Lawyerly

GR No. 200334

2014-07-30

PEOPLE v. VICTOR COGAED Y ROMANA

LEONEN, J.

Exigent and emergency circumstances.[62] (Citations omitted)

GR No. 200334

2014-07-30

PEOPLE v. VICTOR COGAED Y ROMANA

LEONEN, J.

For warrantless searches, probable cause was defined as "a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged."[88]

GR No. 200334

2014-07-30

PEOPLE v. VICTOR COGAED Y ROMANA

LEONEN, J.

The circumstances of this case are analogous to People v. Aruta.[102] In that case, an informant told the police that a certain "Aling Rosa" would be bringing in drugs from Baguio City by bus.[103] At the bus terminal, the police officers prepared themselves.[104] The informant pointed at a woman crossing the street[105] and identified her as "Aling Rosa."[106] The police apprehended "Aling Rosa," and they alleged that she allowed them to look inside her bag.[107] The bag contained marijuana leaves.[108]

GR No. 186529

2010-08-03

PEOPLE v. JACK RACHO Y RAQUERO

NACHURA, J.

Recent jurisprudence holds that in searches incident to a lawful arrest, the arrest must precede the search; generally, the process cannot be reversed. Nevertheless, a search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the arrest if the police have probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of the search.[21] Thus, given the factual milieu of the case, we have to determine whether the police officers had probable cause to arrest appellant. Although probable cause eludes exact and concrete definition, it ordinarily signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged.[22]

GR No. 143591

2010-05-05

TEODORO C. BORLONGAN v. MAGDALENO M. PEÑA

PEREZ, J.

Probable cause is such set of facts and circumstances as would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that the offense charged in the Information or any offense included therein has been committed by the person sought to be arrested. In determining probable cause, the average man weighs the facts and circumstances without restoring to the calibrations of the rules of evidence of which he has no technical knowledge. He relies on common sense. A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed and that it was committed by the accused. Probable cause demands more than suspicion; it requires less than evidence that would justify conviction.[51]

GR No. 182310

2009-12-09

PEOPLE v. JAN MICHAEL TAN

ABAD, J.

But what is probable cause? Probable cause assumes the existence of facts that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that a crime has been committed and that it was likely committed by the person sought to be arrested.[37] It requires neither absolute certainty nor clear and convincing evidence of guilt.[38] The test for issuing a warrant of arrest is less stringent than that used for establishing the guilt of the accused. As long as the evidence shows a prima facie case against the accused, the trial court has sufficient ground to issue a warrant for his arrest.

GR No. 185379

2009-11-27

PEOPLE v. VS.ZENAIDA QUEBRAL Y MATEO

ABAD, J.

As the lower court aptly put it in this case, the law enforcers already had an inkling of the personal circumstances of the persons they were looking for and the criminal act they were about to commit.That these circumstances played out in their presence supplied probable cause for the search.The police acted on reasonable ground of suspicion or belief supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed.[7]Since the seized shabu resulted from a valid search, it is admissible in evidence against the accused.

GR No. 152889

2009-06-05

ENRIQUE V. VIUDEZ II v. CA

PERALTA, J.

As enunciated in Baltazar v. People,[29] the task of the presiding judge when the Information is filed with the court is first and foremost to determine the existence or non-existence of probable cause for the arrest of the accused. Probable cause is such set of facts and circumstances as would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that the offense charged in the Information or any offense included therein has been committed by the person sought to be arrested. In determining probable cause, the average man weighs the facts and circumstances without resorting to the calibrations of the rules of evidence of which he has no technical knowledge. He relies on common sense. A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed and that it was committed by the accused. Probable cause demands more than suspicion; it requires less than evidence that would justify conviction. [30]

GR No. 180906

2008-10-07

SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE v. RAYMOND MANALO

PUNO, CJ.

