Warrantless Arrests: Valid Circumstances and the immediate surroundings without a

warrant to ensure safety and preserve

evidence. This is to prevent the arrestee from
Under Rule 113, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of concealing or destroying evidence or
Criminal Procedure, a warrantless arrest, also accessing weapons.
known as a citizen’s arrest, is valid under the 2. Plain view doctrine
following circumstances: If evidence of a crime or illegal items are in
plain sight and clearly visible, law
1. In flagrante delicto
enforcement officers may seize the items
When a person is caught in the act of
without a search warrant. For instance, if an
committing, attempting to commit, or having
officer sees illegal drugs on a car’s dashboard
just committed a crime. For example, if
during a traffic stop, a search of the car could
someone is seen shoplifting and is
be valid.
immediately apprehended by a store security
3. Consent search
officer or law enforcement.
If a person voluntarily consents to a search,
2. Hot pursuit
no warrant is required. It is essential, however,
If an offense has just been committed, and
that the consent is freely given and not
the arresting officer has personal knowledge
coerced.
of facts indicating that the person to be
4. Customs search
arrested committed it. This may happen when
Searches conducted at airports, ports, or
police officers arrive at the scene of a crime
other points of entry are valid, especially to
shortly after it occurred and pursue the
prevent the smuggling of illegal goods.
suspect based on witness accounts or
5. Exigent circumstances
evidence.
If there is a compelling need to act quickly,
3. Escapee from custody
such as when evidence is at risk of being
When a person escapes from jail, detention,
destroyed or a crime is in progress, a
or while being transferred to another facility
warrantless search may be justified.
after being arrested or convicted. Law
6. Stop and frisk
enforcement can apprehend the individual
When law enforcement officers have a
without a warrant to return them to custody.
reasonable suspicion that a person is armed
and dangerous, they may stop and frisk the
individual for weapons. The scope of the
Warrantless Searches: Valid Circumstances search is limited to finding weapons to ensure
the safety of the officer and others.

Warrantless searches, like warrantless arrests,

are exceptions to the general rule requiring a
search warrant. These are permitted in the
following situations:

1. Search incidental to a lawful arrest

When a person is lawfully arrested, law
enforcement officers can search the person
 The important point here is that under Presidential
Decree No. 1866, criminal intent (i.e., the intention to
SEARCH AND SEIZURE commit an of f ense with the f irearm) is not necessary to be
convicted of illegal possession. What matters is that the
person intended to possess the firearm, and they did
DELA CRUZ v. PEOPLE not have the proper authorization or license to do so.
January 11, 2016, G.R. No. 209387 Even if the person did not plan to use the f irearm to
commit a crime, the mere possession of an unlicensed
f irearm is enough to lead to a conviction.
Customs searches, as exception to the requirement of a valid
search warrant, are allowed when "persons exercising police
authority under the customs law . . . ef f ect search and FACTS:
seizure . . . in the enf orcement of customs laws."154 The Tariff Dela Cruz was an OJT of an inter-island vessel and was
and Customs Code provides the authority f or such arrested f or illegal possession of firearms and for violating
warrantless search the Election Gun Ban. According to the petitioner, he was at
Cebu Domestic Port buying a ticket to Iloilo. While buying a
Hence, to be a valid customs search, the requirements are: ticket, he allegedly left his bag on the f loor with a porter. He
then proceeded to the entrance of the terminal and placed
1. the person/s conducting the search was/were exercising his bag on the x-ray scanning machine f or inspection. The
police authority under customs law; operator of the x-ray machine saw f irearms inside Dela
2. the search was f or the enforcement of customs law; and Cruz’s bag. Petitioner admitted that he was the owner of the
3. the place searched is not a dwelling place or house. bag and consented to the manual inspection. The bag was
Here, the f acts reveal that the search was part of routine then inspected, and the f ollowing items were f ound inside:
port security measures. three (3) revolvers, NBI clearance, seaman’s book, other
personal items, and f our (4) live ammunitions placed inside
Criminal Intent vs. Intent to Possess: the cylinder. When asked whether he had the proper
documents f or the f irearms, Dela Cruz answered in the
Criminal Intent ref ers to the intention to commit a crime negative. Dela Cruz was then arrested and inf ormed of his
violation of a crime punishable by law. He was also informed
or illegal act. For example, if someone possesses a
of his constitutional rights.
f irearm with the intention of committing a crime, such as
robbery or murder, this would constitute criminal intent.
Dela Cruz entered a plea of not guilty to both charges during
arraignment. Af ter trial, Branch 12 of the RTC, Cebu City
Intent to Possess (also called "animus possidendi") f ound Dela Cruz guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Petitioner
ref ers to the mere intention or state of mind to own or have f iled an appeal before the CA, but the CA affirmed the RTC’s
control over something — in this case, a f irearm. decision. According to the petitioner, the f irearms were
"planted" inside his bag by the porter or anyone who could
Mere Possession Without Criminal Intent: have accessed his bag while he was buying a ticket, and that
there was no voluntary waiver against warrantless search.
The law does not require a person to have the intent to Hence, this petition.
commit a crime (like using the f irearm to harm someone)
to be convicted of illegal possession. Simply possessing ISSUE:
a firearm without the necessary license or legal
authorization is enough f or a conviction under Presidential 1. Whether petitioner waived his right against
Decree No. 1866. unreasonable searches and seizures; and
2. Assuming that there was no waiver, whether there was
Animus Possidendi: a valid search and seizure.

This Latin term ref ers to the "intent to possess" something, RULING:
which is required to establish that someone is guilty of
possessing an item (in this case, a f irearm) illegally. Even In this case, the court discussed whether the search and
if the possession is done in good f aith or without a criminal seizure of the petitioner’s bag by port authorities was
reasonable and lawf ul. It noted that routine security
intention (e.g., a person possesses a f irearm without
measures, such as x-ray scanning of baggage, are not
intending to use it unlawf ully), it is still a violation of the
unreasonable searches under the Constitution, even without
law if the person does not have the legal license to own it.
a search warrant. Port authorities, acting within their duties,
are authorized to perform such searches to ensure the safety
Criminal Intent Is Not Required:
of travelers.
The court ref erenced People v. Marti, where private 3. the person must intend to relinquish that right.
individuals conducting searches for their own purposes were
not bound by the constitutional protections against In this case, the court will assess whether the petitioner
unreasonable searches. However, in this case, port security voluntarily and knowingly consented to the search conducted
personnel are considered government agents, acting within by the port authorities.
their of ficial capacity, which justif ies the search. This
distinction makes the Marti ruling inapplicable here. In this case, the petitioner voluntarily submitted his bag for
inspection after it was scanned by the x-ray machine, which
The Philippine Ports Authority was granted police revealed f irearms inside. There was probable cause f or the
authority through Executive Order No. 513, giving port search, and the trial court f ound the search reasonable,
security personnel the power to conduct security measures, upholding the petitioner’s arrest without a warrant under the
including searches. The court also cited People v. Suzuki, rules of criminal procedure. The f irearms f ound were
where a search at an airport, as part of routine security, was admissible as evidence. The petitioner’s consent was not
deemed reasonable. given under coercion, and he is precluded from claiming the
search was invalid, similar to other cases where individuals
Since the x-ray scan revealed firearms in the petitioner’s bag consented to searches. This case is distinct f rom Aniag, Jr.
and he did not contest the results, the port authorities had v. COMELEC, where there was no implied consent f or a
probable cause f or f urther inspection. The search was vehicle search at a checkpoint.
deemed valid, and the evidence obtained (f irearms and
ammunition) was admissible in court.

The court ruled that the search of the petitioner’s bag was The consented search of petitioner’s bag is distinct from
not unreasonable when the baggage inspector opened it a customs search. A customs search, as an exception to
af ter detecting f irearms via the x-ray scan. The search was the requirement f or a search warrant, is permitted under the
justif ied by port security measures and the petitioner’s Tarif f and Customs Code when it is conducted by individuals
voluntary submission of his bag f or inspection. He had the exercising police authority under customs law. Such
option not to travel if he objected to the scan. searches are typically f or enf orcing customs laws, such as
inspecting items f or dutiable or prohibited goods.
The court emphasized that x-ray scanning and subsequent
inspection upon probable cause are reasonable security For a search to qualif y as a customs search, the f ollowing
regulations to ensure the saf ety of passengers. Probable requirements must be met:
cause is def ined as reasonable suspicion supported by
strong circumstances. The court also invoked John Stuart 1. The individuals conducting the search must be
Mill’s "harm principle," which states that individual liberty can authorized under customs law.
be restricted to prevent harm to others. In this case, the 2. The search must be f or enf orcing customs law.
security measures were a justified intrusion to protect public 3. The place being searched cannot be a dwelling.
saf ety, and any inconvenience to the petitioner was
outweighed by the need f or port security. In this case, the search of petitioner’s bag was part of routine
port security measures and was not conducted by customs
The court examined whether the petitioner validly waived his of ficers nor aimed at enf orcing customs law. Theref ore, it
right against unreasonable searches and seizures, following cannot be considered a customs search under the legal
the detection of f irearms through the x-ray scan. The exceptions to the search warrant requirement.
petitioner argued that he did not consent to the search,
claiming he had no intention to relinquish his constitutional In this case, the prosecution successfully established the
right. elements for a violation of the Gun Ban:

