1. WARRANTLESS SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO LAWFUL ARREST 2. SEIZURE OF EVIDENCE IN “PLAIN VIEW”
3. SEARCH OF A MOVING VEHICLE
4. CONSENTED WARRANTLESS SEARCH
5. CUSTOMS SEARCH
6. STOP AND FRISK
7. EXIGENT AND EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES
People v. Kalubiran, 196 SCRA 645 (1991) G.R No. 84079
1. WARRANTLESS SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO LAWFUL ARREST A person lawfully arrested maybe searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant
This is recognized under Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, and by prevailing jurisprudence. In searches incident to a lawful arrest, the arrest must precede the search; generally, the process cannot be reversed. Nevertheless, a search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the arrest if the police have probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of the search.
A buy-bust operation is "a form of entrapment, in which the violator is caught in flagrante delicto and the police officers conducting the operation are not only authorized but duty-bound to apprehend the violator and to search him for anything that may have been part of or used in the commission of the crime.
Facts of the case: Nestor Kalubiran (accused-apellant) was arrested through a buy-bust operation. He sold 2 sticks of Marijuana to the Narcotics agent and received a marked 5.00 bill as payment. At his arrest, he was frisked by Captain Levi Dorado and recovered from him the marked money and 17 sticks of Marijuana. Kalubiran denied having sold marijuana and insisted that the 19 sticks of marijuana and the marked bill never came from him.
( Kalubiran denied all these, Kalubiran said he and his friends were in front of the Gamo Memorial Clinic, when a jeep stopped in front of them. Quindo - approached and frisked him and found nothing. He later on was approached again at gunpoint was taken to the Police Station.) 3) The Trial Court found Kalubiran guilty as charged with a sentence of life imprisonment plus a P20,000.00 fine and the cost.
4.) On appeal the defense contends that the manner of arrest and search violated Kalubiran's Bill of Rights. Issue: Whether or Not the arrest and search in the person of the accused was unconstitutional? NO. The SC, explained Sec 5 Rule 113 of the Rules of Court for valid warrantless arrest. The accused-appellant according to the SC, was arrested in flagrante delicto as a result of the entrapment.
As for the search, the SC said that it was lawful because it was incidental to a lawful arrest, this following at that time Sec 12 of Rule 116 of Rule of court.
The appealed judgment was AFFIRMED.