Case Digest_Batch 4

8/17/2019 Case Digest_Batch 4

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/case-digestbatch-4 1/42



Constitution if the$ are reasona le" 4hat constitutes a reasona le or unreasona le search and seizure in an particular case is purel$ a 8udicial 7uestion, determina le from a consideration of the circumstances in!ol

-Court cites searches which are consideredreasonable :

• The officer merel$ draws aside the curtain of a !acant !ehicle which is parked on the pu lic fairgrounds, or

• simpl$ looks into a !ehicle, or• flashes a light therein•

-The Court stated that the 7uestioned checkpoints are for peace and order and to thwart possi le plots agathe go!ernment" The Court took cognizance of the fact anent increasing num er of killings allegedl$ e#ec $ the PA in addition to se!eral others lawlessness and !iolence 9 descri ing the current situation as a ntimes" etween the inherent right of the state to protect its e#istence and promote pu lic welfare and anindi!idual's right against a warrantless search which is howe!er reasona l$ conducted, the former should pre!ail"

-The Court also apprised $ wa$ of the opinion in this case of the fact that the C(.C has alread$ suspendthe implementation of the checkpoints while refining the rules of conduct that the militar$ med to e deplin checkpoints should o ser!e"G.R. No. 82 8 No ember 1 , 1988

PETITIONERS: !A;I!O V. SO IVEN, ANTONIO V. ROCES, #REDERIC< <. AGCAO I, / 4GODO#REDO . !AN=ANASRESPONDENTS: T'E 'ON. RA!ON P. !A<ASIAR, Pre6+4+ 7 > 47e o? t e Re7+o / Tr+/ Co rto? !/ + /, @r/ 3 , "NDERSECRETAR% SI VESTRE @E O III, o? t e Dep/rtme t o? > 6t+ e

"IS C. VICTOR, T'E CIT% #ISCA O# !ANI A / 4 PRESIDENT CORA=ON C. A "INO

G.R. No. 8282B No ember 1 , 1988

PETITIONER: "IS D. @E TRANRESPONDENTS: T'E 'ON. RA!ON P. !A<ASIAR, Pre6+4+ 7 > 47e o? @r/ 3 o? t e Re7+oTr+/ Co rt, /t !/ + /, T'E 'ON. "IS VICTOR, CIT% #ISCA O# !ANI A, PEOP E O# T'EP'I IPPINES, S"PERINTENDENT O# T'E $ESTERN PO ICE DISTRICT, / 4 T'E !E!@ERSO# T'E PROCESS SERVING "NIT AT T'E REGIONA TRIA CO"RT O# !ANI A

G.R. No. 839B9 No ember 1 , 1988.PETITIONER: "IS D. @E TRANRESPONDENTS: E;EC"TIVE SECRETAR% CATA INO !ACARAIG, SECRETAR% O#>"STICE SED#RE% ORDO E=, "NDERSECRETAR% O# >"STICE SI VESTRE @E O III, T'ECIT% #ISCA O# !ANI A >ES"S #. G"ERRERO, / 4 >"DGE RA!ON P. !A<ASIAR, Pre6+4+ 7> 47e o? @r/ 3 o? t e Re7+o / Tr+/ Co rt, /t !/ + /

FACTS:-

+SS%32S:

* whether or not petitioners were denied due process when informations for li el were filed against themalthough the finding of the e#istence of a prima facie case was still under re!iew $ the Secretar$ of ;usticsu se7uentl$, $ the President<



=* whether or not the constitutional rights of eltran were !iolated when respondent (TC 8udge issued a wfor his arrest without personall$ e#amining the complainant and the witnesses, if an$, to determine pro acause< and>* whether or not the President of the Philippines, under the Constitution, ma$ initiate criminal proceedinagainst the petitioners through the filing of a complaint-affida!it"

63&.: -The Court dismissed the > petitions $ holding that the$ do not find respondents guilt$ of gra!e a use ofdiscretion" 0aintain status 7uo"

On WON petitioners were denied due process

- 0oot and academic since the Sec of ;ustice found pro a le cause for a prima facie case for li el against petitioner"

On WON Beltran’s constitutional rights re warrants of arrest were violated when respondent RTC judge issueda warrant for his arrest without personally e a!ining the co!plainant and the witnesses" if any" to deter!ine

probable cause

Art" +++, Sec" =" The right of the people to e secure in their persons, houses, papers and effectsagainst unreasona le searches and seizures of whate!er nature and for an$ purpose shall ein!iola le, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue e#cept upon pro a le cause to e determined personall$ $ the 8udge after e#amination under oath or affirmation of thecomplainant and the witnesses he ma$ produce, and particularl$ descri ing the place to esearched and the persons or things to e seized"

- eltran interprets the a o!e pro!ision as one where the 8udge needs to personall$ e#amine the complainaand witnesses to determine whether or not there is pro a le cause for the complaint" The Court said that

interpretation is mistaken" 4hat the Constitution underscores is the e#clusi!e and personal responsi ilit$ oissuing 8udge to satisf$ himself of the e#istence of pro a le cause" +n satisf$ing himself of the e#istence pro a le cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the 8udge is not re7uired to personall$ e#amine thecomplainant and his witnesses" Following esta lished doctrine and procedure, he shall:

) * personall$ e!aluate the report and the supporting documents su mitted $ the fiscal regardingthe e#istence of pro a le cause and, on the asis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest< or

)=* if on the asis thereof he finds no pro a le cause, he ma$ disregard the fiscal's report andre7uire the su mission of supporting affida!its of witnesses to aid him in arri!ing at a conclusionas to the e#istence of pro a le cause"

On WON the #resident" under the Constitution" !ay initiate cri!inal proceedings through the filing of aco!plaint$affidavit

- eltran contends that the President cannot initiate criminal cases ecause the same would re7uire her toassume the witness stand and e#pose herself to cases which ma$ e filed against her like contempt ofcourt or per8ur$" This would, in an indirect wa$, defeat her pri!ilege of immunit$ from suit"

- The rationale for the grant to the President of the pri!ilege of immunit$ from suit is to assure thee#ercise of Presidential duties and functions free from an$ hindrance or distraction, considering that



eing the Chief 3#ecuti!e of the ?o!ernment is a 8o that, aside from re7uiring all of the office holder'stime, also demands undi!ided attention"

-The Court held that the pri!ilege of immunit$ of suit onl$ entitled to the office holder" ut another person acting + 36A&F of the president ma$ file criminal complaints" The accused cannot used the pri!ilege of immunit$ of suit to dismiss the case filed against him $ the President" Further, the Courtsa$s that the President ma$ wai!e such immunit$- it is the President1s prerogati!e"

G.R. No. -19 > e 19, 19 B

PETITIONERS: 6A((@ S" ST/ 36+&&

(/ 3(T P" (// S

;/6 ;" (// SA(& 3C

RESPONDENTS: 6/ " ;/S3 4" .+/ /, in his capacit$ as S3C(3TA(@ /F ;%ST+C3

;/S3 &% A , in his capacit$ as Acting .irector, ational ureau of +n!estigation

SP3C+A& P(/S3C%T/(S P3.(/ ." C3 B/ , 3F(3 +" P&A A and 0A %3&V+&&A(3A&, ;(" and ASST" F+SCA& 0A AS3S ?" (3@3S

;%.?3 A0A./ (/A , 0unicipal Court of 0anila

;%.?3 (/0A CA S+ /, 0unicipal Court of 0anila

;%.?3 63(0/?3 3S CA&%A?, Court of First +nstance of (izal- uezon Cit$ ranch

;%.?3 .A0+A ;+03 3B, 0unicipal Court of uezon Cit$

FACTS:

-/riginal petition for certiorari, prohi ition, mandamus, and in8unction" Petitioners pra$ed efore the Couthe properties seized from them e refrained from eing utilized as e!idence in an$ form in the deportatiocases pending against them"



- (espondents-8udges issued D= search warrants against petitioners and2or the corporations which the$ reto search the said persons and the premises of their offices, warehouses and2or residences, and to seize an possession of the following personal propert$ to wit:

ooks of accounts, financial records, !ouchers, correspondence, receipts, ledgers, 8ournals, portfolcredit 8ournals, t$pewriters, and other documents and2or papers showing all usiness transactionsincluding dis ursements receipts, alance sheets and profit and loss statements and o ins )cigawrappers*"

as Ethe su 8ect of the offense< stolen or em ezzled and proceeds or fruits of the offense,E or Eused or in e used as the means of committing the offense,E which is descri ed in the applications ad!erted to a o!e

E!iolation of Central ank &aws, Tariff and Customs &aws, +nternal (e!enue )Code* and the (e!ised PenaCode"E

-Petitioners primaril$ argue that the issued warrants are null and !oid ecause it goes against the Constitutand the (ules of Court for the ff reasons:

) * the$ do not descri e with particularit$ the documents, ooks and things to e seized<)=* cash mone$, not mentioned in the warrants, were actuall$ seized<

)>* the warrants were issued to fish e!idence against the petitioners deportation cases<

)D* the searches and seizures were made in an illegal manner< and

) * the documents, papers and cash mone$ seized were not deli!ered to the courts that issued thewarrants, to e disposed of in accordance with law"

-/n the other hand, respondents-prosecutors contend that:

) * the contested search warrants are !alid and ha!e een issued in accordance with law<

)=* the defects of said warrants, if an$, were cured $ petitioners' consent< and



)>* in an$ e!ent, the effects seized are admissi le in e!idence against herein petitioners,regardless of the alleged illegalit$ of the aforementioned searches and seizures"

-The Court issued a writ of preliminar$ in8unction with regards the properties seized from petitioners ute!entuall$ partiall$ dissol!ed the same with regard to the papers and documents seized from the

petitioners1 offices" 6ence, the properties seized from petitioners were grouped into =: the st groupcomposing papers, documents, things found in the offices and the =nd group consisting of papers,documents and things found in the residences of petitioners"

