Republic Act 6425, as amended by At around 3:00 in the afternoon of the same
and found packages of marijuana.[22] They
R.A. 7659, otherwise known as the Dangerous day, the team together with the informant arrived at
the Cash and Carry Supermarket and conducted brought Koichi and appellant Kimura to the
Drugs Act of 1972, committed as follows:
headquarters and turned over the seized marijuana
surveillance of the area.[10] Later, the informant to the investigator who made markings
That on or about June 27, 1994 in Makati, Metro was able to contact the targets who told him that
thereon.[23] Maj. Anso reported the escape of
Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable they will be arriving at 8:00 in the evening at the
Court, the above-named accused conspiring, parking area of the Cash and Carry appellant Kizaki to their investigation section.[24]
confederating and mutually helping one another, Supermarket.[11] At around 8:00 in the evening, The seized packages which were contained in
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and Koichi and Rey arrived and were met by PO3 Cadoy 3 sacks were brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory
feloniously transport and deliver without lawful and the informant.[12] PO3 Cadoy gave the
authority approximately 40,768 grams of Indian on June 29, 1994.[25] Forensic Chemist Sonia
marked money worth P1,000.00 to Rey and Koichi Sahagun-Ludovico testified that the contents of the
hemp (marijuana), a prohibited drug, in violation of who then handed him the shabu. PO3 Cadoy
the aforecited law. sacks weighed 40,768 grams and were positive to
scratched his head as a pre-arranged signal of the
the test of marijuana.[26]
consummation of the sale.[13] The operatives
CONTRARY TO LAW. [3] were about five meters from the On June 29, 1994, appellant Kizaki while
suspects.[14] While the team was approaching, having dinner with his friends at the Nippon Ichi
Upon arraignment on October 10, 1994, the PO3 Cadoy held Koichi by the hand while Rey Restaurant located at Mabini,
two accused, through counsel, entered their scampered away to the direction of the South Malate, Manila[27] was arrested by another
separate pleas of Not Guilty to the crime Superhighway.[15] The team brought Koichi to a NARCOM group led by Maj. Jose F. Dayco.[28]
charged;[4] whereupon, the trial of the case safe area within the Cash and Carry Supermarket
ensued. and interrogated him. They learned from Koichi that Appellants defense is denial and alibi. In
his friends/suppliers will arrive the same evening to support thereof, both appellants were called to the
The testimonies of the following prosecution witness stand.
witnesses, to wit: SPO4 Juan Baldovino, fetch him.[16] Several minutes later, a white
Nissan Sentra car driven by appellant Kimura with Appellant Kimuras testimony is as follows: In
Jr.,[5] SPO1 Rolando Cabato,[6] SPO1 Edmundo
his co-appellant Kizaki seating at the passenger the afternoon of June 27, 1994, Kimura was in the
Badua, Chief Inspector Nilo Anso, PO3 Alfredo
seat arrived at the parking area. Koichi pointed to house of his co-appellant Kizaki at Dian
Cadoy, SPO1 Manuel Delfin and Forensic Chemist,
them as the ones who will fetch him. Appellants Street, Makati City, together with Koichi Kishi, Luis
Police Inspector Sonia Ludovico, sought to establish
remained inside the car for about ten to fifteen Carlos and a certain Sally and Boy.[29] In the
the following facts:
minutes.[17] Then, a certain Boy driving a stainless evening of the said date, Kimura borrowed the car
In the morning of June 27, 1994, Maj. Anso, jeep, without a plate number, arrived and parked the of Kizaki in order to get his (Kimuras) television from
head of Delta Group, Narcotics Command jeep two to three parking spaces away from the his house located in Evangelista Street, near the
(NARCOM) I, North Metro District Sentra car.[18] Boy approached the Sentra car and Cash and Carry Supermarket, and bring the same
Command, Camp Karingal, Quezon City, received after a few minutes, appellants got out of their to a repair shop.[30] On their way to Kimuras
information from a confidential informant that a car. Appellant Kizaki went to the stainless jeep and house, Koichi requested Kimura to pass by Cash
certain Koichi Kishi and Rey Plantilla were engaged sat at the passenger seat. Boy and appellant and Carry Supermarket because Koichi needed to
in the selling of illegal drugs at the Cash and Carry Kimura went to the rear of the Sentra car and meet a certain Rey who was borrowing money from
Supermarket, Makati City.[7] Acting on said opened its trunk.[19] Appellant Kimura got a him. Upon reaching Cash and Carry, Kimura parked
information, Maj. Anso organized a team composed package wrapped in a newspaper and gave it to Boy the car about twenty meters from its entrance, then
of SPO4 Baldovino, Jr., SPO1 Cabato and PO3 Koichi and Carlos alighted from the car and Koichi
who walked back to his jeep.[20] While Maj. Anso
Cadoy to conduct surveillance of the area.[8] A and SPO4 Baldovino, Jr. were approaching to check handed something to Rey.[31] Shortly thereafter,
buy-bust operation was launched and PO3 Cadoy what was inside the wrapped newspaper, appellant Koichi and Carlos were grabbed by two men from
was designated to act as poseur-buyer and they Kimura ran but was apprehended while Boy was behind. Then four men approached the car and one
able to board his jeep and together with appellant guy ordered him to sit at the back and together with

70
Koichi and Carlos, they were all brought IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is Accused Kimura testified that on the evening
to CampKaringal allegedly for violating Sec. 4 of hereby rendered finding accused Akira Kizaki and of June 27, 1994, he was with his co-accused
Republic Act No. 6425.[32] Kimura was asked Tomohisa Kimura GUILTY beyond reasonable Kizaki at the Cash and Carry Supermarket but for
questions about the address and business of doubt for violation of Section 4 of Republic Act another purpose, i.e., to meet Rey Plantilla who
Kizaki. Kimura denied that there was marijuana in 6425, as amended by Republic Act 7659, and the was borrowing money from him. In fine accused
the car on the night of June 27, 1994 but claims that Court hereby sentences them to suffer, taking into Kimura merely denied the offense charged against
he saw marijuana placed at the car trunk the consideration the absence of mitigating or him, which is weak defense.
following day at Camp Karingal. Kizaki was not with aggravating circumstances, the amount of
him at Cash and Carry on the night of June 27, marijuana seized from the accused which weigh Both accused, Kizaki and Kimura, were positively
1994. There was no stainless jeep near the car on 40,768 grams, the penalty of RECLUSION identified by prosecution witnesses SPO4
the same night. Carlos was released and was not PERPETUA and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 Baldomino, SPO1 Cabatu, Maj. Anso and PO3
charged because Kimuras girlfriend, Sally, served each. Cadoy as the persons whom they arrested for drug
as Carlos guarantor. trafficking in a buy-bust operation at the Cash and
The Bureau of Immigration and Deportation is Carry Supermarket on June 27, 1994.
On the other hand, appellant Kizaki testified hereby ordered to deport Akira Kizaki and
that on the date that the alleged crime was Tomohisa Kimura without further proceedings after
committed, he was in the company of his friends, Mr. Finally, although the evidence show that there is a
the service of their sentence. doubt in the illegality of the arrest of accused
and Mrs. Takeyama, his co-appellant Kimura, and
his driver Boy and maid Joan at his house in Dian Kimura by Major Dayco, the jurisprudence is that
Let the marijuana, the subject matter of this case the illegality of warrantless arrest cannot deprive
Street, Makati City;[33] that appellant Kimura
be immediately forwarded to the Dangerous Drugs the state of its right to convict the guilty when all
borrowed his car on the night of June 27, 1994 to Board for proper disposition. the facts on record point to their culpability.[39]
pick up Kimuras broken TV and bring it to the repair
shop.[34]
SO ORDERED.[38] Hence, this appeal before us. Appellants
Appellant Kizakis alibi was corroborated by assert the following:
Rosario Quintia, his former housemaid, and his In convicting appellants, the trial court made
friend, Akiyoshi Takeyama, who both testified that I
the following findings:
they were at Kizakis house on the night of June 27,
1994 from 7:00 to 10:00 in the evening and never THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN
The settled jurisprudence is that alibi is inherently a DISREGARDING ACCUSED-APPELLANTS
saw Kizaki leave the house.[35] weak defense. Like the defense of alibi, denial by DEFENSE.
Appellant Kizaki was arrested on June 29, the accused of the offense charged against him is
1994, two days after the Cash and Carry incident, in also inherently a weak defense. It is also the
settled jurisprudence that the defense of alibi and II
the Nippon Ichi Restaurant located at
Mabini, Manila. He was having dinner with Lt. Col. denial cannot prosper over the positive
Rodolfo Tan, Masami Y. Nishino, Anita Takeyama identification of the accused by the prosecution THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN
and Akiyoshi Takeyama. These witnesses executed witnesses. For alibi to prosper, the accused must FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-
show that it was impossible for him to have been at APPELLANTS HAD BEEN PROVEN BEYOND
a joint affidavit[36] and testified that while they REASONABLE DOUBT.
the scene of the commission of the crime at the
were about to leave the restaurant, a man got near time of its commission.
Kizaki and asked for his passport whom they
thought was from the Immigration. Later, they Appellants claim that although the defense of
learned that Kizaki was brought Akira testified that on the evening of June 27, alibi and denial are weak, it is still the duty of the
1994, he was in his house located at Dian Street prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
to Camp Karingal.[37] reasonable doubt to support a judgment of
corner Ampil Street, Makati City, Metro Manila,
On June 27, 1997, the trial court rendered the which is a walking distance to Cash and Carry conviction; that the trial court mainly relied on the
herein assailed judgment, the dispositive portion of Supermarket, the scene of the offense. It was not weakness of the defense rather than on the strength
which reads: therefore impossible for accused Akira Kizaki to of the evidence for the prosecution. They argue that
have been present at the scene of the crime at the appellant Kizakis claim that he was not at the Cash
time of its commission. and Carry Supermarket on the night of June 27,

71
1994 was corroborated by three independent ground is deemed waived insofar as appellant where appellant Kizaki allegedly sold and
witnesses including appellant Kimura who testified Kizaki is concerned. transported marijuana and escaped, thus the
that he was not with appellant Kizaki at Cash and arresting officers had no personal knowledge of
Carry Supermarket on the said night. We will first resolve the issue on the alleged facts or circumstances that appellant Kizaki
warrantless arrest of appellant Kizaki. committed the crime. None of the exceptions
Appellants further question how the trial court enumerated above was present to justify appellant
could have been certain that the marijuana Appellant Kizaki assails the legality of his
warrantless arrest. Indeed, SPO1 Delfin, one of Kizakis warrantless arrest.
presented in court are the same articles confiscated
from the appellants when the arresting officers did those who arrested appellant Kizaki at the Nippon However, notwithstanding the unjustified
not place identifying marks on the confiscated items. Ichi restaurant, admitted that they did not have a warrantless arrest of appellant Kizaki, the records
warrant of arrest when his group arrested Kizaki on show that he did not raise such question before he
Appellant Kizaki further contends that he was the night of June 29, 1994. Rule 113, Section 5 of
pleaded to the offense charged.[40] Neither did he
arrested two days after the alleged buy-bust the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides
operation without a valid warrant of arrest. He points that a peace officer or a private person may, without move to quash the information on that ground
out that although the trial court expressed doubts as a warrant, arrest a person only under the following before the trial court.[41] He thus waived objection
to the legality of his arrest, it nevertheless convicted circumstances: to the illegality of his arrest.[42] Moreover,
him of the crime charged, which is in violation of the appellant Kizakis application for bail[43] which was
Constitution. Kizaki argues that he could not have (a) When, in his presence, the person to denied by the trial court likewise constitutes a waiver
been caught in flagrante delicto to justify the be arrested has committed, is of his right to question whatever irregularities and
warrantless arrest when he was arrested two days actually committing, or is defects which attended his arrest.[44]
after the alleged Cash and Carry incident while he attempting to commit an offense;
was only having dinner with his friends at a Nevertheless, we find the other claims of
restaurant. appellants meritorious.
(b) When an offense has just been
In the appellees brief, the Solicitor General committed and he has probable In all prosecutions for violation of the
prays that the decision of the trial court finding cause to believe based on Dangerous Drugs Act, the existence of all
appellants guilty as charged be affirmed. He argues personal knowledge of facts or dangerous drugs is a sine qua non for
that appellants were positively identified by four circumstances that the person to conviction. The dangerous drug is the very corpus
prosecution witnesses, all police officers, as among be arrested has committed it; and delicti of the crime of violation of the Dangerous
the three persons engaged in the transportation and
Drugs Act.[45]
delivery of about 40,768 grams of marijuana on (c) When the person to be arrested is a
June 27, 1994 at the Cash and Carry Supermarket; prisoner who has escaped from a In People vs. Casimiro,[46] we acquitted
that the police operatives were able to seize the penal establishment or place appellant for failure of the prosecution to establish
marijuana from the Sentra car they were using to where he is serving final judgment the identity of the prohibited drug which constitutes
transport the marijuana; that the marijuana or is temporarily confined while the corpus delicti and held:
introduced and offered at the trial were positively his case is pending, or has
identified by the arresting officers as those seized escaped while being transferred
from the car of the appellants; that the contention of from one confinement to another. In People vs. Mapa, the accused-appellant was
appellant Kizaki that his warrantless arrest two days granted an acquittal after the prosecution failed to
after the alleged incident, was unlawful, is legally clarify whether the specimen submitted to the NBI
The alleged crime happened on June 27, 1994 for laboratory examination was the same one
inconsequential in this case considering that his
and appellant Kizaki was arrested on June 29, allegedly taken from the accused. In People vs.
conviction was not based on his arrest on June 29,
1994 or two days after the subject incident. At the Dismuke, this Court ruled that the failure to prove
1994 but on his having participated in the transport
time appellant Kizaki was arrested, he was at a that the specimen of marijuana examined by the
and delivery of marijuana on June 27, 1994; that
restaurant having dinner with a group of friends, forensic chemist was that seized from the accused
appellant Kizaki never questioned the validity of the
thus, he was not committing or attempting to commit was fatal to the prosecutions case. In People vs.
warrantless arrest of his co-appellant Kimura on
a crime. Neither was he an escaped prisoner whose Laxa, the policemen composing the buy-bust team
June 27, 1994, either before the trial court or before
arrest could be effected even without a warrant. It failed to mark the confiscated marijuana
this Court; thus, any challenge against the search
bears stressing that none of the arresting officers of immediately after the alleged apprehension of the
and seizure of the marijuana based on constitutional
appellant Kizaki was present on the night of June 27 accused-appellant. One policeman admitted that

72
he marked the seized items only after seeing them section, did you make any markings at the car, did you not make any
for the first time in the police headquarters. It was thereat? markings on them, is that correct?
held:
WITNESS: WITNESS:
This deviation from the standard procedure in the None, sir. A. That is true, sir.[48]
anti-narcotics operations produces doubts as to the
origins of the marijuana. Were the allegedly ATTY. BALICUD: SPO4 Baldovino, Jr. further clarified on his re-
confiscated from the scene of the crime the same Did any of your men place any markings direct examination why no markings were made,
ones which the investigator marked in the police at least to identify that that is the thus:
headquarters? This question gives rise to surmises drugs confiscated by you at the
and speculations, and cannot prove beyond FISCAL MANABAT:
Cash and Carry?
reasonable doubt the guilt of accused-appellant. Q. Why is it that no markings were made
WITNESS: on these marijuana packages?
In this case, the prosecution failed to prove the What I know your honor, is that the
crucial first link in the chain of custody. The ...
investigation section is the one who
prosecution witnesses PO2 Supa, SPO2 Madlon will mark the evidence. WITNESS:
and PO3 Piggangay admitted they did not write
their initials on the brick of marijuana immediately ... We did not put markings there because
after allegedly seizing from accused-appellant after we confiscated those
outside the grocery store but only did so in their COURT: packages, there was a press
headquarters. The narcotics field test, which You mean to say when you have already conference conducted and after that
initially identified the seized item as marijuana, was surrender(sic) the shabu(sic) to the we submitted it to PCCL or
likewise not conducted at the scene of the crime, investigation section that was the Philippine Crime Laboratory,
but only at the narcotics office. There is thus time when the investigator mark sir.[49]
reasonable doubt as to whether the item allegedly them?
seized from accused-appellant is the same brick of The failure to establish the chain of custody of
marijuana marked by the policemen in their WITNESS: the evidence is further shown by the testimony of
headquarters and given by them to the crime SPO1 Badua, the person assigned to bring the
laboratory for examination. It is already their duty to mark them, your alleged seized marijuana to the PNP Crime
honor. Laboratory. His testimony is as follows:
After examining the evidence for the ... PROS. MANABAT:
prosecution, and tested in the light of the Casimiro
case, we find that the prosecution failed to establish ATTY. BALICUD: Do you recall your activities on that
the identity of the marijuana allegedly seized from day, June 29, 1994?
And did you see if any of those men in the
appellants Kimura and Kizaki. Extant in the records investigation section did the
were the admissions made by the police operatives WITNESS:
corresponding markings?
of their failure to place any markings on the seized I was ordered to bring the marijuana to
marijuana immediately after they had allegedly WITNESS: the Crime Laboratory.
apprehended appellants, thus failing to prove that
the marijuana presented in court was the very same I did not already see sir.[47] PROS. MANABAT:
marijuana seized from appellants. Maj. Anso, head
of the police operatives, testified on cross- The testimony of Maj. Anso was confirmed by Who ordered you to bring the marijuana
examination as follows: SPO4 Baldovino, Jr. when the latter testified on to the Crime Laboratory?
cross-examination as follows:
ATTY. BALICUD: WITNESS:
ATTY. SENSON:
With respect to the packages which you Superintendent Eduardo Cario, sir.
identified yesterday, before you Q. When the packages contained in
Exhibits B, C and D were recovered PROS. MANABAT:
showed that to your investigation

73
Where did this marijuana come from, if WITNESS: Did you see the investigator affixed those
you know? markings?
Yes, sir.
WITNESS: WITNESS:
PROS. MANABAT:
In our office confiscated from Japanese Yes, sir.
nationals. Now, I am showing to you SPO1 Badua,
there are three (3) sacks (sic) here COURT:
PROS. MANABAT: already deposited in Court, please
examine these three (3) sacks Who was the investigator?
Do you know the name of the Japanese carefully and tell us the relation of
nationals you are referring to? WITNESSS:
these three sacks to that marijuana
WITNESS; contained in sacks which you said SPO1 Delfin, sir.
you were required to bring to PNP
I do not know, sir. Crime Laboratory. PROS. MANABAT:

PROS. MANABAT: WITNESS: Now, what proof do you have that you
actually brought these three sacks
Can you describe this marijuana which These are the three sacks I brought. of marijuana which you identified to
you said you were required to bring the PNP Crime Laboratory?
to the PNP Crime Laboratory? PROS. MANABAT:
WITNESS:
WITNESS: ...
There is a request for laboratory
They are contained in sacks, sir. Now, you said that this marijuana was examination.
contained in three sacks, three rice
COURT: sacks, will you please examine the PROS. MANABAT:
sacks and tell us if these are the
How many sacks? same sacks which you brought to Who prepared this request for laboratory
the PNP Crime Laboratory? examination of the marijuana?
WITNESS:
WITNESS: WITNESS:
Three (3), sir.
Yes, sir, these are the same sacks I SPO1 Delfin.[50]
PROS. MANABAT:
brought.
What kind of sacks were these, can you And on cross-examination as follows:
recall? COURT:
ATTY. BALICUD:
WITNESS: What made you so sure that these are the
Now, were you present when this request
same sacks that you brought from
Rice sacks. for laboratory examination was
your office to the Crime Laboratory?
prepared?
... WITNESS:
WITNESS:
PROS. MANABAT: Because of the markings A, B, C.
Yes, sir.
Now, if you see this marijuana you said COURT:
you were required to bring to the ATTY. BALICUD:
PNP Crime Laboratory which you Who affixed those markings?
Who specifically typed the request?
described as being contained in WITNESS:
three (3) sacks, will you be able to WITNESS:
identify these three (3) sacks of The investigator, sir.
marijuana. SPO1 Delfin, sir.
COURT:
ATTY. BALICUD:

74
And this was made on June 28, 1994? Now, when the request for Yes, sir. A, B, C.
laboratory examination was made,
WITNESS: did you already see the contents ATTY. BALICUD:
Yes, sir. inside the sack? So that one sack is marked A, the
WITNESS: other sack is B and the other is
... marked C.
ATTY. BALICUD: Yes, sir.
WITNESS:
And then about what time on June 28 was ATTY. BALICUD:
Yes, sir.
it prepared? Why did you open the sacks?
ATTY. BALICUD:
WITNESS: WITNESS:
How about the contents of these three
Morning, sir. Yes, sir. sacks, were they also marked when
ATTY. BALICUD: you brought the same to the PNP
ATTY. BALICUD: Crime Laboratory?
But then this request was received Who opened the sacks?
already by the Crime Laboratory WITNESS:
on June 29, 1994, where were the WITNESS: Yes, sir, but it was marked at the Crime
three sacks deposited from June 28 Laboratory already.
up to the time you picked it up on The investigator.
June 29 to be brought to the Crime ATTY. BALICUD: ATTY. BALICUD:
Laboratory?
So that they were placed in three sacks? So, it is clear that when the alleged
WITNESS: marijuana was brought to the PNP
WITNESS: Crime Laboratory, there was no
It was deposited inside our supply room. marking yet?
Yes, sir.
ATTY. BALICUD: WITNESS:
ATTY. BALICUD:
Why did you not deposit or deliver it
Yes, sir. [51]
immediately to the Crime And you opened each and every sack?
Laboratory? While SPO1 Baduas testimony showed that it
WITNESS:
WITNESS: was investigator SPO1 Delfin who made the
Yes, sir. markings A, B, C on the three sacks containing the
We were still preparing the necessary marijuana which he brought to the laboratory,
papers. ATTY. BALICUD: nowhere in his testimony did he say that such
You brought the same to the Crime markings were made on the night the appellants
ATTY. BALICUD: were arrested, i.e., on June 27, 1994. Investigator
Laboratory?
What papers were still being prepared? Delfin did not initial said markings nor did he testify
WITNESS: affirming his markings.
WITNESS:
Yes, sir. Moreover, although the three sacks of alleged
Request for laboratory, medical, drug marijuana were marked as A, B, C, the contents of
dependency. ATTY. BALICUD: these three sacks however had no markings when
Were there markings in the 3 sacks they were kept inside the supply room on June 28
... since as Badua intimated, the contents of these
when the same were brought to the
ATTY. BALICUD: PNP Crime Laboratory? three sacks were only marked when he brought the
same to the PNP Crime Laboratory on June 29,
WITNESS: 1994.

75
 The records of the case do not show that the that he was caught in the Cash and Carry In fine, for failure of the prosecution to establish
police operatives complied with the procedure in the Supermarket delivering marijuana on the night the guilt of both appellants beyond reasonable
custody of seized prohibited and regulated drugs as of June 27, 1994 may be weak but the evidence for doubt, they must perforce be exonerated from
embodied in the Dangerous Drugs Board the prosecution is clearly even weaker. In People criminal liability.
Regulation No. 3 Series of 1979 amending Board vs. Laxa,[55] we acquitted the appellant for failure
WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court in
Regulation No. 7 Series of 1974,[52] i.e., any of the prosecution to establish the identity of the Criminal Case No. 94-5606 is
apprehending team having initial custody and prohibited drug which constitutes the corpus hereby REVERSED and appellants Tomohisa
control of said drugs and/or paraphernalia, should delicti, an essential requirement in a drug related Kimura and Akira Kizaki, are
immediately after seizure or confiscation, have the case. In the present case, the prosecution also hereby ACQUITTED on ground of reasonable
same physically inventoried and photographed in failed to indubitably show the identity of the doubt.They are ordered immediately released from
the presence of the accused, if there be any, and/or marijuana which mere allegedly seized from prison, unless they are being detained for some
his representative, who shall be required to sign the appellants. other lawful cause. The Director of Prisons
copies of the inventory and be given a copy is DIRECTED to inform this Court of the action
thereof. In this case, there was no inventory made The alibi of appellant Kizaki that he was in his
house on the same night assumes weight and taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt
in the crime scene despite the fact that Maj. Anso hereof.
testified that he saw eighteen packages neatly significance considering that the scenario depicted
wrapped in a newspaper but the inventory was by the prosecution on the alleged escape of Let the PNP Director be furnished a copy of
made already in the headquarters. SPO1 Badua appellant Kizaki at the Cash and Carry left much to herein decision for the proper information and
testified that the marijuana confiscated from speculations and surmises. The prosecution tried to guidance of his police operatives. The marijuana is
appellant Kimura was contained in three sacks. show that appellant Kizaki who was on board the hereby ordered confiscated in favor of the
stainless jeep was able to escape even if the police government for its proper disposition under the law.
Consequently, the failure of the NARCOM operatives were only about five meters away from
operatives to place markings on the alleged seized the jeep[56] which was heading to the entrance of ROWLAND KIM SANTOS, G.R. No. 165122
marijuana coupled with their failure to observe the the Cash and Carry along South Superhighway. It is Petitioner,
procedure in the seizure and taking custody of said quite difficult for us to accept its veracity considering Present:
drug seriously bring to question the existence of the that despite the short distance of the operatives from
seized prohibited drug. It is not positively and the jeep when it started to speed off, the operatives QUISUMBING, J.,
convincingly clear that what was submitted for who were all armed with service - versus - Chairperson,
laboratory examination and presented in court was CARPIO,
revolvers[57] chased on foot the stainless jeep and
actually recovered from the appellants. CARPIO MORALES,
did not even fire any warning shot to stop the driver
and appellant Kizaki nor did they fire a shot at the TINGA, and
Evidently, the prosecution has not proven the
tire of the jeep to immobilize it. The alibi of Kizaki PRYCE GASES, INC., VELASCO, JR., JJ.
indispensable element of corpus delicti of the crime
found corroboration from his friend Akiyoshi Respondent.
which failure produces a grevious doubt as to the
guilt of the appellants. In criminal cases, proof Takeyama and appellant Kizakis former housemaid
Rosaria Quintia that he was in his house and never Promulgated:
beyond reasonable doubt is required to establish
left it on the night of the alleged delivery or transport November 23, 2007
the guilt of the accused. Similarly, in establishing
of marijuana in Cash and Carry Supermarket. In x------------------------------------------------------------------
the corpus delicti, that unwavering exactitude is
fact, co-appellant Kimura testified that appellant ---------------x
necessary. Every fact necessary to constitute the
crime must be established by proof beyond Kizaki was not one of his companions in going to
Cash and carry Supermarket on June 27, DECISION
reasonable doubt.[53]
1994.[58] Moreover, in the request for laboratory
Although the defense raised by appellants TINGA, J.:
examination dated June 28, 1994, signed by P/CI
Kimura and Kizaki were denial and alibi, Jose F. Dayco, Chief, Investigation Section, NMDU,
respectively, which are inherently weak, we have This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule
NARCOM, the suspects named therein were only 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure assailing the
repeatedly declared that the conviction of the Koichi Kishi and Tomohisa Kimura.[59] Hence, the
accused must rest not on the weakness of the Decision dated 16 January 2004[1] and Resolution
constitutional presumption of innocence has not dated 26 July 2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA-
defense but on the strength of the
been overcome by the prosecution. G.R. SP No. 74563. The decision reversed the twin
prosecution.[54] The denial of appellant Kimura
orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)

76
of Iloilo City, Branch 29, quashing the search for a warrant to search the premises described as - One (1) filled 6 Kgs. PRYCE
warrant it issued and ordering the return of liquefied No. 130, Timawa Avenue, Molo, Iloilo. The LPG tank cylinder without seal.[8]
petroleum gas (LPG) cylinders seized from application alleged that petitioner was in possession
petitioner, whereas the resolution denied petitioners of Pryce LPG tanks, the Pryce logos of some of On 7 June 2002, petitioner filed a Motion
motion for reconsideration of the said decision. which were scraped off and replaced with a Sun to Quash[9] the search warrant on the grounds of
Gas, Inc. marking, and other materials used in lack of probable cause as well as deception and
As culled from the records, the following tampering Pryce gas tanks.[4] It also averred that fraud employed in obtaining evidence in support of
antecedents appear: petitioner was illegally distributing Pryce LPG the application therefor, in violation of Article III,
products without the consent of respondent, in Section 2 of the Constitution and Rule 126, Sections
Respondent Pryce Gases, Inc. is a domestic violation of Section 2 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 4 and 5 of the Rules of Court. Respondent opposed
corporation engaged in the manufacture of oxygen, 623,[5] as amended by R.A. No. 5700.[6] petitioners Motion to Quash.
acetylene and other industrial gases as well as in After conducting searching questions on witnesses
the distribution of LPG products in the Visayas PO1 Aldrin Ligan, a CIDG operative, and Richard
and Mindanao regions. Its branch in Iloilo City has Oliveros, an employee of Pryce Gases, Inc., Hon. On the same day, the CIDG filed a criminal
been selling LPG products directly or through Rene B. Honrado, the presiding judge of Branch 29, complaint before the Office of the City Prosecutor of
various dealers to hospitals, restaurants and other issued the corresponding search warrant. The Iloilo against petitioner, charging the latter with
business establishments. The LPG products are search warrant authorized the seizure of the violation of R.A. No. 623, as amended.
contained in 11-kg, 22-kg or 50-kg steel cylinders following items:
that are exclusively manufactured for respondents After hearing, the trial court issued an
use. The LPG cylinders are also embossed with the Order[10] dated 16 July 2002, granting petitioners
Pryce marking and logo.[2] 1. Assorted sizes of PRYCE LPG Motion to Quash. The trial court upheld the validity
GAS TANKS CYLINDERS in of the surveillance conducted on petitioners
In the beginning of the year 2002, different kilograms. warehouse in order to obtain evidence to support
respondent noticed the decline in the return of its 2. Suspected LPG gas tanks the application for a search warrant and declared
LPG cylinders for refilling. Respondents employees cylinders with printed/mark SUN that based on the evidence gathered in support of
suspected that the LPG cylinders had been GAS INC., trademark and the application for search warrant, the CIDG was
removed from market circulation and refilled by embossed Pryce Gas Trademark able to establish probable cause that petitioner was
respondents competitors, one of whom was Sun scrapped off. tampering with Pryce LPG cylinders and making
Gas, Inc. Petitioner Rowland Kim Santos is the 3. Other materials used in them appear to be those of Sun Gas, Inc. This
manager of Sun Gas, Inc.[3] tampering the PRYCE LPG GAS conclusion, notwithstanding, the trial court made a
TANKS cylinders.[7] turnaround, stating that the probable cause as found
Arnold T. Figueroa, respondents sales by it at the time of the application for search warrant
manager for Panay, sought the assistance of the fell short of the requisite probable cause necessary
Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) On the same day, CIDG agents served the to sustain the validity of the search warrant.
to recover the LPG cylinders allegedly in the search warrant on petitioner and were able to
possession of Sun Gas, Inc. Acting on Figueroas recover the following items: The dispositive portion of the Order reads:
complaint, CIDG operatives conducted surveillance
on the warehouse of Sun Gas, Inc. located at 130 - Five Hundred Forty Four (544) WHEREFORE, the
Timawa Avenue, Molo, Iloilo. The CIDG operatives empty 11 Kgs[.] PRYCE LPG tank Motion To Quash is
requested the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP) to cylinders; hereby GRANTED. PO2 Vicente
conduct a routine fire inspection at Sun Gas, Inc.s - Two (2) filled 11 Kgs. PRYCE Dernadara, Jr. and the Criminal
warehouse with some of the CIDG operatives led by LPG tank cylinders with seal; Investigation and Detection
PO2 Vicente D. Demandara, Jr. posing as BFP - Seven (7) filled 11 Kgs. Pryce Group, Region VI are hereby
inspectors. The CIDG operatives entered the LPG tank cylinders without seal; directed to return the Pryce LPG
warehouse and were able to take photographs of - Forty Four (44) empty 22 Kgs. cylinders enumerated in Return of
PRYCE LPG tank cylinders;
the LPG cylinders. Search Warrant Seized by virtue
- Ten (10) empty 50 Kgs. Pryce
of the invalid Search Warrant No.
LPG tank cylinders; and
On 4 June 2002, PO2 Vicente D. 02-16 to the Rowland Kim Santos
Demandara, Jr. applied before the RTC of Iloilo City

77
 immediately upon receipt of this ENTITLED PNP-CIDG V.
Order. ROWLAND KIM SANTOS. Petitioner takes exception to the Court of
Appeals conclusion, contending that petitioner may
SO ORDERED.[11] II. assail the questioned search warrant because he
was named as respondent in the application for
Respondent filed a manifestation and motion to WHETHER THE PETITIONER search warrant and in the criminal complaint
hold in abeyance the release of the seized items. It SHOULD RETURN THE subsequently filed before the Office of the City
also filed a motion for reconsideration[12] of the 16 SUBJECT PRYCE LPG Prosecutor of Iloilo.
July 2002 Order but was denied in an CYLINDER TO RESPONDENT
Order[13]dated 9 August 2002. DESPITE UNCONTROVERTED Well-settled is the rule that the legality of a
Respondent elevated the matter to the EVIDENCE THAT THE SAME seizure can be contested only by the party whose
Court of Appeals via a special civil action for WERE SOLD BY THE LATTER rights have been impaired thereby, and the
certiorari,[14] arguing that the trial court committed TO ITS CUSTOMERS. objection to an unlawful search and seizure is purely
grave abuse of discretion in quashing the search personal and cannot be availed of by third parties.[18]
warrant. The petition essentially questioned the III.
quashal of the search warrant despite a prior finding Petitioner is the real party-in-interest to
of probable cause and the failure of petitioner to WHETHER THE PETITION FOR seek the quashal of the search warrant for the
prove that he bought the seized items from CERTIORARI FILED BY obvious reason that the search warrant, in which
respondent. It also challenged petitioners RESPONDENT PRYCE WITH petitioner was solely named as respondent, was
personality to file the motion to quash. THE COURT OF APPEALS directed against the premises and articles over
SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR which petitioner had control and supervision.
On 16 January 2004, the Court of Appeals NOT BEING THE PROPER Petitioner was directly prejudiced or injured by the
rendered the assailed Decision,[15] which set aside REMEDY TO ASSAIL THE seizure of the gas tanks because petitioner was
the two orders of the trial court dated 16 January ORDERS OF THE TRIAL directly accountable as manager to the purported
2002 and 9 August 2002. The appellate court also COURT.[17] owner of the seized items. It is noteworthy that at
ordered the return of the seized items to respondent. the time of the application for search warrant,
Petitioner sought reconsideration but was denied in respondent recognized the authority of petitioner as
an order dated 16 July 2004.[16] Briefly, the petition raises the following manager of Sun Gas, Inc. when the application
issues: (1) whether or not petitioner has authority to averred that petitioner had in his possession and
seek the quashal of the search warrant; (2) who has control the items subject of the alleged criminal
Hence, the instant petition for review on certiorari, proper custody of the seized items; and (3) whether offense. Respondent should not be allowed
raising the following issues: or not respondent correctly availed of the special thereafter to question petitioners authority to assail
civil action for certiorari to assail the quashal of the the search warrant. Moreover, the search warrant
search warrant. was directed against petitioner for allegedly using
I. Pryce LPG cylinders without the authority of
respondent.
WHETHER PETITIONER
ROWLAND KIM SANTOS HAS The Court of Appeals misapplied the ruling
THE LEGAL PERSONALITY TO As to the first issue, the Court of Appeals in Stonehill, et al. v. Diokno, et al.[19] that only a
ASSAIL THE SEARCH ruled against petitioner and reversed the trial courts corporation has the exclusive right to question the
WARRANT FOR HE WAS quashal of the search warrant solely on the ground seizure of items belonging to the corporation on the
NAMED RESPONDENT that petitioner, being a mere manager of Sun Gas, ground that the latter has a personality distinct from
THEREIN AND WAS Inc., failed to show his authority to act on behalf of the officers and shareholders of the corporation.
SUBSEQUENTLY CHARGED the corporation and, therefore, had no legal Assuming arguendo that Sun Gas, Inc. was the
FOR VIOLATION OF R.A. [No.] personality to question the validity of the search owner of the seized items, petitioner, as the
623, AS AMENDED BY R.A. 5700, warrant. Thus, it concluded that the trial court manager of Sun Gas, Inc., had the authority to
BEFORE THE OFFICE OF THE committed grave abuse of discretion in entertaining question the seizure of the items belonging to Sun
CITY PROSECUTOR OF ILOILO and subsequently granting petitioners motion to Gas, Inc. Unlike natural persons, corporations may
IN I.S. NO. 2015-2000 quash. perform physical actions only through properly

78
delegated individuals; namely, their officers and/or The application for a search warrant was
agents.[20] As stated above, respondent cannot The instant controversy pertains only to the based on the alleged violation by petitioner of
belatedly question petitioners authority to act on existence of probable cause, which the trial court certain provisions of R.A. No. 623, as amended by
behalf of Sun Gas, Inc. when it had already found wanting after evaluating the items seized from R.A. No. 5700. Respondent claimed that petitioner
acknowledged petitioners authority at the time of the petitioner. Petitioner does not dispute that the items was illegally using or distributing its LPG cylinders
application of the search warrant. seized from him, consisting of Pryce LPG tanks of without its authority. The amended provisions of
assorted weights, were particularly enumerated in R.A. No. 623 state:
The resolution of the second issue as to the search warrant. Petitioner is neither assailing
who has legal custody of the seized items depends the manner by which the trial court conducted the
upon the determination of the existence of probable determination of probable cause. Sec. 2. It shall be unlawful
cause in the issuance of the search warrant. In the for any person, without the written
questioned Order dated 16 July 2002, the trial court consent of the manufacturer,
reversed its earlier finding of probable cause on the The trial court retracted its earlier finding of bottler, or seller, who has
ground that the failure of the CIDG agents to seize probable cause because the seized items were successfully registered the marks
other materials and tools used by petitioner to incomplete or insufficient to charge petitioner with a of ownership in accordance with
tamper with the LPG cylinders invalidated the criminal offense, thus, negating its previous the provisions of the next
search warrant because there would be nothing to determination of probable cause. preceding section, to fill such
show or prove that accused had committed the bottles, boxes, kegs, barrels, steel
offense.[21] The trial court elaborated that the mere cylinders, tanks, flasks,
possession of Pryce LPG cylinders seized from We disagree. In quashing the search accumulators, or other similar
petitioner was not illegal per se, absent any showing warrant, it would appear that the trial court had containers so marked or stamped,
that petitioner illegally used the same without the raised the standard of probable cause to whether for the purpose of sale, or to sell,
consent of respondent. Moreover, the trial court there was sufficient cause to hold petitioner for trial. dispose of, buy or traffic in, or
concluded that respondent had already parted In so doing, the trial court committed grave abuse of wantonly destroy the same,
ownership of its gas cylinders upon their sale to discretion. whether filled or not to use the
customers who paid not only for the contents but same for drinking vessels or
also for the value of the gas cylinders. Probable cause for a search warrant is glasses or drain pipes, foundation
defined as such facts and circumstances which pipes, for any other purpose than
Although respondent advanced several would lead a reasonably discrete and prudent man that registered by the
arguments rebutting the aforementioned to believe that an offense has been committed and manufacturer, bottler or seller. Any
conclusions in its petition for certiorari, the Court of that the objects violation of this section shall be
Appeals sidestepped those arguments and punished by a fine of not more
reversed the trial courts quashal of the search than one thousand pesos or
warrant only on the ground of the lack of legal imprisonment of not more than
personality on the part of petitioner to assail the sought in connection with the offense are in the one year or both.
search warrant. place sought to be searched.[23] A finding of
probable cause needs only to rest on evidence
Supporting jurisprudence thus outlined the showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been
following requisites for a search warrants validity, committed and that it was committed by the Sec. 3. The use by any
the absence of even one will cause its downright accused. Probable cause demands more than bare person other than the registered
nullification: (1) it must be issued upon probable suspicion; it requires less than evidence which manufacturer, bottler or
cause; (2) the probable cause must be determined would justify conviction.[24] The existence depends seller, without written permission
by the judge himself and not by the applicant or any to a large degree upon the finding or opinion of the of the latter of any such bottler,
other person; (3) in the determination of probable judge conducting the examination. However, the cask, barrel, keg, box, steel
cause, the judge must examine, under oath or findings of the judge should not disregard the facts cylinders, tanks, flasks,
affirmation, the complainant and such witnesses as before him nor run counter to the clear dictates of accumulators, or other similar
the latter may produce; and (4) the warrant issued reason.[25] containers, or the possession
must particularly describe the place to be searched thereof without written permission
and persons or things to be seized.[22] of the manufacturer, by any junk

79
 dealer or dealer in casks, barrels, unwarranted turnabout was brought about by its oath, is mandatory in order to preclude the
kegs, boxes, steel cylinders, notion that the seized items were not sufficient to substitution of said items by interested parties. The
tanks, flasks, accumulators, or indict petitioner for the crime charged. judge who issued the search warrant is mandated to
other similar containers, the same ensure compliance with the requirements for (1) the
being duly marked or stamped and In La Chemise Lacoste, S.A. v. issuance of a detailed receipt for the property
registered as herein Fernandez,[27] it was held: received, (2) delivery of the seized property to the
provided, shall give rise to a prima court, together with (3) a verified true inventory of
facie presumption that such use or True, the lower court the items seized. Any violation of the foregoing
possession is unlawful. should be given the opportunity to constitutes contempt of court.[30]
correct its errors, if there be any,
but the rectification must, as The CIDG operatives properly delivered the
Section 3 of R.A. No. 623, as amended, earlier stated be based on sound seized items to the custody of the trial court which
clearly creates a prima facie presumption of the and valid grounds. In this case, issued the search warrant. Thereafter, the trial court
unlawful use of gas cylinders based on two separate there was no compelling ordered their return to petitioner after quashing the
acts, namely, the unauthorized use of the cylinder justification for the about face. search warrant. When the Court of Appeals
by a person other than the registered manufacturer reversed the trial courts quashal of the search
and the possession thereof by a dealer. The trial xxxx warrant, it erred in ordering the return of the seized
courts conclusion that the mere possession by items to respondent because it would seem that
petitioner of the seized gas cylinders was not Moreover, an application respondent
punishable under Section 2 of R.A. No. 623, as for a search warrant is heard ex instituted the special civil action for certiorari in ord
amended, is not correct. The trial court failed to parte. It is neither a trial nor a part er to regain
consider that petitioner was not only in possession of the trial. Action on these possession of its LPG tanks. This cannot be
of the gas cylinders but was also distributing the applications must be expedited for countenanced. The seized items should remain in
same, as alleged by PO1 Aldrin Ligan in his answer time is of the essence. Great the custody of the trial court which issued the search
to the searching questions asked by the trial reliance has to be accorded by the warrant pending the institution of criminal action
court.[26] judge to the testimonies under against petitioner.
oath of the complainant and the
As pointed out by respondent in its petition witnesses.[28] Last, the special civil action for certiorari
for certiorari, the failure of the CIDG operatives to was the proper recourse availed by respondent in
confiscate articles and materials used in tampering assailing the quashal of the search warrant. As
with the Pryce marking and logo did not negate the A word of caution, though. In affirming the aforementioned, the trial courts unwarranted
existence of probable cause. The confluence of sufficiency of probable cause in the issuance of the reversal of its earlier finding of probable cause
these circumstances, namely: the fact of possession search warrant, this Court is not preempting the constituted grave abuse of discretion. In any case,
and distribution of the gas cylinders and the claim subsequent determination by the investigating the Court had allowed even direct recourse to this
by respondent that it did not authorize petitioner to prosecutor if there is cause to hold the respondent Court[31] or to the Court of Appeals[32] via a special
distribute the same was a sufficient indication that for trial. After all, the investigating prosecutor is the civil action for certiorari from a trial courts quashal of
petitioner is probably guilty of the illegal use of the person tasked to evaluate all the evidence a search warrant.
gas cylinders punishable under Section 2 of R.A. submitted by both parties.
No. 623, as amended. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED and
The Court of Appeals, however, erred in the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP
More importantly, at the hearing of the ordering the return of the seized items to No. 74563 is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION
application for the search warrant, various respondent. Section 4, Rule 126[29] of the Revised that the seized items should be kept in custodia
testimonies and documentary evidence based on Criminal Procedure expressly mandates the legis. Costs against petitioner.
the surveillance by the CIDG operatives were delivery of the seized items to the judge who issued
presented. After hearing the testimonies and the search warrant to be kept in custodia legis in
examining the documentary evidence, the trial court anticipation of the criminal proceedings against
was convinced that there were good and sufficient petitioner. The delivery of the items seized to the
reasons for the issuance of the same. Thus, it court which issued the warrant together with a true
issued the search warrant. The trial courts and accurate inventory thereof, duly verified under

80
G.R. No. 199032 November 19, 2014 application for a search warrant since he had been Unconvinced, the People filed a petition for
RETIRED SP04 BIENVENIDO LAUD, Petitioner, automatically divested of his position asVice certioraribefore the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP.
vs. Executive Judge when several administrative No. 113017.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. penalties were imposed against him by the
DECISION Court;10 (b) the Manila-RTC had no jurisdiction to The CA Ruling
issue Search Warrant No. 09-14407 which was to
PER CURIAM: be enforced in Davao City;11 (c) the human remains
In a Decision24 dated April 25, 2011, the CA granted
sought to be seized are not a proper subject of a
search warrant;12 (d) the police officers are the People’s petition and thereby annulled and set
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are mandated to follow the prescribed procedure for aside the Orders of the Manila-RTC for having been
the Decision2 dated April 25, 2011 and the exhumation of human remains;13 (e) the search
tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
Resolution3 dated October 17, 2011 of the Court of warrant was issued despite lack of probable
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP. No. 113017 upholding cause;14 (f) the rule against forum shopping was It held that the requirements for the issuance of a
the validity of Search Warrant No. 09-14407.4 search warrant were satisfied, pointing out that an
violated;15 and (g) there was a violation of the rule
requiring one specific offense and the proper application therefor involving a heinous crime, such
The Facts specification of the place to be searched and the as Murder, is an exception to the compelling
articles to be seized.16 reasons requirement under Section 2, Rule 126 of
On July 10, 2009, the Philippine National Police the Rules of Court as explicitly recognized in A.M.
(PNP), through Police Senior Superintendent The Manila-RTC Ruling No. 99-20-09-SC25 and reiterated in A.M. No. 03-8-
Roberto B. Fajardo, applied with the Regional Trial 02-SC,26 provided that the application is filed by the
Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch50 (Manila-RTC) for PNP, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), the
In an Order17 dated July 23, 2009, the Manila-RTC Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force
a warrant to search three (3) caves located inside
granted the motion of Laud "after a careful (PAOC-TF) or the Reaction Against Crime Task
the Laud Compound in Purok 3, Barangay Ma-a,
consideration [of] the grounds alleged [therein]." Force (REACT-TF),27with the endorsement of its
Davao City, where the alleged remains of the victims
Aside from this general statement, the said Order head, before the RTC of Manila or Quezon City, and
summarily executed by the so-called "Davao Death
contained no discussion on the particular reasons the warrant be consequently issued by the
Squad" may be found.5 In support of the application, from which the Manila-RTC derived its conclusion.
a certain Ernesto Avasola (Avasola) was presented Executive Judge or Vice-Executive Judge of either
to the RTC and there testified that he personally of the said courts, as in this case.28
witnessed the killing of six (6) persons in December Respondent, the People of the Philippines (the
2005, and was, in fact, part of the group that buried People), filed a Motion for Reconsideration18 which Also, the CA found that probable cause was
the victims.6 was, however, denied in an Order19 dated established since, among others, witness Avasola
December 8, 2009, wherein the Manila-RTC, this deposed and testified that he personally witnessed
time, articulated its reasons for the warrant’s the murder of six (6) persons in December 2005 and
Judge William Simon P. Peralta (Judge Peralta),
quashal, namely: (a) the People failed to show any was actually part of the group that buried the victims
acting as Vice Executive Judge of the Manila-RTC,
compelling reason to justify the issuanceof a search – two bodies in each of the three (3)
found probable cause for the issuance of a search
warrant by the Manila RTC which was to be caves.29 Further, it observed that the Manila-RTC
warrant, and thus, issued Search Warrant No. 09-
implemented in Davao City where the offense was failed to consider the fear of reprisal and natural
144077 which was later enforced by the elements
allegedly committed, in violation of Section 2, Rule reluctance of a witness to get involved in a criminal
ofthe PNP-Criminal Investigation and Detection
126 of the Rules of Court;20 (b) the fact that the case, stating that these are sufficient reasons to
Group, in coordination withthe members of the
alleged offense happened almost four (4) years justify the delay attending the application of a search
Scene of the Crime Operatives on July 15, 2009.The
before the search warrant application was filed warrant.30 Accordingly, it deemed that the physical
search of the Laud Compound caves yielded
rendered doubtful the existence of probable evidence of a protruding human bone in plain view
positive results for the presence of human remains.8
cause;21 and (c) the applicant, i.e., the PNP, violated in one of the caves, and Avasola’s first-hand eye
the rule against forum shopping as the subject witness account both concur and point to the only
On July 20, 2009, herein petitioner, retired SPO4 matter of the present search warrant application is reasonable conclusion that the crime ofMurder had
Bienvenido Laud (Laud), filed an Urgent Motion to exactly the sameas the one contained in a previous been committed and that the human remains of the
Quash and to Suppress Illegally Seized application22 before the RTC of Davao City, Branch victims were located in the Laud Compound.31
Evidence9 premised on the following grounds: (a) 15 (Davao-RTC) which had been denied.23
Judge Peralta had no authority to act on the

81
Finally, the CA debunked the claim of forum administratively penalized with fines of ₱15,000.00 acts of persons discharging the duties of an office
shopping, finding that the prior application for a and ₱5,000.00.35 without being lawful officers.40
search warrant filed before the Davao-RTC was
based on facts and circumstances different from While the Court does agree that the imposition of In order for the de facto doctrine to apply, all of the
those in the application filed before the Manila- said administrative penalties did operate to divest following elements must concur: (a) there must be a
RTC.32 Judge Peralta’s authority to act as ViceExecutive de jureoffice; (b) there must be color of right or
Judge, it must be qualified thatthe abstraction of general acquiescence by the public; and (c) there
Dissatisfied, Laud moved for reconsideration which such authority would not, by and of itself, result in must be actual physical possession of the office in
was, however, denied in a Resolution33 dated the invalidity of Search Warrant No. 09-14407 good faith.41
October 17, 2011,hence, this petition. considering that Judge Peralta may be considered
to have made the issuance as a de facto officer The existence of the foregoing elements is rather
The Issues Before the Court whose acts would, nonetheless, remain valid. clear in this case. Undoubtedly, there is a de
jureoffice of a 2nd Vice-Executive Judge. Judge
The issues for the Court’s resolution are as follows: Funa v. Agra36 defines who a de factoofficer is and Peralta also had a colorable right to the said office
(a) whether the administrative penalties imposed on explains that his acts are just as valid for all as he was duly appointed to such position and was
Judge Peralta invalidated Search Warrant No. 09- purposes as those of a de jureofficer, in so far as the only divested of the same by virtue of a supervening
14407; (b) whether the Manila-RTC had jurisdiction public or third persons who are interested therein legal technicality – that is, the operation of Section
to issue the said warrant despite non-compliance are concerned, viz.: 5, Chapter III of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC as above-
with the compelling reasons requirement under explained; also, it may be said that there was
Section 2, Rule126 of the Rules of Court; (c) A de facto officer is one who derives his general acquiescence by the public since the search
whether the requirements of probable cause and appointment from one having colorable authority to warrant application was regularly endorsed to the
particular description were complied with and the appoint, if the office is an appointive office, and sala of Judge Peralta by the Office of the Clerk of
one-specific-offense rule under Section 4, Rule 126 whose appointment is valid on its face. He may also Court of the Manila-RTC under his apparent
of the Rules of Court was violated; and (d) whether be one who is in possession of an office, and is authority as 2nd Vice Executive Judge.42Finally,
the applicant for the search warrant,i.e., the PNP, discharging [his] duties under color of authority, by Judge Peralta’s actual physical possession of the
violated the rule against forum shopping.1âwphi1 which is meant authority derived from an said office is presumed to bein good faith, as the
appointment, however irregular or informal, so that contrary was not established.43 Accordingly, Judge
the incumbent is not a mere volunteer. Peralta can be considered to have acted as a de
The Court's Ruling
Consequently, the acts of the de factoofficer are just factoofficer when he issued Search Warrant No. 09-
as valid for all purposes as those of a de jure officer, 14407, hence, treated as valid as if it was issued by
The petition has no merit. a de jureofficer suffering no administrative
in so far as the public or third persons who are
interested therein are concerned.37 impediment.
A. Effect of Judge Peralta’s Administrative
Penalties. B. Jurisdiction of the Manila-RTC to Issue Search
The treatment of a de factoofficer’s acts is premised
on the reality that third persons cannot always Warrant No. 09- 14407; Exception to the Compelling
investigate the right of one assuming to hold an Reasons Requirement Under Section 2, Rule 126 of
important office and, as such, have a right to the Rules of Court.
Citing Section 5, Chapter III of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC assume that officials apparently qualified and in
which provides that "[t]he imposition upon an office are legally such.38 Public interest demands
Executive Judge or Vice-Executive Judge of an that acts of persons holding, under color of title, an
administrative penalty of at least a reprimand shall office created by a valid statute be, likewise, Section 12, Chapter V of A.M.No. 03-8-02-SC states
automatically operate to divest him of his position as deemed valid insofar as the public – as the requirements for the issuance of search
such,"Laud claims that Judge Peralta had no distinguished from the officer in question – is warrants in special criminal cases by the RTCs of
authority to act as Vice-Executive Judge and concerned.39 Indeed, it is far more cogently Manilaand Quezon City. These special criminal
accordingly issue Search Warrant No. 09-14407 in acknowledged that the de factodoctrine has been cases pertain to those "involving heinous crimes,
view of the Court’s Resolution in Dee C. Chuan & formulated, not for the protection of the de facto illegal gambling, illegal possession of firearms and
Sons, Inc. v. Judge Peralta34 wherein he was officer principally, but rather for the protection of the ammunitions, as well as violations of the
public and individuals who get involved in the official

82
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, the a) Any court within whose territorial (Constitution) provides that no search warrant shall
Intellectual Property Code, the Anti-Money jurisdiction a crime was committed. issue except upon probable causeto be determined
Laundering Act of 2001, the Tariff and Customs personally by the judgeafter examination under oath
Code, as amended, and other relevant laws that b) For compelling reasons stated in the or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses
may hereafter be enacted by Congress, and application, any court within the judicial he may produce, and particularly describing the
included herein by the Supreme Court." Search region where the crime was committed if place to be searched and the persons or things to
warrant applications for such cases may befiled by the place of the commission of the crime be seized:
"the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), the isknown, or any court within the judicial
Philippine National Police(PNP) and the AntiCrime region where the warrant shall be enforced. SEC. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their
Task Force (ACTAF)," and "personally endorsed by persons, houses, papers, and effects against
the heads of such agencies." As in ordinary search unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever
warrant applications, they "shall particularly However, if the criminal action has already been
filed, the application shall only be made in the court nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and
describe therein the places to be searched and/or no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue
the property or things to be seized as prescribed in where the criminal action is pending. (Emphasis
supplied) except upon probable cause to be determined
the Rules of Court." "The Executive Judges [of these personally by the judge after examination under
RTCs] and,whenever they are on official leave of oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
absence or are not physically present in the station, As explicitly mentioned in Section 12, Chapter V of
witnesses he may produce, and particularly
the Vice-Executive Judges" are authorized to act on A.M. No. 03-8- 02-SC, the rule on search warrant
describing the place to besearched and the persons
such applications and "shall issue the warrants, if applications before the Manila and Quezon City or things to be seized.
justified, which may be served in places outside the RTCs for the above-mentioned special criminal
territorial jurisdiction of the said courts." cases "shall be an exception to Section 2 of Rule
126 of the Rules of Court." Perceptibly, the fact that Complementarily, Section 4, Rule 126 of the Rules
a search warrant is being applied for in connection of Court states that a search warrant shall not be
The Court observes that all the above-stated issued except upon probable cause in connection
requirements were complied with in this case. with a special criminal case as above-classified
already presumes the existence of a compelling with one specific offense:
reason; hence, any statement to this effect would be
As the records would show, the search warrant super fluous and therefore should be dispensed SEC. 4. Requisites for issuing search warrant. - A
application was filed before the Manila-RTC by the with. By all indications, Section 12, Chapter V of search warrant shall not issue except upon probable
PNP and was endorsed by its head, PNP Chief A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC allows the Manila and Quezon cause in connection with one specific offenseto be
Jesus Ame Versosa,44 particularly describing the City RTCs to issue warrants to be servedin places determined personally by the judge after
place to be searched and the things to be seized (as outside their territorial jurisdiction for as long as the examination under oath or affirmation of the
will be elaborated later on) in connection with the parameters under the said section have been complainant and the witnesses he may produce,
heinous crime of Murder.45 Finding probable cause complied with, as in this case. Thus, on these and particularly describing the place to be searched
therefor, Judge Peralta, in his capacity as 2nd Vice- grounds, the Court finds nothing defective in the and the things to be seized which may be anywhere
Executive Judge, issued Search Warrant No. 09- preliminary issuance of Search Warrant No. 09- in the Philippines. (Emphasis supplied)
14407 which, as the rules state, may be served in 14407. Perforce, the RTC-Manila should not have
places outside the territorial jurisdiction of the said overturned it.
RTC. In this case, the existence of probable cause for the
issuance of Search Warrant No. 09-14407 is evident
C. Compliance with the Constitutional from the first-hand account of Avasola who, in his
Notably, the fact that a search warrant application Requirements for the Issuance of Search Warrant deposition, stated that he personally witnessed the
involves a "special criminal case" excludes it from No. 09-14407 and the One-SpecificOffense Rule commission of the afore-stated crime and was, in
the compelling reason requirement under Section 2, Under Section 4, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. fact, part of the group that buried the victims:
Rule 126 of the Rules of Court which provides:
Q9-Who are these six (6) male victims who were
SEC. 2. Court where application for search warrant killed and buried in the caves in December 2005 at
shall be filed. — An application for search warrant around 9:00 p.m.?
shall be filed with the following: In order to protect the people’s right against
unreasonable searches and seizures, Section 2,
Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution

