Cons2Digest – 080 Manalili Vs. Court of Appeals, 280 SCRA 400, GR 113447, (Oct. 9, 1997) Facts: Pat. Romeo Espiritu and Pat. Anger Lumabas were patrolling the vicinity of the Kalookan City Cemetery due to reports of drug addicts roaming the area. They chanced upon a male (who turned out to be peoner Alain Manalili y Dizon) who seemed to be ´highµ on drugs in front of the cemetery. He was observed to have reddish eyes and to be walking in a swaying manner. When Manalili tried to avoid the policemen, the laer approached him and asked what he was holding in his hands. Manalili tried to resist, but the policemen were persistent unl he yielded his wallet which they examined and found to contain crushed marijuana residue. Further examinaon by the Forensic Chemistry Secon of the NBI confirmed the findings. Trial court convicted Manalili of violaon of Secon 8, Arcle II, of RA 6425. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. (In his defense, Manalili claimed that he was not walking; that he was riding a tricycle unl the three policemen ordered the driver of the tricycle to stop because the driver and passenger were allegedly under the influence of marijuana. He claimed that he was searched and his pants were turned inside-out but nothing was found. To some extent he implied that the marijuana sample found in his enty was framed up by the policemen.) Issue: WON the evidence seized during a stop-and-frisk operaon is admissible. Held: Yes. The general rule is that a search and seizure must be validated by a previously secured judicial warrant. However, this is not absolute and excepons have been contemplated by the law: Search incidental to a lawful arrest; Search of moving vehicles; Seizure in plain view; and Customs search. Waiver by the accused themselves of their right against unreasonable search and seizure. In the cited cases, the search and seizure may be made only with probable cause as essenal requirement. Probable cause (in relaon to search and seizure): Existence of such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been commied and that the item, arcle, or object sought in connecon with said offense or subject to seizure and destrucon by law is in the place to be searched. A “stop-and-frisk” operaon is another excepon to the general rule. In this case, probable cause was established with Manalili’s suspicious behaviour. Page 1 of 2