-The Court sustained the !alidit$ of the search warrants relating to those papers, documents, things seized the offices of petitioners due to lack of cause of action on the part of the petitioners to file the same engenfrom the fact that the offices are owned $ corporations which ha!e separate identities or personalities fro petitioners herein" It is well-settled that the legality of a seizure can be contested only by the party whoserights have been impaired thereby, and that the objection to an unlawful search and seizure is purely

personal and cannot be availed of by third parties. Conse7uentl$, petitioners herein ma$ not !alidl$ o 8ect

the use in e!idence against them of the documents, papers and things seized from the offices and premisesthe corporations ad!erted to a o!e, since the right to o 8ect to the admission of said papers in e!idence ee clusively to the corporations, to whom the seized effects elong, and ma$ not e in!oked $ the corporaofficers in proceedings against them in their indi!idual capacit$"

+SS%32S:

) * 4/ the search warrants and the searches and seizures are !alid or not, and

)=* +f the search warrants are not !alid, ma$ the documents, papers and things e admissi le as e!idence5

63&.:

On the validity of search warrants

- The Court emphasized two important points in connection with the constitutional pro!ision on search andseizure, namel$:



) * that no warrant shall issue utupon probable cause, to e determined personall$ $ the 8udge< and

)=* that the warrant shall particularly descri e the things to e seized"

-The Court ruled that none of the a o!e re7uisites were present with the 7uestioned warrants" Theallegations made were general allegations and no specific offense has een alleged" Conse7uentl$, itwould e implausi le for the respondent-8udges who issued the same to ha!e een ena led to determineusing o 8ecti!e ases whether pro a le cause for the issuance of search warrants e#ists or not" Thesearch warrants were onl$ issued ased on application made $ the respondents-prosecutors alleging!iolation of GCentral ank &aws, Tariff and Customs &aws, +nternal (e!enue )Code* and (e!ised Penal

CodeH" These are the case of general warrants which are repugnant to the Constitution"

- Further, things descri ed to e searched and seized were not particularl$ identified and instead partookthe nature of Gall records relating to usiness transactionsH contra!ening the second pointaforementioned in the issuance of search warrants"

On the ad!issibility of effects sei%ed despite invalidity of search warrants under which authority theeffects were sei%ed

-The respondents-prosecutors, when it said that though the search warrant issued to take possession of thiheld to e in!alid, relied on the case of Moncado vs. People's ourt to argue that the effects seized can madeadmissi le e!idence"

-The Court ruled that the a o!e 8urisprudence on which the prosecutors relied upon must e !"!#$%#&$ " +n &app vs' Ohio" the Federal Court held thatall evidence obtained by searches and sei%ures in violation of theConstitution is" by that sa!e authority" inadmissible in a tate "

-6ighl$ regarded 8urisprudence: 4olf case - GTherefore, in e#tending the su stanti!e protections of due prto all constitutionall$ unreasona le searches I state or federal I it was logicall$ and constitutionall$necessaril$ that the e#clusion doctrine I an essential part of the right to pri!ac$ I e also insisted upon as a



essential ingredient of the right newl$ recognized $ the 4olf Case" +n short,the ad!ission of the newconstitutional Right by Wolf could not tolerate denial of its !ost i!portant constitutional privilege" na!ely" thee clusion of the evidence which an accused had been forced to give by reason of the unlawful sei%ure' To holdotherwise is to grant the right but in reality to withhold its privilege and enjoy!ent "H

-S mm/r0 o? t e Co rt&6 r + 7:

1. Pet+t+o 6 re t + 76 6e+Fe4 + t e orpor/te prem+6e6 +6 DIS!ISSED ?or / o? / 6e o? / t+o

2. Pet+t+o 6 re t + 76 6e+Fe4 + t e re6+4e e6 o? t e pet+t+o er6 /re GRANTED ?or be+ 7 +oo 6t+t t+o .

Peop e Tee GR No. 1 - B (>/ /r0 2 , 2 3)

#/ t6The case in!ol!es an automatic re!iew of 8udgment made against Tee who was con!icted for illegal possesof mari8uana and sentenced to death" The defense assailed the decision of the court for taking admissi lee!idence the mari8uana seized from the accused $ !irtue of allegedl$ general search warrant" The$ furthcontend that the accused was depri!ed of his right to speed$ trial $ failure of the prosecution to produce witness who failed to appear during the =J hearing dates there $ slowing down the trial procedure"

I66 e4hether or not the su stanti!e right of the accused for a speed$ trial pre8udiced during the hearing of the c

'e 4The court ruled that the su stanti!e right of the accused for a fair and speed$ trial was not !iolated" +t heldthe Speed$ Trial Act of KKL pro!ides that the trial period for the criminal cases should e in general L6owe!er, in determining the right of an accused to speed$ trial, courts should do more than a mathematicacomputation of the num er of postponements of the scheduled hearings of the case"The right to a speed$ deemed !iolated onl$ when: ) * the proceedings are attended $ !e#atious, capricious, and oppressi!e del)=* when un8ustified postponements are asked for and secured< or )>* when without cause or 8ustifia lelong period of time is allowed to elapse without the part$ ha!ing his case tried"

+t was shown $ the records that the prosecution e#erted efforts in o taining a warrant to compel the witntestif$" The concept of speed$ trial is necessaril$ relati!e where se!eral factors are weighed such as the lentime of dela$, the reason of such dela$, and conduct of prosecution and the accused and the pre8udice anddamaged caused to the accused of such dela$" The court did not find the =J da$s of dela$ed hearingunreasona le length of time as to constitute depri!ation of the constitutional rights of the accused for a spetrial in addition to the fact that court trial ma$ e alwa$s su 8ected to postponement for reasona le causedela$" +n the a sence of showing that the reason for dela$ was capricious or oppressi!e, the State must nodepri!ed of reasona le opportunit$ in prosecuting the accused"



G.R. No. - 98 3 O tober 8, 198

PETITIONERS: C@ T6+A ." /&ASC/, 0+&A A?%+&A(-(/ %3 and 4+&&+3 C" T/&3 T+ /

RESPONDENTS 6/ " 3( A + C(%B PAM/, 3#ecuti!e ;udge, (egional Trial Court of uezon Cit$6/ " A T/ +/ P" SA T/S, Presiding ;udge, ranch N&++, 0etropolitan Trial Court of

uezon Cit$

6/ " S3(?+/ F" AP/ST/&, Cit$ Fiscal, uezon Cit$

6/ " ;%A P/ C3 3 (+&3

&T" ?3 " F+.3& (A0/S

C/&" ;3S%S A&T% A

#ACTS:

- Petition forCert+or/r+, Pro +b+t+o , / 4 !/ 4/m 6

-Aguilar-(o7ue charged with re ellion and remained at large prior to August O" /n Aug" O, Aguilar-(o7ue olasco were arrested $ Consta ular$ Securit$ ?roup )CS?*" Per records, no arrest warrant was issued f olasco" /n the same da$, the CS? searched the premises of =>K- 0a$on Street, uezon Cit$"

-/n Aug O at K am, CS? applied and secured for a search warrant from 6on Pano to e ser!ed at the leasedresidence of Aguilar-(o7ue at =>K- 0a$on Street where the$ elie!ed that an underground house is uilt

and at the time was eing used $ Communist Part$ of the Philippines )CPP*2 PAs" Aguilar-(o7ue has lo een wanted for eing a high ranking officer of the CPP"

-Anent the search warrant issued, there was no written application made $ CS?" /nl$ a deposition made the CS? witness stating the presence of documents and monies kept in the su 8ect premises to e used fore ellion was su mitted to the Court"



- Anent the search made at = noon of Aug O $ !irtue of the search warrant, Tolentino was in charge of t premises and was arrested during the search e!en without an arrest warrant" A (eturn was made accountinitems seized which was signed and attested to $ the = aranga$ tanods present during the search ut wasigned $ .ra ?alang 9 another present during the search as she was the owner of the related premises"

- /n Aug J, CS? filed a case efore the uezon Cit$ Fiscal1s /ffice against Aguilar-(o7ue, olasco andTolentino for the crime of GSu !ersion2(e ellion and2or Conspirac$ to Commit (e ellion2Su !ersionH"

-/n Aug >, the C Fiscal filed a case against Aguilar-(o7ue, olasco and Tolentino in Violation ofPresidential .ecree o" >> )+llegal Possession of Su !ersi!e .ocuments* efore 0TC C presided $ ;udgSantos"

-/n .ec >, ;udge Pano ruled that the seized documents shall e su 8ect to disposition of the 0TC C" /n tother hand, Aguilar-(o7ue, olasco and Tolentino filed a motion with the 0TC C that all seized documen e returned to them" ;udge Santos denied the same on the ground that the !alidit$ of the Search 4arrant ha e litigated first in the S3A(C6 4A((A T CAS3" Apparentl$, ;udge Santos was not aware of the decisionmade $ ;udge Pano"

-6ence, this present petition Certiorari, Prohi ition and mandamus"

+SS%32S:

) * Annulment of Search 4arrant issued $ (TC ;udge Pa o<

)=* his /rder granting the 0otion to (etain Seized +tems< and

)>* /rder of 0TC ;udge Santos den$ing petitioners' 0otion to Suppress"

63&.:

-The Court#INDS !ERIT in the petition"



-Petitioners contention: Search 4arrant is !oid ecause it is a general warrant since itdoes not sufficientlydescribe with particularity the things subject of the search and seizure , and that probable cause has not been

properly established for lac( of searching )uestions propounded to the applicant's witness "

- T e Co rt + / +4/te4 t e 6e/r /rr/ t ?or p/rt/ + 7 t e /t re o? / 7e er/ /rr/ t 6+ e +t /

p/rt+ /r+t0" Section >, Article +V of the Constitution, guarantees the right of the people to e secure in persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasona le searches and seizures of whate!er nature and for purpose" +t also specificall$ pro!ides that no Search 4arrant shall issue e#cept upon pro a le cause to edetermined $ the ;udge or such other responsi le officer as ma$ e authorized $ law, after e#aminationoath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he ma$ produce, and particularl$ descri ing the to e searched and the things to e seized"

The disputed Search 4arrant ) o" LJ-LD* descri es the personalities to e seized as follows:

.ocuments, papers and other records of the Communist Part$ of the Philippines2 ew People1sArm$ and2or the ational .emocratic Front, such as 0inutes of the Part$ 0eetings, Plans ofthese groups, Programs, &ist of possi le supporters, su !ersi!e ooks and instructions, manualsnot otherwise a!aila le to the pu lic, and support mone$ from foreign or local sources"