83
A9-I heard Tatay Laud calling the names of the two persons had been perpetrated and that the human there be a particular description of "the place to be
victims when they were still alive as Pedro and remains in connection with the same are in the place searched and the persons or things to be seized."
Mario. I don’t know the names of the other four sought to be searched. In Santos v. Pryce Gases,
victims. Inc.,48 the Court explained the quantum of evidence "[A] description of a place to be searched is
necessary to establish probable cause for a search sufficient if the officer with the warrant can, with
Q10-What happened after Pedro, Mario and the warrant, as follows: reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place
other four victims were killed? intended and distinguish it from other places in the
Probable cause for a search warrant is defined as community. Any designation or description known to
A10-Tatay Laud ordered me and the six (6) killers to such facts and circumstances which would lead a the locality that points out the place to the exclusion
bring and bury equally the bodies inthe three caves. reasonably discrete and prudent man to believe that of all others, and on inquiry leads the officers
We buried Pedro and Mario altogether in the first an offense has been committed and that the objects unerringly to it, satisfies the constitutional
cave, located more or less 13 meters from the sought in connection with the offense are in the requirement."51
makeshift house of Tatay Laud, the other two place sought to be searched. A finding of probable
victims in the second cave and the remaining two in cause needs only torest on evidence showing that, Search Warrant No. 09-14407 evidently complies
the third cave. more likely than not, a crime has been committed with the foregoing standard since it particularly
and that it was committed by the accused. Probable describes the place to be searched, namely, the
cause demands more than bare suspicion; it three (3) caves located inside the Laud Compound
Q11-How did you get there at Laud Compound in
requires less than evidence which would justify in Purok 3, Barangay Maa, Davao City:
the evening of December 2005?
conviction. The existence depends to a large degree
upon the finding or opinion of the judge conducting
A11-I was ordered by Tatay Laud to go [to] the the examination. However, the findings of the judge You are hereby commanded to makean immediate
place. I ran errands [for] him.46 should not disregard the facts before him nor run search at any time [of] the day of the premises
counter to the clear dictates of reason.49 above describe[d] particularly the three (3) caves
(as sketched) inside the said Laud Compound,
Avasola’s statements in his deposition were
Purok 3, Brgy. Ma-a, Davao Cityand forthwith seize
confirmed during the hearing on July 10, 2009, In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the and take possession of the remains of six (6) victims
where Judge Peralta conducted the following quantum of proof to establish the existence of who were killed and buried in the just said premises.
examination: probable cause had been met. That a "considerable
length of time" attended the search warrant’s
x x x x52 (Emphases supplied)
Court: x x x Anong panandaan mo? Nandoon ka ba application from the crime’s commission does not,
noong naghukay, nakatago o kasama ka? by and of itself, negate the veracity of the applicant’s
claims or the testimony of the witness presented. As For further guidance in its enforcement, the search
the CA correctly observed, the delay may be warrant even made explicit reference to the
Mr. Avasola: Kasama po ako sa pagbuhat ng mga
accounted for by a witness’s fear of reprisal and sketch53 contained in the application. These, in the
tao, sir.
natural reluctance to get involved in a criminal Court’s view, are sufficient enough for the officers
case.50 Ultimately, in determining the existence of to, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the
Court: Mga ilang katao? probable cause, the facts and circumstances must place to be searched, which they in fact did.
be personally examined by the judge in their totality,
Mr. Avasola: Anim (6) po. together with a judicious recognition of the variable The things to be seized were also particularly
complications and sensibilities attending a criminal described, namely, the remains of six (6) victims
Court: May mass grave ba na nahukay? case. To the Court’s mind, the supposed delay in who were killed and buried in the aforesaid
the search warrant’s application does not dilute the premises. Laud’s posturing that human remains are
probable cause finding made herein. In fine, the not "personal property" and, hence, could not be the
Mr. Avasola: May tatlong kweba po na maliliit yung
probable cause requirement has been sufficiently subject of a search warrant deserves scant
isa malaki. x x x.47
met. consideration. Section 3, Rule 126 of the Rules of
Court states:
Verily, the facts and circumstancesestablished from
The Court similarly concludes that there was
the testimony of Avasola, who was personally
compliance with the constitutional requirement that
examined by Judge Peralta, sufficiently show that
more likely than not the crime of Murder of six (6)

84
SEC. 3.Personal property to be seized. – A search circumstances will ordinarily allow(People v. Rubio, qualified theft or estafa." On this score alone, the
warrant may be issued for the search and seizure of 57 Phil. 384 [1932]); or when the description search warrantwas totally null and void and was
personal property: expresses a conclusion of fact — not of law — by correctly declared to be so by the very judge who
which the warrant officer may be guided in making had issued it.60
(a) Subject of the offense; the search and seizure (idem., dissent of Abad
Santos, J.); or when the things described are limited In Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. CA,61 the Court,
to those which bear direct relation to the offense for however, settled that a search warrant that covers
(b) Stolen or embezzled and other
which the warrant is being issued(Sec. 2, Rule 126, several counts of a certain specific offense does not
proceeds, or fruits of the offense; or
Revised Rules of Court) x x x If the articles desired violate the one-specific-offense rule, viz.:
to be seized have any direct relation to an offense
(c) Used or intended to be used as the committed, the applicant must necessarily have
means of committing an offense. some evidence, other than those articles, to prove That there were several counts of the offenseof
(Emphases supplied) "Personal property" the said offense; and the articles subject of search copyright infringement and the search warrant
in the foregoing context actually refers to and seizure should come in handy merely to uncovered several contraband items in the form of
the thing’s mobility, and not to its capacity strengthen such evidence. (Emphases supplied)58 pirated video tapes is not to be confused with the
to be owned or alienated by a particular number of offenses charged. The search warrant
person. Article416 of the Civil herein issued does not violate the one-specific-
Consequently, the Court finds that the particular offense rule. (Emphasis supplied)62
Code,54 which Laud himself cites,55 states
description requirement – both as to the place to be
that in general, all things which can be
searched and the things to be seized – had been
transported from place to place are complied with. Hence, given that Search Warrant No. 09-14407
deemed to be personal property. was issued only for one specific offense – that is, of
Considering that human remains can Murder, albeit for six (6) counts – it cannot be said
generally be transported from place Finally, the Court finds no violation of the one- that Section 4, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court had
toplace, and considering further that they specific-offense rule under Section 4, Rule 126 of been violated.
qualify under the phrase "subject of the the Rules of Court as above-cited which, to note,
offense" given that they prove the crime’s was intended to prevent the issuance of scattershot
That being said, the Court now resolves the last
corpus delicti,56 it follows that they may be warrants, or those which are issued for more than
issue on forum shopping.
valid subjects of a search warrant under the one specific offense. The defective nature of
above-cited criminal procedure provision. scatter-shot warrants was discussed in the case of
People v. CA59 as follows: There is no question that D. Forum Shopping.
Neither does the Court agree with Laud’s
contention that the term "human remains" the search warrant did not relate to a specific
is too all-embracing so as to subvert the offense, in violation of the doctrine announced in
particular description requirement. Asthe Stonehill v. Diokno and of Section 3 [now, Section
Court sees it, the description points to no 4] of Rule 126 providing as follows:
There is forum shopping when a litigant repetitively
other than the things that bear a direct avails of several judicial remedies in different courts,
relation to the offense committed, i.e., of SEC. 3. Requisites for issuing search warrant.— A simultaneously or successively, all substantially
Murder. It is also perceived that the search warrant shall not issue but upon probable founded on the same transactions and the same
description is already specific as the cause in connection with one specific offense to be essential facts and circumstances, and all raising
circumstances would ordinarily allow given determined personally by the judge after substantially the same issues either pending in or
that the buried bodies would have naturally examination under oath or affirmation of the already resolved adversely by some other court to
decomposed over time. These complainant and the witnesses he may produce, increase his chances of obtaining a favorable
observations on the description’s sufficient and particularly describing the place to be searched decision if not in one court, then in another.63
particularity square with the Court’s and the things to be seized. Significantly, the
pronouncement in Bache and Co., (Phil.), petitioner has not denied this defect in the search
Inc. v. Judge Ruiz,57 wherein it was held: Forum shopping cannot be said to have been
warrant and has merely said that there was probable
committed in this case considering the various
cause, omitting to continue that it was in connection
points of divergence attending the search warrant
A search warrant may be said to particularly withone specific offense. He could not, of course, for
application before the Manila-RTC and that before
describe the things to be seized when the the warrant was a scatter-shot warrant that could
the Davao-RTC. For one, the witnesses presented
description therein is as specific as the refer, in Judge Dayrit’s own words, "to robbery, theft,
in each application were different. Likewise, the

85
 You are hereby commanded to make an immediate search at any
application filed in Manila was in connection with Search Warrant" with the Regional Trial Court,
time of the day (night) of the room of Tama Silva residence of his
Murder, while the one in Davao did not specify any Branch XXXIII, Dumaguete City against petitioners
crime. Finally, and more importantly, the places to Nicomedes Silva and Marlon Silva. 1 This father Comedes Silva to open (sic)aparadors, lockers, cabinets,

be searched were different – that inManila sought application was accompanied by a "Deposition of cartoons, containers, forthwith seize and take possession of the
following property Marijuana dried leaves, cigarettes, joint and bring
the search of the Laud Compound caves, while that Witness" executed by Pfc. Arthur M. Alcoran and
in Davao was for a particular area in the Laud Gold Pat. Leon T. Quindo, also dated June 13, 1986. 2 the said property to the undersigned to be dealt with as the law
directs. 3
Cup Firing Range. There being no identity of facts
and circumstances between the two applications,
the ruleagainst forum shopping was therefore not In the course of the search, the serving officers also seized money belonging to
violated. Antonieta Silva in the amount of P1,231.40.
On the same day. Judge Nickarter A. Ontal, then
Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
Thus, for all the above-discussed reasons, the Court XXXIII, Dumaguete City, pursuant to the said
affirms the CA Ruling which upheld the validity of "Application for Search Warrant" and "Deposition of
Search Warrant No. 09-14407. Witness", issued Search Warrant No. 1, directing On June 16, 1986, Antonieta Silva filed a motion for the return of the said amount
the aforesaid police officers to search the room of on the grounds that the search warrant only authorized the serving officers to seize
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Marlon Silva in the residence of Nicomedes Silva for marijuana dried leaves, cigarettes and joint, and that said officers failed or refused
Decision dated April 25, 2011 and the Resolution violation of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known to make a return of the said search warrant in gross violation of Section 11, Rule
dated October 17, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. as amended. 126 of the Rules of Court. 4
CA-G.R. SP. No. 113017 are hereby AFFIRMED. Pertinent portions of Search Warrant No. 1 read as
follows: Acting on said motion, Judge Ontal issued an Order dated July 1, 1986, stating

G.R. No. 81756 October 21, 1991 that the court "holds in abeyance the disposition of the said amount of P1,231.40
It appearing to the satisfaction of the pending the filing of appropriate charges in connection with the search warrant." 5

NICOMEDES SILVA @ " Comedes", MARLON undersigned after examining oath

SILVA, @ "Tama" and ANTONIETA (sic) MSGT. Ranulfo T. Villamor, Jr.and his On July 28, 1987, petitioners filed a motion to quash Search Warrant No. 1 on the

SILVA, petitioners, witnesses (sic) Pfc. Arthur M. Alcoran and grounds that (1) it was issued on the sole basis of a mimeographed "Application
Pat. Leon T. Quindo that there is probable
vs. for Search Warrant" and "Deposition of Witness", which were accomplished by

THE HONORABLE PRESIDING JUDGE, cause to believe that possession and merely filling in the blanks and (2) the judge failed to personally examine the

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF NEGROS control of Marijuana dried leaves, complainant and witnesses by searching questions and answers in violation of

ORIENTAL, BRANCH XXXIII, DUMAGUETE cigarettes, joint has been committed or is Section 3, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. 6

CITY, respondent. about to be committed and that there are

good and sufficient reasons to believe
On August 11, 1987, respondent trial court, through Judge Eugenio M. Cruz, who,
that marijuana dried leaves, cigarettes,
Marcelo G. Flores for petitioners. joint has in possession and/or control by then, had replaced retired Judge Ontal, issued an Order denying the motion for
lack of merit, finding the requisites necessary for the issuance of a valid search
at Tama's Room (Rgt. side lst
warrant duly complied with. 7
FERNAN, C.J.: Floor) located at Nono-Limbaga Drive,
Tanjay, Neg. Or. which is/are:
A motion for reconsideration dated September 1, 1987 filed by petitioners was
In this special civil action for certiorari, petitioners
likewise denied by Judge Cruz in an order dated October 19, 1987.
seek the nullification of Search Warrant No. 1 X (Subject of the offense stated above
issued by respondent Judge as well as the return
of the money in the amount of P1,231.00 seized (Stolen or embezzled or other proceeds of Hence, this special civil action for certiorari.

from petitioner Antonieta Silva. fruits of the offense;

Petitioners allege that the issuance of Search Warrant No. 1 was tainted with

The antecedent facts are as follows: X (Used or intended to be used as means illegality and that respondent Judge should be viewed to have acted without or in
excess of jurisdiction, or committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
of committing an offense.
jurisdiction when he issued the Order dated August 11, 1987, denying their motion
On June 13, 1986, M/Sgt. Ranulfo Villamor, Jr., as
to quash Search Warrant No, 1.
chief of the PC Narcom Detachment in Dumaguete
City, Negros Oriental, filed an "Application for

86
We rule for petitioners. The "probable cause" for a valid search warrant, has been defined merely repetitious of the deposition of said witness. Mere
"as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably generalization will not suffice and does not satisfy the requirements
discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been or probable cause upon which a warrant may issue.
Section 2, Article III (Bill of Rights) of the 1987 Constitution guarantees the right to
committed, and that objects sought in connection with the offense Likewise, in the Prudente case cited earlier, this Court declared the search warrant
personal liberty and security of homes against unreasonable searches and
are in the place sought to be searched". This probable cause must issued as invalid due to the failure of the judge to examine the witness in the form
seizures. This section provides:
be shown to be within the personal knowledge of the complainant or of searching questions and answers. Pertinent portion of the decision reads:
the witnesses he may produce and not based on mere hearsay.
Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
Moreover, a perusal of the deposition of P/Lt. Florencio Angeles shows that it was
papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of
In the case at bar, we have carefully examined the questioned search warrant as too brief and short. Respondent Judge did not examine him "in the form of
whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no
well as the "Application for Search Warrant" and "Deposition of Witness", and searching questions and answers". On the contrary, the questions asked were
search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable
found that Judge Ontal failed to comply with the legal requirement that he must leading as they called for a simple "yes" or "no" answer. As held in Quintero vs.
cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination
examine the applicant and his witnesses in the form of searching questions and
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he NBI, "the questions propounded by respondent Executive Judge to the applicant's
answers in order to determine the existence of probable cause. The joint
may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched witness' are not sufficiently searching to establish probable cause. Asking of
"Deposition of Witness" executed by Pfc. Alcoran and Pat. Quindo, which was
and the persons or things to be seized. leading questions to the deponent in an application for search warrant, and
submitted together with the "Application for Search Warrant" contained, for the
conducting of examination in a general manner, would not satisfy the requirements
most part suggestive questions answerable by merely placing "yes" or "no" in the
The purpose of the constitutional provision against unlawful searches and seizures for issuance of a valid search warrant. 10
blanks provided thereon. In fact there were only four (4) questions asked, to wit:
is to prevent violations of private security in person and property, and unlawful
invasion of the sanctity of the home, by officers of the law acting under legislative
or judicial sanction, and to give remedy against such usurpations when
attempted. 8 Thus, in issuing a search warrant, the judge must strictly comply with the
Q Do you personally know M/Sgt. Ranulfo Villamor, Jr. the applicant constitutional and statutory requirement that he must determine the existence of
for a search warrant? probable cause by personally examining the applicant and his witnesses in the
Thus, Sections 3 and 4, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court provide for the requisites
A Yes, sir. form of searching questions and answers. His failure to comply with this
for the issuance of a search warrant, to wit:
Q Do you have personal knowledge that the said premises subject requirement constitutes grave abuse of discretion. As declared in Marcelo vs. De
of the offense stated above, and other proceeds of fruit of the Guzman, G.R. No. L-29077, June 29, 1982, 114 SCRA 657, "the capricious
SEC. 3. Requisite for issuing search warrant. — A search warrant offense, used or obtain (sic) or intended to be used as means of disregard by the judge in not complying with the requirements before issuance of
shall not issue but upon probable cause in connection with one committing an offense? search warrants constitutes abuse of discretion".
specific offense to be determined personally by the judge after A Yes, sir. The officers implementing the search warrant clearly abused their authority when
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the Q Do you know personally who is/are the person who has/have the they seized the money of Antonieta Silva. This is highly irregular considering that
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to property in his/their possession and control? Antonieta Silva was not even named as one of the respondents, that the warrant
be searched and the things to be seized. A Yes, sir. did not indicate the seizure of money but only of marijuana leaves, cigarettes and
Q How did you know all this (sic) things? joints, and that the search warrant was issued for the seizure of personal property
SEC. 4. Examination of complainant; record. — The judge must, A Through discreet surveillance. 9 (a) subject of the offense and (b) used or intended to be used as means of
before issuing the warrant, personally examine in the form of committing an offense and NOT for personal property stolen or embezzled or other
searching questions and answers, in writing and under oath the The above deposition did not only contain leading questions but it was also very proceeds of fruits of the offense. Thus, the then presiding Judge Ontal likewise
complainant and any witnesses he may produce on facts personally broad. The questions propounded to the witnesses were in fact, not probing but abused his discretion when he rejected the motion of petitioner Antonieta Silva
known to them and attach to the record their sworn statements were merely routinary. The deposition was already mimeogragphed and all that seeking the return of her seized money.
together with any affidavits submitted. the witnesses had to do was fill in their answers on the blanks provided.
In the case of Nolasco vs. Paño, G.R. No. 69803, October 8, 1985, 139 SCRA WHEREFORE, the petition is granted. Search Warrant No. 1 is hereby declared
Based on the aforecited constitutional and statutory provisions, the judge must, 152, 163, this Court held: null and void. Respondent Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental,
before issuing a search warrant, determine whether there is probable cause by The "probable cause" required to justify the issuance of a search Branch XXXIII is directed to order the return to petitioner Antonieta Silva of the
examining the complainant and witnesses through searching questions and warrant comprehends such facts and circumstances as will induce a amount of P1,231.40 which had earlier been seized from her by virtue of the illegal
answers. cautious man to rely upon them and act in pursuant thereof. Of the 8 search warrant. This decision is immediately executory. No costs.
questions asked, the 1st, 2nd and 4th pertain to identity. The 3rd and
5th are leading not searching questions. The 6th, 7th and 8th refer
In the case of Prudente vs. Dayrit, G.R. No. 82870, December 14, 1989, 180
to the description of the personalities to be seized, which is identical G.R. No. 150877 May 4, 2006
SCRA 69, 767 this Court defined "probable cause" as follows:
to that in the Search Warrant and suffers from the same lack of
particularity. The examination conducted was general in nature and

87
ELIDAD KHO and VIOLETA KHO, Petitioners, Consequently, on 30 November 1990, SYCF Certificate of Copyright Registration No.
vs. appointed respondent Summerville General 3687 issued by the National Library on May
HON. ENRICO LANZANAS, Presiding Judge of Merchandising, represented by Ang Tiam Chay and 23, 1991;
the Regional Trial Court of Manila – Branch 7 Victor Chua, as its exclusive importer, re-packer and
and SUMMERVILLE GENERAL distributor of Chin Chun Su products in the 3. No award of damages;
MERCHANDISING, Respondents. Philippines8 for a period of five years or until May
2005.
4. Counsels for plaintiff and defendants are
DECISION awarded P75,000.00 each as attorney’s
SYCF further executed a Special Power of Attorney fees; and
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: dated 11 September 1991 in favor of Summerville
General Merchandising granting it the authority to
5. Both parties to pay proportionate fees.10
file complaints against usurpers of Chin Chun Su
Culled from the records are the following antecedent trademarks/tradename.9
facts: Both parties appealed the RTC decision to the Court
of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. CV NO. 48043
From the foregoing incidents arose several judicial
Shun Yih Chemistry Factory (SYCF), a business and quasi-judicial proceedings. entitled, "Elidad C. Kho, doing business under the
existing and operating in Taiwan and engaged in the style of KEC Cosmetic Laboratory v. Summerville
manufacture and sale of Chin Chun Su General Merchandising and Co., et al." In a
Creams/Cosmetics, appointed Young Factor 1) Civil Case No. Q-91-10926 before the Regional decision11 dated 22 November 1999, the appellate
Enterprises in the Philippines, owned and operated Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 90 court affirmed in toto the decision of the trial
by Quintin Cheng also known as Kho Seng Hiok, as court.12 Elidad Kho elevated the case to this Court,
its distributor of Chin Chun Su products in the On 20 December 1991, Elidad Kho/KEC Laboratory docketed as G.R. No. 144100. In a resolution dated
Philippines for a term of two years beginning filed a Complaint for Injunction and Damages 28 August 2000, we denied the petition. We held
1978.1 Quintin Cheng registered with the Bureau of against Ang Tiam Chay and Summerville General that:
Food and Drugs (BFAD) as distributor of Chin Chun Merchandising before the RTC of Quezon City,
Su products. Quintin Cheng subsequently secured Branch 90, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-91-10926. The issue is who, between petitioner Elidad C. Kho
a supplemental registration for Chin Chun Su and Plaintiff therein Elidad Kho/KEC Laboratory sought and respondent Summerville General
device.2 This supplemental registration was ordered to enjoin defendants Ang Tiam Chay and Merchandising and Company has the better right to
cancelled by the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks Summerville General Merchandising from using the use the trademark "Chin Chun Su" on their facial
and Technology Transfer3 on the ground of failure of name Chin Chun Su in their cream products. cream product?
the registrant to file the required affidavit of non-use
as required by Section 12 of Republic Act No. 166, On 22 January 1993, a decision in Civil Case No. Q-
as amended.4 We agree with both the Court of Appeals and the
91-10926 was rendered, the dispositive portion of trial court that Summerville General Merchandising
which provides: and Company has the better right to use the
Notwithstanding this cancellation, Quintin Cheng trademark "Chin Chun Su" on its facial cream
executed on 30 January 1990 an Assignment of a ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered: product by virtue of the exclusive importation and
Registered Trademark5 and a Supplementary Deed distribution rights given to it by Shun Yih Chemistry
of Assignment6 dated 25 November 1991 wherein Factory of Taiwan on November 20, 1990 after the
he sold all his right, title, interest and goodwill in the 1. Declaring that plaintiff is not legally
authorized to use the trademark "CHIN latter cancelled and terminated on October 30, 1990
trademark Chin Chun Su and device to petitioner its Sole Distributorship Agreement with one Quintin
Elidad Kho. CHUN SU" and upholding the right of
defendant Summerville General Cheng, who assigned and transferred his rights
Merchandising & Co. to use said trademark under said agreement to petitioner Elidad C. Kho on
In the meantime, animosity arose between SYCF as authorized by Shun Yih Chemistry January 31, 1990.
and Quintin Cheng resulting in the termination of Factory of Taiwan;
their distributorship agreement on 30 October As correctly held by the Court of Appeals, petitioner
1990.7 Kho is not the author of the trademark "Chin Chun
2. Declaring plaintiff to have the right to use
the copyright claim on "OVAL FACIAL Su" and his only claim to the use of the trademark is
CREAM CONTAINER/CASE" by virtue of based on the Deed of Agreement executed in his

88
favor by Quintin Cheng. By virtue thereof, he This is the case filed before the RTC of Manila, General Merchandising accordingly filed a motion
registered the trademark in his name. The Branch 1, entitled, "People of the Philippines v. for reconsideration of this DOJ resolution dated 20
registration was a patent nullity because petitioner Elidad and Violeta Kho and Roger Kho," pursuant to September 2001.
is not the creator of the trademark "Chin Chun Su" the DOJ Resolution in I.S. No. 00A-02396 and I.S.
and, therefore, has no right to register the same in No. 00B-10973, ordering the filing of a criminal In view of the latest DOJ resolution ordering the
his name. Furthermore, the authority of Quintin complaint against Elidad, Roger and Violeta Kho.16 dismissal of the complaint of Summerville General
Cheng to be the sole distributor of Chin Chun Su in Merchandising against the Khos, the RTC of Manila,
the Philippines had already been terminated by Prior to the filing of Criminal Case No. 00-183261 Branch 1, issued an Order dated 24 October 2001
Shun Yih Chemistry of Taiwan. Withal, he had no before the RTC of Manila, Branch 1, on 18 January directing the dismissal of the Complaint in Criminal
right to assign or to transfer the same to petitioner 2000, Victor Chua, representing Summerville Case No. 00-183261.21 Summerville General
Kho. General Merchandising, filed a Complaint for Unfair Merchandising filed with the RTC of Manila, Branch
Competition, docketed as I.S. No. 00A-02396 1, a motion for reconsideration of its Order of
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby denied entitled, "Summerville General Merchandising, dismissal of Criminal Case No. 00-183261. For their
due course.13 represented by Victor Chua v. Elidad and Violeta part, Elidad and Violeta Kho also filed with the same
Kho," before the Office of the City Prosecutor of court a supplemental motion insisting that the Order
2) BFAD Cosmetic Case No. CM-040-91 Manila. dismissing Criminal Case No. 00-183261 cannot be
set aside because to do so would, in effect, reinstate
Elidad and Violeta Kho filed their counter-affidavit in the said criminal case and would already constitute
At the other end of the spectrum, due to the
the Complaint for Unfair Competition which served double jeopardy. Acting on these motions, the RTC
proliferation of fake Chin Chun Su products, of Manila, Branch 1, issued an Order dated 21
Summerville General Merchandising filed a as their countercharge against Ang Tiam Chay and
Victor Chua, likewise for Unfair Competition, August 2002 resolving the motions in the following
Complaint14 before the BFAD against KEC manner:
Cosmetic Laboratory owned by Elidad Kho. docketed as I.S. No. OOB-10973.

On 29 March 2000, the Office of the City Prosecutor The foregoing duly established facts indubitably
In a resolution of the BFAD dated 4 February 1992,
granted the consolidation of both I.S. No. 00A- supports accused’s contention that a re-filing [o]f the
it ruled that:
02396 and I.S. No. 00B-10973. On 25 April 2000, Information would put them in double jeopardy. As
Assistant City Prosecutor Rector Macapagal ruled by the Supreme Court in Marcelo v. Court of
WHEREFORE, the brand name clearance of CCS Appeals, 235 SCRA 39, upon withdrawal of the
rendered a joint resolution dismissing both the
in favor of KEC is recalled and cosmetic registration Information, which is the logical consequence of the
Complaint and countercharge. This resolution of
number DR-X6113-78 dtd 11/17/78 is grant of the Motion to Withdraw, there no longer
dismissal was reversed by the review
TEMPORARILY CANCELLED until KEC applies to remained any case to dismiss.
resolution17 dated 31 May 2000 issued by Assistant
change or amend the brand name CCS it is now
City Prosecutor Elmer Calledo who directed the
using. For this purpose, KEC is hereby ordered to
filing of an information against Elidad Kho, Roger Accordingly, finding merit in the Motion for
retrieve all locally produced Chin Chun Su Pearl Reconsideration, the same is hereby granted.
Kho and Violeta Kho for violation of Section 168.3(a)
Cream for relabelling as soon as the amendment of
in relation to Sections 168 and 170, Republic Act
its brand name has been approved by this Bureau
No. 8293 (The Intellectual Property Code).18 On 17 The information against accused is hereby
with the corresponding amended Certificate of
August 2000, Department of Justice (DOJ) dismissed.
Registration.
Undersecretary Regis Puno issued a
resolution19 dismissing the petition for review filed
Summerville’s application to register (renew or The Clerk of Court is hereby directed to return to the
by Elidad and Violeta Kho and upholding the ruling
reinstate) CCS Medicated Cream under DR-X6113- accused the cash bonds posted by the latter for their
of Assistant City Prosecutor Calledo, directing the
78 in the name of Shun Yih Chemistry Factory is filing of charges against the Khos. Elidad and provisional liberty upon presentation of the requisite
herewith approved for processing at BFAD-Product receipts.
Violeta Kho filed a motion for reconsideration, and
Services Division.15 in a complete turnabout, on 28 September 2001, a
resolution20 was issued by then DOJ Secretary The ruling renders the remaining incidents moot and
3) Criminal Case No. 00-183261 before the RTC of Hernando Perez again dismissing the Complaint academic.22
Manila, Branch 1 and countercharge in I.S. No. 00A-02396 and I.S.
No. 00B-10973 for lack of merit. Summerville

89
Thereafter, on 17 September 2002, the DOJ ACCORDINGLY, the Motion for Reconsideration issued against Elidad, Violeta and Roger Kho on the
Secretary, Hernando B. Perez, granted the pending dated September 10, 2002 filed by the private same day.30 Its enforcement led to the seizure of
motion of Summerville General Merchandising for prosecutor and subject of the Motion to Resolve is several Chin Chun Su products.311avvphil.net
reconsideration of the DOJ resolution23 dated 28 hereby denied with finality.
September 2001, which dismissed the Complaint of On 17 January 2000, Elidad, Violeta and Roger Kho
movant Summerville General Merchandising in I.S. The Clerk of Court is hereby directed to return to the filed before the RTC of Manila, Branch 7, a motion
No. 00A-02396, and accordingly issued another accused the cash bond posted by them for their to quash the search warrant and for the return of the
resolution vacating the questioned 28 September provisional liberty upon presentation of the required items unlawfully seized. The motion was opposed
2001 resolution and directing the City Prosecutor of receipts.26 by Summerville General Merchandising.
Manila to continue with the criminal prosecution of
the Khos for Unfair Competition.
Thus, Summerville General Merchandising raised In an Order32 dated 3 April 2000, the RTC of Manila,
its case to the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA- Branch 7, denied Elidad and Violeta Kho’s motion to
Elidad and Violeta Kho filed a motion for G.R. SP No. 77180, assailing the Order dated 24 quash and to return the seized articles for lack of
reconsideration of the resolution dated 17 October 2001 of the RTC of Manila, Branch 1, merit.33 Elidad and Violeta Kho filed a motion for
September 2002 before the DOJ. The DOJ,24 thru dismissing Criminal Case No. 00-183261, as well as reconsideration and motion to transfer the
the new Secretary Simeon A. Datumanong denied the Orders dated 21 August 2002 and 2 April 2003 proceedings in RTC of Manila, Branch 7, to RTC of
that double jeopardy lies, in a resolution dated 17 of the same court affirming its previous order of Manila, Branch 1, citing Supreme Court
July 2003, declared that: dismissal. Administrative Order 113-9534 designating the RTC
of Manila, Branch 1, as an Intellectual Property
After an evaluation of the record, we resolve to deny In a decision of the Court of Appeals dated 26 May Court. The RTC of Manila, Branch 7, denied these
the motion for reconsideration. For double jeopardy 2004 in CA-G.R. SP No. 77180,27 the Court denied motions in an Order dated 5 June 2000,35 explaining
to attach, the following requirements must be due course to the petition of Summerville General that:
present: (1) upon a valid indictment; (2) before a Merchandising and affirmed the ruling of the trial
competent court; (3) after arraignment; (4) when a court that, indeed, double jeopardy has set in. Anent the Motion to Compel this Branch to transfer
valid plea has been entered; and (5) when the the case to Branch 1 of this Court, suffice it to say
defendant was convicted, acquitted, or the case was that the cases for violation of Arts. 188 and 189 of
The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP
dismissed or otherwise terminated without the the Revised Penal Code (now under the Intellectual
No. 77180 is now the subject of a Petition for Review
express consent of the accused. (People v. Court of Property Law) are those that are already filed in
before this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 163741
Appeals, 308 SCRA 687). In the instant case, it court after the proper preliminary investigation and
entitled, Summerville General Merchandising and
appears that the case was terminated with the not cases for application for search warrant
Co., Inc. v. Elidad Kho."28
express consent of the respondent, as the criminal involving probable violation of said law. Supreme
case was dismissed upon the express application of Court Administrative Circular No. 113-95 itself
the accused. Her action in having the case 4) Search Warrant No. 99-1520 before the RTC of
designates the alluded court or branch thereof to try
dismissed constitutes a waiver of her constitutional Manila, Branch 7
and decide which clearly excludes
prerogative against double jeopardy as she thereby cases/applications for search warrant which
prevented the court from proceeding to trial on the Shortly before instituting Criminal Case No. 00- obviously does not involve trying and deciding case
merits and rendering a judgment of conviction 183261 against the Khos, or on 7 January 2000, for violation of the Intellectual Property law.
against her.25 Summerville General Merchandising applied for the
issuance of a search warrant against the Spouses
On respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration, the
At odds with the final DOJ resolution, the RTC of Elidad and Violeta Kho and Roger Kho, since they
Court finds their arguments therein a rehash of the
Manila, Branch 1, handling Criminal Case No. 00- persisted in manufacturing and selling Chin Chun
issues and arguments raised in their Motion to
183261, held in its Order dated 2 April 2003 that: Su products despite the BFAD order directing them Quash.
to refrain from doing so. The application was
docketed as Search Warrant No. 99-1520 before
Considering the tenors of the orders of dismissal, WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, respondents’
the RTC of Manila, Branch 7, which was presided
whatever maybe the merits of the Motion for Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Transfer,
over by respondent herein, Judge Enrico A.
Reconsideration, revival of the case is now barred are hereby DENIED.36
by the impregnable wall of double jeopardy. Lanzanas. A hearing on the application was held on
10 January 200029 and the search warrant was

90
Elidad and Violeta Kho filed a Petition for Certiorari HONORABLE JUDGE ENRICO LANZANAS IN Unfair Competition as defined and penalized under
and Preliminary Mandatory Injunction,37 docketed FINDING THAT PROBABLE CAUSE EXISTED Section 168.3(a), in relation to Sections 168 and
as CA-G.R. SP No. 60084, before the Court of AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE 170 of Rep. Act No. 8293 or The Intellectual
Appeals questioning the aforementioned Orders of ISSUANCE OF SEARCH WARRANT NO. 99-1520. Property Code of the Philippines. Therefore, at the
the RTC of Manila, Branch 7. A decision dated 6 time of the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 00-
August 200138 was rendered by the Court of WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS 183261 by the RTC of Manila, Branch 1, on 24
Appeals denying the petition. It upheld Search ERRED IN FINDING THAT BRANCH 7 OF THE October 2001, the DOJ resolution on I.S. No. 00A-
Warrant No. 99-1520 as having been validly issued REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA HAD 02396 on which Criminal Case No. 00-183261 is
and properly executed and, thus, there is no basis JURISDICTION TO ISSUE SEARCH WARRANT based has not been written finis as yet.
for the return of the goods seized. A motion for NO. 99-1520.
reconsideration filed by the Khos was denied by the Taking into consideration these circumstances, the
Court of Appeals in an Order dated 16 November Court of Appeals did not err in affirming the Order of
2001.39 WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS
ERRED IN FINDING THAT NO GRAVE ABUSE OF the RTC of Manila, Branch 7, denying the motion to
DISCRETION WAS COMMITTED BY quash filed by the herein petitioners because,
Elidad and Violeta Kho filed a supplement to their HONORABLE JUDGE ENRICO LANZANAS IN subsequently, the DOJ still ordered the filing of
Motion for Reconsideration dated 20 November RULING THAT SEARCH WARRANT NO. 99-1520 charges against Elidad and Violeta Kho.
200140 before the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP WAS LAWFULLY EXECUTED.
No. 60084, reiterating their prayer for the quashal of As to whether the RTC of Manila, Branch 1, properly
Search Warrant No. 99-1520 and the return of the dismissed the criminal case against the Khos
seized items. The Court of Appeals, in a resolution WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS
ERRED IN FINDING THAT NO GRAVE ABUSE OF despite the resolution of the DOJ ordering their
dated 4 December 2001,41 merely noted the motion criminal prosecution, we cannot dwell more on the
in view of its earlier resolution rendered on 16 DISCRETION WAS COMMITTED BY
HONORABLE JUDGE ENRICO LANZANAS IN issue because it is already the subject of G.R. No.
November 2001 already denying Elidad and Violeta 163741 before another division of this Court.
Kho’s Motion for Reconsideration. NOT ORDERING THE RETURN OF THE ITEMS
SEIZED UNDER SEARCH WARRANT NO. 99-
1520.43 Issues two, three and four, on the other hand, boil
Pained by the decisions and orders of the trial court down to the central issue of whether or not the Court
and appellate court, petitioners Elidad and Violeta of Appeals erred in upholding the RTC of Manila,
The petition is devoid of merit.
Kho filed the present petition praying that the Branch 7, in its findings of probable cause to issue
decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. a search warrant. Also resting on how we shall
60084 dated 6 August 2001 be reversed and set As to the first issue, it must be noted that the
resolve the foregoing issue is the fifth and last issue
aside, and a new decision be issued granting the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 00-183261 by the
in the Petition at bar which questions the refusal by
quashal of Search Warrant No. 99-1520 and RTC of Manila, Branch 1, was initially by virtue of
both the Court of Appeals and the RTC of Manila,
ordering the return of the items unlawfully seized.42 the resolution of the DOJ dated 28 September Branch 7, to return the seized items.
200144 ordering the dismissal of the criminal case
for unfair competition.
In their Memorandum, petitioners raise the following The issuance of Search Warrants is governed by
issues for resolution: Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court reproduced
This order of dismissal, however, was again set below:
aside by the DOJ in its resolution dated 17
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS
September 200245directing that appropriate
ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE WITHDRAWAL SECTION 1. Search warrant defined. – A search
information for Unfair Competition be filed against
OF THE INFORMATION FOR UNFAIR warrant is an order in writing issued in the name of
the Khos. The motion for reconsideration of Elidad
COMPETITION AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN the People of the Philippines, signed by a judge and
and Violeta Kho was denied by the DOJ in its
BRANCH 1 OF RTC-MANILA AS A RESULT OF directed to a peace officer, commanding him to
resolution dated 17 July 2003.46 This is the latest
THE RESOLUTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF search for personal property described therein and
JUSTICE FINDING NO PROBABLE CAUSE. existing resolution of the DOJ on the matter, dated
17 July 2003, which affirmed the resolution of the bring it before the court.
then DOJ Secretary Hernando B. Perez directing
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS the City Prosecutor of Manila to file the appropriate
ERRED IN FINDING THAT NO GRAVE ABUSE OF information against Elidad and Violeta Kho for
DISCRETION WAS COMMITTED BY

91
SEC. 2. Court where application for search warrant their sworn statements together with the affidavits Although the term "probable cause" has been said
shall be filed. - An application for search warrant submitted. to have a well-defined meaning in the law, the term
shall be filed with the following: is exceedingly difficult to define, in this case, with
SEC. 6. Issuance and form of search warrant. – If any degree of precision; indeed, no definition of it
a) Any court within whose territorial the judge is satisfied of the existence of facts upon which would justify the issuance of a search warrant
jurisdiction a crime was committed. which the application is based or that there is can be formulated which would cover every state of
probable cause to believe that they exist, he shall facts which might arise, and no formula or standard,
issue the warrant, which must be substantially in the or hard and fast rule, may be laid down which may
b) For compelling reasons stated in the be applied to the facts of every situation. As to what
application, any court within the judicial form prescribed by these Rules.
acts constitute probable cause seem incapable of
region where the crime was committed if definition. There is, of necessity, no exact test.
the place of the commission of the crime is What constitutes "probable cause" is well settled. In
known, or any court within the judicial Microsoft Corporation v. Maxicorp, Inc.,47 we
region where the warrant shall be enforced. defined probable cause as follows: At best, the term "probable cause" has been
understood to mean a reasonable ground of
suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently
However, if the criminal action has already been Probable cause means "such reasons, supported by
strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man in
filed, the application shall only be made in the court facts and circumstances as will warrant a cautious
the belief that the person accused is guilty of the
where the criminal action is pending. man in the belief that his action and the means taken
offense with which he is charged; or the existence
in prosecuting it are legally just and proper." Thus,
of such facts and circumstances as would excite an
SEC. 3. Personal property to be seized. – A search probable cause for a search warrant requires such honest belief in a reasonable mind acting on all the
warrant may be issued for the search and seizure of facts and circumstances that would lead a facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the
personal property: reasonably prudent man to believe that an offense magistrate that the charge made by the applicant for
has been committed and the objects sought in the warrant is true.
connection with that offense are in the place to be
(a) Subject of the offense;
searched.
Probable cause does not mean actual and positive
(b) Stolen or embezzled and other cause, nor does it import absolute certainty. The
xxxx
proceeds or fruits of the offense; or determination of the existence of probable cause is
not concerned with the question of whether the
The determination of probable cause does not call offense charged has been or is being committed in
(c) Used or intended to be used as the
for the application of rules and standards of proof fact, or whether the accused is guilty or innocent,
means of committing an offense.
that a judgment of conviction requires after trial on but only whether the affiant has reasonable grounds
the merits. As implied by the words themselves, for his belief. The requirement is less than certainty
SEC. 4. Requisites for issuing search warrant. – A "probable cause" is concerned with probability, not or proof, but more than suspicion or possibility.
search warrant shall not issue except upon probable absolute or even moral certainty. The prosecution
cause in connection with one specific offense to be need not present at this stage proof beyond
determined personally by the judge after In Philippine jurisprudence, probable cause has
reasonable doubt. The standards of judgment are
examination under oath or affirmation of the been uniformly defined as such facts and
those of a reasonably prudent man, not the exacting
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, circumstances which would lead a reasonable,
calibrations of a judge after a full-blown trial.
and particularly describing the place to be searched discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense
and the things to be seized which may be anywhere has been committed, and that the objects sought in
No law or rule states that probable cause requires a connection with the offense are in the place sought
in the Philippines.
specific kind of evidence. No formula or fixed rule for to be searched. It being the duty of the issuing
its determination exists. Probable cause is officer to issue, or refuse to issue, the warrant as
SEC.5. Examination of complainant; record. – The determined in the light of conditions obtaining in a soon as practicable after the application therefor is
judge must, before issuing the warrant, personally given situation. xxx filed, the facts warranting the conclusion of probable
examine in the form of searching questions and cause must be assessed at the time of such judicial
answers, in writing and under oath, the complainant determination by necessarily using legal standards
In Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,48 we
and the witnesses he may produce on facts explained further that: then set forth in law and jurisprudence, and not
personally known to them and attach to the record those that have yet to be crafted thereafter.

92
We also declared in People v. From the affidavit dated 7 January 2000 of SPO4 the affidavits they separately executed, and
Chiu,49 citing Malaloan v. Court of Appeals,50 that a Nedita Balagbis, in support of the application for essentially stated therein upon inquiry by Judge
search warrant is merely a judicial process designed search warrant, she stated that Summerville Lanzanas that indeed several fake Chin Chun Su
by the Rules to respond only to an incident in the General Merchandising represented by Mr. Victor products were loaded to a tricycle and brought to a
main case, if one has already been instituted, or in Chua sought the assistance of their police station in warehouse in Topacio Street.
anticipation thereof. connection with the proliferation of fake Chin Chun
Su products. With Victor Chua, they made a In People v. Tee,54 this Court held that:
It bears repeating that the proceedings before the surveillance of two places, namely 2407 Topacio
RTC of Manila, Branch 7, was solely for the Street and 2412 Raymundo Street both in San
Andres, Manila. Through this, they were able to It is presumed that a judicial function has been
issuance of Search Warrant No. 99-1520, while the regularly performed, absent a showing to the
main case against Elidad and Violeta Kho for verify that plastic containers were being labeled with
Chin Chun Su stickers filled with cream at 2407 contrary. A magistrate’s determination of probable
violation of The Intellectual Property Code was cause for the issuance of a search warrant is paid
instituted only later on as Criminal Case No. 00- Topacio Street. On the other hand, in the affidavit
dated 7 January 2000 of Victor Chua, he stated that great deference by a reviewing court, as long as
183261 before the RTC of Manila, Branch 1. What there was substantial basis for that determination.
is before us in the Petition at bar is the validity of the Summerville General Merchandising, being the
Substantial basis means that the questions of the
search warrant issued in the proceedings in Search exclusive importer, distributor and dealer of Chin
examining judge brought out such facts and
Warrant No. 99-1520. Chun Su products received reliable information that
circumstances as would lead a reasonably discreet
persons going by the name of Elidad, Violeta and
and prudent man to believe that an offense has
Roger Kho were engaged in the illegal manufacture
A perspicacious examination of the records reveal been committed, and the objects in connection with
and sale of these products. From the surveillance
that the RTC of Manila, Branch 7, followed the the offense sought to be seized are in the place
conducted with the help of SPO4 Balagbis, they saw
prescribed procedure for the issuance of Search sought to be searched.
a tricycle full of containers taken to a house at 2412
Warrant No. 99-1520, namely, (1) the examination
Raymundo Street, San Andres, Manila. It was at this
under oath or affirmation of the Complainant and his We cannot find any irregularity or abuse of
address that Chin Chun Su stickers were being
witnesses and, in this case, Judge Enrico A. discretion on the part of Judge Lanzanas for issuing
affixed. The containers were thereafter taken to
Lanzanas personally examined complainant- the assailed search warrant. On the contrary, we
2407 Topacio Street to be filled with the cream
policewoman SPO4 Nedita Alvario Balagbis, and product. find that he had complied with the procedural and
Mr. Victor Chua, the representative/officer of substantive requirements for issuing a search
Summerville General Merchandising, at the hearing warrant. We are, therefore, bound to respect his
on the application for Search Warrant No. 99-1520 Clearly, probable cause existed for the issuance of
finding of probable cause for issuing Search
held on 10 January 2000; (2) an examination the warrant as shown by the affidavits of the above
Warrant No. 99-1520.
personally conducted by then Presiding Judge affiants who had personal knowledge of facts
Lanzanas, in the form of searching questions and indicating that an offense involving violation of
answers, in writing and under oath, of the intellectual property rights was being committed and After declaring that Search Warrant No. 99-1520
complainant and witnesses on facts personally that the objects sought in connection with the was validly issued by the RTC of Manila, Branch 7,
known to them; and (3) the taking of sworn offense are in the place sought to be searched. The then there is no reason for us to order the return of
surveillance conducted by SPO4 Nedita Balagbis on the articles seized by virtue thereof.
statements, together with the affidavits submitted,
which were duly attached to the records.51 the basis of reliable information that Elidad, Violeta
and Roger Kho were engaged in the illegal WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals
manufacture and sale of fake Chin Chun Su dated 6 August 2001 and Resolution dated 16
In determining probable cause in the issuance of a
products enabled her to gain personal knowledge of November 2001, denying the quashal of Search
search warrant, the oath required must refer to the
the illegal activities of the Khos.53 This fact was Warrant No. 99-1520 and the return of the seized
truth of the facts within the personal knowledge of
sufficient justification for the examining judge, in this items, are hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against
the applicant or his witnesses, because the purpose
case Judge Lanzanas, to conclude that there was petitioners.
thereof is to convince the committing magistrate, not
probable cause for the issuance of the search
the individual making the affidavit and seeking the warrant.
issuance of the warrant, of the existence of probable G.R. No. 172775 December 19, 2007
cause.52 HON NE CHAN, YUNJI ZENG, AND JOHN
At the hearing conducted by Judge Lanzanas, DOE, Petitioners,
SPO4 Nedita Balagbis and Victor Chua testified on vs.

93
HONDA MOTOR CO., LTD., AND HONDA PHIL., It appearing to the satisfaction of the undersigned, GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL this 14th
INC., Respondents. after examining under oath the applicant Special day of November, 2003 at the City of Manila,
DECISION Investigator Glenn M. Lacaran of the National Philippines.
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: Bureau of Investigation, and his witnesses Atty.
Elmer NA. Cadano and Mr. Rene C. Baltazar, that ARTEMIO S. TIPON
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on there are good and sufficient reasons to believe that
Certiorari of the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in a violation of Sec. 168 in relation to Sec. 170 of the
Judge
CA-G.R. SP No. 85353, granting respondents’ R.A. No. 8293 has been committed and that there
Petition for Certiorari and setting aside the Orders are good and sufficient reasons to believe that the
following : On the strength of these search warrants, NBI
dated 20 February 2004 and 18 May 2004, of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 46. agents conducted a search of petitioners’ premises
and seized the following items:
a) Motorcycles bearing the model names and/or
On 14 November 2003, the National Bureau of markings "DS-110", "DSM-110", "SUPER WAVE",
"DS-125","DSM-125", "WAVE 1. from petitioner Hon Ne Chan’s premises:
Investigation (NBI), through Special Investigator (SI)
Glenn Lacaran, applied for search warrants with the R", and "WAVE" and the engines, moldings, spare
RTC against petitioners for alleged violation of parts, tires and accessories for the manufacture and a) seven (7) motorcycles bearing the model name
Section 1682 in relation to Section 1703 of Republic assembly of such motorcycles; "DSM WAVE R;"
Act No. 8293 or the Intellectual Property Code of the
Philippines.4 b) Papers, documents, brochures, documents, b) three (3) motorcycles bearing the model name
receipts, invoices, ledgers, books of accounts, "DSM SUPER WAVE", and
On the same date, RTC Judge Artemio S. Tipon labels, materials, paraphernalia, effects, computer
issued two search warrants. The first warrant, software, computer systems, central processing c) one (1) motorcycle bearing the model name
Search Warrant No. 03-4438,5 was directed against units, hard disks, floppy disks, diskettes, date "WAVE CX".
petitioner "Hon Ne Chan and John Does, operating storage and retrieval devices, monitors, and
under the name and style ‘Dragon Spirit Motorcycle vehicles used or intended to be used in importing,
producing, manufacturing, assembling, selling, 2. from petitioner Yunji Zeng’s premises:
Center,’ located at No. 192 M.H. del Pilar Street
corner 10th Avenue, Grace Park, Caloocan City, marketing, distributing, dealing with and/or
Metro Manila." otherwise disposing of motorcycles bearing the a) twenty-one (21) motorcycles bearing the model
model names and/or markings "DS-110", "DSM- name "WAVE CX 110;"
110", "SUPER WAVE", DS-125, DSM-125",
On the other hand, the second search warrant, or "WAVE R", and WAVE",
Search Warrant No. 03-44396 was issued against b) eight (8) motorcycles bearing the model name
petitioner "Yunji Zeng and John Does, operating "WAVE 110;"
under the name and style ‘Dragon Spirit Motorcycle are in the possession and control of
Center,’ located at No. 192 E. Delos Santos Avenue, Respondents HON NE CHAN8 and JOHN DOES, c) thirty-five (35) motorcycles bearing the model
Caloocan City, Metro Manila." operating under the name and style "DRAGON name "WAVE 125";
SPIRIT MOTORCYCLE CENTER", located at No.
192 M. H. Del Pilar Street corner 10th Avenue,
Except for the names of respondents and addresses d) one (1) motorcycle bearing the model name
Grace Park, Caloocan City, Metro Manila, and are
to be searched, both search warrants stated the "WAVE R";
being kept and concealed at the said address.9
following:
e) eight (8) motorcycles bearing the model name
You are hereby commanded to make an immediate
SEARCH WARRANT7 "SUPER WAVE 110;" and
search at any time of the day of the premises above-
described and to search for, and seize, the above-
TO ANY PEACE OFFICER: described personal properties which are the subject f) two (2) plastic bags containing various
of the aforesaid offense and bring to this Court said documents.10
G R E E T I N G S: properties to be dealt with as the law directs.
On 1 December 2003, petitioners filed with the RTC
a Joint Motion to Quash Search Warrants and to

94
Return Illegally Seized Items,11 averring therein that DESCRIPTION OF THE THINGS TO BE determined personally by the judge after
the search warrants were issued despite the SEARCHED. examination under oath or affirmation of the
absence of probable cause and that they were in the complainant and the witnesses he may produce,
nature of general search warrants. Respondents ii. and particularly describing the place to be searched
filed their Opposition thereto on 7 January and the things to be seized which may be anywhere
200412 but despite this, the trial court still issued an in the Philippines.
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE,
Order dated 20 February 2004 which quashed both
SERIOUS AND REVERSIBLE ERROR IN RULING
Search Warrants No. 03-4438 and 03-4439 and Thus, the validity of the issuance of a search warrant
ordered the NBI to return to petitioners the articles THAT RESPONDENT HAD ESTABLISHED
GOODWILL IN HONDA WAVE MOTORCYCLE rests upon the following factors: (1) it must be issued
seized. In quashing the search warrants, the trial upon probable cause; (2) the probable cause must
court held that the return of the twenty-two "WAVE DESPITE OF THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO
EVIDENCE ON RECORD SUPPORTING THE be determined by the judge himself and not by the
CX 110" motorcycle units was proper for they were applicant or any other person; (3) in the
CLAIM.
never specifically mentioned therein. As regards the determination of probable cause, the judge must
rest of the items seized by the NBI agents, the trial examine, under oath or affirmation, the complainant
court decreed that their return to petitioners was iii.
and such witnesses as the latter may produce; and
justified due to lack of probable cause in the (4) the warrant issued must particularly describe the
issuance of the search warrants. THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A place to be searched and persons or things to be
MISAPPREHENSION OF FACTS IN RULING seized.18
Respondents’ Motion for Reconsideration dated 12 THAT THE PETITIONERS PASSED OFF THEIR
March 200413 was denied by the court a quo GOODS AS THAT OF THE RESPONDENTS BY
In this case, petitioners argue that the requirements
through its Order of 18 May 2004.14 This prompted USING THE MODEL NAME WAVE AND
enumerated in Rule 126 of the Rules of Court
respondents to seek recourse before the Court of EMBODYING THE PROMINENT FEATURES OF
pertaining to the issuance of a search warrant were
Appeals via a Petition for Certiorari.15 THE DESIGNS, WHICH IS THE VERY ESSENCE
not fulfilled when Search Warrants No. 03-4438 and
OF UNFAIR COMPETITION.17
03-4439 were issued by the trial court. First, they
On 31 January 2006, the Court of Appeals contend that no probable cause existed meriting the
rendered the now assailed Decision granting We are primarily tasked to resolve the questions of: issuance of the search warrants in that it was stated
respondents’ petition and setting aside the RTC’s 1) whether probable cause existed in the issuance in the Application for Search Warrant of National
Orders dated 20 February 2004 and 18 May of the subject search warrants; 2) whether said Bureau of Investigation Special Investigator (NBI SI)
2004.16 The appellate court likewise denied search warrants were in the nature of general Lacaran that "(h)e has information and verily
petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration due to lack search warrants and therefore null and void; and 3) believes that (petitioners) are in possession or has
of merit. whether there existed an offense to which the in their control properties which are being sold,
issuance of the search warrants was connected. retailed, distributed, imported, dealt with or
Hence, the present petition imputing error to the otherwise disposed of, or intended to be used as a
Court of Appeals because of the following: We affirm the Decision of the Court of Appeals. means of committing a violation of Section 168 in
relation to Section 170 of Republic Act No. 8293
The pertinent provision of the Rules of Court on the otherwise known as the Intellectual Property Code
i.
issuance of a search warrant provides: of the Philippines"19 Said statement, petitioners
insist, failed to meet the condition that probable
THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED cause must be shown to be within the personal
AND GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN Rule 126 knowledge of the complainant or the witnesses he
RULING THAT THE WARRANTS COMPLIED may produce and not based on mere hearsay.20
WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY Search and Seizure
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF It is settled that in determining probable cause, a
VALID SEARCH WARRANTS xxxx judge is duty-bound to personally examine under
NOTWITHSTANDING THE LACK OF PROBABLE oath the complainant and the witnesses he may
CAUSE IN CONNECTION WITH ONE SPECIFIC present. Emphasis must be laid on the fact that the
OFFENSE TO SEARCH AND SEIZE THE SEC. 4. Requisites for issuing search warrant. – A
search warrant shall not issue but upon probable oath required must refer to "the truth of the facts
MOTORCYCLE UNITS OF THE PETITIONERS within the personal knowledge of the petitioner or his
AND THE LACK OF PARTICULARITY IN THE cause in connection with one specific offense to be

95
witnesses, because the purpose thereof is to Applying these standards, we hold that the trial court Petitioners also argue that the search warrants in
convince the committing magistrate, not the overstepped its boundaries as far as determination question partook the nature of general search
individual making the affidavit and seeking the of probable cause is concerned when it ratiocinated warrants in that they included motorcycles bearing
issuance of the warrant, of the existence of probable in its Order dated 20 February 2004 that – the model name "WAVE." They insist that word
cause."21 Search warrants are not issued on loose, "WAVE" is generic and that it fails to pass the
vague or doubtful basis of fact, or on mere suspicion With respect to the other units seized by the NBI, requirement of particularity of the items to be seized.
or belief.22 their immediate release is likewise proper since They also maintain that had the word "WAVE" been
there is no showing of probable cause that justified enough, there would have been no need for
In the case at bar, petitioners capitalize on the first the issuance of the search warrant. The (herein petitioners to state in their application for search
paragraph of the Application for Search Warrant respondents) claims (sic) that the (herein warrants the specific motorcycle models, i.e., "DSM
executed by NBI SI Lacaran to support their petitioners) are guilty of Unfair Competition because WAVE," "DSM SUPERWAVE 110," and "WAVE R
argument that he lacked the personal knowledge of the alleged similarities between its motorcycle 125."28
required by both the Rules of Court and by units and those of the (petitioners). There maybe
jurisprudence. However, the very next paragraph of similarities as claimed by the (respondents) but the It is elemental that in order to be valid, a search
the application reveals the tremulous nature of their differences far outweigh the similarities that any warrant must particularly describe the place to be
argument for it is clearly stated therein that far from confusion to the consumer is remote and searched and the things to be seized. The
merely relying on mere information and belief, NBI speculative. These differences are quite evident constitutional requirement of reasonable
SI Lacaran "personally verified the report and found from the very comparative pictures attached by the particularity of description of the things to be seized
[it] to be a fact."23 This, to our mind, removed the (petitioners) in its (sic) application for Search is primarily meant to enable the law enforcers
basis of his application from mere hearsay and Warrant as well as in the Opposition filed relative to serving the warrant to: (1) readily identify the
supported the earlier finding of probable cause on the pending "Joint Motion to Quash Search properties to be seized and thus prevent them from
the part of the examining judge. We cannot, thus, Warrants and to Return Illegally Seized Items." seizing the wrong items; and (2) leave said peace
agree in his Order of 20 February 2004 quashing the officers with no discretion regarding the articles to
search warrants he earlier issued on 14 November Aside from the differences in features, the be seized and thus prevent unreasonable searches
2003. motorcycle units sold by the (petitioners) and seizures.29 It is not, however, required that the
prominently bear the distinct trade name "DRAGON things to be seized must be described in precise and
It is likewise well to reiterate here that "probable SPIRIT." This is not the same trade name of the minute detail as to leave no room for doubt on the
cause," as far as the issuance of a search warrant (respondents), which is Honda. The fact alone part of the searching authorities.30
is concerned, has been uniformly defined as such would practically eliminate any possible confusion
facts and circumstances which would lead a on the part of the public that the motorcycle units In Bache and Co. (Phil.), Inc. v. Judge Ruiz,31 it was
reasonable, discreet and prudent man to believe they would be buying from the (petitioners) are pointed out that one of the tests to determine the
that an offense has been committed, and that the those manufactured and/or sold by (respondents).27 particularity in the description of objects to be seized
objects sought in connection with the offense are in under a search warrant is when the things described
the place sought to be searched.24 Equally Such pronouncement by the RTC is utterly are limited to those which bear direct relation to the
important is our declaration in Microsoft Corporation premature for, at that point, all that was presented offense for which the warrant is being issued. A
and Lotus Development Corporation v. Maxicorp, before it by respondents was evidence, which to reading of the search warrants issued by the trial
Inc.25 that – their minds, was sufficient to support a finding of court in this case reveals that the items to be seized,
probable cause. The trial court’s above-cited including motorcycles, are those which are
The determination of probable cause does not call declaration unmistakably conveys the message that connected with the alleged violation of Section 168
for the application of rules and standards of proof no unfair competition exists in this case – a in relation to Section 170 of Republic Act No. 8293,
that a judgment of conviction requires after trial on conclusion that is not within its competence to make, notwithstanding the use of the generic word
the merits. As implied by the words themselves, for its task is merely confined to the preliminary "WAVE." We, therefore, adopt the following finding
"probable cause" is concerned with probability, not matter of determination of probable cause and of the appellate court:
absolute or even moral certainty. The prosecution nothing more. The evidence it requires to dispense
need not present at this stage reasonable doubt. this function is, as stated before, far less stringent We may say this of the Wave motorcycles. It is
The standards of judgment are those of a than that required in the trial on the merits of the evident that Wave is the model name of the
reasonably prudent man, not the exacting charge involving unfair competition. motorcycles produced by the (herein respondents)
calibrations of a judge after a full-blown trial.26 Honda and, therefore, any imitation unit that is in the

