Search and Seizure

SEARCH AND SEIZURE
PP V SUCRO
Facts:
Pat. Fulgencio went to Arlie Regalado’s house at C. Quimpo to monitor activities of Edison SUCRO
(accused). Sucro was reported to be selling marijuana at a chapel 2 meters away from Regalado’s house.
Sucro was monitored to have talked and exchanged things three times. These activities are reported
through radio to P/Lt. Seraspi. A third buyer was transacting with appellant and was reported and later
identified as Ronnie Macabante. From that moment, P/Lt.Seraspi proceeded to the area. While the
police officers were at the Youth Hostel in Maagama St. Fulgencio told Lt. Seraspi to intercept.
Macabante was intercepted at Mabini and Maagama crossing in front of Aklan Medical center.
Macabante saw the police and threw a tea bag of marijuana on the ground. Macabante admitted buying
the marijuana from Sucro in front of the chapel.

The police team intercepted and arrested SUCRO at the corner of C. Quimpo and Veterans. Recovered
were 19 sticks and 4 teabags of marijuana from a cart inside the chapel and another teabag from
Macabante.

Issue:

(1) Whether or Not arrest without warrant is lawful.

Held:
Search and seizures supported by a valid warrant of arrest is not an absolute rule. Rule 126, Sec 12 of
Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that a person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous
weapons or anything, which may be used as proff of the commission of an offense, without a search
warrant.(People v. Castiller) The failure of the police officers to secure a warrant stems from the fact
that their knowledge required from the surveillance was insufficient to fulfill requirements for its
issuance. However, warantless search and seizures are legal as long as PROBABLE CAUSE existed. The
police officers have personal knowledge of the actual commission of the crime from the surveillance of
the activities of the accused. As police officers were the ones conducting the surveillance, it is presumed
that they are regularly in performance of their duties