+t is at once e!ident that the foregoing Search 4arrant authorizes the seizure of personal properties !aguel$descri ed and not particularized" +t is an all- em racing description which includes e!er$thing concei!aregarding the Communist Part$ of the Philippines and the ational .emocratic Front" +t does not specif$ wthe su !ersi!e ooks and instructions are< what the manuals not otherwise a!aila le to the pu lic contain make them su !ersi!e or to ena le them to e used for the crime of re ellion" There is a sent a definiteguideline to the searching team as to what items might e lawfull$ seized thus gi!ing the officers of the ladiscretion regarding what articles the$ should seize as, in fact, taken also were a porta le t$pewriter and =wooden o#es" +t is thus in the nature of a general warrant and infringes on the constitutional mandate re particular description of the things to e seized"

- Further, the Court said that during the deposition in order to determine whether pro a le cause for the isof a warrant e#ists, 7uestions propounded $ ;udge Pano were not sufficientl$ searching of pro a le caus*he+probable cause+ re)uired to justify the issuance of a search warrant comprehends such facts andcircumstances as will induce a cautious man to rely upon them and act in pursuant thereof. The e#aminationconducted was general in nature and merel$ repetitious of the deposition of said witness" 0ere generalizatwill not suffice and does not satisf$ the re7uirements of pro a le cause upon which a warrant ma$ issue"



- Al eit ruling on the in!alidit$ of the search warrant and accordingl$ declaring the inadmissi ilit$ of e!idac7uired under its authorit$, the Court refrained from returning the seized articles to Aguilar-(o7ue ecaussearch conducted related to her does not need a search warrant" Section =, (ule =O, (ules of Court, e#p pro!ides:

Section =" Search without warrant of person arrested"IA personcharged with an offense ma$ e searched for dangerous weapons or an$thing which ma$ e used as proof of the commissionof the offense"

-As an incident of an arrest, the place or premises where the arrest was made can also e search withouta search warrant" +n this latter case, Ethe e#tent and reasona leness of the search must e decided on itsown facts and circumstances, and it has een stated that, in the application of general rules, there is someconfusion in the decisions as to what constitutes the e#tent of the place or premises which ma$ e

searched"+ hat must be considered is the balancing of the individual's right to privacy and the public's interest in the prevention of crime and the apprehension of criminals.+

- Considering that A?%+&A(-(/ %3 has een charged with (e ellion, which is a crime against pu licorder< that the warrant for her arrest has not een ser!ed for a considera le period of time< that she wasarrested within the general !icinit$ of her dwelling< and that the search of her dwelling was made withina half hour of her arrest, we are of the opinion that in her respect, the search at o" =>K- 0a$on Street,

uezon Cit$, did not need a search warrant< this, for possi le effecti!e results in the interest of pu licorder" Such eing the case, the personalities seized ma$ e retained $ CS?, for possi le introduction ase!idence in the (e ellion Case"

-S mm/r0 o? Co rt&6 r + 7:

1. Se/r /rr/ t +6 + / +4 / 4 TRO re /4m+66+b+ +t0 o? e +4e e +6 m/4e perm/ e t +t re6pto No /6 o / 4 To e t+ o.

2. Art+ e6 6e+Fe4 +t re6pe t to A7 + /r-RoH e m/0 be ret/+ e4 to be 6e4 /6 e +4e e + t eRebe +o /6e ?+ e4 /7/+ 6t er be / 6e t e 6e/r m/4e /6 4er t e / t or+t0 o? / ? /rre6

G.R. No. - 1 8 No ember 1B, 198

PETITIONER: P3/P&3 /F T63 P6+&+PP+ 3S





-Claimant +nter!enor .el (osario said he asked 0edina to transport ack the said articles to 0anila after an e#pected sale in Angeles did not transpire" 6e said the articles were ought from uenafe trading andwas surprised to ha!e learned that the same ha!e een seized for non-pa$ment of ta#es"

-6ope1s defense is that he did not know the contents of the o#es and that he was not present at the time

when such were loaded into his car" 6e onl$ agreed to transport the shipment due to a fa!or made $ hisgirlfriend 0edina" 0edina also countered that she did not know the contents of the o#es as these werenot disclosed $ .el (osario"

-The Collector of Customs was constrained to declare that the articles are not su 8ect to forfeiture due tolack of e!idence against 6ope and 0edina" The car was released to 6ope as its owner and the articleswere released to .el (osario su 8ect to pa$ment of duties and ta#es in addition to fines"

-0eanwhile, the C Fiscal filed criminal case against 6ope and 0edina" .uring trial, the prosecution presented as e!idence pictures of the articles taken at the time the$ were in Camp Crame" The defensecountered that said pictures are inadmissi le in e!idence ecause these were seized under the authorit$of a warrantless search"

-C#I R + 7: The CF+ C declared the aforementioned adduced pieces of e!idence $ the prosecution

as inadmissi le e!idence"

+SS%32S:

" 4/ the seizure of the merchandise in a mo!ing !ehicle $ authorized agents commissioned toenforce customs laws without warrant of seizure reaches the constitutional immunit$ against

unreasona le search and seizure and therefore, such merchandise are inadmissi le in e!idence5

=" 4/ the (TC C committed gra!e a use of discretion in ruling on the pre!ious issue affirmati!el$5

63&.:



Position of the tate-Petitioner

-The State-Petitioner argues that the rules go!erning search and seizure as when a mo!ing !ehicle is the

o 8ect of the search making prior warrant not necessar$ for practical reasons, considering that efore awarrant could e o tained, the place, things and persons to e searched must e descri ed to thesatisfaction of the issuing 8udge I/ reH +reme t + bor4er6 o +mpo66+b+ +t0 + t e /6e o?6m 77 + 7 e??e te4 b0 t e 6e o? / mo + 7 e + e t /t / tr/ 6port o tr/b/ 4 ?rom o e p / e/ ot er"

- A warrantless seizure of contra and in a mo!ing !ehicle is 8ustifiedb0 t e tr/4+t+o / e ept+o/tt/ e4 to t e #o rt Ame 4me t o? t e ".S. Co 6t+t t+o, and such e#ception must e adopted in

interpreting the rele!ant pro!ision in the new Philippine Constitution"

Position of ope and Medina

-The decision of the Collector of Customs declares that the articles are not smuggled items"

-The failure of (ASAC to o tain a search and seizure warrant despite theone week inter!al from thedate of the information to the time of the actual date of e#ecution of plan ut searching and seizing thearticles an$ wa$ !iolated the constitutional against Eunreasona le searches and seizure of whate!ernature and for an$ purposeE"

ourt s ruling

- T e Co rt r e4 + ?/ or o? t e St/te-Pet+t+o er.

- 6ope and 0edina1s contention that the ruling of the Collector of Customs is decisi!e in the criminalcase cannot e countenanced" Seizure cases filed efore the C/C and criminal cases relating to the sameare separate and distinct from each other" Seizure cases refers to the su 8ect matter or the articles rough



efore it as smuggled while criminal cases refer to the GwhoH aspect of the incident" (espondents'e#oneration in the administrati!e cases cannot depri!e the State of its right to prosecute" ut under our penal laws, criminal responsi ilit$, if an$, must e pro!en not $ preponderance of e!idence ut $ proof e$ond reasona le dou t"

-The Court recognized thee/ception for the need of a 4arrant of Search and Seizure in cases of policeauthorities commissioned to enforce compliance with the*ariff and ustoms 0aw , Section == of thesaid Code pro!ides:

""" )to* open and e#amine an$ o#, trunk, en!elope or other container where!er found when hehas reasona le cause to suspect the presence therein of dutia le or prohi ited article or articlesintroduced into the Philippines contrar$ to law, and likewise to stop, search and e#amine an$!ehicle, east or person reasona l$ suspected of holding or con!e$ing such article as aforesaid

)Section == , emphasis supplied*

- As enunciated in the leading case ofP/p/ . !/7o , in the e#ercise of the specific functions aforecited,the Code does not mention the need of a search warrant unlike Section ==JK which e#plicitl$ pro!idesthat a Edwelling house ma$ e entered and searched onl$ upon warrant issued $ a 8udge )or 8ustice ofthe peace*, upon sworn application showing pro a le cause and particularl$ descri ing the place to esearched and person or thing to e seized"E Aware of this delineation,t e Co rt + t /t /6e e pre66e4t e o 6+4ere4 +e t /t Je ept + t e /6e o? t e 6e/r o? /dwelling house , per6o 6 e er +6+ 7po + e / t or+t0 4er t e 6tom6 / m/0 e??e t 6e/r / 4 6e+F re +t o t / 6e/r /rr/ t +t e e ?or eme t o? 6tom6 / 6.