96
possession of the (herein petitioners) and carries patent office or from any other office which may In an Information3 dated October 16, 1989,
the name Wave is the fit object of the warrants – hereafter be established by law for the purposes, petitioner was charged with the crime of theft
whether some other name or figure is affixed to it or the registration of a tradename, trademark, or committed as follows:
not. The name Wave CX 110 is but a [species] of service mark, or of himself as the owner of such
units under the generic name Wave. The warrant tradename, trademark, or service mark or an entry "That on or about the 28th day of June,
that directs the seizure of Wave logically includes respecting a tradename, trademark, or servicemark. 1989, in the Municipality of Pagsanjan,
Wave CX 110 and is by no means converted into a and/or elsewhere in the Province of
roving commission when it allows the officer to seize was not included in the enactment of Section 168 of Laguna, and within the jurisdiction of this
it.32 Republic Act No. 8293. Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, with intent of gain, and without the
Anent petitioners’ contention that the search On the other hand, in the Application for Search knowledge and consent of the owner
warrants were issued in relation to no particular Warrant filed by NBI SI Lacaran, it is clearly stated thereof, the NATIONAL POWER
offense, they rely on the holding of this Court in that what respondents are complaining about was CORPORATION, did then and there
Savage v. Judge Taypin,33 where it was held that – the alleged violation of the goodwill they have wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take,
established with respect to their motorcycle models steal and carry away about 630-kg of
There is evidently no mention of any crime of "unfair "WAVE 110 S" and "WAVE 125 S" and which Aluminum Cable Conductors, valued at
competition" involving design patents in the goodwill is entitled to protection in the same manner P27, 450.00, belonging to and to the
controlling provisions on Unfair Competition. It is as other property rights. It is quite obvious then that damage and prejudice of said owner
therefore unclear whether the crime exists at all, for their cause of action arose out of the intrusion into National Power Corp., in the aforesaid
the enactment of RA 8293 did not result in the their established goodwill involving the two amount.
reenactment of Art. 189 of the Revised Penal Code. motorcycle models and not patent infringement, as
In the face of this ambiguity, we must strictly what existed in Savage. CONTRARY TO LAW."
construe the statute against the State and liberally
in favor of the accused, for penal statutes cannot be WHEREFORE, premises considered the present During the arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty
enlarged or extended by intendment, implication or petition for review is DENIED, and the 31 January and hence, trial on the merits ensued.
any equitable consideration.34 2006 Decision of the Court of Appeals and its 17
May 2006 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 85353 are The facts are summarized by the appellate court as
A reading of said case readily exposes its stark AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners. follows:
inapplicability to the instant Petition.
G.R. No. 136292 January 15, 2002 "[At] about 9:15 p.m. of June 28, 1989, Sgt.
To be sure, the search warrant in Savage was RUDY CABALLES y TAIÑO, petitioner, Victorino Noceja and Pat. Alex de Castro,
issued in the face of possible violation of Republic vs. while on a routine patrol in Barangay
Act No. 8293.1avvphi1 The acts complained of in COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE Sampalucan, Pagsanjan, Laguna, spotted
said case were the alleged manufacture and PHILIPPINES, respondents. a passenger jeep unusually covered with
fabrication of wrought iron furniture similar to that PUNO, J.: "kakawati" leaves.
patented by private respondent therein sans any
license or patent for the same, for the purpose of
This is an appeal by certiorari from the decision1 of Suspecting that the jeep was loaded with
deceiving or defrauding private respondent and the
respondent Court of Appeals dated September 15, smuggled goods, the two police officers
buying public.
1998 which affirmed the judgment rendered by the flagged down the vehicle. The jeep was
Regional Trial Court of Santa Cruz, Laguna, finding driven by appellant. When asked what was
In making the above-quoted declaration in said herein petitioner, Rudy Caballes y Taiño, guilty loaded on the jeep, he did not answer; he
case, this Court recognized that paragraph 3 of beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of theft, and appeared pale and nervous.
Article 189 of the Revised Penal Code stating that – the resolution2 dated November 9, 1998 which
denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. With appellant's consent, the police officers
3. Any person who, by means of false or fraudulent checked the cargo and they discovered
representations or declarations, orally or in writing, bundles of 3.08 mm aluminum/galvanized
or by other fraudulent means shall procure from the conductor wires exclusively owned by

97
National Power Corporation (NPC). The intercepted by Sgt. Noceja and Pat. De "(a) Whether or not the constitutional right
conductor wires weighed 700 kilos and Castro. When they discovered the cables, of petitioner was violated when the police
valued at P55, 244.45. Noceja asked he told the police officers that the cables officers searched his vehicle and seized the
appellant where the wires came from and were loaded in his jeep by the owner, Resty wires found therein without a search
appellant answered that they came from Fernandez. But despite his explanation, he warrant and when samples of the wires and
Cavinti, a town approximately 8 kilometers was ordered to proceed to police references to them were admitted in
away from Sampalucan. Thereafter, headquarters where he was interrogated. evidence as basis for his conviction;
appellant and the vehicle with the high- The police officers did not believe him and
voltage wires were brought to the instead locked him up in jail for a week."4 (b) Whether or not respondent Court erred
Pagsanjan Police Station. Danilo Cabale in rejecting petitioner's defense that he was
took pictures of the appellant and the jeep On April 27, 1993, the court a quo rendered engaged in an entrapment operation and in
loaded with the wires which were turned judgment5 the dispositive portion of which reads: indulging in speculation and conjecture in
over to the Police Station Commander of rejecting said defense; and
Pagsanjan, Laguna. Appellant was
incarcerated for 7 days in the Municipal jail. "WHEREFORE, finding the accused guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of (c) Whether or not the evidence of the
Theft of property worth ₱55,244.45, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of
In defense, appellant interposed denial and Court hereby sentences him to suffer petitioner beyond reasonable doubt and
alibi. He testified that he is a driver and imprisonment from TWO (2) [YEARS], thus failed to overcome the constitutional
resident of Pagsanjan, Laguna; a FOUR (4) MONTHS, and ONE (1) DAY of right of petitioner to presumption of
NARCOM civilian agent since January, Prision Correccional, as minimum, to TEN innocence."
1988 although his identification card (ID) (10) YEARS of Prision Mayor, as
has already expired. In the afternoon of maximum, to indemnify the complainant
June 28, 1989, while he was driving a The conviction or acquittal of petitioner hinges
National Power Corporation in the amount primarily on the validity of the warrantless search
passenger jeepney, he was stopped by one of ₱55, 244.45, and to pay the costs."
Resty Fernandez who requested him to and seizure made by the police officers, and the
transport in his jeepney conductor wires admissibility of the evidence obtained by virtue
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the thereof.
which were in Cavinti, Laguna. He told
judgment of conviction but deleted the award for
Resty to wait until he had finished his last
damages on the ground that the stolen materials In holding that the warrantless search and seizure is
trip for the day from Santa Cruz, Laguna.
were recovered and modified the penalty imposed, valid, the trial court ruled that:
On his way to Santa Cruz, Laguna, he
to wit:
dropped by the NARCOM headquarters
and informed his superior, Sgt. Callos, that "As his last straw of argument, the accused
something unlawful was going to happen. "WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is questions the constitutionality of the search
Sgt. Callos advised him to proceed with the hereby AFFIRMED with the modification and validity of his arrest on the ground that
loading of the wires and that the former that appellant RUDY CABALLES is found no warrant was issued to that effect. The
would act as back-up and intercept the guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal Court cannot again sustain such view. In
vehicle at the Sambat Patrol Base in in theft, defined and penalized under the case of People v. Lo Ho [Wing], G.R.
Pagsanjan. Articles 308 and 309, par. 1, Revised Penal No. 88017, January 21, 1991, it has been
Code, and there being no modifying held that 'considering that before a warrant
circumstances, he is hereby meted an can be obtained, the place, things and
After receiving those instructions, he went
indeterminate penalty of Four (4) years, persons to be searched must be described
back to see Resty. Although Resty had his
Nine (9) months and Eleven (11) days to the satisfaction of the issuing judge - a
own vehicle, its tires were old so the cable
of prision correccional, as minimum term, requirement which borders on the
wires were loaded in appellant's jeep and
to Eight (8) years, Eight (8) months and one impossible in the case of smuggling
covered with kakawati leaves. The loading
(1) day of prision mayor, as maximum term. effected by the use of a moving vehicle that
was done by about five (5) masked men.
No civil indemnity and no costs."6
He was promised ₱1,000.00 for the job. can transport contraband from one place to
Upon crossing a bridge, the two vehicles another with impunity, a warrantless search
separated but in his case, he was Petitioner comes before us and raises the following of a moving vehicle is justified on grounds
issues: of practicability.' The doctrine is not of

98
 recent vintage. In the case of Valmonte vs. purpose shall be inviolable, and no search cannot prove the guilt of the appellant beyond
de Villa, G.R. No. 83988, May 24, 1990 warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue reasonable doubt.1âwphi1.nêt
(Resolution on Motion for Reconsideration, except upon probable cause to be
September 29, 1989), it was ruled that determined personally by the judge after I. Search of moving vehicle
'automobiles because of their mobility may examination under oath or affirmation of the
be searched without a warrant upon facts complainant and the witnesses he may
Highly regulated by the government, the vehicle's
not justifying warrantless search of a produce, and particularly describing the
inherent mobility reduces expectation of privacy
resident or office. x x x To hold that no place to be searched and the persons or
criminal can, in any case, be arrested and things to be seized." especially when its transit in public thoroughfares
searched for the evidence and tokens of his furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting
crime without a warrant, would be to leave to probable cause that the occupant committed a
The exclusionary rule under Section 3(2), Article III criminal activity.15 Thus, the rules governing search
society, to a large extent, at the mercy of of the Constitution bars the admission of evidence
the shrewdest, the most expert, and the and seizure have over the years been steadily
obtained in violation of such right. liberalized whenever a moving vehicle is the object
most depraved of criminals, facilitating their
escape in many instances' (Ibid.). In Umil v. of the search on the basis of practicality. This is so
The constitutional proscription against warrantless considering that before a warrant could be obtained,
Ramos, 187 SCRA 311, and People vs.
searches and seizures is not absolute but admits of the place, things and persons to be searched must
Ortiz, 191 SCRA 836, the Supreme Court
certain exceptions, namely: (1) warrantless search be described to the satisfaction of the issuing judge
held that a search may be made even
incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under — a requirement which borders on the impossible in
without a warrant where the accused is
Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court and by the case of smuggling effected by the use of a
caught in flagrante. Under the
prevailing jurisprudence;8 (2) seizure of evidence in moving vehicle that can transport contraband from
circumstances, the police officers are not
plain view;9 (3) search of moving vehicles;10 (4) one place to another with impunity. We might add
only authorized but are also under
consented warrantless search;11 (5) customs that a warrantless search of a moving vehicle is
obligation to arrest the accused even
without a warrant."7 search; (6) stop and frisk situations (Terry justified on the ground that it is not practicable to
search);12 and (7) exigent and emergency secure a warrant because the vehicle can be quickly
circumstances.13 moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the
Petitioner contends that the flagging down of his warrant must be sought.16 Searches without warrant
vehicle by police officers who were on routine patrol, of automobiles is also allowed for the purpose of
In cases where warrant is necessary, the steps
merely on "suspicion" that "it might contain preventing violations of smuggling or immigration
prescribed by the Constitution and reiterated in the
smuggled goods," does not constitute probable laws, provided such searches are made at borders
Rules of Court must be complied with. In the
cause that will justify a warrantless search and or 'constructive borders' like checkpoints near the
exceptional events where warrant is not necessary
seizure. He insists that, contrary to the findings of boundary lines of the State.17
to effect a valid search or seizure, or when the latter
the trial court as adopted by the appellate court, he
cannot be performed except without a warrant, what
did not give any consent, express or implied, to the
constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search or The mere mobility of these vehicles, however, does
search of the vehicle. Perforce, any evidence
seizure is purely a judicial question, determinable not give the police officers unlimited discretion to
obtained in violation of his right against
from the uniqueness of the circumstances involved, conduct indiscriminate searches without warrants if
unreasonable search and seizure shall be deemed
inadmissible. including the purpose of the search or seizure, the made within the interior of the territory and in the
presence or absence of probable cause, the manner absence of probable cause.18 Still and all, the
in which the search and seizure was made, the important thing is that there was probable cause to
Enshrined in our Constitution is the inviolable right place or thing searched and the character of the conduct the warrantless search, which must still be
of the people to be secure in their persons and articles procured.14 present in such a case.
properties against unreasonable searches and
seizures, as defined under Section 2, Article III
thereof, which reads: It is not controverted that the search and seizure Although the term eludes exact definition, probable
conducted by the police officers in the case at bar cause signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion
was not authorized by a search warrant. The main supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in
"Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure issue is whether the evidence taken from the themselves to warrant a cautious man's belief that
in their persons, houses, papers, and warrantless search is admissible against the the person accused is guilty of the offense with
effects against unreasonable searches and appellant. Without said evidence, the prosecution which he is charged; or the existence of such facts
seizures of whatever nature and for any and circumstances which could lead a reasonably

99
discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense effected a physical intrusion into the accused who were riding a jeepney were stopped
has been committed and that the items, articles or vehicle. . . [W]e are aware of no case and searched by policemen who had earlier
objects sought in connection with said offense or holding that an officer did not conduct a received confidential reports that said accused
subject to seizure and destruction by law is in the search when he physically intruded part of would transport a large quantity of marijuana; and
place to be searched.19 The required probable his body into a space in which the suspect (6) where the moving vehicle was stopped and
cause that will justify a warrantless search and had a reasonable expectation of privacy. searched on the basis of intelligence information
seizure is not determined by a fixed formula but is [The] Agent['s] . . . physical intrusion and clandestine reports by a deep penetration agent
resolved according to the facts of each case.20 allowed him to see and to smell things he or spy - one who participated in the drug smuggling
could not see or smell from outside the activities of the syndicate to which the accused
One such form of search of moving vehicles is the vehicle. . . In doing so, his inspection went belonged - that said accused were bringing
"stop-and-search" without warrant at military or beyond that portion of the vehicle which prohibited drugs into the country.33
police checkpoints which has been declared to be may be viewed from outside the vehicle by
not illegal per se,21 for as long as it is warranted by either inquisitive passersby or diligent In the case at bar, the vehicle of the petitioner was
the exigencies of public order22 and conducted in a police officers, and into the area protected flagged down because the police officers who were
way least intrusive to motorists.23 A checkpoint may by the Fourth amendment, just as much as on routine patrol became suspicious when they saw
either be a mere routine inspection or it may involve if he had stuck his head inside the open that the back of the vehicle was covered with
an extensive search. window of a home." kakawati leaves which, according to them, was
unusual and uncommon.
Routine inspections are not regarded as violative of On the other hand, when a vehicle is stopped and
an individual's right against unreasonable search. subjected to an extensive search, such a Pat. Alex de Castro recounted the incident as
The search which is normally permissible in this warrantless search would be constitutionally follows:
instance is limited to the following instances: (1) permissible only if the officers conducting the search
where the officer merely draws aside the curtain of have reasonable or probable cause to believe,
"ATTY. SANTOS
a vacant vehicle which is parked on the public fair before the search, that either the motorist is a law-
grounds;24 (2) simply looks into a vehicle;25 (3) offender or they will find the instrumentality or
evidence pertaining to a crime in the vehicle to be Q Now on said date and time do you
flashes a light therein without opening the car's
searched.31 remember of any unusual incident while
doors;26 (4) where the occupants are not subjected
you were performing your duty?
to a physical or body search;27 (5) where the
inspection of the vehicles is limited to a visual This Court has in the past found probable cause to
search or visual inspection;28 and (6) where the conduct without a judicial warrant an extensive A Yes, sir, at that time and date myself
routine check is conducted in a fixed area.29 search of moving vehicles in situations where (1) and Police Sgt. Noceja were conducting
there had emanated from a package the distinctive patrol in the said place when we spotted a
smell of marijuana; (2) agents of the Narcotics suspicious jeepney so we stopped the
None of the foregoing circumstances is obtaining in
Command ("Narcom") of the Philippine National jeepney and searched the load of the
the case at bar. The police officers did not merely
Police ("PNP") had received a confidential report jeepney and we found out (sic) these
conduct a visual search or visual inspection of
from informers that a sizeable volume of marijuana conductor wires.
herein petitioner's vehicle. They had to reach inside
the vehicle, lift the kakawati leaves and look inside would be transported along the route where the
the sacks before they were able to see the cable search was conducted; (3) Narcom agents had Q You mentioned about the fact that
wires. It cannot be considered a simple routine received information that a Caucasian coming from when you saw the jeepney you became
check. Sagada, Mountain Province, had in his possession suspicious, why did you become
prohibited drugs and when the Narcom agents suspicious?
confronted the accused Caucasian, because of a
In the case of United States vs. Pierre,30 the Court
conspicuous bulge in his waistline, he failed to A Because the cargo was covered
held that the physical intrusion of a part of the body
present his passport and other identification papers with leaves and branches, sir.
of an agent into the vehicle goes beyond the area
when requested to do so; (4) Narcom agents had
protected by the Fourth Amendment, to wit:
received confidential information that a woman
having the same physical appearance as that of the Q When you became suspicious upon
"The Agent . . . stuck his head through the accused would be transporting marijuana;32 (5) the seeing those leaves on top of the load what
driver's side window. The agent thus did you do next, if any?

100
 A We stopped the jeepney and This Court, however, finds that these do not observer, then the contents are in plain view and
searched the contents thereof, sir."34 constitute "probable cause." None of the may be seized. In other words, if the package is
telltale clues, e.g., bag or package such that an experienced observer could infer from
The testimony of Victorino Noceja did not fare any emanating the pungent odor of marijuana its appearance that it contains the prohibited article,
better: or other prohibited drug, confidential report then the article is deemed in plain view. It must be
and/or positive identification by informers of immediately apparent to the police that the items
courier of prohibited drug and/or the time that they observe may be evidence of a crime,
"ATTY SANTOS
and place where they will transport/deliver contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.38
the same, suspicious demeanor or
Q When you saw the accused driving behavior, and suspicious bulge in the waist It is clear from the records of this case that the cable
the said vehicle, what did you do? - accepted by this Court as sufficient to wires were not exposed to sight because they were
justify a warrantless arrest exists in this placed in sacks39 and covered with leaves. The
A Because I saw that the vehicle case. There was no classified information articles were neither transparent nor immediately
being drawn by Caballes was covered that a foreigner would disembark at apparent to the police authorities. They had no clue
by kakawati leaves, I became suspicious Tammocalao beach bearing prohibited as to what was hidden underneath the leaves and
since such vehicle should not be drug on the date in question. CHUA was branches. As a matter of fact, they had to ask
covered by those and I flagged him, not identified as a drug courier by a police petitioner what was loaded in his vehicle. In such a
sir."35 informer or agent. The fact that the vessel case, it has been held that the object is not in plain
that ferried him to shore bore no view which could have justified mere seizure of the
We hold that the fact that the vehicle looked resemblance to the fishing boats of the articles without further search.40
suspicious simply because it is not common for such area did not automatically mark him as
to be covered with kakawati leaves does not in the process of perpetrating an
offense. x x x." (emphasis supplied) III. Consented search
constitute "probable cause" as would justify the
conduct of a search without a warrant.
In addition, the police authorities do not claim to Petitioner contends that the statement of Sgt.
have received any confidential report or tipped Victorino Noceja that he checked the vehicle "with
In People vs. Chua Ho San,36 we held that the fact the consent of the accused" is too vague to prove
that the watercraft used by the accused was information that petitioner was carrying stolen cable
that petitioner consented to the search. He claims
different in appearance from the usual fishing boats wires in his vehicle which could otherwise have
that there is no specific statement as to how the
that commonly cruise over the Bacnotan seas sustained their suspicion. Our jurisprudence is
consent was asked and how it was given, nor the
coupled with the suspicious behavior of the accused replete with cases where tipped information has
specific words spoken by petitioner indicating his
when he attempted to flee from the police authorities become a sufficient probable cause to effect a
alleged "consent." At most, there was only an
do not sufficiently establish probable cause. Thus: warrantless search and seizure.37 Unfortunately,
none exists in this case. implied acquiescence, a mere passive conformity,
which is no "consent" at all within the purview of the
"In the case at bar, the Solicitor General constitutional guarantee.
proposes that the following details are II. Plain view doctrine
suggestive of probable cause - persistent Doubtless, the constitutional immunity against
reports of rampant smuggling of firearm It cannot likewise be said that the cable wires found unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal
and other contraband articles, CHUA's in petitioner's vehicle were in plain view, making its right which may be waived. The consent must be
watercraft differing in appearance from the warrantless seizure valid. voluntary in order to validate an otherwise illegal
usual fishing boats that commonly cruise detention and search, i.e., the consent is
over the Bacnotan seas, CHUA's illegal Jurisprudence is to the effect that an object is in unequivocal, specific, and intelligently given,
entry into the Philippines x x x, CHUA's plain view if the object itself is plainly exposed to uncontaminated by any duress or
suspicious behavior, i.e., he attempted to sight. Where the object seized was inside a closed coercion.41 Hence, consent to a search is not to be
flee when he saw the police authorities, and package, the object itself is not in plain view and lightly inferred, but must be shown by clear and
the apparent ease by which CHUA can therefore cannot be seized without a warrant. convincing evidence.42 The question whether a
return to and navigate his speedboat with However, if the package proclaims its contents, consent to a search was in fact voluntary is a
immediate dispatch towards the high seas, whether by its distinctive configuration, its question of fact to be determined from the totality of
beyond the reach of Philippine laws. transparency, or if its contents are obvious to an all the circumstances.43 Relevant to this

101
determination are the following characteristics of the Q When you saw the accused driving that he also understood the nature and
person giving consent and the environment in which the said vehicle, what did you do? consequences of such request.49
consent is given: (1) the age of the defendant; (2)
whether he was in a public or secluded location; (3) A Because I saw that the vehicle being In Asuncion vs. Court of Appeals,50 the
whether he objected to the search or passively driven by Caballes was covered by apprehending officers sought the permission of
looked on;44 (4) the education and intelligence of the kakawati leaves, I became suspicious since petitioner to search the car, to which the latter
defendant; (5) the presence of coercive police such vehicle should not be covered by agreed. Petitioner therein himself freely gave his
procedures; (6) the defendant's belief that no those and I flagged him, sir. consent to said search. In People vs.
incriminating evidence will be found;45 (7) the nature Lacerna,51 the appellants who were riding in a taxi
of the police questioning; (8) the environment in were stopped by two policemen who asked
Q Did the vehicle stop?
which the questioning took place; and (9) the permission to search the vehicle and the appellants
possibly vulnerable subjective state of the person readily agreed. In upholding the validity of the
consenting.46 It is the State which has the burden of A Yes, sir, and after said vehicle
consented search, the Court held that appellant
proving, by clear and positive testimony, that the stop[ped], I removed the cover of said
himself who was "urbanized in mannerism and
necessary consent was obtained and that it was vehicle and by so doing, I saw the
speech" expressly said that he was consenting to
freely and voluntarily given.47 aluminum wires.
the search as he allegedly had nothing to hide and
had done nothing wrong. In People vs.
In the case at bar, Sgt. Victorino Noceja testified on Q Before you saw the aluminum wires, Cuizon,52 the accused admitted that they signed a
the manner in which the search was conducted in did you talk to the accused? written permission stating that they freely consented
this wise: to the search of their luggage by the NBI agents to
A Yes, sir, I asked him what his load determine if they were carrying shabu. In People
"WITNESS was. vs. Montilla,53 it was held that the accused
spontaneously performed affirmative acts of volition
Q What was the answer of Caballes? by himself opening the bag without being forced or
Q On June 28, 1989, where were you?
intimidated to do so, which acts should properly be
construed as a clear waiver of his right. In People
A We were conducting patrol at the A He did not answer and I observed vs. Omaweng,54 the police officers asked the
poblacion and some barangays, sir. him to be pale, "nagpapamutla" (sic), so accused if they could see the contents of his bag to
I told him I will look at the contents of his which the accused said "you can see the contents
vehicle and he answered in the positive. but those are only clothings." Then the policemen
xxx xxx xxx
asked if they could open and see it, and accused
Q And after you saw for yourself the answered "you can see it." The Court said there was
Q After conducting the patrol operation,
aluminum wires loaded on the jeep, what a valid consented search.1âwphi1.nêt
do you remember of any unusual incident
did you do?
on said date and time?
In case of consented searches or waiver of the
A Yes, sir. A I asked him where those wires came constitutional guarantee against obtrusive
from and he answered those came from the searches, it is fundamental that to constitute a
Cavinti area, sir."48 waiver, it must first appear that (1) the right exists;
Q What is that incident? (2) that the person involved had knowledge, either
This Court is not unmindful of cases upholding the actual or constructive, of the existence of such right;
A While I was conducting my patrol at validity of consented warrantless searches and and (3) the said person had an actual intention to
barangay Sampalucan, I saw Rudy seizure. But in these cases, the police officers' relinquish the right.55
Caballes driving a vehicle and the vehicle request to search personnel effects was orally
contained aluminum wires, sir. articulated to the accused and in such language that In the case at bar, the evidence is lacking that the
left no room for doubt that the latter fully understood petitioner intentionally surrendered his right against
xxx xxx xxx what was requested. In some instance, the accused unreasonable searches. The manner by which the
even verbally replied to the request demonstrating two police officers allegedly obtained the consent of
petitioner for them to conduct the search leaves

102
much to be desired. When petitioner's vehicle was have waived the unlawful search conducted simply That on June 26, 1998 inside the Ninoy Aquino
flagged down, Sgt. Noceja approached petitioner because he failed to object, citing the ruling in the International Airport, and within the jurisdiction of
and "told him I will look at the contents of his case of People vs. Burgos,58 to wit: this Honorable Court, the above-named Accused
vehicle and he answered in the positive."We are did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
hard put to believe that by uttering those words, the "As the constitutional guaranty is not feloniously possess three plastic bags of
police officers were asking or requesting for dependent upon any affirmative act of the methamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug,
permission that they be allowed to search the citizen, the courts do not place the citizens each bag weighing:
vehicle of petitioner. For all intents and purposes, in the position of either contesting an
they were informing, nay, imposing upon herein officer's authority by force, or waiving his #1 ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY SEVEN
petitioner that they will search his vehicle. The constitutional rights; but instead they hold POINT FIVE (187.5) grams;
"consent" given under intimidating or coercive that a peaceful submission to a search or
circumstances is no consent within the purview of seizure is not a consent or an invitation
the constitutional guaranty. In addition, in cases #2ONE HUNDRED NINETY EIGHT POINT
thereto, but is merely a demonstration of ZERO (198.0) grams; and
where this Court upheld the validity of consented regard for the supremacy of the law."
search, it will be noted that the police authorities
expressly asked, in no uncertain terms, for the #3 ONE HUNDRED NINETY FOUR POINT
Casting aside the cable wires as evidence, the SEVEN (194.7) grams, respectively,
consent of the accused to be searched. And the
remaining evidence on record are insufficient to
consent of the accused was established by clear
sustain petitioner's conviction. His guilt can only be
and positive proof. In the case of herein petitioner, or a total of FIVE HUNDRED EIGHTY POINT TWO
the statements of the police officers were not established without violating the constitutional right
(580.2) grams of methamphetamine
asking for his consent; they were declaring to of the accused against unreasonable search and
hydrochloride.
seizure.
him that they will look inside his vehicle. Besides, it
is doubtful whether permission was actually That the above-named accused does not have the
requested and granted because when Sgt. Noceja WHEREFORE, the impugned decision
corresponding
was asked during his direct examination what he did is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and accused Rudy
when the vehicle of petitioner stopped, he answered Caballes is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime
that he removed the cover of the vehicle and saw charged. Cost de oficio. license or prescription to possess or use said
the aluminum wires. It was only after he was asked regulated drug.
a clarificatory question that he added that he told G.R. No. 138881 December 18, 2000
petitioner he will inspect the vehicle. To our mind, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff- CONTRARY TO LAW.2
this was more of an afterthought. Likewise, when appellee,
Pat. de Castro was asked twice in his direct vs. Upon being arraigned, accused-appellant pleaded
examination what they did when they stopped the LEILA JOHNSON Y REYES, accused-appellant. not guilty,3 whereupon trial was held.
jeepney, his consistent answer was that they DECISION
searched the vehicle. He never testified that he
The prosecution presented four witnesses, namely,
asked petitioner for permission to conduct the
MENDOZA, J.: NBI Forensic Chemist George de Lara, SPO4
search.56
Reynaldo Embile, duty frisker Olivia Ramirez, and
This is an appeal from the decision,1 dated May 14, SPO1 Rizalina Bernal. The defense presented
Neither can petitioner's passive submission be accused-appellant who testified in her own behalf.
construed as an implied acquiescence to the 1999, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 110,
warrantless search. In People vs. Pasay City, finding accused-appellant Leila
Johnson y Reyesguilty of violation of §16 of R.A. No. The facts are as follows:
Barros,57 appellant Barros, who was carrying a
carton box, boarded a bus where two policemen 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act), as amended by R.A.
were riding. The policemen inspected the carton No. 7659, and sentencing her to suffer the penalty Accused-appellant Leila Reyes Johnson was, at the
and found marijuana inside. When asked who of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of time of the incident, 58 years old, a widow, and a
₱500,000.00 and the costs of the suit. resident of Ocean Side, California, U.S.A. She is a
owned the box, appellant denied ownership of the
box and failed to object to the search. The Court former Filipino citizen who was naturalized as an
there struck down the warrantless search as illegal The information against accused-appellant alleged: American on June 16, 1968 and had since been
and held that the accused is not to be presumed to working as a registered nurse, taking care of

103
geriatric patients and those with Alzheimer’s substance which was found by NBI Chemist George (₱500,000.00) without subsidiary imprisonment in
disease, in convalescent homes in the United de Lara to be methamphetamine hydrochloride or case of insolvency and to pay the costs of suit.
States.4 "shabu."10
The Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu)
On June 16, 1998, she arrived in the Philippines to Embile took accused-appellant and the plastic having a total net weight of 580.2 grams (Exhibits
visit her son’s family in Calamba, Laguna. She was packs to the 1st Regional Aviation and Security "G", "C-2" and "C-3") are hereby confiscated in favor
due to fly back to the United States on July 26. On Office (1st RASO) at the arrival area of the NAIA, of the government and the Branch Clerk of Court is
July 25, she checked in at the Philippine Village where accused-appellant’s passport and ticket were hereby ordered to cause the transportation thereof
Hotel to avoid the traffic on the way to the Ninoy taken and her luggage opened. Pictures were taken to the Dangerous Drugs Board for disposition in
Aquino International Airport (NAIA) and checked out and her personal belongings were itemized.11 accordance with law.
at 5:30 p.m. the next day, June 26, 1998.5
In her defense, accused-appellant alleged that she The accused shall be credited in full for the period
At around 7:30 p.m. of that day, Olivia Ramirez was was standing in line at the last boarding gate when of her detention at the City Jail of Pasay City during
on duty as a lady frisker at Gate 16 of the NAIA she was approached by Embile and two female the pendency of this case provided that she agreed
departure area. Her duty was to frisk departing officers. She claimed she was handcuffed and taken in writing to abide by and comply strictly with the
passengers, employees, and crew and check for to the women’s room. There, she was asked to rules and regulations of the City Jail.
weapons, bombs, prohibited drugs, contraband undress and was then subjected to a body search.
goods, and explosives.6 She insisted that nothing was found on her person. SO ORDERED.
She was later taken to a room filled with boxes,
When she frisked accused-appellant Leila Johnson, garbage, and a chair. Her passport and her purse
Accused-appellant contends that the trial court
a departing passenger bound for the United States containing $850.00 and some change were taken
convicted her: (1) "despite failure of the prosecution
via Continental Airlines CS-912, she felt something from her, for which no receipt was issued to her.
in proving the negative allegation in the information;"
hard on the latter’s abdominal area. Upon inquiry, After two hours, she said, she was transferred to the
office of a certain Col. Castillo.12 (2) "despite failure of the prosecution in proving the
Mrs. Johnson explained she needed to wear two quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride;" (3)
panty girdles as she had just undergone an "despite violation of her constitutional rights;" and
operation as a result of an ectopic pregnancy.7 After another two hours, Col. Castillo and about (4) "when guilt was not proven beyond reasonable
eight security guards came in and threw two white doubt."16
Not satisfied with the explanation, Ramirez reported packages on the table. They told her to admit that
the matter to her superior, SPO4 Reynaldo Embile, the packages were hers. But she denied knowledge
First. Accused-appellant claims that she was
saying "Sir, hindi po ako naniniwalang panty lang po and ownership of the packages. She was detained
arrested and detained in gross violation of her
iyon." ("Sir, I do not believe that it is just a panty.") at the 1st RASO office until noon of June 28, 1999
constitutional rights. She argues that the "shabu"
She was directed to take accused-appellant to the when she was taken before a fiscal for
confiscated from her is inadmissible against her
nearest women’s room for inspection. Ramirez took inquest.13 She claimed that throughout the period of
because she was forced to affix her signature on the
accused-appellant to the rest room, accompanied her detention, from the night of June 26 until June
plastic bags while she was detained at the 1st
by SPO1 Rizalina Bernal. Embile stayed outside.8 28, she was never allowed to talk to counsel nor was
RASO office, without the assistance of counsel and
she allowed to call the U.S. Embassy or any of her
relatives in the Philippines.14 without having been informed of her constitutional
Inside the women’s room, accused-appellant was rights. Hence, she argues, the methamphetamine
asked again by Ramirez what the hard object on her hydrochloride, or "shabu," should have been
stomach was and accused-appellant gave the same On May 14, 1999, the trial court rendered a decision, excluded from the evidence.17
answer she had previously given. Ramirez then the dispositive portion of which reads:15
asked her "to bring out the thing under her girdle." The contention has no merit. No statement, if any,
Accused-appellant brought out three plastic packs, WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding was taken from accused-appellant during her
which Ramirez then turned over to Embile, outside the accused LEILA JOHNSON Y REYES, GUILTY detention and used in evidence against her. There
the women’s room.9 beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation is, therefore, no basis for accused-appellant’s
of Section 16 of Republic Act 6425 as amended and invocation of Art. III, §12(1) and (3). On the other
The confiscated packs, marked as Exhibits C-1, C- hereby imposes on her the penalty of RECLUSION hand, what is involved in this case is an arrest in
2 and C-3, contained a total of 580.2 grams of a PERPETUA and condemns said accused to pay a
fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS

104
flagrante delicto pursuant to a valid search made on acquired legitimately pursuant to airport security fact, only the signatures of Embile and Ramirez
her person. procedures. thereon, along with their testimony to that effect,
were presented by the prosecution in proving its
The trial court held: Persons may lose the protection of the search and case.
seizure clause by exposure of their persons or
The constitutional right of the accused was not property to the public in a manner reflecting a lack There is, however, no justification for the
violated as she was never placed under custodial of subjective expectation of privacy, which confiscation of accused-appellant’s passport, airline
investigation but was validly arrested without expectation society is prepared to recognize as ticket, luggage, and other personal effects. The
warrant pursuant to the provisions of Section 5, Rule reasonable.19 Such recognition is implicit in airport pictures taken during that time are also
113 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure which security procedures. With increased concern over inadmissible, as are the girdle taken from her, and
provides: airplane hijacking and terrorism has come increased her signature thereon. Rule 126, §2 of the Revised
security at the nation’s airports. Passengers Rules of Criminal Procedure authorizes the search
attempting to board an aircraft routinely pass and seizure only of the following:
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace
through metal detectors; their carry-on baggage as
officer or a private person may, without a warrant,
well as checked luggage are routinely subjected to Personal property to be seized. 3/4 A search
arrest a person:
x-ray scans. Should these procedures suggest the warrant may be issued for the search and seizure of
presence of suspicious objects, physical searches personal property:
(a) when in his presence, the person to be arrested are conducted to determine what the objects are.
has committed, is actually committing, or is There is little question that such searches are
attempting to commit an offense; (a) Subject of the offense;
reasonable, given their minimal intrusiveness, the
gravity of the safety interests involved, and the
(b) when an offense has in fact just been committed, reduced privacy expectations associated with airline (b) Stolen or embezzled and other
and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating travel.20 Indeed, travelers are often notified through proceeds or fruits of the offense; and
that the person to be arrested has committed it; and airport public address systems, signs, and notices in
their airline tickets that they are subject to search (c) Used or intended to be used as the
(Underscoring supplied) and, if any prohibited materials or substances are means of committing an offense.
found, such would be subject to seizure. These
announcements place passengers on notice that Accordingly, the above items seized from accused-
xxxx ordinary constitutional protections against appellant should be returned to her.
warrantless searches and seizures do not apply to
A custodial investigation has been defined in routine airport procedures.
People. v. Ayson 175 SCRA 230 as "the questioning Second. Accused-appellant argues that the
initiated by law enforcement officers after a person prosecution failed to fully ascertain the quantity of
The packs of methamphetamine hydrochloride methamphetamine hydrochloride to justify the
has been taken [in] custody or otherwise deprived of having thus been obtained through a valid
his freedom in any significant way. This imposition of the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
warrantless search, they are admissible in evidence
presupposes that he is suspected of having against the accused-appellant herein. Corollarily,
committed an offense and that the investigator is her subsequent arrest, although likewise without Section 20 of R.A. No. 6425, as amended by R.A.
trying to elicit information or [a] confession from warrant, was justified since it was effected upon the No. 7659, states:
him." discovery and recovery of "shabu" in her person in
flagrante delicto. Section 20 - Application Of Penalties, Confiscation
The circumstances surrounding the arrest of the And Forfeiture Of The Proceeds or Instrument Of
accused above falls in either paragraph (a) or (b) of Anent her allegation that her signature on the said The Crime – The penalties for offenses under
the Rule above cited, hence the allegation that she packs (Exhibits C-1, C-2 and C-3 herein) had been Section 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of Article II and Sections 14,
has been subjected to custodial investigation is far obtained while she was in the custody of the airport 14-A, 15 and 16 of Article III of this Act, shall be
from being accurate.18 authorities without the assistance of counsel, the applied if the dangerous drugs involved is in any of
Solicitor General correctly points out that nowhere the following quantities:
The methamphetamine hydrochloride seized from in the records is it indicated that accused-appellant 1. 40 grams or more of opium;
her during the routine frisk at the airport was was required to affix her signature to the packs. In 2. 40 grams or more of morphine;

105
 3. 200 grams or more of shabu, or PROS. VELASCO Did other drugs or other additives combination of the components of a mixture. Hence,
methylamphetamine hydrochloride; appear Mr. Witness? a qualitative identification of a powder may reveal
4. 40 grams or more of heroin; the presence of heroin and quinine, for instance,
5. 750 grams or more of indian hemp of WITNESS In my thin layer chromatographic plate, it whereas a quantitative analysis may conclude the
marijuana; only appears one spot which resembles or the same presence of 10 percent heroin and 90 percent
6. 50 grams of marijuana resin or marijuana as the Methamphetamine Hydrochloride sample quinine.22
resin oil;
7. 40 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine De Lara testified that he used a chromatography test
....
hydrochloride; or to determine the contents of Exhibits C-1, C-2 and
8. In case of other dangerous drugs, the C-3. Chromatography is a means of separating and
quantity of which is far beyond therapeutic PROS. VELASCO So, Mr. Witness, if there are any
tentatively identifying the components of a mixture.
requirements as determined and adulterants present in the chemicals you have
It is particularly useful for analyzing the
promulgated by the Dangerous Drugs examined, in chemical examination, what color it will
multicomponent specimens that are frequently
Board, after public consultation/hearings register, if any?
received in a crime lab. For example, illicit drugs
conducted for the purpose. sold on the street may be diluted with practically any
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the WITNESS In sample, it contained a potassium material that is at the disposal of the drug dealer to
foregoing quantities, the penalty shall range aluminum sulfate, it will not react with the reagent, increase the quantity of the product that is made
from prision correccional to reclusion therefore it will not dissolve. In my examination, all available to prospective customers. Hence, the task
perpetua depending upon the quantity. the specimens reacted on the re-agents, sir. of identifying an illicit drug preparation would be an
arduous one without the aid of chromatographic
Under this provision, accused-appellant therefore PROS. VELASCO And what is potassium aluminum methods to first separate the mixture into its
stands to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to sulfate in layman’s term? components.23
death for her possession of 580.2 grams of shabu.
WITNESS It is only a tawas. The testimony of De Lara established not only that
Accused-appellant attempts to distinguish between the tests were thorough, but also that the
a quantitative and a qualitative examination of the COURT In this particular case, did you find any scientifically correct method of obtaining an
substance contained in Exhibits C-1, C-2 and C-3. aluminum sulfate or tawas in the specimen? accurate representative sample had been
She argues that the examination conducted by the obtained.24 At any rate, as the Solicitor-General has
NBI forensic chemist was a qualitative one which pointed out, if accused-appellant was not satisfied
merely yielded positive findings for shabu, but failed WITNESS None, your Honor. with the results, it would have been a simple matter
to establish its purity; hence, its exact quantity for her to ask for an independent examination of the
remains indeterminate and unproved. ATTY. AGOOT I will cite an example, supposing ten substance by another chemist. This she did not do.
grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride is mixed
This contention is likewise without merit. with 200 grams of tawas, you will submit that to Third. Accused-appellant argues that the
qualitative examination, what will be your findings, prosecution failed to prove the negative allegation in
negative or positive, Mr. Witness? the information that she did not have a license to
The expert witness, George De Lara, stated that the
tests conducted would have indicated the presence possess or use methamphetamine hydrochloride or
of impurities if there were any. He testified: WITNESS It will give a positive result for "shabu."
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride.
PROS. VELASCO By mixing it twice, Mr. Witness, if Art. III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by
there are any adulterants or impurities, it will be ATTY. AGOOT That is qualitative examination. Republic Act No. 7659 provides:
discovered by just mixing it?
WITNESS And also positive for aluminum sulfate.21 SEC. 16. Possession or Use of Regulated Drugs. -
WITNESS If some drugs or additives were present, The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a
it will appear in a thin layer chromatographic A qualitative determination relates to the identity of fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to
examination. the material, whereas a quantitative analysis ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person
requires the determination of the percentage who shall possess or use any regulated drug without

106
the corresponding license or prescription, subject to alleging and proving the fact that one using opium It is noteworthy that, aside from the denial of
the provisions of Section 20 hereof.1âwphi1 does so without the advice of a physician. To prove accused-appellant, no other witness was presented
beyond a reasonable doubt, in a particular case, in her behalf. Her denial cannot prevail over the
Accused-appellant claims that possession or use of that one using opium does so without the advice or positive testimonies of the prosecution
methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu,"a prescription of a physician would be in most cases witnesses.28 As has been held, denial as a rule is a
regulated drug, is not unlawful unless the possessor a practical impossibility without the aid of the weak form of defense, particularly when it is not
or user does not have the required license or defendant himself, while a defendant charged with substantiated by clear and convincing evidence.
prescription. She points out that since the the illegal use of opium should find little difficulty in The defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, has
prosecution failed to present any certification that establishing the fact that he used it under the advice been invariably viewed by the courts with disfavor
she is not authorized to possess or use regulated and on the prescription of a physician, if in fact he for it can just as easily be concocted and is a
drugs, it therefore falls short of the quantum of proof did so.26 common and standard defense ploy in most
needed to sustain a conviction. prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs
An accused person sometimes owes a duty to Act.29
The contention has no merit. himself if not to the State. If he does not perform that
duty he may not always expect the State to perform The Court is convinced that the requirements of the
it for him. If he fails to meet the obligation which he law in order that a person may be validly charged
The question raised in this case is similar to that
owes to himself, when to meet it is an easy thing for with and convicted of illegal possession of a
raised in United States v. Chan Toco.25 The him to do, he has no one but himself to blame. dangerous drug in violation of R.A. No. 6425, as
accused in that case was charged with smoking
amended, have been complied with by the
opium without being duly registered. He demurred prosecution in this case. The decision of the trial
to the information on the ground that it failed to Moreover, as correctly pointed out by the Solicitor
General, there is nothing in R.A. No. 6425 or the court must accordingly be upheld.
allege that the use of opium had not been prescribed
as a medicine by a duly licensed and practicing Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended, which requires
physician. the prosecution to present a certification that As regards the fine imposed by the trial court, it has
accused-appellant has no license or permit to been held that courts may fix any amount within the
possess shabu. Mere possession of the prohibited limits established by law.30 Considering that five
This Court denied the motion and said:
substance is a crime per se and the burden of proof hundred eighty point two (580.2) grams of shabu
is upon accused-appellant to show that she has a were confiscated from accused-appellant, the fine
The evident interest and purpose of the statute is to license or permit under the law to possess the imposed by the trial court may properly be reduced
prohibit and to penalize generally the smoking of prohibited drug. to ₱50,000.00.
opium in these Islands. But the legislator desired to
withdraw from the operation of the statute a limited WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial
Fourth. Lastly, accused-appellant contends that the
class of smokers who smoked under the advice and
evidence presented by the prosecution is not Court of Pasay City, Branch 110, finding accused-
by prescription of a licensed and practicing
sufficient to support a finding that she is guilty of the appellant guilty of violation of §16 of R.A. No. 6425,
physician . . . . Hence where one is charged with a crime charged. as amended, and imposing upon her the penalty
violation of the general provisions of the Opium Law,
of reclusion perpetua is hereby AFFIRMED with the
it is more logical as well as more practical and
This contention must likewise be rejected. MODIFICATION that the fine imposed on accused-
convenient, if he did in fact smoke opium under the
appellant is reduced to ₱50,000.00. Costs against
advice of a physician, that he should set up this fact appellant.
by way of defense, than that the prosecution should Credence was properly accorded to the testimonies
be called upon to prove that every smoker, charged of the prosecution witnesses, who are law
with a violation of the law, does so without such enforcers.1 When police officers have no motive to The passport, airline ticket, luggage, girdle and
advice or prescription. Indeed, when it is considered testify falsely against the accused, courts are other personal effects not yet returned to the
that under the law any person may, in case of need inclined to uphold this presumption. In this case, no accused-appellant are hereby ordered returned to
and at any time, procure the advice of a physician to evidence has been presented to suggest any her.
use opium or some of its derivatives, and that in the improper motive on the part of the police enforcers
nature of things no public record of prescriptions of in arresting accused-appellant. This Court accords G.R. No. 113447 October 9, 1997
this kind is or can be required to be kept, it is great respect to the findings of the trial court on the
manifest that it would be wholly impracticable and matter of credibility of the witnesses in the absence
absurd to impose on the prosecution the burden of of any palpable error or arbitrariness in its findings.27

107
ALAIN MANALILI y DIZON, petitioner, Contrary to Law. Version of the Prosecution
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE Upon his arraignment on April 21, 1988, appellant The facts, as found by the trial court, are as
PHILIPPINES, respondents. pleaded "not guilty" to the charge.3 With the follows:12
agreement of the public prosecutor, appellant was
released after filing a P10,000.00 bail bond.4 After At about 2:10 o'clock in the afternoon of
trial in due course, the Regional Trial Court of April 11, 1988, policemen from the Anti-
PANGANIBAN, J.: Caloocan City, Branch 124, acting as a Special Narcotics Unit of the Kalookan City Police
Criminal Court, rendered on May 19, 1989 a Station were conducting a surveillance
decision5convicting appellant of illegal possession along A. Mabini street, Kalookan City, in
When dealing with a rapidly unfolding and of marijuana residue. The dispositive portion of the
potentially criminal situation in the city streets where front of the Kalookan City Cemetery. The
decision reads:6 policemen were Pat. Romeo Espiritu and
unarguably there is no time to secure an arrest or a
search warrant, policemen should employ limited, Pat. Anger Lumabas and a driver named
flexible responses — like "stop-and-frisk" — which WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, Arnold Enriquez was driving a Tamaraw
are graduated in relation to the amount of this Court finds the accused ALAIN vehicle which was the official car of the
information they possess, the lawmen being ever MANALILI Y DIZON guilty beyond Police Station of Kalookan City. The
vigilant to respect and not to violate or to treat reasonable doubt of violation of Section 8, surveillance was being made because of
cavalierly the citizen's constitutional rights against Article II, of Republic Act No. 6425, as information that drug addicts were roaming
unreasonable arrest, search and seizure. amended (Illegal Possession of Marijuana the area in front of the Kalookan City
residue), and hereby sentences (sic) said Cemetery.
accused to suffer imprisonment of SIX (6)
The Case YEARS and ONE (1) DAY; and to pay a fine Upon reaching the Kalookan City
of P6,000.00; and to pay the costs. Cemetery, the policemen alighted from
This rule is reiterated as we resolve this petition for their vehicle. They then chanced upon a
review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of xxx xxx xxx male person in front of the cemetery who
Court, seeking the reversal of the Decision of the appeared high on drugs. The male person
Court of Appeals dated April 19, 1993 and its was observed to have reddish eyes and to
Resolution dated January 20, 1994 in CA G.R. CR Appellant remained on provisional liberty.7 Atty.
Benjamin Razon, counsel for the defense, filed a be walking in a swaying manner. When this
No. 07266, entitled "People of the Philippines vs. male person tried to avoid the policemen,
Alain Manalili y Dizon." Notice of Appeal8dated May 31, 1989. On April 19,
1993, Respondent Court9 promulgated its assailed the latter approached him and introduced
Decision, denying the appeal and affirming the trial themselves as police officers. The
In an Information dated April 11, 1988,1 Petitioner court:10 policemen then asked the male person
Alain Manalili y Dizon was charged by Assistant what he was holding in his hands. The male
Caloocan City Fiscal E. Juan R. Bautista with person tried to resist. Pat Romeo Espiritu
violation of Section 8, Article II of Republic Act No. ACCORDINGLY, the decision appealed
asked the male person if he could see what
6425, allegedly committed as follows:2 from dated May 19, 1989 is hereby
said male person had in his hands. The
AFFIRMED in all respects. Costs against
latter showed the wallet and allowed Pat.
appellant.
That on or about the 11th day of April 1988 Romeo Espiritu to examine the same. Pat.
in Caloocan City, MM, Philippines and Espiritu took the wallet and examined it. He
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Respondent Court11 denied reconsideration via its found suspected crushed marijuana
Court, the above-named accused without assailed Resolution dated January 20, 1994, residue inside. He kept the wallet and its
any authority of law, did then and there disposing: marijuana contents.
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in
his custody, possession and control ACCORDINGLY, accused-appellant's The male person was then brought to the
crushed marijuana residue, which is a motion for reconsideration is, as is hereby Anti-Narcotics Unit of the Kalookan City
prohibited drug and knowing the same to DENIED. Police Headquarters and was turned over
be such. to Cpl. Wilfredo Tamondong for
The Facts investigation. Pat. Espiritu also turned over

108
to Cpl. Tamondong the confiscated wallet found that the "crushed marijuana leaves" tricycle driver to go while they brought the
and its suspected marijuana contents. The gave positive results for marijuana. She accused to the police headquarters at
man turned out to be the accused ALAIN then prepared a Final Report of her Kalookan City where they said they would
MANALILI y DIZON. examinations (Exhibit "G"). again search the accused.

Upon receipt of the confiscated suspected After conducting the examinations, Ms. On the way to the police headquarters, the
marijuana residue from Pat. Espiritu, Cpl. Pascual placed the specimen in a white accused saw a neighbor and signalled the
Tamondong wrapped the same with a white letter-envelope and sealed it. (Exhibit "E"). latter to follow him. The neighbor thus
sheet of paper on which he wrote She then wrote identification notes on this followed the accused to the Kalookan City
"Evidence "A" 4/11/88 Alain Manalili". The letter-envelope. (Exhibit "E-1"). Police Headquarters. Upon arrival thereat,
white sheet of paper was marked as Exhibit the accused was asked to remove his pants
"E-3". The residue was originally wrapped Pat. Lumabas carried the Certification in the presence of said neighbor and
in a smaller sheet of folded paper. (Exhibit marked as Exhibit "F" from the NBI another companion. The policemen turned
"E-4"). Forensic Chemistry Section to Cpl. over the pants of the accused over a piece
Tamondong. Upon receipt thereof, Cpl. of bond paper trying to look for marijuana.
Cpl. Tamondong next prepared a referral Tamondong prepared a referral slip However, nothing was found, except for
slip addressed to the NBI Forensic addressed to the City Fiscal of Kalookan some dirt and dust. This prompted the
Chemistry Section requesting a chemical City. (Exhibit "C") companion of the neighbor of the accused
analysis of the subject marijuana residue to tell the policemen to release the
(Exhibit "D"). Cpl. Tamondong thereafter accused. The accused was led to a cell.
On rebuttal, Pat. Espiritu testified that appellant was The policemen later told the accused that
prepared a Joint Affidavit of the not riding a tricycle but was walking in front of the
apprehending policemen (Exhibit "A"). Pat. they found marijuana inside the pockets of
cemetery when he was apprehended.15 his pants.
Angel Lumabas handcarried the referral
slip (Exhibit "D") to the National Bureau of
Version of the Defense
Investigation (NBI), including the subject At about 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon on
marijuana residue for chemical analysis. the same day, the accused was brought
The signature of Pat. Lumabas appears on The trial court summarized the testimonies of the outside the cell and was led to the Ford
the left bottom corner of Exhibit "D". defense witnesses as follows:16 Fiera. The accused was told by the
policemen to call his parents in order to
The Forensic Chemistry Section of the NBI At about 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon of "settle" the case. The policemen who led
received the aforesaid referral slip and the April 11, 1988, the accused ALAIN the accused to the Ford Fiera were Pat.
subject marijuana residue at 7:40 o'clock in MANALILI was aboard a tricycle at A. Lumabas, Pat. Espiritu and Cpl.
the evening of April 11, 1988 as shown on Mabini street near the Kalookan City Tamondong. Pat. Lumabas was the
the stamped portion of Exhibit "D". Cemetery on the way to his boarding policeman who told the accused to call his
house. Three policemen ordered the driver parents. The accused did not call his
of the tricycle to stop because the tricycle parents and he told the policemen that his
It was NBI Aida Pascual who conducted the parents did not have any telephone.
driver and his lone passenger were under
microscopic and chemical examinations of
the influence of marijuana. The policemen
the specimen which she identified. (Exhibit
brought the accused and the tricycle driver At about 5:30 o'clock in the afternoon of the
"E")13 Mrs. Pascual referred to the subject
inside the Ford Fiera which the policemen same day, the accused was brought in the
specimen as "crushed marijuana leaves" in
were riding in. The policemen then bodily office of an inquest Fiscal. There, the
her Certification dated April 11, 1988
searched the accused and the tricycle accused told the Fiscal that no marijuana
(Exhibit "F").14 These crushed marijuana
driver. At this point, the accused asked the was found on his person but the Fiscal told
leaves gave positive results for marijuana,
according to the Certificate. policemen why he was being searched and the accused not to say anything. The
the policemen replied that he (accused) accused was then brought back to the
was carrying marijuana. However, nothing Kalookan City Jail.
Mrs. Pascual also conducted a was found on the persons of the accused
chromatographic examination of the and the driver. The policemen allowed the
specimen. In this examination, she also

109
 Loreto Medenilla, the tricycle driver who the arresting officers, the appellate court ruled that VI
was allegedly with the accused when he the said inconsistencies were insubstantial to impair
and the accused were stopped by the essential veracity of the narration. It further The Court of Appeals erred in admitting the
policemen and then bodily searched on found petitioner's contention — that he could not be evidence of the prosecution which are
April 11, 1988, testified. He said that the convicted of illegal possession of marijuana residue inadmissible in evidence.
policemen found nothing either on his — to be without merit, because the forensic chemist
person or on the person of the accused reported that what she examined were marijuana
leaves. Restated more concisely, petitioner questions (1)
when both were searched on April 11,
1988. the admissibility of the evidence against him, (2) the
credibility of prosecution witnesses and the rejection
Issues by the trial and the appellate courts of the defense
Roberto Abes, a neighbor of the accused, of extortion, and (3) the sufficiency of the
testified that he followed the accused at the Petitioner assigns the following errors on the part of prosecution evidence to sustain his conviction.
Kalookan City Police Headquarters on April Respondent Court:
11, 1988. He said that the police searched
The Court's Ruling
the accused who was made to take off his
I
pants at the police headquarters but no
marijuana was found on the body of the The petition has no merit.
accused. The Court of Appeals erred in upholding the
findings of fact of the trial court. First Issue: Admissibility of the Evidence Seized
Appellant, who was recalled to the stand as sur- During a Stop-and-Frisk
rebuttal witness, presented several pictures II
showing that tricycles were allowed to ply in front of Petitioner protests the admission of the marijuana
the Caloocan Cemetery.17 The Court of Appeals erred in upholding the leaves found in his possession, contending that they
conviction of (the) accused (and) in ruling that the were products of an illegal search. The Solicitor
The Rulings of the Trail and the Appellate Courts guilt of the accused had been proved (beyond) General, in his Comment dated July 5, 1994, which
reasonable doubt. was adopted as memorandum for respondent,
The trial court convicted petitioner of illegal counters that the inadmissibility of the marijuana
possession of marijuana residue largely on the III leaves was waived because petitioner never raised
strength of the arresting officers' testimony. this issue in the proceedings below nor did he object
to their admissibility in evidence. He adds that, even
Patrolmen Espiritu and Lumabas were "neutral and The Court of Appeals erred in not ruling that the
assuming arguendo that there was no waiver, the
disinterested" witnesses, testifying only on what inconsistencies in the testimonies of the
search was legal because it was incidental to a
transpired during the performance of their duties. prosecution witnesses were material and
warrantless arrest under Section 5 (a), Rule 113 of
Substantially they asserted that the appellant was substantial and not minor.
the Rules of Court.
found to be in possession of a substance which was
later identified as crushed marijuana residue. IV
We disagree with petitioner and hold that the search
The trial court disbelieved appellant's defense that was valid, being akin to a stop-and-frisk. In the
The Court of Appeals erred in not appreciating the landmark case of Terry vs. Ohio,18 a stop-and-frisk
this charge was merely "trumped up," because the evidence that the accused was framed for the
appellant neither took any legal action against the was defined as the vernacular designation of the
purpose of extorting money. right of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street,
allegedly erring policemen nor moved for a
interrogate him, and pat him for weapon(s):
reinvestigation before the city fiscal of Kalookan
City. V
. . . (W)here a police officer observes an
The Court of Appeals erred in not acquitting the unusual conduct which leads him
On appeal, Respondent Court found no proof that
the decision of the trial court was based on accused when the evidence presented is reasonably to conclude in light of his
speculations, surmises or conjectures. On the consistent with both innocence and guilt. experience that criminal activity may be
alleged "serious" discrepancies in the testimonies of afoot and that the persons with whom he is
dealing may be armed and presently

