Magno Case

8/13/2019 Magno Case

1/6

Papa vs. Mago [GR L-27360, 28 February 1968]En Banc, Zaldivar (J): 9 concurFacts:Martin Alagao, head of the counter-intelligence unit of theManila Police Department, acting upon areliable information received on 3 November 1966 to theeffect that a certain shipment of personal effects,allegedly misdeclared and undervalued, would be released

the following day from the customs zone of theport of Manila and loaded on two trucks, and upon orders ofRicardo Papa, Chief of Police of Manila and aduly deputized agent of the Bureau of Customs, conductedsurveillance at gate 1 of the customs zone. Whenthe trucks left gate 1 at about 4:30 p.m. of 4 November 1966,elements of the counter-intelligence unit wentafter the trucks and intercepted them at the Agrifina Circle,Ermita, Manila. The load of the two trucks,consisting of nine bales of goods, and the two trucks, wereseized on instructions of the Chief of Police. Uponinvestigation, a person claimed ownership of the goods andshowed to the policemen a "Statement andReceipts of Duties Collected on Informal Entry No. 147-5501", issued by the Bureau of Customs in the nameof a certain Bienvenido Naguit. Claiming to have beenprejudiced by the seizure and detention of the two

trucks and their cargo, Remedios Mago and Valentin B.Lanopa filed with the Court of First Instance (CFI) ofManila a petition "for mandamus with restraining order orpreliminary injunction (Civil Case 67496), prayingfor the issuance of a restraining order, ex parte, enjoining thepolice and customs authorities, or their agents,from opening the bales and examining the goods, and a writof mandamus for the return of the goods and thetrucks, as well as a judgment for actual, moral andexemplary damages in their favor. On 10 November 1966,Judge Hilarion Jarencio issued an order ex parte restrainingRicardo Papa (as Chief of Police of Manila) andJuan Ponce Enrile (as Commissioner of Customs) in CivilCase 67496. However, when the restraining orderwas received by Papa. et. al., some bales had already beenopened by the examiners of the Bureau of Customsin the presence of officials of the Manila Police Department,an assistant city fiscal and a representative ofRemedios Mago. Under date of 15 November 1966, Magofiled an amended petition, including as partydefendants Collector of Customs Pedro Pacis of the Port ofManila and Lt. Martin Alagao of the ManilaPolice Department. At the hearing on 9 December 1966, thelower court, with the conformity of the parties,ordered that an inventory of the goods be made by its clerkof court in the presence of the representatives ofthe claimant of the goods, the Bureau of Customs, and the

Anti- Smuggling Center of the Manila PoliceDepartment. On 23 December 1966, Mago filed an ex partemotion to release the goods, alleging that sincethe inventory of the goods seized did not show any article ofprohibited importation, the same should bereleased as per agreement of the parties upon her posting of

the appropriate bond that may be determined bythe court. On 7 March 1967, the Judge issued an orderreleasing the goods to Mago upon her filing of a bondin the amount of P40,000.00. On 13 March 1967, Papa, onhis own behalf, filed a motion for reconsiderationof the order of the court releasing the goods under bond,upon the ground that the Manila Police Departmenthad been directed by the Collector of Customs of the Port ofManila to hold the goods pending termination ofthe seizure proceedings. Without waiting for the court'saction on the motion for reconsideration, and alleging

that they had no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in theordinary course of law, Papa, et. al. filed the actionfor prohibition and certiorari with preliminary injunctionbefore the Supreme Court.Held:The Chief of the Manila Police Department, Ricardo G.Papa, having been deputized in writing by theCommissioner of Customs, could, for the purposes of the

enforcement of the customs and tariff laws, effectsearches, seizures, and arrests, and it was his duty to makeseizure, among others, of any cargo, articles orother movable property when the same may be subject toforfeiture or liable for any fine imposed undercustoms and tariff laws. He could lawfully open and examineany box, trunk, envelope or other containerwherever found when he had reasonable cause to suspectthe presence therein of dutiable articles introducedinto the Philippines contrary to law; and likewise to stop,search and examine any vehicle, beast or personreasonably suspected of holding or conveying such article asaforesaid. It cannot be doubted, therefore, thatPapa, Chief of Police of Manila, could lawfully effect thesearch and seizure of the goods in question. TheTariff and Customs Code authorizes him to demandassistance of any police officer to effect said search and

