8/12/2019 Const Case Digests

1/3

Posadas vs Court of Appeals

Facts: Two patrolmen were conducting surveillance along a street in Davao when theyspotted a suspiciously acting person carrying a "buri" bag, who happens to be the petitioner ofthis case. They approached the latter and identified themselves as members of the policeforce, thereafter, the petitioner, for whatever reason, attempted to escape but he wasprevented by the two patrolmen. Upon inspection of his suspicious-looking "buri" bag, alas,deadly weapons were found, which includes guns and a freaking grenade. Evil petitioner wassent to the police station and he cannot present any license for such firearms andammunitions found in his possession. ence, he was sentenced guilty for illegal firearms andammunition. !ow, he was probably enraged of this and he wants the # to declare thewarrantless search invalid.

Issue: Whether or not the warrantless search is valid.

Held: The # says, in your dreams petitioner $osadas. The warrantless search is validbecause there was probable cause. The probable cause was present when the petitioneracted suspiciously and attempted to flee with the buri bag. This is a circumstance which leadsa discreet, reasonable, and prudent man to believe that there is something fishy going on andthat petitioner was concealing something illegal in the bag. %f the patrolmen sought for awarrant at that instance it would be useless and much too late.

&hile this was the #'s argumentation for declaring such warrantless search as valid, theolicitor (eneral's flimsy argument was that, there is valid warrantless search in accordancewith ec. )*, +ule ) of the +ules of #ourt, which says that a person lawfully arrested maybe searched for dangerous weapons or anything as proof of a commission of an offensewithout a search warrant and since the petitioner was actually committing or had /ustcommitted the offense of illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions in the presence ofthe patrolmen, the search and sei0ure of the contraband was incidental to the lawful arrest.

The # scoffed at this because the patrolmen /ust suspected that he was hiding something inthe buri bag and they did not know what its contents were. The said circumstances did not/ustify an arrest without a warrant.

$eople vs 1engote2acts3o this is a case of another suspicious looking person, only this time there were three ofthem. %t all started with a bi0arre phone call from an informer, whoever that was, that therewere three suspicious-looking persons at a corner of a street in the infamous Tondo, 4cting onthis rather bi0arre phone call, a surveillance team dressed like civilians were dispatched toinvestigate the matter. %n so doing, the patrolmen spotted the accused, 1engote, along withtwo others 5looking from side to side6 and with one of them holding his abdomen. Thepatrolmen introduced themselves as policemen, whereupon the two tried to run away but

were unable to escape because they were surrounded. 4 warrantless search ensued, andillegal firearms were recovered from them.

+ule )), ection 7, of the +ules of #ourt became essential in this case because it was thebasis of the olicitor (eneral8s argument that there was a valid warrantless arrest and awarrantless search and sei0ure. ure provision says3

ec. 7. 4rrest without warrant when lawful.94 peace officer or private person may,without a warrant, arrest a person3

:a; &hen, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, isactually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense

:b; &hen an offense has in fact /ust been committed, and he has personalknowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested hascommitted it and

:c; &hen the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from apenal establishment or place where he is serving final /udgment or

8/12/2019 Const Case Digests

2/3

temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped whilebeing transferred from one confinement to another.

%ssue3 &hether or not the arrest without warrant and the search and sei0ure without warrantare valid.

eld3%nvalid.

an offense had been committed and that the accuse had committed it.6

The response of the #ourt is rather short and simple, 5&hat offense>6 &hat offense couldpossibly have been suggested by a person 5looking from side to side6 and holding hisabdomen6 and in a place not e=actly forsaken.

D%T%!#T%

The #ourt said that the case at bar is different because there was nothing to

support the arresting officer8s suspicion other than 1engote8s darting eyesand his hand on his abdomen. %n the 1almstedt case, the police officer8ssuspicion was supported by the defendant8s failure to present hisidentification papers when ordered to do so. This suspicion was supported bythe regular norm that an innocent man, who has nothing to hide from theauthorities, to readily present his identification papers when re?uired to do so.

%1%@4+%TA &%T $eople vs 4minnudinThe 4minnudin case is a case where a person who looks as innocent as anyother disembarking passengers, came down from a vessel and waseventually sub/ected to a warrantless arrest. uch person was not evenacting suspiciously, which means that there was no probable cause.

4ll they had was hearsay information from the telephone caller, and about a crime that hadyet to be committed. The truth is that they did not know then what offense, if at all, had beencommitted and neither were they aware of the participation therein of the accused. %t was onlylater that they learned of the robbery committed by the accused.

4s to the illegal possession of firearm, the police officers found out about this only after hehad been searched hence, it cannot be said that such officers had personal knowledge of an

offense which has /ust been committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense. Theoffense must also be committed in his presence or within his view.

8/12/2019 Const Case Digests

3/3

&hy is the court being so rigid about the re?uirements for a warrantless search>

Because, it would be a sad day, if any person could be summarily arrested and searched /ust

because he is holding his abdomen. This is not a police state where order is e=alted overliberty or, worse, personal malice on the part of the arresting officer may be /ustified in thename of security.