4/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 188
288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Posadas vs. Court of Appeals
*
G.R. No. 89139. August 2, 1990.
ROMEO POSADAS y ZAMORA, petitioner, vs. THE
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
Criminal Procedure; Arrest; Search and Seizure; Instances
when an arrest without a warrant may be effected.—From the
foregoing provision of law it is clear that an arrest without a
warrant may be effected by a peace officer or private person,
among others, when in his presence the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an
offense; of when an offense has in fact just been committed, and
he has personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the person
arrested has committed it.
Same; Same; Same; Constitutional Law; The "stop and
search" without a search warrant at military or police checkpoints
is constitutional.—However, there are many instances where a
warrant and seizure can be effected without necessarily being
preceded by an arrest, foremost of which is the "stop and search"
without a search
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
289
VOL. 188, AUGUST 2, 1990 289
Posadas vs. Court of Appeals
warrant at military or police checkpoints, the constitutionality or
validity of which has been upheld by this Court in Valmonte vs. de
Villa.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017895acf68d8fd28e66003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/8
4/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 188
Same; Same; Same; Same; Probable cause present in the case
at bar.—Thus, as between a warrantless search and seizure
conducted at military or police checkpoints and the search thereat
in the case at bar, there is no question that, indeed, the latter is
more reasonable considering that unlike in the former, it was
effected on the basis of a probable cause. 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,
PETITION to review the decision of the Court of Appeals,
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Rudy G. Agravante for petitioner.
GANCAYCO, J.:
The validity of a warrantless search on the person of
petitioner is put into issue in this case.
On October 16, 1986 at about 10:00 o'clock in the
morning Pat. Ursicio Ungab and Pat. Umbra Umpar, both
members of the Integrated National Police (INP) of the
Davao Metrodiscom assigned with the Intelligence Task
Force, were conducting a surveillance along Magallanes
Street, Davao City. While they were within the premises of
the Rizal Memorial Colleges they spotted petitioner
carrying a "buri" bag and they noticed him to be acting
suspiciously.
They approached the petitioner and identified
themselves as members of the INP. Petitioner attempted to
flee but his attempt to get away was thwarted by the two
notwithstanding his resistance.
They then checked the "buri" bag of the petitioner where
they found one (1) caliber1
.38 Smith & Wesson revolver
with Serial No. 770196 two (2) rounds of live ammunition
for a .38 caliber
_______________
1 Exhibit B.
290
290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Posadas vs. Court of Appeals
2 3
gun, a smoke (tear gas) grenade,4 and two (2) live
ammunitions for a .22 caliber gun. They brought the
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017895acf68d8fd28e66003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/8
4/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 188
petitioner to the police station for further investigation. In
the course of the same, the petitioner was asked to show
the necessary license or authority to possess firearms and
ammunitions found in his possession but he failed to do so.
He was then taken to the Davao Metrodiscom office and the
prohibited articles recovered from him were indorsed to
M/Sgt. Didoy, the officer then on duty. He was prosecuted
for illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions in the
Regional Trial Court of Davao City wherein after a plea of
not guilty and trial on the merits a decision was rendered
on October 8, 1987 finding petitioner guilty of the offense
charged as follows:
"WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, this Court 'finds the
accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged. It
appearing that the accused was below eighteen (18) years old at
the time of the commission of the offense (Art. 68, par. 2), he is
hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from TEN
(10) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor to TWELVE (12)
Years, FIVE (5) months and Eleven (11) days of Reclusion
Temporal, and to pay the costs.
The firearm, ammunitions and smoke grenade are forfeited in
favor of the government and the Branch Clerk of Court is hereby
directed to turn
5
over said items to the Chief, Davao Metrodiscom,
Davao City."
Not satisfied therewith the petitioner interposed an appeal
to the Court of Appeals wherein in due course a decision
was rendered on February 23, 1989 affirming in 6toto the
appealed decision with costs against the petitioner.