- The circumstances of the case at ar undou tedl$ fall s7uarel$ within the pri!ileged area where searchand seizure ma$ lawfull$ e effected without the need of a warrant" The facts eing no less recepti!e tothe applica ilit$ of the classic American ruling, the latter's force and effect as well as the 0ago decisionmust e upheld and reiterated in this petition" The find that the constitutional guarantee has not een!iolated and the respondent court gra!el$ erred in issuing the order of August =J, KQ declaring asinadmissi le e!idence the items or articles o tained and seized $ the apprehending agents without an$search warrant, as well as the pictures of said items attempted to e presented as e!idence against theaccused"

-.+SP/S+T+V3 P/(T+/ :



463(3F/(3, the /rder appealed from is here $ set aside and the case is ordered remanded for further trial and reception of e!idence without e#cluding the articles su 8ect of the seizure or forsuch action as the prosecution ma$ take after the re-assessment and re-e!aluation of its e!idenceas hereina o!e directed"

?"(" o" K JQ ;une K, KK

P AINTI##-APPE EE : T63 P3/P&3 /F T63 P6+&+PP+ 3S

DE#ENDANT-APPE ANT: 0+ A3& 0A&0ST3.T

FACTS:

- Petition seeking the re!ersal of the (TC enguet finding 0ikael guilt$ e$ond reasona le dou t of the.angerous .rugs Acts on the ground that the e!idence adduced in the said criminal case wereinadmissi le eing taken under the authorit$ of a warrantless search and seizure"

-0ikael is a Swedish Tourist who !isited Sagada" /n his wa$ ack to aguio Cit$, the us which he oardewas su 8ected to a checkpoint" The checkpoint was esta lished $ the orders of Captain Alen Vasco, the

Commanding /fficer of the First (egional Command ) A(C/0*, ecause of repeated reports that prohi iteddrugs are eing transported from the Cordillera (egion" +n addition, the$ recei!ed a tip that a Caucasian hhis possession prohi ited drugs" .uring the checkpoint procedures, as when the inspectors from A(C/0 oarded the us, the$ inspected all persons em arked in the said us including 0ikael who the$ found in possession of hashish, a deri!ati!e of mari8uana"

-0ikael defense was illegal search of his personal effects< alleging A(C/0 officers to ha!e planted thehashish in his pouch ag and that the tedd$ ears containing hashish are not his ut were 8ust entrusted to

$ a couple he met in Sagada" The Court did not gi!e credence to these allegations of 0ikael ecause he not raise the same at his earliest opportunit$" /nl$ two months after the proceedings ha!e een instituted whe informed his counsel of the same"

+SS%32S:



4/ the hashish disco!ered in his possession are not admissi le e!idence ecause these were seized from hwithout a !alid warrant5

63&.:

-The Court affirmed the decision of the (TC enguet in con!icting 0ikael guilt$ e$ond reasona le dou t!iolation of the .angerous .rugs Act" The hashish presented as e!idence $ the prosecution is admissi lee!idence al eit taken under a warrantless search and seizure as the search and seizure made was under thee#ceptions of a !alid search and seizure without warrant"

- 4here the search is made pursuant to a lawful arrest, there is no need to o tain a search warrant" A lawfuarrest without a warrant ma$ e made $ a peace officer or a pri!ate person under the following circumsta

Sec" (rrest without warrant < when lawful " 99 A peace officer or a pri!ate person ma$, without awarrant, arrest a person:

)a* 4hen, in his presence, the person to e arrested has committed is actuall$ committing, or isattempting to commit an offense<

) * 4hen an offense has in fact 8ust een committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts

indicating that the person to e arrested has committed it< and

)c* 4hen the person to e arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal esta lishment or place where he is ser!ing final 8udgment or temporaril$ confined while his case is pending, orhas escaped while eing transferred from one confinement to another"

-Accused was searched and arrested while transporting prohi ited drugs )hashish*" A crime was actuall$ committed $ the accused andhe was caught in flagrante delicto " Thus, the search made upon his personaleffects falls s7uarel$ under paragraph ) * of the foregoing pro!isions of law, which allow a warrantless seincident to a lawful arrest"

-4arrantless search of the personal effects of an accused has een declared $ this Court as !alid, ecause e#istence of pro a le cause, where the smell of mari8uana emanated from a plastic ag owned $ the acor where the accused was acting suspiciously , and attempted to flee"



- The receipt of information $ A(C/0 that a Caucasian coming from Sagada had prohi ited drugs in his possession, plus the suspicious failure of the accused to produce his passport, taken together as a whole, l A(C/0 officers to reasona l$ elie!e that the accused was tr$ing to hide something illegal from theauthorities" From these circumstances arose a probable cause which 8ustified the warrantless search that wasmade on the personal effects of the accused"

V3( / +A SC6//& .+ST(+CT DQ;, P3T+T+/ 3( !" 4A@ 3 ACT/ , et u#", etc"

FACTS:

-.rug use ecame rampant especiall$ among school athletes who ha!e een praised eforehand not onl$ students ut also of the whole communit$" The widespread use of drugs has gone e$ond control of the sadministrators despite initial methods conducted for drug use deterrence like seminars, talks and etc" 6encofficials of the su 8ect district )/regon*, considered e#ecuting a drug testing program proposedl$ called SAthlete .rug Polic$"

- ;ames Acton, then a se!enth grader, was refused engagement to foot all since he and his parents refused

sign the drug testing consent forms )i"e", ?eneral Authorization Form*" 6ence, the$ filed suit seekingdeclarator$ and in8uncti!e relief from enforcement of the Polic$ on the grounds that it !iolated the Fourth Fourteenth Amendments to the %nited States Constitution and Article +, of the /regon Constitution"

-.istrict Court (uling: .3 +3. P3T+T+/ < Sustained C/ ST+T%T+/ A&+T@"

-%S CA (uling: (3V3(S3. .3C+S+/ /F .+ST(+CT C/%(T declaring % C/ ST+T%T+/ A&+T@"

-6ence, the present certiorari efore this Court"

+SS%32S:





- The Court resol!ed the issue at hand, as follows:

* *eter!ine nature of the privacy interest which the +tudent *rug #olicy intrudes " Primordial to deciding thecase is the fact that the su 8ects of the 7uestioned polic$ are minors under the temporar$ custod$ of the Sschoolmaster"

%nemancipated minors lack some of the most fundamental rights of self determination--including e!en thof li ert$ in its narrow sense, i"e", the right to come and go at will" The$ are su 8ect, e!en as to their ph$freedom, to the control of their parents or guardians" )The school in 7uestion is a pu lic school"*

Particularl$ with regard to medical e#aminations and procedures, therefore, Estudents within the school

en!ironment ha!e a lesser e#pectation of pri!ac$ than mem ers of the population generall$"

For the su 8ects rele!ant to this case 9 the school athletes 9 the$ ha!e fewer e#pectations for pri!ac$ such communal undress in toilet or showers" The$ !oluntaril$ su 8ect themsel!es to a degree of regulation e!enhigher than that imposed on students generall$" +n Vernonia's pu lic schools, the$ must su mit to a prese ph$sical e#am );ames testified that his included the gi!ing of a urine sample, App" Q*, the$ must ac7uirade7uate insurance co!erage or sign an insurance wai!er, maintain a minimum grade point a!erage, andcomplywith any +rules of conduct, dress, training hours and related matters as may be established for each sport by

the head coach and athletic director with the principal's approval.+ ence, students who voluntarily participate in school athletics have reason to e/pect intrusions upon normal rights and privileges, including privacy.

=* *eter!ine nature of the +tate intrusion' 4e recognized in Skinner that collecting the samples for urinal$siintrudes upon Ean e#cretor$ function traditionall$ shielded $ great pri!ac$"E 4e noted, howe!er, that thedegree of intrusion depends upon the manner in which production of the urine sample is monitored" %ndesu 8ect polic$, the Court holds that the method of monitoring of sample-taking intrusion to pri!ac$ is neg

The other pri!ac$ in!asi!e aspect of urinal$sis is the information it discloses concerning the state of thesu 8ect's od$, and the materials he has ingested" The Court rules similarl$ on this" +ntrusion to pri!ac$ negligi le"

>* Nature and urgency of govern!ental interest and reasonableness of !eans e!ployed to effectuate interest'



Since the search contemplated here is done without ha!ing as asis pro a le cause, it calls for a compellistate interest2 reason 2 need for its implementation" GCompelling state interestH descri es an interest whappears important enough to 8ustif$ the search al eit it is intrusi!e to a constitutional right" The Court thithe presence of compelling state interest e#ists in the present case" .eterring drug use $ the State1s childras important as the go!ernmental concern in cases alread$ decided upholding the !alidit$ of mandator$ drutesting"

- Case 8ustification forcompelling state interest :

School $ears are the time when the ph$sical, ps$chological, and addicti!e effects of drugs are most se!ere"E0aturing ner!ous s$stems are more criticall$ impaired $ into#icants than mature ones are< childhood lo

learning are lifelong and profoundE< Echildren grow chemicall$ dependent more 7uickl$ than adults, andrecord of reco!er$ is depressingl$ poor"E

And of course the effects of a drug infested school are !isited not 8ust upon the users, ut upon the entire od$ and facult$, as the educational process is disrupted" +n the present case, moreo!er, the necessit$ for State to act is magnified $ the fact that this e!il is eing !isited not 8ust upon indi!iduals at large, ut upochildren for whom it has undertaken a special responsi ilit$ of care and direction"

-%rgenc$ test is met"

-As to the efficac$ of this means for addressing the pro lem: +t seems to us self e!ident that a drug pro lelargel$ fueled $ the Erole modelE effect of athletes' drug use, and of particular danger to athletes, is effeaddressed $ making sure that athletes do not use drugs" (espondents argue that a Eless intrusi!e means tosame endE was a!aila le, namel$, Edrug testing on suspicion of drug use"E

?"(" o" QLQJ o!em er >, =JJL

PETITIONER : S/C+A& ;%ST+C3 S/C+3T@ )S;S*

RESPONDENTS: .A ?3(/%S .(%?S /A(. and P6+&+PP+ 3 .(%? 3 F/(C303 T A?3 C@)P.3A*



# - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #

?"(" o" LO>> o!em er >, =JJL

PETITIONER : ATT@" 0A %3& ;" &AS3( A, ;("

RESPONDENTS: .A ?3(/%S .(%?S /A(. and P6+&+PP+ 3 .(%? 3 F/(C303 T A?3 C@

# - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #

?"(" o" O O L o!em er >, =JJL

PETITIONER : A %+&+ / " P+03 T3&, ;("

RESPONDENTS: C/00+SS+/ / 3&3CT+/ S

FACTS:

-Assailed in the present petition is the C/ ST+T%T+/ A&+T@ of Sec >O of (A K O or the Comprehe.angerous .rugs Act of =JJ= due to its mandator$ re7uirement for drug testing of candidates for pu lic offistudents of secondar$ and tertiar$ schools, officers and emplo$ees of pu lic and pri!ate offices, and persocharged efore the prosecutor1s office with certain offenses"

-Summar$ of cases consolidated herein:

.ocket o" (eason of petition

?"(" o" O O L )Pimentel* ecause the mandator$ drug testing impose an additional7ualification for candidates for senators from those enumerated inthe Constitution"

?"(" o" QLQJ )Social ;usticeSociet$*

ecause of:

* %ndue delegation of legislati!e power when the$ gi!e un ridleddiscretion to schools and emplo$ers to determine the manner of drugtesting<

