3. POSADAS vs. COURT OF APPEALS (Dizon) 9.

Petitioner’s contention: The items in evidence against him are

G.R. No. 89139; August 2, 1990 inadmissible for having been confiscated with no lawful arrest or search
Nature of the Case: validity of a warrantless search on a person and seizure.
Mode of Appeal: Petition for Review (of the CA decision) 10. Solicitor General’s contentions: Under Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules
Petitioners: Illinois of Court, a person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous
Respondents: Gates weapons or anything used as proof of a commission of an offense without
a search warrant. Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal
Background Facts: Posadas is below 18 years old when the offense of illegal Procedure, further supported this by stating the circumstances where an
possession of firearms and ammunitions was committed. arrest without warrant is lawful. According to the SolGen, petitioner’s
arrest without a warrant was lawful because when the policemen
Doctrine/s and Relevant Provisions: approached petitioner, he was actually committing/had just committed
1. Not all searches and seizures are prohibited. Those which are reasonable the offense of illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions in the their
are not forbidden. A reasonable search is not to be determined by any presence and the search and seizure of contraband was incidental to the
fixed formula but is to be resolved according to the facts of each case.” lawful arrest.
2. Between the inherent right of the state to protect its existence and
promote public welfare and an individual’s right against a warrantless Issue/s: Whether the warrantless search is valid. Yes.
search which is however reasonably conducted, the former should
prevail. Ratio:
1. There are many instances where a warrant and seizure can be done
Facts: without being preceded by an arrest, which is the “stop and search”
1. October 16, 1986, about 10AM: Pat. Ursicio Ungab and Pat. Umbra without a search warrant at military or police checkpoints. “Not all
Umpar, members of the Integrated National Police (INP) of the Davao searches and seizures are prohibited. Those which are reasonable are not
Metrodiscom assigned with the Intelligence Task Force, were conducting forbidden. A reasonable search is not to be determined by any fixed
a surveillance in Davao City. formula but is to be resolved according to the facts of each case.”
2. While within the premises of Rizal Memorial Colleges, they spotted (Valmonte v. de Villa)
petitioner carrying a “buri” bag and noticed him to be acting suspiciously. 2. EX: Merely drawing aside curtain of a vacant vehicle parked on public
3. They approached petitioner and identified themselves as members of the grounds; simply looking into vehicle/flashes light therein; checkpoints –
INP. Petitioner attempted to flee but was thwarted by the two despite his security measure to maintain peace and order for the benefit of the
resistance. public (provided: conducted within reasonable limits.
4. They checked the bag and found 1 caliber .38 Smith & Wesson revolver, 2 3. Between the inherent right of the state to protect its existence and
rounds of live ammunition for a .38 caliber gun, a smoke (tear gas) promote public welfare and an individual’s right against a warrantless
grenade and 2 live ammunitions for a .22 caliber gun. search which is however reasonably conducted, the former should
5. They brought petitioner to the police station for further investiation. prevail.
Petitioner was asked to show necessary license/authority to possess 4. Between a search and seizure conducted at checkpoints and the search in
firearms but he failed to do so. the case at bar, the latter is more reasonable considering that unlike in
6. Petitioner was taken to the Davao Metrodiscom Office and the prohibited the former, it was effected on basis of probable cause.
articles recovered from him were indorsed to M/Sgt. Didoy (officer on 5. At the time the policemen identified themselves and apprehended
duty). petitioner as he attempted to flee, they did not know that he had
7. Petitioner was prosecuted for illegal possession of firearms and committed/was actually committing the offense charged herein – they
ammunitions in the RTC of Davao City. After a plea of not guilty and just suspected that he was hiding something in the bag.
trial on meriots, a decision was rendered finding him guilty of offense 6. The probable cause is that petitioner acted suspiciously and attempted to
charged. Petitioner, below 18 years old at time of commission of offense, flee with the bag. There was probable cause that he was concealing
is sentenced to indeterminate penalty from 10 years and 1 day prision something illegal and it was the right of the policemen to inspect the
mayor to 12 year, 5 month and 11 days of reclusion temporal, and to pay same.
costs. 7. Searching the bag in possession of petitioner only after obtaining a
8. Petitioner appeal to the CA. Decision affirmed the RTC decision. Thus, search warrant may be useless, futile and too late.
this petition for review. 8. GENERAL RULE: In 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.
 9. EXCEPTIONS: Extraordinary events where warrant is not necessary to
effect a valid search or seizure, or when the latter cannot be performed
except without warrant, what constitutes reasonable or unreasonable
search or seizure becomes purely a judicial question, determinable from
the uniqueness of the circumstances involved (including purpose of seach
and seizure, presence or absence of probable cause, manner in which
search was made, place/thing searched, and character of articles
procured).
10. The assailed search and seizure may be justified as akin to a “stop and
frisk” whose object is either to determine the identity of a suspicious
individual or to maintain the status quo momentarily while the
policemen seeks to obtain more information, as illustrated in Terry v.
Ohio.
11. The search herein can be sustained under the exceptions, and hence, the
constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures has
not been violated.

Dispositive Portion: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED with costs against

petitioner.