Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/149471696/Crimpro-Digest
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 08:20:56+00:00

Document:
People v. Doria People v.
An object is in plain view if the object itself is plainly exposed to sight. The difficulty arises when the object is inside a closed container. Where the object seized was inside a closed package, the object itself is not in plain view and therefore cannot be seized without a warrant. If the package is such that an experienced observer could infer from its appearance that it contains the prohibited article, then the article is deemed in plain view. It must be immediately apparent to the police that the items that they observe may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. In his direct examination, PO3 Manlangit said that he was sure that the contents of the box were marijuana because he himself checked and marked the said contents. On cross-examination, however, he admitted that he merely presumed the contents to be marijuana because it had the same plastic wrapping as the "buy-bust marijuana." Each of the ten bricks of marijuana in the box was individually wrapped in old newspaper and placed inside plastic bags-- white, pink or blue in color. PO3 Manlangit himself admitted on cross-examination that the contents of the box could be items other than marijuana. He did not know exactly what the box contained that he had to ask appellant Gaddao about its contents. It was not immediately apparent to PO3 Manlangit that the content of the box was marijuana; hence, it was not in plain view and its seizure without the requisite search warrant was in violation of the law and the Constitution. It was fruit of the poisonous tree and should have been excluded and never considered by the trial court. The fact that the box containing about 6 kilos of marijuana was found in Gaddao ’s house Gaddao does not justify a finding that she herself is guilty of the crime charged. In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, what is material is the submission of proof that the sale took place between the poseur-buyer and the seller and the presentation of the drug as evidence in court.
Sucro was reported to be selling marijuana at a chapel 2 meters away from Regalado’s house.R. Eva called up her employer's house. it is presumed that they are regularly in performance of their duties. Jacinto asked for a lower ransom in the amount of 409. As police officers were the ones conducting the surveillance. Eva and Sharleen returned to the car. recounted the incident and asked that she be picked up at Paterno Street. Quimpo and Veterans. They informed Jacinto that they had released Sharleen and left her at the Perpetual Help Hospital in España. Sec 12 of Rules of Criminal Procedureprovides that a person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything. Macabante was intercepted at Mabini and Maagama crossing in front of Aklan Medical center. and the most depraved of criminals. P/Lt. Each executed an extrajudicial confession which became the basis of the criminal charge against them. Fulgencio told Lt. Manila. they found the instruments of death: a piece of wood and a concrete hollow block which the killers had used to bludgeon him to death. Castiller) The failure of the police officers to secure a warrant stems from the fact that their knowledge Whether or not the warrantless arrests were illegal Ruling: The Supreme Court held that appellants were arrested without the benefit of a warrant and under circumstances other than justifying a warrantless arrest. Clearly. After 20 minutes. in any case. several phone calls were made by the kidnappers to the Tan family. Seven (7) suspects were identified by the CIS. Upon arraignment. since the policemen had personal knowledge of the violent death of Blace and of facts indicating that Gerente and two others had killed him. People vs. No. Metro Manila. Quimpo to monitor activities of Edison SUCRO (accused). They haggled in the amount and reached no agreement.(People v. facilitating their escape in many instances. Macabante admitted buying the marijuana from Sucro in front of the chapel. Road 20. would be to leave society. at about 3:30 p. They saw Blace dead in the hospital and when they inspected the scene of the crime. Issue: Held: Search and seizures supported by a valid warrant of arrest is not an absolute rule. A week later. Sharleen's father. the car slowed down in front of an iron gate and the man in the front seat and Sharleen got out of the car. reported the happening to the policemen and pinpointed her neighbor. Project 8. 63 Phil. without a search warrant. G. Sharleen's uncle. On the other hand.000 wherein the kidnappers agreed and instructed Jacinto to leave the money in a garbage can in front of the Town and Country Lodge in Old Sta. Manila. The team composed of SPO3 Gregorio Cuachon and SPO1 Danilo T. thus: "To hold that no criminal can.. (2) Whether or Not evidence from such arrest is admissible. Sucro was monitored to have talked and exchanged things three times. PEOPLE VS. Quezon City. 228. A third buyer was transacting with appellant and was reported and later identified as Ronnie Macabante. at the mercy of the shrewdest. the man release the nanny to inform her employer of Sharleen's ransom. appellant Famodulan contends that he was not positively identified as one of the conspirators and he was arrested and investigated in violation f his constitutional rights. they could lawfully arrest Gerente without a warrant. In the case at bar. Jacinto complied and then returned to his house to await the call of the kidnappers on Sharleen's release. The police officers have personal knowledge of the actual commission of the crime from the surveillance of the activities of the accused. an unidentified man sit beside her and warned her not to shout.m. After a couple of minutes. SUCRO [195 SCRA 388. the five accused pleaded not guilty. Lorenzo. He parked the car in the school's parking lot and Eva alighted to get Sharleen. Minutes later.the kidnappers again called up the Tan residence. Rule 126. Hernandez Facts: On January 21. 18 Mar 1991] Facts: Pat. namely. fetched Eva and brought her back to the Tan residence. warantless search and seizures are legal as long as PROBABLE CAUSE existed. were captured by the CIS operatives. Sharleen took the backseat. their warrantless arrests violated the Constitution but such was cured by the failure of the appellants to move for the quashing of the information before the arraignment. the most expert. Officers Cuachon and Salas conducted a discreet surveillance of the area and were able to verify the information. Gerente. . as one of the killers. Malasugui. CIS Chief Inspector Major Ruben Zacarias organized two (2) teams to conduct the hunt. Seraspi to intercept. Fulgencio went to Arlie Regalado’s house at C. 221. received a call from one of the kidnappers demanding a 10M ransom.The policemen arrested Gerente only some three (3) hours after Gerente and his companions had killed Blace." required from the surveillance was insufficient to fulfill requirements for its issuance. People v. appellants waived their right to challenge the legality of their arrest. Tumaneng. Mesa. accused Lorenzo drove Eva to the Immaculate Concepcion Academy to get Sharleen. Recovered were 19 sticks and 4 teabags of marijuana from a cart inside the chapel and another teabag from Macabante. Hernandez. An intensive manhunt was launched to capture the kidnappers of Sharleen. by entering a plea of not guilty and participating in the trial. Appellant Tumaneng and Lorenzo contends that their warrantless arrest was illegal and their extrajudicial confession were obtained without the benefit of a competent and independent counsel of their own choice. 1992. These activities are reported through radio to P/Lt. From that moment. Samson Cheng. 93239. While Eva was starting to board beside Sharleen. Under those circumstances. While the police officers were at the Youth Hostel in Maagama St. which may be used as proff of the commission of an offense. accused Hernandez and Jacob escaped from detention. The eye-witness. Jacinto rushed to the hospital and found Sharleen who was extremely traumatized by the incident. Issues: (1) Whether or Not arrest without warrant is lawful. Jacob and Famodulan. behind the driver. However. be arrested and searched for the evidence and tokens of his crime without a warrant. Malabon.Seraspi proceeded to the area. They were tried in absentia. Seraspi. Edna Edwina Reyes. Five of them. Macabante saw the police and threw a tea bag of marijuana on the ground. Minutes later. to a large extent. During pendency of the trial. Salas and headed by Inspector Warlito Platon was directed to verify the information that Sharleen was hidden by accused Alfredo Tumaneng in a house at #15 Kennedy Street. They also found out that accused Tumaneng had left the safehouse and has transferred to Mayupis. Thereafter. The police then left Tan's house. The police team intercepted and arrested SUCRO at the corner of C. Jacinto himself suffered from nervous breakdown.