The Constitution protects against unreasonable searches, 1. the petitioner possessed f irearms during the election
and warrantless searches are generally presumed period,
unreasonable. However, there are exceptions to this rule,
2. without authorization, and
such as consented searches, searches incidental to a lawful
arrest, and customs searches. 3. in a public place (Cebu Domestic Port). Petitioner did not
present a valid authorization to carry f irearms.
For a waiver of the right against unreasonable searches to
be valid, the court referenced Caballes v. Court of Appeals, Petitioner claimed the f irearms were planted in his bag, but
which established three requirements for a valid waiver: the burden of evidence shif ted to him to prove this. The
prosecution's evidence remained uncontested, and the court
held that petitioner f ailed to negate the prima f acie case
1. the person must be aware of their right against him.
2. the person must have knowledge of the right, and
The court also explained that possession of f irearms, b. The evidence was inadvertently discovered by the
regardless of intent, is sufficient f or conviction under laws like police who have the right to be where they are;
the Omnibus Election Code. The key f actor is whether the c. The evidence must be immediately apparent;
petitioner had "animus possidendi"—the intent to possess d. "Plain view" justif ied mere seizure of evidence
the f irearms, even without criminal intent. without f urther search;
3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the
Thus, the court concluded that petitioner was guilty of government, the vehicle's inherent mobility reduces
violating the Gun Ban, as he intended to possess the expectation of privacy, especially when its transit in
f irearms and f ailed to provide any valid def ense. public thoroughfares f urnishes a highly reasonable
suspicion amounting to probable cause that the
In this case, the court emphasized the concept of animus occupant committed a criminal activity;
possidendi, or the intent to possess, which is determined 4. Consented warrantless search;
based on the accused's actions and surrounding 5. Customs search;
circumstances. The court noted that petitioner De Gracia, a 6. Stop and Frisk; and
f ormer soldier, would have been knowledgeable about 7. Exigent and emergency circumstances.
f irearms and explosives, making it implausible f or him to be
unaware of their dangerous nature and possession. The SEC. 12. Search incident to lawful arrest. A person
explosives were f ound in a location unrelated to the lawful lawf ully arrested may be searched f or dangerous weapons
storage of such items, f urther raising suspicion. or anything which may be used as proof of the commission
of an of f ense, without a search warrant.
The court rejected petitioner’s claim that the f irearms were
planted in his bag, f inding it unsupported by evidence. SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace
Petitioner f ailed to prove that his possession was "temporary, of ficer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
incidental, casual, or harmless." His vague claim that person:
someone planted the firearms while his bag was unattended
lacked credibility, as he did not identify a suspect or provide 1. the person to be arrested must execute an overt act
any motive f or the alleged act. indicating he has just committed, is actually committing,
or is attempting to commit a crime; a
The court also noted that petitioner, being a frequent traveler 2. such overt act is done in the presence or within the view
f amiliar with security protocols, would not likely have left his
of the arresting of f icer.
bag with a stranger f or an extended period. Petitioner’s
f ailure to provide evidence or identify the porter he claimed
to have lef t his bag with f urther undermined his def ense.
Facts:
Ultimately, the court concluded that petitioner had the intent
to possess the f irearms, and his defense was insufficient to
negate the prosecution’s evidence of illegal possession.
Sometime during the months of July and August 1999, the
Toril Police Station, Davao City received a report f rom a
civilian asset named Bobong Solier about a certain Noel
PEOPLE VS. TUDTUD Tudtud. Solier related that his neighbors had been
G.R. NO. 144037 September 26, 2003 complaining about Tudtud, who was allegedly responsible
f or the proliferation of marijuana in their area. Reacting to the
DOCTRINE: report, PO1 Ronald Desierto, PO1 Ramil Floreta, and their
superior, SPO1 Villalonghan, all members of the Intelligence
The proscription in Section 2, Article III, however, covers only Section of the Toril Police Station, conducted surveillance in
"unreasonable" searches and seizures. The f ollowing Solier's neighborhood in Sapa, Toril, Davao City. For f ive
instances are not deemed "unreasonable" even in the days, they gathered information and learned that Tudtud was
absence of a warrant: involved in illegal drugs. According to his neighbors, Tudtud
was engaged in selling marijuana.
1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest. (Sec.
12, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court and prevailing On August 1, 1999, Solier inf ormed the police that Tudtud
jurisprudence); had headed to Cotabato and would be back later that day
2. Search of evidence in "plain view." The elements are: with new stocks of marijuana. Solier described Tudtud as
a. A prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless big-bodied and short, and usually wore a hat. At around 4:00
arrest in which the police are legally present in the in the af ternoon that same day, a team composed of PO1
pursuit of their of f icial duties; Desierto, PO1 Floreta, and SPO1 Villalonghan posted
themselves at the corner of Saipon and McArthur Highway SEC. 2. The right of the people to be secured in their persons,
to await Tudtud’s arrival. All wore civilian clothes. houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches
and seizures of whatever nature and f or any purpose shall
About 8:00 later that evening, two men disembarked from a be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall
bus and helped each other carry a carton marked King issue except upon probable cause to be determined
Flakes. Standing some f ive f eet away f rom the men, PO1 personally by the judge af ter examination under oath or
Desierto and PO1 Floreta then approached the suspects and af f irmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
identif ied themselves as police of ficers. PO1 Desierto produce, and particularly describing the places to be
inf ormed them that the police had received information that searched and the persons or things to be seized.
stocks of illegal drugs would be arriving that night. The man
who resembled Tudtud’s description denied that he was The rule is that a search and seizure must be carried out
carrying any drugs. PO1 Desierto asked him if he could see through or with a judicial warrant; otherwise, such search and
the contents of the box. Tudtud obliged, saying, “it’s all right.” seizure becomes unreasonable within the meaning of the
Tudtud opened the box himself as his companion looked on. above-quoted constitutional provision, and any evidence
secured thereby will be inadmissible in evidence f or any
The box yielded pieces of dried fish, beneath which were two purpose in any proceeding. Section 3 (2), Article III of the
bundles, one wrapped in a striped plastic bag and another in Constitution explicitly provides:
newspapers. PO1 Desierto asked Tudtud to unwrap the
packages. They contained what seemed to the police officers (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of the preceding
as marijuana leaves. The police thus arrested Tudtud and his section shall be inadmissible f or any purpose in any
companion, informed them of their rights, and brought them proceeding.
to the police station. The two did not resist.
The RTC justif ied the warrantless search of the appellant’s
The conf iscated items were turned over to the Philippine belongings under the f irst exception, as a search incident to
National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory f or examination. a lawf ul arrest. A search incidental to a lawf ul arrest is
Forensic tests conducted by Police Chief Inspector Noemi sanctioned by the Rules of Court. Prior to its revision in 2000,
Austero, f orensic chemist of the PNP Crime Laboratory, Section 12, Rule 126 of said Rules read as f ollows:
Region XI, on specimens taken f rom the conf iscated items
conf irmed the police officers' suspicion. The plastic bag SEC. 12. Search incident to lawful arrest. A person
contained 3,200 grams of marijuana leaves, while the lawf ully arrested may be searched f or dangerous weapons
newspapers contained another 890 grams. Police Chief or anything which may be used as proof of the commission
Inspector Austero reduced her f indings in her report, of an of f ense, without a search warrant.
Physical Sciences Report No. D-220-99, dated 2 August
1999. SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace
of ficer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
Noel Tudtud and his companion, Dindo Bulong, were person:
subsequently charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Davao City with illegal possession of prohibited drugs. 3. the person to be arrested must execute an overt act
Upon arraignment, both accused pleaded not guilty. The indicating he has just committed, is actually committing,
def ense, however, reserved their right to question the validity or is attempting to commit a crime; a
of their arrest and the seizure of the evidence against them. 4. such overt act is done in the presence or within the view
of the arresting of f icer.
Contention:
Noel Tudtud and Dindo Bulong assign, among other errors, Reliable inf ormation alone is insuf f icient.
the admission in evidence of the marijuana leaves, which
they claim were seized in violation of their right against There is no such personal knowledge in this case. Whatever
unreasonable searches and seizures. knowledge was possessed by the arresting of ficers came
entirely f rom the inf ormation f urnished by Cesar Masamlok.
Issue: The location of the firearm was given by the appellant’s wife.
Whether or not Tudtud’s implied acquiescence (Tudtud’s
statement of “it’s all right” when the police officers asked that At the time of the appellant’s arrest, he was not in actual
the box be opened) should be considered a waiver? possession of any f irearm or subversive document. Neither
was he committing any act which could be described as
Court Ruling: subversive. He was, in f act, plowing his f ield at the time of
the arrest.
No. The right against unreasonable searches and seizures
is secured by Section 2, Article III of the Constitution, which The right of a person to be secure against any unreasonable
states: seizure of his body and any deprivation of his liberty is a most
basic and fundamental one. The statute or rule which allows Camp Crame, Quezon City, f or examination. The accused
exceptions to the requirement of warrants of arrest is strictly was charged with violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of Republic Act
construed. Any exception must clearly f all within the No. 9165.
situations when securing a warrant would be absurd or
manif estly unnecessary as provided by the Rule. We cannot The def ense raised several points, including:
liberally construe the rule on arrests without warrants or a) Hadji claimed she was having her menstrual period, which
extend its application beyond the cases specifically provided explained the bulge in her private area.
by law. To do so would infringe upon personal liberty and set b) She argued that the f riskers ordered her to remove her
back a basic right so often violated and so deserving of full underwear and f ound nothing, but later alleged they
protection. discovered two sachets of shabu.
c) She claimed her relatives offered P200,000 to the police,
Consequently, the items seized were deemed inadmissible but only P6,000 was brought, which was rejected by the
as they violated the accused's constitutional rights against authorities, leading to the case being f iled.
unreasonable searches and seizures. Law and
jurisprudence require stricter grounds for warrantless arrests The RTC f ound the accused guilty. On appeal, the accused
and searches than f or the issuance of a warrant. In the argued that the police testimonies were inconsistent, and the
f ormer, the arresting officer must have witnessed the crime prosecution failed to prove the chain of custody of the seized
or have personal knowledge of f acts linking the accused to drugs. The Of fice of the Solicitor General countered that the
the crime. In contrast, a judge simply determines if minor inconsistencies did not undermine the credibility of the
reasonable grounds exist f or issuing a warrant based on prosecution's evidence, emphasizing the positive
witness testimonies. identif ication of the accused as the perpetrator. The CA
af f irmed the RTC's decision.
Allowing reliable tips as probable cause f or warrantless
arrests or searches sets a dangerous precedent. It risks ISSUE:
undermining the constitutional protections against (1) Whether the trial court erred in f inding the accused guilty
unreasonable searches, potentially giving excessive power beyond reasonable doubt.
to inf ormants. This could lead to unjust searches or arrests (2) Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused
based solely on unverif ied tips, bypassing the legal despite the prosecution’s f ailure to establish the chain of
saf eguards meant to protect citizens. Such a practice would custody of the conf iscated drugs.
allow law enf orcement to exploit intelligence inf ormation to
justif y warrantless actions, circumventing established legal HELD:
requirements f or arrests and searches. This risks enabling (1) NO.
unreasonable seizures and infringes on personal liberties. The Supreme Court upheld the lower court's decision,
emphasizing that in drug-related cases, the testimony of
police officers is generally credible unless proven otherwise.
Minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies do not negate
G.R. No. 191263, October 16, 2013 their credibility as long as the overall narrative is coherent.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. The inconsistencies raised by the accused were f ound to be
HADJI SOCOR CADIDIA, Accused-Appellant. minimal and did not af f ect the overall credibility of the
witnesses' positive identification of the appellant as the
FACTS: perpetrator.
On July 31, 2002, Hadji Socor Cadidia, upon entry to the
departure area of Manila Domestic Airport Terminal I in (2) NO.
Pasay City, was noticed by two non-unif ormed f emale The Court held that the integrity of the seized drug evidence
personnel of the PNP. These personnel, who were assigned was preserved through the testimony of the witnesses
as f riskers, noticed something unusual and thick in the area detailing the chain of custody. The prosecution showed that
of Hadji’s buttocks. When asked, Hadji claimed it was her the drugs were properly transferred f rom the f riskers to the
sanitary napkin causing the thickness. Not convinced, the police supervisors, then to the NAIA-DITG, and f inally to the
f riskers brought her to the comfort room to f urther inspect. f orensic laboratory for examination. The identity and integrity
Upon asking Hadji to remove her underwear, two sachets of of the evidence were maintained throughout the process.
shabu were discovered inside.
The Court also noted that non-compliance with certain chain-
The shabu and sanitary napkin were conf iscated by the of -custody requirements would not invalidate the seizure of
f riskers and transf erred to their police supervisor, SPO3 evidence as long as its integrity and evidentiary value were
Appang. The evidence was then turned over to the preserved. In this case, the chain of custody was sufficiently
Intelligence and Investigation Of f ice of the 2nd Regional proven, and the drugs were identified by the friskers in open
Aviation Security Of f ice (RASO). It was later ref erred to court as the same ones conf iscated f rom the accused.
Forensic Chemist Elisa G. Reyes at the Crime Laboratory in
On Airport Frisking: PO2 Noble, and Ranada was f ound in possession of
The SC reiterated that airport f risking is an authorized form illegal drug paraphernalia.
of search and seizure. Passengers passing through airports • For this type of warrantless arrest to be valid, two
are subject to routine screenings, such as metal detectors requisites must concur:
and x-ray scans, which may lead to physical searches if o The person to be arrested must execute an
suspicious objects are detected. These procedures are overt act indicating that he has just committed,
reasonable given their minimal intrusiveness and the safety is actually committing, or is attempting to
interests involved. Travelers are notif ied through airport commit a crime; and
signs and announcements that they are subject to search, o Such overt act is done in the presence or within
and if prohibited materials or substances are f ound, they may the view of the arresting of f icer.
be seized. Theref ore, the constitutional protections against • Assuming that irregularities attended the arrest of the
warrantless searches and seizures do not apply to these appellants, they can no longer question the validity of the
routine airport procedures. arrest as there was no showing that they objected before
their arraignment. Neither did they take steps to quash
People v. Collado the Inf ormations on such grounds.
G.R. No. 185719, June 17, 2013
On the issue of unreasonable search or seizure:
Sec. 2 of Art. III (Bill of Rights) of the Constitution
• A person lawf ully arrested may be searched for
FACTS: dangerous weapons or anything that may have been
used or constitutes proof in the commission of an
• On October 9, 2004, PO2 Noble received inf ormation of f ense without a search warrant.
f rom a civilian asset that spouses Marcelino and Myra • The f acts clearly show that the search was made af ter
were engaged in selling shabu. the appellants were lawf ully arrested.
• A buy-bust operation team was f ormed. Upon reaching
the target area, the asset introduced PO2 Noble to On the Chain of Custody Rule:
Marcelino as a regular buyer of shabu.
• Af ter posing as a buyer f or the transaction and handing • The f ailure of the police of ficers to inventory and
out money, Marcelino brought out a small plastic sachet photograph the conf iscated items is not f atal to the
containing shabu. prosecution’s cause, as long as the integrity and
• SPO2 Cruz and another police officer went inside the evidentiary value of the seized substance were
house of Marcelino and Myra, where they f ound other preserved, as was the case here.
suspects gathered around a table littered with various • The non-presentation of other persons who had custody
drug paraphernalia. of the illegal drugs is not a crucial point against the
• The buy-bust team arrested all these persons, advised prosecution.
them of their constitutional rights, and brought them to • Non-compliance with the requirements under justifiable
police headquarters for investigation and drug testing. grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized items are properly preserved by the
ISSUE/S: apprehending officer/team, does not render the seizure
and custody of the items void and invalid.
• Whether Marcelino and the other suspects were
validly arrested – YES
• Whether there was an unreasonable search and GEORGE ANTIQUERA y CODES, Petitioner,
seizure – NO vs.
• Whether the Chain of Custody Rule under Sec. 21 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
of RA 9165 was not f ollowed – NO Citation: G.R. No. 180661 December 11, 2013