seizure, and the latter has the legal duty to render saidassistance. This was what happened precisely in thecase of Lt. Martin Alagao who, with his unit, made the searchand seizure of the two trucks loaded with thenine bales of goods in question at the Agrifina Circle. He wasgiven authority by the Chief of Police to makethe interception of the cargo. Martin Alagao and hiscompanion policemen had authority to effect the seizurewithout any search warrant issued by a competent court.The Tariff and Customs Code does not require saidwarrant herein. The Code authorizes persons having policeauthority under Section 2203 of the Tariff andCustoms Code to enter, pass through or search any land,inclosure, warehouse, store or building, not being adwelling house; and also to inspect, search and examine anyvessel or aircraft and any trunk, package, box orenvelope or any person on board, or stop and search andexamine any vehicle, beast or person suspected ofholding or conveying any dutiable or prohibited articleintroduced into the Philippines contrary to law,without mentioning the need of a search warrant in saidcases. But in the search of a dwelling house, the Codeprovides that said "dwelling house may be entered andsearched only upon warrant issued by a judge or

justice of the peace." Except in the case of the search of adwelling house, persons exercising police authorityunder the customs law may effect search and seizurewithout a search warrant in the enforcement of customslaws. Herein, Martin Alagao and his companion policemendid not have to make any search before theyseized the two trucks and their cargo. But even if there wasa search, there is still authority to the effect that nosearch warrant would be needed under the circumstances

obtaining herein. The guaranty of freedom fromunreasonable searches and seizures is construed asrecognizing a necessary difference between a search of adwelling house or other structure in respect of which asearch warrant may readily be obtained and a search ofa ship, motorboat, wagon, or automobile for contrabandgoods, where it is not practicable to secure a warrant,because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the localityor jurisdiction in which the warrant must besought. Having declared that the seizure by the members ofthe Manila Police Department of the goods in


2/6

question was in accordance with law and by that seizure theBureau of Customs had acquired jurisdiction overthe goods for the purposes of the enforcement of thecustoms and tariff laws, to the exclusion of the Court ofFirst Instance of Manila.

People vs. CFI Rizal, Branch IX, Quezon City [GR L-41686, 17 November 1980]

First Division, Guerrero (J): 4 concurFacts:One week before 9 February 1974, the Regional Anti-Smuggling Action Center (RASAC) wasinformed by an undisclosed Informer that a shipment ofhighly dutiable goods would be transported to Manilafrom Angeles City on a blue Dodge car. Spurred by suchlead, RASAC Agents Arthur Manuel and MacarioSabado, on said date and upon order of the Chief ofIntelligence and Operations Branch, RASAC-MBA, Col.

Antonio Abad, Jr., stationed themselves in the vicinity of thetoll gate of the North Diversion Road atBalintawak, Quezon City. At about 6:45 a.m. of the sameday, a light blue Dodge car with Plate 21-87-73,driven by Sgt. Jessie Hope who was accompanied byMonina Medina approached the exit gate and aftergiving the toll receipt sped away towards Manila. The

RASAC agents gave a chase and overtook Sgt. Hope'scar. Agent Sabado blew his whistle and signaled Sgt. Hopeto stop but the latter instead of heeding, made a U-turn back to the North Diversion Road, but he could not gothrough because of the buses in front of his car. Atthis point, the agents succeeded in blocking Sgt. Hope's carand the latter stopped. Manuel and Sabado whowere in civilian clothes showed their identification cards toHope and Medina and introduced themselves asRASAC agents. The Agents saw 4 boxes on the back seat ofthe Dodge and upon inquiry as to what thoseboxes were, Sgt. Hope answered "I do not know." Further,Hope and Medina were asked where they werebringing the boxes, to which Medina replied that they werebringing them (boxes) to the Tropical Hut atEpifanio de los Santos. Agent Sabado boarded the Dodgecar with Hope and Medina while Agent ManuelConstitutional Law II, 2005 (80)Narratives (Berne Guerrero)took their own car and both cars drove towards Tropical Hutmaking a brief stop at the Bonanza where AgentManuel called up Col. Abad by telephone. Arriving at theTropical Hut, the party, together with Col. Abadwho had joined them waited for the man who according toMonina Medina was supposed to receive theboxes. As the man did not appear, Col. Abad "called off themission" and brought respondents and their car toCamp Aguinaldo arriving there at about 9:00 a.m. Aninspection of Sgt. Hope's car at Camp Aguinaldoyielded 11 sealed boxes, 4 on the rear seat and 7 more inthe baggage compartment which was opened on

orders of Col. Abad. On the same order of the intelligenceofficer, the boxes were opened before the presenceof Hope and Medina, representatives of the Bureau ofInternal Revenue, Bureau of Customs, P.C., COSACand photographers of the Department of National Defense.The contents of the bozes revealed some "4,441more or less wrist watches of assorted brands; 1,075 moreor less watch bracelets of assorted brands,"supposedly untaxed. As consequence, thereof, ASACChairman General Pelagio Cruz requested the Bureau ofCustoms to issue a Warrant of Seizure and Detentionagainst the articles including the Dodge car. The