walking casually towards Fort Bonifacio. took his money. issued a search warrant in connection with an undocketed criminalcase of estafa. upon the sworn application of NBI agent CelsoZoleta. and that he was thereafter brought to a cell where he was forced to confess ownership of one gun which was shown to him. he too. proferring a general denial. the jeepney he was then riding developed engine trouble. Jr.38 caliber revolver with bullets.  To reinforce the theory of unauthorized possession of firearms. Sgt. Thereafter. 1990.. 1973 Facts: Respondent Judge Herrera. adetailed receipt must also be given to do away with those conducting the search afield day for having been issued such a broad and unlimited search warrant.  On the other hand. he engaged in the business of vending "balut". 7-8. Garcia presented a certification (Exhibit I) issued by the Firearms and Explosives Unit stating that the accused are not licensed firearm holders. vs. 1990.  Two passengers who were apprehended after they supposedly staged a hold-up inside a passenger jeepney on September 29.Asian Surety and Insurance Co.  Accused-appellant Pio Boses asserted on the witness stand that after establishing his residence at Pasay City for about six months. contended that the issuance of a searc h warrantfor more than one specific offense. not to mention the failure of theNBI agents to provide a detailed receipt of the things to be seized. the four men scampered to different directions but three of them. 3. the line of defense they have adopted is one of denial. and that he left Parañaque at around 5 in the morning of September 29. but for possession of the two unlicensed firearms and bullets recovered from them which were inst rumental in the commission of the robo (pp. filed a petition to quash and annul the sea rch warrant issued. Pio Boses and Tirso Acol pleaded innocent to the charges levelled against them. Pio Boses. 1990. A CAPCOM team was forthwith formed to track down the culprits. And thus. including the jacket of passenger Rene Araneta. falsification. In the face of the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Tirso Acol and Pio Boses were each found in possession of an unlicensed . announced a hold-up. Just like his co-accused. Pp v Acol FACTS: responding police officers. and alighting therefrom he was arrested for no apparent reason. Faltado. Issue: Whether or not the search warrant issued is valid. RTC: re: Boses . No. of Article VI of theNew Constitution. Percival Tan was instructed to proceed atop the Magallanes interchange where the other passengers were divested of their personal belongings. namely. During the incident in question. Indeed. to avoid “unreasonable searches and seizures”. Tirso Acol. only Pio Boses interposed an appeal from the trial court's judgment inasmuch as Tirso Acol y Barnubal had escaped from incarceration thereby abating any review of his culpability for the misdeed. were apprehended. recollected that he spent the night at his cousin's house in Parañaque on September 28. After the arrest. HELD: Petition to quash and annul the search warrant was granted. not for the felonious asportation. They also denied the truth of the testimonies of Sgt. of the Rules providing that : “no s earch warrant shall issue for more than one specific offense.) ON CrimPro  The court a quo was unpersuaded by these general denials. and tax evasion. observing:  Of the two persons accused. assailing the validity of the search warrant. Asian Surety and Insurance Co. falsification. when Percival Tan was driving his jeepney. 25232 December 20. and not providing the “time” for making search is clearly violative of the Rules of Court. insurance fraud. 1989. three persons allegedly acosted him. "balut" and "penoy". the robbers alighted at the Shell Gas Station near the Magallanes Commercial Center after which Percival Tan and his passengers went to Fort Bonifacio to report the crime. two men boarded the vehicle in Cubao. and Rene Araneta. 1990 were haled to court. the three men were brought to Fort Bonifacio and were identified by Percival Tan and the passengers who ganged up on the accused.” It is plain and clear that there are three classes of properties intended for such search warrant and respondent Judge was not ableto specifically state which properties were to be searched and seized. and Sections. and is clearly incontravention of the explicit command of Section 3 of Rule 126. 8 and 10 of Rule 126 of The Rules of Court. He nonetheless denied participation in the hold up. he recalled that while so engaged in his trade. Herein petitio nerclaimed that it was issued in contravention of the explicit provisions of theConstitution and the Rules of Court. According to him. to makesure that the things to be seized would be limited to those particularly described in the search warrant. the Court can only take their denials with the proverbial grain of salt. 5. the two wayfarers. When he was brought to the cell. he was allegedly coerced into admiting possession of the other gun. HerreraG. Rollo. one of whom was wearing his stolen jacket.  The People's inculpatory accusations during the joint trial were to the effect that at around 3:45 in the morning of September 29. against the AsianSurety and Insurance Co. tax evasion and insurance fraud.R. Percival Tan. vaguely describing and not particularizing the properties to be search and seized.  For his part. particularly Section 2. stolen or embezzled and proceeds or fruits of the offense used orintended to be used as the means committing the offense) should be seized and brought to the undersigned. The Courthad occasion to explain the purpose of the requiring that a warrant shouldparticularly describe the place to be searched and the things to be seized. a laborer and at that time having resided in Metro Manila for about two months. Asian Surety and Insurance Co. In the circumstance. The search warrant herein involved reads in part: “…property (Subject of the offense.” To prohibit the so-called general warrants is the evil sought to beremedied by such provision. told the police authorities to accost said persons. they denied that the firearms and ammunition in question were found in their persons in the early morning of September 29. the Court is constrained to consider the testimonies of the accused to be self-serving. When they crossed Pasay Road. together with two other companions. After the CAPCOM officers introduced themselves. and Albert Blanco. It was ruled that thesearch warrant was indeed issued for four separate and distinct offenses of :estafa. denied knowledge of the hold up. Victim Rene Araneta who went with the As can be gathered from the foregoing testimonies of the accused. upon seeing four persons. Tirso Acol. The defense however did not cite any valid reasons for the Court not to give credence to the testimonies.
in exceptional cases. . it follows that the search made incidental thereto was valid (People vs. the omission of a party to present witnesses to corroborate the principal basis for exculpation. "G". Moreover. how can this be true when he himself admitted that from 7:00 p. it is argued that the immediate propensity of a criminal is to move out from the scene of the locus criminis and not merely to walk casually within the vicinity. that accused Pio Boses who is a resident of Pasay City. emphasis is laid on the fact that the court a quo should have relied more on the explanation offered by the defense rather than giving credence to the testimony of the People's witnesses. Rule 124. on account of the witnesses' admitted tardiness in arriving in court. 197 SCRA 32 . It is axiomatic to the point of being elementary that herein accusedappellant can not feign denial of due process where he had the opportunity to present his defense. and too convenient an excuse. Gonzales vs. it is plain that he must have informed his uncle about the case and that the latter knew about the case and the fact that he was in jail and needed help. Tonog. Cruz. Castillo. for possible assistance and to get Genny Acol to corroborate his testimony. Moreover. In this connection. if it accomplished anything. thus obviating any review of his conviction. The Court is convinced that he lied on the witness stand. "G". we are of the view that the search falls within the purview of Section 5(b) of Rule 113 which serves as an exception to the requisite warrant prior to arrest: I. 124 SCRA 906. Jr. that it was worn by one of the felons. have become bolder by returning to the scene of the crime to feign innocence. RULING: RTC re: Acol The same is true with accused Tirso Acol. Indeed. that he did not know the streets where he plied his trade as a balut vendor. For sure. he chose to articulate his protestation of innocence by claiming that the trial court below erred: With respect to the so-called warrantless arrest of accused--appellant. Tanilon. This testimony of accused Tirso Acol. it has been repeatedly stressed by this Court that the factual findings of the trial court and the conclusions drawn therefrom are accorded utmost respect since the magistrate at the court of origin had the first hand impression of the demeanor and deportment of witnesses (People vs. IN CONVICTING BOTH ACCUSED AS THERE WAS NOT CLEAR SHOWING THAT EXHIBITS "F". 80262. helped convinced the Court that he is given to lying. 221 SCRA 671 ). IN NOT GIVING DUE COURSE TO THE URGENT MOTION OF ACCUSED PIO BOSES TO REOPEN THE CASE HENCE DEPRIVING HIM TO PRESENT HIS WITNESSES WHOSE TESTIMONIES WOULD HAVE BEEN MATERIAL TO HIS DEFENSE THEREBY AMOUNTING TO A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS. As a matter of fact. He claimed that he was in the place where he was arrested because he had just come from the residence of his cousin. in pursuing an illegal action or in the commission of a criminal offense. The principle imparted by Justice Padilla in Cruz was based on the ruling of this Court in Magoncia vs. does not know well-known places in Metro Manila such as the South Super Highway and the Fort Bonifacio-Nichols interchange. they are not precluded from . Patog. if he had written to his uncle and that the latter had replied to him. established jurisprudence dictates that between the positive testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the denials of the accused the Court must place its reliance on the former. . Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure). 212 SCRA 595 . the unlicensed firearms were found when the police team apprehended the accused for the robbery and not for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition (People vs. as indeed. 1989. including Genny Acol. 206 SCRA 176 . up to the time they were apprehended. "G-1" TO "G-4" WERE THE ONES USED BY THE ROBBERS IN COMMITTING THE CRIME OF ROBBERY/HOLD UP. In the mind of the Court this alibi of the accused is too much of a coincidence. Mostoles. through his own narration on the witness stand (Domingo vs. 1993) that indeed. . IN ADMITTING THE PROSECUTIONS EVIDENCE CONSISTING OF EXHIBITS "E".Verily. IT RELIED SOLELY ON THE TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION'S WITNESSES. II. When. September 1. III.. it was established by the prosecution that Rene Araneta's jacket was one of the items which was asported. . Section 8. And since accused-appellant's arrest was lawful. . No. Ocampo (G. . 219 SCRA 756 . Development Bank of the Philippines. but it is equally true. "F-1" TO "F-5".. 208 SCRA 62). we proceeded to say. People vs. . Quinitan.1" TO "G-5". Gerente.m. But when queried how he was able to say this. Court of Appeals. SINCE THE ARRESTING OFFICERS ADMITTED THEY WERE NOT ARMED WITH A WARRANT OF ARREST. People vs. . that culprits. As initially intimated herein. 144 SCRA 129). accused. Genny Acol. 165 SCRA 135 ). and that the jacket was recognized by Rene Araneta from a distance of 1-1/2 meters. In regard to the second ascription aired by the accused-appellant. But counsel for accused-appellant concedes that the jeep was lighted subject to the caveat that it was not well lighted which does not entirely foreclose positive identification of the culprits who admittedly shared a ride with their victims and were thus seated within the closed quarters of the jeepney.appellant asseverates that they could not have been positively identified by Percival Tan and Rene Araneta considering that it was then still dark when the accused boarded the jeep. We said in People vs. he would be considered as having abandoned his appeal (People vs. When an offense has in fact been committed. (People vs. jurisprudence also indicates that greater weight must be given to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses when they are officers of the law. he spent his time walking in the street in the area and yet he never claimed he had ever lost his way. he testified that he had written to his uncle and that he received a reply letter from him and that it was from this reply letter of his uncle that he learned that Genny Acol had already left for the province. the Court notes his testimony on cross examination that he was unable to get in touch with his relatives. Palacio (90 Phil. even if he had appealed and thereafter escaped. inasmuch as the police team was formed and dispatched to look for the persons responsible for the crime on account of the information related by Percival Tan and Rene Araneta that they had just been robbed (People vs. of September 28. because the latter had already left for the province and that none of his other relatives knew that he had been charged in this case. To lessen the impact of the affirmative statements uttered against accused. and as correctly pointed out by the People. is a puerile proposition to support reopening of the case. and the passenger jeepney he had boarded on his way home just happened to break down at that place. . 207 SCRA 766 . . Jr. it is simply hard for the Court to believe that the accused are simple provincial who are lost in the big city. the offending police officers should happen to discover a criminal offense being committed by any person. NOR A SEARCH WARRANT WHEN THEY CHASED AND FRISKED ACCUSEDAPPELLANTS AND PROCEEDED TO ARREST THEM. 771 ) that: . there can be no legal dispute to the legal proposition that flight from the scene of the felony is one of the indicia of a guilty conscience. In any event. Lim. People vs. "F-1" TO "F-5". At any rate. for the Court to believe. Tirso Acol escaped from detention during the trial below. IV. IN NOT GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONIES OF BOTH ACCUSED PIO BOSES AND TIRSO ACOL. and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. 205 SCRA 772 ). With respect to Pio Boses. Withal. "G.R.appellant. "F". For one thing. INSTEAD.