110
 dangerous, where in the course of warrant procedure, excused only by exigent as the essential requirement. Although the term
investigating this behavior he identified circumstances. eludes exact definition, probable cause for a search
himself as a policeman and makes is, at best, defined as a reasonable ground of
reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in In Philippine jurisprudence, the general rule is that a suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently
the initial stages of the encounter serves to search and seizure must be validated by a strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man in
dispel his reasonable fear for his own or previously secured judicial warrant; otherwise, such the belief that the person accused is guilty of the
others' safety, he is entitled for the search and seizure is unconstitutional and subject offense with which he is charged; or the existence
protection of himself and others in the area to challenge.20 Section 2, Article III of the 1987 of such facts and circumstances which could lead a
to conduct a carefully limited search of the Constitution, gives this guarantee: reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that
outer clothing of such persons in an attempt an offense has been committed and that the item(s),
to discover weapons which might be used article(s) or object(s) sought in connection with said
to assault him. Such a search is a Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure offense or subject to seizure and destruction by law
reasonable search under the Fourth in their persons, houses, papers, and is in the place to be searched."
Amendment, and any weapon seized may effects against unreasonable searches and
properly be introduced in evidence against seizures of whatever nature and for any
purpose shall be inviolable, and no search Stop-and-frisk has already been adopted as another
the person from whom they were taken.19 exception to the general rule against a search
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue
except upon probable cause to be without a warrant. In Posadas vs. Court of
In allowing such a search, the United States determined personally by the judge after Appeals,24 the Court held that there were many
Supreme Court held that the interest of effective examination under oath or affirmation of the instances where a search and seizure could be
crime prevention and detection allows a police complainant and the witnesses he may effected without necessarily being preceded by an
officer to approach a person, in appropriate produce, and particularly describing the arrest, one of which was stop-and-frisk. In said case,
circumstances and manner, for purposes of place to be searched and the persons or members of the Integrated National Police of Davao
investigating possible criminal behavior even things to be seized. stopped petitioner, who was carrying a buri bag and
though there is insufficient probable cause to make acting suspiciously. They found inside petitioner's
an actual arrest. This was the legitimate bag one .38-cal. revolver with two rounds of live
investigative function which Officer McFadden Any evidence obtained in violation of the mentioned ammunition, two live ammunitions for a .22-cal. gun
provision is legally inadmissible in evidence as a
discharged in that case, when he approached and a tear gas grenade. In upholding the legality of
"fruit of the poisonous tree," falling under the
petitioner and his companion whom he observed to the search, the Court said that to require the police
exclusionary rule:
have hovered alternately about a street corner for officers to search the bag only after they had
an extended period of time, while not waiting for obtained a search warrant might prove to be
anyone; paused to stare in the same store window Sec. 3. . . . useless, futile and much too late under the
roughly 24 times; and conferred with a third person. circumstances. In such a situation, it was
It would have been sloppy police work for an officer (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of . . reasonable for a police officer to stop a suspicious
of 30 years' experience to have failed to investigate . the preceding section shall be individual briefly in order to determine his identity or
this behavior further. inadmissible for any purpose in any to maintain the status quo while obtaining more
proceeding. information, rather than to simply shrug his
In admitting in evidence two guns seized during the shoulders and allow a crime to occur.
stop-and-frisk, the US Supreme Court held that This right, however, is not absolute.21 The recent
what justified the limited search was the more case of People vs. Lacerna enumerated five In the case at hand, Patrolman Espiritu and his
immediate interest of the police officer in taking recognized exceptions to the rule against companions observed during their surveillance that
steps to assure himself that the person with whom warrantless search and seizure, viz.: "(1) search appellant had red eyes and was wobbling like a
he was dealing was not armed with a weapon that incidental to a lawful arrest, (2) search of moving drunk along the Caloocan City Cemetery, which
could unexpectedly and fatally be used against him. vehicles, (3) seizure in plain view, (4) customs according to police information was a popular
search, and (5) waiver by the accused themselves hangout of drug addicts. From his experience as a
It did not, however, abandon the rule that the police of their right against unreasonable search and member of the Anti-Narcotics Unit of the Caloocan
must, whenever practicable, obtain advance judicial seizure."22 In People vs. Encinada,23 the Court City Police, such suspicious behavior was
approval of searches and seizures through the further explained that "[i]n these cases, the search characteristic of drug addicts who were "high." The
and seizure may be made only with probable cause policemen therefore had sufficient reason to stop

111
petitioner to investigate if he was actually high on Q What was he doing in particular when A He was holding his wallet and when we
drugs. During such investigation, they found you chanced upon him? opened it, there was a marijuana (sic)
marijuana in petitioner's possession:25 crushed residue.
A He was roaming around, sir.
FISCAL RALAR: Furthermore, we concur with the Solicitor General's
Q You said that he avoided you, what did contention that petitioner effectively waived the
Q And why were you conducting surveillance you do when he avoided you? inadmissibility of any evidence illegally obtained
in front of the Caloocan Cemetery, when he failed to raise this issue or to object thereto
Sangandaan, Caloocan City? during the trial. A valid waiver of a right, more
A We approached him and introduced
particularly of the constitutional right against
ourselves as police officers in a polite
unreasonable search, requires the concurrence of
A Because there were some informations that manner, sir.
the following requirements: (1) the right to be waived
some drug dependents were roaming around
existed; (2) the person waiving it had knowledge,
at A. Mabini Street in front of the Caloocan Q How did you introduce yourselves? actual or constructive, thereof; and (3) he or she had
Cemetery, Caloocan City.
an actual intention to relinquish the
A In a polite manner, sir. right.26 Otherwise, the Courts will indulge every
xxx xxx xxx reasonable presumption against waiver of
Q What did you say when you introduced fundamental safeguards and will not deduce
Q While you were conducting your yourselves? acquiescence from the failure to exercise this
surveillance, together with Pat. Angel elementary right. In the present case, however,
Lumabas and one Arnold Enriquez, what petitioner is deemed to have waived such right for
happened, if any? A We asked him what he was holding in his his failure to raise its violation before the trial court.
hands, sir. In petitions under Rule 45, as distinguished from an
A We chanced upon one male person there ordinary appeal of criminal cases where the whole
Q And what was the reaction of the person case is opened for review, the appeal is generally
in front of the Caloocan Cemetery then when
when you asked him what he was holding limited to the errors assigned by petitioner. Issues
we called his attention, he tried to avoid us,
in his hands? not raised below cannot be pleaded for the first time
then prompting us to approach him and
introduce ourselves as police officers in a on appeal.27
polite manner. A He tried to resist, sir.
Second Issue: Assessment of Evidence
xxx xxx xxx Q When he tried to resist, what did you do?
Petitioner also contends that the two arresting
Q Could you describe to us the appearance A I requested him if I can see what was he officers' testimony contained "polluted,
of that person when you chanced upon was (sic) holding in his hands. irreconcilable and unexplained" contradictions
him? which did not support petitioner's conviction.
Q What was the answer of the person upon
A That person seems like he is high on your request? We disagree. Time and again, this Court has ruled
drug. that the trial court's assessment of the credibility of
witnesses, particularly when affirmed by the Court
A He allowed me to examine that
of Appeals as in this case, is accorded great weight
Q How were you able to say Mr. Witness something in his hands, sir.
and respect, since it had the opportunity to observe
that that person that you chanced upon was their demeanor and deportment as they testified
high on drug? xxx xxx xxx before it. Unless substantial facts and
circumstances have been overlooked or
A Because his eyes were red and he was Q What was he holding? misappreciated by the trial court which, if
walking on a swaying manner. considered, would materially affect the result of the
case, we will not countenance a departure from this
rule.28

112
We concur with Respondent Court's ruling: behavior clearly shows that petitioner knew that he Sec. 2. This Act shall not apply to persons
was holding marijuana and that it was prohibited by convicted of offenses punished with death
(e)ven assuming as contended by law. penalty or life-imprisonment; to those
appellant that there had been some convicted of treason; to those convicted of
inconsistencies in the prosecution Furthermore, like the trial and the appellate courts, misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or
witnesses' testimonies, We do not find we have not been given sufficient grounds to believe espionage; to those convicted of piracy; to
them substantial enough to impair the the extortion angle in this case. Petitioner did not file those who are habitual delinquents; to
essential veracity of their narration. any administrative or criminal case against the those who shall have escaped from
In People vs. Avila, it was held that — "As arresting officers or present any evidence other than confinement or evaded sentence; to those
long as the witnesses concur on the his bare claim. His argument that he feared for his who having been granted conditional
material points, slight differences in their life was lame and unbelievable, considering that he pardon by the Chief Executive shall have
remembrance of the details, do not reflect was released on bail and continued to be on bail as violated the terms thereof; to those whose
on the essential veracity of their early as April 26, 1988.32 Since then, he could have maximum term of imprisonment does not
statements. made the charge in relative safety, as he was no exceed one year, not to those already
longer in the custody of the police. His defense of sentenced by final judgment at the time of
frame-up, like alibi, is viewed by this Court with approval of this Act, except as provided in
However, we find that, aside from the presumption Section 5 hereof. (Emphasis supplied)
of regularity in the performance of duty, the bestowal disfavor, because it is easy to concoct and
of full credence on Pat. Espiritu's testimony is fabricate.33
justified by tangible evidence on record. Despite The Dangerous Drugs Law, R.A. 6425, as amended
Pat. Lumabas' contradictory testimony, that of The Proper Penalty by B.P. 179, imposes the following penalty for illegal
Espiritu is supported by the Joint Affidavit29 signed possession of marijuana:
by both arresting policemen. The question of The trial and the appellate courts overlooked the
whether the marijuana was found inside petitioner's Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103, as Sec. 8. . . . .
wallet or inside a plastic bag is immaterial, amended) by sentencing petitioner to a straight
considering that petitioner did not deny possession penalty of six years and one day of imprisonment, The penalty of imprisonment ranging from
of said substance. Failure to present the wallet in aside from the imposed fine of six thousand pesos. six years and one day to twelve years and
evidence did not negate that marijuana was found This Act requires the imposition of an indeterminate a fine ranging from six thousand to twelve
in petitioner's possession. This shows that such penalty: thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any
contradiction is minor and does not destroy person who, unless authorized by law, shall
Espiritu's credibility.30 possess or use Indian hemp.
Sec. 1. Hereafter, in imposing a prison
sentence for an offense punished by the
Third Issue: Sufficiency of Evidence Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, Prescinding from the foregoing, the Court holds that
the court shall sentence the accused to an the proper penalty is an indeterminate sentence of
The elements of illegal possession of marijuana are: indeterminate sentence the maximum term imprisonment ranging from six years and one day to
(a) the accused is in possession of an item or object of which shall be that which, in view of the twelve years.34
which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (b) such attending circumstances, could be properly
possession is not authorized by law; and (c) the imposed under the rules of the said Code, WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision and
accused freely and consciously possessed the said and the minimum which shall be within the Resolution are hereby AFFIRMED with
drug.31 range of the penalty next lower to that MODIFICATION. Petitioner is sentenced to suffer
prescribed by the Code for the offense; and IMPRISONMENT of SIX (6) YEARS, as minimum,
The substance found in petitioner's possession was if the offense is punished by any other law, to TWELVE (12) YEARS, as maximum, and to PAY
identified by NBI Forensic Chemist Aida Pascual to the court shall sentence the accused to an a FINE of SIX THOUSAND PESOS. Costs against
be crushed marijuana leaves. Petitioner's lack of indeterminate sentence, the maximum petitioner.
authority to possess these leaves was established. term of which shall not exceed the
His awareness thereof was undeniable, considering maximum fixed by said law and the
minimum shall not be less than the G.R. No. 203984 June 18, 2014
that petitioner was high on drugs when stopped by PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
the policemen and that he resisted when asked to minimum term prescribed by the same. (As
amended by Act No. 4225.) Appellee,
show and identify the thing he was holding. Such

113
vs. Avenue Street corner C-3 Road, Caloocan City. open court and testified as to what he knows about
MEDARIO CALANTIAO y DIMALANTA, Accused- Thereat, the passengers of said taxi cab, one of the incident. He confirmed that on that date, two (2)
Appellant. them was accused Calantiao, alighted and fired persons boarded on his taxi and upon reaching C-
DECISION their guns. Surprised, Lojera could not do anything 3 Road, they alighted and fired three (3) shots and
but continued his driving until he reached a police ran away.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: station nearby where he reported the incident.
Aside from the oral testimonies of the witnesses,
This is an appeal from the January 1 7, 2012 The police officers on duty then were PO1 the prosecution also offered the following
Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.- NELSON MARIANO and PO3 EDUARDO documentary evidence to boost their charge
H.C. No. 04069, affirming in toto the July 23, 2009 RAMIREZ. PO1 Mariano testified that they against the accused:
Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of immediately responded to said complaint by
Caloocan City, Branch 127, finding accused- proceeding to 5th Avenue corner 8th Street, Exh. "A" – Request for Laboratory
appellant Medario Calantiao y Dimalanta Caloocan City where they found the white taxi. Examination dated November 12, 2003
(Calantiao) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of While approaching said vehicle, two armed men
violating Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. alighted therefrom, fired their guns towards them
Exh. "B" – Physical Sciences Report No.
9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act (police officers) and ran away. PO1 Mariano and
D-1423-03 dated November 12, 2003
of 2002. PO3 Ramirez chased them but they were subdued.
PO1 Mariano recovered from Calantiao a black
bag containing two (2) bricks of dried marijuana Exh. "C-1" – Picture of First brick of
On November 13, 2003, Calantiao was charged fruiting tops and a magazine of super 38 stainless marijuana fruiting tops
before the RTC of violation of Section 11, Article II with ammos, while PO3 Ramirez recovered from
of Republic Act No. 9165 in an Information,3 the Calantiao’s companion [a] .38 revolver. Exh. "C-2" – Picture of Second brick of
pertinent portion of which reads: That on or about
marijuana fruiting tops
the 11th day of November, 2003 in Caloocan City,
Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction The suspects and the confiscated items were then
of this Honorable Court, the above-named turned over to SPO3 PABLO TEMENA, police Exh. "D" – Referral Slip dated November
accused, without any authority of law, did then and investigator at Bagong Barrio Police Station for 12, 2003
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his investigation. Thereat, PO1 Mariano marked the
possession, custody and control two (2) bricks of bricks of marijuana contained in a black bag with Exh. "E" – Pinagsamang Sinumpaang
dried marijuana fruiting tops with a total weight of his initials, "NM". Thereafter, said specimen were Salaysay dated November 12, 2003 of
997 .9 grams, knowing the same to be a forwarded to the PNP Crime Laboratory for PO3 Eduardo Ramirez and PO1 Nelson
dangerous drug. chemical analysis. The result of the examination Mariano
conducted by P/SINSP. JESSSE DELA ROSA
revealed that the same was positive for marijuana,
The facts, as synthesized by the RTC and adopted a dangerous drug. Exh. "E-1" – Their respective signatures
by the Court of Appeals, are as follows:
The foregoing testimony of PO1 MARIANO was Exh. "F" – Sinumpaang Salaysay of
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION Crisendo Amansec (Erroneously marked
corroborated by PO3 RAMIREZ who testified that
he personally saw those bricks of marijuana as Exh. "E")
On November 13, 2003[,] at around 5:30 x x x in confiscated from the accused. He confirmed that
the afternoon, while PO1 NELSON MARIANO and he was with PO1 Mariano when they apprehended EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENSE
PO3 EDUARDO RAMIREZ were on duty, a certain said accused and his companion and testified that
EDWIN LOJERA arrived at their office and asked while PO1 Mariano recovered from the accused a The accused offered a different version of the
for police assistance regarding a shooting incident. black bag containing marijuana, on his part, he story. According to his testimony, this instant case
Per report of the latter, it appears that while driving confiscated from accused’s companion a .38 originated from a traffic mishap where the taxi he
a towing truck and traversing along EDSA, revolver. and his companion Rommel Reyes were riding
Balintawak, Quezon City, he had a traffic dispute almost collided with another car. Reyes then
(gitgitan) with a white taxi cab prompting him to opened the window and made a "fuck you" sign
MR. CRISENDO AMANSEC, the driver of the taxi
follow said vehicle until they reached along 8th against the persons on board of that car. That
where the suspects boarded was also presented in

114
prompted the latter to chase them and when they Aggrieved, Calantiao appealed7 his conviction to possession of dangerous drugs to be present and
were caught in a traffic jam, PO1 Nelson Mariano, the Court of Appeals, assigning the following duly proven,10 the Court of Appeals, on January 17,
one of the persons on board of that other car errors: 2012, promulgated its Decision, affirming in toto
alighted and kicked their taxi. Calantiao and Reyes the RTC’s ruling.
alighted and PO1 Mariano slapped the latter and I
uttered, "Putang ina mo bakit mo ako pinakyu hindi Undaunted, Calantiao is now before this Court
mo ba ako kilala?" Said police officer poked his praying for an acquittal, adding the following
THE COURT A QUOGRAVELY ERRED
gun again[st] Reyes and when Calantiao tried to arguments in support of his position:
grab it, the gun fired. Calantiao and Reyes were IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
then handcuffed and were brought to the police GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE
station. Thereat, they were subjected to body DOUBT FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION First, the plain view doctrine is not an exception to
11, ARTICLE II, REPUBLIC ACT NO. a search incident to a valid warrantless arrest.
frisking and their wallets and money were taken.
PO1 Mariano then prepared some documents and 9165, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT
informed them that they will be charged for drugs. THAT THE ALLEGEDLY SEIZED ITEMS xxxx
ARE INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE.
A newspaper containing marijuana was shown to
them and said police officer told them that it would Second, Calantiao did not waive the inadmissibility
be sufficient evidence against them. They were II of the seized items.
detained and subjected to medical examination
before they were submitted for inquest at the THE COURT A QUOGRAVELY ERRED xxxx
prosecutor’s office.4 IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-
APPELLANT DESPITE THE ARRESTING
Finally, the seized items’ custodial chain is
Ruling of the RTC OFFICERS’ PATENT NON-COMPLIANCE
broken.11
WITHTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
PROPER CUSTODY OF SEIZED
On July 23, 2009, the RTC rendered its Decision In essence, Calantiao is questioning the
DANGEROUS DRUGS.
giving credence to the prosecution’s case. The admissibility of the marijuana found in his
dispositive portion of the Decision reads: possession, as evidence against him on the
III
grounds of either it was discovered via an illegal
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is search, or because its custodial chain was broken.
hereby rendered declaring accused MEDARIO THE COURT A QUOGRAVELY ERRED
CALANTIAO y DIMALANTA, GUILTY BEYOND IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-
Ruling of this Court
REASONABLE DOUBT of the offense of Violation APPELLANT DESPITE THE
of Section 11, Article II, R.A. 9165, for illegally PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO PROVE
possessing997.9 grams of marijuana fruiting tops. THE PROPER CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF This Court finds no merit in Calantiao’s arguments.
Henceforth, this Court hereby sentences him to THE SEIZED DANGEROUS DRUGS.8
suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Search and Seizure of
Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php500,000.00).5 Ruling of the Court of Appeals Marijuana valid

In convicting Calantiao, the RTC held that the The Court of Appeals found no reason to overturn This Court cannot subscribe to Calantiao’s
illegal drug seized was admissible in evidence as it Calantiao’s conviction. It found that there was contention that the marijuana in his possession
was discovered during a body search after sufficient reason to justify a warrantless arrest, as cannot be admitted as evidence against him
Calantiao was caught in flagrante delicto of the police officers were acting on a legitimate because it was illegally discovered and seized, not
possessing a gun and firing at the police officers. complaint and had a reasonable suspicion that the having been within the apprehending officers’
Moreover, the RTC found all the elements of the persons identified at the scene were the "plain view."12
offense to have been duly established by the perpetrators of the offense. Likewise, the Court of
prosecution.6 Appeals held that the search and subsequent Searches and seizure incident to a lawful arrest are
seizure of the marijuana in question was lawful and governed by Section 13, Rule 126 of the Revised
valid, being incidental to a lawful arrest.9 Finding Rules of Criminal Procedure, to wit:
that all the elements of the charge of illegal

115
Section 13.Search incident to lawful arrest.– A as dangerous to the arresting officer as one purposely searched him upon his arrest. The police
person lawfully arrested may be searched for concealed in the clothing of the person arrested. officers did not inadvertently come across the black
dangerous weapons or anything which may have (Citations omitted.) bag, which was in Calantiao’s possession; they
been used or constitute proof in the commission of deliberately opened it, as part of the search incident
an offense without a search warrant. In Valeroso, however, the Court held that the to Calantiao’s lawful arrest.
evidence searched and seized from him could not
The purpose of allowing a warrantless search and be used against him because they were discovered Inventory and Chain of
seizure incident to a lawful arrest is "to protect the in a room, different from where he was being Custody of Evidence
arresting officer from being harmed by the person detained, and was in a locked cabinet. Thus, the
arrested, who might be armed with a concealed area searched could not be considered as one Calantiao claims that even if the search and seizure
weapon, and to prevent the latter from destroying within his immediate control that he could take any were validly effected, the marijuana is still
evidence within reach."13 It is therefore a reasonable weapon or destroy any evidence against him.15 inadmissible as evidence against him for failure of
exercise of the State’s police power to protect (1) the apprehending officers to comply with the rules
law enforcers from the injury that may be inflicted on In the case at bar, the marijuana was found in a on chain of custody, as the item was marked at the
them by a person they have lawfully arrested; and black bag in Calantiao’s possession and within his police station.18
(2) evidence from being destroyed by the arrestee. immediate control. He could have easily taken any
It seeks to ensure the safety of the arresting officers weapon from the bag or dumped it to destroy the The pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 9165
and the integrity of the evidence under the control evidence inside it. As the black bag containing the provide as follows:
and within the reach of the arrestee. marijuana was in Calantiao’s possession, it was
within the permissible area that the apprehending
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated,
In People v. Valeroso,14 this Court had the occasion officers could validly conduct a warrantless search.
Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs,
to reiterate the permissible reach of a valid
Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled
warrantless search and seizure incident to a lawful Calantiao’s argument that the marijuana cannot be
arrest, viz: Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
used as evidence against him because its discovery Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory
was in violation of the Plain View Doctrine, is Equipment. – The PDEA shall take charge and have
When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the misplaced. custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of
arresting officer to search the person arrested in dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and
order to remove any weapon that the latter might The Plain View Doctrine is actually the exception to essential chemicals, as well as
use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape. the inadmissibility of evidence obtained in a instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory
Otherwise, the officer’s safety might well be warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest equipment so confiscated, seized and/or
endangered, and the arrest itself frustrated. In outside the suspect’s person and premises under surrendered, for proper disposition in the following
addition, it is entirely reasonable for the arresting his immediate control. This is so because "[o]bjects manner:
officer to search for and seize any evidence on the in the ‘plain view’ of an officer who has the right to
arrestee’s person in order to prevent its be in the position to have that view are subject to
concealment or destruction. (1) The apprehending team having initial
seizure and may be presented as evidence."16 "The custody and control of the drugs shall,
doctrine is usually applied where a police officer is immediately after seizure and confiscation,
Moreover, in lawful arrests, it becomes both the duty not searching for evidence against the accused, but physically inventory and photograph the
and the right of the apprehending officers to conduct nonetheless inadvertently comes across an same in the presence of the accused or the
a warrantless search not only on the person of the incriminating object x x x. [It] serves to supplement person/s from whom such items were
suspect, but also in the permissible area within the the prior justification – whether it be a warrant for confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
latter’s reach. Otherwise stated, a valid arrest allows another object, hot pursuit, search incident to lawful representative or counsel, a representative
the seizure of evidence or dangerous weapons arrest, or some other legitimate reason for being from the media and the Department of
either on the person of the one arrested or within the present unconnected with a search directed against Justice (DOJ), and any elected public
area of his immediate control. The phrase "within the accused – and permits the warrantless official who shall be required to sign the
the area of his immediate control" means the area seizure."17 copies of the inventory and be given a copy
from within which he might gain possession of a thereof[.]
weapon or destructible evidence. A gun on a table The Plain View Doctrine thus finds no applicability
or in a drawer in front of one who is arrested can be in Calantiao’s situation because the police officers

116
Its Implementing Rules and Regulations state: automatically impair the integrity of chain of custody It is worthy to note that these arguments were only
because what is of utmost importance is the raised by Calantiao on his appeal. He himself admits
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary this.23 His theory, from the very beginning, was that
Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous value of the seized items, as these would be utilized he did not do it, and that he was being framed for
Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the having offended the police officers. Simply put, his
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, accused.19 defense tactic was one of denial and frame-up.
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory However, those defenses have always been
Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and Section 21 and its IRR do not even mention frowned upon by the Court, to wit:
have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources "marking." What they require are (1) physical
of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and inventory, and (2) taking of photographs. As this The defenses of denial and frame-up have been
essential chemicals, as well as Court held in People v. Ocfemia20: invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor for it
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory can easily be concocted and is a common and
equipment so confiscated, seized and/or What Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its standard defense ploy in prosecutions for violation
surrendered, for proper disposition in the following implementing rule do not expressly specify is the of Dangerous Drugs Act. In order to prosper, the
manner: matter of "marking" of the seized items in defenses of denial and frame-up must be proved
warrantless seizures to ensure that the evidence with strong and convincing evidence. In the cases
(a) The apprehending officer/team having seized upon apprehension is the same evidence before us, appellant failed to present sufficient
initial custody and control of the drugs shall, subjected to inventory and photography when these evidence in support of his claims. Aside from his
immediately after seizure and confiscation, activities are undertaken at the police station rather self-serving assertions, no plausible proof was
physically inventory and photograph the than at the place of arrest. Consistency with the presented to bolster his allegations.24
same in the presence of the accused or the "chain of custody" rule requires that the "marking" of
person/s from whom such items were the seized items – to truly ensure that they are the Hence, as Calantiao failed to show clear and
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her same items that enter the chain and are eventually convincing evidence that the apprehending officers
representative or counsel, a representative the ones offered in evidence – should be done (1) in were stirred by illicit motive or failed to properly
from the media and the Department of the presence of the apprehended violator (2) perform their duties, their testimonies deserve full
Justice (DOJ), and any elected public immediately upon confiscation. faith and credit.25
official who shall be required to sign the
copies of the inventory and be given a copy The prosecution was able to establish the chain of WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court
thereof; Provided, that the physical custody of the seized marijuana from the time the hereby AFFIRMS the January 17, 2012 Decision of
inventory and photograph shall be police officers confiscated it, to the time it was the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No.
conducted at the place where the search turned over to the investigating officer, up to the time 04069.
warrant is served; or at the nearest police it was brought to the forensic chemist for laboratory
station or at the nearest office of the examination.21 This Court has no reason to overrule
apprehending officer/team, whichever is G.R. No. 182178 August 15, 2011
the RTC and the Court of Appeals, which both found STEPHEN SY y TIBAGONG, Petitioner,
practicable, in case of warrantless the chain of custody of the seized drugs to have not
seizures; Provided, further, that non- vs.
been broken so as to render the marijuana seized PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
compliance with these requirements under from Calantiao inadmissible in evidence.
justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity DECISION
and the evidentiary value of the seized PERALTA, J.:
Furthermore, unless it can be shown that there was
items are properly preserved by the
bad faith, ill will, or tampering of the evidence, the
apprehending officer/team, shall not render This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to
presumption that the integrity of the evidence has
void and invalid such seizures of and reverse and set aside the Decision1 dated October
been preserved will remain. The burden of showing
custody over said items[.] (Emphasis 24, 2007 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.
supplied.) the foregoing to overcome the presumption that the
CR No. 00402, which in turn affirmed in toto the
police officers handled the seized drugs with
Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch
regularity, and that they properly discharged their
This Court has held that the failure to strictly comply 30, Dumaguete City, in Criminal Case No. 17614
duties is on Calantiao. Unfortunately, Calantiao
with Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, convicting petitioner of violation of Section 11,
failed to discharge such burden.22
such as immediately marking seized drugs, will not Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, or the

117
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as their office received a telephone call from a representative and PO2 Glenn Corsame of the
well as the Resolution2 dated March 7, 2008, concerned citizen that an illegal drug trade was PDEA, who all signed the receipt of property seized.
denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. going on at Zone 3, Barangay Looc, Dumaguete The [petitioner] was given a copy of the receipt. PO2
City. With him at that time was PO3 Paquera. PO3 Corsame had the incident recorded in the PDEA
The factual and procedural antecedents are as Faelogo averred that the two (2) of them blotter.
follows: immediately responded and went to the place as
reported. While walking at the pathway going to the PO3 Faelogo also averred that he was the one who
interior portion of Zone 3, Barangay Looc, at a submitted the seized one (1) heat-sealed
Under an Information dated June 12, 2005, distance of about two (2) meters away, they saw a
petitioner Stephen T. Sy was indicted for violation of transparent plastic sachet containing white
man, later identified as the [petitioner] in this case, crystalline pow[d]er/granules to the PNP Crime
Section 11, Article II of RA No. 9165, the accusatory examining a transparent plastic sachet containing
portion of which reads: Laboratory, together with a letter request dated
shabu powder by flicking the same. They June 11, 2005 of the Chief of Police of Dumaguete
approached the [petitioner], introduced themselves City Police Station. The [petitioner] was not
That on or about the 11th day of June 2005, in the as policemen and announced his arrest for illegal subjected to drug examination, as no drug testing kit
City of Dumaguete, Philippines and within the possession of dangerous drug. PO3 Faelogo then was available at that time.
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said apprised the [petitioner] of his constitutional rights
[petitioner], not being authorized by law, did, then but while doing so, the [petitioner] hurriedly boarded
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously It was Police Senior Inspector Maria Ana Rivera-
on his motorcycle for a possible escape. PO3
possess and keep one (1) heat-sealed transparent Dagasdas, forensic chemical officer of the Negros
Faelogo was not able to finish his recital of the
plastic sachet containing 0.02 gram of white Oriental Provincial Crime Laboratory who received
constitutional rights of the [petitioner]. PO3 Faelogo
crystalline substance of Methamphetamine the seized one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic
had to wrestle with the [petitioner] who dropped the
Hydrochloride, commonly known as "shabu," a sachet with marking "SS-06-11-05" and conducted
sachet of shabu on the ground. While PO3 Faelogo
dangerous drug. a laboratory examination on the contents thereof.
and the [petitioner] were wrestling, PO3 Paquera
She re-marked the sachet as Specimen A which had
picked up the said sachet of shabu. After a few
a weight of 0.02 gram. Her qualitative examination
Contrary to Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165.3 minutes of struggle, they were able to subdue the
conducted on the specimen gave positive result to
[petitioner] and handcuff him. PO3 Faelogo
the tests for the presence of methamphetamine
Upon his arraignment, petitioner, with the continued to inform the [petitioner] of his
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug under RA 9165.
assistance of counsel, pleaded not guilty to the constitutional rights in the Cebuano dialect. The
Her conclusion was that Specimen A contained
crime charged. Consequently, trial on the merits [petitioner] was searched and found in his
methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug
ensued. possession was a disposable lighter. PO3 Paquera
under RA 9165. Her examination results were
gave the plastic sachet of shabu to PO3 Faelogo
embodied in a Chemistry Report No. D-103-05 and
who made markings on it with the initials "SS 06-11-
To establish its case, on the one hand, the a certification, which she signed and submitted.
05" with SS to mean the name of the [petitioner]
prosecution presented Police Senior Inspector Stephen Sy and the numbers, the date of the
Maria Ana Rivera-Dagasdas, Police Officer (PO) 3 incident. They then brought the [petitioner] with the In support of the case filed, PO3 Faelogo and PO3
Liberato Faelogo, PO3 Dario Paquera, Barangay seized items to the police station. They were not Paquera executed a joint affidavit of arrest, which
Kagawad Rogelio Talavera, PO2 Glenn M. able to conduct an inventory in the crime scene, as they identified in Court.4
Corsame, and Reysan Elloren. there was a commotion where some people tried to
rescue the [petitioner]. For their safety, they left the Evidence for the Defense
On the other hand, the defense presented the area.
petitioner as its sole witness.
The [petitioner] claimed that on June 11, 2005 at
At the police station, PO3 Paquera took a around 2 o’clock in the afternoon, he was in
Evidence for the Prosecution photograph of the [petitioner] and the seized items. Barangay Looc to book a masseur to massage him
PO3 Faelogo then conducted an inventory of the in the evening. As he was not able to find the person
PO3 Faelogo, a member of the PNP and assigned recovered sachet of shabu including the disposable to massage him, the [petitioner] started to go home.
as Intelligence Operative of the Dumaguete City lighter in the presence of DOJ Representative Pros. While he was about to board his motorcycle, one of
Police Station, testified that at about 2 o’clock in the Angelita Alcoran, Brgy. Kagawad Rogelio Talavera two (2) men, whom he had seen earlier from a
afternoon of June 11, 2005, while he was on duty, of Barangay Looc, the elected official distance, immediately handcuffed him in his left
representative, Reysan Elloren, the media wrist. The [petitioner] was not given a warning and

118
he was surprised why he was handcuffed especially years and (1) day, as minimum, term to fourteen iii
since he had not committed any crime. Fearing for (14) years, as maximum term, and to pay a fine of
his life, the [petitioner] resisted and told the person Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱300,000.00). The honorable court of appeals erred in holding
who handcuffed him, "What am I charged of?" The that the right of the petitioner against unlawful
[petitioner] was told to just keep quiet. The The seized one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic searches and seizures was not violated.
[petitioner] told the person to search him first before sachet containing 0.02 gram of white crystalline
he should handcuff him. The [petitioner] continued substance of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or iv
to resist the person and they wrestled with each shabu is hereby confiscated and forfeited in favor of
other. Noticing that this person had a gun tucked in the government and to be disposed of in
his waist, the [petitioner] did not resist anymore. The accordance with law. The honorable court of appeals erred in holding the
[petitioner] was frisked in his pockets, in his cap and conviction of the petitioner based on the transparent
other parts of his body, including his brief wherein plastic sachet considering that the same was the
SO ORDERED.7 "fruit of a poisonous tree" and could not be used for
the person inserted his hand inside. The pants of the
[petitioner] were also removed. The search was any purpose in any proceeding.
conducted in full view of many onlookers, but still Aggrieved, petitioner appealed the Decision before
nothing was found on the [petitioner]. One of the the CA, which was later docketed as CA-G.R. CR v
persons then picked up something, which the No. 00402.
[petitioner] could not see and was told that it was The honorable court of appeals erred in holding that
shabu and a lighter. The [petitioner] was then On October 24, 2007, the CA rendered a Decision because petitioner submitted to the jurisdiction of
brought to the Dumaguete City Police Station. The affirming in toto the decision of the RTC, the the lower court, that he also waived his right to
[petitioner] later learned at the police station the dispositive portion of which reads: object to the admission of the plastic sachet in
identity of the persons who arrested him, namely, evidence.9
Liberato Faelogo and Dario Paquera. At the police WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal
station, a photograph was taken of the [petitioner]. is hereby DISMISSED and the assailed decision of
The [petitioner] then requested that he be subjected Simply stated, petitioner contends that since he was
the lower court finding accused-appellant guilty not doing anything illegal at the time of his arrest that
to drug examination, but was not tested. The beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 11,
[petitioner] kept on requesting for drug examination would arouse the suspicion of the arresting officers,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 is hereby his subsequent arrest and the ensuing search upon
for a week but still he was not tested. The [petitioner] AFFIRMED in toto.
also claimed that while he was at the police station his person was illegal and, therefore, any alleged
and being investigated, he was kicked and punched illegal drugs recovered from him cannot be used in
by no less than the Chief of Police, one named SO ORDERED.8 trial against him, without the risk of violating his
Hidalgo. The [petitioner] tried to protest but was not constitutional right against unlawful searches and
able to do anything, as nobody was around to help Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but seizure.
him.5 was denied in the Resolution dated March 7, 2008.
Petitioner posits that the arresting officers lacked
On May 12, 2006, the RTC, after finding that the Hence, the petition raising the following errors: probable cause when they arrested him. He argues
prosecution has established all the elements of the that the act of flicking a clear plastic sachet in broad
offense charged, rendered a Decision6 convicting daylight cannot be perceived as an illegal act. Thus,
i
petitioner of violation of Section 11, Article II of RA he was not caught in flagrante delicto and the
No. 9165, the dispositive portion of which reads: resulting warrantless arrest made by the police
The honorable court of appeals erred in holding that officers was invalid. Moreover, the confiscated
the police officers enjoyed the presumption of sachet is not admissible in evidence against him
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby renders judgment regularity in the performance of their duty. being the fruit of the poisonous tree.
finding the accused Stephen Sy y Tibagong GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal
ii The petition is without merit.
possession of 0.02 gram of Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride or shabu in violation of Section 11,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and is hereby sentenced The honorable court of appeals erred in holding that It has been consistently ruled that an accused is
to suffer an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) petitioner’s warrantless arrest was valid. estopped from assailing any irregularity of his arrest

119
if he fails to raise this issue or to move for the while his case is pending, or has escaped strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man to
quashal of the information against him on this while being transferred from one believe that the person accused is guilty of the
ground before arraignment. Any objection involving confinement to another. offense with which he is charged.16
a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which the
court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the Corolarilly, the 1987 Constitution states that a In the case at bar, the established facts reveal that
accused must be made before he enters his plea; search and consequent seizure must be carried out on June 11, 2005, PO3 Faelogo, an Intelligence
otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.10 with a judicial warrant; otherwise, it becomes Operative of the Dumaguete City Police Station,
unreasonable and any evidence obtained therefrom received information from a concerned citizen that
In the case at bar, petitioner never objected to the shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any an illegal drug trade was going on at Zone 3,
irregularity of his arrest before his arraignment. proceeding.13 Said proscription, however, admits of Barangay Looc, Dumaguete City. Together with
Moreover, he actively participated in the exceptions, namely: PO3 Paquera, PO3 Faelogo immediately acted on
proceedings before the RTC. Thus, he is deemed to the information and went to the place. While
have waived any perceived defect in his arrest and 1. Warrantless search incidental to a traversing the pathway going to the interior portion
effectively submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the lawful arrest; of Zone 3, Barangay Looc, they saw petitioner, at a
court trying his case. At any rate, the illegal arrest of distance of two (2) meters, examining and flicking a
an accused is not sufficient cause for setting aside transparent plastic sachet containing shabu powder.
2. Search of evidence in "plain view;"
a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient The two then approached petitioner, introduced
complaint after a trial free from error. It will not even themselves as police officers, and announced the
negate the validity of the conviction of the 3. Search of a moving vehicle; he is being arrested for illegal possession of
accused.11 dangerous drugs. While being informed of his
4. Consented warrantless search; constitutional rights during the arrest, petitioner tried
As to the admissibility of the seized drug in to escape by boarding his motorcycle. While
evidence, it is necessary for us to ascertain whether 5. Customs search; wrestling with PO3 Faelogo, petitioner dropped the
or not the search which yielded the alleged sachet of shabu on the ground, which was picked up
contraband was lawful.12 by PO3 Paquera. The police officers eventually
6. Stop and Frisk; and were able to subdue and handcuff petitioner. Upon
searching his person, they also found in his
Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court provides: 7. Exigent and emergency possession a disposable lighter. The seized sachet
circumstances.14 was marked on location. They then brought
Sec 5. Arrest without warrant, when lawful - A petitioner, together with the items seized, to the
peace officer or a private person may, without a What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable police station and conducted a proper inventory
warrant, arrest a person: warrantless search or seizure is purely a judicial thereof. The heat-sealed transparent sachet
question, determinable from the uniqueness of the containing white crystalline substance was
(a) When, in his presence, the person to circumstances involved, including the purpose of submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory for drug
be arrested has committed, is actually the search or seizure, the presence or absence of examination, which later yielded positive results for
committing or is attempting to commit an probable cause, the manner in which the search and the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a
offense; seizure was made, the place or thing searched, and dangerous drug under RA No. 9165.
the character of the articles procured.15
(b) When an offense has just been From the foregoing, sufficient evidence supports
committed and he has probable cause to In searches incident to a lawful arrest, the arrest that the warrantless arrest of petitioner was effected
believe based on personal knowledge of must precede the search; generally, the process under Section 5 (a), or the arrest of a suspect
facts or circumstances that the person to cannot be reversed. Nevertheless, a search in flagrante delicto. The police officers witnessed
be arrested has committed it; and substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can petitioner flicking a transparent plastic sachet
precede the arrest if the police have probable cause containing white crystalline substance in plain view.
(c) When the person to be arrested is a to make the arrest at the outset of the search. Arousing their suspicion that the sachet
prisoner who has escaped from a penal Although probable cause eludes exact and concrete contains shabu, the arresting officers immediately
establishment or place where he is serving definition, it ordinarily signifies a reasonable ground approached petitioner, introduced themselves as
final judgment or is temporarily confined of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently police officers and effected the arrest. After

120
laboratory examination, the white crystalline surrendered, for proper disposition in the following apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and
substance placed inside the plastic sachet was manner: invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.
found positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride
or shabu, a regulated drug. (1) The apprehending team having initial x x x x.18
custody and control of the drugs shall,
Under these circumstances, petitioner was clearly immediately after seizure and confiscation, In the case at bar, the requirements of the law were
arrested in flagrante delicto as he was then physically inventory and photograph the substantially complied with and the integrity of the
committing a crime, violation of the Dangerous same in the presence of the accused or the drugs seized from petitioner were preserved and
Drugs Act, within the view of the police officers. At person/s from whom such items were safeguarded. From the time of petitioner’s arrest,
the time of his arrest, the police officers were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her the seized item was properly marked and
actively performing their duties, since they were representative or counsel, a representative photographed. Proper inventory was also made in
following up a tip that there was an illegal drug trade from the media and the Department of the presence of the representatives from the media,
being conducted in the area. This fact, coupled with Justice (DOJ), and any elected public the Department of Justice, the PDEA, and an
the overt acts of petitioner, formed sufficient basis official who shall be required to sign the elected public official, who all signed the receipt of
on the part of the police officers to believe that a copies of the inventory and be given a copy the property seized. The evidence was sent to the
crime was actually being committed. Thus, thereof; Negros Oriental Provincial Crime Laboratory for
petitioner’s case falls within the exception to the rule laboratory examination, which later tested positive
requiring a warrant before effecting an arrest. (2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon for methamphetamine hydrochloride with a weight
Consequently, the results of the ensuing search and confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, of 0.02 gram. An unbroken chain of custody of the
seizure were admissible in evidence to prove plant sources of dangerous drugs, seized drug had been evidently established by the
petitioner’s guilt of the offense charged. controlled precursors and essential prosecution.
chemicals, as well as
It is a settled rule that in cases involving violations instruments/paraphernalia and/or For conviction of illegal possession of a prohibited
of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, laboratory equipment, the same shall be drug to lie, the following elements must be
credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory established: (1) the accused was in possession of
police officers for they are presumed to have for a qualitative and quantitative an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or
performed their duties in a regular manner.17 examination; regulated drug; (2) such possession is not
authorized by law; and (3) the accused was freely
In addition, buttressing the presumption of regularity x x x x. and consciously aware of being in possession of the
in the performance of their duties, the arresting drug.19 Based on the evidence submitted by the
officers substantially complied with the rules on the Corolarilly, the implementing provision of Section 21 prosecution, the above elements were duly
custody and disposition of evidence recovered from (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and established in the present case. Mere possession of
petitioner. Section 21, paragraphs 1 and 2, Article II Regulations (IRR) of RA No. 9165, provides: a regulated drug per se constitutes prima facie
of RA No. 9165 provides: evidence of knowledge or animus
possidendi sufficient to convict an accused absent a
(a) The apprehending team having initial custody
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, satisfactory explanation of such possession -
and control of the drugs shall, immediately after
Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, the onus probandi is shifted to the accused, to
seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and
Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled explain the absence of knowledge or animus
photograph the same in the presence of the possidendi.20
Precursors and Essential Chemicals, accused or the person/s from whom such items
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
Equipment. - The PDEA [Philippine Drug representative or counsel, a representative from the The Court accords the highest degree of respect to
Enforcement Agency] shall take charge and have media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the findings of the lower court as to petitioner’s guilt
custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of any elected public official who shall be required to of the offense charged against him, particularly
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy where such findings are adequately supported by
essential chemicals, as well as thereof: Provided, further, that non-compliance with documentary as well as testimonial evidence. The
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory these requirements under justifiable grounds, as same respect holds too as regards the lower court’s
equipment so confiscated, seized and/or long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the evaluation of the credibility of the prosecution
seized items are properly preserved by the witnesses. It is a settled policy of this Court, founded

121
on reason and experience, to sustain the findings of Section 11, Article II, of RA No. 9165, otherwise gram of shabu, or less than five (5) grams of the
fact of the trial court in criminal cases, on the rational known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act dangerous drug, without any legal authority.
assumption that it is in a better position to assess of 2002, provides:
the evidence before it, having had the opportunity to Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
make an honest determination of the witnesses’ Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. – The minimum period of the imposable penalty shall not
deportment during the trial.21 penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine fall below the minimum period set by the law; the
ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos maximum period shall not exceed the maximum
Furthermore, the well-entrenched rule is that the (₱500,000.00) to Ten million pesos period allowed under the law. Taking the foregoing
findings of facts of the trial court, as affirmed by the (₱10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any into consideration, the penalty meted out by the
appellate court, are conclusive on this Court, absent person who, unless authorized by law, shall RTC, as affirmed by the CA, was within the range
any evidence that both courts ignored, possess any dangerous drug in the following provided by RA No. 9165. The appropriate penalty
misconstrued, or misinterpreted cogent facts and quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof: was, therefore, imposed by the lower court.
circumstances of substance which, if considered,
would warrant a modification or reversal of the x x x x. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal
outcome of the case.22 In the present case, after a is DENIED. The Decision dated October 24, 2007
careful evaluation of the records, we find that no and the Resolution dated March 7, 2008, of the
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the
oversight was committed by the RTC and the CA to Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 00402
foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be
disregard their factual findings that petitioner
graduated as follows: are AFFIRMED.
committed the crime charged against him.1avvphi1

x x x x. G.R. No. L-25434 July 25, 1975

In contrast to the overwhelming evidence of the
prosecution, petitioner merely raised the defense of
alibi. The defense of denial and frame-up has been (3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) HONORABLE ARSENIO N. ROLDAN, JR., in his
invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor, for it day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from capacity as Acting Commissioner, Philippine
can easily be concocted and is a common and Three hundred thousand pesos (₱300,000.00) to Fisheries Commission, and THE PHILIPPINE
standard defense ploy in prosecutions for violation Four hundred thousand pesos (₱400,000.00), if the NAVY, petitioners,
of the Dangerous Drugs Act. In order to prosper, the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) vs.
defense of denial and frame-up must be proved with grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or HONORABLE FRANCISCO ARCA, as Presiding
strong and convincing evidence.23 cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila
resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or (Branch 1) and MORABE, DE GUZMAN &
"shabu," or other dangerous drugs such as, but not COMPANY, respondents.
To stress, in cases involving violations of the
limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy," PMA, TMA, LSD,
Dangerous Drugs Act, credence should be given to
GHB, and those similarly designed or newly Office of the Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz and
the narration of the incident by the prosecution
introduced drugs and their derivatives, without Solicitor Augusto M. Amores for petitioners.
witnesses, especially when they are police officers
having any therapeutic value or if the quantity
who are presumed to have performed their duties in
possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements;
a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the J. C. Yuseco and A.R. Narvasa for private
or less than three hundred (300) grams of
contrary. Moreover, in the absence of proof of respondent.
marijuana.25
motive to falsely impute such a serious crime
against the appellant, the presumption of regularity
From the foregoing, illegal possession of less than MAKASIAR, J.:
in the performance of official duty, as well as the
findings of the trial court on the credibility of five (5) grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride
witnesses, shall prevail over petitioner’s self-serving or shabu is penalized with imprisonment of twelve A petition for certiorari and prohibition with
and uncorroborated denial.24 1avvphil (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years preliminary injunction to restrain respondent Judge
and a fine ranging from Three Hundred Thousand from enforcing his order dated October 18, 1965,
Pesos (₱300,000.00) to Four Hundred Thousand and the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction
As to the propriety of the penalty imposed upon
Pesos (₱400,000.00). The evidence adduced by thereunder issued.
petitioner, We find that the RTC imposed the
appropriate penalty. the prosecution established beyond reasonable
doubt that petitioner had in his possession 0.02

122
On April 3, 1964, respondent company filed with the criminal charges against the crew members of the of said cases; (3) that as petitioners herein were in
Court of First Instance of Manila a civil case fishing vessels. possession of one of the vessels in point, they
docketed as No. 56701 against petitioner Fisheries cannot now be deprived of the legal custody thereof
Commissioner Arsenio N. Roldan, Jr., for the On September 30, 1965, there were filed in the court by reason of the dismissal of Civil Case No. 56701;
recovery of fishing vessel Tony Lex VI (one of two of First Instance of Palawan a couple of (4) that petitioner Fisheries Commissioner has the
fishing boats in question) which had been seized informations, one against the crew members of power to seize and detain the vessels pursuant to
and impounded by petitioner Fisheries Tony Lex III, and another against the crew members Section 5 of Republic Act No. 3215 in relation to
Commissioner through the Philippine Navy. of Tony Lex VI — both for violations of Act No. 4003, Sections 903 and 2210 of the Revised Tariff and
as amended by Commonwealth Acts Nos. 462, 659 Customs Code; (5) that respondents herein have
On April 10, 1964, respondent company prayed for and 1088, i.e., for illegal fishing with the use of not exhausted administrative remedies before
a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction with dynamite. On the same day, the Fiscal filed an ex coming to court; (6) that the compromise agreement
respondent court, but said prayer was, however, parte motion to hold the boats in custody as approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and
denied. instruments and therefore evidence of the crime (p. Natural Resources and indorsed to the Fisheries
54, rec.), and cabled the Fisheries Commissioner to Commissioner is never a bar to the prosecution of
detain the vessels (p. 56, rec.). the crime perpetrated by the crew members of the
On April 28, 1964, the Court of First Instance of vessels belonging to respondent company.
Manila set aside its order of April 10, 1964 and
granted respondent company's motion for On October 2 and 4, likewise, the Court of First
reconsideration praying for preliminary mandatory Instance of Palawan ordered the Philippine Navy to And again, on October 15, 1965, herein petitioners
injunction. Thus, respondent company took take the boats in custody. filed their memorandum praying for the denial of the
Possession of the vessel Tony Lex VI from herein application for preliminary mandatory injunction. On
petitioners by virtue of the abovesaid writ. the same day, October 15, 1965, herein petitioners
On October 2, 1965, respondent company filed a filed an urgent motion to submit additional
complaint with application for preliminary mandatory documentary evidence.
On December 10, 1964, the Court of First Instance injunction, docketed as Civil Case No. 62799 with
of Manila dismissed Civil Case No. 56701 for failure the Court of First Instance of Manila against herein
of therein petitioner (respondent company herein) to petitioners. Among others, it was alleged that at the On October 18, 1965, herein petitioners, as
prosecute as well as for failure of therein defendants time of the seizure of the fishing boats in issue, the defendants in said Civil Case No. 62799, filed their
(petitioners herein)to appear on the scheduled date same were engaged in legitimate fishing operations answer to the complaint with affirmative defenses,
of hearing. The vessel, Tony Lex VI or Srta. Winnie off the coast of Palawan; that by virtue of the offer of reiterating the grounds in their opposition to the
however, remained in the possession of respondent compromise dated September 13, 1965 by issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory
company. respondent company to the Secretary of Agriculture injunction and adding that herein private respondent
and Natural Resources, the numerous violations of admitted committing the last violation when it
the Fishery Laws, if any, by the crew members of offered in its letter dated September 21, 1965 to the
On July 20, 1965, petitioner Fisheries Acting Commissioner of Fisheries, to compromise
Commissioner requested the Philippine Navy to the vessels were settled.
said last violation (Exh. 12, pp. 60-61, rec.).
apprehend vessels Tony Lex VI and Tony Lex III,
also respectively called Srta. Winnie and Srta. On October 9, 1965, petitioners, represented by the
Agnes, for alleged violations of some provisions of Solicitor General, opposed the above-mentioned On said day, October 18, 1965, the respondent
the Fisheries Act and the rules and regulations complaint, alleging among others, that: (1) the Judge issued the challenged order granting the
promulgated thereunder. issuance of the writ would disrupt the status quo of issuance of the writ of preliminary mandatory
the parties and would render nugatory any decision injunction and issued the preliminary writ upon the
of the respondent court favorable to the defendant; filing by private respondent of a bond of P5,000.00
On August 5 or 6, 1965, the two fishing boats were for the release of the two vessels(pp. 95-102, rec.).
actually seized for illegal fishing with dynamite. Fish (2) that the vessels, being instruments of a crime in
caught with dynamite and sticks of dynamite were criminal cases Nos. 3416 and 3417 filed with the
then found aboard the two vessels. Court of First Instance of Palawan, the release of On October 19, 1965, herein petitioners filed a
the vessels sans the corresponding order from the motion for reconsideration of the order issuing the
above-mentioned court would deprive the same of preliminary writ on October 18, 1965 on the ground,
On August 18, 1965, the Fisheries Commissioner
its authority to dispose of the vessels in the criminal among others, that on October 18, 1965 the
requested the Palawan Provincial Fiscal to file
cases and the Provincial Fiscal would not be able to Philippine Navy received from the Palawan Court of
utilize said vessels as evidence in the prosecution First Instance two orders dated October 2 and 4,

123
1965 requiring the Philippine Navy to hold the expressly direct the Philippine Navy "to hold in It is immaterial that the vessels were then in the
fishing boats in custody and directing that the said custody" the two vessels and that "same should not Philippine Navy basin in Manila; for the same in no
vessels should not be released until further orders be released without prior order or authority from this way impugns the jurisdiction already vested in the
from the Court, and that the bond of P5,000.00 is Court" (pp. 108, 109, rec.). Only the Palawan court Palawan court, which has custody thereof through
grossly insufficient to cover the Government's can order the release of the two vessels. Not even the Philippine Navy. This is analogous to the
losses in case the two vessels, which are worth the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources situation in Colmenares versus Villar (L-27124, May
P495,000.00, are placed beyond the reach of the nor the Fisheries Commissioner can direct that the 29, 1970, 33 SCRA 186, 188-9), wherein We ruled
Government, thus frustrating their forfeiture as fishing boats be turned over to private respondent "where the illegal possession of firearms was
instruments of the crime (pp. 103-109, without risking contempt of court. committed in the town where the Court sits, the fact
rec.).1äwphï1.ñët that the firearms were confiscated from the accused
The grave abuse of discretion committed by the in another town does not affect the jurisdiction of the
On November 23, 1965, respondent Judge denied respondent Judge was heightened by the fact that Court" (pp. 186, 189).
the said motion for reconsideration (p. 110, rec.). he did not reconsider his order of October 18, 1965
after he was informed by petitioners in their motion It is likewise of no moment that the herein
WE rule that the respondent Judge of the Manila for reconsideration filed on October 19, 1965 that respondents were not notified by the herein
Court of First Instance acted without jurisdiction and the Palawan Court of First Instance had already petitioners of the seizure of the questioned vessels
with grave abuse of discretion when he issued on issued the two orders dated October 2 and 4, 1965 by the Philippine Navy, because such previous
October 18, 1965 the order directing the issuance of directing the Philippine Navy to hold in custody the notice is not required by law.
a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction and when fishing boats until further orders.
he refused to reconsider the same. II
It is basic that one court cannot interfere with the
I judgments, orders or decrees of another court of The dismissal on December 10, 1964 of the first
concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction having equal Civil Case No. 56701 by the Court of First Instance
power to grant the relief sought by injunction; of Manila had the necessary effect of automatically
When the respondent Judge issued the challenged
because if coordinate courts were allowed to dissolving the writ of preliminary mandatory
order on October 18, 1965 and the writ of
interfere with each other's judgments, decrees or injunction issued therein on April 28, 1964, directing
preliminary mandatory injunction pursuant thereto,
injunctions, the same would obviously lead to the return of fishing vessel Tony Lex VI (pp. 156-
the fishing vessels were already under the
confusion and might seriously hinder the 157, rec.). Such a preliminary writ, like any other
jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of Palawan
administration of justice (Ongsinco, etc. vs. Tan, et interlocutory order, cannot survive the main case of
by virtue of its orders of October 2 and 4, 1965, upon
al., 97 Phil. 330; PNB vs. Javellana, 92 Phil. 525; which it was but an incident; because "an ancillary
motion of the Provincial Fiscal (pp. 54, 55, rec.), Montesa vs. Manila Cordage Company, 92 Phil. 25;
directing the Philippine Navy to detain (pp. 108, 109, writ of preliminary injunction loses its force and
Hubahib vs. Insular Drug Company, 64 Phil. 119; effect after the dismissal of the main petition"
rec.) said vessels, which are subject to forfeiture as Hacbang, et al. vs. The Leyte Auto Bus Company,
instruments of the crime, to be utilized as evidence (National Sugar Workers' Union, etc., vs. La Carlota
et al., G.R. No. L-17907, May 30, 1963, 8 SCRA, Sugar Central, et al., L-23569, May 25, 1972, 45
in Criminal Cases Nos. 3416 and 3417 for illegal 103, 107-109; NPC vs. Hon. Jesus de Vera, G.R.
fishing pending in said court (pp. 54-55, rec.). The SCRA 104, 109; Lazaro vs. Mariano, 59 Phil. 6Z7,
No. L-15763, Dec. 22, 1961, 3 SCRA, 646, 648; 631; Saavedra vs. Ibañez, 56 Phil. 33, 37; Hi Caiji
said vessels were seized while engaging in Cabigao vs. del Rosario, 44 Phil. 182; Araneta & Uy
prohibited fishing within the territorial waters of vs. Phil. Sugar Estate and Development Company,
vs. Commonwealth Insurance Company, 55 OG 50 Phil. 592, 594).1äwphï1.ñët
Palawan (pp. 45, 48,-53, rec.) and hence within the
431; Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol.
jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of Palawan, III, 1970 ed., p. 64).
in obedience to the rule that "the place where a Moreover, the writ of preliminary injunction issued
criminal offense was committed not only determines on April 28, 1964 in Civil Case No. 56701 was
the venue of the action but is an essential element As early as October 2 and 4, 1965, the two boats directed against the detention of the vessel Tony
of jurisdiction"(Lopez vs. Paras, L-25795, Oct. 29, were already in custodia legis under the sole control Lex VI for violations committed prior to August 5,
1966, 18 SCRA 616, 619). The jurisdiction over the of the Palawan Court of First Instance. The Manila 1965, and therefore cannot and does not extend to
vessels acquired by the Palawan Court of First Court of First Instance cannot interfere with and the seizure and detention of said vessel for
Instance cannot be interfered with by another Court change that possession (Hacbang vs. Leyte Bus violations on August 5 or 6, 1965, which violations
of First Instance. The orders of October 2 and 4, Co., Inc., supra; NPC vs. Hon. Jesus de were not and could not possibly be the subject-
1965 by the Palawan Court of First Instance Vera, supra).