HELD: Facts:
The appeal is partly granted. The February 28, 2008, This is a petition for review seeking to set aside the decision
decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. of the Court of Appeals.
02626 is af f irmed with modif ication.
The petitioner assailed the validity of the warrantless arrest
On the issue of a valid warrantless arrest: perf ormed by police of f icers.

• The arrest of the appellants was an arrest in f lagrante At around 4:45 a.m. on February 11, 2004, three policemen
delicto made in pursuance of Sec. 5(a), Rule 113 of the and two civilian operatives conducted a police patrol when
Rules of Court. The arrest was ef f ected after Marcelino they saw unidentif ied men rush out f rom the house of the
and Myra perf ormed the overt act of selling shabu to
petitioner and immediately boarded a jeep. Suspecting that One f inal note: The f ailure of the accused to object to the
a crime had been committed, the policemen approached the irregularity of his arrest by itself is not enough to sustain his
house where the unidentif ied men came f rom and peeked conviction. A waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not
through the partially opened door. There, the policemen saw carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized
the accused and his live-in partner engaging in a drug during the illegal warrantless arrest.
transaction, which prompted them to enter the house,
introduce themselves, and arrest the petitioner and his live-
in partner. Incidental to the arrest, the policemen found drug
paraphernalia, which was also conf iscated. The f orensic In Re: Anonymous Letter-Complaint Against Atty.
examination of the seized items revealed traces of shabu. Miguel Morales, Clerk of Court, MeTC of Manila
19 November 2008
A criminal case was f iled. The RTC adjudged in f avor of the Austria-Martinez, J.
Republic. Aggrieved, an appeal was instituted, but the
decision was af f irmed by the Court of Appeals. Note: This is a consolidation of two administrative cases, but
I believe it is only the first one (which deals with privacy) that
Hence, this petition. is relevant f or our purposes, and so it is the only one I’ve
included in this digest.
Issues:
FACTS:
Whether or not the warrantless arrest was valid. The Of f ice of the Court Administrator (OCA) received an
unsigned, undated letter of complaint regarding Atty. Miguel
Ruling: Morales of the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC). The letter
No. alleged that Atty. Morales was consuming his work hours
f iling and attending to personal cases and was using office
Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure supplies, equipment, and utilities. Deputy Court
provides that a "peace of ficer or a private person may, Administrator (DCA) Reuben Dela Cruz conducted a spot
without a warrant, arrest a person when, in his presence, the investigation and gained access to Morales' personal
person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, computer. Pleadings to two of Atty. Morales' personal cases
or is attempting to commit an of f ense." This is an arrest in were f ound among the computer f iles. The computer was
f lagrante delicto. The overt act constituting the crime must be seized and taken into the custody of the OCA. Morales filed
done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. a motion for the release of his computer. The Court granted
his motion but ordered that the f iles be retrieved first. Morales
However, the circumstances here do not make out a case of then f iled a letter-complaint addressed to then Chief Justice
arrest made in f lagrante delicto. Davide against DCA Dela Cruz f or alleged conspiracy and
culpable violation of the Constitution. Morales asserted that
1. The police officers claim that they were alerted when the raid conducted by DCA Dela Cruz without search and
they saw two unidentified men suddenly rush out of 107 seizure orders violated his right to privacy, and the articles
David Street, Pasay City. Since they suspected that a seized should theref ore be considered inadmissible.
crime had been committed, the natural thing for them to
do was to give chase to the jeep that the two f leeing men ISSUE:
boarded. Given that the officers were in a patrol car and
a tricycle, running af ter the f leeing suspects was the 1. Are the pleadings f ound in Atty. Morales' personal
more urgent task. Instead, the officers gave priority to computer admissible in the administrative case against
the house, even though they heard no cry f or help from him?
it.
2. Admittedly, the police officers did not notice anything RULING:
amiss going on in the house f rom the street where they DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence
stood. Indeed, even as they peeked through its partially
opened door, they saw no activity that warranted their No.
entering it. Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution enshrines the
inviolable right of the people to be secure in their persons
Clearly, no crime was plainly exposed to the view of the and properties against unreasonable searches and seizures.
arresting of ficers that authorized the arrest of accused Additionally, Article III, Section 3(2) bars the admission of
Antiquera without a warrant under the above-mentioned rule. evidence obtained in violation of such right. Any violation of
this right renders the evidence obtained inadmissible for any
Since the conf iscated drug paraphernalia is the very corpus purpose in any proceeding.
delicti of the crime charged, the Court has no choice but to
acquit the accused.
One of the exceptions to the rule is consented warrantless
search.

Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. - A peace

of ficer or a private person may, without a warrant arrest a
person:

1. ,When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has

committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an of f ense;
2. When an of fense has just been committed and he has
probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge
of f acts or circumstances that the person to be arrested
has committed it; and
3. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has
escaped from a penal establishment or place where he
is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while
his case is pending, or has escaped while being
transf erred f rom one conf inement to another.

DCA Dela Cruz claims that they were able to obtain the
pleadings with Atty. Morales' consent. However, the Court
f inds his assertion insufficient to make the present case fall
under the exception. Consent to a search must be
unequivocal, specific, intelligently given, and
uncontaminated by any duress or coercion. It must be shown
by clear and convincing evidence.

To constitute a valid consent, it must be shown that:

1. The right exists,

2. The persons involved had the knowledge, either actual
or constructive, of the existence of the right, and
3. The person had actual intention to relinquish the right.