the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed with the slight modification that the proper penalty to be imposed is reclusion perpetua. Where the issue of which court will try the case shall have been resolved. Article IV of the Constitution. a motion to quash the same may be filed in and shall be resolved by said court. of August 6. ISSUE: WON the search warrant was valid? HELD: NO.performing their duties as police officers for the apprehension of the guilty person and the taking of the corpus delicti. To hold otherwise would be to add an exception to the statutory (BP 129) defining the territorial jurisdiction of the various courts of the country. ISSUE: Whether or not the search warrant was valid. the authority to issue it must necessarily be co-extensive with the courtâ€™s territorial jurisdiction. However. papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose. a motion to quash a search warrant and a motion to suppress evidence are alternative and not cumulative remedies. The court wherein the criminal case is pending shall have primary jurisdiction to issue search warrants necessitated by and for purposes of said case. These guidelines shall likewise be observed where the same criminal offense is charged in different information or complaints and filed in two or more courts with concurrent original jurisdiction over the criminal action. as provided by Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 2. All grounds and objections then available. the accused are now assailing the validity of the search warrant since they claim that it was void for lack of jurisdiction. Earlier that day. existent or known shall be raised in the original are subsequent proceedings for the quashal of the warrant. 4. Moreover. no law or rule imposes such a limitation on search warrants. When the latter court issues the search warrant. Judge Cruz Paño issued a search warrant to be served at Aguilar-Roque’s leased residence allegedly an underground house of the CPP/NPA. Further. a portable typewriter and 2 boxes were seized. The accused buttresses their claim arguing that the criminal case was filed in the Quezon City RTC. A warrant merely constitutes criminal process. with the necessary safeguards and documentation therefor. NOTE: Policy guidelines: 1. Milagros had been wanted as a high ranking officer of the CPP. SEPARATE OPINION: (J. The officers applied for a search warrant in Kalookan City. Cruz Pano. The arrest took place at 11:30 a. In order to prevent forum shopping. It also specifically provides that no Search Warrant shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined by the Judge or such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law. The officers executed the search and seized several firearms. A search warranty is but an incident to a main case and involves the exercise of an ancillary jurisdiction therefore. Section 3. charges of subversion and rebellion by the CSG were filed by but the fiscal’s office merely charged her and Nolasco with illegal possession of subversive materials. 132 SCRA 152 (1985) FACTS: Milagros Aguilar-Roque was arrested together with Cynthia Nolasco by the Constabulary Security Group (CSG). MALALOAN vs CA existent or known during the proceedings for the quashal of the warrant may be raised in the hearing of the motion to suppress shall likewise by subject to any proper remedy in the appropriate higher court. her premises were searched and 428 documents. a motion to quash shall consequently be governed by the omnibus motion rule. houses. the interested party may move in court where the criminal case is pending for the suppression of as evidence of the personal property seized under the warrant if the same is offered therein for said purpose. Where the court which issued the search warrant denies the motion to quash the same and is not otherwise prevented from further proceeding thereon. and that probable cause has not been properly established for lack of searching questions propounded to the applicant’s witness. Where no motion to quash the search warrant was filed in or resolved by the issuing court. procedure and purpose for the issuance of a search warrant are completely different from those for the institution of a criminal action. It is not a criminal action. 1866. provided. not in Kalookan City. the search warrant was valid. the place to be searched was in Quezon City. in the same manner that no such restriction is provided for warrants of arrest. 3. however. Nonetheless. after examination under oath or . guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons. Nolasco vs. Since two separate courts with different participations are involved in this situation. the penalty of "reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment" as erroneously imposed by the lower court must be modified to read only as reclusion perpetua.m. HELD: Yes. An application for a search warrant may be filed with another court only under extreme and compelling circumstances that the applicant must prove to the satisfaction of the latter court which may or may not give due course to the application depending on the validity of the justification offered for not filing the same in the court with primary jurisdiction thereover. all personal property seized under the warrant shall forthwith be transmitted by it to the court wherein the criminal case is pending. that objections not available. At noon of the same day. The requisites. such court shall be considered as vested with primary jurisdiction to act on the applications for search warrants incident to the criminal case. Aguilar-Roque asked for suppression of the evidence on the ground that it was illegally obtained and that the search warrant is void because it is a general warrant since it does not sufficiently describe with particularity the things subject of the search and seizure. WHEREFORE. otherwise they shall be deemed waived. No pronouncement is made as to costs. On the basis of the documents seized. 5. without prejudice to any proper recourse to the appropriate higher court by the party aggrieved by the resolution of the issuing court. After the search and seizure was conducted. 1984. which would amount to judicial legislation. said penalty being distinct from life imprisonment. FACTS: The crime alleged is a violation of PD 1866. the court orders the forfeiture of the firearms and other incidental paraphernalia in favor of the Philippine National Police to be disposed of in accordance with law. Davide) The absence of any express statutory provision prohibiting a court from issuing a search warrant in connection with a crime committed outside its territorial jurisdiction should not be construed as a grant of blanket authority to any court of justice in the country to issue a search warrant in connection with a crime committed outside its territorial jurisdiction.