124
matter of said Civil Case No. 56701 which was filed The second paragraph of Section 12 also provides authority under the provisions of the Code, to search
on April 3, 1964 (p. 12, rec.). that "the possession and/or finding, of dynamite, and seize any vessel or air craft as well as any trunk,
blasting caps and other explosives in any fishing package, bag or envelope on board and to search
III boat shall constitute a presumption that the said any person on board for any breach or violation of
dynamite and/or blasting caps and explosives are the customs and tariff laws.
being used for fishing purposes in violation of this
Herein petitioners can validly direct and/or effect the
Section, and that the possession or discovery in any When the Philippine Navy, upon request of the
seizure of the vessels of private respondent for
fishing boat or fish caught or killed by the use of Fisheries Commissioner, apprehended on August 5
illegal fishing by the use of dynamite and without the dynamite or other explosives, under expert
requisite licenses. or 6, 1965 the fishing boats Tony Lex III and Tony
testimony, shall constitute a presumption that the Lex VI, otherwise known respectively as Srta.
owner, if present in the fishing boat, or the fishing Agnes and Srta. Winnie, these vessels were found
Section 4 of Republic Act No. 3512 approved on crew have been fishing with dynamite or other to be without the necessary license in violation of
March 20, 1963 empowers the Fisheries explosives." (Emphasis supplied). Section 903 of the Tariff and Customs Code and
Commissioner to carry out the provisions of the
therefore subject to seizure under Section 2210 of
Fisheries Act, as amended, and all rules and
Under Section 78 of the Fisheries Act, as amended, the same Code, and illegally fishing with explosives
regulations promulgated thereunder, to make
any person, association or corporation fishing in and without fishing license required by Sections 17
searches and seizures personally or through his
deep sea fishery without the corresponding and 18 of the Fisheries Law (pp. 46-47,
duly authorized representatives in accordance with rec.).1äwphï1.ñët
license prescribed in Sections 17 to 22 Article V of
the Rules of Court, of "explosives such as
the Fisheries Act or any other order or regulation
... dynamites and the like ...; including fishery deriving force from its provisions, "shall be punished
products, fishing equipment, tackle and other things The operation of the fishing boat Tony Lex III was
for each offense by a fine of not more than suspended pursuant to the order dated January 28,
that are subject to seizure under existing fishery P5,000.00, or imprisonment, for not more than one
laws"; and "to effectively implement the 1964 issued by the Commissioner of Fisheries
year, or both, in the discretion of the pending the final determination of the case against
enforcement of existing fishery laws on illegal Court; Provided, That in case of an association or
fishing." it for illegal fishing with explosives on January 21,
corporation, the President or manager shall be 1964 (p. 34, rec.) and remained suspended until its
directly responsible for the acts of his employees or apprehension on August 5 or 6, 1965 (p. 46, rec.).
Paragraph 5 of Section 4 of the same Republic Act laborers if it is proven that the latter acted with his
3512 likewise transferred to and vested in the knowledge; otherwise the responsibility shall extend
Philippine Fisheries Commission "all the powers, For illegal fishing with explosives on March 23,
only as far as fine is concerned: Provided, further,
functions and duties heretofore exercised by the 1963, the renewal of the fishing boat license of Tony
That in the absence of a known owner of the vessel,
Bureau of Customs, Philippine Navy and Philippine Lex VI was suspended for one year from the time
the master, patron or person in charge of such
Constabulary over fishing vessels and fishery said boat was moored at Pier 14 at North Harbor,
vessel shall be responsible for any violation of this
matters ..." Manila, without prejudice to the institution of a
Act: and Provided, finally, That in case of a second
criminal case against its owner and/or operator,
offense, the vessel together with its tackle, apparel,
pursuant to the order dated May 19, 1964 issued by
Section 12 of the Fisheries Act, otherwise known as furniture and stores shall be forfeited to the
Government" (Emphasis supplied). the Commissioner of Fisheries (pp. 35-36, rec.), the
Republic Act No. 4003, as amended, prohibits
motion for reconsideration of which order was
fishing with dynamites or other explosives which is
denied by the Commissioner of Fisheries in an order
penalized by Section 76 thereof "by a fine of not less Under Section 13 of Executive Order No. 389 of dated August 17, 1964 (pp. 41-42, rec.).
than P1,500.00 nor more than P5,000.00, and by December 23, 1950, reorganizing the Armed Forces
imprisonment for not less than one (1) year and six of the Philippines, the Philippine Navy has the
(6) months nor more than five (5) years, aside from For illegal fishing with dynamite on March 28, 1963,
function, among others, "to assist the proper
the confiscation and forfeiture of all explosives, the operation of Tony Lex VI was suspended by the
governmental agencies in the enforcement of laws
boats, tackles, apparel, furniture, and other Commissioner of Fisheries in an order dated April 1,
and regulations pertaining to ... fishing ..." (46 OG
apparatus used in fishing in violation of said Section 1963 (p. 62, rec.).
5905, 5911).
12 of this Act." Section 78 of the same Fisheries Law
provides that "in case of a second offense, the Section 2210 of the Tariff and Customs Code, as For illegal fishing again with explosives on April 25,
vessel, together with its tackle, apparel, furniture amended by PD No. 34 of October 27, 1972, 1963, the fishing boat Tony Lex VI together with its
and stores shall be forfeited to the Government." tackle, apparel, furniture and all other apparatus
authorized any official or person exercising police
used in fishing was ordered confiscated and

125
forfeited in favor of the Government and a fine in the Search and seizure without search warrant of The alleged compromise approved by the Secretary
amount of P5,000.00 was imposed on its owners- vessels and air crafts for violations of the customs of Agriculture and Natural Resources on September
operators, without prejudice to the filing of the laws have been the traditional exception to the 13, 1965 (pp. 63-64, 158-159, rec.) cannot be
necessary criminal action, pursuant to the order of constitutional requirement of a search warrant, invoked by the respondents because the said
June 2, 1964 of the Commissioner of Fisheries(pp. because the vessel can be quickly moved out of the compromise referred to about thirty violations of the
37-38, rec.). locality or jurisdiction in which the search warrant fisheries law committed by the private respondent
must be sought before such warrant could be from March 28, 1963 to March 11, 1964. The
Again, for comitting the same violation on June 19, secured; hence it is not practicable to require a violations by the two vessels of private respondent
1963, a fine in the amount of P5,000.00 was search warrant before such search or seizure can by reason of which these vessels were
imposed on the owners-operators of fishing boat be constitutionally effected (Papa vs. Mago, L- apprehended and detained by the Philippine Navy
Tony Lex VI pursuant to the order of June 4, 1964 27360, Feb. 28, 1968, 22 SCRA 857, 871-74; upon request of the Commissioner of Fisheries,
issued by the Commissioner of Fisheries (pp. 39-40, Magoncia vs. Palacio, 80 Phil. 770, 774; Caroll vs. were committed on August 5 or 6, 1965.
rec.).. U.S. 267, pp. 132, 149, 158; Justice Fernando, The
Bill of Rights, 1972 ed., p. 225; Gonzales, Philippine Moreover, the power to compromise would exist
Constitutional Law, 1966 ed., p. 300). only before a criminal prosecution is instituted;
It appears, therefore, that since January 28, 1964,
the fishing boat Tony Lex III was suspended from otherwise the Department Secretary or any of his
operating and was ordered moored at Pier 14, North The same exception should apply to seizures of sub-alterns can render criminal prosecutions for
Harbor, Manila (pp. 34, 46-47, rec.); and that the fishing vessels breaching our fishery laws. They are violations of the fisheries law a mere mockery. It is
fishing vessel Tony Lex VI was suspended for one usually equipped with powerful motors that enable not in the public interest nor is it good policy to
year from May 24, 1964 and was actually ordered them to elude pursuing ships of the Philippine Navy sustain the viewpoint that the Department Secretary
forfeited to the Government pursuant to the order of or Coast Guard. can compromise criminal cases involving public, not
June 2, 1964 for repeated violations of Section 12 of private, offenses after the indictment had been
the Fisheries Act (pp. 37- 38. rec.).1äwphï1.ñët As Another exception to the constitutional requirement instituted in court. The fishing vessels together with
a matter of fact, when apprehended on August 5 or of a search warrant for a valid search and seizure, all their equipment and the dynamites found therein
6, 1965, both vessels were found to be without any is a search or seizure as an incident to a lawful are not only evidence of the crime of illegal fishing
license or permit for coastwise trade or for fishing arrest (Alvero vs. Dizon, 76 Phil. 637; Justice but also subject to forfeiture in favor of the
and unlawfully fishing with explosives, for which Fernando, The Bill of Rights, 1972 ed., p. 224). Government as instruments of the crime (Art. 45,
reason their owners and crew were accordingly Under our Rules of Court, a police officer or a private Revised Penal Code, Sec. 78, Act No. 4003, as
indicted by the Provincial Fiscal of Palawan for individual may, without a warrant, arrest a person amended). Section 80(j) of Act No. 4003, as
illegal fishing with dynamite and without the (a) who has committed, is actually committing or is amended, precludes such a compromise the
requisite license (pp. 48-53, rec.). about to commit an offense in his presence; (b) who moment the Fisheries Commissioner decides to
is reasonably believed to have committed an prosecute the criminal action in accordance with
offense which has been actually committed; or (c) Sections 76 and 78 of the other penal provisions of
As heretofore intimated, the two fishing boats were
who is a prisoner who has escaped from the fisheries law. Furthermore, any compromise
apprehended on numerous occasions for fishing
confinement while serving a final judgment or from shall be upon the recommendation of the Fisheries
with dynamite from March 28, 1963 to March 11,
temporary detention during the pendency of his Commission (Section 80[i], Act No. 4003), which did
1964, which violations private respondent, as
case or while being transferred from one not recommend such a compromise for the violation
owner-operator, sought to compromise by offering
confinement to another (Sec. 6, Rule 113, Revised on August 5 or 6, 1965 of Section 12 in relation to
to pay a fine of P21,000.00 for all said prior
Rules of Court). In the case at bar, the members of Sections 76 and 78 of Act No. 4003, as amended.
violations.
the crew of the two vessels were On the contrary, the Fisheries Commissioner
caught in flagrante illegally fishing with dynamite requested the Provincial Fiscal to institute the
Such previous violations of Sections 12, 17 and 18 criminal cases (pp. 43-45, rec.) and the Provincial
and without the requisite license. Thus their
of the Fisheries Act committed by the two fishing Fiscal filed the corresponding informations docketed
apprehension without a warrant of arrest while
boats, Tony Lex III and Tony Lex VI, from March 28, as Criminal Cases Nos. 3416 and 3417 on
committing a crime is lawful. Consequently, the
1963 until August 5 or 6, 1965, rendered the said September 30, 1965 against the owners and the
seizure of the vessel, its equipment and dynamites
vessels subject to forfeiture under Sections 76 and members of the crew of the vessels (pp. 48-53,
therein was equally valid as an incident to a lawful
78 of the Fisheries Act, as amended. rec.).
arrest.

126
It should be noted that in the first indorsement dated on water" (Cope versus Vallete, etc., 199 U.S. 625; seizures admits of certain exceptions. Aside from a
September 13, 1965 of the Secretary of Agriculture U.S. vs. Holmes, 104 Fed. 884; Charles Barnes Co. search incident to a lawful arrest, a warrantless
and Natural Resources approving the compromise vs. One Dredge Boat, 169 Fed. 895; and Yu Con vs. search had been upheld in cases of a moving
fine of P21,000.00 for the various violations Ipil, 41 Phil. 780). vehicle, and the seizure of evidence in plain view.
committed previous to August 5 or 6, 1965 (pp. 34- With regard to the search of moving vehicles, this
42, 47, 58-64, 149-155, 158-159, rec.), the The word boat in its ordinary sense, means any had been justified on the ground that the mobility of
Department Secretary "believes that the offer made water craft (Monongahela River Construction, etc. motor vehicles makes it possible for the vehicle to
by the company was an implied admission of vs. Hardsaw, 77 NE 363, 365). The fishing boats be searched to move out of the locality or jurisdiction
violations of said provisions of the Fisheries Law Tony Lex III and Tony Lex VI are likewise vessels in which the warrant must be sought.
and regulations, ..." (pp. 63, 158, rec.). The said within the meaning of the term vessel used in
approval was granted after the private respondent Sections 903 and 2210 of the Tariff and Customs 3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; REQUISITE. — This in no
filed a motion for reconsideration of the indorsement Code. way, however, gives the police officers unlimited
dated March 5, 1965 of the Secretary of Agriculture discretion to conduct warrantless searches of
and Natural Resources disapproving the offer by automobiles in the absence of probable cause.
private respondent to pay the fine by way of WHEREFORE, THE PETITION IS HEREBY When a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an
compromise. GRANTED AND THE ORDER OF RESPONDENT
extensive search, such a warrantless search has
JUDGE DATED OCTOBER 18, 1965, THE WRIT
been held to be valid only as long as the officers
OF PRELIMINARY MANDATORY INJUNCTION
There can be no dispute that the term fishing conducting the search have reasonable or probable
ISSUED THEREUNDER AND THE ORDER
boat (employed in the second paragraph of Section cause to believe before the search that they will find
DATED NOVEMBER 23, 1965, ARE HEREBY SET
12 of the Fisheries Act applies to the vessels Tony the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime,
ASIDE AS NULL AND VOID, WITH COSTS
Lex III and Tony Lex VI. Even private respondent in the vehicle to be searched.
AGAINST PRIVATE RESPONDENT.
refers to said fishing boats as fishing vessels
"engaged in fishing operations" or "in commercial 4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; APPLICATION IN CASE
fishing" in paragraph IV of its complaint in Civil Case [G.R. No. 86218. September 18, 1992.] AT BAR. — The NARCOM officers in the case at bar
No. 62799 (p. 18, rec.), as well as in its various had probable cause to stop and search all vehicles
communications to the Fisheries Commissioner (pp. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff- coming from the north at Acop, Tublay, Benguet in
60-61, 65, 82, rec.).1äwphï1.ñët The two fishing Appellee, v. ELSIE BAGISTA y view of the confidential information they received
vessels Tony Lex III and Tony Lex VI likewise fall BANGCO, Accused-Appellant. from their regular informant that a woman having the
under the term vessel used in Sections 17, 76 and same appearance as that of accused-appellant
78, as well as the term boats utilized in the second SYLLABUS would be bringing marijuana from up north. They
paragraph of Section 76 of the Fisheries Act. They likewise have probable cause to search accused-
can also fall under the term fishing 1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; appellant’s belongings since she fits the description
equipment employed in Section 4 of Republic Act RIGHT AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCH given by the NARCOM informant. Since there was
No. 3512; because a fishing equipment is never AND SEIZURE; RULE. — The general rule a valid warrantless search by the NARCOM agents,
complete and cannot be effectively used in off-shore regarding searches and seizures can be stated in any evidence obtained during the course of said
or deep-sea fishing without the fishing boat or this manner: no person shall be subjected to a search is admissible against Accused-Appellant.
fishing vessel itself. And these two vessels of private search of his person, personal effects or belongings,
respondent certainly come under the termfishing or his residence except by virtue of a search warrant 5. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY OF
vessels employed in paragraph 5 of Section 4 of the or on the occasion of a lawful arrest. The basis for WITNESS; FINDINGS OF TRIAL JUDGE; RULE
same Republic Act 3512 creating the Fisheries the rule can be found in Article III, Section 2 of the AND EXCEPTION; CASE AT BAR. — The
Commission. 1987 Constitution. Art. III, Section 3 (2) further prosecution had shown, primarily through the
ordains that any evidence obtained in violation of positive testimony of Sgt. Parajas, that the bag
the aforementioned right shall, among others, "be containing the dried marijuana leaves was taken
Hence, no useful purpose can be served in trying to from accused-appellant’s possession. She denies
inadmissible for any purpose in any
distinguish between boat and vessel with reference this fact and contends that the bag in question was
proceeding."cralaw virtua1aw library
to Tony Lex III and Tony Lex VI. As a matter of fact,
actually taken from the luggage carrier above the
the accepted definition of vessel includes "every
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; SEARCH OF A MOVING passenger seats and not from her. Indisputably, We
description of water craft, large or small, used or
VEHICLE, AN EXCEPTION. — The constitutional have two opposing versions of what actually
capable of being used as a means of transportation
proscription against warrantless searches and happened at the checkpoint in Km. 16, Acop,

127
Tublay, Benguet, resulting in the accused- woman suspected of carrying marijuana. Moreover, from the north to check if any of these vehicles were
appellant’s apprehension, that of the prosecution the accused was not at all acting suspiciously when carrying marijuana leaves on board. 2
and that of the defense. In situations like this, the the NARCOM agents searched her bag, where they
matter of assigning values to the testimony of allegedly found the marijuana. From the After about 4 1/2 hours, the NARCOM agents
witnesses is best performed by the trial courts circumstances of the case at bar, it would seem that stopped a Dangwa Tranco bus with Plate No. AVD
because, unlike appellate courts, they can weigh the NARCOM agents were only fishing for evidence 938 and body number 428, which came from
such testimony in the light of the demeanor, conduct when they searched the baggages of all the Lepanto, Benguet. Sgts. Parajas and Fider boarded
and attitude of the witnesses at the trial. The passengers, including that of the accused. They had the bus and thereupon Sgt. Parajas announced to
exception is when the trial court has overlooked no probable cause to reasonably believe that the the passengers that they were NARCOM agents
certain facts of substance and value that, if accused was the woman carrying marijuana alluded and that they were going to search their baggages.
considered, might affect the result, which We do not to in the information they allegedly received. Thus, Sgt. Parajas then proceeded to the rear of the bus
find in the instant case. the warrantless search made on the personal while Sgt. Fider began inspecting the bags in the
effects of herein accused on the basis of mere front. 3
6. ID.; ID.; ID.; NOT AFFECTED BY MINOR information, without more, is to my mind bereft of
DISCREPANCIES; CASE AT BAR. — As to the probable cause and therefore, null and void. It While at the back, Sgt. Parajas noticed a woman
alleged discrepancies in the prosecution’s case, follows that the marijuana seized in the course of with curly hair seated at the right side (as one is
such as the color of the stripes of the bag which such warrantless search was inadmissible in facing the driver) of the last seat of the bus, with a
contained the marijuana and whether the items evidence. travelling bag with black and orange stripes 4 on her
seized from accused-appellant were marijuana lap. Sgt. Parajas inspected the bag and discovered
leaves or marijuana fruit tops, these are minor in three (3) bundles of marijuana leaves covered by
character and do not detract from the prosecution’s DECISION assorted clothing. The bag and the contents thereof
case since it was shown by the Receipt of Property NOCON, J.: were confiscated and the woman arrested; she was
Seized, which was signed by accused-appellant, later brought to the NARCOM office in Baguio City
that these were the very items taken from her at the where she was booked and investigated. The
time of her arrest. Appeal by accused-appellant Elsie Bagista from the woman was then identified as Accused-Appellant. 5
decision dated September 26, 1988 of the Regional The confiscated bundles were subjected to
PADILLA, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw Trial Court of La Trinidad, Benguet, Branch 10, laboratory examination, and found positive for
library finding her guilty beyond reasonable doubt of marijuana. 6
violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No.
1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; 6425, and sentencing her to suffer the penalty of life Accused-appellant’s defense rests solely on denial.
RIGHT AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCH imprisonment and to pay a fine of P20,000.00, with She claimed that she was engaged in the buying
AND SEIZURE; RULE; SEARCH OF MOVING subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and and selling of vegetables, particularly cabbages. On
VEHICLE AS AN EXCEPTION; REQUIRES to pay the costs. the day in question, she boarded the Dangwa
PROBABLE CAUSE; NOT PRESENT IN CASE AT Tranco bus at Abatan, Benguet, bringing with her
BAR. — In the case at bar, the NARCOM agents The facts of the case are as follows: On July 4, ten (10) sacks of cabbages which she intended to
searched the bag of the accused on the basis alone 1988, at around 8:00 o’clock in the morning, the sell to a certain Maria Opino in Baguio City. While
of an information they received that a woman, 23 Narcotics Command (NARCOM) Detachment Office inside the bus, she approached the conductor for
years of age with naturally curly hair, and 5’2" or 5’3" located at the Arix Building, Bokawkan Road, her ticket to cover the fare for her sacks of
in height would be transporting marijuana. The Baguio City, received information from one of its cabbages, but was told by the latter that he would
extensive search was indiscriminately made on all regular informants that a certain woman, 23 years of attend to her later.
the baggages of all passengers of the bus where the age, with naturally curly hair, and with a height of
accused was riding, whether male or female, and 5’2" or 5’3", would be transporting marijuana from When the bus reached Tublay, Benguet, it was
whether or not their physical appearance answered up north. 1 Acting upon this piece of information, stopped by the NARCOM agents who boarded the
the description of the suspect as described in the Sgt. Oscar Parajas testified that he, Sgt. Godofredo same and began inspecting the baggages of the
alleged information. If there really was such an Fider and a civilian NARCOM agent proceeded to passengers. Accused-appellant claimed that the
information, as claimed by the NARCOM agents, it Km. 16, Acop, Tublay, Benguet. Upon arriving at bag containing the marijuana was taken from the
is a perplexing thought why they had to search the said location at around 11:00 o’clock that same luggage carrier above the passenger seats. When
baggages of ALL passengers, not only the bags of morning, they established a checkpoint and flagged nobody admitted owning the bag, the NARCOM
those who appeared to answer the description of the down all vehicles, both private and public, coming agent approached her, took the shoulder bag on her

128
lap, and asked her to come with them for presumption is that he was not so actuated and his The general rule regarding searches and seizures
investigation as she fits the description of the would- testimony is entitled to full faith and credit (People v. can be stated in this manner: no person shall be
be transporter of the marijuana given by the Francia, L-69253, September 30, 1987, 154 SCRA subjected to a search of his person, personal effects
NARCOM informer. She denied having anything to 495)." 9 or belongings, or his residence except by virtue of a
do with the marijuana found on the search warrant or on the occasion of a lawful arrest.
bus.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library The trial court brushed aside the defense’s 14 The basis for the rule can be found in Article III,
observation that there were discrepancies between Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, which
To corroborate her story, Accused-appellant the testimony of Sgt. Parajas and the evidence states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
presented the conductor of the Dangwa Tranco bus, presented, such as the color of the bag allegedly
Nestor Yangkin. He testified that when the taken from accused-appellant and the kind of "The right of the people to be secure in their
NARCOM agents boarded the bus at Tublay, marijuana taken from the bag, as immaterial. persons, houses, papers, and effects against
Benguet, one of them got a bag from the luggage Similarly brushed aside was the defense’s unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever
carrier, opened it, and smelled the contents. The contention that the evidence against accused- nature and for any purpose, shall be inviolable, and
agent then asked the passengers who among them appellant, such as the Receipt of Property Seized no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue
owned the bag; when nobody answered, he walked 10 and her signature thereon, 11 and the Booking except upon probable cause to be determined
to the back of the bus, all the time looking at the Sheet and Arrest Report 12 and her signature personally by the judge after examination under
faces of the passengers. When the agent thereon, 13 were inadmissible due to the absence oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
approached accused-appellant, who was seated at of counsel, since these were not confessions or witnesses he may produce, and particularly
the rear of the bus, the former talked to her, then extra-judicial statements. describing the place to be searched, and the
escorted her out of the bus. 7 persons or things to be seized."cralaw virtua1aw
Finally, the trial court did not give credence to the library
During Yangkin’s cross-examination, it came out testimonies of accused-appellant and her witness
that the 10 sacks of vegetables that were loaded at Nestor Yangkin, in view of the testimony of Sgt. Article III, Section 3 (2) further ordains that any
Abatan were brought by a man who told him that the Parajas that he took the bag containing the evidence obtained in violation of the aforementioned
fare for the sacks will be paid upon arrival at the marijuana from accused-appellant’s lap. Moreover, right shall, among others, "be inadmissible for any
Dangwa Station in Baguio City but that the owner of the court a quo observed that there was a purpose in any proceeding."cralaw virtua1aw library
the sacks would be riding in the bus. And yet, discrepancy between the testimonies of accused-
Yangkin did not seek out the alleged owner of the appellant and Yangkin on the matter of the 10 sacks The constitutional proscription against warrantless
sacks. The witness also testified that none of the of cabbage, which led the court to conclude that the searches and seizures admits of certain exceptions.
passengers approached him and offered to pay for former was in the act of transporting marijuana at Aside from a search incident to a lawful arrest, a
the fare of the sacks, 8 contrary to accused- the time of her arrest. warrantless search had been upheld in cases of a
appellant’s testimony. moving vehicle, 15 and the seizure of evidence in
Accused-appellant filed a motion for plain view. 16
In convicting accused-appellant, the trial court found reconsideration, alleging that the marijuana leaves
the testimony of Sgt. Parajas credible. Said the court found in the bag taken from her was inadmissible in With regard to the search of moving vehicles, this
a quo:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary evidence as it was the product of a warrantless had been justified on the ground that the mobility of
search, which motion was denied by the trial court motor vehicles makes it possible for the vehicle to
". . . The testimony of Sgt. Oscar Parajas was direct for lack of merit on November 22, be searched to move out of the locality or jurisdiction
and straightforward as he gave all the requisite 1988.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red in which the warrant must be sought. 17
details of the entrapment operation they conducted
based on an information provided by a coordinating Aggrieved, Accused-appellant filed the instant This in no way, however, gives the police officers
individual. His testimony reveals that the bag appeal, alleging that the court a quo erred (1) in not unlimited discretion to conduct warrantless
containing the marijuana leaves was found on the finding the warrantless search conducted by the searches of automobiles in the absence of probable
lap of the accused. There is nothing in the record to NARCOM agents as illegal and unconstitutional, cause. When a vehicle is stopped and subjected to
suggest that Sgt. Parajas was moved by any motive and (2) in admitting the illegally obtained evidences an extensive search, such a warrantless search has
than simply the carrying out of his official mission or and convicting her on the basis of said evidences. been held to be valid only as long as the officers
duty. Where there is no evidence and nothing to conducting the search have reasonable or probable
indicate that the principal witness for the Accused-appellant is in error. cause to believe before the search that they will find
prosecution was actuated by improper motives, the the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime,

129
in the vehicle to be searched. 18 and attitude of the witnesses at the trial. 21 The G.R. No. 124442 July 20, 2001
exception is when the trial court has overlooked PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
The NARCOM officers in the case at bar had certain facts of substance and value that, if vs.
probable cause to stop and search all vehicles considered, might affect the result, 22 which We do ARMANDO COMPACION y SURPOSA, accused-
coming from the north at Acop, Tublay, Benguet in not find in the instant case. appellant.
view of the confidential information they received KAPUNAN, J.:
from their regular informant that a woman having the Moreover, Accused-appellant’s defense was
same appearance as that of accused-appellant weakened by the fact that her witness Nestor Armando S. Compacion was charged with violating
would be bringing marijuana from up north. They Yangkin contradicted her on the matter of the 10 Section 9 of R.A. No. 6425 (known as the
likewise have probable cause to search accused- sacks of vegetables appellant claims to have Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), as amended by R.A.
appellant’s belongings since she fits the description brought with her at the time of her arrest. Appellant No. 7659, in an information which reads as follows:
given by the NARCOM informant. claims she loaded the sacks of vegetables on the
bus and tried to pay for its fare, but that conductor
Since there was a valid warrantless search by the Yangkin, put her off. Yangkin claims otherwise: the The undersigned accuses ARMANDO
NARCOM agents, any evidence obtained during the sacks of vegetables were loaded by a man who told COMPACION y Surposa, Barangay
Captain of Barangay Bagonbon, San
course of said search is admissible him that the fare for the sacks will be paid upon
Carlos City, Negros Occidental, of the
against Accused-Appellant.chanrobles virtual arrival in Baguio City, and that no one on the bus
crime of "VIOLATION OF SECTION 9,
lawlibrary offered to pay for the same.cralawnad
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE
KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS
At any rate, no objection was raised by the accused- In weighing contrary declarations and statements,
ACT OF 1972 AS AMENDED BY
appellant in the court below on the inadmissibility of greater weight must generally be given to the
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7659" committed as
the evidence against her on the ground that the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
follows:
same was obtained in a warrantless search. This than the denials of the Accused-Appellant. 23
amounts to a waiver of the objection on the legality
of the search and the admissibility of the evidence Given the discrepancy on this point, the trial court "That on or about 1:30 o'clock A.M., July
obtained therefrom. 19 Amid a waiver, the court is correctly disregarded the corroborative testimony of 13, 1995, at Barangay Bagonbon, San
duty bound to admit the evidence. 20 Nestor Yangkin. The matter of the ownership of the Carlos City, Negros Occidental,
10 sacks of vegetables is material since appellant’s Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
Reviewing the evidence, We find the same sufficient reason for being on the bus was to deliver these this Honorable Court, the above-named
to prove accused-appellant’s guilt beyond sacks to Baguio City. If the sacks of vegetables are accused, without any authority of law, did,
reasonable doubt. not hers, then the only conclusion that can be drawn then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
is that she was on her way to Baguio City to sell the criminally plant, cultivate or culture two (2)
The prosecution had shown, primarily through the marijuana found in her possession. full grown Indian Hemp Plants, otherwise
positive testimony of Sgt. Parajas, that the bag known as "Marijuana plants", more or less
containing the dried marijuana leaves was taken As to the alleged discrepancies in the prosecution’s eleven (11) feet tall, in gross violation of
from accused-appellant’s possession. case, such as the color of the stripes of the bag Section 9, Republic Act No. 6425,
which contained the marijuana and whether the otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs
She denies this fact and contends that the bag in items seized from accused-appellant were Act of 1972 as amended by Republic Act
question was actually taken from the luggage carrier marijuana leaves or marijuana fruit tops, these are No. 7659."
above the passenger seats and not from her. minor in character and do not detract from the
Indisputably, We have two opposing versions of prosecution’s case since it was shown by the CONTRARY TO LAW.1
what actually happened at the checkpoint in Km. 16, Receipt of Property Seized, 24 which was signed by
Acop, Tublay, Benguet, resulting in the accused- accused-appellant, that these were the very items Upon arraignment on August 16, 1995, the accused
appellant’s apprehension, that of the prosecution taken from her at the time of her arrest. pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.
and that of the defense. In situations like this, the
matter of assigning values to the testimony of WHEREFORE, finding no error in the decision
witnesses is best performed by the trial courts appealed from, the same is hereby AFFIRMED in Thereafter, trial ensued.
because, unlike appellate courts, they can weigh toto. Costs against Accused-Appellant.
such testimony in the light of the demeanor, conduct

130
On January 2, 1996, the trial court convicted the in this drive, in his capacity as barangay 2. In holding that the warrantless search of
accused of the crime charged. The decretal portion captain of his barangay, made a mockery the residence of the accused at 1:30 o'clock
of the decision reads as follows: of it by planting, cultivating and culturing in the morning of July 13, 1995 at Barangay
said two (2) marijuana plants himself. Bagonbon, San Carlos City, Negros
WHEREAS, the Court finds the accused Occidental, and seizure of two eleven feet
ARMANDO COMPACION Y SURPOSA A word of counsel and hope for the tall, more or less, full grown suspected
GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT accused. This is a time of reflection forced Indian Hemp, otherwise known as
of the crime of "Violation of Section 9, R.A. upon him by the result of his own act in Marijuana plants, leading to the
No. 6425, otherwise known as The violating the law. It is time for him to humbly subsequent arrest of the accused, were
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended submit to the compassion of God and of his valid on the ground that the accused has
by R.A. No. 7659" whereof he is charged in only begotten Son, whose birth on earth to committed the crime of cultivating the said
the information in the instant case and become the Saviour of all sinners, we have marijuana plants in violation of Sec. 9, RA
sentences him to reclusion perpetua and to just celebrated, to change and transform 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), as
pay a fine of half a million (P500,000.00) his own life by his coming to Him for the amended by RA 7659 in open view, inspite
Pesos, Philippine Currency. The portion of purpose, so that with a changed life, God of the fact that they had to enter the
the backyard of his residence in the might be gracious enough to move the dwelling of the accused to get to the place
poblacion proper of Brgy. Bagonbon this heart of His Excellency, the President, of where the suspected marijuana plants were
City and Province, in which the two (2) this Country, to pardon and let him walk out planted, and in admitting in evidence the
marijuana plants, Exh. "F", subject-matter of prison a freeman. It would be good for said plants, later marked as Exhibit "F",
of this case, were planted, cultivated and him to read God's Word daily while in prison against the accused, inspite of the fact that
cultured, is hereby ordered confiscated and for his guidance, comfort and hope. the said plants were the fruits of the
escheated in favor of the State, pursuant to poisonous tree.3
the aforequoted Sec. 13 R.A. 7659. Accused convicted of the crime whereof he
is charged in the information in the instant The relevant facts are as follows:
It would seem that the penalty imposed case.
upon the accused in the instant case for Acting on a confidential tip supplied by a police
having planted, cultivated and cultured just SO ORDERED.2 informant that accused-appellant was growing and
two (2) marijuana plants is extremely harsh. cultivating marijuana plants, SPO1 Gilbert L. Linda
But there is nothing in the law which allows and SPO2 Basilio Sarong of the 6th Narcotic
The accused now appeals from the above judgment
the Court to impose a lesser penalty in view Regional Field Unit of the Narcotics Command
of the peculiar facts and circumstances in of conviction and asks the Court to reverse the same (NARCOM) of the Bacolod City Detachment
on the following grounds, viz:
this particular case. Hence, dura lex, sed conducted a surveillance of the residence of
lex. The law is, indeed, harsh but it is the accused-appellant who was then the barangay
law. The lower court erred: captain of barangay Bagonbon, San Carlos City,
Negros Occidental on July 9, 1995. During the said
The obvious message of the law is that 1. In holding that Exhibit "F" of the surveillance, they saw two (2) tall plants in the
people should not have a nonchalant or prosecution, consisting of two marijuana backyard of the accused-appellant which they
cavalier attitude towards dangerous plants wrapped in plastic, is admissible in suspected to be marijuana plants.4
prohibited drugs. They should not dabble in evidence against the accused as the
it as if they were a flippant thing. These corpus delicti in the instant case, inspite of SPO1 Linda and SPO2 Sarong reported the result
dangerous and prohibited drugs are a the fact that the prosecution failed to prove of their surveillance to SPO4 Ranulfo T. Villamor,
terrible menace to the minds and morality that the specimens of marijuana (Exhibit Jr., Chief of NARCOM, Bacolod City, who
of our people for their distortive and "F") examined by the forensic chemist were immediately formed a team composed of the
pervertive effects on them resulting in the ones purportedly planted and cultivated members of the Intelligence Division Provincial
rampant criminality. That is why the by the accused, and of the fact that the Command, the Criminal Investigation Command
government wants this evil exterminated prosecution failed to establish the and the Special Action Force. Two members of the
from our country. It is too bad that the evidence's chain of custody; and media, one from DYWF Radio and another from
accused instead of helping the government

131
DYRL Radio, were also included in the composite On his part, accused-appellant maintains that right against unreasonable searches and seizures
team. around one-thirty in the early morning of July 13, had been violated by the police authorities.
1995 while he and his family were sleeping, he
On July 12, 1995, the team applied for a search heard somebody knocking outside his house. He The relevant constitutional provisions are found in
warrant with the office of Executive Judge Bernardo went down bringing with him a flashlight. After he Sections 2 and 3 [2], Article III of the 1987
Ponferrada in Bacolod City. However, Judge opened the gate, four (4) persons who he thought Constitution which read as follows:
Ponferrada informed them that he did not have were members of the military, entered the premises
territorial jurisdiction over the matter.5The team then then went inside the house. It was dark so he could
not count the others who entered the house as the Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure
left Bacolod City for San Carlos City. They arrived in their persons, houses, papers, and
there around six-thirty in the evening, then went to same was lit only by a kerosene lamp. One of the
four men told him to sit in the living room. Some of effects against unreasonable searches and
the house of Executive Judge Roberto S. Javellana seizures of whatever nature and for any
to secure a search warrant. They were not able to the men went upstairs while the others went around
the house. None of them asked for his permission to purpose shall be inviolable, and no search
do so because it was nighttime and office hours warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue
were obviously over. They were told by the judge to search his house and the premises.9
except upon probable cause to be
go back in the morning.6 determined personally by the judge after
After about twenty (20) minutes of searching, the examination under oath or affirmation of the
Nonetheless, the team proceeded to barangay men called him outside and brought him to the complainant and the witnesses he may
Bagonbon and arrived at the residence of accused- backyard. One of the military men said: "Captain, produce, and particularly describing the
appellant in the early morning of July 13, 1995. you have a (sic) marijuana here at your backyard" place to be searched and the persons or
SPO4 Villamor knocked at the gate and called out to which accused-appellant replied: "I do not know things to be seized.
for the accused-appellant. What happened that they were (sic) marijuana plants but what I know
thereafter is subject to conflicting accounts. The is that they are medicinal plants for my wife" who
was suffering from migraine.10 Sec. 3. xxx
prosecution contends that the accused-appellant
opened the gate and permitted them to come in. He
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of
was immediately asked by SPO4 Villamor about the After he was informed that the plants in his backyard
this or the preceding section shall be
suspected marijuana plants and he admitted that he were marijuana, the men took pictures of him and
inadmissible for any purpose in any
planted and cultivated the same for the use of his themselves. Thereafter, he was brought inside the
proceeding.
wife who was suffering from migraine. SPO4 house where he and the military men spent the
Villamor then told him that he would be charged for night.11
violation of Section 9 of R.A. No. 6425 and informed Said constitutional provisions are safeguards
him of his constitutional rights. The operatives then against reckless, malicious and unreasonable
At around ten o'clock that same morning, they
uprooted the suspected marijuana plants. SPO1 invasion of privacy and liberty. The Court,
brought him with them to the city hall. Accused-
Linda conducted an initial field test of the plants by in Villanueva v. Querubin,14 underscored their
appellant saw that one of the two (2) service
using the Narcotics Drug Identification Kit. The test importance:
vehicles they brought was fully loaded with plants.
yielded a positive result.7 He was later told by the military men that said plants
were marijuana.12 Upon arrival at the city hall, the It is deference to one's personality that lies
On July 15, 1995, the plants were turned over to the men met with the mayor and then unloaded the at the core of this right, but it could be also
Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory, alleged marijuana plants. A picture of him together looked upon as a recognition of a
Bacolod City Police Command, particularly to with the arresting team was taken with the alleged constitutionally protected area, primarily
Senior Inspector Reah Abastillas Villavicencio. marijuana as back drop. Soon thereafter, he was one's home, but not necessarily thereto
Senior Inspector Villavicencio weighed and taken to Hda. Socorro at the SAF Headquarters.13 confined. What is sought to be guarded is a
measured the plants, one was 125 inches and man's prerogative to choose who is allowed
weighed 700 grams while the other was 130 inches entry to his residence. In that haven of
A criminal complaint for violation of Section 9 of R.A.
and weighed 900 grams. Three (3) qualitative refuge, his individuality can assert itself not
No. 6425, as amended by R.A. No. 7659 was filed
examinations were conducted, namely: the against accused-appellant. only in the choice of who shall be welcome
microscopic test, the chemical test, and the thin but likewise in the kind of objects he wants
layer chromatographic test. All yielded positive around him. There the state, however
results.8 Turning to the legal defenses of accused-appellant, powerful, does not as such have access
we now consider his allegation that his constitutional

132
 except under the circumstances above In the instant case, the search and seizure therein (Magoncia v. Palacio, 80 Phil. 770).
noted, for in the traditional formulation, his conducted by the composite team in the house of As pointed out by Justice Laurel in the case
house, however humble, is his castle. Thus accused-appellant was not authorized by a search of Pasion Vda. De Garcia v. Locsin (supra);
is outlawed any unwarranted intrusion by warrant. It does not appear either that the situation
government, which is called upon to refrain falls under any of the above mentioned cases. xxx xxx xxx
from any invasion of his dwelling and to Consequently, accused-appellant's right against
respect the privacies of his life. In the same unreasonable search and seizure was clearly
violated. x x x As the constitutional guaranty is not
vein, Landynski in his authoritative work
could fitly characterize this constitutional dependent upon any affirmative act of the
right as the embodiment of "a spiritual citizen, the courts do not place the citizen
It is extant from the records that accused-appellant in the position of either contesting an
concept: the belief that to value the privacy did not consent to the warrantless search and
of home and person and to afford its officer's authority by force, or waiving his
seizure conducted. While the right to be secure from constitutional rights; but instead they hold
constitutional protection against the long unreasonable search and seizure may, like every
reach of government is no less than to that a peaceful submission to a search or
right, be waived either expressly or impliedly,27 such seizure is not a consent or an invitation
value human dignity, and that his privacy waiver must constitute a valid waiver made thereto, but is merely a demonstration of
must not be disturbed except in case of voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. The act of regard for the supremacy of the law.
overriding social need, and then only under the accused-appellant in allowing the members of
stringent procedural safeguards."15 the military to enter his premises and his
We apply the rule that: "courts indulge
consequent silence during the unreasonable search
A search and seizure, therefore, must be carried out and seizure could not be construed as voluntary every reasonable presumption against
through or with a judicial warrant; otherwise, such submission or an implied acquiescence to waiver of fundamental constitutional rights
search and seizure becomes "unreasonable" within warrantless search and seizure especially so when and that we do not presume acquiescence
in the loss of fundamental rights."30
the meaning of the constitutional members of the raiding team were intimidatingly
provision.16 Evidence secured thereby, i.e., the numerous and heavily armed. His implied
"fruits" of the search and seizure, will be acquiescence, if any, could not have been more Neither could the members of the composite team
inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any than mere passive conformity given under coercive have justified their search of accused-appellant's
proceeding."17 or intimidating circumstances and is, thus, premises by invoking the necessity and urgency of
considered no consent at all within the purview of the situation. It was admitted by the members of the
the constitutional guarantee. Consequently, herein arresting team that the residence of accused-
The requirement that a warrant must be obtained
accused-appellant's lack of objection to the search appellant had already been put under surveillance
from the proper judicial authority prior to the conduct
of a search and seizure is, however, not absolute. and seizure is not tantamount to a waiver of his following a tip from a confidential informant. The
There are several instances when the law constitutional right or a voluntary submission to the surveillance was conducted on July 9, 1995 while
recognizes exceptions, such as when the owner of warrantless search and seizure.28 The case the alleged marijuana plants were seized four (4)
the premises consents or voluntarily submits to a of People v. Burgos,29 is instructive. In Burgos, the days later or on July 13, 1995. Surely, the raiding
search;18 when the owner of the premises waives Court ruled that the accused is not to be presumed team had all the opportunity to have first secured a
his right against such incursion;19 when the search to have waived the unlawful search "simply because search warrant before forcing their way into
is incidental to a lawful arrest;20 when it is made on he failed to object." There, we held: accused-appellant's premises. In fact, they earlier
had approached then Executive Judge Ponferrada
vessels and aircraft for violation of customs
of Bacolod City who declined to issue one on the
laws;21 when it is made on automobiles for the xxx To constitute a waiver, it must appear
ground that the matter was outside his territorial
purpose of preventing violations of smuggling or first that the right exists; secondly, that the
jurisdiction. Then, they went to Executive Judge
immigration laws;22 when it involves prohibited person involved had knowledge, actual or
Javellana of San Carlos City in the evening of July
articles in plain view;23 when it involves a "stop and constructive, of the existence of such a
12, 1995 who asked them to come back in the
frisk" situation;24 when the search is under exigent right; and lastly, that said person had an
morning as it was already nighttime and outside of
and emergency circumstances;25 or in cases of actual intention to relinquish the right
office hours. However, in their haste to apprehend
inspection of buildings and other premises for the (Pasion Vda. De Garcia v. Locsin, 65 Phil.
the accused-appellant on the pretext that
enforcement of fire, sanitary and building 689). The fact that the accused failed to
information of his impending arrest may be leaked
regulations.26 In these instances, a search may be object to the entry into his house does not
validly made even without a warrant. to him, the team proceeded to go to his residence to
amount to a permission to make a search
arrest him and seize the alleged marijuana plants.

133
The team's apprehension of a tip-off was - People vs. Bandin (Dec. 10, a surveillance and barged into accused-appellant's
unfounded. It is far-fetched that one could have 1993) residence.
gone to accused-appellant's place before the
following morning to warn him of his impending 226 SCRA 299, at p. 300 In People v. Musa,37 the Court held:
arrest as barangay Bagonbon is an isolated and
difficult to reach mountain barangay. The road
The accused was caught in flagrante The "plain view" doctrine may not,
leading to it was rough, hilly and eroded by rain and
delicto growing, cultivating and culturing however, be used to launch unbridled
flood.31 A few hours delay to await the issuance of a
warrant in the morning would not have said two (2) marijuana plants, Exh. "F", in searches and indiscriminate seizures nor to
compromised the team's operation. the backyard of his residence, which the extend a general exploratory search made
NARCOM agents uprooted from there at solely to find evidence of defendant's guilt.
the time they arrested and apprehended The "plain view" doctrine is usually applied
In justifying the validity of the warrantless arrest, him. Under said circumstances, a search where a police officer is not searching for
search and seizure on July 13, 1995, the trial court warrant and/or warrant of arrest were not evidence against the accused, but
ruled that the accused-appellant was caught legally needed before the NARCOM agents nonetheless inadvertently comes across an
"in flagrante delicto of having planted, grown and could effect the arrest of the accused.33 incriminating object. [Coolidge v. New
cultivated the marijuana plants" which was "easily Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 29 L.Ed. 2d 564
visible from outside of the residence of the (1971)] Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme
accused."32 Thus, the trial court concluded that: As a general rule, objects in the "plain view" of an
officer who has the right to be in the position to have Court stated the following limitations on the
that view are subject to seizure without a application of the doctrine:
xxx (T)he said two (2) marijuana plants, warrant.34 It is usually applied where a police officer
Exh. "F", were the very corpus delicti of the is not searching for evidence against the accused, What the "plain view" cases have
crime the accused has been committing but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an in common is that the police officer
since the time he planted them in the incriminating object.35 Thus, the following elements in each of them had a prior
backyard of his residence for whatever must be present before the doctrine may be applied: justification for an intrusion in the
reason – a corpus delicti which the (a) a prior valid intention based on the valid course of which he came
NARCOM agents saw with their very own warrantless arrest in which the police are legally inadvertently across a piece of
eyes as the same were in plain view when present in the pursuit of their official duties; (b) the evidence incriminating the
they made a surveillance in the accused's evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police accused. The doctrine serves to
place on July 9, 1995. Said corpus delicti who have the right to be where they are; (c) the supplement the prior justification –
has remained on the spots in accused's evidence must be immediately apparent; and (d) whether it be a warrant for another
backyard where they had been growing "plain view" justified were seizure of evidence object, hot pursuit, search incident
since the time they were planted there and, without further search.36 to lawful arrest, or some other
therefore, any peace officer or even private legitimate reason for being present
citizen, for that matter, who has seen said unconnected with a search
plants and recognized them as marijuana, Here, there was no valid warrantless arrest. They
forced their way into accused-appellant's premises directed against the accused –
was by law empowered and authorized to and permits the warrantless
arrest the accused even without any without the latter's consent. It is undisputed that the
NARCOM agents conducted a surveillance of the seizure. Of course, the extension
warrant of arrest. of the original justification is
residence of accused-appellant on July 9, 1995 on
the suspicion that he was growing and cultivating legitimate only where it is
The accused was caught in marijuana when they allegedly came in "plain view" immediately apparent to the police
flagrante delicto for he was of the marijuana plants. When the agents entered that they have evidence before
carrying marijuana, hence, his premises on July 13, 1995, their intention was to them; the "plain view" doctrine
committing a crime, at the time of seize the evidence against him. In fact, they initially may not be used to extend a
his arrest. The warrantless search wanted to secure a search warrant but could not general exploratory search from
which was conducted following a simply wait for one to be issued. The NARCOM one object to another until
lawful arrest, was valid. agents, therefore, did not come across the something incriminating at last
marijuana plants inadvertently when they conducted emerges. [Id., 29 L.Ed. 2d
583. See also Texas v. Brown,

134
 460 U.G. 730, 75 L. Ed. 2d 502 the law enforced without transgressing the The information filed on December 15, 1989 against
(1983)] constitutional rights of the citizens, for the the appellant reads:
enforcement of no statute is of sufficient
It was not even apparent to the members of the importance to justify indifference to the That on or about December 14, 1989, in the
composite team whether the plants involved herein basic principles of government. City of Zamboanga, Philippines, and within
were indeed marijuana plants. After said plants the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
were uprooted, SPO1 Linda had to conduct a field Those who are supposed to enforce the law above-named accused, not being
test on said plants by using a Narcotics Drug are not justified in disregarding the rights of authorized by law, did then and there,
Identification Kit to determine if the same were the individual in the name of order. Order is wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell to
indeed marijuana plants.38 Later, Senior Inspector too high a price to pay for the loss of liberty. one SGT. AMADO ANI, two (2) wrappers
Villavicencio, a forensic chemist, had to conduct As Justice Holmes declared: "I think it is containing dried marijuana leaves, knowing
three (3) qualitative examinations to determine if the less evil that some criminals escape than the same to be a prohibited drug.
plants were indeed marijuana.39 that the government should play an ignoble
part." It is simply not allowed in free society CONTRARY TO LAW.2
Since the evidence was secured on the occasion of to violate a law to enforce another,
an unreasonable search and seizure, the same is especially if the law violated is the
Constitution itself.42 Upon his arraignment on January 11, 1990, the
tainted and illegal and should therefore be excluded appellant pleaded not guilty.3
for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous
tree.40 In People v. Aruta,41 we held that: WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial
At the trial, the prosecution presented three (3)
Court of San Carlos City, Branch 58 is
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused- witnesses, namely: (1) Sgt. Amado Ani, Jr. of the 9th
The exclusion of such evidence is the only Narcotics Command (NARCOM) of Zamboanga
practical means of enforcing the appellant Armando S. Compacion is
hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged on City, who acted as poseur-buyer in the buy-bust
constitutional injunction against operation made against the appellant; (2) T/Sgt.
unreasonable searches and seizure. The ground of reasonable doubt. He is ordered released
Jesus Belarga, also of the 9th Narcotics Command
non-exclusionary rule is contrary to the from confinement unless he is being held for some
of Zamboanga City, who was the NARCOM team
letter and spirit of the prohibition against other legal grounds. The subject marijuana is
leader of the buy-bust operation; and (3) Athena
unreasonable searches and seizures. ordered disposed of in accordance with
Elisa P. Anderson, the Document Examiner and
law.1âwphi1.nêt
Forensic Chemist of PC-INP Crime Laboratory of
While conceding that the officer making the Regional Command (RECOM) 9. The evidence of
unlawful search and seizure may be held G.R. No. 96177 January 27, 1993 the prosecution was summarized by the trial court
criminally and civilly liable, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff- as follows:
the Stonehill case observed that most appellee,
jurisdictions have realized that the vs. Prosecution evidence shows that in the
exclusionary rule is "he only practical MARI MUSA y HANTATALU, accused-appellant. morning of December 13, 1989, T/Sgt.
means of enforcing the constitutional The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. Jesus Belarga, leader of a NARCOTICS
injunction" against abuse. This approach is Pablo L. Murillo for accused-appellant. COMMAND (NARCOM) team based at
based on the justification made by Judge ROMERO, J.: Calarian, Zamboanga City, instructed Sgt.
Learned Hand that "only in case the Amado Ani to conduct surveillance and test
prosecution which itself controls the seizing The appellant, Mari Musa, seeks, in this appeal, the buy on a certain Mari Musa of Suterville,
officials, knows that it cannot profit by their reversal of the decision, dated August 31, 1990,1 of Zamboanga City. Information received
wrong, will the wrong be repressed." the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Zamboanga City, from civilian informer was that this Mari
Branch XII, finding him guilty of selling marijuana in Musa was engaged in selling marijuana in
Unreasonable searches and seizures are violation of Article II, Section 4 of Republic Act No. said place. So Sgt. Amado Ani, another
the menace against which the 6425, as amended, otherwise known as the NARCOM agent, proceeded to Suterville,
constitutional guarantees afford full Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. in company with a NARCOM civilian
protection. While the power to search and informer, to the house of Mari Musa to
seize may at times be necessary to the which house the civilian informer had
public welfare, still it may be exercised and guided him. The same civilian informer had

135
also described to him the appearance of the contents were marijuana, Ani walked "RECEIVED" by the PC Crime Laboratory
Mari Musa. Amado Ani was able to buy one back towards his companions and raised (Exh. "B-1") on the same day.
newspaper-wrapped dried marijuana (Exh. his right hand. The two NARCOM teams,
"E") for P10.00. Sgt. Ani returned to the riding the two civilian vehicles, sped Mrs. Athena Elisa P. Anderson, the
NARCOM office and turned over the towards Sgt. Ani. Ani joined Belarga's team Forensic Chemist of the PC Crime
newspaper-wrapped marijuana to T/Sgt. and returned to the house. Laboratory, examined the marijuana
Jesus Belarga. Sgt. Belarga inspected the specimens subjecting the same to her three
stuff turned over to him and found it to be At the time Sgt. Ani first approached Mari tests. All submitted specimens she
marijuana. Musa, there were four persons inside his examined gave positive results for the
house: Mari Musa, another boy, and two presence of marijuana. Mrs. Anderson
The next day, December 14, 1989, about women, one of whom Ani and Belarga later reported the results of her examination in
1:30 P.M., a buy-bust was planned. Sgt. came to know to be Mari Musa's wife. The her Chemistry Report D-100-89, dated
Amado Ani was assigned as the poseur second time, Ani with the NARCOM team December 14, 1989, (Exh. "J", "J-1", "J-2",
buyer for which purpose he was given returned to Mari Musa's house, the woman, "J-3", "J-4" and "J-5"). Mrs. Anderson
P20.00 (with SN GA955883) by Belarga. who was later known as Mari Musa's wife, identified in court the two newspaper
The slipped away from the house. Sgt. Belarga wrapped marijuana bought at the
buy-bust money had been taken by T/Sgt. frisked Mari Musa but could not find the buy-bust on December 14, 1989, through
Jesus Belarga from M/Sgt. Noh Sali P20.00 marked money with him. Mari Musa her initial and the weight of each specimen
Mihasun, Chief of Investigation Section, was then asked where the P20.00 was and written with red ink on each wrapper (Exhs.
and for which Belarga signed a receipt he told the NARCOM team he has given "C-1" and "D-1"). She also identified the
(Exh. "L" & "L-l" ) The team under Sgt. the money to his wife (who had slipped one newspaper-wrapped marijuana bought
Foncargas was assigned as back-up away). Sgt. Belarga also found a plastic at the test-buy on December 13, 1989,
security. A pre-arranged signal was bag containing dried marijuana inside it through her markings (Exh. "E-1"). Mrs.
arranged consisting of Sgt. Ani's raising his somewhere in the kitchen. Mari Musa was Anderson also identified her Chemistry
right hand, after he had succeeded to buy then placed under arrest and brought to the Report (Exh. "J" & sub-markings.)
the marijuana. The two NARCOM teams NARCOM office. At Suterville, Sgt. Ani
proceeded to the target site in two civilian turned over to Sgt. Belarga the two T. Sgt. Belarga identified the two buy-bust
vehicles. Belarga's team was composed of newspaper-wrapped marijuana he had newspaper wrapped marijuana through his
Sgt. Belarga, team leader, Sgt. Amado Ani, earlier bought from Mari Musa (Exhs. "C" & initial, the words "buy-bust" and the words
poseur buyer, Sgt. Lego and Sgt. Biong. "D"). "December 14, 1989, 2:45 P.M." (written on
Exhs. "C" and "D"). Belarga also identified
Arriving at the target site, Sgt. Ani In the NARCOM office, Mari Musa first the receipt of the P20 marked money (with
proceeded to the house of Mari Musa, while gave his name as Hussin Musa. Later on, SN GA955883) (Exh. "L"), dated December
the rest of the NARCOM group positioned Mari Musa gave his true name — Mari 14, 1989, and his signature thereon (Exh.
themselves at strategic places about 90 to Musa. T/Sgt. Jesus Belarga turned over the "L-1"). He also identified the letter-request,
100 meters from Mari Musa's house. T/Sgt. two newspaper-wrapped marijuana dated December 14, 1989, addressed to
Belarga could see what went on between (bought at the buy-bust), the one the PC Crime Laboratory (Exh. "B") and his
Ani and suspect Mari Musa from where he newspaper-wrapped marijuana (bought at signature thereon (Exh. "B-2") and the
was. Ani approached Mari Musa, who the test-buy) and the plastic bag containing stamp of the PC Crime Laboratory marked
came out of his house, and asked Ani what more marijuana (which had been taken by "RECEIVED" (Exh. "B-1").4
he wanted. Ani said he wanted some more Sgt. Lego inside the kitchen of Mari Musa)
stuff. Ani gave Mari Musa the P20.00 to the PC Crime Laboratory, Zamboanga For the defense, the following testified as witnesses:
marked money. After receiving the money, City, for laboratory examination. The (1) the accused-appellant Mari H. Musa; and (2)
Mari Musa went back to his house and turnover of the marijuana specimen to the Ahara R. Musa, his wife. The trial court summarized
came back and gave Amado Ani two PC Crime Laboratory was by way of a the version of the defense, thus:
newspaper wrappers containing dried letter-request, dated December 14, 1989
marijuana. Ani opened the two wrappers (Exh. "B"), which was stamped
[O]n December 14, 1989, at about 1:30 in
and inspected the contents. Convinced that
the afternoon, Mari Musa was in his house

136
at Suterville, Zamboanga City. With him and his fingers were pressed which felt very other NARCOM agents were personally known by
were his wife, Ahara Musa, known as Ara, painful. The NARCOM agents boxed him the appellant or vice-versa; and (2) there was no
his one-year old child, a woman manicurist, and Mari Musa lost consciousness. While witness to the alleged giving of the two wrappers of
and a male cousin named Abdul Musa. Mari Musa was maltreated, he said his wife marijuana by the appellant to Sgt. Ani.
About 1:30 that afternoon, while he was was outside the NARCOM building. The
being manicured at one hand, his wife was very day he was arrested (on cross- Sgt. Ani testified that on December 13, 1989, upon
inside the one room of their house, putting examination Mari Musa said it was on the instruction by T/Sgt. Jesus Belarga, he conducted a
their child to sleep. Three NARCOM next day), Mari Musa was brought to the test-buy operation on the appellant whereby he
agents, who introduced themselves as Fiscal's Office by three NARCOM agents. bought one wrapper of marijuana for P15.00 from
NARCOM agents, dressed in civilian The fiscal asked him if the marijuana was the latter.7 He reported the successful operation to
clothes, got inside Mari Musa's house owned by him and he said "not." After that T/Sgt. Belarga on the same day.8 Whereupon,
whose door was open. The NARCOM single question, Mari Musa was brought to T/Sgt. Belarga conducted a conference to organize
agents did not ask permission to enter the the City Jail. Mari Musa said he did not tell a buy-bust operation for the following day.9
house but simply announced that they were the fiscal that he had been maltreated by
NARCOM agents. The NARCOM agents the NARCOM agents because he was
On December 14, 1989, at 1:30 p.m., two NARCOM
searched Mari Musa's house and Mari afraid he might be maltreated in the fiscal's
office. teams in separate vehicles headed by T/Sgt.
Musa asked them if they had a search
Belarga and a certain Sgt. Foncardas went to the
warrant. The NARCOM agents were just
place of operation, which was the appellant's house
silent. The NARCOM agents found a red Mari Musa denied the NARCOM agents' located in Laquian Compound, Suterville,
plastic bag whose contents, Mari Musa charge that he had sold two wrappers of Zamboanga City. Sgt. Ani was with the team of
said, he did not know. He also did not know marijuana to them; that he had received T/Sgt. Belarga, whose other members were Sgts.
if the plastic bag belonged to his brother, from them a P20.00 bill which he had given Lego and Biong. 10 Sgt. Ani was given a marked
Faisal, who was living with him, or his to his wife. He did not sell marijuana P20.00 bill by T/Sgt. Belarga, which was to be used
father, who was living in another house because he was afraid that was against the in the operation.
about ten arms-length away. Mari Musa, law and that the person selling marijuana
then, was handcuffed and when Mari Musa was caught by the authorities; and he had
asked why, the NARCOM agents told him Upon reaching the place, the NARCOM agents
a wife and a very small child to support.
for clarification. positioned themselves at strategic places.11 Sgt. Ani
Mari Musa said he had not been arrested
for selling marijuana before.5 approached the house. Outside the house, the
appellant asked Sgt. Ani what he wanted. Sgt. Ani
Mari Musa was brought in a pick-up, his
asked him for some more marijuana.12 Sgt. Ani gave
wife joining him to the NARCOM Office at After trial, the trial court rendered the assailed him the marked P20.00 bill and the appellant went
Calarian, Zamboanga City. Inside the decision with the following disposition: inside the house and brought back two paper
NARCOM Office, Mari Musa was
wrappers containing marijuana which he handed to
investigated by one NARCOM agent which
WHEREFORE, finding accused Mari Musa Sgt. Ani.13 From his position, Sgt. Ani could see that
investigation was reduced into writing. The
y Hantatalu guilty beyond reasonable doubt there were other people in the house.14
writing or document was interpreted to Mari
of selling marijuana and pursuant to Sec. 4,
Musa in Tagalog. The document stated that
Art II of Rep. Act No. 6425, he is sentenced After the exchange, Sgt. Ani approached the other
the marijuana belonged to Mari Musa and
to life imprisonment and to pay the fine of NARCOM agents and made the pre-arranged signal
Mari Musa was asked to sign it. But Mari
P20,000.00, the latter imposed without of raising his right hand.15 The NARCOM agents,
Musa refused to sign because the
subsidiary imprisonment.6 accompanied by Sgt. Ani, went inside the house and
marijuana did not belong to him. Mari Musa
said he was not told that he was entitled to made the arrest. The agents searched the appellant
the assistance of counsel, although he In this appeal, the appellant contends that his guilt and unable to find the marked money, they asked
himself told the NARCOM agents he was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and him where it was. The appellant said that he gave it
wanted to be assisted by counsel. impugns the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. to his wife.16

