DON MARIANO MARCOS MEMORIAL STATE UNIVERSITY

INSTITUTE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION

BS-CRIMINOLOGY

ACTIVITY:
REASON TO SEARCH

SUBMITTED BY: SANDY ANGENETTE CATBAGAN

SUBMITTED TO: MR. ALEX P. SARMIENTO

 Republic of the Philippines
National Police Commission
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
SAN JUAN POLICE OFFICE
SAN JUAN POLICE STATION 1
Ili Sur, San Juan, La Union

MEMORANDUM
FOR : The Provincial Director
La Union Provincial Police Office
Carlatan, San Fernando, La Union

FROM : Chief of Police, SJPO

SUBJECT : SPOT REPORT: Bank Robbery

DATE : March 03, 2021

1. Reference: Police Blotter Entry # 5680 date March 03, 2021

2. March 03, 2021, 2:00 PM, Ili Sur, San Juan, La Union

3. Facts of the Case

That on March 03, 2021, approximately 2:00 in the afternoon, all around is busy in depositing and
withdrawing money at the Banco de San Juan. Suddenly a car came and stopped near the entrance
of the bank. In few seconds, four masked men with weapons entered the bank. Wherein victim
one, Manuelito Sagun Security Guard, was shot by one of the suspects, as a result the victim
sustained multiple gunshot wound in the different parts of the body. Then after that, they took
positions and warned the people of dire consequences if they tried to move. They told everyone to
raise hands and turn their faces towards the wall. Two of the men went to the Manager’s office
and demanded the kits to the strong room; they had snapped the connections of all the telephones.
The robbers then entered the strong room and instructed the cashier to open the cash box. They
took all the cash and filled it in the bags. Then, hurriedly all the robbers left the bank using their
getaway vehicle and warned everyone that it anyone tried to follow, they would kill them.

4. Other Facts
The Suspect flew using their getaway vehicle (Montero sport) and the suspects have not yet been
identified.

5. The Police arrive at the Bank and the case is under investigation

6. Progress report will follow.

 Sandy Angenette Catbagan
Chief of Police

NAME: CATBAGAN, SANDY ANGENETTE A. DATE:___________________

COURSE: BS- Criminology
ENTRY NO. DATE TIME INCIDENTS/EVENTS DISPOSITION

Entry # 5680 March 03, 2021 8:00 PM - That on March 03,  Team of the
2021, approximately PNP
2:00 in the personnel
afternoon, all responded to
around is busy in the said report
depositing and and conducted
withdrawing money further
at the Banco de San investigation.
Juan. Suddenly a car
came and stopped  Case still
near the entrance of under
the bank. In few investigation
seconds, four
masked men with
weapons entered the
bank. Wherein
victim one, Security
Guard, was shot by
one of the suspects,
as a result the victim
sustained multiple
gunshot wound in
the different parts of
the body.

- Then after that, they

took positions and
warned the people
of dire
consequences if they
tried to move. They
told everyone to
raise hands and turn
their faces towards
the wall. Two of the
men went to the
Manager’s office
and demanded the
kits to the strong
room; they had
snapped the
connections of all
 the telephones.

- The robbers then

entered the strong
room and instructed
the cashier to open
the cash box. They
took all the cash and
filled it in the bags.
Then, hurriedly all
the robbers left the
bank using their
getaway vehicle and
warned everyone
that it anyone tried
to follow, they
would kill them.

POLICE BLOTTER
Catbagan, Sandy Angenette A.
Bs- Criminology

ACADEMIC PAPER

PROBABLE CAUSE

What is Probable Cause?

- Probable cause is a level of reasonable belief, based on facts that can be articulated, that
is required to sue a person in civil court or to arrest and prosecute a person in criminal 
court. Before a person can be sued or arrested and prosecuted, the civil plaintiff or police and prosecutor 
must possess enough facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the claim or charge is true.

- The probable cause standard is more important in Criminal Law than it is in Civil
Law because it is used in criminal law as a basis for searching and arresting persons and depriving them 
of their liberty. Civil cases can deprive a person of property, but they cannot deprive a person of liberty. 
In civil court a plaintiff must possess probable cause to 
levy a claim against a defendant. If the plaintiff does not have probable cause for the claim, she may late
r face a Malicious
Prosecution suit brought by the defendant. Furthermore, lack of probable cause to support a claim mean
s that the plaintiff does not have sufficient evidence to support the claim, and the court will likely dismis
s it.