the search and seizure was not valid. In its broadest sense. the agents raided the subject place and seized different documents namely. The affidavit. documents or records referred to therein are being used or are intended to be used in the commission of fraud against the Government and. were seized. which served as the exclusive basis of the search warrant. Thus the warrant issued is likewise illegal because it was based only on the affidavit of the agent who had no personal knowledge of the facts People vs. 1936. credit receipts. 667 (1937) FACTS: The crime alleged is fraud of revenue against the Government. what the manuals not otherwise available to the public contain to make them subversive or to enable them to be used for the crime of rebellion. The Constitution does not provide that it is of an imperative necessity to take the depositions of the witnesses to be presented by the applicant or complainant in addition to the affidavit of the latter. Inc. the Anti-Usury Board pleaded that they be allowed to retain custody of the articles seized for further investigation. whether it has been drawn in such a manner that perjury could be charged thereon and affiant be held liable for damages caused. It is not stated in the affidavit that the books. notwithstanding the lack of such allegation. an oath includes any form of attestation by which a party signifies that he is bound in conscience to perform an act faithfully and truthfully. Sy Juco 64 Phil. Subsequently. bills of lading. It was not asked that the things belonging to Atty. Remo and to others also be searched and seized. bankbooks. It is an allembracing description which includes everything conceivable regarding the Communist Party of the Philippines and the National Democratic Front. Further. therefore. it is the duty of the judge to require the affidavit of one or more witnesses for the purpose of determining the existence of probable cause to warrant the issuance of the search warrant. In the process. among others. Thereafter.affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. when the applicant’s knowledge of the facts is mere hearsay. lists used by him as money lender/usurer charging usurious rates in violation of law. documents and other papers are illegal. Also. Prudente vs Executive Judge Dayrit Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the case cited.. The true test of sufficiency of an affidavit to warrant issuance of a search warrant is is necessary. of the existence of probable cause. it is sufficient if the judge is satisfied that there exists probable cause. search warrants of similar description were considered null and void for being too general. the authorities seized. not the individual making the affidavit and seeking the issuance of the warrant. is insufficient and fatally defective by reason of the manner in which the oath was made. Also. the officers searched the building occupied by Santiago Sy Juco. didn’t say that the information was based on his personal knowledge but was only received by him from a reliable source. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized. Alvarez elevated the matter to the SC and prayed that the search warrant as well as the order of the judge authorizing the Anti-Usury Board to retain custody be declared null and void. of Article III of the Constitution and Section 97 of General Orders 58 require that there be not only probable cause before the issuance of a search warrant but that the search warrant must be based upon an application supported by oath of the applicant and the witnesses he may produce. In the recent rulings of this Court. chief of the task force. The purpose of both in requiring the presentation of depositions is nothing more than to satisfy the committing magistrate of the existence of probable cause. stubs. documents and papers belonging to his clients. the warrant avers that they are actually being used for such purpose. banknotes. relied exclusively upon the affidavit made by agent Almeda and that he did not require nor take the deposition of any other witness. and it is sometimes defined as an outward pledge given by the person taking it that his attestation or promise is made under an immediate sense of his responsibility to God. etc. chits.. Affiant Almeda. Remo. It is admitted that the judge who issued the search warrant in this case. if the affidavit of the applicant or complainant is sufficient. because the purpose thereof is to convince the committing magistrate. it is the practice in this jurisdiction to attach the affidavit of at least the applicant or complainant to the application. When the judge sustained the latter’s motion. The oath required must refer to the truth of the facts within the personal knowledge of the petitioner or his witnesses. Issue: Whether the SW issued by the judge is illegal for having solely as basis the affidavit of Agent Almeda in whose oath the latter declared that he had no personal knowledge of the facts which were to serve as basis for the issuance of the warrant but he had knowledge thereof only through information secured from a person whom he considered reliable. Remo to be his and contained some letters. Alvarez moved that the agents of the Board be declared guilty of contempt and prays that all articles in question be returned to him because the SW issued was illegal. Ruling: Section 1. when the only ground upon which such assumption is based is the BIR agentâ€™s statement which is mere hearsay (coming from an informant) and when in fact part thereof was occupied by Atty. When the affidavit of the applicant or complainant contains sufficient facts within his personal and direct knowledge. the articles seized was not brought immediately to the custody of the judge who issued the SW. HELD: No. the judge issued the warrant ordering the search of Alvarez’ house. receipts. It does not specify what the subversive books and instructions are. cashbooks. On June 4. ALVAREZ vs CFI Facts: The Anti-Usury Board of the Department of Justice presented to Judge David a sworn affidavit that a certain Narciso Alvarez is in possession of books. the affidavit of one or more witnesses having a personal knowledge of the facts It is thus in the nature of a general warrant and infringes on the constitutional mandate requiring particular description of the things to be seized. books belonging to Salakam Lumber Co. Xie xie! Prudente vs Executive Judge Dayrit . Pursuant to a search warrant issued. an art metal filing cabinet claimed by Atty. There is absent a definite guideline to the searching team as to what items might be lawfully seized thus giving the officers of the law discretion regarding what articles they should seize as. the search warrant and the subsequent seizure of the books. ISSUE: Whether or not the search and seizure is valid. in fact. paragraph 3. On the other hand. and It is at once evident that the foregoing Search Warrant authorizes the seizure of personal properties vaguely described and not particularized. taken also were a portable typewriter and 2 wooden boxes. Therefore. the judge may dispense with that of other witnesses. Inasmuch as the affidavit of the agent was insufficient because his knowledge of the facts was not personal but merely hearsay. it assumes that the entire building is occupied by Santiago Sy Juco.
Whether or not the application for Search Warrant No. as enunciated in earlier cases. In Alvarez vs. not of the facts merely reported by a person whom one considers to be reliable. now Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals. the alleged violation in this case was. for VIOLATION OF PD NO. 87-14 were annulled and set aside. 19. The questioned orders dated 9 March 1988 and 20 April 1988 as well as Search Warrant No. however. True. under oath. Prudente. etc. presided over by respondent Judge Abelardo Dayrit. Defendant. In the present case. 87-14 filed is legal against the defendant in violation of PD No. and the search warrant the Issue: supporting hand grenades were itself only three (3) live fragmentation found in the searched premises of the PUP." As explained by respondent Judge. P/Major Alladin Dimagmaliw alleged the following: that in PUP he has in his control or possession firearms. That the undersigned has verified the report and found it to be a fact. P/Major Alladin Dimagmaliw. Manifestly. the supporting deposition. 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms. December 14. versus Dr. docketed therein as SEARCH WARRANT NO. qualified by the phrase "illegal possession of firearms. explosives handgrenades and ammunition which are illegally possessed or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense. The oath required must refer to the truth of the facts within the personal Finally. No. Branch 33. 1989 Facts: Petitioner also assails the validity of the search warrant on the ground that it The case is a petition for certiorari to annul and set aside the order of failed to particularly describe the place to be searched. handguns. assorted weapons or ammunitions as stated in the application for search warrant. The Court also notes post facto that the search in question yielded. were several rooms at the ground floor and the second floor of the PUP. 87-14." referred to ammunitions and explosives. Court of First Instance. Nemesis E. 87-14. and therefore. Plaintiff. believes that a Search Warrant should be issued to enable the undersigned or any agent of the law to take possession and bring to the Honorable Court. in connection with the petitioner's contention that the failure of the applicant to state. his application having been filed on a Saturday. the Court laid the following test in determining whether the allegations in an application for search warrant or Under Oath in a supporting deposition. stating that true test of sufficiency of a deposition or affidavit to warrant issuance of a search warrant is whether it has been drawn in a manner that perjury could be charged thereon and the affiant be held liable for damage caused." In his application for search warrant. the urgent need for the issuance of the search warrant. according to the affidavit of an alleged member of the searching party.) While the said decree punishes several offenses. 82870 knowledge of the applicant for search warrant. an application for the issuance of a search warrant. Nemesis E. etc. as well as his order dated 20 April 1988 denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the earlier order. the evidence failed to show the existence of probable cause to justify the issuance of the search warrant. 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms. No. Probable Cause captioned: "For Violation of PD No. pistols. are based on personal knowledge or not. Prudente’s (PUP President) motion to quash Search Warrant No. the term "etc.R. . the application for search warrant was It appears that on 31 October 1987. In other words. Chief of the Intelligence Special Action Division (ISAD) of the Western Police District (WPD) filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila.G. etc. the search warrant was issued for the specific offense of illegal possession of firearms and explosives. in the case at bar. contending that there respondent Judge dated 9 March 1988 which denied Dr. and/or his witnesses. 1866? Held: The Court avails of this decision to reiterate the strict requirements for determination of "probable cause" in the valid issuance of a search warrant. no armalites. rendered the questioned warrant invalid for being violative of this Court's Circular No.) entitled "People of the Philippines. these requirements are stringent but the purpose is to assure that the constitutional right of the individual against Search Warrant unreasonable search and seizure shall remain both meaningful and effective.