=* +nfringes e7ual protection clause inasmuch as the$ can e used to



harass a student or an emplo$ee deemed undesira le<

>* +nfringes right against unreasona le searches and seizures

?"(" o" LO>> )Att$" 0anuel ;"&aserna*

* +nfringes on the constitutional right to pri!ac$

=* +nfringes right against unreasona le searches and seizures

>* +nfringes right against self 9 incrimination

D* +nfringes due process and e7ual protection guarantees

+SS%32S:

* .oes (A K O and related C/03&3C resolution pose an additional re7uirement for senator candidac$5Corollaril$, does the legislati!e ha!e the power to enact a law to add 7ualification other than those enumerin the Constitution5

=* Are paragraphs )c*, )d*, )f*, and )g* of Sec" >O, (A K O unconstitutional5 Specificall$, do these pa!iolate the ff:

• right to pri!ac$,

• right against unreasona le searches and seizure, and

• the e7ual protection clause5

• /r do the$ constitute undue delegation of legislati!e power5

63&.:





As to students:

- The %S Supreme Court, in fashioning a solution to the issues raised in Vernonia, considered the followinschools stand in loco parentis o!er their students< )=* school children, while not shedding their constitutiorights at the school gate, ha!e less pri!ac$ rights< )>* athletes ha!e less pri!ac$ rights than non - athletes si

the former o ser!e communal undress efore and after sports e!ents< )D* $ 8oining the sports acti!it$, tathletes !oluntaril$ su 8ected themsel!es to a higher degree of school super!ision and regulation< ) * re7urine samples does not in!ade a student's pri!ac$ since a student need not undress for this kind of drug tesand )O* there is need for the drug testing ecause of the dangerous effects of illegal drugs on the $oung" Supreme Court held that the polic$ constituted reasona le search under the Fourth=J and Dth Amendmedeclared the random drug - testing polic$ constitutional"

-) * schools and their administrators stand in loco parentis with respect to their students< )=* minor stude

ha!e conte#tuall$ fewer rights than an adult, and are su 8ect to the custod$ and super!ision of their parentguardians, and schools< )>* schools, acting in loco parentis, ha!e a dut$ to safeguard the health and well -of their students and ma$ adopt such measures as ma$ reasona l$ e necessar$ to discharge such dut$< aschools ha!e the right to impose conditions on applicants for admission that are fair, 8ust, and non-discriminator$"

As to emplo$ees:

-C/ ST+T%T+/ A&" The right to pri!ac$2 right against unwarranted search $ields to the police power ogo!ernment once a matter of pu lic welfare comes in" As the warrantless clause of Sec" =, Art +++ of theConstitution is couched, Ereasona lenessE is the touchstone of the !alidit$ of a go!ernment search or intruAnd whether a search complies with the reasona leness standard is 8udged $ the alancing of the intrusthe indi!idual1s constitutional right against the promotion of a compelling state interest"

-Further, search with warrants are une7ui!ocall$ indispensa le to criminal prosecutions ut since the mandrug testing at hand is administrati!e in nature and hence, a warrantless search ma$ still e upheldconstitutionall$ sound if found to e reasona le"

- *eter!ine nature of the privacy interest being intruded "



The emplo$ees' pri!ac$ interest in an office is to a large e#tent circumscri ed $ the compan$'s work polithe collecti!e argaining agreement, if an$, entered into $ management and the argaining unit, and theinherent right of the emplo$er to maintain discipline and efficienc$ in the workplace"*heir privacy e/pectationin a regulated office environment is, in fine, reduced= and a degree of impingement upon such privacy hasbeen upheld.

+n /ple, is a narrowing ingredient $ pro!iding that the emplo$ees concerned shall e su 8ected to Eranddrug test as contained in the compan$'s work rules and regulations # # # for purposes of reducing the risk work place"E

All told, therefore, the intrusion into the emplo$ees' pri!ac$, under (A K O , is accompanied $ propersafeguards, particularl$ against em arrassing leakages of test results, and is relati!el$ minimal" To the Cothe need for drug testing to at least minimize illegal drug use is su stantial enough to o!erride the indi!idu

pri!ac$ interest under the premises"

-.rug enforcement agencies percei!e a mandator$ random drug test to e an effecti!e wa$ of pre!enting andeterring drug use among emplo$ees in pri!ate offices, the threat of detection $ random testing eing higthan other modes" The Court holds that the chosen method is a reasona le and enough means to lick the pro lem"

- Taking into account the foregoing factors, i"e", the reduced e#pectation of pri!ac$ on the part of the empthe compelling state concern likel$ to e met $ the search, and the well - defined limits set forth in the la properl$ guide authorities in the conduct of the random testing, we hold that the challenged drug testre7uirement is, under the limited conte#t of the case, reasona le and, ergo, constitutional"

!s to persons criminally prosecuted

-The operati!e concepts in the mandator$ drug testing are ErandomnessE and Esuspicionless"E +n the cas persons charged with a crime efore the prosecutor's office, a mandator$ drug testing can ne!er e randomsuspicionless"

- To impose mandator$ drug testing on the accused is a latant attempt to harness a medical test as a tool fcriminal prosecution, contrar$ to the stated o 8ecti!es of (A K O " .rug testing in this case would !iolate



persons' right to pri!ac$ guaranteed under Sec" =, Art" +++ of the Constitution" 4orse still, the accused peare !erita l$ forced to incriminate themsel!es"

G.R. No. 81567 July 9, 1990PETITIONERS : IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF ROBERTO UMIL, ROLANDO

DURAL and RENATO VILLANUEVA. MANOLITA O. UMIL, and NICANOR P. DURAL, FELICITAS V. SESERESPONDENTS : FIDEL V. RAMOS, MAJ. GEN. RENATO DE VILLA, BRIG. GEN. RAMON MONTANO, BRIG. GEN. ALEXANDER AGUIRRE

G.R. Nos. 84581-82 July 9, 1990PETITIONERS : AMELIA ROQUE and WILFREDO BUENAOBRARESPONDENTS : GEN. RENATO DE VILLA and GEN. RAMON MONTANO

G.R. Nos. 84583-84 July 9, 1990PETITIONERS : IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF ATTY. DOMINGO T. ANONUEVOand RAMON CASIPLE. DOMINGO T. ANONUEVO and RAMON CASIPLERESPONDENTS : HON. FIDEL V. RAMOS, GEN. RENATO S. DE VILLA, COL. EVARISTO CARINO, LT. COL. REX D.PIAD, T/SGT. CONRADO DE TORRES, S/SGT. ARNOLD DURIAN, and Commanding Officer, PC-INP Detention Center,Camp Crame, Quezon City

G.R. No. 83162 July 9, 1990PETITIONER : IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF VICKY A. OCAYA AND DANNYRIVERA. VIRGILIO A. OCAYA, , vs.RESPONDENTS : BRIG. GEN. ALEXANDER AGUIRRE, COL. HERCULES CATALUNA, COL. NESTOR MARIANO

G.R. No. 85727 July 9, 1990PETITIONER : IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF: DEOGRACIAS ESPIRITURESPONDENTS : BRIG. GEN. ALFREDO S. LIM, COL. RICARDO REYES

G.R. No. 86332 July 9, 1990PETITIONER : IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF NARCISO B. NAZARENO.

ALFREDO NAZARENORESPONDENTS : THE STATION COMMANDER OF THE MUNTINGLUPA POLICE STATION, Muntinlupa, MetroManila, P/SGT. JACINTO MEDINA, P/SGT. ELADIO TAGLE, P/SGT. LEVI SOLEDAD, and P/SGT. MAURO AROJADO,.

Facts:

The Regional Intelligence Operations Unit of the Capital Command (RIOU-CAPCOM) recei edcon!dential information a"o#t a mem"er of the $PA %parro& Unit (li'#idation s'#ad) "eingtreated for a g#nshot &o#nd at the %t Agnes ospital in Roose elt A en#e* +#e,on Cit Upon

eri!cation* it &as fo#nd that the &o#nded person* &ho &as listed in the hospital records asRonnie .a elon* is act#all Rolando /#ral* a mem"er of the $PA li'#idation s'#ad* responsi"le forthe 0illing of 1 CAPCOM soldiers the da "efore /#ral &as then transferred to the RegionalMedical %er ices of the CAPCOM* for sec#rit reasons 2hile con!ned thereat* /#ral &aspositi el identi!ed " e e&itnesses as the g#nman &ho &ent on top of the hood of the CAPCOMmo"ile patrol car* and !red at the 1 CAPCOM soldiers seated inside the car Conse'#entl * /#ral&as referred to the Caloocan Cit Fiscal &ho cond#cted an in'#est and thereafter !led &ith theRegional Trial Co#rt of Caloocan Cit information charging Rolando /#ral alias Ronnie .a elon&ith the crime of 3/o#"le M#rder &ith Assa#lt #pon Agents of Persons in A#thorit 4 A petition forha"eas corp#s &as !led &ith the %#preme Co#rt on "ehalf of Ro"erto Umil* Rolando /#ral* andRenato 5illan#e a The Co#rt iss#ed the &rit of ha"eas corp#s A Ret#rn of the 2rit &as !ledUmil and 5illan#e a posted "ail "efore the Regional Trial Co#rt of Pasa Cit &here charges for



iolation of the Anti-%#" ersion Act had "een !led against them* and the &ere accordinglreleased

Iss#e:2hether /#ral can "e alidl arrested &itho#t an &arrant of arrest for the crime of re"ellion6

eld:- Petition 7: The petition for ha"eas corp#s of Umil and 5illan#e a has no& "ecome moot d#e totheir "ail As to /#ral* the petition is denied "eca#se he &as alidl arrested e en &itho#t&arrant "eca#se his crime is identi!ed as a contin#ing crime #nder Presidential Proclamation189 i e * s#" ersion* ins#rrection or re"ellion or proposal to commit s#ch crimes The arrest ofthose committing s#ch crimes are primaril done to '#ell the re"ellion and th#s* The arrest orcapt#re is th#s impelled " the e;igencies of the sit#ation that in ol es the er s#r i al ofsociet and its go ernment and d#l constit#ted a#thorities