Hence, the herein petition for review, the main thrust of
which is that there being no lawful arrest or search and
seizure,
_______________
2 Exhibits B1 and B2.
3 Exhibit C,
4 Exhibits D and D-1
5 Page 40, Rollo.
6 Justice Bienvenido Ejercito, ponente, concurred in by Justices Felipe
B. Kalalo and Luis L. Victor.
291
VOL. 188, AUGUST 2, 1990 291
Posadas vs. Court of Appeals
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017895acf68d8fd28e66003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/8
4/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 188
the items which were confiscated from the possession of the
petitioner are inadmissible in evidence against him.
The Solicitor General, in justifying the warrantless
search of the buri bag then carried by the petitioner, argues
that under Section 12, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court a
person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous
weapons or anything used as proof of a commission of an
offense without a search warrant. It is further alleged that
the arrest without a warrant of the petitioner was lawful
under the circumstances.
Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal
Procedure provides as follows:
"SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.—A peace officer or
a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he
has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person
to be arrested has committed it; 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 temporarily confined while his
case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred
from one confinement to another.
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person
arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the
nearest police station or jail, and he shall be proceeded against in
accordance with Rule 112, Section 7. (6a, 17a)"
From the foregoing provision of law it is clear that an
arrest without a warrant may be effected by a peace officer
or private person, among others, when in his presence the
person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; or when
an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has
personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the person
arrested has committed it.
The Solicitor General argues that when the two
policemen approached the petitioner, he was actually
committing or had just committed the offense of illegal
possession of firearms and ammunitions in the presence of
the police officers and consequently the search and seizure
of the contraband was incidental to the lawful arrest in
accordance with Section 12, Rule 126 of
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017895acf68d8fd28e66003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/8
4/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 188
292
292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Posadas vs. Court of Appeals
the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. We disagree.
At the time the peace officers in this case identified
themselves and apprehended the petitioner as he
attempted to flee they did not know that he had committed,
or was actually committing the offense of illegal possession
of firearms and ammunitions. They just suspected that he
was hiding something in the buri bag. They did now know
what its contents were, The said circumstances did not
justify an arrest without a warrant.
However, there are many instances where a warrant
and seizure can be effected without necessarily being
preceded by an arrest, foremost of which is the "stop and
search" without a search warrant at military or police
checkpoints, the constitutionality or validity of which has
been upheld by this Court in Valmonte vs. de Villa,7 as
follows:
"Petitioner Valmonte's general allegation to the effect that he had
been stopped and searched without a search warrant by the
military manning the checkpoints, without more, i.e., without
stating the details of the incidents which amount to a violation of
his right against unlawful search and seizure, is not sufficient to
enable the Court to determine whether there was a violation of
Valmonte's right against unlawful search and seizure. Not all
searches and seizures are prohibited. Those which are reasonable
are not forbidden. A reasonable search is not to be determined by
any fixed formula but is to be resolved according to the facts of
each case.
Where, for example, the officer merely draws aside the curtain
of a vacant vehicle which is parked on the public fair grounds, or
simply looks into a vehicle or flashes a light therein, these do not
constitute unreasonable search.
The setting up of the questioned checkpoints in Valenzuela
(and probably in other areas) may be considered as a security
measure to enable the NCRDC to pursue its mission of
establishing effective territorial defense and maintaining peace
and order for the benefit of the public. Checkpoints may also be
regarded as measures to thwart plots to destabilize the
government in the interest of public security. In this connection,
the Court may take judicial notice of the shift to urban centers
and their suburbs of the insurgency movement, so clearly
reflected in the increased killings in cities of police and mili-
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017895acf68d8fd28e66003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/8
4/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 188
_______________
7 G.R. No. 83988, September 29,1989.
293
VOL. 188, AUGUST 2, 1990 293
Posadas vs. Court of Appeals
tary men by NPA "sparrow units," not to mention the abundance
of unlicensed firearms and the alarming rise in lawlessness and
violence in such urban centers, not all of which are reported in
media, most likely brought about by deteriorating economic
conditions—which all sum up to what one can rightly consider, at
the very least, as abnormal times. Between the inherent right of
the state to protect its existence and promote public welfare and an
individual's right against a warrantless search which is however
reasonably conducted, the former should prevail.