ex parte. package. because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. of 4 November 1966. Without waiting for the court's action on the motion for reconsideration. The load of the two trucks. where it is not practicable to secure a warrant. Chief of Police of Manila. Held: No. or their agents.Smuggling Center of the Manila Police Department. A filed in the RTC of Lapu-Lapu City a motion to quash the search warrant and to exclude illegally seized evidence. box or envelope or any person on board.000. Papa. Ricardo G. during Saturdays. It cannot be doubted. wagon. al. that the issuance is urgent. The Tariff and Customs Code does not require said warrant herein. On 23 December 1966. search and examine any vessel or aircraft and any trunk. if the criminal case by virtue of the warrant is raffled off to a branch other than the one which issued the warrant. warehouse. therefore. the Judge issued an order releasing the goods to Mago upon her filing of a bond in the amount of P40. consisting of nine bales of goods. made the search and seizure of the two trucks loaded with the nine bales of goods in question at the Agrifina Circle. not being a dwelling house. al. which reads: That applications filed after office hours. By virtue of the warrant. would be released the following day from the customs zone of the port of Manila and loaded on two trucks. from opening the bales and examining the goods. some bales had already been opened by the examiners of the Bureau of Customs in the presence of officials of the Manila Police Department. on his own behalf. of any cargo. moral and exemplary damages in their favor. inclosure. with the conformity of the parties. the lower court. with his unit. On 13 March 1967. Lanopa filed with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila a petition "for mandamus with restraining order or preliminary injunction (Civil Case 67496). and it was his duty to make seizure. When a search warrant is issued by one court. store or building. Issue: Whether the motion to quash should have been filed with the RTC of Manila which issued the warrant. envelope or other container wherever found when he had reasonable cause to suspect the presence therein of dutiable articles introduced into the Philippines contrary to law.00. persons exercising police authority under the customs law may effect search and seizure without a search warrant in the enforcement of customs laws. trunk. Upon investigation. articles or other movable property when the same may be subject to forfeiture or liable for any fine imposed under customs and tariff laws. Papa. without mentioning the need of a search warrant in said cases. issued by the Bureau of Customs in the name of a certain Bienvenido Naguit. motorboat. and arrests. Mago filed an ex parte motion to release the goods. all incidents relating to the validity of the warrant should be consolidated with the branch trying the criminal case. and the two trucks. Chief of Police of Manila and a duly deputized agent of the Bureau of Customs. and also to inspect. et. alleging that since the inventory of the goods seized did not show any article of prohibited importation. that Papa. could lawfully effect the search and seizure of the goods in question. Held: The Chief of the Manila Police Department. including as party defendants Collector of Customs Pedro Pacis of the Port of Manila and Lt. among others. as well as a judgment for actual. He was given authority by the Chief of Police to make the interception of the cargo. PEOPLE G. A’s house was searched. Under date of 15 November 1966. there is still authority to the effect that no search warrant would be needed under the circumstances obtaining herein. were seized on instructions of the Chief of Police. 135503 (2000) Motion to quash Facts: The Executive Judge of the RTC of Manila issued a search warrant authorizing the search of A’s house in Lapu-Lapu City. et. a person claimed ownership of the goods and showed to the policemen a "Statement and Receipts of Duties Collected on Informal Entry No. speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The guaranty of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures is construed as recognizing a necessary difference between a search of a dwelling house or other structure in respect of which a search warrant may readily be obtained and a search of a ship. conducted surveillance at gate 1 of the customs zone. Claiming to have been prejudiced by the seizure and detention of the two trucks and their cargo. an assistant city fiscal and a representative of Remedios Mago. NO. when the restraining order was received by Papa. to the exclusion of the Court of First Instance of Manila . acting upon a reliable information received on 3 November 1966 to the effect that a certain shipment of personal effects. enjoining the police and customs authorities. On 7 March 1967. At the hearing on 9 December 1966. and the Anti. This was what happened precisely in the case of Lt. or automobile for contraband goods. Martin Alagao who. But in the search of a dwelling house. the same should be released as per agreement of the parties upon her posting of the appropriate bond that may be determined by the court. for the purposes of the enforcement of the customs and tariff laws. or stop and search and examine any vehicle. the Bureau of Customs. filed the action for prohibition and certiorari with preliminary injunction before the Supreme Court. Having declared that the seizure by the members of the Manila Police Department of the goods in question was in accordance with law and by that seizure the Bureau of Customs had acquired jurisdiction over the goods for the purposes of the enforcement of the customs and tariff laws. 147-5501". head of the counter-intelligence unit of the Manila Police Department. allegedly misdeclared and undervalued. elements of the counter-intelligence unit went after the trucks and intercepted them at the Agrifina Circle. and a writ of mandamus for the return of the goods and the trucks. Judge Hilarion Jarencio issued an order ex parte restraining Ricardo Papa (as Chief of Police of Manila) and Juan Ponce Enrile (as Commissioner of Customs) in Civil Case 67496. Manila. When the trucks left gate 1 at about 4:30 p. praying for the issuance of a restraining order. having been deputized in writing by the Commissioner of Customs. effect searches. pass through or search any land. Sundays and holidays shall likewise be taken cognizance of and acted upon by any judge of the court having jurisdiction of the place to be searched. Zaldivar (J): 9 concur Facts: Martin Alagao. Remedios Mago and Valentin B. Martin Alagao and his companion policemen did not have to make any search before they seized the two trucks and their cargo. upon the ground that the Manila Police Department had been directed by the Collector of Customs of the Port of Manila to hold the goods pending termination of the seizure proceedings. Martin Alagao of the Manila Police Department. Martin Alagao and his companion policemen had authority to effect the seizure without any search warrant issued by a competent court. Mago [GR L-27360. to the satisfaction of the judge. ordered that an inventory of the goods be made by its clerk of court in the presence of the representatives of the claimant of the goods. beast or person reasonably suspected of holding or conveying such article as aforesaid." Except in the case of the search of a dwelling house. 28 February 1968] En Banc. The Tariff and Customs Code authorizes him to demand assistance of any police officer to effect said search and seizure.dated 14 August 1987. Papa vs. and the latter has the legal duty to render said assistance. and upon orders of Ricardo Papa. but in such cases the applicant shall certify and state the facts under oath. seizures. But even if there was a search. On 10 November 1966. Papa. beast or person suspected of holding or conveying any dutiable or prohibited article introduced into the Philippines contrary to law. filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of the court releasing the goods under bond. could. Mago filed an amended petition. The Code authorizes persons having police authority under Section 2203 of the Tariff and Customs Code to enter. the Code provides that said "dwelling house may be entered and searched only upon warrant issued by a judge or justice of the peace. Ermita. and alleging that they had no plain. Herein. and likewise to stop.R. search and examine any vehicle. He could lawfully open and examine any box. However.m. Case Digest on WILLIAM GARAYGAY VS..
The test of reasonable ground applies only to the identity of the perpetrator. 1986 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. When Abello asked “aling Rosa” about the contents of her bag. the state. Reiterating Morales vs Enrile. certain NPA-related documents and a firearm. However. when the informer pointed out who “Aling Rosa” was. the defendant was not accorded his constitutional right to be assisted by counsel during the custodial interrogation. He avers that his arrest is unlawful as it is done without valid warrant. it should always be remembered that whatever action is taken must always be within the framework of our Constitution and our laws. that the trial court erred in holding the search warrant in his house for the firearm lawful. Facts: Defendant is charged with illegal possession of firearm in furtherance of subversion (tasks such as recruiting members to the NPA and collection of contributions from its members) and found guilty by the RTC of Digos. they had neither search nor arrest warrant with them—in wanton violation of ArtIV. and was not committing any “subversive” act—he was plowing his field. and he has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed it.” PEOPLE VS. however powerful. In proving the ownership of the questioned firearm and alleged subversive documents. Davao del Sur. however humble. the subversives. His extra-judicial confession. NO. no search warrant was presented. the team approached her and introduced themselves as NARCOM agents. and the subsequent confiscation of a firearm and several NPA-related documents are lawful. or is about to commit an offense in his presence. he wasn’t in actual possession of any firearm or subversive document. It is not enough that there is reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a crime in a warrantless arrest. As the Court held in Villanueva vs Querubin. allegedly a man defendant tried to recruit into the NPA. allegedly issued and used by one Alias Cmdr. and thus is outlawed any unwarranted intrusion by the government. is actually committing. if indeed they had reasonable ground to believe that the accused had truly committed a crime. is his castle. No. defendant is acquitted on grounds of reasonable doubt of the crime with which he has been charged. Held: Records disclose that when the police went to defendant’s house to arrest him upon the information given by Masamlok. the accused claimed that she had just come from Choice theatre where she watched a movie “Balweg”.R. At the time of defendant’s arrest. it isn’t enough to suspect a crime may have been committed. Subject firearm and alleged subversive documents have been disposed of in accordance with law. Instead of presenting its evidence. a man’s house. The Court also finds no compelling reason for the haste with which the arresting officers sought to arrest the accused. RUBEN BURGOS y TITO. there is no showing that the whereabouts of the accused were unknown. L-68955 September 4. Art III) and thus inadmissible as evidence. the rebels. An essential precondition is that a crime must have beenin fact or actually have been committed first. Held: The following cases are specifically provided or allowed by law: 1. when she was later on arrested by the police. and that the trial court erred in holding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of PD 9 in relation to GOs 6and 7. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section 12.R. In the traditional formulation. the firearm. From the information filed by the police authorities upon the information given by Masamlok. doesn’t have access to a man’s home. The next day. the defendant was never informed of his constitutional rights at the time of his arrest. thus the admissions obtained are in violation of the constitutional right against selfincrimination under Sec 20 Art IV (now Sec 12. defendant-appellant. his haven of refuge where his individuality can assert itself in his choice of welcome and in the kind of objects he wants around him. Likewise. the search of his home. Furthermore. Sec 12: A person charged with an offense may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense. and the alleged subversive documents are all inadmissible as evidence. 13. assuming they were really illegal. The trial court convicted the accused in violation of the dangerous drugs of 1972 Issue: Whether or Not the police correctly searched and seized the drugs from the accused. The trial court justified the warrantless arrest under Rule 113 Sec 6 of the RoC: a) b) c) When the person to be arrested has committed. Seizure of evidence in "plain view. She has no knowledge of the identity of the old woman and the woman was nowhere to be found. “while the government should continue to repel the communists. 13 APR 1998] Facts: On Dec. They found dried marijuana leaves packed in a plastic bag marked “cash katutak”. G. ARUTA [288 SCRA 626. Subsequently. vs. threat and intimidation on his person and his family. Pol of the NPA." the elements of which are: (a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties. Rule 126 of the Rules of Court 8 and by prevailing jurisprudence 2. In light of the aforementioned. P/Lt. sec 2). the defense filed a demurrer to evidence alleging the illegality of the search and seizure of the items. the latter handed it out to the police. 120515. 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 temporarily confined while his case is pending or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another and the confiscation of the firearm under Rule 126. and the lawless with the means at its command. When an offense has in fact been committed. are confiscated. the police authorities arrest defendant and had his house searched. Sec 3 (now Art III. plaintiff-appellee. Abello was tipped off by his informant that a certain “Aling Rosa” will be arriving from Baguio Citywith a large volume of marijuana and assembled a team. There is no showing that there was a real apprehension that the accused was on the verge of flight or escape. Also. 1988. Defendant denies being involved in any subversive activities and claims that he has been tortured in order to accept ownership of subject firearm and that his alleged extrajudicial statements have been made only under fear. While about to cross the road an old woman asked her for help in carrying a shoulder bag. The Court also maintains that violations of human rights do not help in overcoming a rebellion.G. Issue: If defendant’s arrest. at the Victory Liner Bus terminal they waited for the bus coming from Baguio. In her testimony. (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they . We fail to see why they failed to first go through the process of obtaining a warrant of arrest. the trial court has erred in its conclusion that said warrantless arrest is under the ambit of aforementioned RoC.
