Valid Terry Searches

Posadas v Court of Appeals, 
G.R. No. 89139, 02 Aug 1990

Facts: Two policemen where conducting a surveillance, when they spotted Posadas carrying a “buri” bag and acting suspiciously. The policemen approached the Posadas and identified themselves as members of the INP. Posadas attempted to flee but his attempt to get away was thwarted by the two notwithstanding his resistance Found inside the “buri” bag were one (1) caliber .38 Smith & Wesson revolver, a smoke (tear gas) grenade, and two (2) rounds live ammunitions for a .22 caliber gun. Posadas failed to show the necessary license or authority to possess the firearms and ammunitions. He was subsequently prosecuted for and found guilty of illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions.

Held: At the time the peace officers 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 firearm and ammunitions. They just suspected that he was hiding something in the buri bag. They did not know what its contents were. The said circumstances did not justify an arrest without a warrant.

Nevertheless, the search and seizure may still be justified as akin to a "stop and frisk" situation. 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. To require the police officers to search the bag only after they had obtained a search warrant might prove to be useless, futile and much too late under the circumstances. In such a situation, it was reasonable for a police officer to stop a suspicious individual briefly in order to determine his identity or to maintain the status quo while obtaining more information, rather than to simply shrug his shoulders and allow a crime to occur.


People vs. Solayao
G.R. No. 119220. September 20, 1996

Facts: While SPO3 Nio and two CAFGU members were conducting an intelligence patrol to verify reports on the presence of armed persons roaming around the barangays, they met the group of Solayao numbering five. The former became suspicious when they observed that the group was drunk and that Solayao himself was wearing a camouflage uniform or a jungle suit. Solayao's companions, upon seeing the government agents, fled. Nio told Solayao not to run away and introduced himself as "PC," after which he seized the dried coconut leaves which the latter was carrying and found wrapped in it a 49-inch long homemade firearm locally known as "latong." When asked who issued him a license to carry said firearm or whether he was connected with the military or any intelligence group, the latter answered that he had no permission to possess the same. Thereupon, SPO3 Nio confiscated the firearm and turned him over to the custody of the policeman of Caibiran who subsequently investigated him and charged him with illegal possession of firearm.

Held: There was found justifiable reason to apply the “stop-and-frisk” rule, because of the drunken actuations of the Solayao and his companions, and because of the fact that his companions fled when they saw the policemen, and finally, because the peace officers were precisely on an intelligence mission to verify reports that armed persons were roaming the vicinity. 


Manalili vs. People
G.R. No. 113447. October 9, 1997

Facts: The policemen conducted surveillance because of information that drug addicts were roaming the area in front of the Kalookan City Cemetery. The policemen chanced upon a male person in front of the cemetery who appeared high on drugs. The male person was observed to have reddish eyes and to be walking in a swaying manner. When this male person tried to avoid the policemen, the latter approached him and introduced themselves as police officers. They then asked the male person what he was holding in his hands. The male person tried to resist but later showed his wallet where a crushed marijuana residue was found inside. 

Held: The policemen had sufficient reason to accost accused-appellant to determine if he was actually high on drugs due to his suspicious actuations, coupled with the fact that based on information, this area was a haven for drug addicts.


No valid Terry Search

Malacat vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 123595, December 12, 1997

Facts: Four police officers were conducting a patrol in Quiapo due to bomb threats that been occurring in the area for the last seven days. They found two groups of Muslim-looking men standing on opposite sides of the Quezon Boulevard corner who were acting suspiciously and their eyes were moving very fast. After thirty minutes of observing the two groups, they decided to approach one of the groups. Upon seeing the policemen, the groups fled in all directions. Fortunately, one of the men later identified as Malacat, was apprehended. Without a warrant, the police officer searched him and found a grenade tucked inside his front waist line. Malacat was arrested and charged with illegal possession of explosives. 

Held: There could have been no valid in flagrante delicto or hot pursuit arrest preceding the search in light of the lack of personal knowledge on the part of Yu, the arresting officer, or an overt physical act, on the part of petitioner, indicating that a crime had just been committed, was being committed or was going to be committed. Since the arrest of petitioner is invalid, the search conducted on petitioner could not have been one incidental to a lawful arrest.

There was also no justifiable reason to apply the “stop-and-frisk” rule. While probable cause is not required to conduct a "stop and frisk," it nevertheless holds that mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a "stop and frisk." A genuine reason must exist, in light of the police officer's experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person detained has weapons concealed about him.

There are at least three (3) reasons why the stop-and-frisk was invalid:

First, we harbor grave doubts as to Yus claim that petitioner was a member of the group which attempted to bomb Plaza Miranda two days earlier. This claim is neither supported by any police report or record nor corroborated by any other police officer who allegedly chased that group. Aside from impairing Yu's credibility as a witness, this likewise diminishes the probability that a genuine reason existed so as to arrest and search petitioner. If only to further tarnish the credibility of Yu's testimony, contrary to his claim that petitioner and his companions had to be chased before being apprehended, the affidavit of arrest (Exh. "A") expressly declares otherwise, i.e., upon arrival of five (5) other police officers, petitioner and his companions were "immediately collared."

Second, there was nothing in petitioners behavior or conduct which could have reasonably elicited even mere suspicion other than that his eyes were moving very fast an observation which leaves us incredulous since Yu and his teammates were nowhere near petitioner and it was already 6:30 p.m., thus presumably dusk. Petitioner and his companions were merely standing at the corner and were not creating any commotion or trouble.

Third, there was at all no ground, probable or otherwise, to believe that petitioner was armed with a deadly weapon. None was visible to Yu, for as he admitted, the alleged grenade was discovered inside the front waistline of petitioner, and from all indications as to the distance between Yu and petitioner, any telltale bulge, assuming that petitioner was indeed hiding a grenade, could not have been visible to Yu.


People vs. Aruta
G.R. No. 120915. April 3, 1998

Facts: An informant told the police that a certain "Aling Rosa" would be bringing in drugs from Baguio City by bus. At the bus terminal, the police officers prepared themselves. The informant pointed at a woman crossing the street and identified her as "Aling Rosa." The police apprehended "Aling Rosa," and they alleged that she allowed them to look inside her bag. The bag contained marijuana leaves.

Held: Accused-appellant Aruta cannot be said to be committing a crime. Neither was she about to commit one nor had she just committed a crime. Accused-appellant was merely crossing the street and was not acting in any manner that would engender a reasonable ground for the NARCOM agents to suspect and conclude that she was committing a crime. It was only when the informant pointed to accused-appellant and identified her to the agents as the carrier of the marijuana that she was singled out as the suspect. The NARCOM agents would not have apprehended accused-appellant were it not for the furtive finger of the informant because, as clearly illustrated by the evidence on record, there was no reason whatsoever for them to suspect that accused-appellant was committing a crime, except for the pointing finger of the informant. This the Court could neither sanction nor tolerate as it is a clear violation of the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure. Neither was there any semblance of any compliance with the rigid requirements of probable cause and warrantless arrests.

Consequently, there was no legal basis for the NARCOM agents to effect a warrantless search of accused-appellants bag, there being no probable cause and the accused-appellant not having been lawfully arrested. Stated otherwise, the arrest being incipiently illegal, it logically follows that the subsequent search was similarly illegal, it being not incidental to a lawful arrest. The constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure must perforce operate in favor of accused-appellant. As such, the articles seized could not be used as evidence against accused-appellant for these are fruits of a poisoned tree and, therefore, must be rejected, pursuant to Article III, Sec. 3(2) of the Constitution.