Stonehill v.

Diokno Digest

Stonehill v. Diokno

20 SCRA 283 (1967)

Concepcion, CJ

Facts:

1. Respondent (porsecution) made possible the issuance of 42 search warrants against the petitioner
and the corporation to search persons and premises of several personal properties due to an alleged
violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Custom Laws, Internal Revenue Code and the Revised Penal
Code of the Philippines. As a results, search and seizures were conducted in the both the residence of
the petitioner and in the corporation's premises.

2.The petitioner contended that the search warrants are null and void as their issuance violated the
Constitution and the Rules of Court for being general warrants. Thus,he filed a petition with the
Supreme Court for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and injunction to prevent the seized effects from
being introduced as evidence in the deportation cases against the petitioner. The court issued the writ
only for those effects found in the petitioner's residence.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner can validly assail the legality of the search and seizure in both
premises

RULING: No, he can only assail the search conducted in the residences but not those done in the
corporation's premises. The petitioner has no cause of action in the second situation since a corporation
has a personality separate and distinct from the personality of its officers or herein petitioner regardless
of the amount of shares of stock or interest of each in the said corporation, and whatever office they
hold therein. Only the party whose rights has been impaired can validly object the legality of a seizure--a
purely personal right which cannot be exercised by a third party. The right to object belongs to the
corporation ( for the 1st group of documents, papers, and things seized from the offices and the
premises).

Alih vs Castro
GL. 69401

This case was in explaining Sec 3 of Art 2 of the 1987 Constitution regarding the supremacy of the civilians.

Facts;
Zona was conducted by the men of Maj. Gen Castro in a compoud where petioners reside and conducted
illegal search and thereafter seized guns from them. The order was carried on by his Castro's men with the
contention that the petitioners are involved in the latest killing of the town's mayor Cesar Climaco.

Issue;

Is the warrantless search and seizure legal?

Held;

The Supreme Court declared those seized in custodia legis and declared that the operation conducted by Maj.
Gen. Castro was ILLEGAL. The respondents have all the time to obtain a search warrant granted that they
have about 10 trial courts. The SC also held the protection of the petitioner's human rights as stated in Art IV
Sec 3 and 4 of the 1973 Constitution regarding illegal search and seizure. The presumption of innocence of the
petitioners should be observed and that they cannot be subjected to self-incriminating instances like paraffin
tests, photographing and finger printing.

As penned by J. Cruz in this case, "The Constitution is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace,
and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times and under all circumstances. No
doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its
provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government."
Citation. 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968)

Brief Fact Summary. The Petitioner, John W. Terry (the “Petitioner”), was stopped and
searched by an officer after the officer observed the Petitioner seemingly casing a store
for a potential robbery. The officer approached the Petitioner for questioning and decided
to search him first.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. An officer may perform a search for weapons without a
warrant, even without probable cause, when the officer reasonably believes that the
person may be armed and dangerous.

Facts. The officer noticed the Petitioner talking with another individual on a street corner while
repeatedly walking up and down the same street. The men would periodically peer into a store
window and then talk some more. The men also spoke to a third man whom they eventually
followed up the street. The officer believed that the Petitioner and the other men were “casing” a
store for a potential robbery. The officer decided to approach the men for questioning, and given
the nature of the behavior the officer decided to perform a quick search of the men before
questioning. A quick frisking of the Petitioner produced a concealed weapon and the Petitioner
was charged with carrying a concealed weapon.
Issue. Whether a search for weapons without probable cause for arrest is an unreasonable
search under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution (“Constitution”)?
Held. The Supreme Court of the United States (“Supreme Court”) held that it is a reasonable
search when an officer performs a quick seizure and a limited search for weapons on a person
that the officer reasonably believes could be armed. A typical beat officer would be unduly
burdened by being prohibited from searching individuals that the officer suspects to be armed.

Dissent. Justice William Douglas (“J. Douglas”) dissented, reasoning that the majority’s holding
would grant powers to officers to authorize a search and seizure that even a magistrate would
not possess.

Concurrence.
Justice John Harlan (“J. Harlan”) agreed with the majority, but he emphasized an additional
necessity of the reasonableness of the stop to investigate the crime.
Justice Byron White (“J. White”) agreed with the majority, but he emphasized that the particular
facts of the case, that there was suspicion of a violent act, merit the forcible stop and frisk.

Discussion. The facts of the case are important to understand the Supreme Court’s
willingness to allow the search. The suspicious activity was a violent crime, armed
robbery, and if the officer’s suspicions were correct then he would be in a dangerous
position to approach the men for questioning without searching them. The officer also did
not detain the men for a long period of time to constitute an arrest without probable cause.