Collector of Customs did issue the same on 12 February1974. It was admitted, however, that when theapprehending agents arrested respondents and broughtthem together with the seized articles to the ASACOffice in Camp Aguinaldo, the former were not armed with awarrant of arrest and seizure. In conjunctionwith the Warrant of Seizure and Detention issued by theCollector of Customs, seizure proceedings were

instituted and docketed as Seizure Identification 14281against the wrist watches and watch bracelets pursuantto Section 2530 (m) 1 of the Tariff and Customs Code,and Seizure Identification No. 14281-A against theDodge car pursuant to Section 2530(k) of the same Code.On the other hand, Hope and Medina disclaimedownership of the seized articles. Ownership was insteadclaimed by one Antonio del Rosario who intervenedin the proceedings. Hope claimed that at the time ofapprehension, he had no knowledge of the contents of theboxes, and granting that he had such knowledge, he neverknew that these are untaxed commodities; that heconsented to transport said boxes from Angeles City toManila in his car upon request of his girl friendMonina as a personal favor; that he was not present whenthe boxes were loaded in his car nor was he evertold of their contents on the way. On the part of Monina

Medina, she testified that what she did was only incompliance with the agreement with Mr. Del Rosario totransport the boxes and deliver them to a certain Mr.Peter at the Tropical Hut who will in turn give her thecontracted price; that Mr. Del Rosario did not reveal thecontents of the boxes which she came to know of only whenthe boxes were opened at Camp Aguinaldo. Asthere was not enough evidence to controvert the testimoniesof respondents and the narration of claimant

Antonio del Rosario, the Collector of Customs issued hisdecision in the seizure cases on 1 April 1975declaring that the seized articles including the car are notsubject of forfeiture. Meanwhile, on 14 March1974, after the requisite preliminary investigation, the CityFiscal of Quezon City, finding the existence of aprima facie case against Hope and Medina, filed CriminalCase Q-3781 in the Court of First Instance of Rizal(Quezon City). Upon arraignment on 23 April 1974,respondents pleaded not guilty. Trial commenced on 28January 1975 and while the prosecution through its firstwitness, Agent Macario Sabado, was adducing asevidence the pictures of the 11 boxes containing theassorted watches and watch bracelets, the defensecounsel objected to the presentation of the pictures and thesubject articles on the ground that they were seizedwithout the benefit of warrant, and therefore inadmissible inevidence under Section 4(2), Article IV of theNew Constitution. After the parties have argued theirgrounds in their respective memoranda, the trial courtissued the order of 20 August 1975 declaring that thealleged smuggled articles and the pictures taken of saiditems as inadmissible in evidence. The prosecution's motionfor reconsideration was denied on 30 September

1975. The prosecution filed a petition for certiorari which wastreated as a special civil action in the SupremeCourt's Resolution of 5 May 1976.Issue:Whether the search and seizure made on the boxes in theblue Dodge car was valid, even after theCollector of Customs declared the seized articles not subjectto forfeiture.Held:It is not accurate to say that the Collector of Customs madeno findings that the articles were smuggled.


3/6

In fact, what the Collector stated was that the prosecutionfailed to present the quantum of evidence sufficientto warrant the forfeiture of the subject articles. In a generalsense, this does not necessarily exclude thepossibility of smuggling. The decision of the Collector ofCustoms, as in other seizure proceedings, concernsthe res rather than the persona. The proceeding is a probeon contraband or illegally imported goods. The

importer or possessor is treated differently. The fact that theadministrative penalty befalls on him is aninconsequential incidence to criminal liability. By the sametoken, the probable guilt cannot be negatedsimply because he was not held administratively liable. TheCollector's final declaration that the articles arenot subject to forfeiture does not detract his findings thatuntaxed goods were transported in Hope andMedina's car and seized from their possession by agents ofthe law. Whether criminal liability lurks on thestrength of the provision of the Tariff and Customs Codeadduced in the information can only be determinedin a separate criminal action. Hope and Medina'sexoneration in the administrative cases cannot deprive theState of its right to prosecute. But under our penal laws,criminal responsibility, if any, must be proven not bypreponderance of evidence but by proof beyond reasonable

doubt. As enunciated in the leading case of Papavs. Mago, in the exercise of the specific functions, the Codedoes not mention the need of a search warrantunlike Section 2209 which explicitly provides that a "dwellinghouse may be entered and searched only uponwarrant issued by a judge (or justice of the peace), uponsworn application showing probable cause andparticularly describing the place to be searched and personor thing to be seized." Aware of this delineation,the Court in that case expressed the considered view that"except in the case of the search of a dwelling house,persons exercising police authority under the customs lawmay effect search and seizure without a searchwarrant in the enforcement of customs laws." The rationaleof the Mago ruling was nurtured by the traditionaldoctrine in Carroll v. United States 6 wherein an imprimaturagainst, constitutional infirmity was stamped infavor of a warrantless search and seizure of such nature asherein. On this stable foundation, the warrantlessseizure did not violate Article IV, Section 3 of the 1973Constitution, which finds origin in the Fourth

Amendment of the American Constitution.