- In the criminal arena probable cause is important in two respects. First, police must possess probable cau
se before they may search a person or a person's property, and they must possess it before they may arre
st a person. Second, in most criminal cases the court must find that probable cause exists to believe that t
he defendant committed the crime before the defendant may be prosecuted.

- There are some exceptions to these general rules. Police may briefly detain and conduct a limited search 
of a person in a public place if they have a reasonable suspicion that the 
person has committed a crime. Reasonable suspicion is a level of belief that is less than   
cause. A police officer possesses reasonable suspicion if he has enough knowledge to 
lead a reasonably cautious person to believe that criminal activity is occurring and that the individual pla
yed some part in it. In practice this requirement means that an officer need not possess the measure of kn
owledge that constitutes probable cause to Stop and
 Frisk a person in a public place. In any case, an officer may not arrest a person until the
officer possesses probable cause to believe that the person has committed a crime.

- On my opinion on the video presented, the Police Officer have a sufficient probable cause because he
has sufficient reason based upon known facts to believe a crime has been committed or that certain
property is connected with a crime and Probable cause must exist for a law enforcement officer to make
an arrest without a warrant, search without a warrant, or seize property in the belief the items were
evidence of a crime. And as long as is an acceptable degree of suspicion relating to the actual
statistical probability or as dictated by generally acceptable standard of customs and common
behavior that a crime has been committed by the suspect, then such is probable cause. There exist
several facts that warrant probable cause beyond doubt ranging from the suspects behavior after the
robbery incidence and the prevailing circumstances regarding the robbery incidence to the
observance of generally accepted standards of conduct and behaviour.

- To start with, the suspects behaviour to flee away speeding just after the occurrence of the robbery
incidence and subsequent reporting of a robbery attack with a description of the suspect giving a
strong basis to either doubt his behavior, innocence and lack of having been a party to the robbery
attack and therefore a justified grounds that he had been involved in the attack hence probable
cause.

- At the same time, the suspect is said to disappear (Montero Sport) towards the direction given by the
Police to him, is a common route taken by robbers after carrying out their robbery attacks. This
leaves an undoubted level of suspicion regarding the suspect, there is a high probability that the
suspect had been involved in the robbery attach and is running away, as a result therefore, any
prudent member of the public or agent of the law is justified to belief and think that the suspect had
committed the crime or was involved in it and can therefore claim probable cause.

- After some time, a car matching the one used by the suspect to escape is spotted racing down to the
north bound Ili Sur Street, the same route that had been taken by the suspects. In this regard and
considering the circumstances, any agent of the law has the right and is justified to seek arrest, seek
an arrest warrant or conduct a personal or property search on the suspect to ascertain the suspect’s
innocence or valid involvement in the crime.

- As a result of this, Captain Catbagan who is acting in the capacity of an agent of the law has every
reason to doubt the suspects innocence and is justified in either making an arrest, to obtain an arrest
warrant against the suspect or conduct a property or personal search which are all acceptable
standards on probable cause. In addition, the suspect’s behaviour not to stop after he had been
ordered to “stop” by Chief Catbagan adds to a reasonable belief that he had committed the  crime and
therefore as supported by circumstances, this is sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and seeks to
caution a persons and (or) the police’s belief that certain facts including his apparent involvement in
the robbery are true to a certain degree facilitating probable cause.
Catbagan, Sandy Angenette A.
Bs- Criminology

ACADEMIC PAPER

SEARCH AND SEIZURE

Search and seizure is a procedure used in many civil law and common law legal systems by
which police or other authorities and their agents, who, suspecting that a crime has been
committed, commence a search of a person's property and confiscate any relevant evidence
found in connection to the crime.
Police and law enforcers use the search and seizure in pursuit of criminals in order to obtain
evidence required in their prosecution. Search and seizure can be conducted upon a reasonable
belief that information or items on premises can be used in committing a criminal offense.
Although police can search premises and seize items, the law protects citizens against
unreasonable police intrusions. Criminal law defines a search as an intrusion with an intention
other than arrest. Seizure implies deprivation of liberty over private property or persons through
physically taking possession of personal property. Police can use legal authority or physical power
limiting the individual’s liberty to flee or leave. Individuals can be compelled to produce
documents or give up an item. Police seize items to use as evidence in court or simply take them
permanently from holders. Law enforcers can temporarily detain a person for short periods of time
as defined by their jurisdiction or permanently hold material evidence for use as evidence during
prosecution. Search and seizure can be used independently so a search can occur without seizure
and vice versa. Seizure just like searches require one to come with well-defined warrants but
where probable and reasonable cause exist, a warrant does not apply.
Reasonableness under criminal justice system requires law enforcers to prove articulate suspicion
to warrant a search, seizure or an arrest. Reasonable causes under the fourth amendment provide
the basis for a search warrant which proves a connection to a crime or the criminal. Therefore, an
officer seeking to conduct an arrest or a search should have sufficient facts or a reasonable
suspicion of a criminal activity. Using sufficient knowledge of a crime or a threat, officers can
apply under oath for a proper warrant to search, seize and arrest suspects
Seizure allows officers to restrict individuals from walking away from a stop. If a reasonable
justification exists, a police can stop and frisk and individual for weapons or narcotics based on
suspicious movements or objects. Stop and frisk occur along roadside stops or luggage
 checkpoints. Stop and risk violate privacy expectation and require no warrant or probable cause to
make an arrest. In this situation, the police he police seek to protect themselves and those nearby.
However, the police can request personal approval to conduct a frisk.