<es /#ral &as arrested for "eing a mem"er of the $e& People=s Arm ($PA)* an o#tla&eds#" ersi e organi,ation Subversion being a continuing ofense * the arrest ofRolando /#ral &itho#t &arrant is >#sti!ed as it can "e said that he &as committing an o?ense

&hen arrested The crimes o rebellion, subversion, conspiracy orproposal to commit such crimes, and crimes or ofensescommitted in urtherance thereo or in connectiontherewith constitute direct assaults against the State andare in the nature o continuing crimes (Under Presidential Proclamation$o 189 ) The arrest of persons in ol ed in the re"ellion &hether as its !ghting armed elements*or for committing non- iolent acts "#t in f#rtherance of the re"ellion* is more an act of capt#ringthem in the co#rse of an armed con@ict* to '#ell the re"ellion* than for the p#rpose ofimmediatel prosec#ting them in co#rt for a stat#tor o?ense The arrest* therefore* need notfollo& the #s#al proced#re in the prosec#tion of o?enses &hich re'#ires the determination " a

>#dge of the e;istence of pro"a"le ca#se "efore the iss#ance of a >#dicial &arrant of arrest andthe granting of "ail if the o?ense is "aila"le The a"sence of a >#dicial &arrant is no legalimpediment to arresting or capt#ring persons committing o ert acts of iolence againstgo ernment forces* or an other milder acts "#t e'#all in p#rs#ance of the re"ellio#smo ement The arrest or capt#re is th#s impelled " the e;igencies of the sit#ation that in ol esthe er s#r i al of societ and its go ernment and d#l constit#ted a#thorities

?"(" o" QDLOK ;ul$ O, KLL

P AINTI##-APPE EE : P3/P&3 /F T63 P6+&+PP+ 3S

DE#ENDANT-APPE ANT: +.3& A0+ %.+ $ A6 +

FACTS:



- Aminnudin was arrested for ha!ing in his possession > kilos of mari8uana lea!es at the time when he waem arking from the !essel landing in +loilo Cit$" The PC officers were intentionall$ waiting for him thererecei!ing a tip from an informer = da$s efore" An information for !iolation of .angerous .rugs Act was thfiled against him"

- Aminnudin counters that his ag where the alleged mari8uana lea!es were found onl$ contained a 8ackeshirts and two pairs of pants" The trial court was uncon!inced, noting from its own e#amination of Aminnthat he claimed to ha!e come to +loilo Cit$ to sell watches ut carried onl$ two watches at the time, tra!elfrom ;olo for that purpose and spending P JQ"JJ for fare, not to mention his other e#penses"

-Aminnudin also argues that he was arrested and searched without warrant, making the mari8uana allegedfound in his possession inadmissi le in e!idence against him under the ill of (ights"

+SS%32S:

4/ the mari8uana lea!es seized from Aminnudin ma$ e considered admissi le e!idence to con!ict him o!iolation of the .angerous .rugs Act5

63&.:

-The Court ruled on theAC "ITTA of Aminnudin and for theREVERSA of the decision of the (TC asthe CourtDENIED t e /4m+66+b+ +t0 o? t e m/r+ / / e/ e6 /6 e +4e e 6+ e +t /6 + e7/t ro 7 / 6e/r / 4 6e+F re +t o t /rr/ t e 6 + 7 ?rom /t t e PC o??+ er6 t o 7 t /6 / / +

/rr/ t e66 /rre6t"

- The Court held that the arrest was not lawful ecause no warrant was secured from a 8udge prior to the and that the arrest does not fall under the e#ceptions of a !alid arrest without search warrant and the e#cepto secure warrant ecause of urgenc$ as the PC officers had at least = da$s to secure the same" The Courtdeclared that Aminnudin was not caught in flagrante delicto "

?"(" o" L= DD ;une =L, KLL



PETITIONERS: + T63 0ATT3( /F T63 P3T+T+/ F/( 6A 3AS C/(P%S /F: A .(346A(V3@, ;/6 S63(0A and A.(+AA VA .3& 3&S6/%T

RESPONDENT: 6/ /(A &3 C/00+SS+/ 3( 0+(+A0 .3F3 S/( SA T+A?/, C/00+SS+// +00+?(AT+/ A . .3P/(TAT+/

FACTS:

-Petition forha eas corpus"

- The petition was filed due to an arrest made of the petitioners on#ebr /r0 2B, 1988 $ !irtue of orders issue

$ C+. Commissioner 0iriam .efensor-Santiago for allegedl$ eing pedophiles" There were == aliens arre ut ma8orit$ opted for self-deportation" /nl$ the > petitioners among the == faced deportation" Petitionerdetained in C+. .etention Center"

-.uring the arrest of the > petitioners, photos of suspected child prostitutes in salacious poses, girls and othe act of intercourse and other similar posters were seized"

A .(34 6A(V3@ American Pagsan8an,&aguna

found together with two $oung o$s /peration(eport

;/6 S63(0A American Pagsan8an,&aguna

found with two naked o$s inside his room /peration(eport

A.(+AA VA .3&3&S6/%T

.utch Pagsan8an,&aguna

There were two )=* children ages D O whichsu 8ect readil$ accepted ha!ing een in his care anli!e-in for 7uite sometimeAfter 0ission (eport

-/n !/r , 1988 , deportation proceedings were instituted against petitioners for eing undesira le alienunder Section OK of the (e!ised Administrati!e Code ).eportation Case o" LL- >*" /n!/r B, 1988,4arrants of Arrest were issued $ C+. 0iriam against petitioners for !iolation of Sections >Q, D and DO o+mmigration Act and Section OK of the (e!ised Administrati!e Code" /n the same da$ of the issuance of thArrest 4arrant, the oard of Special +n7uir$ +++ commenced trial of the petitioners"



- Petitioners 7uestion the !alidit$ of their detention on the following grounds:

* C+. Commissioner does not ha!e the authorit$ to arrest petitioners pending determination of

the e#istence of a pro a le cause leading to an administrati!e in!estigation"

=* C+. Commissioner !iolated Constitutional pro!ision on unreasona le searches and seizures ecause the arrest was done without a warrant"

>* 0ere tips are not !alid legal grounds for their arrest unless the$ are caught in the act"

D* Pedophilia is not punisha le $ an$ Philippine &aw nor is it a crime to e a pedophile"

+SS%32S:

4/ the warrantless arrest and detention of the petitioners are !alid5

63&.:

-This petition for 4rit for 6a eas Corpus isDENIED"

- The constitutional guarantee on unreasona le searches and seizures are not onl$ accorded to citizens ualiens as well" onetheless, one of the constitutional re7uirements of a !alid search warrant or warrant of ais that it must e ased upon pro a le cause" Pro a le cause has een defined as referring to Esuch factcircumstances antecedent to the issuance of the warrant that in themsel!es are sufficient to induce a cautioman to rel$ on them and act in pursuance thereof"E



The Court said there was pro a le cause for the arrest of the petitioners after close sur!eillance for three )months during which period their acti!ities were monitored" 6ence, the Court sustained the !alidit$ of thewarrantless arrest of the petitioners"

- That petitioners were not Ecaught in the actE does not make their arrest illegal" Petitioners were found w

$oung o$s in their respecti!e rooms, the ones with ;ohn Sherman eing naked" %nder those circumstancC+. agents had reasona le grounds to elie!e that petitioners had committed EpedophiliaE defined asEps$chose#ual per!ersion in!ol!ing childrenE ) raft-3 ing Ps$chopatia Se#ualis p" < Paraphilia )orunusual se#ual acti!it$* in which children are the preferred se#ual o 8ectE )4e ster's Third ew +nternati.ictionar$, KQ ed", p" OO * RSolicitor ?eneral's (eturn of the 4rit, on p" J "$ + e ot / r+me 4et e Re +6e4 Pe / Co4e, +t +6 be / +or o??e 6+ e to p b + mor/ 6 / 4 +o /t+ e4e /re4 po + 0 o? t e St/te to promote / 4 prote t t e p 06+ / , mor/ , 6p+r+t / , /6o +/ e -be+ 7 o? o r 0o t )Article ++, Section >, KLQ Constitution*"

-6owe!er, assuming arguendo that the arrest was in!alid, the petition for ha eas corpus ecame moot andacademic after formal deportation charges ha!e een filed against them for eing undesira le aliens in !ioof Sections >Q, D and DO of the +mmigration Act and Section OK of the Administrati!e Code"

-Ewere a person's detention was later made $ !irtue of a 8udicial order in relation to criminal casessu se7uentl$ filed against the detainee, his petition for ha eas corpus ecomes moot and academicE ) el

?arcia, &-DKJ D, April >J, KQK, LK SC(A Q Q*"

-E+t is a fundamental rule that a writ of ha eas corpus will not e granted when the confinement is or has ecome legal, although such confinement was illegal at the eginningE )0atsura !s" .irector of Prisons, QPhil" J J R KDQ *"

?"(" o" J L>Q Fe ruar$ , KK=PETITIONER: (/&+T/ ?/ $ TA0 % T+ ?