People v. de Gracia, 233 SCRA 716 (July 6, 1994) F: Theincidents involved in this case took place at the height of the coup

d''etat staged in December, 1989. Accused-appellant Rolando de

Gracia was charged in two separate informations for illegalpossession of ammunition and explosives in furtherance of rebel-

lion, and for attempted homicide. Appellant was convicted for

illegal possession of firearms in furtherance of rebellion, but wasacquitted of attempted homicide. Surveillance was undertaken by

the military along EDSA because of intelligence reports about a

coup. Members of the team were engaged by rebels in gunfire

killing one member of the team. A searching team raided theEurocar Sales Office. They were able to find and confiscate six

cartons of M-16 ammunition, five bundles of C-4 dynamites, M-shells of different calibers, and "molotov" bombs inside one of the

rooms belonging to a certain Col. Matillano. De Gracia was seen

inside the office of Col. Matillano, holding a C-4 and suspiciouslypeeping through a door. The team arrested appellant. They were

then made to sign an inventory, written in Tagalog, of the explo-

sives and ammunition confiscated by the raiding team. No search

warrant was secured by the raiding team. Accused was found

guilty of illegal possession of firearms. That judgment of

conviction is now challenged before us in this appeal. Issue:

Whether or not there was a valid search and seizure in this case.

Ruling: YES It is admitted that the military operatives who raidedthe Eurocar Sales Office were not armed with a search warrant at

that time. The raid was actually precipitated by intelligence reports

that said office was being used as headquarters by the RAM. Priorto the raid, there was a surveillance conducted on the premises

wherein the surveillance team was fired at by a group of men

coming from the Eurocar building.

When the military operatives raided the place, the occupantsthereof refused to open the door despite requests for them to do so,

thereby compelling the former to break into the office. The

Eurocar Sales Office is obviously not a gun store and it is

definitely not an armory or arsenal which are the usual depositories

for explosives and ammunition. It is primarily and solely engagedin the sale of automobiles. The presence of an unusual quantity of

high-powered firearms and explosives could not be justifiably or

even colorably explained. In addition, there was general chaos anddisorder at that time because of simultaneous and intense firing

within the vicinity of the office and in the nearby Camp Aguinaldo

which was under attack by rebel forces. The courts in thesurrounding areas were obviously closed and, for that matter, the

building and houses therein were deserted. Under the foregoing

circumstances, it is our considered opinion that the instant casefalls under one of the exceptions to the prohibition against a

warrantless search. In the first place, the military operatives, taking

into account the facts obtaining in this case, had reasonable groundto believe that a crime was being committed. There was

consequently more than sufficient probable cause to warrant theiraction. Furthermore, under the situation then prevailing, the raiding

team had no opportunity to apply for and secure a search warrant

from the courts. Under such urgency and exigency of the moment,a search warrant could lawfully be dispensed with. There are

Source:http://www.shvoong.com/law-and-politics/1767284-case-digest-people-gracia-233/#ixzz2gc75rnjE

People vs. de Gracia [GR 102009-10, 6 July 1994]Second Division, Regalado (J): 5 concurFacts:The incidents took place at the height of the coup d'etatstaged in December, 1989 by ultra-rightistelements headed by the Reform the Armed ForcesMovement-Soldiers of the Filipino People (RAM-SFP)against the Government. At that time, various governmentestablishments and military camps in Metro Manilawere being bombarded by the rightist group with their "tora-tora" planes. At around midnight of 30 November1989, the 4th Marine Battalion of the Philippine Marinesoccupied Villamor Air Base, while the ScoutRangers took over the Headquarters of the Philippine Army,the Army Operations Center, and Channel 4, thegovernment television station. Also, some elements of thePhilippine Army coming from Fort Magsaysayoccupied the Greenhills Shopping Center in San Juan, MetroManila. On 1 December 1989, Maj. Efren Soriaof the Intelligence Division, National Capital Region DefenseCommand, was on board a brown Toyota carconducting a surveillance of the Eurocar Sales Office located

at Epifanio de los Santos Avenue (EDSA) inQuezon City, together with his team composed of Sgt.Crispin Sagario, M/Sgt. Ramon Briones, S/Sgt. Henry