ROMEO POSADAS y ZAMORA vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 89139 August 2, 1990

Facts:

Pat. Ursicio Ungad and Pat. Umbra Umpar were conducting surveillance along Magallanes Street
Davao City. While they were within the preemies they spotted petitioner carrying a buri bag and they
noticed him to be acting suspiciously. They approached petitioner and identified themselves as
members of the INP. Petitioner attempted to flee but his attempt to get away was thwarted by the two.
They checked the bag and found one caliber and two ammunitions.

Issue:

Whether or not the arrest is a valid warrantless arrest

Ruling:

Section 12 Rule 126 of the 1985 Rules on criminal Procedure is not applicable because at the time
the police officers identified themselves and apprehended petitioner as he attempted to flee, they did
not know that he had committed or actually committing the offense of illegal possession of firearms and
ammunitions. They just suspected that he is hiding something.

The probable cause is that when the petitioner acted suspiciously and attempted to flee with the
buri bag there was a probable cause that he was concealing something illegal in the bag and it was the
right and duty of the police officers to inspect the same

It is too much indeed to require the police officers to search the bag in the possession of the
petitioner only after they shall have obtained a search warrant for the purpose. Such exercise may prove
to be useless, futile and mush too late.

G.R. Nos. 133254-55. April 19, 2001

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROBERTO SALANGUIT y KO

FACTS:

A search warrant was shown to the accused-appellant and the police operatives started searching
the house. They found heat-sealed transparent plastic bags containing a white crystalline
substance, a paper clip box also containing a white crystalline substance, and two bricks of dried
leaves which appeared to be marijuana. A receipt of the items seized was prepared, but the
accused-appellant refused to sign it. Charges against Roberto Salanguit y Ko for violations of
Republic Act (RA) 6425, i.e. for possession of shabu and marijuana, (Criminal Cases Q-95-64357
and Q-95-64358, respectively) were filed, and after hearing, the trial court convicted him in
Criminal Cases Q-95-64357 and Q-95-64358 for violation of Section 16 and 8, respectively.

The accused-appellant contended that the evidence against him was inadmissible because the
warrant used in obtaining it was invalid.

ISSUES:

Whether the warrant was invalid for failure of providing evidence to support the seizure of “drug
paraphernalia”, and whether the marijuana may be included as evidence in light of the “plain
view doctrine.”

HELD:

Yes. The warrant authorized the seizure of “undetermined quantity of shabu and drug
paraphernalia.” Evidence was presented showing probable cause of the existence of
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. 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. This fact would be material only if drug paraphernalia was in fact seized by
the police. The fact is that none was taken by virtue of the search warrant issued. If at all,
therefore, the search warrant is void only insofar as it authorized the seizure of drug
paraphernalia, but it is valid as to the seizure of methamphetamine hydrochloride as to which
evidence was presented showing probable cause as to its existence. In sum, with respect to the
seizure of shabu from Salanguit’s residence, Search Warrant 160 was properly issued, 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
seized. With respect to, and in light of the “plain view doctrine,” the police failed to allege the
time when the marijuana was found, i.e., whether prior to, or contemporaneous with, the shabu
subject of the warrant, or whether it was recovered on Salanguit’s person or in an area within his
immediate control. Its recovery, therefore, presumably during the search conducted after the
shabu had been recovered from the cabinet, as attested to by SPO1 Badua in his deposition, was
invalid. Thus, the Court affirmed the decision as to Criminal Case Q-95-64357 only.

PEOPLE V. CHE CHUN TING

G.R. Nos. 130568-69. March 21, 2000
Warrantles searches and seizures
Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine
Accused-appellant was charged and convicted for dispatching in transit and having in his
possession large amounts of shabu. He contends that the shabu is inadmissible in evidence as it
was seized without a valid search warrant.

Held:

The lawful arrest being the sole justification for the validity of the warrantless search under the
exception, the same must be limited to and circumscribed by the subject, time and place of the
arrest. As to subject, the warrantless search is sanctioned only with respect to the person of the
suspect, and things that may be seized from him are limited to “dangerous weapons” or “anything
which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense.” With respect to the time and place
of the warrantless search, it must be contemporaneous with the lawful arrest. Stated otherwise,
to be valid, the search must have been conducted at about the time of the arrest or immediately
thereafter and only at the place where the suspect was arrested, or the premises or surroundings
under his immediate control.

It must be stressed that the purposes of the exception are only to protect the arresting officer
against physical harm from the person being arrested who might be armed with a concealed
weapon, and also to prevent the person arrested from destroying the evidence within his reach.
The exception therefore should not be strained beyond what is needed in order to serve its
purposes.

As a consequence of the illegal search, the things seized on the occasion thereof are inadmissible
in evidence under the exclusionary rule. They are regarded as having been obtained from a
polluted source, the “fruit of a poisonous tree.” However, objects and properties the possession
of which is prohibited by law cannot be returned to their owners notwithstanding the illegality of
their seizure. Thus, the shabu seized by the NARCOM operatives, which cannot legally be
possessed by the accused under the law, can and must be retained by the government to be
disposed of in accordance with law.