True, the manning of checkpoints by the military is susceptible
of abuse by the men in uniform in the same manner that all
governmental power is susceptible of abuse. But, at the cost of
occasional inconvenience, discomfort and even irritation to the
citizen, the checkpoints during these abnormal times, when
conducted within reasonable limits, are part of the price we pay
for an orderly society and a peaceful community. (Emphasis
supplied)."
Thus, as between a warrantless search and seizure
conducted at military or police checkpoints and the search
thereat in the case at bar, there is no question that, indeed,
the latter is more reasonable considering that unlike in the
former, it was effected on the basis of a probable cause, 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 an exercise may prove to be useless, futile and much
too late,
In People vs. CFI of Rizal,8 this Court held as follows:
"x x x In the ordinary cases where warrant is indispensably
necessary, the mechanics prescribed by the Constitution and
reiterated in the Rules of Court must be followed and satisfied.
But We need not argue that there are exceptions. Thus in the
extraordinary events where warrant is not necessary to effect a
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017895acf68d8fd28e66003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/8
4/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 188
valid search or seizure, or when the latter cannot be performed
except without warrant, what constitutes a reasonable or
unreasonable search or seizure becomes
_______________
8 101 SCRA 86(1986).
294
294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Posadas vs, Court of Appeals
purely a judicial question, determinable from the uniqueness of
the circumstances involved, including the purpose of the search or
seizure, the presence or absence of probable cause, the manner in
which the search and seizure was made, the place or thing
searched and the character of the articles procured."
The Court reproduces with approval the following
disquisition of the Solicitor General:
"The assailed search and seizure may still be justified as akin to a
"stop and frisk" situation whose object is either to determine the
identity of a suspicious individual or to maintain the status quo
momentarily while the police officer seeks to obtain more
information. This is illustrated in the case of Terry vs. Ohio, 392
U.S. 1) (1968). In this case, two men repeatedly walked past a
store window and returned to a spot where they apparently
conferred with a third man. This aroused the suspicion of a police
officer. To the experienced officer, the behaviour of the men
indicated that they were sizing up the store for an armed robbery.
When the police officer approached the men and asked them for
their names, they mumbled a reply. Whereupon, the officer
grabbed one of them, spun him around and frisked him. Finding a
concealed weapon in one, he did the same to the other two and
found another weapon. In the prosecution for the offense of
carrying a concealed weapon, the defense of illegal search and
seizure was put up. The United States Supreme Court held that
"a police officer may in appropriate circumstances and in an
appropriate man-ner approach a person for the purpose of
investigating possible criminal behaviour even though there is no
probable cause to make an arrest." In such a situation, it is
reasonable for an officer rather than simply to shrug his shoulder
and allow a crime to occur, to stop a suspicious individual briefly
in order to determine his identity or maintain the status quo
while obtaining more information, x x x
Clearly, the search in the case at bar can be sustained under
the exceptions heretofore discussed, and hence, the constitutional
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017895acf68d8fd28e66003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/8
4/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 188
guarantee against
9
unreasonable searches and seizures has not
been violated."
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED with costs against
petitioner.
_______________
9 Pages 67 to 69, Rollo.
295
VOL. 188, AUGUST 2, 1990 295
Morales vs. National Labor Relations Commission
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa (Chairman), Cruz, Griño-Aquino and
Medialdea, JJ., concur.
Petition denied.
Note.—Proceedings before the board are tainted with
illegality as the detention was without legal grounds and
the arrest had been made without a warrant (Castillo vs.
Napolcom, 156 SCRA 274).
——oOo——
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017895acf68d8fd28e66003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/8