Mari Musa said four bullets were then The appellant claims that the testimony of Sgt. Ani, The Court, after a careful reading of the record, finds
placed between the fingers of his right hand the poseur-buyer, is not credible because: (1) prior the testimony of Sgt. Ani regarding the buy-bust
to the buy-bust operation, neither Sgt. Ani nor the operation, which resulted in the apprehension,

137
prosecution and subsequent conviction of the since T/Sgt. Belarga allegedly did not see the sale, A Yes, ma'am.
appellant, to be direct, lucid and forthright. Being the appellant contends that the uncorroborated
totally untainted by contradictions in any of the testimony of Sgt. Ani can not stand as basis for his Q Could you please tell us?
material points, it deserves credence. conviction.
A From our vehicle the stainless owner
The contention that the appellant could not have People v. Ale does not apply here because the type jeep where Sgt. Lego, Sgt. Biong
transacted with Sgt. Ani because they do not know policeman in that case testified that he and his were boarded, I saw that Sgt. Ani
each other is without merit. The day before the companion were certain that the appellant therein proceeded to the house near the road
buy-bust operation, Sgt. Ani conducted a test-buy handed marijuana cigarettes to the poseur-buyer and he was met by one person and
and he successfully bought a wrapper of marijuana based on the appearance of the cigarette sticks. The later known as Mari Musa who was at
from the appellant. Through this previous Court rejected this claim, stating that: the time wearing short pants and later
transaction, Sgt. Ani was able to gain the appellant's on I saw that Sgt. Ani handed
confidence for the latter to sell more marijuana to This Court cannot give full credit to the something to him, thereafter received
Sgt. Ani the following day, during the buy-bust testimonies of the prosecution witnesses by Mari Musa and went inside the
operation. Moreover, the Court has held that what marked as they are with contradictions and house and came back later and
matters is not an existing familiarity between the tainted with inaccuracies. handed something to Sgt. Ani.
buyer and the seller, for quite often, the parties to
the transaction may be strangers, but their
Biñan testified that they were able to tell Contrary to the contention of the appellant, it was
agreement and the acts constituting the sale and
delivery of the marijuana.17 that the four cigarettes were marijuana not impossible for T/Sgt. Belarga to have seen, from
cigarettes because according to him, the a distance of 90-100 meters, Sgt. Ani hand to the
rolling of ordinary cigarettes are different appellant "something" and for the latter to give to the
The appellant, again to cast doubt on the credibility from those of marijuana cigarettes. (tsn, former "something."
of Sgt. Ani, argues that it was impossible for the November 13, 1984, p. 10).
appellant to sell marijuana while his wife, cousin and
Notwithstanding the fact that T/Sgt. Belarga could
manicurist were present. But the place of the
It is however, incredible to believe that they not have been certain that what Sgt. Ani received
commission of the crime of selling prohibited drugs
could discern the type of rolling done on from the appellant was marijuana because of the
has been held to be not crucial18 and the presence
those cigarettes from the distance where distance, his testimony, nevertheless, corroborated
of other people apart from the buyer and seller will
they were observing the alleged sale of the direct evidence, which the Court earlier ruled to
not necessarily prevent the consummation of the
more or less 10 to 15 meters.21 be convincing, presented by Sgt. Ani on the
illegal sale. As the Court observed in People v.
Paco,19 these factors may sometimes camouflage following material points: (1) T/Sgt. Belarga
the commission of the crime. In the instant case, the In the case at bar, however, T/Sgt. Belarga did not instructed Sgt. Ani to conduct a surveillance and
fact that the other people inside the appellant's positively claim that he saw the appellant hand over test-buy operation on the appellant at Suterville,
house are known to the appellant may have given marijuana to Sgt. Ani. What he said was that there Zamboanga City on December 13, 1989; 23 (2) later
him some assurance that these people will not was an exchange of certain articles between the that same day, Sgt. Ani went back to their office and
report him to the authorities. two. The relevant portion of T/Sgt. Belarga's reported a successful operation and turned over to
testimony reads:22 T/Sgt. Belarga one wrapper of marijuana; 24 (3)
T/Sgt. Belarga then organized a team to conduct a
The appellant, besides assailing Sgt. Ani's buy-bust operation the following day; 25 (4) on
credibility, also questions the credibility of T/Sgt. Q Now, do you remember whether Sgt.
December 14, 1989, T/Sgt. Belarga led a team of
Belarga. The appellant submits that since T/Sgt. Ani was able to reach the house of Mari
NARCOM agents who went to Suterville,
Belarga admitted that he was about 90 meters away Musa?
Zamboanga City;26 (5) T/Sgt. Belarga gave a
from Sgt. Ani and the appellant, he could not have P20.00 marked bill to Sgt. Ani which was to be used
possibly witnessed the sale. The appellant A Yes, ma'am. in the buy-bust operation; 27 (6) upon the arrival of
invokes People v. the NARCOM agents in Suterville, Zamboanga City,
Ale20 where the Court observed that from a distance Q After reaching Mari Musa, did you Sgt. Ani proceeded to the house of the appellant
of 10-15 meters, a policeman cannot distinguish see what happened (sic)? while some agents stayed in the vehicles and others
between marijuana cigarette from ordinary ones by positioned themselves in strategic places;28 the
the type of rolling done on the cigarette sticks. And

138
appellant met Sgt. Ani and an exchange of articles determined personally by the judge after of the pusher immediately after the arrest even
took place.29 examination under oath or affirmation of the without arrest and search warrants.39
complainant and the witness he may
The corroborative testimony of T/Sgt. Belarga produce, and particularly describing the In the case at bar, the NARCOM agents searched
strengthens the direct evidence given by Sgt. Ani. place to be searched and the persons or the person of the appellant after arresting him in his
Additionally, the Court has ruled that the fact that the things to be seized. house but found nothing. They then searched the
police officers who accompanied the poseur-buyer entire house and, in the kitchen, found and seized a
were unable to see exactly what the appellant gave Furthermore, the Constitution, in conformity with the plastic bag hanging in a corner.
the poseur-buyer because of their distance or doctrine laid down in Stonehill v. Diokno, 34 declares
position will not be fatal to the prosecution's inadmissible, any evidence obtained in violation of The warrantless search and seizure, as an incident
case30 provided there exists other evidence, direct the freedom from unreasonable searches and to a suspect's lawful arrest, may extend beyond the
or circumstantial, e.g., the testimony of the poseur- seizures.35 person of the one arrested to include the premises
buyer, which is sufficient to prove the consummation or surroundings under his immediate
of the sale of the prohibited drug While a valid search warrant is generally necessary control.40 Objects in the "plain view" of an officer
before a search and seizure may be effected, who has the right to be in the position to have that
The appellant next assails the seizure and exceptions to this rule are recognized. Thus, view are subject to seizure and may be presented
admission as evidence of a plastic bag containing in Alvero v. Dizon,36 the Court stated that. "[t]he as evidence.41
marijuana which the NARCOM agents found in the most important exception to the necessity for a
appellant's kitchen. It appears that after Sgt. Ani search warrant is the right of search and seizure as In Ker v. California42 police officers, without
gave the pre-arranged signal to the other NARCOM an incident to a lawful arrest."37 securing a search warrant but having information
agents, the latter moved in and arrested the that the defendant husband was selling marijuana
appellant inside the house. They searched him to Rule 126, Section 12 of the Rules of Court expressly from his apartment, obtained from the building
retrieve the marked money but didn't find it. Upon authorizes a warrantless search and seizure manager a passkey to defendants' apartment, and
being questioned, the appellant said that he gave incident to a lawful arrest, thus: entered it. There they found the defendant husband
the marked money to his wife.31 Thereafter, T/Sgt. in the living room. The defendant wife emerged from
Belarga and Sgt. Lego went to the kitchen and the kitchen, and one of the officers, after identifying
Sec. 12. Search incident to lawful arrest. —
noticed what T/Sgt. Belarga described as a himself, observed through the open doorway of the
A person lawfully arrested may be
"cellophane colored white and stripe hanging at the kitchen, a small scale atop the kitchen sink, upon
searched for dangerous weapons or
corner of the kitchen."32 They asked the appellant which lay a brick-shaped package containing green
anything which may be used as proof of the
about its contents but failing to get a response, they leafy substance which he recognized as marijuana.
opened it and found dried marijuana leaves. At the commission of an offense, without a search
warrant. The package of marijuana was used as evidence in
trial, the appellant questioned the admissibility of the prosecuting defendants for violation of the Narcotic
plastic bag and the marijuana it contains but the trial Law. The admissibility of the package was
court issued an Order ruling that these are There is no doubt that the warrantless search
challenged before the U.S. Supreme Court, which
admissible in evidence.33 incidental to a lawful arrest authorizes the arresting
held, after observing that it was not unreasonable
officer to make a search upon the person of the
for the officer to walk to the doorway of the adjacent
person arrested. As early as 1909, the Court has
Built into the Constitution are guarantees on the kitchen on seeing the defendant wife emerge
ruled that "[a]n officer making an arrest may take
freedom of every individual against unreasonable therefrom, that "the discovery of the brick of
from the person arrested any money or property
searches and seizures by providing in Article III, marijuana did not constitute a search, since the
Section 2, the following: found upon his person which was used in the
officer merely saw what was placed before him in
commission of the crime or was the fruit of the crime
full view.43 The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the
or which might furnish the prisoner with the means warrantless seizure of the marijuana was legal on
The right of the people to be secure in their of committing
persons, houses, papers, and effects the basis of the "plain view" doctrine and upheld the
violence or of escaping, or which may be used as admissibility of the seized drugs as part of the
against unreasonable searches and evidence in the trial of the cause . . . "38 Hence, in a
seizures of whatever nature and for any prosecution's evidence. 44
buy-bust operation conducted to entrap a drug-
purpose shall be inviolable, and no search pusher, the law enforcement agents may seize the
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue marked money found on the person The "plain view" doctrine may not, however, be used
except upon probable cause to be to launch unbridled searches and indiscriminate

139
seizures nor to extend a general exploratory search doorway of the adjacent kitchen and from which WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED and the
made solely to find evidence of defendant's guilt. position he saw the marijuana, the NARCOM agents judgment of the Regional Trial Court AFFIRMED.
The "plain view" doctrine is usually applied where a in this case went from room to room with the obvious
police officer is not searching for evidence against intention of fishing for more evidence.
G. R. Nos. 102009-10 July 6, 1994
the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-
across an incriminating object.45 Furthermore, the Moreover, when the NARCOM agents saw the appellee,
U.S. Supreme Court stated the following limitations plastic bag hanging in one corner of the kitchen, vs.
on the application of the doctrine: they had no clue as to its contents. They had to ask ROLANDO DE GRACIA, CHITO HENSON and
the appellant what the bag contained. When the JOHN DOES, accused. ROLANDO DE
What the "plain view" cases have in common is that appellant refused to respond, they opened it and GRACIA, accused-appellant.
the police officer in each of them had a prior found the marijuana. Unlike Ker v. California, where The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
justification for an intrusion in the course of which he the marijuana was visible to the police officer's eyes, Nicolas R. Ruiz, II for accused-appellant.
came inadvertently across a piece of evidence the NARCOM agents in this case could not have
incriminating the accused. The doctrine serves to discovered the inculpatory nature of the contents of
supplement the prior justification — whether it be a the bag had they not forcibly opened it. Even
warrant for another object, hot pursuit, search assuming then, that the NARCOM agents
incident to lawful arrest, or some other legitimate inadvertently came across the plastic bag because REGALADO, J.:
reason for being present unconnected with a search it was within their "plain view," what may be said to
directed against the accused — and permits the be the object in their "plain view" was just the plastic The incidents involved in this case took place at the
warrantless seizure. Of course, the extension of the bag and not the marijuana. The incriminating nature height of the coup d' etat staged in December, 1989
original justification is legitimate only where it is of the contents of the plastic bag was not by ultra-rightist elements headed by the Reform the
immediately apparent to the police that they have immediately apparent from the "plain view" of said Armed Forces Movement-Soldiers of the Filipino
evidence before them; the "plain view" doctrine may object. It cannot be claimed that the plastic bag People (RAM-SFP) against the Government. At that
not be used to extend a general exploratory search clearly betrayed its contents, whether by its time, various government establishments and
from one object to another until something distinctive configuration, its transprarency, or military camps in Metro Manila were being
incriminating at last emerges.46 otherwise, that its contents are obvious to an bombarded by the rightist group with their "tora-
observer.48 tora" planes. At around midnight of November 30,
It has also been suggested that even if an object is 1989, the 4th Marine Battalion of the Philippine
observed in "plain view," the "plain view" doctrine We, therefore, hold that under the circumstances of Marines occupied Villamor Air Base, while the Scout
will not justify the seizure of the object where the the case, the "plain view" doctrine does not apply Rangers took over the Headquarters of the
incriminating nature of the object is not apparent and the marijuana contained in the plastic bag was Philippine Army, the Army Operations Center, and
from the "plain view" of the object.47 Stated seized illegally and cannot be presented in evidence Channel 4, the government television station. Also,
differently, it must be immediately apparent to the pursuant to Article III, Section 3(2) of the some elements of the Philippine Army coming from
police that the items that they observe may be Constitution. Fort Magsaysay occupied the Greenhills Shopping
evidence of a crime, contraband, or otherwise Center in San Juan, Metro Manila. 1
subject to seizure. The exclusion of this particular evidence does not,
however, diminish, in any way, the damaging effect Accused-appellant Rolando de Gracia was charged
In the instant case, the appellant was arrested and of the other pieces of evidence presented by the in two separate informations for illegal possession
his person searched in the living room. Failing to prosecution to prove that the appellant sold of ammunition and explosives in furtherance of
retrieve the marked money which they hoped to find, marijuana, in violation of Article II, Section 4 of the rebellion, and for attempted homicide, docketed as
the NARCOM agents searched the whole house Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. We hold that by Criminal Cases Nos. Q-90-11755 and Q-90-11756,
and found the plastic bag in the kitchen. The plastic virtue of the testimonies of Sgt. Ani and T/Sgt. respectively, which were tried jointly by the Regional
bag was, therefore, not within their "plain view" Belarga and the two wrappings of marijuana sold by Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 103.
when they arrested the appellant as to justify its the appellant to Sgt. Ani, among other pieces of
seizure. The NARCOM agents had to move from evidence, the guilt of the appellant of the crime In Criminal Case No. Q-90-11755, Rolando de
one portion of the house to another before they charged has been proved beyond reasonable Gracia, Chito Henson and several John Does
sighted the plastic bag. Unlike Ker vs. California, doubt. whose true names and identities have not as yet
where the police officer had reason to walk to the been ascertained, were charged with the crime of

140
illegal possession of ammunition and explosives in of Crispin Sagario who was shot and hit on the right the car and they were afraid that civilians or
furtherance of rebellion, penalized under Section 1, thigh. bystanders might be caught in the cross-fire.
paragraph 3, of Presidential Decree No. 1866,
allegedly committed as follows: Appellant was convicted for illegal possession of As a consequence, at around 6:30 A.M. of
firearms in furtherance of rebellion, but was December 5, 1989, a searching team composed of
That on or about the 5th day of acquitted of attempted homicide. F/Lt. Virgilio Babao as team leader, M/Sgt. Lacdao,
DECEMBER, 1989, in QUEZON CITY, Sgt. Magallion, Sgt. Patricio Pacatang, and
METRO MANILA, PHILIPPINES, and During the arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty elements of the 16th Infantry Battalion under one
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable to both charges. However, he admitted that he is not Col. delos Santos raided the Eurocar Sales Office.
Court, the above-named accused, authorized to possess any firearms, ammunition They were able to find and confiscate six cartons of
conspiring and confederating together and and/or explosive. 3 The parties likewise stipulated M-16 ammunition, five bundles of C-4 dynamites, M-
mutually helping one another, and without that there was a rebellion during the period from shells of different calibers, and "molotov" bombs
authority of law, did then and there willfully, November 30 up to December 9, 1989. 4 inside one of the rooms belonging to a certain Col.
unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly have Matillano which is located at the right portion of the
in their possession, custody and control, building. Sgt. Oscar Obenia, the first one to enter
the following to wit: The records show that in the early morning of
the Eurocar building, saw appellant De Gracia
December 1, 1989, Maj. Efren Soria of the
inside the office of Col. Matillano, holding a C-4 and
Intelligence Division, National Capital Region
Five (5) bundles of C-4 or dynamites suspiciously peeping through a door. De Gracia was
Defense Command, was on board a brown Toyota
Six (6) cartoons of M-16 ammunition at the only person then present inside the room. A
car conducting a surveillance of the Eurocar Sales uniform with the nametag of Col. Matillano was also
20 each Office located at Epifanio de los Santos Avenue in
One hundred (100) bottles of found. As a result of the raid, the team arrested
Quezon City, together with his team composed of appellant, as well as Soprieso Verbo and Roberto
MOLOTOV bombs Sgt. Crispin Sagario, M/Sgt. Ramon Briones, S/Sgt. Jimena who were janitors at the Eurocar building.
Henry Aquino, one S/Sgt. Simon and a Sgt. Ramos. They were then made to sign an inventory, written
without first securing the necessary The surveillance, which actually started on the night in Tagalog, of the explosives and ammunition
license and/or permit to possess the of November 30, 1989 at around 10:00 P.M., was confiscated by the raiding team. No search warrant
same from the proper authorities, and conducted pursuant to an intelligence report
was secured by the raiding team because,
armed with said dynamites, received by the division that said establishment was
according to them, at that time there was so much
ammunition and explosives and being occupied by elements of the RAM-SFP as a
disorder considering that the nearby Camp
pursuant to their conspiracy heretofore communication command post.
Aguinaldo was being mopped up by the rebel forces
agreed upon by them and prompted by
and there was simultaneous firing within the vicinity
common designs, come to an Sgt. Crispin Sagario, the driver of the car, parked of the Eurocar office, aside from the fact that the
agreement and decision to commit the the vehicle around ten to fifteen meters away from courts were consequently closed. The group was
crime of rebellion, by then and there the Eurocar building near P. Tuazon Street, S/Sgt. able to confirm later that the owner of Eurocar office
participating therein and publicly taking Henry Aquino had earlier alighted from the car to is a certain Mr. Gutierrez and that appellant is
arms against the duly constituted conduct his surveillance on foot. A crowd was then supposedly a "boy" therein.
authorities, for the purpose of gathered near the Eurocar office watching the on-
overthrowing the Government of the going bombardment near Camp Aguinaldo. After a
Republic of the Philippines, disrupting Appellant Rolando de Gracia gave another version
while, a group of five men disengaged themselves
and jeopardizing its activities and of the incident. First, he claims that on November
from the crowd and walked towards the car of the
removing from its allegiance the 30, 1989, he was in Antipolo to help in the birthday
surveillance team. At that moment, Maj. Soria, who
territory of the Philippines or parts party of Col. Matillano. He denies that he was at the
was then seated in front, saw the approaching group
thereof. 2 Eurocar Sales Office on December 1, 1989.
and immediately ordered Sgt. Sagario to start the
Second, he contends that when the raiding team
car and leave the area. As they passed by the
arrived at the Eurocar Sales Office on December 5,
In Criminal Case No. Q-90-11756, Rolando de group, then only six meters away, the latter pointed
1989, he was inside his house, a small nipa hut
Gracia, Chito Henson, Lamberto Bicus, Rodolfo Tor to them, drew their guns and fired at the team, which
which is adjacent to the building. According to him,
and several John Does were charged with attack resulted in the wounding of Sgt. Sagario on
he was tasked to guard the office of Col. Matillano
attempted homicide allegedly committed on the right thigh. Nobody in the surveillance team was
which is located at the right side of the building. He
December 1, 1989 in Quezon City upon the person able to retaliate because they sought cover inside

141
denies, however, that he was inside the room of Col. constructive possession thereof considering that he country during the first few years of the transitional
Matillano when the raiding team barged in and that had no intent to possess the same; he is neither the government under then President Corazon P.
he had explosives in his possession. He testified owner nor a tenant of the building where the Aquino attest to the ever-growing importance of
that when the military raided the office, he was ammunition and explosives were found; he was laws such as Presidential Decree No. 1866 which
ordered to get out of his house and made to lie on merely employed by Col. Matillano as an errand seek to nip in the bud and preempt the commission
the ground face down, together with "Obet" and boy; he was guarding the explosives for and in of any act or acts which tend to disturb public peace
"Dong" who were janitors of the building. He avers behalf of Col. Matillano; and he did not have actual and order.
that he does not know anything about the explosives possession of the explosives. He claims that intent
and insists that when they were asked to stand up, to possess, which is necessary before one can be I. The first issue to be resolved is whether or not
the explosives were already there. convicted under Presidential Decree No. 1866, was intent to possess is an essential element of the
not present in the case at bar. offense punishable under Presidential Decree No.
Appellant stated that he visited Col. Matillano in 1866 and, if so, whether appellant De Gracia did
1987 at the stockade of the Philippine Constabulary- Presidential Decree No. 1866 provides as intend to illegally possess firearms and ammunition.
Integrated National Police (PC-INP), and that he follows:
knew Matillano was detained because of the latter's The rule is that ownership is not an essential
involvement in the 1987coup d' etat. In July, 1989, Sec. 1. Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, element of illegal possession of firearms and
appellant again went to see Matillano because he Acquisition, Disposition or Possession of ammunition. What the law requires is merely
had no job. Col. Matillano then told him that he could Firearms or Ammunition or Instruments possession which includes not only actual physical
stay in the PC-INP stockade and do the marketing Used or intended to be Used in the possession but also constructive possession or the
for them. From that time until his arrest at the Manufacture of Firearms or Ammunition. — subjection of the thing to one's control and
Eurocar office, appellant worked for Matillano. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its management. 6 This has to be so if the manifest
maximum period to reclusion intent of the law is to be effective. The same evils,
De Gracia believes that the prosecution witnesses perpetua shall be imposed upon any the same perils to public security, which the law
were moved to testify against him because "bata person who shall unlawfully manufacture, penalizes exist whether the unlicensed holder of a
raw ako ni Col. Matillano eh may atraso daw sa deal in, acquire, dispose, or possess any prohibited weapon be its owner or a borrower. To
kanila si Col. Matillano kaya sabi nila ito na lang bata firearms, part of firearms, ammunition or accomplish the object of this law the proprietary
niya ang ipitin natin." machinery, tool or instrument used or concept of the possession can have no bearing
intended to be used in the manufacture of whatsoever. 7
On February 22, 1991, the trial court rendered any firearm or ammunition.
judgment 5 acquitting appellant Rolando de Gracia But is the mere fact of physical or constructive
of attempted homicide, but found him guilty beyond If homicide or murder is committed with the possession sufficient to convict a person for
reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal use of an unlicensed firearm, the penalty of unlawful possession of firearms or must there be an
possession of firearms in furtherance of rebellion death shall be imposed. intent to possess to constitute a violation of the law?
and sentenced him to serve the penalty of reclusion This query assumes significance since the offense
perpetua. Moreover, it made a recommendation that If the violation of this Section is in of illegal possession of firearms is a malum
"(i)nasmuch as Rolando de Gracia appears to be furtherance of, or incident to, or in prohibitum punished by a special law, 8 in which
merely executing or obeying orders and pursuant to connection with the crimes of rebellion, case good faith and absence of criminal intent are
the spirit contained in the 2nd paragraph of Art. 135, insurrection or subversion, the penalty of not valid defenses. 9
R. P. C., the court recommends that Rolando de death shall be imposed.
Gracia be extended executive clemency after When the crime is punished by a special law, as a
serving a jail term of five (5) years of good behavior. rule, intent to commit the crime is not necessary. It
Presidential Decree No. 1866 was passed because
of an upsurge of crimes vitally affecting public order is sufficient that the offender has the intent to
That judgment of conviction is now challenged and safety due to the proliferation of illegally perpetrate the act prohibited by the special law.
before us in this appeal. possessed and manufactured firearms, ammunition Intent to commit the crime and intent to perpetrate
and explosives, and which criminal acts have the act must be distinguished. A person may not
Appellant principally contends that he cannot be resulted in loss of human lives, damage to property have consciously intended to commit a crime; but he
held guilty of illegal possession of firearms for the and destruction of valuable resources of the did intend to commit an act, and that act is, by the
reason that he did not have either physical or country. The series of coup d' etats unleashed in the very nature of things, the crime itself. In the first

142
(intent to commit the crime), there must be criminal not constitute illegal possession thereof because legality of the warrantless search conducted by the
intent; in the second (intent to perpetrate the act) it there was no intent on his part to possess the same, raiding team, considering the gravity of the offense
is enough that the prohibited act is done freely and since he was merely employed as an errand boy of for which herein appellant stands to be convicted
consciously. 10 Col. Matillano. His pretension of impersonal or and the penalty sought to be imposed.
indifferent material possession does not and cannot
In the present case, a distinction should be made inspire credence. It is admitted that the military operatives who raided
between criminal intent and intent to possess. While the Eurocar Sales Office were not armed with a
mere possession, without criminal intent, is Animus possidendi is a state of mind which may be search warrant at that time. 15 The raid was actually
sufficient to convict a person for illegal possession determined on a case to case basis, taking into precipitated by intelligence reports that said office
of a firearm, it must still be shown that there consideration the prior and coetaneous acts of the was being used as headquarters by the
was animus possidendi or an intent to possess on accused and the surrounding circumstances. What RAM. 16 Prior to the raid, there was a surveillance
the part of the accused. 11 Such intent to possess is, exists in the realm of thought is often disclosed in conducted on the premises wherein the surveillance
however, without regard to any other criminal or the range of action. It is not controverted that team was fired at by a group of men coming from
felonious intent which the accused may have appellant De Gracia is a former soldier, having the Eurocar building. When the military operatives
harbored in possessing the firearm. Criminal intent served with the Philippine Constabulary prior to his raided the place, the occupants thereof refused to
here refers to the intention of the accused to commit separation from the service for going on absence open the door despite requests for them to do so,
an offense with the use of an unlicensed firearm. without leave thereby compelling the former to break into the
This is not important in convicting a person under (AWOL). 14 We do not hesitate, therefore, to believe office. 17 The Eurocar Sales Office is obviously not
Presidential Decree No. 1866. Hence, in order that and conclude that he is familiar with and a gun store and it is definitely not an armory or
one may be found guilty of a violation of the decree, knowledgeable about the arsenal which are the usual depositories for
it is sufficient that the accused had no authority or dynamites, "molotov" bombs, and various kinds of explosives and ammunition. It is primarily and solely
license to possess a firearm, and that he intended ammunition which were confiscated by the military engaged in the sale of automobiles. The presence
to possess the same, even if such possession was from his possession. As a former soldier, it would be of an unusual quantity of high-powered firearms and
made in good faith and without criminal intent. absurd for him not to know anything about the explosives could not be justifiably or even colorably
dangerous uses and power of these weapons. explained. In addition, there was general chaos and
Concomitantly, a temporary, incidental, casual, or A fortiori, he cannot feign ignorance on the import of disorder at that time because of simultaneous and
harmless possession or control of a firearm cannot having in his possession such a large quantity of intense firing within the vicinity of the office and in
be considered a violation of a statute prohibiting the explosives and ammunition. Furthermore, the place the nearby Camp Aguinaldo which was under attack
possession of this kind of weapon, 12 such as where the explosives were found is not a military by rebel forces. 18 The courts in the surrounding
Presidential Decree No. 1866. Thus, although there camp or office, nor one where such items can areas were obviously closed and, for that matter, the
is physical or constructive possession, for as long ordinarily but lawfully be stored, as in a gun store, building and houses therein were deserted.
as the animus possidendi is absent, there is no an arsenal or armory. Even an ordinarily prudent
offense committed. man would be put on guard and be suspicious if he Under the foregoing circumstances, it is our
finds articles of this nature in a place intended to considered opinion that the instant case falls under
carry out the business of selling cars and which has one of the exceptions to the prohibition against a
Coming now to the case before us, there is no doubt
nothing to do at all, directly or indirectly, with the warrantless search. In the first place, the military
in our minds that appellant De Gracia is indeed trade of firearms and ammunition.
guilty of having intentionally possessed several operatives, taking into account the facts obtaining in
firearms, explosives and ammunition without the this case, had reasonable ground to believe that a
requisite license or authority therefor. Prosecution On the basis of the foregoing disquisition, it is crime was being committed. There was
witness Sgt. Oscar Abenia categorically testified apparent, and we so hold, that appellant De Gracia consequently more than sufficient probable cause to
that he was the first one to enter the Eurocar Sales actually intended to possess the articles confiscated warrant their action. Furthermore, under the
Office when the military operatives raided the same, from his person. situation then prevailing, the raiding team had no
and he saw De Gracia standing in the room and opportunity to apply for and secure a search warrant
holding the several explosives marked in evidence II. The next question that may be asked is whether from the courts. The trial judge himself manifested
as Exhibits D to D-4. 13 At first, appellant denied any or not there was a valid search and seizure in this that on December 5, 1989 when the raid was
knowledge about the explosives. Then, he case. While the matter has not been squarely put in conducted, his court was closed. 19 Under such
alternatively contended that his act of guarding the issue, we deem it our bounden duty, in light of urgency and exigency of the moment, a search
explosives for and in behalf of Col. Matillano does advertence thereto by the parties, to delve into the warrant could lawfully be dispensed with.

143
The view that we here take is in consonance with When NARCOM received the information, authorities. From these circumstances
our doctrinal ruling which was amply explained in a few hours before the apprehension of arose a probable cause which justified the
People vs. Malmstedt 20 and bears reiteration: herein accused, that a Caucasian travelling warrantless search that was made on the
from Sagada to Baguio City was carrying personal effects of the accused. In other
While it is true that the NARCOM officers with him prohibited drugs, there was no words, the acts of the NARCOM officers in
were not armed with a search warrant when time to obtain a search warrant. In requiring the accused to open his pouch
the search was made over the personal the Tangliben case, the police authorities bag and in opening one of the wrapped
effects of accused, however, under the conducted a surveillance at the Victory objects found inside said bag (which was
circumstances of the case, there was Liner Terminal located at Bgy. San Nicolas, discovered to contain hashish) as well as
sufficient probable cause for said officers to San Fernando, Pampanga, against the two (2) teddy bears with hashish stuffed
believe that accused was then and there persons engaged in the traffic of dangerous inside them, were prompted by accused's
committing a crime. drugs, based on information supplied by own attempt to hide his identity by refusing
some informers. Accused Tangliben who to present his passport, and by the
was acting suspiciously and pointed out by information received by the NARCOM that
Probable cause has been defined as such an informer was apprehended and a Caucasian coming from Sagada had
facts and circumstances which would lead
searched by the police authorities. It was prohibited drugs in his possession. To
a reasonable, discreet and prudent man to
held that when faced with on-the-spot deprive the NARCOM agents of the ability
believe that an offense has been
information, the police officers had to act and facility to act accordingly, including, to
committed, and that the objects sought in
quickly and there was no time to secure a search even without warrant, in the light of
connection with the offense are in the place search warrant. such circumstances, would be to sanction
sought to be searched. The required
impotence and ineffectiveness in law
probable cause that will justify a enforcement, to the detriment of society.
warrantless search and seizure is not It must be observed that, at first, the
determined by any fixed formula but is NARCOM officers merely conducted a
resolved according to the facts of each routine check of the bus (where accused In addition, we find the principle enunciated
case. was riding) and the passengers therein, in Umil, et al., vs. Ramos,
and no extensive search was initially made. et al., 21 applicable, by analogy, to the present
It was only when one of the officers noticed case:
Warrantless search of the personal effects
a bulge on the waist of accused, during the
of an accused has been declared by this
course of the inspection, that accused was The arrest of persons involved in the
Court as valid, because of existence of
required to present his passport. The failure rebellion whether as its fighting armed
probable cause, where the smell of
of accused to present his identification elements, or for committing non-violent
marijuana emanated from a plastic bag
papers, when ordered to do so, only acts but in furtherance of the rebellion, is
owned by the accused, or where the
managed to arouse the suspicion of the more an act of capturing them in the course
accused was acting suspiciously, and
officer that accused was trying to hide his of an armed conflict, to quell the rebellion,
attempted to flee.
identity. For is it not a regular norm for an than for the purpose of immediately
innocent man, who has nothing to hide from prosecuting them in court for a statutory
Aside from the persistent reports received the authorities, to readily present his offense. The arrest, therefore, need not
by the NARCOM that vehicles coming from identification papers when required to do follow the usual procedure in the
Sagada were transporting marijuana and so? prosecution of offenses which requires the
other prohibited drugs, their Commanding
determination by a judge of the existence of
Officer also received information that a
The receipt of information by NARCOM that probable cause before the issuance of a
Caucasian coming from Sagada on that
a Caucasian coming from Sagada had judicial warrant of arrest and the granting of
particular day had prohibited drugs in his
prohibited drugs in his possession, plus the bail if the offense is bailable. Obviously the
possession. Said information was received
suspicious failure of the accused to absence of a judicial warrant is no legal
by the Commanding Officer of NARCOM
produce his passport, taken together as a impediment to arresting or capturing
the very same morning that accused came
whole, led the NARCOM officers to persons committing overt acts of violence
down by bus from Sagada on his way to
reasonably believe that the accused was against government forces, or any other
Baguio City.
trying to hide something illegal from the milder acts but really in pursuance of the

144
 rebellious movement. The arrest or capture penalties. The Revised Penal Code treats rebellion 16 ammo and 100 bottles of molotov
is thus impelled by the exigencies of the as a crime apart from murder, homicide, arson, or bombs indicate that the reports received by
situation that involves the very survival of other offenses, such as illegal possession of the military that the Eurocar Sales Building
society and its government and duly firearms, that might conceivably be committed in the was being used by the rebels was not
constituted authorities. If killing and other course of a rebellion. Presidential Decree No. 1866 without basis. Those items are clearly not
acts of violence against the rebels find defines and punishes, as a specific offense, the for one's personal defense. They are for
justification in the exigencies of armed crime of illegal possession of firearms committed in offensive operations. De Gracia admitted
hostilities which (are) of the essence of the course or as part of a rebellion. 22 that per instruction of Col. Matillano he
waging a rebellion or insurrection, most went down to Eurocar Sales Building from
assuredly so in case of invasion, merely As a matter of fact, in one case involving the Antipolo to stay guard there.
seizing their persons and detaining them constitutionality of Section 1 of Presidential Decree
while any of these contingencies continues No. 1866, the Court has explained that said His manifestation of innocence of those
cannot be less justified. provision of the law will not be invalidated by the items and what he has been guarding in
mere fact that the same act is penalized under two that office is not credible for: (a) he was a
III. As earlier stated, it was stipulated and admitted different statutes with different penalties, even if former military personnel; (b) at the
by both parties that from November 30, 1989 up to considered highly advantageous to the prosecution birthday party of Col. Matillano on
and until December 9, 1989, there was a rebellion. and onerous to the accused. 23 It follows that, November 30, 1989 many soldiers and ex-
Ergo, our next inquiry is whether or not appellant's subject to the presence of the requisite elements in soldiers were present which self-evidently
possession of the firearms, explosives and each case, unlawful possession of an unlicensed discloses that De Gracia, in the company of
ammunition seized and recovered from him was for firearm in furtherance of rebellion may give rise to his boss, was still very much at home and
the purpose and in furtherance of rebellion. separate prosecutions for a violation of Section 1 of constantly in touch with soldiers and the
Presidential Decree No. 1866, and also a violation armed rebellion of November 30, 1989 to
The trial court found accused guilty of illegal of Articles 134 and 135 of the Revised Penal Code December 8 or 9, 1989 was a military coup
possession of firearms in furtherance of rebellion on rebellion. Double jeopardy in this case cannot be d' etat; (c) it appears that he is the only
pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article 135 of the invoked because the first is an offense punished by person tasked with caretaking (sic) there in
Revised Penal Code which states that "any person a special law while the second is a felony punished the Matillano office, which shows that he is
merely participating or executing the command of by the Revised Penal Code, 24 with variant a highly trusted right-hand man of Col.
others in a rebellion shall suffer the penalty elements. Matillano; and (d) as heretofore discussed,
of prision mayor in its minimum period." The court De Gracia was earlier seen with some men
below held that appellant De Gracia, who had been It was a legal malapropism for the lower court to who fired upon a car of the AFP intelligence
servicing the personal needs of Col. Matillano interject the aforestated provision of the Revised agents. 25
(whose active armed opposition against the Penal Code in this prosecution for a crime under a
Government, particularly at the Camelot Hotel, was special law. Consequently, there is no basis for its Presidential Decree No. 1866 imposes the death
well known), is guilty of the act of guarding the recommendation for executive clemency in favor of penalty where the illegal possession of firearms and
explosives and "molotov" bombs for and in behalf of appellant De Gracia after he shall have served a jail ammunition is committed in furtherance of rebellion.
the latter. We accept this finding of the lower court. term of five years with good behavior. In any event, At the time the offense charged in this case was
this is a matter within the exclusive prerogative of committed under the governance of that law, the
The above provision of the law was, however, the President whose decision thereon should be imposition of the death penalty was proscribed by
erroneously and improperly used by the court below insulated against any tenuous importunity. the Constitution. Consequently, appellant De Gracia
as a basis in determining the degree of liability of could only be sentenced to serve the penalty
appellant and the penalty to be imposed on him. It Withal, we are duly convinced that the firearms, of reclusion perpetua which was correctly meted out
must be made clear that appellant is charged with explosives and ammunition confiscated from by the trial court, albeit with an erroneous
the qualified offense of illegal possession of firearms appellant De Gracia were illegally possessed by him recommendation in connection therewith.
in furtherance of rebellion under Presidential Decree in furtherance of the rebellion then admittedly WHEREFORE, the impugned judgment of the trial
No. 1866 which, in law, is distinct from the crime of existing at that time. In the words of the court a quo: court is hereby AFFIRMED, but its recommendation
rebellion punished under Articles 134 and 135 of the therein for executive clemency and the supposed
Revised Penal Code. These are two separate basis thereof are hereby DELETED, with costs
2. the nature and quantity of the items — 5 against accused-appellant.
statutes penalizing different offenses with discrete bundles of C-4 dynamites, 6 cartons of M-

145
G.R. No. 179736 June 26, 2013 without a valid permit and that the said construction Respondents moved for a reconsideration21 but the
SPOUSES BILL AND VICTORIA would destroy the wall of its building, which is RTC denied the same in its Order22 dated February
HING, Petitioners, adjacent to petitioners’ property;9 that the court, in 6, 2006.23Thus:
vs. that case, denied Aldo’s application for preliminary
ALEXANDER CHOACHUY, SR. and ALLAN injunction for failure to substantiate its WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is
CHOACHUY, Respondents. allegations;10 that, in order to get evidence to hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Issue a Writ of
DECISION support the said case, respondents on June 13, Preliminary Injunction in consonance with the Order
2005 illegally set-up and installed on the building of dated 18 October 2005.
DEL CASTILLO, J.: Aldo Goodyear Servitec two video surveillance
cameras facing petitioners’ property;11 that
IT IS SO ORDERED.24
respondents, through their employees and without
"The concept of liberty would be emasculated if it the consent of petitioners, also took pictures of
does not likewise compel respect for one's petitioners’ on-going construction;12 and that the Aggrieved, respondents filed with the CA a Petition
personality as a unique individual whose claim to acts of respondents violate petitioners’ right to for Certiorari25 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
privacy and non-interference demands respect."1 with application for a TRO and/or Writ of Preliminary
privacy.13 Thus, petitioners prayed that respondents
be ordered to remove the video surveillance Injunction.
This Petition for Review on Certiorari2 under Rule 45 cameras and enjoined from conducting illegal
of the Rules of Court assails the July 10, 2007 surveillance.14 Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Decision3 and the September 11, 2007
Resolution4 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. In their Answer with Counterclaim,15 respondents
CEB-SP No. 01473. On July 10, 2007, the CA issued its
claimed that they did not install the video Decision26 granting the Petition for Certiorari. The
surveillance cameras,16nor did they order their CA ruled that the Writ of Preliminary Injunction was
Factual Antecedents employees to take pictures of petitioners’ issued with grave abuse of discretion because
construction.17 They also clarified that they are not petitioners failed to show a clear and unmistakable
On August 23, 2005, petitioner-spouses Bill and the owners of Aldo but are mere stockholders.18 right to an injunctive writ.27 The CA explained that
Victoria Hing filed with the Regional Trial Court the right to privacy of residence under Article 26(1)
(RTC) of Mandaue City a Complaint5 for Injunction Ruling of the Regional Trial Court of the Civil Code was not violated since the property
and Damages with prayer for issuance of a Writ of subject of the controversy is not used as a
Preliminary Mandatory Injunction/Temporary residence.28 The CA alsosaid that since
On October 18, 2005, the RTC issued an
Restraining Order (TRO), docketed as Civil Case respondents are not the owners of the building, they
Order19 granting the application for a TRO. The
MAN-5223 and raffled to Branch 28, against dispositive portion of the said Order reads: could not have installed video surveillance
respondents Alexander Choachuy, Sr. and Allan cameras.29 They are mere stockholders of Aldo,
Choachuy. which has a separate juridical personality.30 Thus,
WHEREFORE, the application for a Temporary they are not the proper parties.31 The fallo reads:
Restraining Order or a Writ of Preliminary Injunction
Petitioners alleged that they are the registered
is granted. Upon the filing and approval of a bond by
owners of a parcel of land (Lot 1900-B) covered by WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises,
petitioners, which the Court sets at ₱50,000.00, let
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 42817 judgment is hereby rendered by us GRANTING the
a Writ of Preliminary Injunction issue against the
situated in Barangay Basak, City of Mandaue, petition filed in this case. The assailed orders dated
respondents Alexander Choachuy, Sr. and Allan
Cebu;6 that respondents are the owners of Aldo October 18, 2005 and February 6, 2006 issued by
Choachuy. They are hereby directed to immediately
Development & Resources, Inc. (Aldo) located at the respondent judge are hereby ANNULLED and
remove the revolving camera that they installed at
Lots 1901 and 1900-C, adjacent to the property of SET ASIDE.
the left side of their building overlooking the side of
petitioners;7 that respondents constructed an auto-
petitioners’ lot and to transfer and operate it
repair shop building (Aldo Goodyear Servitec) on SO ORDERED.32
elsewhere at the back where petitioners’ property
Lot 1900-C; that in April 2005, Aldo filed a case
can no longer be viewed within a distance of about
against petitioners for Injunction and Damages with
2-3 meters from the left corner of Aldo Servitec, Issues
Writ of Preliminary Injunction/TRO, docketed as facing the road.
Civil Case No. MAN-5125;8 that in that case, Aldo
claimed that petitioners were constructing a fence Hence, this recourse by petitioners arguing that:
IT IS SO ORDERED.20

146
 I. Essentially, the issues boil down to (1) whether The Petition is meritorious.
there is a violation of petitioners’ right to privacy, and
THE X X X CA COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE (2) whether respondents are the proper parties to The right to privacy is the right to be let alone.
ERROR WHEN IT ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE this suit.
THE ORDERS OF THE RTC DATED 18 OCTOBER The right to privacy is enshrined in our
2005 AND 6 FEBRUARY 2006 HOLDING THAT Petitioners’ Arguments Constitution44 and in our laws. It is defined as "the
THEY WERE ISSUED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF right to be free from unwarranted exploitation of
DISCRETION. Petitioners insist that they are entitled to the one’s person or from intrusion into one’s private
issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction because activities in such a way as to cause humiliation to a
II. respondents’ installation of a stationary camera person’s ordinary sensibilities."45 It is the right of an
directly facing petitioners’ property and a revolving individual "to be free from unwarranted publicity, or
THE X X X CA COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE camera covering a significant portion of the same to live without unwarranted interference by the
ERROR WHEN IT RULED THAT PETITIONER property constitutes a violation of petitioners’ right to public in matters in which the public is not
SPOUSES HING ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE privacy.34 Petitioners cite Article 26(1) of the Civil necessarily concerned."46 Simply put, the right to
WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ON THE Code, which enjoins persons from prying into the privacy is "the right to be let alone."47
GROUND THAT THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF private lives of others.35 Although the said provision
THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL AND CIVIL RIGHT TO pertains to the privacy of another’s residence, The Bill of Rights guarantees the people’s right to
PRIVACY DESPITE THE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF petitioners opine that it includes business offices, privacy and protects them against the State’s abuse
THE RTC, WHICH RESPONDENTS CHOACHUY citing Professor Arturo M. Tolentino.36 Thus, even of power. In this regard, the State recognizes the
FAILED TO REFUTE, THAT THE ILLEGALLY assuming arguendo that petitioners’ property is right of the people to be secure in their houses. No
INSTALLED SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS OF used for business, it is still covered by the said one, not even the State, except "in case of
RESPONDENTS CHOACH[U]Y WOULD provision.37 overriding social need and then only under the
CAPTURE THE PRIVATE ACTIVITIES OF stringent procedural safeguards," can disturb them
PETITIONER SPOUSES HING, THEIR CHILDREN As to whether respondents are the proper parties to in the privacy of their homes.48
AND EMPLOYEES. implead in this case, petitioners claim that
respondents and Aldo are one and the same, and The right to privacy under Article 26(1)
III. that respondents only want to hide behind Aldo’s
corporate fiction.38 They point out that if
of the Civil Code covers business offices
respondents are not the real owners of the building,
THE X X X CA COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE
where the video surveillance cameras were
ERROR WHEN IT RULED THAT SINCE THE where the public are excluded
installed, then they had no business consenting to
OWNER OF THE BUILDING IS ALDO the ocular inspection conducted by the court.39
DEVELOPMENT AND RESOURCES, INC. THEN
therefrom and only certain individuals
TO SUE RESPONDENTS CHOACHUY
CONSTITUTES A PURPORTEDLY Respondents’ Arguments
UNWARRANTED PIERCING OF THE are allowed to enter.
CORPORATE VEIL. Respondents, on the other hand, echo the ruling of
the CA that petitioners cannot invoke their right to Article 26(1) of the Civil Code, on the other hand,
IV. privacy since the property involved is not used as a protects an individual’s right to privacy and provides
residence.40 Respondents maintain that they had a legal remedy against abuses that may be
nothing to do with the installation of the video committed against him by other individuals. It states:
THE X X X CA COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE
surveillance cameras as these were installed by
ERROR WHEN IT IGNORED THE SERIOUS
Aldo, the registered owner of the building,41as Art. 26. Every person shall respect the dignity,
FORMAL DEFICIENCIES OF BOTH THE
additional security for its building.42 Hence, they personality, privacy and peace of mind of his
PETITION AND THE MOTION FOR were wrongfully impleaded in this case.43
RECONSIDERATION DATED 15 MARCH 2006 OF neighbors and other persons. The following and
RESPONDENTS CHOACHUY AND GAVE X X X similar acts, though they may not constitute a
THEM DUE COURSE AND CONSIDERATION.33 Our Ruling criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for
damages, prevention and other relief:

147
(1) Prying into the privacy of another’s residence; "the reasonableness of a person’s expectation of camera should revolve only towards their properties
privacy depends on a two-part test: (1) whether, by at the back. Respondents’ camera cannot be made
xxxx his conduct, the individual has exhibited an to extend the view to petitioners’ lot. To allow the
expectation of privacy; and (2) this expectation is respondents to do that over the objection of the
one that society recognizes as reasonable." petitioners would violate the right of petitioners as
This provision recognizes that a man’s house is his
Customs, community norms, and practices may, property owners. "The owner of a thing cannot make
castle, where his right to privacy cannot be denied
therefore, limit or extend an individual’s "reasonable use thereof in such a manner as to injure the rights
or even restricted by others. It includes "any act of of a third person."55
expectation of privacy."53 Hence, the
intrusion into, peeping or peering inquisitively into reasonableness of a person’s expectation of privacy
the residence of another without the consent of the must be determined on a case-to-case basis since
latter."49 The phrase "prying into the privacy of The RTC, thus, considered that petitioners have a
it depends on the factual circumstances surrounding "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their property,
another’s residence," however, does not mean that the case.54
only the residence is entitled to privacy. As whether they use it as a business office or as a
elucidated by Civil law expert Arturo M. Tolentino: residence and that the installation of video
In this day and age, video surveillance cameras are surveillance cameras directly facing petitioners’
installed practically everywhere for the protection property or covering a significant portion thereof,
Our Code specifically mentions "prying into the
and safety of everyone. The installation of these without their consent, is a clear violation of their right
privacy of another’s residence." This does not
cameras, however, should not cover places where to privacy. As we see then, the issuance of a
mean, however, that only the residence is entitled to
there is reasonable expectation of privacy, unless preliminary injunction was justified. We need not
privacy, because the law covers also "similar acts."
the consent of the individual, whose right to privacy belabor that the issuance of a preliminary injunction
A business office is entitled to the same privacy would be affected, was obtained. Nor should these is discretionary on the part of the court taking
when the public is excluded therefrom and only such cameras be used to pry into the privacy of another’s cognizance of the case and should not be interfered
individuals as are allowed to enter may come in. x x residence or business office as it would be no with, unless there is grave abuse of discretion
x50 (Emphasis supplied)
different from eavesdropping, which is a crime committed by the court.56 Here, there is no
under Republic Act No. 4200 or the Anti- indication of any grave abuse of discretion. Hence,
Thus, an individual’s right to privacy under Article Wiretapping Law. the CA erred in finding that petitioners are not
26(1) of the Civil Code should not be confined to his entitled to an injunctive writ.
house or residence as it may extend to places where
In this case, the RTC, in granting the application for
he has the right to exclude the public or deny them Preliminary Injunction, ruled that: This brings us to the next question: whether
access. The phrase "prying into the privacy of respondents are the proper parties to this suit.
another’s residence," therefore, covers places,
locations, or even situations which an individual After careful consideration, there is basis to grant
considers as private. And as long as his right is the application for a temporary restraining order. A real party defendant is one who has a
recognized by society, other individuals may not The operation by respondents of a revolving correlative legal obligation to redress a
infringe on his right to privacy. The CA, therefore, camera, even if it were mounted on their building, wrong done to the plaintiff by reason of
erred in limiting the application of Article 26(1) of the violated the right of privacy of petitioners, who are the defendant's act or omission which
Civil Code only to residences. the owners of the adjacent lot. The camera does not had violated the legal right of the
only focus on respondents’ property or the roof of former.
the factory at the back (Aldo Development and
The "reasonable expectation of
Resources, Inc.) but it actually spans through a Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court provides:
privacy" test is used to determine good portion of the land of petitioners.
whether there is a violation of the right
to privacy. SEC. 2. Parties-in-interest. — A real party-in-
Based on the ocular inspection, the Court interest is the party who stands to be benefited or
understands why petitioner Hing was so unyielding injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party
In ascertaining whether there is a violation of the
in asserting that the revolving camera was set up entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise
right to privacy, courts use the "reasonable
deliberately to monitor the on[-]going construction in authorized by law or these Rules, every action must
expectation of privacy" test. This test determines
his property. The monitor showed only a portion of be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real
whether a person has a reasonable expectation of
the roof of the factory of Aldo. If the purpose of party-in-interest.
privacy and whether the expectation has been
respondents in setting up a camera at the back is to
violated.51 In Ople v. Torres,52 we enunciated that
secure the building and factory premises, then the

148
A real party defendant is "one who has a correlative is that Aldo would suffer damages if the video clinic and took 157 documents consisting of private
legal obligation to redress a wrong done to the surveillance cameras are removed and correspondence between Dr. Martin and his alleged
plaintiff by reason of the defendant’s act or omission transferred.65 Noticeably, in these instances, the paramours, greetings cards, cancelled checks,
which had violated the legal right of the former."57 personalities of respondents and Aldo seem to diaries, Dr. Martin's passport, and photographs. The
merge. documents and papers were seized for use in
In ruling that respondents are not the proper parties, evidence in a case for legal separation and for
the CA reasoned that since they do not own the All these taken together lead us to the inevitable disqualification from the practice of medicine which
building, they could not have installed the video conclusion that respondents are merely using the petitioner had filed against her husband.
surveillance cameras.58 Such reasoning, however, corporate fiction of Aldo as a shield to protect
is erroneous. The fact that respondents are not the themselves from this suit. In view of the foregoing, Dr. Martin brought this action below for recovery of
registered owners of the building does not we find that respondents are the proper parties to the documents and papers and for damages against
automatically mean that they did not cause the this suit. petitioner. The case was filed with the Regional Trial
installation of the video surveillance cameras. Court of Manila, Branch X, which, after trial,
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby GRANTED. rendered judgment for private respondent, Dr.
In their Complaint, petitioners claimed that The Decision dated July 10, 2007 and the Alfredo Martin, declaring him "the capital/exclusive
respondents installed the video surveillance Resolution dated September 11, 2007 of the Court owner of the properties described in paragraph 3 of
cameras in order to fish for evidence, which could of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 01473 are plaintiff's Complaint or those further described in the
be used against petitioners in another hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Orders Motion to Return and Suppress" and ordering
case.59 During the hearing of the application for dated October 18,2005 and February 6, 200[6] of Cecilia Zulueta and any person acting in her behalf
Preliminary Injunction, petitioner Bill testified that Branch 28 of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaue to a immediately return the properties to Dr. Martin
when respondents installed the video surveillance City in Civil Case No. MAN-5223 are hereby and to pay him P5,000.00, as nominal damages;
cameras, he immediately broached his concerns but REINSTATED and AFFIRMED. P5,000.00, as moral damages and attorney's fees;
they did not seem to care,60 and thus, he reported and to pay the costs of the suit. The writ of
the matter to the barangay for mediation, and preliminary injunction earlier issued was made final
G.R. No. 107383 February 20, 1996 and petitioner Cecilia Zulueta and her attorneys and
eventually, filed a Complaint against respondents CECILIA ZULUETA, petitioner,
before the RTC.61 He also admitted that as early as representatives were enjoined from "using or
vs. submitting/admitting as evidence" the documents
1998 there has already been a dispute between his COURT OF APPEALS and ALFREDO
family and the Choachuy family concerning the and papers in question. On appeal, the Court of
MARTIN, respondents. Appeals affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial
boundaries of their respective properties.62 With DECISION
these factual circumstances in mind, we believe that Court. Hence this petition.
respondents are the proper parties to be impleaded.
MENDOZA, J.: There is no question that the documents and papers
Moreover, although Aldo has a juridical personality in question belong to private respondent, Dr. Alfredo
separate and distinct from its stockholders, records This is a petition to review the decision of the Court Martin, and that they were taken by his wife, the
show that it is a family-owned corporation managed of Appeals, affirming the decision of the Regional herein petitioner, without his knowledge and
by the Choachuy family.63 Trial Court of Manila (Branch X) which ordered consent. For that reason, the trial court declared the
petitioner to return documents and papers taken by documents and papers to be properties of private
her from private respondent's clinic without the respondent, ordered petitioner to return them to
Also quite telling is the fact that respondents, latter's knowledge and consent. private respondent and enjoined her from using
notwithstanding their claim that they are not owners
them in evidence. In appealing from the decision of
of the building, allowed the court to enter the
The facts are as follows: the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court's
compound of Aldo and conduct an ocular
decision, petitioner's only ground is that in Alfredo
inspection. The counsel for respondents even
Martin v. Alfonso Felix, Jr.,1 this Court ruled that the
toured Judge Marilyn Lagura-Yap inside the building Petitioner Cecilia Zulueta is the wife of private
documents and papers (marked as Annexes A-1 to
and answered all her questions regarding the set-up respondent Alfredo Martin. On March 26, 1982,
J-7 of respondent's comment in that case) were
and installation of the video surveillance petitioner entered the clinic of her husband, a doctor
admissible in evidence and, therefore, their use by
cameras.64 And when respondents moved for of medicine, and in the presence of her mother, a petitioner's attorney, Alfonso Felix did not constitute
reconsideration of the Order dated October 18, driver and private respondent's secretary, forcibly malpractice or gross misconduct, For this reason it
2005 of the RTC, one of the arguments they raised opened the drawers and cabinet in her husband's

149
is contended that the Court of Appeals erred in the Regional Trial Court of Makati? violation of this provision renders the evidence
affirming the decision of the trial court instead of Respondent submits it is not malpractice. obtained inadmissible "for any purpose in any
dismissing private respondent's complaint. proceeding." 5
Significantly, petitioner's admission was
Petitioner's contention has no merit. The case done not thru his counsel but by Dr. Martin The intimacies between husband and wife do not
against Atty. Felix, Jr. was for disbarment. Among himself under oath, Such verified justify any one of them in breaking the drawers and
other things, private respondent, Dr. Alfredo Martin, admission constitutes an affidavit, and, cabinets of the other and in ransacking them for any
as complainant in that case, charged that in using therefore, receivable in evidence against telltale evidence of marital infidelity. A person, by
the documents in evidence, Atty. Felix, Jr. him. Petitioner became bound by his contracting marriage, does not shed his/her integrity
committed malpractice or gross misconduct admission. For Cecilia to avail herself of her or his right to privacy as an individual and the
because of the injunctive order of the trial court. In husband's admission and use the same in constitutional protection is ever available to him or
dismissing the complaint against Atty. Felix, Jr., this her action for legal separation cannot be to her.
Court took note of the following defense of Atty. treated as malpractice.
Felix; Jr. which it found to be "impressed with
The law insures absolute freedom of communication
merit:"2 Thus, the acquittal of Atty. Felix, Jr. in the between the spouses by making it privileged.
administrative case amounts to no more than a Neither husband nor wife may testify for or against
declaration that his use of the documents and the other without the consent of the affected spouse
papers for the purpose of securing Dr. Martin's while the marriage subsists.6Neither may be
On the alleged malpractice or gross admission as to their genuiness and authenticity did examined without the consent of the other as to any
misconduct of respondent [Alfonso Felix, not constitute a violation of the injunctive order of communication received in confidence by one from
Jr.], he maintains that: the trial court. By no means does the decision in that the other during the marriage, save for specified
case establish the admissibility of the documents exceptions.7 But one thing is freedom of
and papers in question. communication; quite another is a compulsion for
....
each one to share what one knows with the other.
It cannot be overemphasized that if Atty. Felix, Jr. And this has nothing to do with the duty of fidelity
4. When respondent refiled Cecilia's case was acquitted of the charge of violating the writ of that each owes to the other.
for legal separation before the Pasig preliminary injunction issued by the trial court, it was
Regional Trial Court, there was admittedly only because, at the time he used the documents
an order of the Manila Regional Trial Court WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED for
and papers, enforcement of the order of the trial lack of merit.
prohibiting Cecilia from using the court was temporarily restrained by this Court. The
documents Annex "A-1 to J-7." On TRO issued by this Court was eventually lifted as
September 6, 1983, however having the petition for certiorari filed by petitioner against G.R. No. 203254, October 08, 2014
appealed the said order to this Court on a DR. JOY MARGATE LEE, Petitioner, v. P/SUPT.
the trial court's order was dismissed and, therefore,
petition for certiorari, this Court issued a NERI A. ILAGAN, Respondent.
the prohibition against the further use of the
restraining order on aforesaid date which DECISION
documents and papers became effective again.
order temporarily set aside the order of the PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
trial court. Hence, during the enforceability
of this Court's order, respondent's request Indeed the documents and papers in question are Before the Court is a petition for review
for petitioner to admit the genuineness and inadmissible in evidence. The constitutional on certiorari1 assailing the Decision2 dated August
authenticity of the subject annexes cannot injunction declaring "the privacy of communication 30, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
be looked upon as malpractice. Notably, and correspondence [to be] inviolable"3 is no less City, Branch 224 (RTC) in SP No. 12-71527, which
petitioner Dr. Martin finally admitted the applicable simply because it is the wife (who thinks extended the privilege of the writ of habeas data in
truth and authenticity of the questioned herself aggrieved by her husband's infidelity) who is favor of respondent Police Superintendent Neri A.
annexes, At that point in time, would it have Ilagan (Ilagan).
the party against whom the constitutional provision
been malpractice for respondent to use is to be enforced. The only exception to the
petitioner's admission as evidence against The Facts
prohibition in the Constitution is if there is a "lawful
him in the legal separation case pending in order [from a] court or when public safety or order In his Petition for Issuance of the Writ of Habeas
requires otherwise, as prescribed by law."4 Any Data3 dated June 22, 2012, Ilagan alleged that he