In this case, it was not shown that Atty. Morales had an actual
intention to relinquish his right. He may have agreed to
opening his computer and printing the f iles during the spot
investigation, but he immediately f iled an administrative case
against DCA Dela Cruz and his team, specifically invoking
his right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
SEARCH AND SEIZURES privacy, as it encourages broadcasting of individual user
posts.
RHONDA AVE S. VIVARES v. ST. THERESA'S COLLEGE
G.R. No. 202666, September 29, 2014 Even assuming that the photos in issue are visible only to the
sanctioned students’ Facebook friends, respondent STC did
not commit invasion of privacy since they did not resort to
DOCTRINE: A person who places a photograph on the any unlawf ul means of gathering the inf ormation as it was
Internet precisely intends to f orsake and renounce all privacy voluntarily given to them by persons who had legitimate
rights to such imagery, particularly under circumstances access to the said posts. Furthermore, without proof that the
such as here, where the Def endant did not employ protective petitioners placed the photographs subject of this case within
measures or devices that would have controlled access to the ambit of their protected zone of privacy, they cannot now
the Web page or the photograph itself . insist that they have an expectation of privacy with respect to
the photographs in question.
FACTS:
DISPOSITIVE: The petition is DENIED.
Minors Nenita Julia V. Daluz and Julienne Vida Suzara,
along with several others, took pictures of themselves in their
underwear, smoking cigarettes, and drinking hard liquor, and
uploaded them on Facebook. A computer teacher at the MIGUEL v. PEOPLE
minors’ school, Escudero, learned of such photos f rom her July 31, 2017
students. She reported the photos to the discipline-in-charge
f or violating the provisions of the Student Handbook. As a DOCTRINE:
result, the students were banned f rom joining their
graduation ceremony. It is true that the Bill of Rights cannot be invoked against the
acts of private individuals, the same may nevertheless be
Angela’s mother f iled a case asking that the school be denied applicable if such individuals act under the color of a state-
f rom prohibiting the girls f rom attending commencement.
related f unction. Theref ore, the Court is convinced that the
Thereaf ter, the Plaintif fs filed a petition f or the issuance of a acts of the bantay bayan in preserving peace and order in
writ of habeas data alleging an invasion of their children’s
their respective areas have the color of a state-related
privacy by the Defendant. The RTC dismissed the petition for f unction. Thus, they are deemed law enf orcement authorities
the issuance of writ of habeas data because the petitioners
f or the purpose of applying the Bill of Rights.
f ailed to prove the existence of an actual or threatened
violation of the minors’ right to privacy. FACTS:
Herein petitioner was charged with illegal possession of
ISSUE: dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article 2 of RA 9165. The
prosecution alleged that two Bantay Bayan operatives
Whether or not a writ of habeas data should be issued?
responded to the report of a man showing off his private parts,
which was later identified as herein petitioner. Thereaf ter,
RULING:
they f ound two rolls of marijuana in the pocket of petitioner.
This prompted them to seize the said items and bring
NO. The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any
petitioner to the police station to turn him in, together with the
person whose right to privacy in lif e, liberty, or security is
seized marijuana.
violated or threatened by an unlawf ul act or omission of a
public official or employee, or of a private individual, or entity
Meanwhile, petitioner pleaded not guilty and contends that
engaged in the gathering, collecting, or storing of data or
the two rolls of marijuana were only presented to him when
inf ormation regarding the person, f amily, home, and
he came back to the barangay hall.
correspondence of the aggrieved party. The issuance of writ
of habeas data requires the following: (1) The existence of a
The RTC f ound petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
person’s right to inf ormational privacy; and (2) An actual or the crime charged and f urther ruled that the warrantless
threatened violation of the right to privacy in lif e, liberty, or
arrest of petitioner was valid, as he was scandalously
security of the victim proven by at least substantial evidence.
showing his private parts in public. The resultant search
incidental to such arrest, which resulted in the seizure of
In this case, setting a post’s or prof ile detail’s privacy to
marijuana f rom petitioner, is also lawful. The CA af f irmed this
"Friends" is no assurance that it can no longer be viewed by
decision, hence, this appeal.
another user who is not Facebook friends with the source of
the content. This conf irms Facebook’s inclination towards
ISSUE:
user interaction and socialization rather than seclusion or
 2. the act must be observed by the arresting officer. Under
Whether or not the CA correctly upheld petitioner’s Section 5(b), the officer must have personal knowledge
conviction f or illegal possession of dangerous drugs? that a crime was recently committed, and the officer
believes the suspect is the one who committed it.
RULING:
The petition is valid, as an appeal allows the appellate court In this case, the prosecution argues that the Bantay Bayan
to review and correct errors, even if not raised by the parties. operatives, BB Bahoyo and BB Velasquez, arrested the
In this case, the petitioner argues that his arrest and search petitioner af ter receiving a report about a man exposing
were illegal, making the marijuana evidence inadmissible. himself . The petitioner, however, claims he was merely
The arresting officers, Bantay Bayan operatives, are civilian urinating when the operatives approached and arrested him.
volunteers, not official law enf orcement agents. While private BB Bahoyo's testimony is crucial to clarif y the situation.
individuals typically don’t fall under the Bill of Rights, they are
subject to its protections when acting under a state-related Based on the testimonies, the Court f inds it more credible
f unction. that the petitioner was simply urinating on the street when
the Bantay Bayan operatives approached him. The
The Court has previously ruled that certain non-police operatives searched him, allegedly finding marijuana, but the
personnel, like barangay tanods or Bantay Bayan, can act as prosecution's claim that he was showing his private parts is
law enf orcement agents f or constitutional purposes. Thus, contradicted by the testimonies. There was no overt criminal
the Bill of Rights applies to their actions, including arrests act committed in the presence of the of ficers, nor did the
and searches. operatives have personal knowledge of a crime being
committed, which would justify a warrantless arrest f or "in
In this case, the search and seizure require a judicial warrant f lagrante delicto" or "hot pursuit."
unless there's an exception, such as a search incidental to a
lawf ul arrest. The arrest must be lawf ul before a search can Furthermore, the claim of a valid warrantless arrest f or public
be conducted. Without a proper warrant or valid arrest, the indecency is highly implausible because no charge was filed
evidence obtained is inadmissible under the Constitution. f or such an of fense, reinf orcing the idea that no valid arrest
Theref ore, the petitioner's conviction should be overturned. took place before the search. As a lawf ul arrest is required
bef ore conducting a search, and there was none in this case,
To protect the people f rom unreasonable searches and the search was illegal. Consequently, the marijuana f ound
seizures, Section 3(2) of the Bill of Rights provides that during the illegal search is inadmissible under the
evidence obtained and conf iscated on the occasion of exclusionary rule. Since this evidence was central to the
unreasonable search and seizure is deemed tainted and charge of illegal possession of drugs, the petitioner must be
should be excluded f or being the proverbial f ruit of a acquitted.
poisonous tree.
Thus, the petition is granted, and the decision of the Court of
Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. - A peace Appeals is reversed. Petitioner Jeffrey Miguel y Remegio is
of ficer or a private person may, without a warrant arrest a acquitted, and his immediate release is ordered, unless he is
person: being held f or other lawf ul reasons.

1. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has

committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an of f ense; Disini v Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, February
2. When an of fense has just been committed and he has 11, 2014
probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge
of f acts or circumstances that the person to be arrested Facts:
has committed it; and The case arises out of consolidated petitions to the
3. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has
Supreme Court on the constitutionality of several
escaped from a penal establishment or place where he
provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, Act
is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while
his case is pending, or has escaped while being No. 10175. The Act is the government’s platform in
transf erred f rom one conf inement to another. combating illegal cyberspace activities.

For an arrest under Section 5(a), Rule 113, two conditions Petitioners challenge the constitutionality of the following
must be met: provisions of the cybercrime law that regard certain acts
as crimes and impose penalties for their commission, as
1. the suspect must commit an overt act showing they are well as provisions that would enable the government to
engaged in or attempting a crime, and track down and penalize violators. These provisions are:
• Section 4(a)(1) on Illegal Access; right protected by the guarantee against unreasonable
• Section 4(a)(3) on Data Interference; searches and seizures.13 But the Court acknowledged its
• Section 4(a)(6) on Cyber-squatting; existence as early as 1968 in Morfe v. Mutuc, 14 it ruled
• Section 4(b)(3) on Identity Theft; that the right to privacy exists independently of its
• Section 4(c)(1) on Cybersex; identification with liberty; it is in itself fully deserving of
• Section 4(c)(2) on Child Pornography; constitutional protection.
• Section 4(c)(3) on Unsolicited Commercial
Relevant to any discussion of the right to privacy is the
Communications;
concept known as the "Zones of Privacy." The Court
• Section 4(c)(4) on Libel;
explained in "In the Matter of the Petition for Issuance of
• Section 5 on Aiding or Abetting and Attempt in the
Writ of Habeas Corpus of Sabio v. Senator Gordon" 15 the
Commission of Cybercrimes;
relevance of these zones to the right to privacy:
• Section 6 on the Penalty of One Degree Higher;
• Section 7 on the Prosecution under both the Revised Zones of privacy are recognized and protected in our laws.
Penal Code (RPC) and R.A. 10175; Within these zones, any form of intrusion is impermissible
• Section 8 on Penalties; unless excused by law and in accordance with customary
• Section 12 on Real-Time Collection of Traffic Data; legal process. The meticulous regard we accord to these
• Section 13 on Preservation of Computer Data; zones arises not only from our conviction that the right to
• Section 14 on Disclosure of Computer Data; privacy is a "constitutional right" and "the right most
• Section 15 on Search, Seizure, and Examination of valued by civilized men," but also from our adherence to
Computer Data; the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which
• Section 17 on Destruction of Computer Data; mandates that, "no one shall be subjected to arbitrary
• Section 19 on Restricting or Blocking Access to interference with his privacy" and "everyone has the right
Computer Data; to the protection of the law against such interference or
• Section 20 on Obstruction of Justice; attacks."
• Section 24 on Cybercrime Investigation and
Coordinating Center (CICC); Two constitutional guarantees create these zones of
• Section 26(a) on CICC’s Powers and Functions. privacy:

Issue: 1. the right against unreasonable searches 16 and

Whether or not the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 is seizures, which is the basis of the right to be let alone,
constitutional, considering the petitioners’ contention 2. the right to privacy of communication and
that 21 separate sections of the Act violate their correspondence. In assessing the challenge that the
constitutional rights, particularly the right to freedom of State has impermissibly intruded into these zones of
expression and access to information. privacy, a court must determine whether a person has
exhibited a reasonable expectation of privacy and, if
Ruling: so, whether that expectation has been violated by
unreasonable government intrusion.18
(3) Computer-related Identity Theft. – The intentional
acquisition, use, misuse, transfer, possession, alteration, The usual identifying information regarding a person
or deletion of identifying information belonging to another, includes his name, his citizenship, his residence address,
whether natural or juridical, without right: Provided: that if his contact number, his place and date of birth, the name
no damage has yet been caused, the penalty imposable of his spouse if any, his occupation, and similar data.19
shall be one (1) degree lower. The law punishes those who acquire or use such
identifying information without right, implicitly to cause
Petitioners claim that Section 4(b)(3) violates the damage. Petitioners simply fail to show how government
constitutional rights to due process and to privacy and effort to curb computer-related identity theft violates the
correspondence, and transgresses the freedom of the right to privacy and correspondence as well as the right
press. to due process of law.