Aquino, one S/Sgt. Simon and a Sgt. Ramos. Thesurveillance, which actually started on the night of 30November 1989 at around 10:00 p.m., was conductedpursuant to an intelligence report received by thedivision that said establishment was being occupied byelements of the RAM-SFP as a communicationcommand post. Sgt. Crispin Sagario, the driver of the car,parked the vehicle around 10 to 15 meters away
http://www.shvoong.com/law-and-politics/1767284-case-digest-people-gracia-233/#ixzz2gc75rnjEhttp://www.shvoong.com/law-and-politics/1767284-case-digest-people-gracia-233/#ixzz2gc75rnjEhttp://www.shvoong.com/law-and-politics/1767284-case-digest-people-gracia-233/#ixzz2gc75rnjEhttp://www.shvoong.com/law-and-politics/1767284-case-digest-people-gracia-233/#ixzz2gc75rnjEhttp://www.shvoong.com/law-and-politics/1767284-case-digest-people-gracia-233/#ixzz2gc75rnjEhttp://www.shvoong.com/law-and-politics/1767284-case-digest-people-gracia-233/#ixzz2gc75rnjE


4/6

from the Eurocar building near P. Tuazon Street, S/Sgt.Henry Aquino had earlier alighted from the car toconduct his surveillance on foot. A crowd was then gatherednear the Eurocar office watching the on-goingbombardment near Camp Aguinaldo. After a while a group of5 men disengaged themselves from the crowdand walked towards the car of the surveillance team. At thatmoment, Maj. Soria, who was then seated in

front, saw the approaching group and immediately orderedSgt. Sagario to start the car and leave the area. Asthey passed by the group, then only 6 meters away, thelatter pointed to them, drew their guns and fired at theteam, which attack resulted in the wounding of Sgt. Sagarioon the right thigh. Nobody in the surveillanceteam was able to retaliate because they sought cover insidethe car and they were afraid that civilians orbystanders might be caught in the cross-fire. As aconsequence, at around 6:30 a.m. of 5 December 1989,searching them composed of F/Lt. Virgilio Babao as teamleader, M/Sgt. Lacdao, Sgt. Magallion, Sgt. PatricioPacatang, and elements of the 16th Infantry Battalion underone Col. delos Santos raided the Eurocar SalesOffice. They were able to find and confiscate 6 cartons of M-16 ammunition, five bundles of C-4 dynamites,M-shells of different calibers, and "molotov" bombs inside

one of the rooms belonging to a certain Col.Matillano which is located at the right portion of the building.St. Oscar Obenia, the first one to enter theEurocar building, saw Rolando De Gracia inside the office ofCol. Matillano, holding a C-4 and suspiciouslypeeping through a door. De Gracia was the only person thenpresent inside the room. A uniform with thenametag of Col. Matillano was also found. As a result of theraid, the team arrested de Gracia, as well asSoprieso Verbo and Roberto Jimena who were janitors atthe Eurocar building. They were then made to signan inventory, written in Tagalog, of the explosives andammunition confiscated by the raiding team. No searchwarrant was secured by the raiding team because, accordingto them, at that time there was so much disorderconsidering that the nearby Camp Aguinaldo was beingmopped up by the rebel forces and there wassimultaneous firing within the vicinity of the Eurocar office,aside from the fact that the courts wereconsequently closed. The group was able to confirm laterthat the owner of Eurocar office is a certain Mr.Gutierrez and that de Gracia is supposedly a "boy" therein.de Gracia was charged in two separateinformations for illegal possession of ammunition andexplosives in furtherance of rebellion, and forattempted homicide (Criminal Cases Q-90-11755 and Q-90-11756, respectively), which were tried jointly bythe Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 103. Duringthe arraignment, de Gracia pleaded not guiltyto both charges. However, he admitted that he is notauthorized to posses any firearms, ammunition and/orexplosive. The parties likewise stipulated that there was arebellion during the period from November 30 up to

9 December 1989. On 22 February 1991, the trial courtrendered judgment acquitting de Gracia of attemptedhomicide, but found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt ofthe offense of illegal possession of firearms infurtherance of rebellion and sentenced him to serve thepenalty of reclusion perpetua. De Gracia appealed.Issue:Whether the military operatives made a valid search andseizure during the height of the December1989 coup detat.Held:

It is admitted that the military operatives who raided theEurocar Sales Office were not armed with asearch warrant at that time. The raid was actuallyprecipitated by intelligence reports that said office wasbeing used as headquarters by the RAM. Prior to the raid,there was a surveillance conducted on the premiseswherein the surveillance team was fired at by a group of mencoming from the Eurocar building. When the

military operatives raided the place, the occupants thereofrefused to open the door despite the requests forthem to do so, thereby compelling the former to break intothe office. The Eurocar Sales Office is obviouslynot a gun store and it is definitely not an armory or arsenalwhich are the usual depositories for explosives andammunition. It is primarily and solely engaged in the sale ofautomobiles. The presence of an unusualquantity of high-powered firearms and explosives could notbe justifiably or even colorably explained. Inaddition, there was general chaos and disorder at that timebecause of simultaneous and intense firing withinthe vicinity of the office and in the nearby Camp Aguinaldowhich was under attack by rebel forces. Thecourts in the surrounding areas were obviously closed and,for that matter, the building and houses thereinwere deserted. Under the foregoing circumstances, the case

falls under one of the exceptions to theprohibition against a warrantless search. In the first place,the military operatives, taking into account the factsobtaining in this case, had reasonable ground to believe thata crime was being committed. There wasconsequently more than sufficient probable cause to warranttheir action. Furthermore, under the situationthen prevailing, the raiding team had no opportunity to applyfor and secure a search warrant from the courts.The trial judge himself manifested that on 5 December 1989when the raid was conducted, his court wasclosed. Under such urgency and exigency of the moment, asearch warrant could lawfully be dispensed with.

People vs. Damaso, GR No. 93516, digested

Posted byPius MoradosonNovember 11, 2011

(Constitutional LawSearch and Seizure)

Facts: Accsused-appellant charged in an information of violation

of PD 1866 in connection with the crime of subversion assailed thelegality of a search and seizure conducted at his house at night time

when he was not around, on the ground that it violated

constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

Issue: Whether or not a search on a house of a person without the

owners presence is valid.

Held: No. The search in the dwelling of the accused-appellantwithout his knowledge is a violation of the constitutionalimmunity from unreasonable searches and seizures.

People vs. Damaso [GR 93516, 12 August 1992]First Division, Medialdea (J): 3 concurFacts:On 18 June 1988, Lt. Candido Quijardo, a PhilippineConstabulary officer connected with the 152ndPC Company at Lingayen, Pangasinan, and somecompanions were sent to verify the presence of CPP/NPA
http://piusmorados.wordpress.com/author/piusmorados/http://piusmorados.wordpress.com/author/piusmorados/http://piusmorados.wordpress.com/author/piusmorados/http://piusmorados.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/people-vs-damaso-gr-no-93516-digested/http://piusmorados.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/people-vs-damaso-gr-no-93516-digested/http://piusmorados.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/people-vs-damaso-gr-no-93516-digested/http://piusmorados.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/people-vs-damaso-gr-no-93516-digested/http://piusmorados.wordpress.com/author/piusmorados/


5/6

members in Barangay Catacdang, Arellano-Bani, DagupanCity. In said place, the group apprehendedGregorio Flameniano, Berlina Aritumba, Revelina Gamboaand Deogracias Mayaoa. When interrogated, thepersons apprehended revealed that there was anunderground safehouse at Gracia Village in Urdaneta,Pangasinan. After coordinating with the Station Commanderof Urdaneta, the group proceeded to the house in

Gracia Village. They found subversive documents, a radio, a1 x 7 caliber .45 firearm and other items. Afterthe raid, the group proceeded to Bonuan, Dagupan City, andput under surveillance the rented apartment ofRosemarie Aritumba, sister of Berlina Aritumba whom theyearlier arrested. They interviewed LuzvimindaMorados, a visitor of Rosemarie Aritumba. She stated thatshe worked with Bernie Mendoza/Basilio Damaso.She guided the group to the house rented byDamaso(@Mendoza). When they reached the house, thegroupfound that it had already vacated by the occupants. SinceMorados was hesitant to give the new address ofDamaso (@Mendoza), the group looked for the BarangayCaptain of the place and requested him to point outthe new house rented by Damaso (@Mendoza). The groupagain required Morados to go with them. When

they reached the house, the group saw Luz Tanciangcooutside. They told her that they already knew that shewas a member of the NPA in the area. At first, she denied it,but when she saw Morados she requested thegroup to go inside the house. Upon entering the house, thegroup, as well as the Barangay Captain, saw radiosets, pamphlets entitled "Ang Bayan," xerox copiers and acomputer machine. They also found persons whowere companions of Luz Tanciangco (namely, TeresitaCalosa, Ricardo Calosa, Marites Calosa, EricTanciangco and Luzviminda Morados). The group requestedthe persons in the house to allow them to lookaround. When Luz Tanciangco opened one of the rooms,they saw books used for subversive orientation, oneM-14 rifle, bullets and ammunitions, Kenwood radio, artificialbeard, maps of the Philippines, Zambales,Mindoro and Laguna and other items. They confiscated thearticles and brought them to their headquarters forfinal inventory. They likewise brought the persons found inthe house to the headquarters for investigation.Said persons revealed that Damaso (@Mendoza) was thelessee of the house and owned the items confiscatedtherefrom. Thus, Basilio Damaso, was originally charged inan information filed before the Regional TrialCourt of Dagupan City with violation of Presidential Decree1866 in furtherance of, or incident to, or inconnection with the crime of subversion, together withLuzviminda Morados y Galang @ Ka Mel, TeresitaCalosa y Macabangon @ Ka Tessie, Ricardo Calosa yPerez @ Ka Ric, Marites Calosa y Evangelista @ KaTess, Eric Tanciangco y Capira @ Ka Ric and LuzTanciangco y Pencial @ Ka Luz. Such information waslater amended to exclude all other persons except Damaso