150
and petitioner Dr. Joy Margate Lee (Lee) were be dismissed because: (a) its filing was only aimed privacy of individuals,17 which is defined as “the
former common law partners. Sometime in July at suppressing the evidence against Ilagan in the right to control the collection, maintenance, use,
2011, he visited Lee at the latter’s condominium, cases she filed; and (b) she is not engaged in the and dissemination of data about oneself.”18
rested for a while and thereafter,proceeded to his gathering, collecting, or storing of data regarding
office. Upon arrival, Ilagan noticed that his digital the person of Ilagan.12 As defined in Section 1 of the Habeas Data Rule,
camera was missing.4 On August 23, 2011, Lee the writ of habeas data now stands as “a remedy
confronted Ilagan at the latter’s office regarding a The RTC Ruling available to any person whose right to privacy in
purported sex video (subject video) she discovered life, liberty or security is violated or threatened
from the aforesaid camera involving Ilagan and In a Decision13 dated August 30, 2012, the RTC by an unlawful act or omission of a public official
another woman. Ilagan denied the video and granted the privilege of the writ of habeas data in or employee, or of a private individual or entity
demanded Lee to return the camera, but to no Ilagan’s favor, and accordingly, ordered the engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing
avail.5 During the confrontation, Ilagan allegedly implementing officer to turn-over copies of the of data or information regarding the person,
slammed Lee’s head against a wall inside his office subject video to him, and enjoined Lee from further family, home, and correspondence of the
and walked away.6Subsequently, Lee utilized the reproducing the same.14 aggrieved party.” Thus, in order to support a
said video as evidence in filing various complaints petition for the issuance of such writ, Section 6 of
against Ilagan, namely: (a) a criminal complaint The RTC did not give credence to Lee’s defense the Habeas Data Rule essentially requires that the
for violation of Republic Act No. 9262,7otherwise that she is not engaged in the gathering, collecting petition sufficiently alleges, among others, “[t]he
known as the “Anti-Violence Against Women and or storing of data regarding the person of Ilagan, manner the right to privacy is violated or
Their Children Act of 2004,” before the Office of the finding that her acts of reproducing the subject threatened and how it affects the right to life,
City Prosecutor of Makati; and (b) an video and showing it to other people, i.e., the liberty or security of the aggrieved party.” In
administrative complaint for grave misconduct NAPOLCOM officers, violated the latter’s right to other words, the petition must adequately show
before the National Police Commission privacy in life and caused him to suffer humiliation that there exists a nexus between the right to
(NAPOLCOM).8 Ilagan claimed that Lee’s acts of and mental anguish. In this relation, the RTC privacy on the one hand, and the right to life,
reproducing the subject video and threatening to opined that Lee’s use of the subject video as liberty or security on the other .19 Corollarily,
distribute the same to the upper echelons of the evidence in the various cases she filed against the allegations in the petition must be supported
NAPOLCOM and uploading it to the internet Ilagan is not enough justification for its by substantial evidence showing an actual or
violated not only his right to life, liberty, security, reproduction. Nevertheless, the RTC clarified that threatened violation of the right to privacy in life,
and privacy but also that of the other woman, and it is only ruling on the return of the aforesaid video liberty or security of the victim.20 In this relation,
thus, the issuance of a writ of habeas data in his and not on its admissibility before other tribunals.15 it bears pointing out that the writ of habeas
favor is warranted.9 data will not issue to protect purely property or
Dissatisfied, Lee filed this petition. commercial concerns nor when the grounds
Finding the petition prima facie meritorious, the invoked in support of the petitions therefor are
RTC issued a Writ of Habeas Data10 dated June 25, The Issue Before the Court vague and doubtful.21
2012, directing Lee to appear before the court a
quo, and to produce Ilagan’s digital camera, as well The essential issue for the Court’s resolution is In this case, the Court finds that Ilagan was not
as the negative and/or original of the subject video whether or not the RTC correctly extended the able to sufficiently allege that his right to privacy
and copies thereof, and to file a verified written privilege of the writ of habeas data in favor of in life, liberty or security was or would be violated
return within five (5) working days from date of Ilagan. through the supposed reproduction and threatened
receipt thereof. dissemination of the subject sex video. While
Ilagan purports a privacy interest in the
The Court’s Ruling
In her Verified Return11 dated July 2, 2012, Lee suppression of this video – which he fears would
admitted that she indeed kept the memory card of somehow find its way to Quiapo or be uploaded in
The petition is meritorious.
the digital camera and reproduced the aforesaid the internet for public consumption – he failed to
video but averred that she only did so to utilize the explain the connection between such interest and
A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC, or the Rule on the Writ
same as evidence in the cases she filed against any violation of his right to life, liberty or security.
of Habeas Data (Habeas Data Rule), was
Ilagan. She also admitted that her relationship with Indeed, courts cannot speculate or contrive
conceived as a response, given the lack of effective
Ilagan started sometime in 2003 and ended under versions of possible transgressions. As the rules
and available remedies, to address the
disturbing circumstances in August 2011, and that and existing jurisprudence on the matter evoke,
extraordinary rise in the number of killings and
she only happened to discover the subject video alleging and eventually proving the nexus between
enforced disappearances.16 It was conceptualized
when Ilagan left his camera in her condominium. one’s privacy right to the cogent rights to life,
as a judicial remedy enforcing the right to privacy,
Accordingly, Lee contended that Ilagan’s petition liberty or security are crucial in habeas datacases,
most especially the right to informational
for the issuance of the writ of habeas data should so much so that a failure on either account

151
certainly renders a habeas data petition desire. Thus each individual is continually engaged students, which include: (a) Julia and Julienne
dismissible, as in this case. in a personal adjustment process in which he drinking hard liquor and smoking cigarettes inside a
balances the desire for privacy with the desire for bar; and (b) Julia and Julienne along the streets of
In fact, even discounting the insufficiency of the disclosure and communication of himself to others, Cebu wearing articles of clothing that show virtually
allegations, the petition would equally be in light of the environmental conditions and social the entirety of their black brassieres. What is more,
dismissible due to the inadequacy of the evidence norms set by the society in which he lives. Escudero’s students claimed that there were times
presented. As the records show, all that Ilagan when access to or the availability of the identified
submitted in support of his petition was his self-
- Alan Westin, Privacy and Freedom (1967) students’ photos was not confined to the girls’
serving testimony which hardly meets the
Facebook friends,4but were, in fact, viewable by any
substantial evidence requirement as prescribed by
Facebook user.5
the Habeas Data Rule. This is because nothing The Case
therein would indicate that Lee actually proceeded
to commit any overt act towards the end of Upon discovery, Escudero reported the matter and,
violating Ilagan’s right to privacy in life, liberty or
Before Us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari
through one of her student’s Facebook page,
security. Nor would anything on record even lead under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, in relation to
showed the photosto Kristine Rose Tigol (Tigol),
a reasonable mind to conclude22 that Lee was Section 19 of A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC,1 otherwise
STC’s Discipline-in-Charge, for appropriate action.
going to use the subject video in order to achieve known as the "Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data."
Thereafter, following an investigation, STC found
unlawful ends – say for instance, to spread it to the Petitioners herein assail the July 27, 2012
the identified students to have deported themselves
public so as to ruin Ilagan’s Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14 in
in a manner proscribed by the school’s Student
reputation. Contrastingly, Lee even made it clear Cebu City (RTC) in SP. Proc. No. 19251-CEB, Handbook, to wit:
in her testimony that the only reason why she which dismissed their habeas data petition.
reproduced the subject video was to legitimately
utilize the same as evidence in the criminal and 1. Possession of alcoholic drinks outside
The Facts
administrative cases that she filed against the school campus;
Ilagan.23 Hence, due to the insufficiency of the 2. Engaging in immoral, indecent, obscene
allegations as well as the glaring absence of Nenita Julia V. Daluz (Julia) and Julienne Vida or lewd acts;
substantial evidence, the Court finds it proper to Suzara (Julienne), both minors, were, during the 3. Smoking and drinking
reverse the RTC Decision and dismiss the habeas period material, graduating high school students at alcoholicbeverages in public places;
data petition. St. Theresa's College (STC), Cebu City. Sometime 4. Apparel that exposes the underwear;
in January 2012, while changing into their swimsuits 5. Clothing that advocates unhealthy
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The for a beach party they were about to attend, Julia behaviour; depicts obscenity; contains
Decision dated August 30, 2012 of the Regional and Julienne, along with several others, took digital sexually suggestive messages, language
Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 224 in SP No. pictures of themselves clad only in their or symbols; and 6. Posing and uploading
12-71527is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. undergarments. These pictures were then uploaded pictures on the Internet that entail ample
Accordingly, the Petition for Issuance of the Writ by Angela Lindsay Tan (Angela) on her body exposure.
of Habeas Data filed by respondent P/Supt. Neri A. Facebook3 profile. On March 1, 2012, Julia, Julienne, Angela, and the
Ilagan is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
other students in the pictures in question, reported,
Back at the school, Mylene Rheza T. Escudero as required, to the office of Sr. Celeste Ma. Purisima
G.R. No. 202666 September 29, 2014 (Escudero), a computer teacher at STC’s high Pe (Sr. Purisima), STC’s high school principal and
RHONDA AVE S. VIVARES and SPS. school department, learned from her students that ICM6 Directress. They claimed that during the
MARGARITA and DAVID SUZARA, Petitioners, some seniors at STC posted pictures online, meeting, they were castigated and verbally abused
vs. depicting themselves from the waist up, dressed by the STC officials present in the conference,
ST. THERESA'S COLLEGE, MYLENE RHEZA T. only in brassieres. Escudero then asked her including Assistant Principal Mussolini S. Yap (Yap),
ESCUDERO, and JOHN DOES, Respondents. students if they knew who the girls in the photos are. Roswinda Jumiller, and Tigol. What is more, Sr.
DECISION In turn, they readily identified Julia, Julienne, and Purisima informed their parents the following day
Chloe Lourdes Taboada (Chloe), among others. that, as part of their penalty, they are barred from
VELASCO, JR., J.: joining the commencement exercises scheduled on
Using STC’s computers, Escudero’s students March 30, 2012.
The individual's desire for privacy is never absolute, logged in to their respective personal Facebook
since participation in society is an equally powerful accounts and showed her photos of the identified

152
A week before graduation, or on March 23, 2012, have known that the girls, whose privacy In time, respondents complied with the RTC’s
Angela’s mother, Dr. Armenia M. Tan (Tan), filed a has been invaded, are the victims in this directive and filed their verified written return, laying
Petition for Injunction and Damages before the RTC case, and not the offenders. Worse, after down the following grounds for the denial of the
of Cebu City against STC, et al., docketed as Civil viewing the photos, the minors were called petition, viz: (a) petitioners are not the proper parties
Case No. CEB-38594.7In it, Tan prayed that "immoral" and were punished outright; to file the petition; (b) petitioners are engaging in
defendants therein be enjoined from implementing forum shopping; (c) the instant case is not one
the sanction that precluded Angela from joining the 4. The photos accessed belong to the girls where a writ of habeas data may issue;and (d) there
commencement exercises. and, thus, cannot be used and reproduced can be no violation of their right to privacy as there
without their consent. Escudero, however, is no reasonable expectation of privacy on
On March 25, 2012,petitioner Rhonda Ave Vivares violated their rights by saving digital copies Facebook.
(Vivares), the mother of Julia, joined the fray as an of the photos and by subsequently showing
intervenor. On March 28, 2012, defendants inCivil them to STC’s officials. Thus, the Facebook Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
Case No. CEB-38594 filed their memorandum, accounts of petitioners’ children were
containing printed copies of the photographs in intruded upon; On July 27, 2012, the RTC rendered a Decision
issue as annexes. That same day, the RTC issued dismissing the petition for habeas data. The
a temporary restraining order (TRO) allowing the 5. The intrusion into the Facebook dispositive portion of the Decision pertinently states:
students to attend the graduation ceremony, to accounts, as well as the copying of
which STC filed a motion for reconsideration. information, data, and digital images WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises,
happened at STC’s Computer Laboratory; the Petition is hereby DISMISSED.
Despite the issuance of the TRO,STC, and
nevertheless, barred the sanctioned students from
The parties and media must observe the aforestated
participating in the graduation rites, arguing that, on 6. All the data and digital images that were confidentiality.
the date of the commencement exercises, its extracted were boldly broadcasted by
adverted motion for reconsideration on the issuance respondents through their memorandum
ofthe TRO remained unresolved. xxxx
submitted to the RTC in connection with
Civil Case No. CEB-38594. To petitioners,
Thereafter, petitioners filed before the RTC a the interplay of the foregoing constitutes an SO ORDERED.9
Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Habeas Data, invasion of their children’s privacy and,
docketed as SP. Proc. No. 19251-CEB8 on the basis thus, prayed that: (a) a writ of habeas To the trial court, petitioners failed to prove the
of the following considerations: databe issued; (b) respondents be ordered existence of an actual or threatened violation of the
to surrender and deposit with the court all minors’ right to privacy, one of the preconditions for
1. The photos of their children in their soft and printed copies of the subjectdata the issuance of the writ of habeas data. Moreover,
undergarments (e.g., bra) were taken for before or at the preliminary hearing; and (c) the court a quoheld that the photos, having been
posterity before they changed into their after trial, judgment be rendered declaring uploaded on Facebook without restrictions as to
swimsuits on the occasion of a birthday all information, data, and digital images who may view them, lost their privacy in some way.
beach party; accessed, saved or stored, reproduced, Besides, the RTC noted, STC gathered the
spread and used, to have been illegally photographs through legal means and for a legal
obtained inviolation of the children’s right to purpose, that is, the implementation of the school’s
2. The privacy setting of their children’s privacy. policies and rules on discipline.
Facebook accounts was set at "Friends
Only." They, thus, have a reasonable
expectation of privacy which must be Finding the petition sufficient in form and substance, Not satisfied with the outcome, petitioners now
respected. the RTC, through an Order dated July 5, 2012, come before this Court pursuant to Section 19 of the
issued the writ of habeas data. Through the same Rule on Habeas Data.10
Order, herein respondents were directed to file their
3. Respondents, being involved in the field
verified written return, together with the supporting The Issues
of education, knew or ought to have known
affidavits, within five (5) working days from service
of laws that safeguard the right to privacy. of the writ.
Corollarily, respondents knew or ought to

153
The main issue to be threshed out inthis case is violation of the right to privacy in life, liberty or Had the framers of the Rule intended to narrow the
whether or not a writ of habeas datashould be security of the victim are indispensable before the operation of the writ only to cases of extralegal
issued given the factual milieu. Crucial in resolving privilege of the writ may be extended.15 killings or enforced disappearances, the above
the controversy, however, is the pivotal point of underscored portion of Section 2, reflecting a
whether or not there was indeed an actual or Without an actionable entitlement in the first place variance of habeas data situations, would not have
threatened violation of the right to privacy in the life, to the right to informational privacy, a habeas been made.
liberty, or security of the minors involved in this datapetition will not prosper. Viewed from the
case. perspective of the case at bar,this requisite begs this Habeas data, to stress, was designed "to safeguard
question: given the nature of an online social individual freedom from abuse in the information
Our Ruling network (OSN)––(1) that it facilitates and promotes age."17 As such, it is erroneous to limit its
real-time interaction among millions, if not billions, applicability to extralegal killings and enforced
We find no merit in the petition. of users, sans the spatial barriers,16 bridging the gap disappearances only. In fact, the annotations to the
created by physical space; and (2) that any Rule preparedby the Committee on the Revision of
information uploaded in OSNs leavesan indelible the Rules of Court, after explaining that the Writ of
Procedural issues concerning the availability of the
trace in the provider’s databases, which are outside Habeas Data complements the Writ of Amparo,
Writ of Habeas Data
the control of the end-users––is there a right to pointed out that:
informational privacy in OSN activities of its users?
The writ of habeas datais a remedy available to any Before addressing this point, We must first resolve The writ of habeas data, however, can be availed of
person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or the procedural issues in this case. as an independent remedy to enforce one’s right to
security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act
privacy, more specifically the right to informational
or omission of a public official or employee, or of a
a. The writ of habeas data is not only confined to privacy. The remedies against the violation of such
private individual or entity engaged in the gathering,
cases of extralegal killings and enforced right can include the updating, rectification,
collecting or storing of data or information regarding disappearances suppression or destruction of the database or
the person, family, home and correspondence of the
information or files in possession or in control of
aggrieved party.11 It is an independent and
Contrary to respondents’ submission, the Writ of respondents.18 (emphasis Ours) Clearly then, the
summary remedy designed to protect the image,
Habeas Datawas not enacted solely for the purpose privilege of the Writ of Habeas Datamay also be
privacy, honor, information, and freedom of
of complementing the Writ of Amparoin cases of availed of in cases outside of extralegal killings and
information of an individual, and to provide a forum enforced disappearances.
to enforce one’s right to the truth and to extralegal killings and enforced disappearances.
informational privacy. It seeks to protect a person’s
right to control information regarding oneself, Section 2 of the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data b. Meaning of "engaged" in the gathering, collecting
particularly in instances in which such information is provides: or storing of data or information
being collected through unlawful means in order to
achieve unlawful ends.12 Sec. 2. Who May File. – Any aggrieved party may Respondents’ contention that the habeas data writ
file a petition for the writ of habeas data. However, may not issue against STC, it not being an entity
In developing the writ of habeas data, the Court in cases of extralegal killings and enforced engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of
aimed to protect an individual’s right to informational disappearances, the petition may be filed by: data or information regarding the person, family,
privacy, among others. A comparative law scholar home and correspondence of the aggrieved party,
has, in fact, defined habeas dataas "a procedure while valid to a point, is, nonetheless, erroneous.
(a) Any member of the immediate family of
designed to safeguard individual freedom from the aggrieved party, namely: the spouse,
abuse in the information age."13 The writ, however, children and parents; or To be sure, nothing in the Rule would suggest that
will not issue on the basis merely of an alleged the habeas data protection shall be available only
unauthorized access to information about a against abuses of a person or entity engaged in the
(b) Any ascendant, descendant or collateral
person.Availment of the writ requires the existence businessof gathering, storing, and collecting of data.
relative of the aggrieved party within the As provided under Section 1 of the Rule:
of a nexus between the right to privacy on the one
fourth civil degreeof consanguinity or
hand, and the right to life, liberty or security on the
affinity, in default of those mentioned in the
other.14 Thus, the existence of a person’s right to Section 1. Habeas Data. – The writ of habeas datais
preceding paragraph. (emphasis supplied)
informational privacy and a showing, at least by a remedy available to any person whose right to
substantial evidence, of an actual or threatened

154
privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or a. The Right to Informational Privacy privacy is not necessarily incompatible with
threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public engaging in cyberspace activities, including those
official or employee, or of a private individual or The concept of privacyhas, through time, greatly that occur in OSNs.
entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing evolved, with technological advancements having
of data or information regarding the person, family, an influential part therein. This evolution was briefly The question now though is up to whatextent is the
home and correspondence of the aggrieved party. recounted in former Chief Justice Reynato S. right to privacy protected in OSNs? Bear in mind that
(emphasis Ours) Puno’s speech, The Common Right to informational privacy involves personal information.
Privacy,20 where he explained the three strands of At the same time, the very purpose of OSNs is
The provision, when taken in its proper context, as the right to privacy, viz: (1) locational or situational socializing––sharing a myriad of
a whole, irresistibly conveys the idea that habeas privacy;21(2) informational privacy; and (3) information,27 some of which would have otherwise
data is a protection against unlawful acts or decisional privacy.22 Of the three, what is relevant to remained personal.
omissions of public officials and of private the case at bar is the right to informational privacy–
individuals or entities engaged in gathering, –usually defined as the right of individuals to control b. Facebook’s Privacy Tools: a response to the
collecting, or storing data about the aggrieved party information about themselves.23 clamor for privacy in OSN activities
and his or her correspondences, or about his or her
family. Such individual or entity need not be in the With the availability of numerous avenues for
business of collecting or storing data. Briefly, the purpose of an OSN is precisely to give
information gathering and data sharing nowadays, users the ability to interact and to stay connected to
not to mention each system’s inherent vulnerability other members of the same or different social media
To "engage" in something is different from to attacks and intrusions, there is more reason that platform through the sharing of statuses, photos,
undertaking a business endeavour. To "engage" every individual’s right to control said flow of videos, among others, depending on the services
means "to do or take part in something."19 It does information should be protected and that each provided by the site. It is akin to having a room filled
not necessarily mean that the activity must be done individual should have at least a reasonable with millions of personal bulletin boards or "walls,"
in pursuit of a business. What matters is that the expectation of privacy in cyberspace. Several the contents of which are under the control of each
person or entity must be gathering, collecting or commentators regarding privacy and social and every user. In his or her bulletin board, a
storing said data or information about the aggrieved networking sites, however, all agree that given the user/owner can post anything––from text, to
party or his or her family. Whether such undertaking millions of OSN users, "[i]n this [Social Networking] pictures, to music and videos––access to which
carries the element of regularity, as when one environment, privacy is no longer grounded in would depend on whether he or she allows one,
pursues a business, and is in the nature of a reasonable expectations, but rather in some some or all of the other users to see his or her posts.
personal endeavour, for any other reason or even theoretical protocol better known as wishful Since gaining popularity, the OSN phenomenon has
for no reason at all, is immaterial and such will not thinking."24 paved the way to the creation of various social
prevent the writ from getting to said person or entity. networking sites, includingthe one involved in the
It is due to this notion that the Court saw the case at bar, www.facebook.com (Facebook), which,
To agree with respondents’ above argument, would pressing need to provide for judicial remedies that according to its developers, people use "to stay
mean unduly limiting the reach of the writ to a very would allow a summary hearing of the unlawful use connected with friends and family, to discover
small group, i.e., private persons and entities whose of data or information and to remedy possible what’s going on in the world, and to share and
business is data gathering and storage, and in the violations of the right to privacy.25 In the same vein, express what matters to them."28
process decreasing the effectiveness of the writ the South African High Court, in its Decision in the
asan instrument designed to protect a right which is landmark case, H v. W,26promulgated on Facebook connections are established through the
easily violated in view of rapid advancements in the January30, 2013, recognized that "[t]he law has to process of "friending" another user. By sending a
information and communications technology––a take into account the changing realities not only "friend request," the user invites another to connect
right which a great majority of the users of technologically but also socially or else it will lose their accounts so that they can view any and all
technology themselves are not capable of credibility in the eyes of the people. x x x It is "Public" and "Friends Only" posts of the other.Once
protecting. imperative that the courts respond appropriately to the request is accepted, the link is established and
changing times, acting cautiously and with wisdom." both users are permitted to view the other user’s
Having resolved the procedural aspect of the case, Consistent with this, the Court, by developing what "Public" or "Friends Only" posts, among others.
We now proceed to the core of the controversy. may be viewed as the Philippine model of the writ of "Friending," therefore, allows the user to form or
habeas data, in effect, recognized that, generally maintain one-to-one relationships with other users,
speaking, having an expectation of informational whereby the user gives his or her "Facebook friend"
The right to informational privacy on Facebook

155
access to his or her profile and shares certain position of receiving such confidences."34 Ideally, said photo would still be deemed public by the
information to the latter.29 the selected setting will be based on one’s desire to courts as if the user never chose to limit the photo’s
interact with others, coupled with the opposing need visibility and accessibility. Such position, if adopted,
To address concerns about privacy,30 but without to withhold certain information as well as to regulate will not only strip these privacy tools of their function
defeating its purpose, Facebook was armed with the spreading of his or her personal information. but it would also disregard the very intention of the
different privacy tools designed to regulate the Needless to say, as the privacy setting becomes user to keep said photo or information within the
accessibility of a user’s profile31 as well as more limiting, fewer Facebook users can view that confines of his or her private space.
information uploaded by the user. In H v. W,32 the user’s particular post.
South Gauteng High Court recognized this ability of We must now determine the extent that the images
the users to "customize their privacy settings," but STC did not violate petitioners’ daughters’ right to in question were visible to other Facebook users
did so with this caveat: "Facebook states in its privacy and whether the disclosure was confidential in
policies that, although it makes every effort to nature. In other words, did the minors limit the
protect a user’s information, these privacy settings Without these privacy settings, respondents’ disclosure of the photos such that the images were
are not foolproof."33 contention that there is no reasonable expectation kept within their zones of privacy? This
of privacy in Facebook would, in context, be correct. determination is necessary in resolving the issue of
For instance, a Facebook user canregulate the However, such is not the case. It is through the whether the minors carved out a zone of privacy
visibility and accessibility of digital images(photos), availability of said privacy tools that many OSN when the photos were uploaded to Facebook so that
posted on his or her personal bulletin or "wall," users are said to have a subjective expectation that the images will be protected against unauthorized
except for the user’sprofile picture and ID, by only those to whomthey grant access to their profile access and disclosure.
selecting his or her desired privacy setting: will view the information they post or upload
thereto.35 Petitioners, in support of their thesis about their
(a) Public - the default setting; every children’s privacy right being violated, insist that
Facebook user can view the photo; This, however, does not mean thatany Facebook Escudero intruded upon their children’s Facebook
user automatically has a protected expectation of accounts, downloaded copies ofthe pictures and
privacy inall of his or her Facebook activities. showed said photos to Tigol. To them, this was a
(b) Friends of Friends - only the user’s
breach of the minors’ privacy since their Facebook
Facebook friends and their friends can view
accounts, allegedly, were under "very private" or
the photo; Before one can have an expectation of privacy in his
"Only Friends" setting safeguarded with a
or her OSN activity, it is first necessary that said
password.39 Ultimately, they posit that their
(b) Friends - only the user’s Facebook user, in this case the children of petitioners,manifest
children’s disclosure was only limited since their
friends can view the photo; the intention to keepcertain posts private, through profiles were not open to public viewing. Therefore,
the employment of measures to prevent access according to them, people who are not their
thereto or to limit its visibility.36 And this intention can Facebook friends, including respondents, are
(c) Custom - the photo is made visible only
materialize in cyberspace through the utilization of barred from accessing said post without their
to particular friends and/or networks of the
the OSN’s privacy tools. In other words, utilization of knowledge and consent. Aspetitioner’s children
Facebook user; and
these privacy tools is the manifestation,in cyber testified, it was Angelawho uploaded the
world, of the user’s invocation of his or her right to subjectphotos which were only viewable by the five
(d) Only Me - the digital image can be informational privacy.37
viewed only by the user. of them,40 although who these five are do not appear
on the records.
Therefore, a Facebook user who opts to make use
The foregoing are privacy tools, available to of a privacy tool to grant or deny access to his or her
Facebook users, designed to set up barriers to Escudero, on the other hand, stated in her
post orprofile detail should not be denied the affidavit41 that "my students showed me some
broaden or limit the visibility of his or her specific informational privacy right which necessarily
profile content, statuses, and photos, among others, pictures of girls cladin brassieres. This student [sic]
accompanies said choice.38Otherwise, using these of mine informed me that these are senior high
from another user’s point of view. In other words, privacy tools would be a feckless exercise, such that
Facebook extends its users an avenue to make the school [students] of STC, who are their friends in
if, for instance, a user uploads a photo or any [F]acebook. x x x They then said [that] there are still
availability of their Facebook activities reflect their personal information to his or her Facebook page
choice as to "when and to what extent to disclose many other photos posted on the Facebook
and sets its privacy level at "Only Me" or a custom accounts of these girls. At the computer lab, these
facts about [themselves] – and to put others in the list so that only the user or a chosen few can view it,

156
students then logged into their Facebook account Also, United States v. Maxwell46 held that "[t]he To illustrate, suppose A has 100 Facebook friends
[sic], and accessed from there the various more open the method of transmission is, the less and B has 200. A and B are not Facebook friends. If
photographs x x x. They even told me that there had privacy one can reasonably expect. Messages sent C, A’s Facebook friend, tags B in A’s post, which is
been times when these photos were ‘public’ i.e., not to the public at large inthe chat room or e-mail that set at "Friends," the initial audience of 100 (A’s own
confined to their friends in Facebook." is forwarded from correspondent to correspondent Facebook friends) is dramatically increased to 300
loses any semblance of privacy." (A’s 100 friends plus B’s 200 friends or the public,
In this regard, We cannot give muchweight to the depending upon B’s privacy setting). As a result, the
minors’ testimonies for one key reason: failure to That the photos are viewable by "friends only" does audience who can view the post is effectively
question the students’ act of showing the photos to not necessarily bolster the petitioners’ contention. In expanded––and to a very large extent.
Tigol disproves their allegation that the photos were this regard, the cyber community is agreed that the
viewable only by the five of them. Without any digital images under this setting still remain to be This, along with its other features and uses, is
evidence to corroborate their statement that the outside the confines of the zones of privacy in view confirmation of Facebook’s proclivity towards user
images were visible only to the five of them, and of the following: interaction and socialization rather than seclusion or
without their challenging Escudero’s claim that the privacy, as it encourages broadcasting of individual
other students were able to view the photos, their (1) Facebook "allows the world to be more user posts. In fact, it has been said that OSNs have
statements are, at best, self-serving, thus deserving open and connected by giving its users the facilitated their users’ self-tribute, thereby resulting
scant consideration.42 tools to interact and share in any into the "democratization of fame."51Thus, it is
conceivable way;"47 suggested, that a profile, or even a post, with
It is well to note that not one of petitioners disputed visibility set at "Friends Only" cannot easily, more so
Escudero’s sworn account that her students, who automatically, be said to be "very private," contrary
(2) A good number of Facebook users to petitioners’ argument.
are the minors’ Facebook "friends," showed her the "befriend" other users who are total
photos using their own Facebook accounts. This strangers;48
only goes to show that no special means to be able As applied, even assuming that the photos in issue
to viewthe allegedly private posts were ever are visible only to the sanctioned students’
(3) The sheer number of "Friends" one user
resorted to by Escudero’s students,43 and that it is Facebook friends, respondent STC can hardly be
has, usually by the hundreds; and
reasonable to assume, therefore, that the photos taken to task for the perceived privacy invasion
were, in reality, viewable either by (1) their since it was the minors’ Facebook friends who
Facebook friends, or (2) by the public at large. (4) A user’s Facebook friend can showed the pictures to Tigol. Respondents were
"share"49 the former’s post, or "tag"50 others mere recipients of what were posted. They did not
who are not Facebook friends with the resort to any unlawful means of gathering the
Considering that the default setting for Facebook
former, despite its being visible only tohis information as it was voluntarily given to them by
posts is"Public," it can be surmised that the
or her own Facebook friends. persons who had legitimate access to the said
photographs in question were viewable to everyone
on Facebook, absent any proof that petitioners’ posts. Clearly, the fault, if any, lies with the friends
children positively limited the disclosure of the It is well to emphasize at this point that setting a of the minors. Curiously enough, however, neither
photograph. If suchwere the case, they cannot post’s or profile detail’s privacy to "Friends" is no the minors nor their parents imputed any violation of
invoke the protection attached to the right to assurance that it can no longer be viewed by privacy against the students who showed the
informational privacy. The ensuing pronouncement another user who is not Facebook friends with the images to Escudero.
in US v. Gines-Perez44 is most instructive: source of the content. The user’s own Facebook
friend can share said content or tag his or her own Furthermore, petitioners failed to prove their
Facebook friend thereto, regardless of whether the contention that respondents reproduced and
[A] person who places a photograph on the Internet
user tagged by the latter is Facebook friends or not broadcasted the photographs. In fact, what
precisely intends to forsake and renounce all
with the former. Also, when the post is shared or petitioners attributed to respondents as an act of
privacy rights to such imagery, particularly under
when a person is tagged, the respective Facebook offensive disclosure was no more than the actuality
circumstances suchas here, where the Defendant
friends of the person who shared the post or who that respondents appended said photographs in
did not employ protective measures or devices that
was tagged can view the post, the privacy setting of their memorandum submitted to the trial court in
would have controlled access to the Web page or
which was set at "Friends." connection with Civil Case No. CEB-38594.52 These
the photograph itself.45
are not tantamount to a violation of the minor’s

157
informational privacy rights, contrary to petitioners’ Respondent STC is clearly aware of this and and must not be negligent in protecting their rights.
assertion. incorporating lessons on good cyber citizenship in Equity serves the vigilant. Demanding relief from the
its curriculum to educate its students on proper courts, as here, requires that claimants themselves
In sum, there can be no quibbling that the images in online conduct may be mosttimely. Too, it is not only take utmost care in safeguarding a right which they
question, or to be more precise, the photos of minor STC but a number of schools and organizations allege to have been violated. These are
students scantily clad, are personal in nature, likely have already deemed it important to include digital indispensable. We cannot afford protection to
to affect, if indiscriminately circulated, the reputation literacy and good cyber citizenshipin their respective persons if they themselves did nothing to place the
of the minors enrolled in a conservative institution. programs and curricula in view of the risks that the matter within the confines of their private zone. OSN
However, the records are bereft of any evidence, children are exposed to every time they participate users must be mindful enough to learn the use of
other than bare assertions that they utilized in online activities.58 Furthermore, considering the privacy tools, to use them if they desire to keep the
Facebook’s privacy settings to make the photos complexity of the cyber world and its information private, and to keep track of changes in
visible only to them or to a select few. Without proof pervasiveness,as well as the dangers that these the available privacy settings, such as those of
that they placed the photographs subject of this children are wittingly or unwittingly exposed to in Facebook, especially because Facebook is
case within the ambit of their protected zone of view of their unsupervised activities in cyberspace, notorious for changing these settings and the site's
privacy, they cannot now insist that they have an the participation of the parents in disciplining and layout often.
expectation of privacy with respect to the educating their children about being a good digital
photographs in question. citizen is encouraged by these institutions and In finding that respondent STC and its officials did
organizations. In fact, it is believed that "to limit such not violate the minors' privacy rights, We find no
risks, there’s no substitute for parental involvement cogent reason to disturb the findings and case
Had it been proved that the access tothe pictures and supervision."59
posted were limited to the original uploader, through disposition of the court a quo.
the "Me Only" privacy setting, or that the user’s
contact list has been screened to limit access to a As such, STC cannot be faulted for being steadfast In light of the foregoing, the Court need not belabor
select few, through the "Custom" setting, the result in its duty of teaching its students to beresponsible the other assigned errors.
may have been different, for in such instances, the in their dealings and activities in cyberspace,
intention to limit access to the particular post, particularly in OSNs, whenit enforced the
disciplinary actions specified in the Student WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is
instead of being broadcasted to the public at large hereby DENIED. The Decision dated July 27, 2012
or all the user’s friends en masse, becomes more Handbook, absenta showing that, in the process, it
violated the students’ rights. of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14 in Cebu City
manifest and palpable. in SP. Proc. No. 19251-CEB is hereby AFFIRMED.

On Cyber Responsibility OSN users should be aware of the risks that they
expose themselves to whenever they engage G.R. No. 203335 February 11, 2014
incyberspace activities.1âwphi1 Accordingly, they
It has been said that "the best filter is the one should be cautious enough to control their privacy JOSE JESUS M. DISINI, JR., ROWENA S.
between your children’s ears."53 This means that and to exercise sound discretion regarding how DISINI, LIANNE IVY P. MEDINA, JANETTE
self-regulation on the part of OSN users and internet much information about themselves they are willing TORAL and ERNESTO SONIDO,
consumers ingeneral is the best means of avoiding to give up. Internet consumers ought to be aware JR., Petitioners,
privacy rights violations.54 As a cyberspace that, by entering or uploading any kind of data or vs.
communitymember, one has to be proactive in THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, THE
information online, they are automatically and
protecting his or her own privacy.55 It is in this regard SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE
inevitably making it permanently available online,
that many OSN users, especially minors, INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THE
the perpetuation of which is outside the ambit of
fail.Responsible social networking or observance of EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE INFORMATION
their control. Furthermore, and more importantly,
the "netiquettes"56 on the part of teenagers has AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY
information, otherwise private, voluntarily
been the concern of many due to the OFFICE, THE CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE
surrendered by them can be opened, read, or
widespreadnotion that teenagers can sometimes go NATIONAL POLICE and THE DIRECTOR OF
copied by third parties who may or may not be
too far since they generally lack the people skills or allowed access to such. THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF
general wisdom to conduct themselves sensibly in a INVESTIGATION, Respondents.
public forum.57
It is, thus, incumbent upon internet users to exercise
due diligence in their online dealings and activities x-----------------------x

158
G.R. No. 203299 vs. vs.
THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III, President of
LOUIS "BAROK" C. BIRAOGO, Petitioner, DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND the Republic of the Philippines, PAQUITO N.
vs. MANAGEMENT, THE DEPARTMENT OF OCHOA, JR., Executive Secretary, SENATE OF
NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION and JUSTICE, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE THE PHILIPPINES, represented by SENATE
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, Respondents. INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THE PRESIDENT JUAN PONCE ENRILE, HOUSE OF
NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, THE REPRESENTATIVES, represented by SPEAKER
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, AND THE FELICIANO BELMONTE, JR., LEILA DE LIMA,
x-----------------------x INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS Secretary of the Department of Justice, LOUIS
TECHNOLOGY OFFICE-DEPARTMENT OF NAPOLEON C. CASAMBRE, Executive Director
G.R. No. 203306 SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, Respondents. of the Information and Communications
Technology Office, NONNATUS CAESAR R.
ALAB NG MAMAMAHAYAG (ALAM), HUKUMAN x-----------------------x ROJAS, Director of the National Bureau of
NG MAMAMAYAN MOVEMENT, INC., JERRY S. Investigation, D/GEN. NICANOR A.
YAP, BERTENI "TOTO" CAUSING, HERNANI Q. BARTOLOME, Chief of the Philippine National
G.R. No. 203391
CUARE, PERCY LAPID, TRACY CABRERA, Police, MANUEL A. ROXAS II, Secretary of the
RONALDO E. RENTA, CIRILO P. SABARRE, Department of the Interior and Local
JR., DERVIN CASTRO, ET AL., Petitioners, HON. RAYMOND V. PALATINO, HON. ANTONIO Government, Respondents.
vs. TINIO, VENCER MARI CRISOSTOMO OF
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, represented by ANAKBAYAN, MA. KATHERINE ELONA OF THE x-----------------------x
President Benigno Simeon Aquino III, SENATE PHILIPPINE COLLEGIAN, ISABELLE THERESE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, and HOUSE OF BAGUISI OF THE NATIONAL UNION OF
STUDENTS OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET G.R. No. 203440
REPRESENTATIVES, Respondents.
AL., Petitioners,
vs. MELENCIO S. STA. MARIA, SEDFREY M.
x-----------------------x
PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., in his capacity as CANDELARIA, AMPARITA STA. MARIA, RAY
Executive Secretary and alter-ego of President PAOLO J. SANTIAGO, GILBERT V.
G.R. No. 203359 Benigno Simeon Aquino III, LEILA DE LIMA in SEMBRANO, and RYAN JEREMIAH D. QUAN
her capacity as Secretary of (all of the Ateneo Human Rights
SENATOR TEOFISTO DL GUINGONA Justice, Respondents. Center),Petitioners,
III, Petitioner, vs.
vs. x-----------------------x HONORABLE PAQUITO OCHOA in his capacity
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY as Executive Secretary, HONORABLE LEILA DE
OF JUSTICE, THE SECRETARY OF THE LIMA in her capacity as Secretary of Justice,
G.R. No. 203407
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL HONORABLE MANUEL ROXAS in his capacity
GOVERNMENT, THE CHIEF OF THE as Secretary of the Department of Interior and
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, and BAGONG ALYANSANG MAKABAYAN Local Government, The CHIEF of the Philippine
DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF SECRETARY GENERAL RENATO M. REYES, National Police, The DIRECTOR of the National
INVESTIGATION, Respondents. JR., National Artist BIENVENIDO L. LUMBERA, Bureau of Investigation (all of the Executive
Chairperson of Concerned Artists of the Department of Government), Respondents.
Philippines, ELMER C. LABOG, Chairperson of
x-----------------------x
Kilusang Mayo Uno, CRISTINA E. PALABAY,
x-----------------------x
Secretary General of Karapatan, FERDINAND R.
G.R. No. 203378 GAITE, Chairperson of COURAGE, JOEL B.
MAGLUNSOD, Vice President of Anakpawis G.R. No. 203453
ALEXANDER ADONIS, ELLEN TORDESILLAS, Party-List, LANA R. LINABAN, Secretary
MA. GISELA ORDENES-CASCOLAN, H. HARRY General Gabriela Women's Party, ADOLFO NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS OF THE
L. ROQUE, JR., ROMEL R. BAGARES, and ARES P. GUTIERREZ, and JULIUS GARCIA PHILIPPINES (NUJP), PHILIPPINE PRESS
GILBERT T. ANDRES, Petitioners, MATIBAG, Petitioners, INSTITUTE (PPI), CENTER FOR MEDIA

159
FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY, ROWENA GRAY; JULIUS IVAN F. CABIGON; BENRALPH x-----------------------x
CARRANZA PARAAN, MELINDA QUINTOS-DE S. YU; CEBU BLOGGERS SOCIETY, INC.
JESUS, JOSEPH ALWYN ALBURO, ARIEL PRESIDENT RUBEN B. LICERA, JR; and PINOY G.R. No. 203509
SEBELLINO AND THE PETITIONERS IN THE e- EXPAT/OFW BLOG AWARDS, INC.
PETITION http://www.nujp.org/no-to- COORDINATOR PEDRO E. RAHON; Petitioners,
BAYAN MUNA REPRESENTATIVE NERI J.
ra10175/, Petitioners, vs.
COLMENARES, Petitioner,
vs. HIS EXCELLENCY BENIGNO S. AQUINO III, in
THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE his capacity as President of the Republic of the vs.
SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, THE SECRETARY Philippines; SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO
OCHOA, JR., Respondent.
OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, represented by HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, in
THE SECRETARY OF BUDGET AND his capacity as Senate President; HOUSE OF
MANAGEMENT, THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF REPRESENTATIVES, represented by x-----------------------x
THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, THE FELICIANO R. BELMONTE, JR., in his capacity
DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF as Speaker of the House of Representatives; G.R. No. 203515
INVESTIGATION, THE CYBERCRIME HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., in his capacity
INVESTIGATION AND COORDINATING as Executive Secretary; HON. LEILA M. DE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB OF THE PHILIPPINES,
CENTER, AND ALL AGENCIES AND LIMA, in her capacity as Secretary of Justice; INC. represented by BENNY D. ANTIPORDA in
INSTRUMENTALITIES OF GOVERNMENT AND HON. LOUIS NAPOLEON C. CASAMBRE, in his his capacity as President and in his personal
ALL PERSONS ACTING UNDER THEIR capacity as Executive Director, Information and capacity, Petitioner,
INSTRUCTIONS, ORDERS, DIRECTION IN Communications Technology Office; HON. vs.
RELATION TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF NONNATUS CAESAR R. ROJAS, in his capacity OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, PRES. BENIGNO
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10175, Respondents. as Director, National Bureau of Investigation; SIMEON AQUINO III, DEPARTMENT OF
and P/DGEN. NICANOR A. BARTOLOME, in his JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND
x-----------------------x capacity as Chief, Philippine National LOCAL GOVERNMENT, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
Police, Respondents. POLICE, NATIONAL BUREAU OF
G.R. No. 203454 INVESTIGATION, DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET
x-----------------------x AND MANAGEMENT AND ALL OTHER
GOVERNMENT INSTRUMENTALITIES WHO
PAUL CORNELIUS T. CASTILLO & RYAN D.
G.R. No. 203501 HAVE HANDS IN THE PASSAGE AND/OR
ANDRES, Petitioners,
IMPLEMENTATION OF REPUBLIC ACT
vs.
10175, Respondents.
THE HON. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE THE HON. PHILIPPINE BAR ASSOCIATION,
SECRETARY OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL INC., Petitioner,
GOVERNMENT,Respondents. vs. x-----------------------x
HIS EXCELLENCY BENIGNO S. AQUINO III, in
x-----------------------x his official capacity as President of the G.R. No. 203518
Republic of the Philippines; HON. PAQUITO N.
OCHOA, JR., in his official capacity as PHILIPPINE INTERNET FREEDOM ALLIANCE,
G.R. No. 203469
Executive Secretary; HON. LEILA M. DE LIMA, composed of DAKILA-PHILIPPINE
in her official capacity as Secretary of Justice; COLLECTIVE FOR MODERN HEROISM,
ANTHONY IAN M. CRUZ; MARCELO R. LOUIS NAPOLEON C. CASAMBRE, in his represented by Leni Velasco, PARTIDO LAKAS
LANDICHO; BENJAMIN NOEL A. ESPINA; official capacity as Executive Director, NG MASA, represented by Cesar S. Melencio,
MARCK RONALD C. RIMORIN; JULIUS D. Information and Communications Technology FRANCIS EUSTON R. ACERO, MARLON
ROCAS; OLIVER RICHARD V. ROBILLO; Office; NONNATUS CAESAR R. ROJAS, in his ANTHONY ROMASANTA TONSON, TEODORO
AARON ERICK A. LOZADA; GERARD ADRIAN official capacity as Director of the National A. CASIÑO, NOEMI LARDIZABAL-DADO,
P. MAGNAYE; JOSE REGINALD A. RAMOS; Bureau of Investigation; and DIRECTOR
MA. ROSARIO T. JUAN; BRENDALYN P. IMELDA ORALES, JAMES MATTHEW B.
GENERAL NICANOR A. BARTOLOME, in his MIRAFLOR, JUAN G.M. RAGRAGIO, MARIA
RAMIREZ; MAUREEN A. HERMITANIO; official capacity as Chief of the Philippine
KRISTINE JOY S. REMENTILLA; MARICEL O. FATIMA A. VILLENA, MEDARDO M. MANRIQUE,
National Police,Respondents. JR., LAUREN DADO, MARCO VITTORIA

160
TOBIAS SUMAYAO, IRENE CHIA, ERASTUS 3. Advertise and promote goods or those computer systems, networks, programs, and
NOEL T. DELIZO, CRISTINA SARAH E. services and make purchases and memories. The government certainly has the duty
OSORIO, ROMEO FACTOLERIN, NAOMI L. payments; and the right to prevent these tomfooleries from
TUPAS, KENNETH KENG, ANA ALEXANDRA C. happening and punish their perpetrators, hence the
CASTRO, Petitioners, 4. Inquire and do business with Cybercrime Prevention Act.
vs. institutional entities like government
THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE agencies, banks, stock exchanges, trade But petitioners claim that the means adopted by the
SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, THE SECRETARY houses, credit card companies, public cybercrime law for regulating undesirable
OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THE utilities, hospitals, and schools; and cyberspace activities violate certain of their
SECRETARY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, constitutional rights. The government of course
THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE asserts that the law merely seeks to reasonably put
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY OFFICE, THE 5. Communicate in writing or by voice with
any person through his e-mail address or order into cyberspace activities, punish
DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF wrongdoings, and prevent hurtful attacks on the
INVESTIGATION, THE CHIEF, PHILIPPINE telephone.
system.
NATIONAL POLICE, THE HEAD OF THE DOJ
OFFICE OF CYBERCRIME, and THE OTHER This is cyberspace, a system that accommodates
MEMBERS OF THE CYBERCRIME millions and billions of simultaneous and ongoing Pending hearing and adjudication of the issues
INVESTIGATION AND COORDINATING individual accesses to and uses of the internet. The presented in these cases, on February 5, 2013 the
CENTER, Respondents. cyberspace is a boon to the need of the current Court extended the original 120-day temporary
generation for greater information and facility of restraining order (TRO) that it earlier issued on
communication. But all is not well with the system October 9, 2012, enjoining respondent government
DECISION agencies from implementing the cybercrime law
since it could not filter out a number of persons of ill
will who would want to use cyberspace technology until further orders.
ABAD, J.: for mischiefs and crimes. One of them can, for
instance, avail himself of the system to unjustly ruin The Issues Presented
These consolidated petitions seek to declare the reputation of another or bully the latter by
several provisions of Republic Act (R.A.) 10175, the posting defamatory statements against him that Petitioners challenge the constitutionality of the
Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, unconstitutional people can read. following provisions of the cybercrime law that
and void. regard certain acts as crimes and impose penalties
And because linking with the internet opens up a for their commission as well as provisions that
The Facts and the Case user to communications from others, the ill- would enable the government to track down and
motivated can use the cyberspace for committing penalize violators. These provisions are:
The cybercrime law aims to regulate access to and theft by hacking into or surreptitiously accessing his
use of the cyberspace. Using his laptop or bank account or credit card or defrauding him a. Section 4(a)(1) on Illegal Access;
computer, a person can connect to the internet, a through false representations. The wicked can use
system that links him to other computers and enable the cyberspace, too, for illicit trafficking in sex or for
b. Section 4(a)(3) on Data Interference;
him, among other things, to: exposing to pornography guileless children who
have access to the internet. For this reason, the
government has a legitimate right to regulate the c. Section 4(a)(6) on Cyber-squatting;
1. Access virtual libraries and
use of cyberspace and contain and punish
encyclopedias for all kinds of information wrongdoings. d. Section 4(b)(3) on Identity Theft;
that he needs for research, study,
amusement, upliftment, or pure curiosity;
Notably, there are also those who would want, like e. Section 4(c)(1) on Cybersex;
vandals, to wreak or cause havoc to the computer
2. Post billboard-like notices or messages,
systems and networks of indispensable or highly f. Section 4(c)(2) on Child Pornography;
including pictures and videos, for the
useful institutions as well as to the laptop or
general public or for special audiences like
computer programs and memories of innocent
associates, classmates, or friends and g. Section 4(c)(3) on Unsolicited
individuals. They accomplish this by sending
read postings from them; Commercial Communications;
electronic viruses or virtual dynamites that destroy

161
 h. Section 4(c)(4) on Libel; The Rulings of the Court Petitioners of course fear that this section will
jeopardize the work of ethical hackers,
i. Section 5 on Aiding or Abetting and Section 4(a)(1) professionals who employ tools and techniques
Attempt in the Commission of used by criminal hackers but would neither damage
Cybercrimes; the target systems nor steal information. Ethical
Section 4(a)(1) provides:
hackers evaluate the target system’s security and
report back to the owners the vulnerabilities they
j. Section 6 on the Penalty of One Degree Section 4. Cybercrime Offenses. – The following found in it and give instructions for how these can
Higher; acts constitute the offense of cybercrime punishable be remedied. Ethical hackers are the equivalent of
under this Act: independent auditors who come into an
k. Section 7 on the Prosecution under both organization to verify its bookkeeping records.5
the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and R.A. (a) Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and
10175; availability of computer data and systems: Besides, a client’s engagement of an ethical hacker
requires an agreement between them as to the
l. Section 8 on Penalties; (1) Illegal Access. – The access to the whole or any extent of the search, the methods to be used, and
part of a computer system without right. the systems to be tested. This is referred to as the
m. Section 12 on Real-Time Collection of "get out of jail free card."6Since the ethical hacker
Traffic Data; Petitioners contend that Section 4(a)(1) fails to meet does his job with prior permission from the client,
the strict scrutiny standard required of laws that such permission would insulate him from the
n. Section 13 on Preservation of Computer interfere with the fundamental rights of the people coverage of Section 4(a)(1).
Data; and should thus be struck down.
Section 4(a)(3) of the Cybercrime Law
o. Section 14 on Disclosure of Computer The Court has in a way found the strict scrutiny
Data; standard, an American constitutional Section 4(a)(3) provides:
construct,1 useful in determining the constitutionality
p. Section 15 on Search, Seizure and of laws that tend to target a class of things or Section 4. Cybercrime Offenses. – The following
Examination of Computer Data; persons. According to this standard, a legislative acts constitute the offense of cybercrime punishable
classification that impermissibly interferes with the under this Act:
exercise of fundamental right or operates to the
q. Section 17 on Destruction of Computer peculiar class disadvantage of a suspect class is
Data; (a) Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and
presumed unconstitutional. The burden is on the availability of computer data and systems:
government to prove that the classification is
r. Section 19 on Restricting or Blocking necessary to achieve a compelling state interest
Access to Computer Data; and that it is the least restrictive means to protect xxxx
such interest.2 Later, the strict scrutiny standard was
s. Section 20 on Obstruction of Justice; used to assess the validity of laws dealing with the (3) Data Interference. – The intentional or reckless
regulation of speech, gender, or race as well as alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of
t. Section 24 on Cybercrime Investigation other fundamental rights, as expansion from its computer data, electronic document, or electronic
and Coordinating Center (CICC); and earlier applications to equal protection.3 data message, without right, including the
introduction or transmission of viruses.
u. Section 26(a) on CICC’s Powers and In the cases before it, the Court finds nothing in
Functions. Section 4(a)(1) that calls for the application of the Petitioners claim that Section 4(a)(3) suffers from
strict scrutiny standard since no fundamental overbreadth in that, while it seeks to discourage
freedom, like speech, is involved in punishing what data interference, it intrudes into the area of
Some petitioners also raise the constitutionality of is essentially a condemnable act – accessing the protected speech and expression, creating a
related Articles 353, 354, 361, and 362 of the RPC computer system of another without right. It is a chilling and deterrent effect on these guaranteed
on the crime of libel. universally condemned conduct.4 freedoms.

162
Under the overbreadth doctrine, a proper (6) Cyber-squatting. – The acquisition of domain Section 4(b)(3) of the Cybercrime Law
governmental purpose, constitutionally subject to name over the internet in bad faith to profit,
state regulation, may not be achieved by means that mislead, destroy the reputation, and deprive others Section 4(b)(3) provides:
unnecessarily sweep its subject broadly, thereby from registering the same, if such a domain name
invading the area of protected freedoms.7 But is:
Section 4. Cybercrime Offenses. – The following
Section 4(a)(3) does not encroach on these
acts constitute the offense of cybercrime
freedoms at all. It simply punishes what essentially (i) Similar, identical, or confusingly similar punishable under this Act:
is a form of vandalism,8 the act of willfully destroying to an existing trademark registered with
without right the things that belong to others, in this the appropriate government agency at the
case their computer data, electronic document, or xxxx
time of the domain name registration;
electronic data message. Such act has no
connection to guaranteed freedoms. There is no b) Computer-related Offenses:
freedom to destroy other people’s computer (ii) Identical or in any way similar with the
systems and private documents. name of a person other than the
registrant, in case of a personal name; xxxx
and
All penal laws, like the cybercrime law, have of (3) Computer-related Identity Theft. – The
course an inherent chilling effect, an in terrorem intentional acquisition, use, misuse, transfer,
(iii) Acquired without right or with
effect9 or the fear of possible prosecution that hangs possession, alteration, or deletion of identifying
intellectual property interests in it.
on the heads of citizens who are minded to step information belonging to another, whether natural or
beyond the boundaries of what is proper. But to juridical, without right: Provided: that if no damage
prevent the State from legislating criminal laws Petitioners claim that Section 4(a)(6) or cyber-
has yet been caused, the penalty imposable shall be
because they instill such kind of fear is to render the squatting violates the equal protection clause12 in
one (1) degree lower.
state powerless in addressing and penalizing that, not being narrowly tailored, it will cause a user
socially harmful conduct.10 Here, the chilling effect using his real name to suffer the same fate as those
that results in paralysis is an illusion since Section who use aliases or take the name of another in Petitioners claim that Section 4(b)(3) violates the
4(a)(3) clearly describes the evil that it seeks to satire, parody, or any other literary device. For constitutional rights to due process and to privacy
punish and creates no tendency to intimidate the example, supposing there exists a well known and correspondence, and transgresses the freedom
free exercise of one’s constitutional rights. billionaire-philanthropist named "Julio Gandolfo," of the press.
the law would punish for cyber-squatting both the
person who registers such name because he claims The right to privacy, or the right to be let alone, was
Besides, the overbreadth challenge places on
petitioners the heavy burden of proving that under it to be his pseudo-name and another who registers institutionalized in the 1987 Constitution as a facet
no set of circumstances will Section 4(a)(3) be the name because it happens to be his real name. of the right protected by the guarantee against
valid.11 Petitioner has failed to discharge this Petitioners claim that, considering the substantial unreasonable searches and seizures.13 But the
burden. distinction between the two, the law should Court acknowledged its existence as early as 1968
recognize the difference. in Morfe v. Mutuc,14 it ruled that the right to privacy
exists independently of its identification with liberty;
Section 4(a)(6) of the Cybercrime Law it is in itself fully deserving of constitutional
But there is no real difference whether he uses
"Julio Gandolfo" which happens to be his real name protection.
Section 4(a)(6) provides: or use it as a pseudo-name for it is the evil purpose
for which he uses the name that the law condemns. Relevant to any discussion of the right to privacy is
Section 4. Cybercrime Offenses. – The following The law is reasonable in penalizing him for acquiring the concept known as the "Zones of Privacy." The
acts constitute the offense of cybercrime the domain name in bad faith to profit, mislead, Court explained in "In the Matter of the Petition for
punishable under this Act: destroy reputation, or deprive others who are not ill- Issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus of Sabio v.
motivated of the rightful opportunity of registering Senator Gordon"15 the relevance of these zones to
(a) Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity the same. The challenge to the constitutionality of the right to privacy:
and availability of computer data and systems: Section 4(a)(6) on ground of denial of equal
protection is baseless. Zones of privacy are recognized and protected in
xxxx our laws. Within these zones, any form of intrusion

163
is impermissible unless excused by law and in account of a person in the news to secure right granted or conceded," or "a token of love (as a
accordance with customary legal process. The information about him that could be published. But ribbon) usually worn conspicuously."22 This
meticulous regard we accord to these zones arises this is not the essence of identity theft that the law meaning given to the term "favor" embraces socially
not only from our conviction that the right to privacy seeks to prohibit and punish. Evidently, the theft of tolerated trysts. The law as written would invite law
is a "constitutional right" and "the right most valued identity information must be intended for an enforcement agencies into the bedrooms of married
by civilized men," but also from our adherence to the illegitimate purpose. Moreover, acquiring and couples or consenting individuals.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights which disseminating information made public by the user
mandates that, "no one shall be subjected to himself cannot be regarded as a form of theft. But the deliberations of the Bicameral Committee of
arbitrary interference with his privacy" and Congress on this section of the Cybercrime
"everyone has the right to the protection of the law The Court has defined intent to gain as an internal Prevention Act give a proper perspective on the
against such interference or attacks." act which can be established through the overt acts issue. These deliberations show a lack of intent to
of the offender, and it may be presumed from the penalize a "private showing x x x between and
Two constitutional guarantees create these zones of furtive taking of useful property pertaining to among two private persons x x x although that may
privacy: (a) the right against unreasonable another, unless special circumstances reveal a be a form of obscenity to some."23 The
searches16 and seizures, which is the basis of the different intent on the part of the perpetrator.20 As understanding of those who drew up the cybercrime
right to be let alone, and (b) the right to privacy of such, the press, whether in quest of news reporting law is that the element of "engaging in a business"
communication and correspondence.17 In assessing or social investigation, has nothing to fear since a is necessary to constitute the illegal cybersex.24 The
the challenge that the State has impermissibly special circumstance is present to negate intent to Act actually seeks to punish cyber prostitution, white
intruded into these zones of privacy, a court must gain which is required by this Section. slave trade, and pornography for favor and
determine whether a person has exhibited a consideration. This includes interactive prostitution
reasonable expectation of privacy and, if so, Section 4(c)(1) of the Cybercrime Law and pornography, i.e., by webcam.25
whether that expectation has been violated by
unreasonable government intrusion.18 The subject of Section 4(c)(1)—lascivious exhibition
Section 4(c)(1) provides:
of sexual organs or sexual activity—is not novel.
The usual identifying information regarding a person Article 201 of the RPC punishes "obscene
Sec. 4. Cybercrime Offenses.– The following acts
includes his name, his citizenship, his residence publications and exhibitions and indecent shows."
constitute the offense of cybercrime punishable
address, his contact number, his place and date of The Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003
under this Act:
birth, the name of his spouse if any, his occupation, penalizes those who "maintain or hire a person to
and similar data.19 The law punishes those who engage in prostitution or pornography."26 The law
acquire or use such identifying information without xxxx defines prostitution as any act, transaction, scheme,
right, implicitly to cause damage. Petitioners simply or design involving the use of a person by another,
fail to show how government effort to curb (c) Content-related Offenses: for sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct in
computer-related identity theft violates the right to exchange for money, profit, or any other
privacy and correspondence as well as the right to (1) Cybersex.– The willful engagement, consideration.27
due process of law. maintenance, control, or operation, directly or
indirectly, of any lascivious exhibition of sexual The case of Nogales v. People28 shows the extent
Also, the charge of invalidity of this section based on organs or sexual activity, with the aid of a computer to which the State can regulate materials that serve
the overbreadth doctrine will not hold water since system, for favor or consideration. no other purpose than satisfy the market for
the specific conducts proscribed do not intrude into violence, lust, or pornography.29 The Court weighed
guaranteed freedoms like speech. Clearly, what this Petitioners claim that the above violates the the property rights of individuals against the public
section regulates are specific actions: the freedom of expression clause of the welfare. Private property, if containing pornographic
acquisition, use, misuse or deletion of personal Constitution.21 They express fear that private materials, may be forfeited and destroyed. Likewise,
identifying data of another. There is no fundamental communications of sexual character between engaging in sexual acts privately through internet
right to acquire another’s personal data. husband and wife or consenting adults, which are connection, perceived by some as a right, has to be
not regarded as crimes under the penal code, would balanced with the mandate of the State to eradicate
Further, petitioners fear that Section 4(b)(3) violates now be regarded as crimes when done "for favor" in white slavery and the exploitation of women.
the freedom of the press in that journalists would be cyberspace. In common usage, the term "favor"
hindered from accessing the unrestricted user includes "gracious kindness," "a special privilege or

164
In any event, consenting adults are protected by the But no one can complain since the intensity or (i) There is prior affirmative consent from
wealth of jurisprudence delineating the bounds of duration of penalty is a legislative prerogative and the recipient; or
obscenity.30The Court will not declare Section there is rational basis for such higher penalty.32 The
4(c)(1) unconstitutional where it stands a potential for uncontrolled proliferation of a particular (ii) The primary intent of the communication
construction that makes it apply only to persons piece of child pornography when uploaded in the is for service and/or administrative
engaged in the business of maintaining, controlling, cyberspace is incalculable. announcements from the sender to its
or operating, directly or indirectly, the lascivious existing users, subscribers or customers; or
exhibition of sexual organs or sexual activity with the Petitioners point out that the provision of ACPA that
aid of a computer system as Congress has makes it unlawful for any person to "produce, direct,
intended. (iii) The following conditions are present:
manufacture or create any form of child
pornography"33 clearly relates to the prosecution of
Section 4(c)(2) of the Cybercrime Law (aa) The commercial electronic
persons who aid and abet the core offenses that
communication contains a simple,
ACPA seeks to punish.34 Petitioners are wary that a
valid, and reliable way for the
Section 4(c)(2) provides: person who merely doodles on paper and imagines
recipient to reject receipt of
a sexual abuse of a 16-year-old is not criminally
further commercial electronic
liable for producing child pornography but one who
Sec. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. – The following acts messages (opt-out) from the
formulates the idea on his laptop would be. Further,
constitute the offense of cybercrime punishable same source;
if the author bounces off his ideas on Twitter,
under this Act:
anyone who replies to the tweet could be
considered aiding and abetting a cybercrime. (bb) The commercial electronic
xxxx communication does not
purposely disguise the source of
The question of aiding and abetting the offense by
(c) Content-related Offenses: the electronic message; and
simply commenting on it will be discussed
elsewhere below. For now the Court must hold that
xxxx the constitutionality of Section 4(c)(2) is not (cc) The commercial electronic
successfully challenged. communication does not
purposely include misleading
(2) Child Pornography. — The unlawful or prohibited
Section 4(c)(3) of the Cybercrime Law information in any part of the
acts defined and punishable by Republic Act No.
message in order to induce the
9775 or the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009, recipients to read the message.
committed through a computer system: Provided, Section 4(c)(3) provides:
That the penalty to be imposed shall be (1) one
degree higher than that provided for in Republic Act The above penalizes the transmission of unsolicited
Sec. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. – The following acts commercial communications, also known as
No. 9775.
constitute the offense of cybercrime punishable "spam." The term "spam" surfaced in early internet
under this Act: chat rooms and interactive fantasy games. One who
It seems that the above merely expands the scope
repeats the same sentence or comment was said to
of the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 200931 (ACPA) xxxx be making a "spam." The term referred to a Monty
to cover identical activities in cyberspace. In theory,
Python’s Flying Circus scene in which actors would
nothing prevents the government from invoking the
(c) Content-related Offenses: keep saying "Spam, Spam, Spam, and Spam" when
ACPA when prosecuting persons who commit child reading options from a menu.35
pornography using a computer system. Actually,
ACPA’s definition of child pornography already xxxx
embraces the use of "electronic, mechanical, digital, The Government, represented by the Solicitor
optical, magnetic or any other means." Notably, no General, points out that unsolicited commercial
(3) Unsolicited Commercial Communications. –
one has questioned this ACPA provision. communications or spams are a nuisance that
The transmission of commercial electronic
wastes the storage and network capacities of
communication with the use of computer system
internet service providers, reduces the efficiency of
Of course, the law makes the penalty higher by one which seeks to advertise, sell, or offer for sale
commerce and technology, and interferes with the
degree when the crime is committed in cyberspace. products and services are prohibited unless:
owner’s peaceful enjoyment of his property.