Second, the right to security of person is a guarantee of bodily and psychological integrity or security. Article III, Section II of the 1987 Constitution guarantees that, as a general rule, one's body cannot be searched or invaded without a search warrant.[128] Physical injuries inflicted in the context of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances constitute more than a search or invasion of the body. It may constitute dismemberment, physical disabilities, and painful physical intrusion. As the degree of physical injury increases, the danger to life itself escalates. Notably, in criminal law, physical injuries constitute a crime against persons because they are an affront to the bodily integrity or security of a person.[129]

GR No. 174016

2008-07-28

SEVERINO C. BALTAZAR v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The task of the presiding judge when the Information is filed with the court is first and foremost to determine the existence or non-existence of probable cause for the arrest of the accused. Probable cause is such set of facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that the offense charged in the Information or any offense included therein has been committed by the person sought to be arrested. In determining probable cause, the average man weighs the facts and circumstances without resorting to the calibrations of the rules of evidence of which he has no technical knowledge. He relies on common sense. A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed and that it was committed by the accused. Probable cause demands more than suspicion; it requires less than evidence which would justify conviction.[47]

GR NO. 163087

2006-02-20

SILAHIS INTERNATIONAL HOTEL v. ROGELIO S. SOLUTA

CARPIO MORALES, J.

THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN ITS CONCLUSION THAT PETITIONERS ARE LIABLE FOR DAMAGES UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CIVIL CODE IN THAT: THE COURT OF APPEALS' APPLICATION OF PEOPLE V. ARUTA (288 SCRA 626[1998]) AND SECTION 13, RULE 126 OF THE RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IN THE INSTANT CASE IS LEGALLY FLAWED. PETITIONERS' SEARCH OF THE UNION OFFICE IN THE INSTANT CASE WAS ENTIRELY REASONABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.[16] While petitioners concede that the appellate court correctly cited the principles enunciated in People v. Aruta[17] and Section 13, Rule 126[18] of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, it gravely erred when it applied Aruta to justify petitioners' alleged liability under Article 32 of the New Civil Code. They argue that Aruta does not involve Article 32 as nowhere in the decision is there any reference to Article 32.[19]

GR No. 145176

2004-03-30

PEOPLE v. SANTIAGO PERALTA Y POLIDARIO

PANGANIBAN, J.

Where the arrest was incipiently illegal, it follows that the subsequent search was similarly illegal.[20] Any evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional provision is legally inadmissible in evidence under the exclusionary rule.[21] In the present case, the perforated P100 currency notes were obtained as a result of a search made without a warrant subsequent to an unlawful arrest; hence, they are inadmissible in evidence.

GR No. 144037

2003-09-26

PEOPLE v. NOEL TUDTUD Y PAYPA

TINGA, J.

... the accused-appellant was not, at the moment of his arrest, committing a crime nor was it shown that he was about to do so or that he had just done so. What he was doing was descending the gangplank of the M/V Wilcon 9 and there was no outward indication that he called for his arrest. To all appearances, he was like any of the other passengers innocently disembarking from the vessel. It was only when the informer pointed to him as the carrier of the marijuana that he suddenly became suspect and so subject to apprehension. It was the furtive finger that triggered his arrest. The identification by the informer was the probable cause as determined by the officers (and not a judge) that authorized them to pounce upon Aminnudin and immediately arrest him.[78] Thus, notwithstanding tips from confidential informants and regardless of the fact that the search yielded contraband, the mere act of looking from side to side while holding one's abdomen,[79] or of standing on a corner with one's eyes moving very fast, looking at every person who came near,[80] does not justify a warrantless arrest under said Section 5 (a). Neither does putting something in one's pocket,[81] handing over one's baggage,[82] riding a motorcycle,[83] nor does holding a bag on board a trisikad[84]sanction State intrusion. The same rule applies to crossing the street per se.[85]

GR No. 132165

2003-03-26

PEOPLE v. MELLY SARAP Y ARCANGELES

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

A search may be conducted by law enforcers only on the strength of a warrant validly issued by a judge as provided in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.[14] Articles which are the product of unreasonable searches and seizures are inadmissible as evidence, pursuant to Article III, Section 3 (2) of the Constitution.[15] Warrantless searches and seizures may be made without a warrant in the following instances: (1) search incident to a lawful arrest, (2) search of a moving motor vehicle, (3) search in violation of custom laws, (4) seizure of the evidence in plain view, (5) when the accused himself waives his right against unreasonable searches and seizures,[16] (6) stop and frisk[17] and (7) exigent and emergency circumstances.[18] These instances, however do not dispense with the requisite of probable cause before a warrantless search and seizure can be lawfully conducted. In warrantless search cases, probable cause must only be based on reasonable ground of suspicion or belief that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed.[19]