from the criminal charge. Upon arraignment,Damaso pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Trial on themerits ensued. The prosecution rested its caseand offered its exhibits for admission. The defense counselinterposed his objections to the admissibility ofthe prosecution's evidence on grounds of its being hearsay,immaterial or irrelevant and illegal for lack of asearch warrant; and thereafter, manifested that he was notpresenting any evidence for the accused. On 17January 1990, the trial court rendered its decision, findingDamaso guilty beyond reasonable doubt,

sentencing the latter to suffer the penalty of ReclusionPerpetua and to pay the costs of the proceedings.Damaso appealed.Issue:Whether there was waiver on the part of Damaso to allowthe warrantless search of his house.Held:Damaso was singled out as the sole violator of PD 1866, in

furtherance of, or incident to, or inconnection with the crime of subversion. There is nosubstantial and credible evidence to establish the factthat the appellant is allegedly the same person as the lesseeof the house where the M-14 rifle and othersubversive items were found or the owner of the said items.Even assuming for the sake of argument thatDamaso is the lessee of the house, the case against him stillwill not prosper, the reason being that the lawenforcers failed to comply with the requirements of a validsearch and seizure proceedings. The constitutionalimmunity from unreasonable searches and seizures, being apersonal one cannot he waived by anyone exceptthe person whose rights are invaded or one who is expresslyauthorized to do so in his or her . The recordsshow that Damaso was not in his house at that time LuzTanciangco and Luz Morados, his alleged helper,

allowed the authorities to enter it. There is no evidence thatwould establish the fact that Luz Morados wasindeed Damaso's helper or if it was true that she was hishelper, that Damaso had given her authority to openhis house in his absence. The prosecution likewise failed toshow if Luz Tanciangco has such an authority.Without this evidence, the authorities' intrusion intoDamaso's dwelling cannot be given any color of legality.While the power to search and seize is necessary to thepublic welfare, still it must be exercised and the lawenforced without transgressing the constitutional rights of thecitizens, for the enforcement of no statute is ofsufficient importance to justify indifference to the basicprinciples of government. As a consequence, thesearch conducted by the authorities was illegal. It wouldhave been different if the situation here demandedurgency which could have prompted the authorities todispense with a search warrant. But the record is silenton this point. The fact that they came to Damaso's house atnighttime, does not grant them the license to goinside his house.

Malacat vs. Court of Appeals [GR 123595, 12 December1997]En Banc, Davide Jr. (J): 11 concurFacts:On 27 August 1990, at about 6:30 p.m., allegedly inresponse to bomb threats reported seven daysearlier, Rodolfo Yu of the Western Police District,Metropolitan Police Force of the Integrated NationalPolice, Police Station No. 3, Quiapo, Manila, was on footpatrol with three other police officers (all of them in

uniform) along Quezon Boulevard, Quiapo, Manila, near theMercury Drug store at Plaza Miranda. Theychanced upon two groups of Muslim-looking men, with eachgroup, comprised of three to four men, posted atopposite sides of the corner of Quezon Boulevard near theMercury Drug Store. These men were actingsuspiciously with "their eyes moving very fast." Yu and hiscompanions positioned themselves at strategicpoints and observed both groups for about 30 minutes. Thepolice officers then approached one group of men,who then fled in different directions. As the policemen gavechase, Yu caught up with and apprehended


6/6

Sammy Malacat y Mandar (who Yu recognized, inasmuch asallegedly the previous Saturday, 25 August1990, likewise at Plaza Miranda, Yu saw Malacat and 2others attempt to detonate a grenade). Upon searchingMalacat, Yu found a fragmentation grenade tucked insidethe latter's "front waist line." Yu's companion, policeofficer Rogelio Malibiran, apprehended Abdul Casan fromwhom a .38 caliber revolver was recovered.

