Scribd
Upload
101 views1 page

9 Roldan Vs Arca and Morabe

The Philippine Navy seized two fishing vessels, Tony Lex III and Tony Lex VI, for violations of fishing laws including using dynamite and lacking proper licenses. The owner of one vessel sued to recover it. The court ruled the seizure was valid without a warrant because vessels can quickly flee jurisdiction, and the search was also valid as incident to the lawful arrest of the crew caught illegally fishing. Police may arrest without warrant if a crime is committed in their presence, and the crew here was caught in the act of illegal fishing. Therefore, both the arrest of the crew and the seizure of the vessels and equipment were lawful.

Uploaded by

phgmb
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
101 views1 page

9 Roldan Vs Arca and Morabe

The Philippine Navy seized two fishing vessels, Tony Lex III and Tony Lex VI, for violations of fishing laws including using dynamite and lacking proper licenses. The owner of one vessel sued to recover it. The court ruled the seizure was valid without a warrant because vessels can quickly flee jurisdiction, and the search was also valid as incident to the lawful arrest of the crew caught illegally fishing. Police may arrest without warrant if a crime is committed in their presence, and the crew here was caught in the act of illegal fishing. Therefore, both the arrest of the crew and the seizure of the vessels and equipment were lawful.

Uploaded by

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

Roldan vs Arca and Morabe, De Guzman and company

Moving vehicles, vessels, aircraft

Facts: Morabe, De Guzman and company filed a case against Roldan Jr for the recovery of fishing vessel
Tony Lex VI which had been seized and impounded by petitioner Fisheries Commissioner through the
Philippine Navy. The CFI Manila granted it, thus respondent company took possession of the vessel took
possession of the vessel Tony Lex VI. Petitioner requested the Philippine Navy to apprehend vessels
Tony Lex VI and Tony Lex III, also respectively Srta. Winnie and Srta. Agnes, for alleged violations of
some provisions of the Fisheries Act. On August 5 or 6, the two fishing boats were actually seized for
illegal fishing with dynamite.

Issue: Whether or not the police officer can search without warrant?

Ruling: Yes. When the Philippine Navy, upon request of the Fisheries Commissioner, apprehended on
August 5 or 6, 1965 the fishing boats Tony Lex III and Tony Lex VI, otherwise known respectively as Srta.
Agnes and Srta. Winnie, these vessels were found to be without the necessary license in violation of
Section 903 of the Tariff and Customs Code and therefore subject to seizure under Section 2210 of the
same Code, and illegally fishing with explosives and without fishing license required by Sections 17 and
18 of the Fisheries Law. Search and seizure without search warrant of vessels and air crafts for violations
of the customs laws have been the traditional exception to the constitutional requirement of a search
warrant, because the vessel can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the search
warrant must be sought before such warrant could be secured; hence it is not practicable to require a
search warrant before such search or seizure can be constitutionally effected.

Another exception to the constitutional requirement of a search warrant for a valid search and seizure,
is a search or seizure as an incident to a lawful arrest (Alvero vs. Dizon, 76 Phil. 637; Justice Fernando,
The Bill of Rights, 1972 ed., p. 224). Under our Rules of Court, a police officer or a private individual may,
without a warrant, arrest a person (a) who has committed, is actually committing or is about to commit
an offense in his presence; (b) who is reasonably believed to have committed an offense which has been
actually committed; or (c) who is a prisoner who has escaped from confinement while serving a final
judgment or from temporary detention during the pendency of his case or while being transferred from
one confinement to another (Sec. 6, Rule 113, Revised Rules of Court). In the case at bar, the members
of the crew of the two vessels were caught in flagrante illegally fishing with dynamite and without the
requisite license. Thus their apprehension without a warrant of arrest while committing a crime is
lawful. Consequently, the seizure of the vessel, its equipment and dynamites therein was equally valid as
an incident to a lawful arrest.

You might also like