G.R. No. 198694 - RAMON MARTINEZ Y GOCO/ RAMON GOCO Y MARTINEZ @ MON, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, so as to ensure that the same sacrosanct right remains revered, effects secured by government authorities in contravention of the foregoing are rendered inadmissible in evidence for any purpose, in any proceeding. In this regard, Section 3(2), Article III of the Constitution provides that: 2. Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section [referring to Section 2] shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. Commonly known as the exclusionary rule, the above-cited proscription is not, however, an absolute and rigid one. [7] As found in jurisprudence, the traditional exceptions are customs searches, [8] searches of moving vehicles, [9] seizure of evidence in plain view, [10] consented searches, [11] stop and frisk measures [12] and searches incidental to a lawful arrest. [13] This last-mentioned exception is of particular significance to this case and thus, necessitates further disquisition. A valid warrantless arrest which justifies a subsequent search is one that is carried out under the parameters of Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court [14] which requires that the apprehending officer must have been spurred by probable cause to arrest a person caught in flagrante delicto . To be sure,the term probable cause has been understood to mean a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man's belief that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged. [15] Specifically with respect to arrests, it is such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested. [16] In this light, the determination of the existence or absence of probable cause necessitates a re-examination of the factual incidents. Records show that PO2 Soque arrested Ramon for allegedly violating Section 844 of the Manila City Ordinance which provides as follows: Sec. 844. Breaches of the Peace. No person shall make, and, countenance, or assist in making any riot, affray, disorder, disturbance, or breach of the peace; or assault, beat or use personal violence upon another without just cause in any public place; or utter any slanderous, threatening or abusive language or expression or exhibit or display any emblem, transparency, representation, motto, language, device, instrument, or thing; or do any act, in any public place, meeting or procession, tending to disturb the peace or excite a riot, or collect with other persons in a body or crowd for any unlawful purpose; or disturbance or disquiet any congregation engaged in any lawful assembly. PENALTY: Imprisonment of not more than six (6) months and / or fine not more than Two Hundred pesos (PHP 200.00) As may be readily gleaned, the foregoing ordinance penalizes the following acts: (1) making, countenancing, or assisting in making any riot, affray, disorder, disturbance, or breach