The right to privacy, or the right to be let alone, was Also, the charge of invalidity of this section based on the
institutionalized in the 1987 Constitution as a facet of the overbreadth doctrine will not hold water since the specific
conducts proscribed do not intrude into guaranteed • Section 12 violated the right to privacy because it
freedoms like speech. Clearly, what this section regulates lacked sufficient specificity and definiteness in
are specific actions: the acquisition, use, misuse or collecting real-time computer data.
deletion of personal identifying data of another. There is • Section 19 of the Act gave the government the
no fundamental right to acquire another’s personal data. authority to restrict or block access to computer data
without any judicial warrant.
Further, petitioners fear that Section 4(b)(3) violates the
freedom of the press in that journalists would be hindered Notes:
from accessing the unrestricted user account of a person Among 21 challenged sections, the Court declared
in the news to secure information about him that could be Sections 4(c)(3), 12, and 19 of the Act as unconstitutional .
published. But this is not the essence of identity theft that
the law seeks to prohibit and punish. Evidently, the theft • Section 4(c)(3) prohibits the transmission of
of identity information must be intended for an unsolicited commercial electronic communications,
illegitimate purpose. Moreover, acquiring and commonly known as spam, that seek to advertise,
disseminating information made public by the user sell, or offer products and services unless the
himself cannot be regarded as a form of theft. recipient affirmatively consents or when the purpose
of the communication is for service or administrative
The Court has defined intent to gain as an internal act announcements from the sender to its existing users.
which can be established through the overt acts of the The government argued that unsolicited commercial
offender, and it may be presumed from the furtive taking communications amount to both nuisance and
of useful property pertaining to another, unless special trespass because they interfere with the enjoyment of
circumstances reveal a different intent on the part of the online services. However, the Court ruled that spam
perpetrator.20 As such, the press, whether in quest of is a category of commercial speech, which does not
news reporting or social investigation, has nothing to fear receive the same level of protection as other
since a special circumstance is present to negate intent constitutionally guaranteed forms of expression, but
to gain which is required by this Section. is still entitled to protection. The prohibition on
transmitting unsolicited communications would deny
a person the right to read their emails, even
Sections 4(c)(3), 12, and 19 of the Cybercrime Prevention unsolicited commercial ads addressed to them.
Act of 2012 are unconstitutional. In Morfe v. Mutuc, it was Therefore, the Court declared Section 4(c)(3)
ruled that the right to privacy exists independently of its unconstitutional.
identification with liberty; it is fully deserving of • Section 12 of the Act authorizes law enforcement to
constitutional protection. collect or record traffic data in real-time associated
with specified communications transmitted by
Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that means of a computer system. Traffic data under this
the right to be secure in one’s papers and effects against section includes the origin, destination, route, size,
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature date, and duration of the communication, but not its
and for any purpose shall be inviolable. Further, it states content or the identity of users. The petitioners
that no search warrant shall issue except upon probable argued that such warrantless authority curtails civil
cause to be determined personally by the judge. Here, the liberties and sets the stage for abuse of discretion.
Government, in effect, seizes and places the computer The Court recognized the right to informational
data under its control and disposition without a warrant. privacy, which includes the right not to have private
The Department of Justice order cannot substitute for a information disclosed and the right to live freely
judicial search warrant. (In Relation to Sec. 19) without surveillance and intrusion. The Court found
that while internet users have a subjective
In this case:
expectation of privacy over their communications, it
did not find this expectation to be objectively
• Section 4(c)(3) violated the right to freedom of
reasonable. However, Section 12 lacked safeguards
expression by prohibiting the electronic transmission
to prevent the collection of unnecessary information,
of unsolicited commercial communications.
thus the Court struck it down for failing to ensure
respect for the right to privacy.
• Section 19 authorizes the Department of Justice to breaks in the chain of custody, viz.: (1) the seized items
restrict or block access to computer data found to be were not immediately inventoried and photographed in
in violation of the Act. The petitioners argued that this the place where the alleged shabu was recovered; and (2)
section violated the right to freedom of expression, as there was no testimony to explain how Bumalay and
well as the constitutional protection against Forensic Chemist Pabustan, Jr. both claimed to have
unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court received the alleged shabu from Agent Tan. For its part,
recognized that computer data is personal property the Office of the Solicitor General maintained that the trial
entitled to protection against unreasonable searches court correctly found accused-appellants guilty as all the
and seizures. The Constitution requires the elements of the crime were duly proven. The chain of
government to secure a valid judicial warrant when custody was not broken; thus, the integrity and evidentiary
seeking to seize personal property or block a form of value of the seized item was preserved.
expression. Since Section 19 precluded judicial
intervention, the Court found it unconstitutional. The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Under Decision dated August 11, 2015, the Court of

Appeals affirmed.
PEOPLE V ALMAYDA
Proceedings Before the Court
FACTS:
As stated, under Resolution dated November 11, 2021,
In March 2012, a confidential informant informed the the Court also affirmed. We ruled that prosecution
PDEA about Quiogue and Almayda's drug activities, witness Agent Tan gave a detailed narration of the
leading to a buy-bust operation. On April 18, 2012, transaction and positively identified accused-appellants
Almayda arranged a meeting to sell ₱2,000 worth of as the persons who sold him the seized drugs. Too, the
shabu, but insisted on a ₱4,500 minimum. The next day, chain of custody was preserved. The fact that the
at 7th Inn, Almayda sold two sachets of shabu to poseur- inventory was conducted in the PDEA Regional Office and
buyer Agent Tan for ₱4,500. After the transaction, the not at the place of arrest was of no moment.
team arrested the accused and recovered the buy-bust
In their Motion for Reconsideration dated April 7, 2022,
money. The sachets were marked and photographed at
accused-appellants plead anew for their acquittal. They
the scene, and the items were later brought to the PDEA
maintain that the prosecution failed to establish an
office and the PNP Crime Laboratory. Forensic
unbroken chain of custody. Notably, the inventory was
examination confirmed the presence of
conducted in the PDEA office, contrary to the procedure
methamphetamine hydrochloride.
set forth in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.

Our Ruling on Accused-Appellants' Motion for

DEFENSE: Accused-appellants, on the other hand, Reconsideration
testified that on April 19, 2012, Almayda came from a
We reckon with the chain of custody in drugs cases,
hearing of his case before the Regional Trial Court,
specifically, the first link, which refers to the seizure and
Branch 2, Legazpi City. After the hearing, he went to 7th
marking which must be done immediately at the place of
Inn to meet up with Quiogue. Suddenly, several PDEA
the arrest. Too, it includes the physical inventory and
agents arrived. Agent Lucero invited them to come with
photograph-taking of the seized drug which should be
him to Camp Ola to answer some questions. The agents
done in the presence of the accused or his/her
handcuffed them, took their cash and cell phones, and
representative or counsel, together with an elected public
brought them to the PDEA office in Camp Ola.
official, a representative of the DOJ, and the media.
HELD:
Here, it is undisputed that the physical inventory and
The Proceedings Before the Court of Appeals photograph-taking of the seized items were conducted at
the PDEA Office, and not at the place of arrest. Poseur-
On appeal, accused-appellants faulted the trial court for buyer Agent Tan testified that he marked the plastic
rendering a verdict of conviction, despite the alleged sachets with "DMT A 4-19-12" and "DMT B 4-19-12" at the
place of arrest, but the team then returned to the PDEA procedural infirmities cast serious doubt on the identity
office to conduct the inventory and photograph-taking in and integrity of the corpus delicti. The metaphorical chain
the presence of Barangay Chairwoman Azotillo, Barangay did not link at all, albeit it unjustly restrained appellant's
Kagawad Belbes, media representative Romero, and DOJ right to liberty. If the chain of custody procedure had not
representative Aragon, and accused-appellants. been complied with, or no justifiable reason exists for its
Importantly, Agent Tan failed to give any justification why non-compliance, as in this case, then it is the Court's duty
the inventory was not conducted at the place of arrest. to overturn the verdict of conviction.

In the recent case of People v. Casa, the Court settled that, As the Court stated in People v. Macud, we recognize the
in case of warrantless seizures, the inventory and taking pernicious effects of dangerous drugs in our society, but
of photographs generally must be conducted at the place the efforts to defeat or eradicate these cannot trample on
of seizure. The exception to this rule—where the physical the constitutional rights of individuals, particularly those
inventory and taking of photographs of the seized item at the margins of our society who are prone to abuse at
may be conducted at the nearest police station or at the the hands of the armed and uniformed men of the State.
nearest office of the apprehending officer or team—is Time and again, we have exhorted courts "to be extra
when the police officers provide justification that: (1) it is vigilant in trying drug cases, lest an innocent person is
not practicable to conduct the same at the place of made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug
seizure; or (2) the items seized are threatened by offenses."
immediate or extreme danger at the place of seizure.
ACCORDINGLY, the Motion for Reconsideration dated
As held in Casa, when the police officers are able to April 7, 2022 is GRANTED.
provide a sensible reason, which is practicable,
consistent, and not merely generic or an afterthought, PEOPLE V COGAED
then the courts will recognize that the police officers
indeed may conduct the inventory at the nearest police On November 25, 2005, Police Senior Inspector Sofronio
station or the nearest office of the apprehending Bayan received a tip about Marvin Buya (Marvin Bugat)
officer/team. Such reason must be indicated in the transporting marijuana from Barangay Lun-Oy to the
affidavits of the police officers who participated in the Poblacion of San Gabriel, La Union. PSI Bayan set up
buy-bust operation. checkpoints to intercept the suspect, and at one
checkpoint, SPO1 Jaime Taracatac stopped a jeepney
As stated, the prosecution witnesses here failed to give from Lun-Oy with two male passengers, Victor Romana
any justification, much less, a sufficient one, why the Cogaed and Santiago Sacpa Dayao, who were suspected
inventory had to be conducted at the PDEA Regional of carrying marijuana. When questioned, Cogaed and
Office instead of the place of arrest. Evidently, therefore, Dayao claimed they didn’t know what was in the bags they
the first and most important link was already broken early were carrying, as they were just doing a favor for their
on. barrio mate, Marvin.