RESPONDENTS: T63 C/%(T /F APP3A&S,

T63 6/ " 3 ;A0+ V" P3&A@/, Presiding ;udge, ranch OL, (egional Trial Court C( Pasig, 0"0", and



P3/P&3 /F T63 P6+&+PP+ 3S

FACTS:

-Petition for re!iew on certiorari of the CA1s decision

-A shooting incident in!ol!ing ?o as the one who fired a pistol at another transpired on a one-wa$ street wh?o mistakenl$ entered causing his and the !ictim1s cars almost umping each other" The ne#t da$, policereturned to the scene of the crime to identif$ the assailant where e!entuall$, the securit$ guard at the akewhere ?o dined positi!el$ identified ?o for the police" Accordingl$, the police launched a manhunt against

-Coming to his knowledge that a manhunt was launched against him, ?o presented himself together with htwo law$ers efore the San ;uan Police Station whose police officers present at the time immediatel$ detahim and then filed a charge against him for frustrated homicide efore the /ffice of the Pro!incial Prosecut(izal" efore an information could e filed $ the Prosecutor efore the (TC, the !ictim died due to gunshwounds inflicted $ ?o" Conse7uentl$, the Prosecutor filed an information charging murder instead of fruhomicide"

-?o filed with the prosecutor a motion for immediate release and proper preliminar$ in!estigation" TheProsecutor did not o 8ect to the motion pro!ided the posting of a P JJ,JJJ ond for release" The Prosecutthen filed with the (TC a motion for lea!e to conduct preliminar$ in!estigation which the (TC granted"

-6owe!er, after D da$s when the (TC granted the Prosecutor1s motion, the (TC issued another order recallthe grant to ail, motion for lea!e to conduct preliminar$ in!estigation, and ordering ?o to surrender himsewithin = da$s to commence with trial for criminal prosecution"

- = da$s after the a o!e recall of (TC1s prior decisions, ?o filed efore this Court a petition for certiorari, prohi ition and mandamus contending that the information was null and !oid ecause no preliminar$in!estigation had een pre!iousl$ conducted, in !iolation of his right to due process"



-The Court remanded the petition to the CA" 0eantime, the (TC issued a Commitment /rder directing thePro!incial 4arden of (izal to admit petitioner into his custod$ at the (izal Pro!incial ;ail" This impelled ?o tfile a petition for ha eas corpus efore the CA which the CA granted" The CA denied ?o1s motion to restarraignment efore the (TC due to eing moot and academic" Then, the procedures for the criminal case the (TC ensued"

- (uling of the CA:

a" ?o1s warrantless arrest was !alid ecause the offense for which he was arrested and chargedhad een Efreshl$ committed"E 6is identit$ had een esta lished through in!estigation" At thetime he showed up at the police station, there had een an e#isting manhunt for him" .uring theconfrontation at the San ;uan Police Station, one witness positi!el$ identified ?o as the culprit"

" ?o's act of posting ail constituted wai!er of an$ irregularit$ attending his arrest" 6e wai!edhis right to preliminar$ in!estigation $ not in!oking it properl$ and seasona l$ under the (ules"

c" The trial court did not a use its discretion when it issued the Q ;ul$ KK /rder ecause thetrial court had the inherent power to amend and control its processes so as to make themconforma le to law and 8ustice"

d" Since there was a !alid information for murder against petitioner and a !alid commitmentorder )issued $ the trial 8udge after petitioner surrendered to the authorities where $ petitionerwas gi!en to the custod$ of the Pro!incial 4arden*, the petition for ha eas corpus could not egranted"

- ?o then filed the present Petition for (e!iew on Certiorari"

+SS%32S:

" 4/ the warrantless arrest of ?o $ the San ;uan Police !alid2lawful5



=" 4/ ?o had effecti!el$ wai!ed his right to preliminar$ in!estigation5

63&.:

Position of the tate thru the olicitor 3eneral

-?o had een !alidl$ arrested without warrant ecause ?o1s identit$ as the gunman had een sufficientl$esta lished $ police work"

-The Prosecutor was 8ustified in filing the information prior to a preliminar$ in!estigation due to ?o1s refuwai!e the pro!isions of Article = of the (e!ised Penal Code ).ela$ in the .eli!er$ of .etained Persons to thProper ;udicial Authorities*"

ourt s 4uling

%n the issue of validity of arrest

-The /S?1s reliance to %mil !s (amos is misplaced ecause in the said case, the upheld !alidit$ of warrantlarrest was made against persons considered to e committing continuing crimes" The present case does nin!ol!e such crime"

-The Court4+4 ot find that the warrantless arrest of ?o falls under Section of (ule > of the KL (uleCriminal Procedure which pro!ides as follows:

Sec" Arrest without warrant< when lawful" I A peace officer or a pri!ate person ma$, withoutwarrant, arrest a person:



)a* 4hen, in his presence, the person to e arrested has committed, is actuall$committing, or is attempting to commit an offense<

) * 4hen an offense has in fact 8ust een committed, and he has personal knowledge offacts indicating that the person to e arrested has committed it< and

)c* 4hen the person to e arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penalesta lishment or place where he is ser!ing final 8udgment or temporaril$ confined whilehis case is pending, or has escaped while eing transferred from one confinement toanother"

+n cases falling under paragraphs )a* and ) * hereof, the person arrested without a warrantshall e forthwith deli!ered to the nearest police station or 8ail, and he shall e proceedagainst in accordance with (ule =, Section Q"

- either Section Q of (ule = applies since ?o was not arrested at al" 6e placed himself at thedisposal of the authorities"

%n the issue of waiver for preliminary investigation

-The Court noted that from the !er$ eginning, ?o ha!e een in!oking his right for preliminar$in!estigation" The Court elie!es and so holds that ?o did not wai!e his right to a preliminar$in!estigation"

- The 7uestion ma$ e raised whether ?o still retains his right to a preliminar$ in!estigation in the instant cconsidering that he was alread$ arraigned on => August KK "The rule is that the right to preliminar$in!estigation is wai!ed when the accused fails to in!oke it before or at the ti!e of entering a plea atarraignment"22 +n the instant case, petitioner ?o had !igorousl$ insisted on his right to preliminar$ in!estigabefore his arraign!ent " At the time of his arraignment, ?o was alread$ efore the Court of Appeals oncertiorari , prohi ition and!anda!us precisel$ asking for a preliminar$ in!estigation efore eing forced tostand trial"



- Turning first to the matter of preliminar$ in!estigation, we consider that ?o remains entitled to a preliminar$ in!estigation although trial on the merits has alread$ egan" Trial on the merits should e suspended or held in a e$ance and a preliminar$ in!estigation forthwith accorded to ?o"

- +n respect of the matter of ail, we similarl$ elie!e and so hold that petitioner remains entitled to e released on ail as a matter of right" Should the e!idence alread$ of record concerning ?o's guilt e, in the reasona le elief of the Prosecutor, strong, the Prosecutor ma$ mo!e in the trial court forcancellation of ?o's ail" +t would then e up to the trial court, after a careful and o 8ecti!eassessment of the e!idence on record, to grant or den$ the motion for cancellation of ail"

- ACC/(.+ ?&@, the Court resol!ed to GRANT the Petition for (e!iew on Certiorari" The /rder

of the trial court dated Q ;ul$ KK is here $ S3T AS+.3 and %&&+F+3., and the .ecision of theCourt of Appeals dated => Septem er KK here $REVERSED"

The /ffice of the Pro!incial Prosecutor is here $ /(.3(3. to conduct forthwith a preliminar$in!estigation of the charge of murder against petitioner ?o, and to complete such preliminar$in!estigation within a period of fifteen ) * da$s from commencement thereof" The trial on themerits of the criminal case in the (egional Trial Court shall e S%SP3 .3. to await the conclusionof the preliminar$ in!estigation"

---------------------------------------------------------------------

392 U.S. 1

Terry v. Ohio o mber 12, 7Decided: une 0

Syllabus

A Cleveland detecstrangers (petitioner an d another m an, Chilton) on a st reet corner. He saw them proceed alternately back and forth alongan identical route, pausing to stare in the same store window, which they did for a total of about 24 times. Eachcompletion of the rou te was followed by a conference between the two on a corner, at one of which they were joined by athird man (Katz) who left swiftly. Suspecting the two m en of "casing a job, a stick-up," the officer followed them and sawthem rejoin the third man a couple of blocks away in front of a st ore. The officer approached the three, identied himselfas a pol iceman, and asked their names. The men "mumbled something," whereupon McFadden spun petitioner around,patted down his ou tside clothing, and found in his over coat pock et, but was u nable to rem ove, a p istol. The officer or deredthe th ree i nto the st ore. He rem oved petitioner's o vercoat, took out a revol ver, and ordered the th ree t o face the wall withtheir h ands rai sed. He patted down the outer clothing of Chilton and Katz an d seized a revolver from Chilton's ou tside



overcoat pock et. He did not put his h ands u nder the ou ter garments of Katz (since he discovered n othing in his pa t-down which might have been on)

taken to the police st ation. Petitioneran d Chilton were ch arged w ith carrying concealed weapons. The defense m oved tosuppress t he weapons. Though the trial court rejected the prosecution theory that t he guns h ad been seized during asearch i ncident to a lawful arrest, the cou rt denied the m otion to su ppress an d admitted the weapons into evidence on theground that t he officer h ad cause t o believe t hat pet itioner an d Chilton were act ing su spiciously, that t heir interrogation

was warranted, and that cerreasonable cause t o believe that t hey might be armed. Th e court distinguished between an investigatory "stop" and an

arrest , and between a "frisk" of the ou ter cl othing for w eapons a nd a full-blown search for evi dence o f crime. Petitioner an dChilton were found guilty, an intermediate ap pellate cou rt affirmed, and the State Supreme Court dismissed t he ap peal onthe grou nd that " no su bstantial constitutional question" was i nvolved.

Held:

1. The Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, made applicable to the States by theFourteenth Amendment, "protects p eople, not places," and therefore ap plies as much to the citizen on the st reets a s wellas at home or e lsewhere. Pp. 8-9.

2. The issue in this ca se i s n ot t he a bstract prop riety of the p olice co nduct, but the a dmissibility a gainst petitioner of theevidence u ncovered by the searc h and sei zure. P. 12.

3. The exclusionary rule cannot proper ly be invoked to exclude the products of legitimate and restrained policeinvestigative techniques, and this Court's approval of such techniques sh ould not discourage remedies other t han theexclusionary rule t o cu rtail police a buses f or w hich that i s n ot an effective sa nction. Pp. 13-15.

4. The Fourth Amendment applies t o "stop and frisk" pr ocedures su ch as t hose followed here. Pp. 16-20.

(a) Whenever a police officer accost s an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person

within teani

(b) A careful exploration of the ou ter surfaces ofa p erson's clothing in an attempt t o nd weapons is a " search" under t hat Amendment. P. 16.

5. Where a reason ably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case i n believing that hi s saf ety or t hatof others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be arm ed and

dangerous [p3] regardless o f whether h e h as probable cause to arrest that i ndividual for cri me or t he absolute cert ainty

that the individual is arm ed. Pp. 20-27.