165
Transmitting spams amounts to trespass to one’s juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one (4) Libel. — The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel
privacy since the person sending out spams enters who is dead. as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code,
the recipient’s domain without prior permission. The as amended, committed through a computer system
OSG contends that commercial speech enjoys less Art. 354. Requirement for publicity. — Every or any other similar means which may be devised in
protection in law. defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, the future.
even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable
But, firstly, the government presents no basis for motive for making it is shown, except in the following Petitioners lament that libel provisions of the penal
holding that unsolicited electronic ads reduce the cases: code37 and, in effect, the libel provisions of the
"efficiency of computers." Secondly, people, before cybercrime law carry with them the requirement of
the arrival of the age of computers, have already 1. A private communication made by any "presumed malice" even when the latest
been receiving such unsolicited ads by mail. These person to another in the performance of jurisprudence already replaces it with the higher
have never been outlawed as nuisance since any legal, moral or social duty; and standard of "actual malice" as a basis for
people might have interest in such ads. What conviction.38 Petitioners argue that inferring
matters is that the recipient has the option of not "presumed malice" from the accused’s defamatory
2. A fair and true report, made in good faith,
opening or reading these mail ads. That is true with statement by virtue of Article 354 of the penal code
without any comments or remarks, of any
spams. Their recipients always have the option to infringes on his constitutionally guaranteed freedom
delete or not to read them. judicial, legislative or other official of expression.
proceedings which are not of confidential
nature, or of any statement, report or
To prohibit the transmission of unsolicited ads would speech delivered in said proceedings, or of Petitioners would go further. They contend that the
deny a person the right to read his emails, even any other act performed by public officers laws on libel should be stricken down as
unsolicited commercial ads addressed to him. in the exercise of their functions. unconstitutional for otherwise good jurisprudence
Commercial speech is a separate category of requiring "actual malice" could easily be overturned
speech which is not accorded the same level of as the Court has done in Fermin v. People39 even
Art. 355. Libel means by writings or similar means.
protection as that given to other constitutionally where the offended parties happened to be public
— A libel committed by means of writing, printing, figures.
guaranteed forms of expression but is nonetheless
lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting,
entitled to protection.36 The State cannot rob him of
theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or
this right without violating the constitutionally The elements of libel are: (a) the allegation of a
any similar means, shall be punished by prision
guaranteed freedom of expression. Unsolicited discreditable act or condition concerning another;
advertisements are legitimate forms of expression. correccional in its minimum and medium periods or
a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, in (b) publication of the charge; (c) identity of the
addition to the civil action which may be brought by person defamed; and (d) existence of malice.40
Articles 353, 354, and 355 of the Penal Code the offended party.
There is "actual malice" or malice in fact41 when the
Section 4(c)(4) of the Cyber Crime Law The libel provision of the cybercrime law, on the offender makes the defamatory statement with the
other hand, merely incorporates to form part of it the knowledge that it is false or with reckless disregard
Petitioners dispute the constitutionality of both the provisions of the RPC on libel. Thus Section 4(c)(4) of whether it was false or not.42 The reckless
penal code provisions on libel as well as Section reads: disregard standard used here requires a high
4(c)(4) of the Cybercrime Prevention Act on degree of awareness of probable falsity. There must
cyberlibel. be sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that
Sec. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. — The following acts
the accused in fact entertained serious doubts as to
constitute the offense of cybercrime punishable
the truth of the statement he published. Gross or
The RPC provisions on libel read: under this Act:
even extreme negligence is not sufficient to
establish actual malice.43
Art. 353. Definition of libel. — A libel is public and xxxx
malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or
The prosecution bears the burden of proving the
defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, (c) Content-related Offenses: presence of actual malice in instances where such
condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause
element is required to establish guilt. The defense
the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or
xxxx of absence of actual malice, even when the
statement turns out to be false, is available where

166
the offended party is a public official or a public Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). They actually not a new crime since Article 353, in relation
figure, as in the cases of Vasquez (a barangay point out that in Adonis v. Republic of the to Article 355 of the penal code, already punishes it.
official) and Borjal (the Executive Director, First Philippines,47 the United Nations Human Rights In effect, Section 4(c)(4) above merely affirms that
National Conference on Land Transportation). Committee (UNHRC) cited its General Comment 34 online defamation constitutes "similar means" for
Since the penal code and implicitly, the cybercrime to the effect that penal defamation laws should committing libel.
law, mainly target libel against private persons, the include the defense of truth.
Court recognizes that these laws imply a stricter But the Court’s acquiescence goes only insofar as
standard of "malice" to convict the author of a But General Comment 34 does not say that the truth the cybercrime law penalizes the author of the
defamatory statement where the offended party is a of the defamatory statement should constitute an libelous statement or article. Cyberlibel brings with it
public figure. Society’s interest and the maintenance all-encompassing defense. As it happens, Article certain intricacies, unheard of when the penal code
of good government demand a full discussion of 361 recognizes truth as a defense but under the provisions on libel were enacted. The culture
public affairs.44 condition that the accused has been prompted in associated with internet media is distinct from that
making the statement by good motives and for of print.
Parenthetically, the Court cannot accept the justifiable ends. Thus:
proposition that its ruling in Fermin disregarded the The internet is characterized as encouraging a
higher standard of actual malice or malice in fact Art. 361. Proof of the truth. — In every criminal freewheeling, anything-goes writing style.50 In a
when it found Cristinelli Fermin guilty of committing prosecution for libel, the truth may be given in sense, they are a world apart in terms of quickness
libel against complainants who were public figures. evidence to the court and if it appears that the matter of the reader’s reaction to defamatory statements
Actually, the Court found the presence of malice in charged as libelous is true, and, moreover, that it posted in cyberspace, facilitated by one-click reply
fact in that case. Thus: was published with good motives and for justifiable options offered by the networking site as well as by
ends, the defendants shall be acquitted. the speed with which such reactions are
It can be gleaned from her testimony that petitioner disseminated down the line to other internet users.
had the motive to make defamatory imputations Proof of the truth of an imputation of an act or Whether these reactions to defamatory statement
against complainants. Thus, petitioner cannot, by omission not constituting a crime shall not be posted on the internet constitute aiding and abetting
simply making a general denial, convince us that admitted, unless the imputation shall have been libel, acts that Section 5 of the cybercrime law
there was no malice on her part. Verily, not only was made against Government employees with respect punishes, is another matter that the Court will deal
there malice in law, the article being malicious in to facts related to the discharge of their official with next in relation to Section 5 of the law.
itself, but there was also malice in fact, as there was duties.
motive to talk ill against complainants during the Section 5 of the Cybercrime Law
electoral campaign. (Emphasis ours)
In such cases if the defendant proves the truth of
the imputation made by him, he shall be acquitted. Section 5 provides:
Indeed, the Court took into account the relatively
wide leeway given to utterances against public
Besides, the UNHRC did not actually enjoin the Sec. 5. Other Offenses. — The following acts shall
figures in the above case, cinema and television
Philippines, as petitioners urge, to decriminalize also constitute an offense:
personalities, when it modified the penalty of
imprisonment to just a fine of ₱6,000.00. libel. It simply suggested that defamation laws be
crafted with care to ensure that they do not stifle (a) Aiding or Abetting in the Commission
freedom of expression.48Indeed, the ICCPR states of Cybercrime. – Any person who willfully
But, where the offended party is a private individual, that although everyone should enjoy freedom of abets or aids in the commission of any of
the prosecution need not prove the presence of expression, its exercise carries with it special the offenses enumerated in this Act shall
malice. The law explicitly presumes its existence duties and responsibilities. Free speech is not be held liable.
(malice in law) from the defamatory character of the absolute. It is subject to certain restrictions, as may
assailed statement.45 For his defense, the accused be necessary and as may be provided by law.49
must show that he has a justifiable reason for the (b) Attempt in the Commission of
defamatory statement even if it was in fact true.46 Cybercrime. — Any person who willfully
The Court agrees with the Solicitor General that libel attempts to commit any of the offenses
is not a constitutionally protected speech and that enumerated in this Act shall be held liable.
Petitioners peddle the view that both the penal code the government has an obligation to protect private
and the Cybercrime Prevention Act violate the individuals from defamation. Indeed, cyberlibel is
country’s obligations under the International

167
Petitioners assail the constitutionality of Section 5 example, share interests, activities, backgrounds, or In the cyberworld, there are many actors: a) the
that renders criminally liable any person who willfully real-life connections.57 blogger who originates the assailed statement; b)
abets or aids in the commission or attempts to the blog service provider like Yahoo; c) the internet
commit any of the offenses enumerated as Two of the most popular of these sites are Facebook service provider like PLDT, Smart, Globe, or Sun; d)
cybercrimes. It suffers from overbreadth, creating a and Twitter. As of late 2012, 1.2 billion people with the internet café that may have provided the
chilling and deterrent effect on protected shared interests use Facebook to get in computer used for posting the blog; e) the person
expression. touch.58 Users register at this site, create a personal who makes a favorable comment on the blog; and f)
profile or an open book of who they are, add other the person who posts a link to the blog site.60 Now,
The Solicitor General contends, however, that the users as friends, and exchange messages, suppose Maria (a blogger) maintains a blog on
current body of jurisprudence and laws on aiding including automatic notifications when they update WordPress.com (blog service provider). She needs
and abetting sufficiently protects the freedom of their profile.59 A user can post a statement, a photo, the internet to access her blog so she subscribes to
expression of "netizens," the multitude that avail or a video on Facebook, which can be made visible Sun Broadband (Internet Service Provider).
themselves of the services of the internet. He points to anyone, depending on the user’s privacy settings.
out that existing laws and jurisprudence sufficiently One day, Maria posts on her internet account the
delineate the meaning of "aiding or abetting" a crime If the post is made available to the public, meaning statement that a certain married public official has
as to protect the innocent. The Solicitor General to everyone and not only to his friends, anyone on an illicit affair with a movie star. Linda, one of Maria’s
argues that plain, ordinary, and common usage is at Facebook can react to the posting, clicking any of friends who sees this post, comments online, "Yes,
times sufficient to guide law enforcement agencies several buttons of preferences on the program’s this is so true! They are so immoral." Maria’s original
in enforcing the law.51 The legislature is not required screen such as "Like," "Comment," or "Share." post is then multiplied by her friends and the latter’s
to define every single word contained in the laws "Like" signifies that the reader likes the posting while friends, and down the line to friends of friends
they craft. "Comment" enables him to post online his feelings almost ad infinitum. Nena, who is a stranger to both
or views about the same, such as "This is great!" Maria and Linda, comes across this blog, finds it
Aiding or abetting has of course well-defined When a Facebook user "Shares" a posting, the interesting and so shares the link to this apparently
meaning and application in existing laws. When a original "posting" will appear on his own Facebook defamatory blog on her Twitter account. Nena’s
person aids or abets another in destroying a profile, consequently making it visible to his down- "Followers" then "Retweet" the link to that blog site.
forest,52 smuggling merchandise into the line Facebook Friends.
country,53 or interfering in the peaceful picketing of Pamela, a Twitter user, stumbles upon a random
laborers,54 his action is essentially physical and so Twitter, on the other hand, is an internet social person’s "Retweet" of Nena’s original tweet and
is susceptible to easy assessment as criminal in networking and microblogging service that enables posts this on her Facebook account. Immediately,
character. These forms of aiding or abetting lend its users to send and read short text-based Pamela’s Facebook Friends start Liking and making
themselves to the tests of common sense and messages of up to 140 characters. These are known Comments on the assailed posting. A lot of them
human experience. as "Tweets." Microblogging is the practice of posting even press the Share button, resulting in the further
small pieces of digital content—which could be in spread of the original posting into tens, hundreds,
But, when it comes to certain cybercrimes, the the form of text, pictures, links, short videos, or other thousands, and greater postings.
waters are muddier and the line of sight is somewhat media—on the internet. Instead of friends, a Twitter
blurred. The idea of "aiding or abetting" user has "Followers," those who subscribe to this The question is: are online postings such as "Liking"
wrongdoings online threatens the heretofore particular user’s posts, enabling them to read the an openly defamatory statement, "Commenting" on
popular and unchallenged dogmas of cyberspace same, and "Following," those whom this particular it, or "Sharing" it with others, to be regarded as
use. user is subscribed to, enabling him to read their "aiding or abetting?" In libel in the physical world, if
posts. Like Facebook, a Twitter user can make his Nestor places on the office bulletin board a small
According to the 2011 Southeast Asia Digital tweets available only to his Followers, or to the poster that says, "Armand is a thief!," he could
Consumer Report, 33% of Filipinos have accessed general public. If a post is available to the public, any certainly be charged with libel. If Roger, seeing the
the internet within a year, translating to about 31 Twitter user can "Retweet" a given posting. poster, writes on it, "I like this!," that could not be
million users.55 Based on a recent survey, the Retweeting is just reposting or republishing another libel since he did not author the poster. If Arthur,
Philippines ranks 6th in the top 10 most engaged person’s tweet without the need of copying and passing by and noticing the poster, writes on it,
countries for social networking.56 Social networking pasting it. "Correct!," would that be libel? No, for he merely
sites build social relations among people who, for expresses agreement with the statement on the
poster. He still is not its author. Besides, it is not

168
clear if aiding or abetting libel in the physical world depict or describe, in terms "patently offensive" as relatives, and friends, evoking from mild to
is a crime. measured by contemporary community standards, disastrous reactions. Still, a governmental purpose,
sexual or excretory activities or organs. which seeks to regulate the use of this cyberspace
But suppose Nestor posts the blog, "Armand is a communication technology to protect a person’s
thief!" on a social networking site. Would a reader Those who challenged the Act claim that the law reputation and peace of mind, cannot adopt means
and his Friends or Followers, availing themselves of violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of that will unnecessarily and broadly sweep, invading
any of the "Like," "Comment," and "Share" freedom of speech for being overbroad. The U.S. the area of protected freedoms.62
reactions, be guilty of aiding or abetting libel? And, Supreme Court agreed and ruled:
in the complex world of cyberspace expressions of If such means are adopted, self-inhibition borne of
thoughts, when will one be liable for aiding or The vagueness of the Communications Decency fear of what sinister predicaments await internet
abetting cybercrimes? Where is the venue of the Act of 1996 (CDA), 47 U.S.C.S. §223, is a matter of users will suppress otherwise robust discussion of
crime? special concern for two reasons. First, the CDA is a public issues. Democracy will be threatened and
content-based regulation of speech. The vagueness with it, all liberties. Penal laws should provide
Except for the original author of the assailed of such a regulation raises special U.S. Const. reasonably clear guidelines for law enforcement
statement, the rest (those who pressed Like, amend. I concerns because of its obvious chilling officials and triers of facts to prevent arbitrary and
Comment and Share) are essentially knee-jerk effect on free speech. Second, the CDA is a criminal discriminatory enforcement.63 The terms "aiding or
sentiments of readers who may think little or statute. In addition to the opprobrium and stigma of abetting" constitute broad sweep that generates
haphazardly of their response to the original a criminal conviction, the CDA threatens violators chilling effect on those who express themselves
posting. Will they be liable for aiding or abetting? with penalties including up to two years in prison for through cyberspace posts, comments, and other
And, considering the inherent impossibility of joining each act of violation. The severity of criminal messages.64 Hence, Section 5 of the cybercrime
hundreds or thousands of responding "Friends" or sanctions may well cause speakers to remain silent law that punishes "aiding or abetting" libel on the
"Followers" in the criminal charge to be filed in court, rather than communicate even arguably unlawful cyberspace is a nullity.
who will make a choice as to who should go to jail words, ideas, and images. As a practical matter, this
for the outbreak of the challenged posting? increased deterrent effect, coupled with the risk of When a penal statute encroaches upon the freedom
discriminatory enforcement of vague regulations, of speech, a facial challenge grounded on the void-
The old parameters for enforcing the traditional form poses greater U.S. Const. amend. I concerns than for-vagueness doctrine is acceptable. The
of libel would be a square peg in a round hole when those implicated by certain civil regulations. inapplicability of the doctrine must be carefully
applied to cyberspace libel. Unless the legislature delineated. As Justice Antonio T. Carpio explained
crafts a cyber libel law that takes into account its xxxx in his dissent in Romualdez v. Commission on
unique circumstances and culture, such law will Elections,65 "we must view these statements of the
tend to create a chilling effect on the millions that Court on the inapplicability of the overbreadth and
The Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), vagueness doctrines to penal statutes as
use this new medium of communication in violation 47 U.S.C.S. § 223, presents a great threat of
of their constitutionally-guaranteed right to freedom appropriate only insofar as these doctrines are used
censoring speech that, in fact, falls outside the to mount ‘facial’ challenges to penal statutes not
of expression. statute's scope. Given the vague contours of the involving free speech."
coverage of the statute, it unquestionably silences
The United States Supreme Court faced the same some speakers whose messages would be entitled
issue in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union,61 a to constitutional protection. That danger provides In an "as applied" challenge, the petitioner who
case involving the constitutionality of the further reason for insisting that the statute not be claims a violation of his constitutional right can raise
Communications Decency Act of 1996. The law overly broad. The CDA’s burden on protected any constitutional ground – absence of due process,
prohibited (1) the knowing transmission, by means speech cannot be justified if it could be avoided by lack of fair notice, lack of ascertainable standards,
of a telecommunications device, of a more carefully drafted statute. (Emphasis ours) overbreadth, or vagueness. Here, one can
challenge the constitutionality of a statute only if he
asserts a violation of his own rights. It prohibits one
"obscene or indecent" communications to any Libel in the cyberspace can of course stain a from assailing the constitutionality of the statute
recipient under 18 years of age; and (2) the knowing person’s image with just one click of the mouse. based solely on the violation of the rights of third
use of an interactive computer service to send to a Scurrilous statements can spread and travel fast persons not before the court. This rule is also known
specific person or persons under 18 years of age or across the globe like bad news. Moreover, as the prohibition against third-party standing.66
to display in a manner available to a person under cyberlibel often goes hand in hand with
18 years of age communications that, in context, cyberbullying that oppresses the victim, his

169
But this rule admits of exceptions. A petitioner may and tension between social or economic groups, abetting ensnares all the actors in the cyberspace
for instance mount a "facial" challenge to the races, or religions, exacerbating existing tension in front in a fuzzy way. What is more, as the
constitutionality of a statute even if he claims no their relationships. petitioners point out, formal crimes such as libel
violation of his own rights under the assailed are not punishable unless consummated.71 In the
statute where it involves free speech on grounds of In regard to the crime that targets child absence of legislation tracing the interaction of
overbreadth or vagueness of the statute. pornography, when "Google procures, stores, and netizens and their level of responsibility such as in
indexes child pornography and facilitates the other countries, Section 5, in relation to Section
The rationale for this exception is to counter the completion of transactions involving the 4(c)(4) on Libel, Section 4(c)(3) on Unsolicited
"chilling effect" on protected speech that comes dissemination of child pornography," does this Commercial Communications, and Section 4(c)(2)
from statutes violating free speech. A person who make Google and its users aiders and abettors in on Child Pornography, cannot stand scrutiny.
does not know whether his speech constitutes a the commission of child pornography
crime under an overbroad or vague law may simply crimes?68 Byars highlights a feature in the But the crime of aiding or abetting the commission
restrain himself from speaking in order to avoid American law on child pornography that the of cybercrimes under Section 5 should be
being charged of a crime. The overbroad or vague Cybercrimes law lacks—the exemption of a permitted to apply to Section 4(a)(1) on Illegal
law thus chills him into silence.67 provider or notably a plain user of interactive Access, Section 4(a)(2) on Illegal Interception,
computer service from civil liability for child Section 4(a)(3) on Data Interference, Section
As already stated, the cyberspace is an pornography as follows: 4(a)(4) on System Interference, Section 4(a)(5) on
incomparable, pervasive medium of Misuse of Devices, Section 4(a)(6) on Cyber-
communication. It is inevitable that any government No provider or user of an interactive computer squatting, Section 4(b)(1) on Computer-related
threat of punishment regarding certain uses of the service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker Forgery, Section 4(b)(2) on Computer-related
medium creates a chilling effect on the of any information provided by another information Fraud, Section 4(b)(3) on Computer-related Identity
constitutionally-protected freedom of expression of content provider and cannot be held civilly liable for Theft, and Section 4(c)(1) on Cybersex. None of
the great masses that use it. In this case, the any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict these offenses borders on the exercise of the
particularly complex web of interaction on social access to or availability of material that the provider freedom of expression.
media websites would give law enforcers such or user considers to be obscene...whether or not
latitude that they could arbitrarily or selectively such material is constitutionally protected.69 The crime of willfully attempting to commit any of
enforce the law. these offenses is for the same reason not
When a person replies to a Tweet containing child objectionable. A hacker may for instance have
Who is to decide when to prosecute persons who pornography, he effectively republishes it whether done all that is necessary to illegally access
boost the visibility of a posting on the internet by wittingly or unwittingly. Does this make him a another party’s computer system but the security
liking it? Netizens are not given "fair notice" or willing accomplice to the distribution of child employed by the system’s lawful owner could
warning as to what is criminal conduct and what is pornography? When a user downloads the frustrate his effort. Another hacker may have
lawful conduct. When a case is filed, how will the Facebook mobile application, the user may give gained access to usernames and passwords of
court ascertain whether or not one netizen’s consent to Facebook to access his contact details. others but fail to use these because the system
comment aided and abetted a cybercrime while In this way, certain information is forwarded to third supervisor is alerted.72 If Section 5 that punishes
another comment did not? parties and unsolicited commercial communication any person who willfully attempts to commit this
could be disseminated on the basis of this specific offense is not upheld, the owner of the
information.70 As the source of this information, is username and password could not file a complaint
Of course, if the "Comment" does not merely react
the user aiding the distribution of this against him for attempted hacking. But this is not
to the original posting but creates an altogether
communication? The legislature needs to address right. The hacker should not be freed from liability
new defamatory story against Armand like "He
this clearly to relieve users of annoying fear of simply because of the vigilance of a lawful owner
beats his wife and children," then that should be or his supervisor.
considered an original posting published on the possible criminal prosecution.
internet. Both the penal code and the cybercrime
law clearly punish authors of defamatory Section 5 with respect to Section 4(c)(4) is Petitioners of course claim that Section 5 lacks
publications. Make no mistake, libel destroys unconstitutional. Its vagueness raises positive limits and could cover the
reputations that society values. Allowed to cascade apprehension on the part of internet users because innocent.73 While this may be true with respect to
in the internet, it will destroy relationships and, of its obvious chilling effect on the freedom of cybercrimes that tend to sneak past the area of
under certain circumstances, will generate enmity expression, especially since the crime of aiding or free expression, any attempt to commit the other

170
acts specified in Section 4(a)(1), Section 4(a)(2), The Solicitor General points out that Section 7 Sec. 8. Penalties. — Any person found guilty of
Section 4(a)(3), Section 4(a)(4), Section 4(a)(5), merely expresses the settled doctrine that a single any of the punishable acts enumerated in Sections
Section 4(a)(6), Section 4(b)(1), Section 4(b)(2), set of acts may be prosecuted and penalized 4(a) and 4(b) of this Act shall be punished with
Section 4(b)(3), and Section 4(c)(1) as well as the simultaneously under two laws, a special law and imprisonment of prision mayor or a fine of at least
actors aiding and abetting the commission of such the Revised Penal Code. When two different laws Two hundred thousand pesos (Ph₱200,000.00) up
acts can be identified with some reasonable define two crimes, prior jeopardy as to one does to a maximum amount commensurate to the
certainty through adroit tracking of their works. not bar prosecution of the other although both damage incurred or both.
Absent concrete proof of the same, the innocent offenses arise from the same fact, if each crime
will of course be spared. involves some important act which is not an Any person found guilty of the punishable act
essential element of the other.74 With the exception under Section 4(a)(5) shall be punished with
Section 6 of the Cybercrime Law of the crimes of online libel and online child imprisonment of prision mayor or a fine of not more
pornography, the Court would rather leave the than Five hundred thousand pesos
determination of the correct application of Section (Ph₱500,000.00) or both.
Section 6 provides: 7 to actual cases.

Sec. 6. All crimes defined and penalized by the If punishable acts in Section 4(a) are committed
Online libel is different. There should be no against critical infrastructure, the penalty of
Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special
question that if the published material on print, said reclusion temporal or a fine of at least Five
laws, if committed by, through and with the use of
to be libelous, is again posted online or vice versa, hundred thousand pesos (Ph₱500,000.00) up to
information and communications technologies shall
that identical material cannot be the subject of two maximum amount commensurate to the damage
be covered by the relevant provisions of this Act: separate libels. The two offenses, one a violation of
Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be incurred or both, shall be imposed.
Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code and the
one (1) degree higher than that provided for by the other a violation of Section 4(c)(4) of R.A. 10175
Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special involve essentially the same elements and are in Any person found guilty of any of the punishable
laws, as the case may be. acts enumerated in Section 4(c)(1) of this Act shall
fact one and the same offense. Indeed, the OSG
itself claims that online libel under Section 4(c)(4) be punished with imprisonment of prision mayor or
Section 6 merely makes commission of existing is not a new crime but is one already punished a fine of at least Two hundred thousand pesos
crimes through the internet a qualifying (Ph₱200,000.00) but not exceeding One million
under Article 353. Section 4(c)(4) merely
circumstance. As the Solicitor General points out, pesos (Ph₱1,000,000.00) or both.
establishes the computer system as another
there exists a substantial distinction between means of publication.75 Charging the offender
crimes committed through the use of information under both laws would be a blatant violation of the Any person found guilty of any of the punishable
and communications technology and similar crimes proscription against double jeopardy.76 acts enumerated in Section 4(c)(2) of this Act shall
committed using other means. In using the be punished with the penalties as enumerated in
technology in question, the offender often evades The same is true with child pornography committed Republic Act No. 9775 or the "Anti-Child
identification and is able to reach far more victims online. Section 4(c)(2) merely expands the ACPA’s Pornography Act of 2009:" Provided, That the
or cause greater harm. The distinction, therefore, scope so as to include identical activities in penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree
creates a basis for higher penalties for cyberspace. As previously discussed, ACPA’s higher than that provided for in Republic Act No.
cybercrimes. 9775, if committed through a computer system.
definition of child pornography in fact already
covers the use of "electronic, mechanical, digital,
Section 7 of the Cybercrime Law optical, magnetic or any other means." Thus, Any person found guilty of any of the punishable
charging the offender under both Section 4(c)(2) acts enumerated in Section 4(c)(3) shall be
Section 7 provides: and ACPA would likewise be tantamount to a punished with imprisonment of arresto mayor or a
violation of the constitutional prohibition against fine of at least Fifty thousand pesos
double jeopardy. (Ph₱50,000.00) but not exceeding Two hundred
Sec. 7. Liability under Other Laws. — A fifty thousand pesos (Ph₱250,000.00) or both.
prosecution under this Act shall be without
prejudice to any liability for violation of any Section 8 of the Cybercrime Law
provision of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, Any person found guilty of any of the punishable
or special laws. Section 8 provides: acts enumerated in Section 5 shall be punished with
imprisonment one (1) degree lower than that of the

171
prescribed penalty for the offense or a fine of at least Traffic data refer only to the communication’s origin, legitimate concerns of the State against
One hundred thousand pesos (Ph₱100,000.00) but destination, route, time, date, size, duration, or type constitutional guarantees.81
not exceeding Five hundred thousand pesos of underlying service, but not content, nor identities.
(Ph₱500,000.00) or both. Undoubtedly, the State has a compelling interest in
All other data to be collected or seized or disclosed enacting the cybercrime law for there is a need to
Section 8 provides for the penalties for the following will require a court warrant. put order to the tremendous activities in cyberspace
crimes: Sections 4(a) on Offenses Against the for public good.82 To do this, it is within the realm of
Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability of Service providers are required to cooperate and reason that the government should be able to
Computer Data and Systems; 4(b) on Computer- assist law enforcement authorities in the collection monitor traffic data to enhance its ability to combat
related Offenses; 4(a)(5) on Misuse of Devices; or recording of the above-stated information. all sorts of cybercrimes.
when the crime punishable under 4(a) is committed
against critical infrastructure; 4(c)(1) on Cybersex; Chapter IV of the cybercrime law, of which the
The court warrant required under this section shall
4(c)(2) on Child Pornography; 4(c)(3) on Unsolicited collection or recording of traffic data is a part, aims
only be issued or granted upon written application
Commercial Communications; and Section 5 on to provide law enforcement authorities with the
and the examination under oath or affirmation of the
Aiding or Abetting, and Attempt in the Commission power they need for spotting, preventing, and
of Cybercrime. applicant and the witnesses he may produce and
the showing: (1) that there are reasonable grounds investigating crimes committed in cyberspace.
to believe that any of the crimes enumerated Crime-fighting is a state business. Indeed, as Chief
The matter of fixing penalties for the commission of hereinabove has been committed, or is being Justice Sereno points out, the Budapest Convention
crimes is as a rule a legislative prerogative. Here the committed, or is about to be committed; (2) that on Cybercrimes requires signatory countries to
legislature prescribed a measure of severe there are reasonable grounds to believe that adopt legislative measures to empower state
penalties for what it regards as deleterious evidence that will be obtained is essential to the authorities to collect or record "traffic data, in real
cybercrimes. They appear proportionate to the evil conviction of any person for, or to the solution of, or time, associated with specified
sought to be punished. The power to determine to the prevention of, any such crimes; and (3) that communications."83 And this is precisely what
penalties for offenses is not diluted or improperly there are no other means readily available for Section 12 does. It empowers law enforcement
wielded simply because at some prior time the act obtaining such evidence. agencies in this country to collect or record such
or omission was but an element of another offense data.
or might just have been connected with another
Petitioners assail the grant to law enforcement
crime.77 Judges and magistrates can only interpret But is not evidence of yesterday’s traffic data, like
agencies of the power to collect or record traffic data
and apply them and have no authority to modify or the scene of the crime after it has been committed,
in real time as tending to curtail civil liberties or
revise their range as determined by the legislative adequate for fighting cybercrimes and, therefore,
department. provide opportunities for official abuse. They claim
that data showing where digital messages come real-time data is superfluous for that purpose?
from, what kind they are, and where they are Evidently, it is not. Those who commit the crimes of
The courts should not encroach on this prerogative destined need not be incriminating to their senders accessing a computer system without
of the lawmaking body.78 or recipients before they are to be protected. right,84 transmitting viruses,85 lasciviously exhibiting
Petitioners invoke the right of every individual to sexual organs or sexual activity for favor or
Section 12 of the Cybercrime Law privacy and to be protected from government consideration;86 and producing child
snooping into the messages or information that they pornography87 could easily evade detection and
send to one another. prosecution by simply moving the physical location
Section 12 provides:
of their computers or laptops from day to day. In this
digital age, the wicked can commit cybercrimes from
Sec. 12. Real-Time Collection of Traffic Data. — The first question is whether or not Section 12 has
virtually anywhere: from internet cafés, from kindred
Law enforcement authorities, with due cause, shall a proper governmental purpose since a law may places that provide free internet services, and from
be authorized to collect or record by technical or require the disclosure of matters normally unregistered mobile internet connectors. Criminals
electronic means traffic data in real-time associated considered private but then only upon showing that using cellphones under pre-paid arrangements and
with specified communications transmitted by such requirement has a rational relation to the with unregistered SIM cards do not have listed
means of a computer system. purpose of the law,79 that there is a compelling State addresses and can neither be located nor identified.
interest behind the law, and that the provision itself There are many ways the cyber criminals can
is narrowly drawn.80 In assessing regulations quickly erase their tracks. Those who peddle child
affecting privacy rights, courts should balance the

172
pornography could use relays of computers to the large segment of the population who use all and uncover the identities of the sender and the
mislead law enforcement authorities regarding their sorts of electronic devices to communicate with one recipient.
places of operations. Evidently, it is only real-time another. Consequently, the expectation of privacy is
traffic data collection or recording and a subsequent to be measured from the general public’s point of For example, when one calls to speak to another
recourse to court-issued search and seizure warrant view. Without reasonable expectation of privacy, the through his cellphone, the service provider’s
that can succeed in ferreting them out. right to it would have no basis in fact. communication’s system will put his voice message
into packets and send them to the other person’s
Petitioners of course point out that the provisions of As the Solicitor General points out, an ordinary ICT cellphone where they are refitted together and
Section 12 are too broad and do not provide ample user who courses his communication through a heard. The latter’s spoken reply is sent to the caller
safeguards against crossing legal boundaries and service provider, must of necessity disclose to the in the same way. To be connected by the service
invading the people’s right to privacy. The concern latter, a third person, the traffic data needed for provider, the sender reveals his cellphone number
is understandable. Indeed, the Court recognizes in connecting him to the recipient ICT user. For to the service provider when he puts his call through.
Morfe v. Mutuc88 that certain constitutional example, an ICT user who writes a text message He also reveals the cellphone number to the person
guarantees work together to create zones of privacy intended for another ICT user must furnish his he calls. The other ways of communicating
wherein governmental powers may not intrude, and service provider with his cellphone number and the electronically follow the same basic pattern.
that there exists an independent constitutional right cellphone number of his recipient, accompanying
of privacy. Such right to be left alone has been the message sent. It is this information that creates In Smith v. Maryland,94 cited by the Solicitor
regarded as the beginning of all freedoms.89 the traffic data. Transmitting communications is akin General, the United States Supreme Court
to putting a letter in an envelope properly reasoned that telephone users in the ‘70s must
But that right is not unqualified. In Whalen v. addressed, sealing it closed, and sending it through realize that they necessarily convey phone numbers
Roe,90 the United States Supreme Court classified the postal service. Those who post letters have no to the telephone company in order to complete a
privacy into two categories: decisional privacy and expectations that no one will read the information call. That Court ruled that even if there is an
informational privacy. Decisional privacy involves appearing outside the envelope. expectation that phone numbers one dials should
the right to independence in making certain remain private, such expectation is not one that
important decisions, while informational privacy Computer data—messages of all kinds—travel society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.
refers to the interest in avoiding disclosure of across the internet in packets and in a way that may
personal matters. It is the latter right—the right to be likened to parcels of letters or things that are sent In much the same way, ICT users must know that
informational privacy—that those who oppose through the posts. When data is sent from any one they cannot communicate or exchange data with
government collection or recording of traffic data in source, the content is broken up into packets and one another over cyberspace except through some
real-time seek to protect. around each of these packets is a wrapper or service providers to whom they must submit certain
header. This header contains the traffic data: traffic data that are needed for a successful
Informational privacy has two aspects: the right not information that tells computers where the packet cyberspace communication. The conveyance of this
to have private information disclosed, and the right originated, what kind of data is in the packet (SMS, data takes them out of the private sphere, making
to live freely without surveillance and intrusion.91 In voice call, video, internet chat messages, email, the expectation to privacy in regard to them an
determining whether or not a matter is entitled to the online browsing data, etc.), where the packet is expectation that society is not prepared to recognize
right to privacy, this Court has laid down a two-fold going, and how the packet fits together with other as reasonable.
test. The first is a subjective test, where one packets.93 The difference is that traffic data sent
claiming the right must have an actual or legitimate through the internet at times across the ocean do
The Court, however, agrees with Justices Carpio
expectation of privacy over a certain matter. The not disclose the actual names and addresses
and Brion that when seemingly random bits of traffic
second is an objective test, where his or her (residential or office) of the sender and the recipient,
data are gathered in bulk, pooled together, and
expectation of privacy must be one society is only their coded internet protocol (IP) addresses.
analyzed, they reveal patterns of activities which
prepared to accept as objectively reasonable.92 The packets travel from one computer system to
can then be used to create profiles of the persons
another where their contents are pieced back
together. under surveillance. With enough traffic data,
Since the validity of the cybercrime law is being analysts may be able to determine a person’s close
challenged, not in relation to its application to a associations, religious views, political affiliations,
particular person or group, petitioners’ challenge to Section 12 does not permit law enforcement even sexual preferences. Such information is likely
Section 12 applies to all information and authorities to look into the contents of the messages beyond what the public may expect to be disclosed,
communications technology (ICT) users, meaning and clearly falls within matters protected by the right

173
to privacy. But has the procedure that Section 12 of Section 12, of course, limits the collection of traffic impractical or even impossible. "All the forces of a
the law provides been drawn narrowly enough to data to those "associated with specified technological age x x x operate to narrow the area
protect individual rights? communications." But this supposed limitation is no of privacy and facilitate intrusions into it. In modern
limitation at all since, evidently, it is the law terms, the capacity to maintain and support this
Section 12 empowers law enforcement authorities, enforcement agencies that would specify the target enclave of private life marks the difference between
"with due cause," to collect or record by technical or communications. The power is virtually limitless, a democratic and a totalitarian society."96 The Court
electronic means traffic data in real-time. Petitioners enabling law enforcement authorities to engage in must ensure that laws seeking to take advantage of
point out that the phrase "due cause" has no "fishing expedition," choosing whatever specified these technologies be written with specificity and
precedent in law or jurisprudence and that whether communication they want. This evidently threatens definiteness as to ensure respect for the rights that
there is due cause or not is left to the discretion of the right of individuals to privacy. the Constitution guarantees.
the police. Replying to this, the Solicitor General
asserts that Congress is not required to define the The Solicitor General points out that Section 12 Section 13 of the Cybercrime Law
meaning of every word it uses in drafting the law. needs to authorize collection of traffic data "in real
time" because it is not possible to get a court warrant Section 13 provides:
Indeed, courts are able to save vague provisions of that would authorize the search of what is akin to a
law through statutory construction. But the "moving vehicle." But warrantless search is
Sec. 13. Preservation of Computer Data. — The
cybercrime law, dealing with a novel situation, fails associated with a police officer’s determination of
integrity of traffic data and subscriber information
to hint at the meaning it intends for the phrase "due probable cause that a crime has been committed,
relating to communication services provided by a
cause." The Solicitor General suggests that "due that there is no opportunity for getting a warrant, and
that unless the search is immediately carried out, service provider shall be preserved for a minimum
cause" should mean "just reason or motive" and period of six (6) months from the date of the
"adherence to a lawful procedure." But the Court the thing to be searched stands to be removed.
These preconditions are not provided in Section 12. transaction. Content data shall be similarly
cannot draw this meaning since Section 12 does not preserved for six (6) months from the date of receipt
even bother to relate the collection of data to the of the order from law enforcement authorities
probable commission of a particular crime. It just The Solicitor General is honest enough to admit that requiring its preservation.
says, "with due cause," thus justifying a general Section 12 provides minimal protection to internet
gathering of data. It is akin to the use of a general users and that the procedure envisioned by the law
search warrant that the Constitution prohibits. Law enforcement authorities may order a one-time
could be better served by providing for more robust
extension for another six (6) months: Provided, That
safeguards. His bare assurance that law
once computer data preserved, transmitted or
Due cause is also not descriptive of the purpose for enforcement authorities will not abuse the
stored by a service provider is used as evidence in
which data collection will be used. Will the law provisions of Section 12 is of course not enough.
The grant of the power to track cyberspace a case, the mere furnishing to such service provider
enforcement agencies use the traffic data to identify of the transmittal document to the Office of the
the perpetrator of a cyber attack? Or will it be used communications in real time and determine their
sources and destinations must be narrowly drawn to Prosecutor shall be deemed a notification to
to build up a case against an identified suspect? preserve the computer data until the termination of
Can the data be used to prevent cybercrimes from preclude abuses.95
the case.
happening?
Petitioners also ask that the Court strike down
The service provider ordered to preserve computer
The authority that Section 12 gives law enforcement Section 12 for being violative of the void-for-
data shall keep confidential the order and its
agencies is too sweeping and lacks restraint. While vagueness doctrine and the overbreadth doctrine.
compliance.
it says that traffic data collection should not disclose These doctrines however, have been consistently
identities or content data, such restraint is but an held by this Court to apply only to free speech
cases. But Section 12 on its own neither regulates Petitioners in G.R. 20339197 claim that Section 13
illusion. Admittedly, nothing can prevent law
nor punishes any type of speech. Therefore, such constitutes an undue deprivation of the right to
enforcement agencies holding these data in their
analysis is unnecessary. property. They liken the data preservation order that
hands from looking into the identity of their sender
law enforcement authorities are to issue as a form
or receiver and what the data contains. This will
of garnishment of personal property in civil forfeiture
unnecessarily expose the citizenry to leaked This Court is mindful that advances in technology
proceedings. Such order prevents internet users
information or, worse, to extortion from certain bad allow the government and kindred institutions to
elements in these agencies. from accessing and disposing of traffic data that
monitor individuals and place them under
essentially belong to them.
surveillance in ways that have previously been

174
No doubt, the contents of materials sent or received to issue subpoenas is not exclusively a judicial Pursuant thereof, the law enforcement authorities
through the internet belong to their authors or function. Executive agencies have the power to may order any person who has knowledge about the
recipients and are to be considered private issue subpoena as an adjunct of their investigatory functioning of the computer system and the
communications. But it is not clear that a service powers.98 measures to protect and preserve the computer
provider has an obligation to indefinitely keep a copy data therein to provide, as is reasonable, the
of the same as they pass its system for the benefit Besides, what Section 14 envisions is merely the necessary information, to enable the undertaking of
of users. By virtue of Section 13, however, the law enforcement of a duly issued court warrant, a the search, seizure and examination.
now requires service providers to keep traffic data function usually lodged in the hands of law enforcers
and subscriber information relating to to enable them to carry out their executive functions. Law enforcement authorities may request for an
communication services for at least six months from The prescribed procedure for disclosure would not extension of time to complete the examination of the
the date of the transaction and those relating to constitute an unlawful search or seizure nor would it computer data storage medium and to make a
content data for at least six months from receipt of violate the privacy of communications and return thereon but in no case for a period longer than
the order for their preservation. correspondence. Disclosure can be made only after thirty (30) days from date of approval by the court.
judicial intervention.
Actually, the user ought to have kept a copy of that Petitioners challenge Section 15 on the assumption
data when it crossed his computer if he was so Section 15 of the Cybercrime Law that it will supplant established search and seizure
minded. The service provider has never assumed procedures. On its face, however, Section 15
responsibility for their loss or deletion while in its merely enumerates the duties of law enforcement
Section 15 provides:
keep. authorities that would ensure the proper collection,
preservation, and use of computer system or data
Sec. 15. Search, Seizure and Examination of
At any rate, as the Solicitor General correctly points that have been seized by virtue of a court warrant.
Computer Data. — Where a search and seizure
out, the data that service providers preserve on The exercise of these duties do not pose any threat
warrant is properly issued, the law enforcement
orders of law enforcement authorities are not made on the rights of the person from whom they were
authorities shall likewise have the following powers
inaccessible to users by reason of the issuance of taken. Section 15 does not appear to supersede
and duties.
such orders. The process of preserving data will not existing search and seizure rules but merely
unduly hamper the normal transmission or use of supplements them.
the same. Within the time period specified in the warrant, to
conduct interception, as defined in this Act, and:
Section 17 of the Cybercrime Law
Section 14 of the Cybercrime Law
(a) To secure a computer system or a Section 17 provides:
computer data storage medium;
Section 14 provides:
Sec. 17. Destruction of Computer Data. — Upon
(b) To make and retain a copy of those
Sec. 14. Disclosure of Computer Data. — Law expiration of the periods as provided in Sections 13
computer data secured;
enforcement authorities, upon securing a court and 15, service providers and law enforcement
warrant, shall issue an order requiring any person or authorities, as the case may be, shall immediately
service provider to disclose or submit subscriber’s (c) To maintain the integrity of the relevant and completely destroy the computer data subject
information, traffic data or relevant data in his/its stored computer data; of a preservation and examination.
possession or control within seventy-two (72) hours
from receipt of the order in relation to a valid (d) To conduct forensic analysis or Section 17 would have the computer data, previous
complaint officially docketed and assigned for examination of the computer data storage subject of preservation or examination, destroyed or
investigation and the disclosure is necessary and medium; and deleted upon the lapse of the prescribed period. The
relevant for the purpose of investigation. Solicitor General justifies this as necessary to clear
(e) To render inaccessible or remove those up the service provider’s storage systems and
The process envisioned in Section 14 is being computer data in the accessed computer or prevent overload. It would also ensure that
likened to the issuance of a subpoena. Petitioners’ computer and communications network. investigations are quickly concluded.
objection is that the issuance of subpoenas is a
judicial function. But it is well-settled that the power

175
Petitioners claim that such destruction of computer and effects against unreasonable searches and Sec. 20. Noncompliance. — Failure to comply with
data subject of previous preservation or seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose the provisions of Chapter IV hereof specifically the
examination violates the user’s right against shall be inviolable. Further, it states that no search orders from law enforcement authorities shall be
deprivation of property without due process of law. warrant shall issue except upon probable cause to punished as a violation of Presidential Decree No.
But, as already stated, it is unclear that the user has be determined personally by the judge. Here, the 1829 with imprisonment of prision correctional in its
a demandable right to require the service provider Government, in effect, seizes and places the maximum period or a fine of One hundred thousand
to have that copy of the data saved indefinitely for computer data under its control and disposition pesos (Php100,000.00) or both, for each and every
him in its storage system. If he wanted them without a warrant. The Department of Justice order noncompliance with an order issued by law
preserved, he should have saved them in his cannot substitute for judicial search warrant. enforcement authorities.
computer when he generated the data or received
it. He could also request the service provider for a The content of the computer data can also constitute Petitioners challenge Section 20, alleging that it is a
copy before it is deleted. speech. In such a case, Section 19 operates as a bill of attainder. The argument is that the mere
restriction on the freedom of expression over failure to comply constitutes a legislative finding of
Section 19 of the Cybercrime Law cyberspace. Certainly not all forms of speech are guilt, without regard to situations where non-
protected. Legislature may, within constitutional compliance would be reasonable or valid.
Section 19 empowers the Department of Justice to bounds, declare certain kinds of expression as
restrict or block access to computer data: illegal. But for an executive officer to seize content But since the non-compliance would be punished as
alleged to be unprotected without any judicial a violation of Presidential Decree (P.D.)
warrant, it is not enough for him to be of the opinion 1829,102 Section 20 necessarily incorporates
Sec. 19. Restricting or Blocking Access to Computer that such content violates some law, for to do so
Data.— When a computer data is prima facie found elements of the offense which are defined therein. If
would make him judge, jury, and executioner all Congress had intended for Section 20 to constitute
to be in violation of the provisions of this Act, the rolled into one.100
DOJ shall issue an order to restrict or block access an offense in and of itself, it would not have had to
to such computer data. make reference to any other statue or provision.
Not only does Section 19 preclude any judicial
intervention, but it also disregards jurisprudential P.D. 1829 states:
Petitioners contest Section 19 in that it stifles
guidelines established to determine the validity of
freedom of expression and violates the right against
restrictions on speech. Restraints on free speech
unreasonable searches and seizures. The Solicitor Section 1. The penalty of prision correccional in its
are generally evaluated on one of or a combination
General concedes that this provision may be maximum period, or a fine ranging from 1,000 to
of three tests: the dangerous tendency doctrine, the
unconstitutional. But since laws enjoy a 6,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any
balancing of interest test, and the clear and present
presumption of constitutionality, the Court must danger rule.101 Section 19, however, merely person who knowingly or willfully obstructs,
satisfy itself that Section 19 indeed violates the requires that the data to be blocked be found prima impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of
freedom and right mentioned. suspects and the investigation and prosecution of
facie in violation of any provision of the cybercrime
law. Taking Section 6 into consideration, this can criminal cases by committing any of the following
Computer data99 may refer to entire programs or acts:
actually be made to apply in relation to any penal
lines of code, including malware, as well as files that provision. It does not take into consideration any of
contain texts, images, audio, or video recordings. the three tests mentioned above. x x x.
Without having to go into a lengthy discussion of
property rights in the digital space, it is indisputable Thus, the act of non-compliance, for it to be
The Court is therefore compelled to strike down
that computer data, produced or created by their punishable, must still be done "knowingly or
Section 19 for being violative of the constitutional
writers or authors may constitute personal property. willfully." There must still be a judicial determination
guarantees to freedom of expression and against
Consequently, they are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. of guilt, during which, as the Solicitor General
unreasonable searches and seizures, whether while assumes, defense and justifications for non-
stored in their personal computers or in the service compliance may be raised. Thus, Section 20 is valid
provider’s systems. Section 20 of the Cybercrime Law
insofar as it applies to the provisions of Chapter IV
which are not struck down by the Court.
Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution Section 20 provides:
provides that the right to be secure in one’s papers Sections 24 and 26(a) of the Cybercrime Law

176
Sections 24 and 26(a) provide: Cybersecurity refers to the collection of tools, the internet in bad faith to the prejudice of
policies, risk management approaches, actions, others;
Sec. 24. Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating training, best practices, assurance and technologies
Center.– There is hereby created, within thirty (30) that can be used to protect cyber environment and d. Section 4(b)(3) that penalizes identity
days from the effectivity of this Act, an inter-agency organization and user’s assets.104 This definition theft or the use or misuse of identifying
body to be known as the Cybercrime Investigation serves as the parameters within which CICC should information belonging to another;
and Coordinating Center (CICC), under the work in formulating the cybersecurity plan.
administrative supervision of the Office of the e. Section 4(c)(1) that penalizes cybersex
President, for policy coordination among concerned Further, the formulation of the cybersecurity plan is or the lascivious exhibition of sexual organs
agencies and for the formulation and enforcement consistent with the policy of the law to "prevent and or sexual activity for favor or consideration;
of the national cybersecurity plan. combat such [cyber] offenses by facilitating their
detection, investigation, and prosecution at both the
f. Section 4(c)(2) that penalizes the
Sec. 26. Powers and Functions.– The CICC shall domestic and international levels, and by providing
production of child pornography;
have the following powers and functions: arrangements for fast and reliable international
cooperation."105 This policy is clearly adopted in the
interest of law and order, which has been g. Section 6 that imposes penalties one
(a) To formulate a national cybersecurity plan and degree higher when crimes defined under
considered as sufficient standard.106 Hence,
extend immediate assistance of real time Sections 24 and 26(a) are likewise valid. the Revised Penal Code are committed
commission of cybercrime offenses through a with the use of information and
computer emergency response team (CERT); x x x. communications technologies;
WHEREFORE, the Court DECLARES:
Petitioners mainly contend that Congress invalidly h. Section 8 that prescribes the penalties
delegated its power when it gave the Cybercrime 1. VOID for being UNCONSTITUTIONAL:
for cybercrimes;
Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC) the
power to formulate a national cybersecurity plan a. Section 4(c)(3) of Republic Act 10175
without any sufficient standards or parameters for it that penalizes posting of unsolicited i. Section 13 that permits law enforcement
to follow. commercial communications; authorities to require service providers to
preserve traffic data and subscriber
information as well as specified content
In order to determine whether there is undue b. Section 12 that authorizes the collection data for six months;
delegation of legislative power, the Court has or recording of traffic data in real-time; and
adopted two tests: the completeness test and the
j. Section 14 that authorizes the disclosure
sufficient standard test. Under the first test, the law c. Section 19 of the same Act that of computer data under a court-issued
must be complete in all its terms and conditions authorizes the Department of Justice to warrant;
when it leaves the legislature such that when it restrict or block access to suspected
reaches the delegate, the only thing he will have to Computer Data.
do is to enforce it.1avvphi1 The second test k. Section 15 that authorizes the search,
mandates adequate guidelines or limitations in the seizure, and examination of computer data
2. VALID and CONSTITUTIONAL: under a court-issued warrant;
law to determine the boundaries of the delegate’s
authority and prevent the delegation from running
riot.103 a. Section 4(a)(1) that penalizes accessing l. Section 17 that authorizes the destruction
a computer system without right; of previously preserved computer data after
Here, the cybercrime law is complete in itself when the expiration of the prescribed holding
it directed the CICC to formulate and implement a b. Section 4(a)(3) that penalizes data periods;
national cybersecurity plan. Also, contrary to the interference, including transmission of
position of the petitioners, the law gave sufficient viruses; m. Section 20 that penalizes obstruction of
standards for the CICC to follow when it provided a justice in relation to cybercrime
definition of cybersecurity. c. Section 4(a)(6) that penalizes cyber- investigations;
squatting or acquiring domain name over

177
 n. Section 24 that establishes a Cybercrime 1. Online libel as to which, charging the
Investigation and Coordinating Center offender under both Section 4(c)(4) of
(CICC); Republic Act 10175 and Article 353 of the
Revised Penal Code constitutes a violation
o. Section 26(a) that defines the CICC’s of the proscription against double jeopardy;
Powers and Functions; and as well as

p. Articles 353, 354, 361, and 362 of the 2. Child pornography committed online as
Revised Penal Code that penalizes libel. to which, charging the offender under both
Section 4(c)(2) of Republic Act 10175 and
Republic Act 9775 or the Anti-Child
Further, the Court DECLARES:
Pornography Act of 2009 also constitutes a
violation of the same proscription, and, in
1. Section 4(c)(4) that penalizes online libel respect to these, is VOID and
as VALID and CONSTITUTIONAL with UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
respect to the original author of the post;
but VOID and UNCONSTITUTIONAL with
respect to others who simply receive the
post and react to it; and

2. Section 5 that penalizes aiding or

abetting and attempt in the commission of
cybercrimes as VA L I D and
CONSTITUTIONAL only in relation to
Section 4(a)(1) on Illegal Access, Section
4(a)(2) on Illegal Interception, Section
4(a)(3) on Data Interference, Section
4(a)(4) on System

Interference, Section 4(a)(5) on Misuse of Devices,

Section 4(a)(6) on Cyber-squatting, Section 4(b)(1)
on Computer-related Forgery, Section 4(b)(2) on
Computer-related Fraud, Section 4(b)(3) on
Computer-related Identity Theft, and Section 4(c)(1)
on Cybersex; but VOID and UNCONSTITUTIONAL
with respect to Sections 4(c)(2) on Child
Pornography, 4(c)(3) on Unsolicited Commercial
Communications, and 4(c)(4) on online
Libel.1âwphi1

Lastly, the Court RESOLVES to LEAVE THE

DETERMINATION of the correct application of
Section 7 that authorizes prosecution of the offender
under both the Revised Penal Code and Republic
Act 10175 to actual cases, WITH THE EXCEPTION
of the crimes of:

178