The seized marijuana was illegal and inadmissible evidence. or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. Section 12. where the warrant shall be enforced. or any court within the judicialregion 7. return and proceedings thereon. The police had more than 24 hours to procure a search warrant and they did not do so. the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule 3.are. the judicial region where the crime was committed if the place of the commission of the crime is known. to whom the warrant was issued and require him to explain why no return was made. may break open any outer or inner door or window of a house or any part of a house or anything therein to execute the warrant or liberate himself or any person lawfully aiding him when unlawfully detained therein. or is attempting to commit an offense. if refused admittance to the place of directed search after giving notice of his purpose and authority. in his presence. Right to break door or window to effect search. A violation of this section shall constitute contempt of court. . and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it. shall summon the person (a) When. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances. Stop and Frisk. (b) Ten (10) days after issuance of the search warrant. (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent. application for search warrant shall be filed with the following: 5. b) For compelling reasons stated in the application. any court within 6. and if none. if the criminal action has already been filed. — A peace officer or a private person may. the judge shall ascertain whether section 11 of this Rule has been complained with and shall require that the property seized be delivered to him. the application shall only be made in the court where the criminal action is pending. and (c) 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. and other actions of the judge. together with a true inventory thereof duly verified Section 5. is actually committing. There was no legal basis to effect a warrantless arrest of the accused’s bag. the result. without a warrant. Arrest without warrant. a) Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed. In cases falling under paragraph (a) and (b) above. (c) The return on the search warrant shall be filed and kept by the custodian of the log book on search warrants who shall enter therein the date of the return. Court where application for search warrant shall be filed. Section 7. RULES OF COURT (a) The officer must forthwith deliver the property seized to the judge who issued the warrant. The accused cannot be said to be committing a crime. there was no probable cause and the accused was not lawfully arrested. RULES OF COURT Section 2. RULE 126. the vehicle's inherent mobility reduces expectation of privacy especially when its transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause that the occupant committed a criminal activity. when lawful. Consented warrantless search. The essential requisite of probable cause must still be satisfied before a warrantless search and seizure can be lawfully conducted. 112. Search of a moving vehicle. Customs search. arrest a person: under oath. the issuing judge shall ascertain if the return has been made. she was merely crossing the street and was not acting suspiciously for the Narcom agents to conclude that she was committing a crime. However. If the return has been made. The judge shall see to it that subsection (a) hereof has been complied with. — The officer. the person to be arrested has committed. Highly regulated by the government. — An 4. (b) When an offense has just been committed. RULE 113. Delivery of property and inventory thereof to court. and (d) "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence without further search.
(Criminal Cases Q-95-64357 and Q-95-64358. In sum. seized. They found heat-sealed transparent helpers of the victims identified Salvamante (a former houseboy of the victims) and Maqueda as the robbers. Subsequently. Its recovery. 1984. Yes. With respect to. February 10. Aminnudin disclaimed the marijuana. ISSUES: Whether the warrant was invalid for failure of providing evidence to support pleaded not guilty. The PC officers who were in fact waiting for him because of a tip from one their informers simply accosted him. His bag was confiscated without a search warrant. Defendant was not caught in flagrante delicto. as attested to by SPO1 Badua in his deposition. Saying that he only has two watches during that time and that he did not sufficiently proved the injuries allegedly sustained. with respect to the seizure of shabu from Salanguit’s residence. Political Law Facts: British Horace William Barker (consultant of WB) was slain inside his house in Tuba. or whether it was recovered on Salanguit’s person or in an area within his immediate Held: The search was illegal. the search warrant is void only insofar as it authorized the seizure of drug paraphernalia. Thus. respectively) were filed. who had also been arrested with him that same evening and likewise investigated. Mike Tabayan and his friend also saw . and whether the marijuana may be included as evidence in light of the “plain view doctrine. and furthermore he is acquitted of the crime as charged. the information was amended to include Farida Ali y Hassen.e. However the RTC rejected his allegations. shortly after disembarking from the M/V Wilcon 9 at about 8:30 in the evening. An information for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act was filed against him.the investigator hitting him with a piece of wood in the chest and arms even as he parried the blows while he was still handcuffed. he was not committing a crime. and trial proceeded only against the accused-appellant. he was like any of the other passengers innocently disembarking from the vessel. and in light of the “plain view doctrine. NO.” the police failed to allege the time when the marijuana was found. accused-appellant was arrested on June 25. whether prior to. therefore. TeresitaMendoza was badly battered with lead pipes on the occasion of a robbery. ROBERTO SALANGUIT y KO control. The fact that there was no probable cause to support the application for the seizure of drug paraphernalia does not warrant the conclusion that the search warrant is void. for possession of shabu and marijuana. Two household FACTS: A search warrant was shown to the accused-appellant and the police operatives started searching the house. At the moment of his arrest. i. At the PC headquarters. and after hearing. Both were arraigned and plastic bags containing a white crystalline substance. Search Warrant 160 was properly issued. This fact would be material only if drug paraphernalia was in fact seized by the police. To all appearances. or contemporaneous with. The accused-appellant contended that the evidence against him was inadmissible because the warrant used in obtaining it was invalid.. Benguet while his Filipino wife. in Iloilo City. Later. therefore. The fact is that none was taken by virtue of the search warrant issued. the Court affirmed the decision as to Criminal Case Q-95-64357 only. The two bundles of suspect articles were confiscated from him and later taken to the NBIlaboratory for examination. HELD: the seizure of “drug paraphernalia”. the shabu subject of the warrant.e. The warrant authorized the seizure of “undetermined quantity of shabu and drug paraphernalia. He alleged that he was arbitrarily arrested and immediately handcuffed. i. he was manhandled to force him to admit he was carrying the marijuana. and two bricks of dried leaves which appeared to be marijuana. averring that all he had in his bag was his clothing consisting of a jacket. the fiscal filed a motion to dismiss the charge against Ali on the basis of a sworn statement of the arresting officers absolving her after a 'thorough investigation. If at all. such warrant being founded on probable cause personally determined by the judge under oath or affirmation of the deposing witness and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be Issue: Whether or not search of defendant’s bag is legal. but the accused-appellant refused to sign it.Facts: Idel Aminnudin. 22 MAR 1994] Tuesday.” Evidence was presented showing probable cause of the existence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. two shirts and two pairs of pants. presumably during the search conducted after the shabu had been recovered from the cabinet. a paper clip box also containing a white crystalline substance. 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes Labels: Case Digests. MAQUEDA [242 SCRA 565. respectively. It was found to contain three kilos of whatwere later analyzed as marijuana leaves by an NBI forensic examiner. The said marijuana therefore could not be appreciated as evidence against thedefendant. A receipt of the items seized was prepared. In his defense.112983. G. the trial court convicted him in Criminal Cases Q-9564357 and Q-95-64358 for violation of Section 16 and 8.R. who was eventually convicted .” PEOPLE VS. inspected his bag and finding what looked liked marijuana leaves took him to their headquarters for investigation. He insisted he did not even know what marijuana looked like and that his business was selling watches and sometimes cigarettes. but it is valid as to the seizure of methamphetamine hydrochloride as to which evidence was presented showing probable cause as to its existence. Nor was he about to do so or had just done so. Charges against Roberto Salanguit y Ko for violations of Republic Act (RA) 6425. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. was invalid. which could allow warrantless arrest or search." The motion was granted.