	GR No. 200334 2014-07-30	PEOPLE v. VICTOR COGAED Y ROMANA LEONEN, J.
Exigent and emergency circumstances.[62] (Citations omitted)
	GR No. 200334 2014-07-30	PEOPLE v. VICTOR COGAED Y ROMANA LEONEN, J.
For warrantless searches, probable cause was defined as "a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged."[88]
	GR No. 200334 2014-07-30	PEOPLE v. VICTOR COGAED Y ROMANA LEONEN, J.
The circumstances of this case are analogous to People v. Aruta.[102] In that case, an informant told the police that a certain "Aling Rosa" would be bringing in drugs from Baguio City by bus.[103] At the bus terminal, the police officers prepared themselves.[104] The informant pointed at a woman crossing the street[105] and identified her as "Aling Rosa."[106] The police apprehended "Aling Rosa," and they alleged that she allowed them to look inside her bag.[107] The bag contained marijuana leaves.[108]
	GR No. 186529 2010-08-03	PEOPLE v. JACK RACHO Y RAQUERO NACHURA, J.
Recent jurisprudence holds that in searches incident to a lawful arrest, the arrest must precede the search; generally, the process cannot be reversed. Nevertheless, a search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the arrest if the police have probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of the search.[21] Thus, given the factual milieu of the case, we have to determine whether the police officers had probable cause to arrest appellant. Although probable cause eludes exact and concrete definition, it ordinarily signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged.[22]
	GR No. 143591 2010-05-05	TEODORO C. BORLONGAN v. MAGDALENO M. PEÑA PEREZ, J.
Probable cause is such set of facts and circumstances as would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that the offense charged in the Information or any offense included therein has been committed by the person sought to be arrested. In determining probable cause, the average man weighs the facts and circumstances without restoring to the calibrations of the rules of evidence of which he has no technical knowledge. He relies on common sense. A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed and that it was committed by the accused. Probable cause demands more than suspicion; it requires less than evidence that would justify conviction.[51]
	GR No. 182310 2009-12-09	PEOPLE v. JAN MICHAEL TAN ABAD, J.
But what is probable cause? Probable cause assumes the existence of facts that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that a crime has been committed and that it was likely committed by the person sought to be arrested.[37] It requires neither absolute certainty nor clear and convincing evidence of guilt.[38] The test for issuing a warrant of arrest is less stringent than that used for establishing the guilt of the accused. As long as the evidence shows a prima facie case against the accused, the trial court has sufficient ground to issue a warrant for his arrest.
	GR No. 185379 2009-11-27	PEOPLE v. VS.ZENAIDA QUEBRAL Y MATEO ABAD, J.
As the lower court aptly put it in this case, the law enforcers already had an inkling of the personal circumstances of the persons they were looking for and the criminal act they were about to commit.That these circumstances played out in their presence supplied probable cause for the search.The police acted on reasonable ground of suspicion or belief supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed.[7]Since the seized shabu resulted from a valid search, it is admissible in evidence against the accused.
	GR No. 152889 2009-06-05	ENRIQUE V. VIUDEZ II v. CA PERALTA, J.
As enunciated in Baltazar v. People,[29] the task of the presiding judge when the Information is filed with the court is first and foremost to determine the existence or non-existence of probable cause for the arrest of the accused. Probable cause is such set of facts and circumstances as would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that the offense charged in the Information or any offense included therein has been committed by the person sought to be arrested. In determining probable cause, the average man weighs the facts and circumstances without resorting to the calibrations of the rules of evidence of which he has no technical knowledge. He relies on common sense. A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed and that it was committed by the accused. Probable cause demands more than suspicion; it requires less than evidence that would justify conviction. [30]
	GR No. 180906 2008-10-07	SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE v. RAYMOND MANALO PUNO, CJ.
Second, the right to security of person is a guarantee of bodily and psychological integrity or security. Article III, Section II of the 1987 Constitution guarantees that, as a general rule, one's body cannot be searched or invaded without a search warrant.[128] Physical injuries inflicted in the context of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances constitute more than a search or invasion of the body. It may constitute dismemberment, physical disabilities, and painful physical intrusion. As the degree of physical injury increases, the danger to life itself escalates. Notably, in criminal law, physical injuries constitute a crime against persons because they are an affront to the bodily integrity or security of a person.[129]