As for the succeeding links, compliance with the Upon opening Cogaed’s blue bag, three bricks of
requirements does not serve to cure the incipient breach marijuana were found, and Cogaed allegedly muttered,
which attended early on the first link in the chain of “Marvin is a fool, this is what’s contained in the bag.” Both
custody. As held in People v. Ismael, there was already a were arrested and brought to the police station, where
significant break such that there can be no assurance further investigation revealed that Cogaed’s sack
against switching, planting, or contamination even though contained four rolled pieces of marijuana, and Dayao’s
the subsequent links were not similarly infirm. In other yellow bag held a brick of marijuana. A total of 17,429.6
words, there is no way by which the already compromised grams of marijuana were seized.
identity and integrity of the seized drug items can ever be
cleansed of its incipient defect. Hence, accused- The items were tested, and it was confirmed that they
appellants must be acquitted as a matter of right. were indeed marijuana. During the trial, Cogaed testified
that he did not know the contents of the bags and only
In view of the procedural infirmities in the chain of helped Dayao carry them to the market. He also claimed
custody, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized that he was hit by SPO1 Taracatac during the
items cannot be said to have been preserved. These investigation. Cogaed was charged under Section 11,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 for possession of 7. Exigent and emergency circumstances.
dangerous drugs. The Regional Trial Court found Cogaed
guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine "Stop and frisk" searches are a legal exception to the
of Php 1,000,000, ruling that although his arrest was search warrant requirement, aimed at preventing crime.
illegal, he waived his right to object to the search by These searches differ from those incidental to an arrest,
voluntarily opening his bag without protest. Cogaed as they focus on suspicious behavior rather than a crime
appealed, but the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s already committed. In cases like Posadas v. Court of
decision, asserting that Cogaed had waived his right Appeals, courts ruled such searches were valid due to the
against warrantless searches by voluntarily cooperating rapid nature of criminal situations that don't allow time for
with the officers. The case highlights the importance of a a warrant. However, for "stop and frisk" searches to be
defendant’s actions in waiving constitutional rights and valid, police must have observed suspicious behavior
the allowance of evidence obtained through such waivers based on their experience.
despite an illegal arrest.
In Manalili v. Court of Appeals and People v. Solayao,
ISSUES: officers’ observations, like a person with reddish eyes or
fleeing from police, justified suspicion. In Cogaed’s case,
1. whether there was a valid search and seizure of however, there was no suspicious behavior; he was
marijuana as against the appellant; merely a passenger with a bag. The suspicion came not
2. whether the evidence obtained through the search from the police, but from the jeepney driver, making the
should be admitted; search unreasonable and a violation of Cogaed’s right to
privacy.
3. whether there was enough evidence to sustain the
conviction of the accused.
The search in this case does not qualify as a search
incidental to a lawful arrest. Under Rule 126, Section 13
HELD:
of the Rules of Court, searches are only valid if they are
The right to privacy is a fundamental right implicitly incidental to a lawful arrest. For an arrest to be lawful
protected by the Philippine Constitution. One of its key without a warrant, the conditions outlined in Rule 113,
aspects is the protection against unreasonable searches Section 5 must be met, such as when a person is caught
and seizures, as outlined in Article III, Section 2. This committing a crime or when there is probable cause.
provision ensures that people are secure in their persons,
In Cogaed's case, there was no warrant of arrest, and he
homes, and possessions, guarding against searches or
had not committed or was not about to commit any crime
seizures without a valid reason. A search warrant or
at the time of his apprehension.
warrant of arrest may only be issued if there is probable
cause, which must be determined by a judge after
As established in People v. Chua, a warrantless arrest
examining the complainant and any witnesses under oath.
requires two elements:
The warrant must also clearly describe the place to be
searched and the persons or items to be seized.
1. the person must commit or attempt to commit a
crime in the presence of the arresting officer,
The known jurisprudential instances of reasonable
warrantless searches and seizures are: 2. the overt act must be visible to the officer.

1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest; These elements were absent in Cogaed's case, as there
2. Seizure of evidence in "plain view"; was no indication that he was involved in any criminal
3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the activity at the time of his arrest. Additionally, he was not
government, the vehicle’s inherent mobility reduces an escapee prisoner, further invalidating the warrantless
expectation of privacy, especially when its transit in arrest.
public thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable
Cogaed’s silence when asked to open his bags cannot be
suspicion amounting to probable cause that the
considered a valid waiver of his constitutional rights. The
occupant committed a criminal activity;
court has previously stated that passive acquiescence,
4. Consented warrantless search;
especially under coercive circumstances, is not
5. Customs search;
equivalent to consent. In this case, Cogaed’s lack of
6. Stop and frisk; and
objection was likely a reaction to the intimidating the state’s inherent right to protect its existence and
situation created by the police. The prosecution and public welfare outweighed an individual's right against
police must prove that any waiver of rights was knowing, warrantless searches when those searches are
intelligent, and free from coercion. Such waivers are not reasonably conducted.
to be presumed.
While the Court acknowledged that the military's control
Valmonte v. De Villa, [G.R. No. 83988, September 29, of checkpoints could be susceptible to abuse, it
1989] (173 SCRA 211) emphasized that occasional inconvenience or discomfort
is a necessary trade-off for maintaining order and peace
FACTS: On January 20, 1987, the National Capital Region during these "abnormal times." Thus, checkpoints, if
District Command (NCRDC) was activated under Letter of conducted reasonably, are justified as part of the broader
Instruction 02/87 from the Philippine General goal of ensuring societal order.
Headquarters, AFP. Its mission was to conduct security
operations in the National Capital Region to maintain
peace, order, and territorial defense. As part of this
mission, the NCRDC set up checkpoints in Valenzuela, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.
Metro Manila. Petitioners, Atty. Ricardo Valmonte, a REYNALDO BELOCURA y PEREZ, Accused-Appellant.
resident of Valenzuela, and the Union of Lawyers and
Advocates for Peoples Rights (ULAP), filed a petition In this case, the central issue revolves around the legality
seeking to declare the checkpoints unconstitutional. They of the arrest and subsequent search of Reynaldo
argued that the checkpoints granted blanket authority to Belocura’s jeep without a warrant. The facts highlight two
military and police personnel to conduct searches and main aspects: the validity of the arrest and the chain of
seizures without a search warrant or court order, violating custody of the seized evidence.
the Constitution.
Warrantless Arrest and Search: Belocura was stopped
ISSUE: and arrested after failing to explain the spurious
government plate and the unregistered firearm he
Do military and police checkpoints violate the right of the possessed. Under Philippine law, a warrantless arrest is
people against unreasonable searches and seizures? justified when there is probable cause to believe that an
individual has committed, is committing, or is about to
HELD: commit a crime. The police officers had reasonable
grounds to arrest Belocura because of his failure to
The Court, voting 13-2, dismissed the petition. It ruled that explain the illegal firearm and suspicious government
military and police checkpoints do not violate the right plate. This provides a valid basis for his arrest under Rule
against unreasonable search and seizure. 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Court.

The Court explained that not all searches and seizures are Further, under Rule 113, Section 12, officers are permitted
prohibited; only those that are unreasonable are to conduct a search incident to a lawful arrest. Since
forbidden. Belocura was lawfully arrested, the subsequent search of
his jeep for contraband was also legal. PO2 Santos,
The determination of reasonableness depends on the during the search, recovered a red plastic bag containing
specific facts of each case. For example: marijuana. The search was conducted immediately after
the arrest, which makes it consistent with the law
1. simply looking into a vehicle regarding searches incident to an arrest.
2. flashing a light inside
Although the arrest and search were valid, issues arose
Does not constitute an unreasonable search. with the chain of custody of the marijuana. The marijuana
was allegedly seized from Belocura’s jeep, but the officer
The Court found that the checkpoints in Valenzuela could who actually conducted the search (PO2 Santos) was not
be considered security measures to help the NCRDC fulfill presented in court to testify about the seizure of the
its mission of maintaining peace and order, particularly in evidence. Furthermore, there was insufficient
light of the increased insurgency activities and documentation or evidence regarding the handling and
lawlessness in urban centers. The Court also noted that
transfer of the seized marijuana until it was tested by the The Court rejected Belocura’s argument that the arrest
forensic chemist. lacked probable cause, as he was caught committing a
crime in the presence of the officers. The search was
The absence of clear and unbroken documentation seen as necessary and valid.
regarding the evidence’s handling raised doubts about its
integrity and authenticity. However, the Court also noted that while the arrest and
search were legal, the prosecution failed to establish
ISSUE: beyond reasonable doubt that Belocura possessed the
marijuana. The absence of testimony from the officer
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING IN EVIDENC E who actually recovered the drugs created doubts about
THE MARIJUANA DESPITE THE ILLEGALITY OF ITS the chain of custody and the integrity of the evidence.
SEIZURE DUE TO THE ABSENSE OF A VALID SEARCH Thus, while the search was justified, the evidence to
WARRANT. convict Belocura was not sufficient.

HELD:

The Court concluded that the conviction should be SEARCH WARRANT

reversed, focusing on the legality of the warrantless
arrest and search. The Constitution guarantees United Laboratories, Inc. v. Isip
protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, G.R. No. 163858, June 28, 2005
requiring a warrant issued by a competent judicial
authority based on probable cause (Article III, Section 2). FACTS:
Any evidence obtained in violation of this right is
inadmissible (Article III, Section 3(2)).
UNILAB hired a private investigator to look into a location
However, exceptions exist for warrantless arrests and suspected of manufacturing fake UNILAB products,
searches. particularly Revicon multivitamins. The investigator
photographed the operation, and UNILAB sought the
1. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has NBI's help, leading to the filing of a search warrant
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
application. After finding probable cause, the court issued
commit an offense;
a search warrant directing the police to seize “finished or
2. When an offense has in fact just been committed, and
unfinished products of UNILAB, particularly REVICON
he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that
multivitamins.” No fake Revicon was, however, found;
the person to be arrested has committed it; and instead, sealed boxes were seized, which, when opened,
3. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has
contained 60 ml bottles of Disudrin and 200mg tablets of
escaped from a penal establishment or place where
Inoflox, both brands used by UNILAB. The NBI prayed that
he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined
some of the seized items be turned over to the custody of
while his case is pending, or has escaped while being
the Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD) for examinati on.
transferred from one confinement to another. The court granted the motion.