Appellant Mario Serzo was convicted of murder by the lower court for the stabbing/killing of Alfredo Casabal after the latter rescued minors being held by the former. and b) the right is waivable as long as the waiver is unequivocal. Pursuant to Section 12(3) of the Bill of Rights therefore. And yet. 4. — The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged. NO. It is also a recognition of the accused not having the skill to protect himself before a tribunal which has the power to take his life or liberty. assisted him in all stages of the proceedings. he cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. 85215. JUDGE AYSON [175 SCRA 216. he informed Maqueda of his constitutional rights before he signed such document. Herein. he still appeared without one. .The option to hire ones counsel cannot be used to sanction reprehensible dilatory tactics. trifle with the Rules or prejudice the equally important right of the State and the offended party to speedy and adequate justice. 2. or of any offense necessarily included therein. during the arraignment. Quezon where he signed a Sinumpaang Salaysay wherein he narrated his participation in the crime. First." witness.R." The right covers the period from custodial investigation until judgment is rendered. even on appeal. the accused was already facing charges in court. Second. he moved that the arraignment be reset so he can engage the services of his own counsel however. — The act. The contention of the trial court that the accused is not entitled to such rights anymore because the information has been filed and awarrant of arrest has been issued already. Maqueda voluntarily and freely made them to Prosecutor Zarate not in the course of an investigation. such extra-judicial admission is inadmissible as evidence. Thereafter. Quezon. People v. During the arraignment he appeared without counsel. RA 7438 provides that any person arrested or detained or under custodial investigation shall at all times be assisted by counsel. is untenable. As to the admissions made by Maqueda to Prosecutor Zarate and Ray Dean Salvosa. During the trial. and as to the other admission (Salvosa). declaration or omission of party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. the trial court admitted their testimony thereon only to prove the tenor of their conversation but not to prove the truth of the admission PEOPLE VS. The Sinumpaang Salaysay is inadmissible because it was in clear violation of the constitutional rights of the accused. G.so the court appointed a counsel Held: No. it appearing that he is the least guilty among the accused in this case. 7 JUL 1989] The right to counsel is guaranteed by the Constitution to minimize the imbalance in the adversarial system where an accused is pitted against the awesome prosecution machinery of the state. the same counsel appeared and cross-examined for the accused. and intelligently made. He stated therein that "he is willing and volunteering to be a State witness in the above entitled case. but in connection with Maqueda's plea to be utilized as a state Maqueda was then arrested in Guinyangan. He no longer had the right to remain silent and to counsel but he had the right to refuse to be a witness and not to have any prejudice whatsoever result to him by such de officio. Serzo Rights of the Accused Facts: Issue: Whether or Not the trial court was correct in holding that the Sinumpaan Salaysay is admissible as evidence. when the two accused asked them for directions. may be given Maqueda also admitted his involvement in the commission of the robbery to Prosecutor Zarate and to Salvosa.the two accused a kilometer away from the house of the victims that same morning. it was given to a private person therefore admissible. The accused alleged that he was denied the right to counsel. 3. The arraignment proceeded with him being assisted by the counsel de officio. The exerciseof the rights to remain silent and to counsel and to be informed thereof under Section 12(1) of the Bill of Rights are not confined to that period prior to the filing of a criminal complaint or information but are available at that stage when a person is "under investigation for the commission of an offense. Maqueda filed a Motion to Grant Bail. According to SPO3 Molleno. He was taken to Calauag. in evidence against him. Afterwards he was brought to the Benguet Provincial Jail. he was not informed of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel. knowing. The right is however not absolute and is waivable. Pre-trial was waived and the case proceeded to trial on the merits. Note: a distinction between a confession and admission has been made by the SC: Admission of a party. despite his knowing fully well that a case had already been filed in court. because such testimony was objected to as hearsay. a) the state must balance the private against the state's and offended party's equally important rightto speedy and adequate justice. the accused was provided with a counsel de officio who refusal. Issue: Whether or not the accused was denied of his right to counsel HELD: NO. he still confessed when he did not have to do so. At the time of the confession. 1. While he was under detention. Confession.
Dasmariňas. and to be informed of such right. to decline to appear before the court at the time appointed. intimidation. and he refuted that he misused proceeds of tickets also stating that he was prevented from settling said amounts. He averred that the search and seizure conducted was illegal for there was no warrant and that Issue: Whether or Not the respondent Judge correct in making inadmissible as evidence the admission and statement of accused. he should have been given the opportunity to cross examine the informant. The findings of the Audit team were given to him. to which defendants argued that the confession was taken without the accused being represented by a lawyer.” It prescribes an "option of refusal to answer incriminating questions and not a prohibition of inquiry.2) nor force. incriminatory in character.not present in case at bar). A letter was sent by Ramos stating his willingness to settle the amount of P76. It cannot be claimed at any other time. Section 20 of the 1987 constitution provides that the right against self-incrimination (only to witnesses other than accused. criminal. A motion for reconsideration filed by the prosecutors was denied. The next day. It was alleged that he was involved in irregularities in the sales of plane tickets. . the free will shall be used against him. The right is not to "be compelled to be a witness against (2) searches of moving vehicles. threat. 3) any confession obtained in violation of these rights shall be inadmissible in evidence. comes to warrantless searches. no evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against him. Barangay Salitran by a courier coming from Baguio in the “early morning” of June 20. violence. Held: No. Respondent Judge did not admit those stating that accused was not reminded of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to have counsel. police officers Talingting and Clarin were informed by an asset that a drug courier would be arriving from Baguio to Dasmariňas carrying an undetermined amount of marijuana. they are: (1) customs searches. He must claim it and could be waived. Arizona: the rights of the accused include: In the case at bar. HELD: The SC ruled that the warrantless arrest is legal and so was the warrantless search. Sec 2 Art 3 of the Constitution has its exception when it This is accorded to every person who gives evidence. ISSUE: Whether or not the warrantless arrest conducted is legal. (4) consented searches. or to refuse to testify altogether. Montilla was then apprehended and he was caught in possession of a bag and a carton worth 28 kilos of marijuana. (5) searches incidental to a lawful arrest. The individual may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer or make a statement. It does not give a witness the right to disregard a subpoena. He was sentenced to death thereafter. whether voluntarily or under compulsion of subpoena. the informant pointed at Montilla as the courier who was waiting in a waiting shed Brgy Salitran. That investigation was scheduled in accordance with PAL's Code of Conductand Discipline. or any other means which vitiates Facts: Felipe Ramos was a ticket freight clerk of the Philippine Airlines. The People of the Philippines vs Ruben Montilla y Gatdula Political Law – Search and Seizure – Informer’s Tip – Warrantless Arrest On 19 June 1994 at about 2pm. it should be noted that the information relayed by informant to the cops was that there would be delivery of marijuana at 1) he shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel. Rights in custodial interrogation as laid down in miranda v. Two months after a crime of estafa was charged against Ramos. Hence this appeal. (3) seizure of evidence in plain view. He said that if the informant has given the cops the information about his arrival as early as the day before his apprehension. Montilla denied the allegation and he said he came to Cavite from Baguio for work and he does not have any effects with him at that time except for some pocket money. himself. (6) “stop and frisk” measures have been invariably recognized as the traditional exceptions. is actually put to the witness." the right can be claimed only when the specific question. Ramos pleaded not guilty. assigned at its Baguio City station. But unless and until such rights and waivers are demonstrated by the prosecution at the trial. unless what is asked is relating to a different crime charged. the PAL management notified him of an investigation to be conducted. Evidence by the prosecution contained Ramos’ written admission and statement. 1994. or administrative proceeding. It is a right that a witness knows or should know.000. in any civil. the cops should have ample time to secure a search warrant. He proffered a compromise however this did not ensue. and the Collective Bargaining Agreement signed by it with the Philippine Airlines Employees' Association (PALEA) to which Ramos pertained. Even assuming that the policemen were not pressed for time.