Malacat and Casan were then brought to Police Station 3where Yu placed an "X" mark at the bottom of thegrenade and thereafter gave it to his commander. Yu did notissue any receipt for the grenade he allegedlyrecovered from Malacat. On 30 August 1990, Malacat wascharged with violating Section 3 of PresidentialDecree 1866. At arraignment on 9 October 1990, petitioner,assisted by counsel de officio, entered a plea ofnot guilty. Malacat denied the charges and explained that heonly recently arrived in Manila. However, severalother police officers mauled him, hitting him with benchesand guns. Petitioner was once again searched, butnothing was found on him. He saw the grenade only in courtwhen it was presented. In its decision dated 10February 1994 but promulgated on 15 February 1994, thetrial court ruled that the warrantless search andseizure of Malacat was akin to a "stop and frisk," where a

"warrant and seizure can be effected withoutnecessarily being preceded by an arrest" and "whose objectis either to maintain the status quo momentarilywhile the police officer seeks to obtain more information";and that the seizure of the grenade from Malacatwas incidental to a lawful arrest. The trial court thus foundMalacat guilty of the crime of illegal possessionof explosives under Section 3 of PD 1866, and sentencedhim to suffer the penalty of not less than 17 years, 4months and 1 day of Reclusion Temporal, as minimum, andnot more than 30 years of Reclusion Perpetua, asmaximum. On 18 February 1994, Malacat filed a notice ofappeal indicating that he was appealing to theSupreme Court. However, the record of the case wasforwarded to the Court of Appeals (CA-GR CR 15988).In its decision of 24 January 1996, the Court of Appealsaffirmed the trial court. Manalili filed a petition forreview with the Supreme Court.Issue:Whether the search made on Malacat is valid, pursuant tothe exception of stop and frisk.Held:The general rule as regards arrests, searches and seizuresis that a warrant is needed in order to validlyeffect the same. The Constitutional prohibition againstunreasonable arrests, searches and seizures refers tothose effected without a validly issued warrant, subject tocertain exceptions. As regards valid warrantlessarrests, these are found in Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rulesof Court. A warrantless arrest under thecircumstances contemplated under Section 5(a) has beendenominated as one "in flagrante delicto," while thatunder Section 5(b) has been described as a "hot pursuit"

arrest. Turning to valid warrantless searches, they arelimited to the following: (1) customs searches; (2) search ofmoving vehicles; (3) seizure of evidence in plainview; (4) consent searches; (5) a search incidental to alawful arrest; and (6) a "stop and frisk." The conceptsof a "stop-and-frisk" and of a search incidental to a lawfularrest must not be confused. These two types ofwarrantless searches differ in terms of the requisite quantumof proof before they may be validly effected andin their allowable scope. In a search incidental to a lawfularrest, as the precedent arrest determines the

validity of the incidental search. Here, there could have beenno valid in flagrante delicto or hot pursuit arrestpreceding the search in light of the lack of personalknowledge on the part of Yu, the arresting officer, or anovert physical act, on the part of Malacat, indicating that acrime had just been committed, was beingcommitted or was going to be committed. Plainly, the searchconducted on Malacat could not have been one

incidental to a lawful arrest. On the other hand, whileprobable cause is not required to conduct a "stop andfrisk," it nevertheless holds that mere suspicion or a hunchwill not validate a "stop and frisk." A genuinereason must exist, in light of the police officer's experienceand surrounding conditions, to warrant the beliefthat the person detained has weapons concealed about him.Finally, a "stop-and-frisk" serves a two-foldinterest: (1) the general interest of effective crime preventionand detection, which underlies the recognitionthat a police officer may, under appropriate circumstancesand in an appropriate manner, approach a personfor purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior evenwithout probable cause; and (2) the morepressing interest of safety and self-preservation which permitthe police officer to take steps to assure himselfthat the person with whom he deals is not armed with a

deadly weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally beused against the police officer. Here, there are at least three(3) reasons why the "stop-and-frisk" was invalid:First, there is grave doubts as to Yu's claim that Malacat wasa member of the group which attempted to bombPlaza Miranda 2 days earlier. This claim is neither supportedby any police report or record nor corroboratedby any other police officer who allegedly chased that group.Second, there was nothing in Malacat's behavioror conduct which could have reasonably elicited even meresuspicion other than that his eyes were "movingvery fast" an observation which leaves us increduloussince Yu and his teammates were nowhere nearMalacat and it was already 6:30 p.m., thus presumably dusk.Malacat and his companions were merelystanding at the corner and were not creating any commotionor trouble. Third, there was at all no ground,probable or otherwise, to believe that Malacat was armedwith a deadly weapon. None was visible to Yu, foras he admitted, the alleged grenade was "discovered""inside the front waistline" of Malacat, and from allindications as to the distance between Yu and Malacat, anytelltale bulge, assuming that Malacat was indeedhiding a grenade, could not have been visible to Yu. What isunequivocal then are blatant violations ofMalacat's rights solemnly guaranteed in Sections 2 and12(1) of Article III of the Constitution.

Magno Case

Documents

Transcript of Magno Case