Similarly, warrantless searches are allowed in situations

The respondents filed a motion to quash the search
like searches incidental to a lawful arrest (Rule 126,
warrant, arguing that the seized items were inadmissible
Section 13) and searches of moving vehicles. as "fruit of the poisonous tree," while UNILAB contended
that they were seized under the plain view doctrine. The
In Belocura’s case, the Court found that his arrest and the
court granted the motion to suppress the evidence.
subsequent search of his jeep were valid. Belocura was
caught committing a traffic violation (illegal use of a
UNILAB, with the NBI, filed a motion for reconsideration,
government plate), which placed him in flagrante delicto
arguing that the court's grounds for quashing the warrant
(caught in the act). This justified a warrantless arrest and were incorrect and that the seizure was justified by the
search under Section 5, Rule 113. The search was lawful
plain view doctrine. The respondents objected to
as it was incidental to his arrest, aiming to secure the UNILAB’s counsel representing the People of the
police from potential harm and seize evidence related to
Philippines.
the crime.
 1. The officer must have a valid reason for the initial
search or be in the right position to see the object.
ISSUES: 2. The officer must discover the incriminating
evidence by accident (inadvertently).
1. Whether the search conducted by the NBI officers of 3. It must be clear to the officer at the moment of
the first and second floors of the Shalimar building discovery that the item is related to a crime and
and the seizure of the sealed boxes which, when can be seized.
opened, contained Disudrin syrup and Inoflox, were
valid under the plain view doctrine. The immediate aspect means that the officer should
recognize at the time of discovery that the object is
HELD: incriminating. It must be apparent to the officer based on
their immediate observations, not after further
The Court agrees that a search warrant proceeding is not
investigation. The officer must have probable cause to
a criminal action but a process for the discovery and
link the object to criminal activity at the time of discovery.
possession of personal property. It is a special remedy
used for public necessity, similar to John Doe In this case, the NBI agents and the petitioner failed to
proceedings, and although titled like a criminal action, it prove the requirements for applying the plain view
is not one. doctrine. Simply showing that the boxes were in plain
view is not enough. They did not present evidence to
A search warrant is a legal process issued under police
demonstrate that the items were discovered
power, in the name of the State (People of the Philippines) ,
unintentionally and that it was immediately clear that the
aimed at obtaining evidence for criminal prosecution.
items were incriminating. No NBI agent or representative
While the Solicitor General usually represents the state,
from the petitioner was presented to testify that the
private individuals or corporations involved in the case,
discovery was accidental and that the items were subject
like UNILAB, can participate in search warrant
to seizure.
proceedings with the NBI or relevant government agency.
They can file motions to defend the validity of the search As a result, the Court ruled that the petitioner and the NBI
warrant and the admissibility of seized evidence. did not meet the necessary conditions for applying the
plain view doctrine.
The Court allows the petitioners to proceed with their
case as private complainants, as per the ruling in People Bienvenido Laud vs. People of the Philippines
v. Nano, where private parties may file petitions in cases G.R. No. 199032, November 19, 2014
of judicial error or due process violations.
NOTES: Are “human remains” personal property which
could be the subject of a search warrant? Yes, the Court
said. In a case involving alleged summary executions of
2. On the validity of the seizure of the sealed boxes and
six victims by the Davao Death Squad, the RTC issued a
their contents of Disudrin and Inoflox, the Court
warrant for the search of the remains in three caves in
rejects the contention of the petitioner.
Davao. The warrant was sought to be quashed, among
other grounds, on the claim that human remains are not
A search warrant must clearly describe both the place to
personal property. The Court said that “personal property”
be searched and the items to be seized. It is not a broad
in the context of §3, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court refers
or general authority allowing law enforcement to search
to the thing’s mobility, and not to its capacity to be owned
for anything related to a crime. The officers can only seize
or alienated by a particular person. Human remains can
the items specified in the warrant.
be transported from place to place, and they qualify under
Items that are not listed in the warrant but are in plain view the phrase “subject of the offense” given that they prove
of the officers may still be seized, but this cannot be the crime’s corpus delicti. Accordingly, they may be valid
assumed as plain view. The State must provide proof that subjects of a search warrant.
the essential conditions for applying the plain view
FACTS:
doctrine are met. These conditions include:
The PNP, through Police Senior Superintendent Roberto
B. Fajardo, applied with the RTC Manila for a warrant to
search three (3) caves located inside the Laud Compound Judges [of these RTCs] and, whenever they are on official
in Purok 3, Barangay Ma-a, Davao City, where the alleged leave of absence or are not physically present in the
remains of the victims summarily executed by the so- station, the Vice-Executive Judges" are authorized to act
called "Davao Death Squad" may be found. In support of on such applications and "shall issue the warrants, if
the application, a certain Ernesto Avasola (Avasola) was justified, which may be served in places outside the
presented to the RTC and there testified that he territorial jurisdiction of the said courts."
personally witnessed the killing of six (6) persons in
December 2005. Judge William Simon P. Peralta, acting As the records would show, the search warrant
as Vice Executive Judge of the Manila-RTC, found application was filed before the Manila-RTC by the PNP
probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant, and and was endorsed by its head, PNP Chief Jesus Ame
thus, issued the search warrant, which was later enforced Versosa, particularly describing the place to be searched
by the elements of the PNP-Criminal Investigation and and the things to be seized in connection with the heinous
Detection Group. The search of the Laud Compound crime of Murder. Finding probable cause therefor, Judge
caves yielded positive results for the presence of human Peralta, in his capacity as 2nd Vice-Executive Judge,
remains. issued the search warrant, which, as the rules state, may
be served in places outside the territorial jurisdiction of
Herein petitioner, retired SPO4 Bienvenido Laud (Laud), the said RTC.
filed an Urgent Motion to Quash and to Suppress Illegally
Seized Evidence, premised on the ground, among others, Notably, the fact that a search warrant application
that the Manila-RTC had no jurisdiction to issue the involves a "special criminal case" excludes it from the
search warrant, which was to be enforced in Davao City. compelling reason requirement under Section 2, Rule 126
The Manila-RTC granted the motion. The CA granted the of the Rules of Court. The rule on search warrant
Respondent’s petition. Hence, this petition to the SC. applications before the Manila and Quezon City RTCs for
the above-mentioned special criminal cases "shall be an
ISSUE: exception to Section 2 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court."
Whether the RTC Manila had jurisdiction to issue the said Perceptibly, the fact that a search warrant is being applied
warrant despite non-compliance with the compelling for in connection with a special criminal case as above-
reasons requirement under Section 2, Rule 126 of the classified already presumes the existence of a
Rules of Court. compelling reason; hence, any statement to this effect
would be superfluous and therefore should be dispensed
RULING: with.
YES. Section 12, Chapter V of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC states
the requirements for the issuance of search warrants in
special criminal cases by the RTCs of Manila and Quezon
City. These special criminal cases pertain to those SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS) v. DANGEROUS DRUGS
"involving heinous crimes, illegal gambling, illegal BOARD (DDB)
possession of firearms and ammunitions, as well as
violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of Note: This is a consolidated case with Pimentel v.
2002, the Intellectual Property Code, the Anti-Money COMELEC and Atty. Laserna v. DDB and PDEA, regarding
Laundering Act of 2001, the Tariff and Customs Code, as the constitutionality of RA 9165 (c), (d), (f), and (g);
amended, and other relevant laws that may hereafter be Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
enacted by Congress, and included herein by the Supreme
Court."

Search warrant applications for such cases may be filed FACTS: In these kindred petitions, the constitutionality of
by "the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), the Section 36 of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise
Philippine National Police (PNP), and the Anti-Crime Task known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
Force (ACTAF)," and "personally endorsed by the heads of 2002, is put in issue. It requires mandatory drug testing of
such agencies." As in ordinary search warrant candidates for public office, students of secondary and
applications, they "shall particularly describe therein the tertiary schools, officers and employees of public and
places to be searched and/or the property or things to be private offices, and persons charged before the
seized as prescribed in the Rules of Court." "The Executive prosecutor’s office with certain offenses, among other
individuals. As far as pertinent, the challenged section candidates for senator. He points out that, subject to the
reads as follows: provisions on nuisance candidates, a candidate for
senator needs only to meet the qualifications laid down in
SEC. 36. Authorized Drug Testing. Sec. 3, Art. VI of the Constitution, to wit: (1) citizenship,
Authorized drug testing shall be done by any government (2) voter registration, (3) literacy, (4) age, and (5)
forensic laboratories or by any of the drug testing residency. Beyond these stated qualification
laboratories accredited and monitored by the DOH to requirements, candidates for senator need not possess
safeguard the quality of the test results. The drug testing any other qualification to run for senator and be voted
shall employ, among others, two (2) testing methods, the upon and elected as a member of the Senate. Congress
screening test which will determine the positive result as cannot validly amend or otherwise modify these
well as the type of drug used, and the confirmatory test qualification standards, as it cannot disregard, evade, or
which will confirm a positive screening test. The following weaken the force of a constitutional mandate, or alter or
shall be subjected to undergo drug testing: enlarge the Constitution.

• (c) Students of secondary and tertiary schools. (SJS v. DDB & PDEA | G.R. 157870)
Students of secondary and tertiary schools shall, In its Petition for Prohibition under Rule 65, petitioner
pursuant to the related rules and regulations as Social Justice Society (SJS), a registered political party,
contained in the school’s student handbook and seeks to prohibit the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) and
with notice to the parents, undergo a random the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) from
drug test. enforcing paragraphs (c), (d), (f), and (g) of Sec. 36 of RA
• (d) Officers and employees of public and private 9165 on the ground that they are constitutionally infirm.
offices. Officers and employees of public and For one, the provisions constitute undue delegation of
private offices, whether domestic or overseas, legislative power when they give unbridled discretion to
shall be subjected to undergo a random drug test schools and employers to determine the manner of drug
as contained in the company’s work rules and testing. For another, the provisions trench in the equal
regulations, for purposes of reducing the risk in protection clause inasmuch as they can be used to
the workplace. Any officer or employee found harass a student or an employee deemed undesirable.
positive for use of dangerous drugs shall be dealt And for a third, a person’s constitutional right against
with administratively, which shall be a ground for unreasonable searches is also breached by said
suspension or termination, subject to the provisions.
provisions of Article 282 of the Labor Code and
pertinent provisions of the Civil Service Law. (Atty. Laserna v. DDB & PDEA | G.R. 158633)
• (f) All persons charged before the prosecutor’ s Petitioner Atty. Manuel J. Laserna, Jr., as a citizen and
office with a criminal offense having an taxpayer, also seeks in his Petition for Certiorari and
imposable penalty of imprisonment of not less Prohibition under Rule 65 that Sec. 36(c), (d), (f), and (g)
than six (6) years and one (1) day shall undergo a of RA 9165 be struck down as unconstitutional for
mandatory drug test. infringing on the constitutional right to privacy, the right
• (g) All candidates for public office, whether against unreasonable search and seizure, and the right
appointed or elected both in the national or local against self-incrimination, and for being contrary to the
government, shall undergo a mandatory drug test. due process and equal protection guarantees.