On Dec. While there is an indication that the informant knew the courier. (c) evidence immediately apparent. but that per se did not make his apprehension at the Abacan Bridge illegal. Equally lacking in merit is appellant’s allegation that the penalty for simple illegal possession is unconstitutional. The first element is beyond dispute as the subject firearms and ammunitions were seized from (2) those that may be used as proof of the commission of an offense. the firearms and ammunitions taken in the course thereof are inadmissible in evidence under the exclusionary rule No. it should be stressed. the pieces of evidence are admissible. the police authorities could not have properly applied for a warrant. viz. The severity of a penalty does not ipso facto make the same cruel and excessive. Indeed. He stresses that the penalty of 17 years and 4 months to 21 years for simple illegal possession of firearm is cruel and excessive in contravention of the Constitution. the M-16 and any short firearms higher than 0. 2. Lastly. Anent the first defense. two requisites must be established.D.” elements of which are (a) prior valid intrusion based on valid warrantless arrest in which police are legally present in pursuit of official duties. and No. 4 months. 3. When caught in flagrante delicto with possession of an unlicensed firearm and ammo. There is no dispute that no warrant was issued for the arrest of petitioner. the records do not reveal that he knew him by name.38 caliber revolver petitioner’s possession via a valid warrantless search. LICENSE TO CARRY: WON the petitioner is authorized. 1994. RTC of Angeles City was directed to issue order of arrest. In determining the opportunity for obtaining warrants. petitioner’s purported Mission Order and Memorandum Receipt are inferior in the face of the more formidable evidence for the prosecution as our meticulous review of the records reveals that the Mission Order and Memorandum Receipt were mere afterthoughts contrived and issued under suspicious circumstances. Furthermore. to carry the subject firearms A legitimate warrantless arrest.38 caliber cannot be licensed to a civilian. The trial court and the respondent court are bound to apply the governing law at the time of appellant’s commission of the offense for it is a rule that laws are repealed only by subsequent ones. petitioner’s warrantless arrest was proper since he was actually committing another offence in the presence of all those officers. arrest a person (a) when in his presence the person to be arrested has committed. which would justify issuance of mission order (as stated in PD 1866). His arrest for hit and run incident modified to include grounds of Illegal Possession of firearms. as above contemplated. Indeed.: (1) the existence of the subject firearm and. He had no papers. or is attempting to commit an offense. ranges from reclusion temporal maximum to reclusion perpetua contrary to appellant’s erroneous averment. petitioner faults respondent court “in applying P. under these circumstances. Furthermore. the Memorandum Receipt is also unsupported by a certification as required by the March 5. Petitioner would nonetheless insist on the illegality of his arrest by arguing that the policemen who actually arrested him were not at the scene of the hit and run.D. Rule 126 of Rules of Court and by prevailing jurisprudence where the test of incidental search (not excluded by exclusionary rule) is that item to be searched must be within arrestee’s custody or area of immediate control and search contemporaneous with arrest. Padilla filed lots of other petitions and all of a sudden. not only the intervening time is controlling but all the coincident and ambient circumstances should be considered. The Court of Appeals confirmed decision and cancelled bailbond. PADILLA vs CA Nature: Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the CA. 1866 no longer exists. Because arrest was legal. There was no supervening event or a considerable lapse of time between the . under a Mission Order and Memorandum Receipt. necessarily cloaks the arresting police officer with authority to validly search and seize from the offender (1) dangerous weapons. 1992. Issues: 1. defect or irregularity attending an arrest must be made before the accused enters his plea. He was later on apprehended with the help pf a civilian witness. 5. 1866 which abrogated the previous statutes adverted to by petitioner. PENALTY: WON penalty for simple illegal possession constitutes excessive and cruel punishment proscribed by the 1987 Constitution Anent his third defense. assuming that they could readily have access to a judge or a court that was still open by the time they could make preparations for applying therefor. Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure—a peace officer or a private person may. The contentions do not merit serious consideration. Petitioner is not in the Plantilla of Non-Uniform personnel or in list of Civilian Agents of Employees of the PNP. Evaristo: objects whose possession are prohibited by law inadvertedly found in plain view are subject to seizure even without a warrant) ? ? Search of moving vehicle Warrantless search incidental to lawful arrest recognized under On such bare information. Padilla claimed papers of guns were at home. He was convicted and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty from 17 years. 3. 2. And until its repeal. identified and offered in evidence during trial. in accordance with settled jurisprudence. (2) the fact that the accused who owned or possessed the firearm does not have the corresponding license or permit to possess. The court begs to disagree. On this score. 4. 1866 in a democratic ambience (sic) and a non-subversive context” and adds that respondent court should have applied instead the previous laws on illegal possession of firearms since the reason for the penalty imposed under P. we lift from respondent court’s incisive observation. WARRANTLESS ARREST: WON his was illegal and consequently. the Solicitor General made a complete turnaround and filed “Manifestation in Lieu of Comment” praying for acquittal (nabayaran siguro). 3. As to the second element. the same was convincingly proven by the prosecution. The penalty for simple possession of firearm. it is the duty of judicial officers to respect and apply the law as it stands. (b) evidence inadvertedly discovered by police who had the right to be there.D. any objection. . petitioner questions the legality of his arrest. Instances when warrantless search and seizure of property is valid: ? Seizure of evidence in “plain view. Padilla was found guilty of Illegal Possession of Firearms under PD 1866 by the RTC of Angeles City.380 pietro beretta with 8 ammo 6 live double action ammo of . without a warrant. Facts: Padilla figured in a hit and run accident in Oct 26. section 12. respondent court can not be faulted for applying P. especially in rural areas.this would be beside the point for. Motion for reconsideration was denied by Court of Appeals. It is a reality that curbing lawlessness gains more success when law enforcers function in collaboration with private citizens. the information relayed was too sketchy and not detailed enough for the obtention of the corresponding arrest or search warrant. is actually committing. Warrantless arrests are sanctioned in Sec. and (d) plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search (People v. and on which there is no evidence presented by the defense. In crimes involving illegal possession of firearm. Upon arrest following high powered firearms were found in his possession: 1. hit and run and the actual apprehension. 1 day of reclusion temporal as minimum to 21 years of reclusion perpetua as maximum. 1988 Memorandum of the Secretary of Defense.357 caliber revolver with 6 live ammunition M-16 Baby Armalite magazine with ammo .
Courts are not concerned with the wisdom. as "the subject of the offense. to search the persons above-named and/or the premises of their offices. papers and cash money seized were not delivered to the courts that issued the warrants. (2) that the defects of said warrants. to be determined by the judge in the manner set forth in said provision. on different dates. vouchers. and whatever the offices they hold therein may be. and to seize and take possession of the following personal property to wit: Books of accounts. to 18 yrs. were cured by petitioners' consent. not mentioned in the warrants. not a doubtful and argumentative implication. Tariff and Customs Laws. the constitutionality of P. typewriters. In fact. Diokno 20 SCRA 383 L-19550 June 19. Tariff and Customs Laws. the Court declared that “the pertinent laws on illegal possession of firearms [are not] contrary to any provision of the Constitution…” Appellant’s grievances on the wisdom of the prescribed penalty should not be addressed to us. It would be the legal heresy. papers. in effect. Stonehill Vs. violating a given provision of our criminal laws. and other documents and/or papers showing all business transactions including disbursements receipts. and things seized under the alleged authority of the warrants in question may be split into two (2) major groups. Just recently. no specific offense had been alleged in said applications. (2) cash money. or committed specific omissions. portfolios. Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code.D. 1962. of the highest order. (3) the warrants were issued to fish evidence against the aforementioned petitioners in deportation cases filed against them. financial records. to convict anybody of a "violation of Central Bank Laws. The documents. if any." which is described in the applications adverted to above as "violation of Central Bank Laws. Held: The petitioners have no cause of action to assail the legality of the contested warrants and of the seizures made in pursuance thereof. As a matter of fact. it was impossible for the judges who issued the warrants to have found the existence of probable cause. 1866 has been upheld twice by this Court. balance sheets and profit and loss statements and Bobbins (cigarette wrappers). correspondence. as min. books and things to be seized." In other words. for the same presupposes the introduction of competent proof that the party against whom it is sought has performed particular acts. . the same were issued upon applications stating that the natural and juridical person therein named had committed a "violation of Central Ban Laws. the applications involved in this case do not allege any specific acts performed by herein petitioners. we reiterate. Tariff and Customs Laws. The only function of the courts. Indeed. To justify nullification of the law. as maximum. Internal Revenue (Code) and the Revised Penal Code. papers and things seized in the residences of petitioners herein. the effects seized are admissible in evidence against herein petitioners. The averments thereof with respect to the offense committed were abstract. (4) the searches and seizures were made in an illegal manner. thereby. Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code. was not convincingly discharged. it is well settled that the legality of a seizure can be contested only by the party whose rights have been impaired thereby. regardless of the alleged illegality of the aforementioned searches and seizures. and (b) those found and seized in the residences of petitioners herein." — as alleged in the aforementioned applications — without reference to any determinate provision of said laws. for the simple reason that said corporations have their respective personalities. to be disposed of in accordance with law — Respondents-prosecutors contentions (1) that the contested search warrants are valid and have been issued in accordance with law. namely: (a) those found and seized in the offices of the aforementioned corporations. Issue: Whether or not those found and seized in the offices of the aforementioned corporations are obtained legally. Diokno Case Digest Stonehill Vs. as in this case. 1967 Facts: Upon application of the officers of the government named on the margin — hereinafter referred to as Respondents-Prosecutors — several judges — hereinafter referred to as Respondents-Judges — issued." Petitioners contentions are: (1) they do not describe with particularity the documents. Indeed. credit journals. separate and distinct from the personality of herein petitioners. every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality. there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution." or "used or intended to be used as the means of committing the offense. regardless of the amount of shares of stock or of the interest of each of them in said corporations. ledgers. and (2) that the warrant shall particularly describe the things to be seized. were actually seized. restraining herein Respondents-Prosecutors from using them in evidence against petitioners herein. With respect to the documents. and (5) the documents. Whether or not those found and seized in the residences of petitioners herein are obtained legally. That question falls exclusively within the province of Congress which enacts them and the Chief Executive who approves or vetoes them. None of these requirements has been complied with in the contested warrants. premises considered. in any event. a total of 42 search warrants against petitioners herein and/or the corporations of which they were officers. and that the objection to an unlawful search and seizure is purely personal and cannot be availed of by third parties. receipts. 8 months & 1 day. stolen or embezzled and proceeds or fruits of the offense. we note. the aforementioned resolution of June 29.Moreover. efficacy or morality of laws. directed to the any peace officer. lifted the writ of preliminary injunction previously issued by this Court. warehouses and/or residences. namely: (1) that no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause. Two points must be stressed in connection with this constitutional mandate. The burden of proving the invalidity of the statute in question lies with the appellant which burden. is to interpret and apply the laws Held: WHEREFORE. journals. and (3) that. As a consequence. the decision of the CA sustaining petitioner’s conviction by the lower court of the crime of simple illegal possession of firearms & ammunitions is AFFIRMED EXCEPT that petitioner’s indeterminate penalty is MODIFIED to “10 yrs & 1 day.
AMODIO, Ennio; SELVAGGI, Eugenio. Accusatorial System in a Civil Law Country_the 1988 Italian Code of Criminal Procedure. TEMPLE LAW REVIEW. v. 62. 1989. p. 1211.
6. Security Bank & Trust Co. vs. Triumph Lumber and Const. Corp.

References: v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 Art 3
 v. 
 v. 
 v.