	GR No. 174016 2008-07-28	SEVERINO C. BALTAZAR v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The task of the presiding judge when the Information is filed with the court is first and foremost to determine the existence or non-existence of probable cause for the arrest of the accused. Probable cause is such set of facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that the offense charged in the Information or any offense included therein has been committed by the person sought to be arrested. In determining probable cause, the average man weighs the facts and circumstances without resorting to the calibrations of the rules of evidence of which he has no technical knowledge. He relies on common sense. A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed and that it was committed by the accused. Probable cause demands more than suspicion; it requires less than evidence which would justify conviction.[47]
	GR NO. 163087 2006-02-20	SILAHIS INTERNATIONAL HOTEL v. ROGELIO S. SOLUTA CARPIO MORALES, J.
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN ITS CONCLUSION THAT PETITIONERS ARE LIABLE FOR DAMAGES UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CIVIL CODE IN THAT: THE COURT OF APPEALS' APPLICATION OF PEOPLE V. ARUTA (288 SCRA 626[1998]) AND SECTION 13, RULE 126 OF THE RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IN THE INSTANT CASE IS LEGALLY FLAWED. PETITIONERS' SEARCH OF THE UNION OFFICE IN THE INSTANT CASE WAS ENTIRELY REASONABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.[16] While petitioners concede that the appellate court correctly cited the principles enunciated in People v. Aruta[17] and Section 13, Rule 126[18] of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, it gravely erred when it applied Aruta to justify petitioners' alleged liability under Article 32 of the New Civil Code. They argue that Aruta does not involve Article 32 as nowhere in the decision is there any reference to Article 32.[19]
	GR No. 145176 2004-03-30	PEOPLE v. SANTIAGO PERALTA Y POLIDARIO PANGANIBAN, J.
Where the arrest was incipiently illegal, it follows that the subsequent search was similarly illegal.[20] Any evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional provision is legally inadmissible in evidence under the exclusionary rule.[21] In the present case, the perforated P100 currency notes were obtained as a result of a search made without a warrant subsequent to an unlawful arrest; hence, they are inadmissible in evidence.
	GR No. 144037 2003-09-26	PEOPLE v. NOEL TUDTUD Y PAYPA TINGA, J.
... the accused-appellant was not, at the moment of his arrest, committing a crime nor was it shown that he was about to do so or that he had just done so. What he was doing was descending the gangplank of the M/V Wilcon 9 and there was no outward indication that he called for his arrest. To all appearances, he was like any of the other passengers innocently disembarking from the vessel. It was only when the informer pointed to him as the carrier of the marijuana that he suddenly became suspect and so subject to apprehension. It was the furtive finger that triggered his arrest. The identification by the informer was the probable cause as determined by the officers (and not a judge) that authorized them to pounce upon Aminnudin and immediately arrest him.[78] Thus, notwithstanding tips from confidential informants and regardless of the fact that the search yielded contraband, the mere act of looking from side to side while holding one's abdomen,[79] or of standing on a corner with one's eyes moving very fast, looking at every person who came near,[80] does not justify a warrantless arrest under said Section 5 (a). Neither does putting something in one's pocket,[81] handing over one's baggage,[82] riding a motorcycle,[83] nor does holding a bag on board a trisikad[84]sanction State intrusion. The same rule applies to crossing the street per se.[85]
	GR No. 132165 2003-03-26	PEOPLE v. MELLY SARAP Y ARCANGELES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
A search may be conducted by law enforcers only on the strength of a warrant validly issued by a judge as provided in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.[14] Articles which are the product of unreasonable searches and seizures are inadmissible as evidence, pursuant to Article III, Section 3 (2) of the Constitution.[15] Warrantless searches and seizures may be made without a warrant in the following instances: (1) search incident to a lawful arrest, (2) search of a moving motor vehicle, (3) search in violation of custom laws, (4) seizure of the evidence in plain view, (5) when the accused himself waives his right against unreasonable searches and seizures,[16] (6) stop and frisk[17] and (7) exigent and emergency circumstances.[18] These instances, however do not dispense with the requisite of probable cause before a warrantless search and seizure can be lawfully conducted. In warrantless search cases, probable cause must only be based on reasonable ground of suspicion or belief that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed.[19]

PEOPLE v. ROSA ARUTA Y MENGUIN