(a) Though the police m ust, whenever pract icable, secure a w arrant to m ake a search and seizure, that pr ocedure can not

be folhe

(b) The reason ableness of any particular search and seizure must be assessed in light of the particular ci rcumstancesagainst the standard of whether a man of reasonable caution is warranted in believing that the action taken wasappropriate. Pp. 21-22.

(c) The officer here was p erforming a l egitimate function of investigating su spicious con duct when he decided to approachpetitioner an d his com panions. P. 22.



(d) An officer j ustied in believing that an individual whose s uspicious b ehavior h e is investigating a t close ran ge is a rmedmay, to neutralize the threat of physical harm, take necessary m easures to determine whether that person is carryi ng a

weapon. P. 24

(e) A search for weapons in the ab sence of probable ca use t o arrest must be st rictly circumscribed by the exigencies of thesituation. Pp. 25-26.

(f) An officer may make an intrusion short of arrest where he has reasonable apprehension of danger before being

possessed of information justifying arrest. Pp. 26-27.

6. The officer's prot ective seizure of petitionerand h is com panions an d the l imited sea rch which he made were reasonable, both at

(a) The act ions of petitioner an d his com panions w ere con sistent with the officer's h ypothesis t hat t hey were con templatinga d aylight robbery an d were arm ed. P. 28.

(b) The officer's search was conned to what was minimally necessary to determine whether the men were armed, and theintrusion, which was m ade for the sole purpose of protecting himself and others n earby, was con ned to ascert aining thepresence of weapons. Pp. 29-30.

7. The revol ver sei zed from petitioner was properly admitted into evidence a gainst him, since t he sea rch which led to itsseizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 30-31.

Affirmed.

D E C I S I O N

WARREN, C.J. :

I. THE FACTS

Cleveland, Ohio detective McFadden was on a downtown beat that he had been patrolling for many years when he observed two strangers (Terry and another man, Chilton) at a street corner. Hesaw them proceed alternately bac and forth along an identical ro!te, pa!sing to stare in the samestore window, which they did for a total of abo!t "# times. $ach completion of the ro!te was followedby a conference between the two on a corner, at one of which they were %oined by a third man (&at')who thereafter left swiftly.

!specting the two men of casing a %ob, a stic *!p+, the officer followed them and saw themre%oin the third man a co!ple of bloc s away in front of a store. The officer approached the three,identified himself as a policeman, and as ed their names. The men m!mbled something, where!ponMcFadden sp!n Terry aro!nd, patted down his o!tside clothing, and felt in his overcoat poc et b!twas !nable to remove a pistol. He removed Terry+s overcoat, too o!t a revolver, and ordered thethree to face the wall with their hands raised. He patted down the o!ter clothing of Chilton and &at'and sei'ed a revolver from Chilton+s o!tside overcoat poc et. He did not p!t his hands !nder theo!ter garments of &at' (since he discovered nothing in his pat*down which might have been aweapon), or !nder Terry+s or Chilton+s o!ter garments !ntil he felt the g!ns.



Terry and Chilton were charged with carrying concealed weapons. The defense moved tos!ppress the weapons, which was denied by the trial co!rt. Terry event!ally went to the -. .

!preme Co!rt to !estion the admissibility of the g!n and his res!lting conviction.

II. THE ISSUE

/as the g!n sei'ed from Terry admissible in evidence against him and th!s his conviction of carrying concealed weapon was proper0

III. THE RULING

[The U.S. Supreme Court voted 8-1 to AFFIRM Terry’s conviction of carrying a concealed weapon.

YES, the gun seized from Terry was admissi !e in e"iden#e against him$ thus, his#on"i#tion of #arrying #on#ea!ed wea%on was %ro%er.

First, in assessing the reasonableness of stop*and*fris as a valid form of warrantless search,the -. . !preme Co!rt held1

The cr!2 of this case, however, is not the propriety of Officer McFadden+s ta ing steps to investigate 3Terry+s4s!spicio!s behavior, b!t rather, whether there was %!stification for McFadden+s invasion of Terry5s personal sec!rity bysearching him for weapons in the co!rse of that investigation. /e are now concerned with more than the governmentalinterest in investigating crime6 in addition, there is the more immediate interest of the police officer in ta ing steps toass!re himself that the person with whom he is dealing is not armed with a weapon that co!ld !ne2pectedly and fatally be!sed against him. Certainly it wo!ld be !nreasonable to re !ire that police officers ta e !nnecessary ris s in theperformance of their d!ties. 222

222 3/4e cannot blind o!rselves to the need for law enforcement officers to protect themselves and other prospective victims of violence in sit!ations where they may lac probable ca!se for an arrest. /hen an officer is %!stifiedin believing that the individ!al whose s!spicio!s behavior he is investigating at close range is armed and presentlydangero!s to the officer or to others, it wo!ld appear to be clearly !nreasonable to deny the officer the power to ta enecessary meas!res to determine whether the person is in fact carrying a weapon and to ne!trali'e the threat of physicalharm.

222 222 222

222. 7 search for weapons in the absence of probable ca!se to arrest, however, m!st, li e any other search, bestrictly circ!mscribed by the e2igencies which %!stify its initiation. Th!s it m!st be limited to that which is necessary for thediscovery of weapons which might be !sed to harm the officer or others nearby, and may realistically be characteri'ed assomething less than a f!ll search, even tho!gh it remains a serio!s intr!sion.

8e2t, on the distinction between protective search for weapons !nder stop*and*fris on onehand, and arrest (and the search incidental thereof) on the other hand, it was declared1

7n arrest is a wholly different ind of intr!sion !pon individ!al freedom from a limited search for weapons, and theinterests each is designed to serve are li ewise !ite different. 7n arrest is the initial stage of a criminal prosec!tion. 9t isintended to vindicate society5s interest in having its laws obeyed, and it is inevitably accompanied by f!t!re interferencewith the individ!al+s freedom of movement, whether or not trial or conviction !ltimately follows. The protective search for weapons, on the other hand, constit!tes a brief, tho!gh far from inconsiderable, intr!sion !pon the sanctity of the person.It does not follow that e!a"se an off#!e$ %a& lawf"ll& a$$est a 'e$son onl& when he #s a''$#sed of fa!ts s"ff#!#entto wa$$ant a el#ef that the 'e$son has !o%%#tted o$ #s !o%%#tt#n( a !$#%e, the off#!e$ #s e)"all& "n*"st#f#ed,a sent that +#nd of e #den!e, #n %a+#n( an& #nt$"s#ons sho$t of an a$$est . Moreover, a perfectly reasonableapprehension of danger may arise long before the officer is possessed of ade !ate information to %!stify ta ing a person



into c!stody for the p!rpose of prosec!ting him for a crime. :etitioner+s reliance on cases which have wor ed o!tstandards of reasonableness with regard to sei'!res constit!ting arrests and searches incident thereto is th!s misplaced.9t ass!mes that the interests so!ght to be vindicated and the invasions of personal sec!rity may be e !ated in the twocases, and thereby ignores a vital aspect of the analysis of the reasonableness of partic!lar types of cond!ct !nder the3right against !nreasonable search and sei'!re4.

O!r eval!ation of the proper balance that has to be str!c in this type of case leads !s to concl!de that the$e%"st e a na$$owl& d$awn a"tho$#t& to 'e$%#t a $easona le sea$!h fo$ wea'ons fo$ the '$ote!t#on of the 'ol#!eoff#!e$, whe$e he has $eason to el#e e that he #s deal#n( w#th an a$%ed and dan(e$o"s #nd# #d"al, $e(a$dless of

whethe$ he has '$o a le !a"se to a$$est the #nd# #d"al fo$ a !$#%e . The officer need not be absol!tely certain that theindivid!al is armed6 the iss!e is whether a reasonably pr!dent man in the circ!mstances wo!ld be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger.

222 222 222

222 3The protective search for weapons !nder stop*and*fris 4, !nli e a search witho!t a warrant incident to alawf!l arrest, is not %!stified by any need to prevent the disappearance or destr!ction of evidence of crime. The sole

%!stification of the search in the present sit!ation is the protection of the police officer and others nearby, and it m!sttherefore be confined in scope to an intr!sion reasonably designed to discover g!ns, nives, cl!bs, or other hiddeninstr!ments for the assa!lt of the police officer.; ($mphasis s!pplied)

Re"o!"er seized from Terry admissi !e in e"iden#e

The -. . !preme Co!rt concl!ded that the revolver sei'ed from Terry was properly admittedin evidence against him, th!s1

<222. 7t the time he sei'ed 3Terry4 and searched him for weapons, Officer McFadden had reasonable gro!nds tobelieve that petitioner was armed and dangero!s, and it was necessary for the protection of himself and others to ta eswift meas!res to discover the tr!e facts and ne!trali'e the threat of harm if it materiali'ed. The policeman caref!llyrestricted his search to what was appropriate to the discovery of the partic!lar items which he so!ght . $ach case of thissort will, of co!rse, have to be decided on its own facts. /e merely hold today that whe$e a 'ol#!e off#!e$ o se$ es"n"s"al !ond"!t wh#!h leads h#% $easona l& to !on!l"de #n l#(ht of h#s e-'e$#en!e that !$#%#nal a!t# #t& %a& eafoot and that the 'e$sons w#th who% he #s deal#n( %a& e a$%ed and '$esentl& dan(e$o"s, whe$e #n the !o"$seof #n est#(at#n( th#s eha #o$ he #dent#f#es h#%self as a 'ol#!e%an and %a+es $easona le #n)"#$#es, and whe$e

noth#n( #n the #n#t#al sta(es of the en!o"nte$ se$ es to d#s'el h#s $easona le fea$ fo$ h#s own o$ othe$s safet&, he#s ent#tled fo$ the '$ote!t#on of h#%self and othe$s #n the a$ea to !ond"!t a !a$ef"ll& l#%#ted sea$!h of the o"te$ !loth#n( of s"!h 'e$sons #n an atte%'t to d#s!o e$ wea'ons wh#!h %#(ht e "sed to assa"lt h#% . !ch a search isa reasonable search !nder the 3contest of the constit!tional right against !nreasonable search and sei'!re4, and anyweapons sei'ed may properly be introd!ced in evidence against the person from whom they were ta en.; ($mphasiss!pplied)

Case Digest_Batch 4

Documents