Pimentel v. COMELEC | G.R. No. 16158

ISSUE/S:

1. Does Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 and COMELEC

On Dec. 23, 2003, the COMELEC issued Resolution No.
Resolution No. 6486 impose an additional
6486, prescribing the rules and regulations for the
qualification for candidates for senator? Corollarily,
mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office in
can Congress enact a law prescribing qualifications
connection with the May 2004 elections. Pimentel claims
for candidates for senator in addition to those laid
that Sec. 36 (g) of RA 9165 and COMELEC Resolution No.
down by the Constitution?
6486 illegally impose an additional qualification on
2. Are paragraphs (c), (d), (f), and (g) of Sec. 36, RA 9165 senator beyond those prescribed in the Constitution. The
unconstitutional? Specifically, do these paragraphs right of a citizen in the democratic process of election
violate the right to privacy, the right against should not be defeated by unwarranted impositions not
unreasonable searches and seizures, and the equal otherwise specified in the Constitution.
protection clause?
2. The Court is of the view and so holds that the
provisions of RA 9165(c) requiring mandatory,
HELD: random, and suspicionless drug testing of students
are constitutional. It is within the prerogative of
1. YES, Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 and COMELEC Resolution educational institutions to require compliance with
No. 6486 impose an additional qualification for reasonable school rules and regulations and policies
candidates for senator. NO, Congress CANNOT enact as a condition for admission. A random drug test of
a law prescribing qualifications for candidates for students in secondary and tertiary schools is not only
senator in addition to those laid down by the acceptable but may even be necessary for the safety
Constitution. and interest of the student population, which is a
2. The Court held that paragraphs (c) and (d) are legitimate concern of the government.
CONSTITUTIONAL, while paragraphs (f) and (g) are
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Only paragraphs (f) and (g) Similarly, the mandatory but random drug test prescribed
violate the right to privacy, the right against by Sec. 36 of RA 9165(d) for officers and employees of
unreasonable searches and seizures, and the equal public and private offices is justifiable. Sec. 36(d) of RA
protection clause. 9165 itself prescribes that the employees concerned shall
be subjected to random drug tests as contained in the
company's work rules and regulations, reducing the risk
in the workplace.
RATIO:
However, paragraph (f) of RA 9165, which mandates drug
1. Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165, as sought to be implemented testing for persons charged before the prosecutor’ s
by the assailed COMELEC resolution, effectively office with crimes punishable with more than six years
enlarges the qualification requirements enumerated imprisonment, is unconstitutional. Unlike the situation
in Sec. 3, Art. VI of the Constitution. As couched, said with students and employees, the mandatory drug test for
Sec. 36(g) unmistakably requires a candidate for persons charged with a crime cannot be random or
senator to be certified illegal-drug clean, as a pre- suspicionless. It is an attempt to use a medical test as a
condition to the validity of a certificate of candidacy tool for criminal prosecution, violating the person's right
for senator or, with like effect, a condition sine qua to privacy.
non to be voted upon and, if proper, be proclaimed as
senator-elect. The COMELEC resolution completes DELA CRUZ, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE
the chain with the proviso that no person elected to PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
any public office shall enter upon the duties of his G.R. No. 200748, July 23, 2014
office until he has undergone a mandatory drug test.
Facts:
Thus, Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 and the implementing
COMELEC Resolution add another qualification layer
Petitioner Jaime D. dela Cruz was charged with violation
to what the 1987 Constitution, at the minimum,
of Section 15, Article II of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165, or
requires for membership in the Senate.
The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, by the
Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer of the Office
Congress’s inherent legislative powers, broad as they
of the Ombudsman - Visayas.
may be, are subject to certain limitations. The powers of
the legislative department of government are limited and
The NBI received a complaint from Corazon Absin and
confined within the four walls of the Constitution.
Charito Escobido that Ariel, the live-in partner of Corazon
Therefore, Congress cannot validly impose additional
and Charito, was picked up by unknown male persons
qualifications for candidates for senator beyond what the
believed to be police officers for allegedly selling drugs.
Constitution prescribes. Similarly, the COMELEC is not
An errand boy gave a number to the complainants, and
empowered to add qualifications to candidates for
when they called the number, they were instructed to 1. The drug test did not apply: The Court found that the
proceed to the Gorordo Police Office located along drug test provision under Section 15 does not apply
Gorordo Avenue, Cebu City. There, they met "James," who to persons apprehended or arrested for any unlawful
demanded from them P100,000, later lowered to P40,000, act but only for unlawful acts listed under Article II of
in exchange for the release of Ariel. R.A. 9165. To make the provision applicable to all
persons arrested or apprehended for any crime not
The special investigators at the NBI-CEVRO verified the listed under Article II would be an undue expansion of
text messages received by the complainants. A team was its meaning. The petitioner was arrested for alleged
immediately formed to implement an entrapment extortion, not for a drug-related offense.
operation, which took place inside a Jollibee branch at the 2. The drug test is not covered by allowable non -
corner of Gen. Maxilom and Gorordo Avenues, Cebu City. testimonial compulsion: The constitutional right of
Petitioner was required to submit his urine for drug an accused against self-incrimination prohibits the
testing. use of physical or moral compulsion to extort
communications from the accused but does not
It later yielded a positive result for the presence of extend to the inclusion of his body in evidence when
dangerous drugs, as indicated in the confirmatory test it may be material. Purely mechanical acts are not
result labeled as Toxicology (Dangerous Drugs). The included in the prohibition because the accused does
defense's version stated otherwise, claiming that when not speak his guilt by providing such evidence. The
petitioner was at the NBI Office, he was asked to provide essence of the right against self-incrimination is
a urine sample for drug examination but refused, stating testimonial compulsion, which involves providing
that he wanted the test done by the Philippine National evidence against oneself through a testimonial act.
Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory, not the NBI. His request 3. The violation of the right to privacy and right agains t
was denied. He also requested to call his lawyer prior to self-incrimination: The Court concluded that the drug
the taking of his urine sample, but this request was also test violated the petitioner's right to privacy and right
denied. against self-incrimination. The petitioner refused to
provide a urine sample for drug testing and requested
Ruling of the RTC:
the presence of a lawyer before the test. Despite his
efforts to exercise his rights, he was compelled to
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 58 of Cebu City, in
submit his urine for drug testing.
its Decision dated June 6, 2007, found the accused guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 15, Article
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision dated June 22, 2011,
II of R.A. 9165 and sentenced him to compulsory
issued by the Twentieth Division, and the Resolution
rehabilitation for a period of not less than six (6) months
dated February 2, 2012, issued by the former Twentieth
at the Cebu Center for the Ultimate Rehabilitation of Drug
Division of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. C.R. No.
Dependents, located at Salinas, Lahug, Cebu City.
00670, are SET ASIDE. Petitioner is hereby ACQUITTED.

Ruling of the CA:

SO ORDERED.
The Court of Appeals (CA) found the appeal devoid of
merit and affirmed the ruling of the RTC.
Pollo vs. Constantino-Dav id
Issue:
G.R. No. 181881, October 18, 2011

Whether the drug test conducted upon the petitioner is

DOCTRINE:
illegal and violates the petitioner's right against self-
A search by a government employer of an employee’ s
incrimination.
office is justified at inception when there are reasonable
grounds for suspecting that it will turn up evidence that
Ruling of the SC:
the employee is guilty of work-related misconduct.
Yes. The Supreme Court found the ruling and reasoning
FACTS:
of the trial court, as well as the subsequent affirmation by
Petitioner Pollo is a former Supervising Personnel
the CA, erroneous on three counts:
Specialist of the CSC Regional Office No. IV and also the
Officer-in-Charge of the Public Assistance and Liaison the CSC-ROIV where the head of the Mamamayan Muna
Division (PALD) under the “Mamamayan Muna Hindi Hindi Mamaya Na division is supposedly “lawyering” for
Mamaya Na” program of the CSC. On January 3, 2007, individuals with pending cases in the CSC. A search by a
CSC Chairperson Karina Constantino-David received an government employer of an employee’s office is justified
unsigned complaint letter, which was marked at inception when there are reasonable grounds for
“Confidential” and was sent through a courier service suspecting that it will turn up evidence that the employee
(LBC) from certain Allan San Pascual of Bagong Silang, is guilty of work-related misconduct. Considering the
Caloocan City. The letter contained allegations stating damaging nature of the accusation, the Commission had
that the petitioner had been helping a number of to act fast, if only to arrest or limit any possible adverse
individuals who have pending cases in the CSC. The letter consequence or fallout. Thus, on the same date that the
sender’s intention was that the CSC should investigate complaint was received, a search was immediately
this anomaly to maintain the clean and good behavior of conducted involving the computer resources in the
their office. Chairperson David immediately formed a concerned regional office. That it was the computers that
team of four personnel with backgrounds in information were subjected to the search was justified since these
technology (IT) and issued a memo directing them to furnished the easiest means for an employee to encode
conduct an investigation and specifically “to back up all and store documents. Indeed, the computers would be a
the files in the computers found in the Mamamayan Muna likely starting point in ferreting out incriminating evidence.
(PALD) and Legal divisions.” Concomitantly, the ephemeral nature of computer files—
that is, they could easily be destroyed with a click of a
After a briefing, the team went to the CSC-ROIV office at button—necessitated drastic and immediate action.
Panay Avenue, Quezon City. The backing-up of all files in Pointedly, to impose the need to comply with the probable
the hard disk of computers at the PALD and Legal cause requirement would invariably defeat the purpose of
Services Division (LSD) was witnessed by several the work-related investigation.
employees, together with Directors Castillo and Unite,
who closely monitored said activity. At around 6:00 p.m., Worthy to mention, too, is the fact that the Commission
Director Unite sent text messages to petitioner and the effected the warrantless search in an open and
head of LSD, who were both out of the office at the time, transparent manner. Officials and some employees of the
informing them of the ongoing copying of computer files regional office, who happened to be in the vicinity, were
in their divisions upon orders of the CSC Chair. on hand to observe the process until its completion. In
addition, the respondent himself was duly notified,
ISSUE: through text messaging, of the search and the
Whether or not the search conducted in the petitioner’ s concomitant retrieval of files from his computer.
office computer and the copying of his personal files
without his knowledge and consent, alleged as a Pollo’s claim that the search was a violation of his
transgression of his constitutional right to privacy, is constitutional right to privacy must necessarily fail. His
justified. other argument invoking the privacy of communication
and correspondence under Section 3(1), Article III of the
RULING: 1987 Constitution is also untenable, considering the
YES. The search conducted on petitioner’s computer was recognition accorded to certain legitimate intrusions into
justified at its inception and scope, there being the privacy of employees in the government workplace
reasonable ground for suspecting that the files stored under the aforecited authorities.
therein would yield incriminating evidence relevant to the
investigation being conducted by the CSC as a
government employer of such misconduct subject to the
anonymous complaint. The fact that these documents
were retrieved from the computer of Pollo raises the
presumption that he was the author thereof.

The search of petitioner’s computer files was conducted

in connection with the investigation of work-related
misconduct prompted by an anonymous letter-complaint
addressed to Chairperson David regarding anomalies in