Here in the Philippines, a police officer who conducts search and seizure must be armed with a
valid search warrant. This is based on Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. In addition, he is required to
bring at least two witnesses during the conduct of the search (two – witness). Frisking is allowed
but the police officer is only allowed to seize on matters which could be seen and touched by him
(plain view doctrine)

PROVISION OF SEACRH AND SEIZURE

- RULE 126 - SEARCH AND SEIZURE
Section 1. Search warrant defined. – A search warrant is an order in writing issued in the name of the
People of the Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search
for personal property described therein and bring it before the court.

Sec. 2. Court where application for search warrant shall be filed. – An application for search warrant
shall be filed with the following:
(a) Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed.
(b) For compelling reasons stated in the application, any court within the judicial region where the crime
was committed if the place of the commission of the crime is known, or any court within the judicial
region where the warrant shall be enforced.
However, if the criminal action has already been filed, the application shall only be made in the court
where the criminal action is pending.

Sec. 3. Personal property to be seized. – A search warrant may be issued for the search and seizure of
personal property:
(a) Subject of the offense;
(b) Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits of the offense; or
(c) Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense.
Sec. 4. Requisites for issuing search warrant. – A search warrant shall not issue except upon probable
cause in connection with one specific offense to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witness he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized which may be anywhere in
the Philippines.

Sec. 5. Examination of complainant; record. – The judge must, before issuing the warrant, personally
examine in the form of searching questions and answers, in writing and under oath, the complainant and
the witnesses he may produce on facts personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn
statements, together with the affidavits submitted.

Sec. 6. Issuance and form of search warrant. – If the judge is satisfied of the existence of facts upon
which the application is based or that there is probable cause to believe that they exist, he shall issue the
warrant, which must be substantially in the form prescribed by these Rules.

Sec. 7. Right to break door or window to effect search. – The officer, if refused admittance to the place
of directed search after giving notice of his purpose and authority, may break open any outer or inner
door or window of a house or any part of a house or anything therein to execute the warrant to liberate
himself or any person lawfully aiding him when unlawfully detained therein.

Sec. 8. Search of house, room, or premises to be made in presence of two witnesses. – No search of a
house, room, or any other premises shall be made except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof
or any member of his family or in the absence of the latter, two witnesses of sufficient age and
discretion residing in the same locality.

Sec. 9. Time of making search. – The warrant must direct that it be served in the day time, unless the
affidavit asserts that the property is on the person or in the place ordered to be searched, in which case a
direction may be inserted that it be served at any time of the day or night.

Sec. 10. Validity of search warrant. – A search warrant shall be valid for ten (10) days from its date.
Thereafter, it shall be void.

Sec. 11. Receipt for the property seized. – The officer seizing the property under the warrant must give a
detailed receipt for the same to the lawful occupant of the premises in whose presence the search and
seizure were made, or in the absence of such occupant, must, in the presence of at least two witnesses of
sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality, leave a receipt in the place in which he found
the seized property.

Sec. 12. Delivery of property and inventory thereof to court; return and proceedings thereon. – (a) the
officer must forthwith deliver the property seized to the judge who issued the warrant, together with a
true inventory thereof duly verified under oath.

(b) Ten (10) days after issuance of the search warrant, the issuing judge shall ascertain if the return has
been made, and if none, shall summon the person to whom the warrant was issued and require him to
explain why no return was made. If the return has been made, the judge shall ascertain whether section
11 of this Rule has been complied with and shall require that the property seized be delivered to him.
The judge shall see to it that subsection (a) hereof has been complied with.

(c) The return on the search warrant shall be filed and kept by the custodian of the log book on search
warrants who shall enter therein the date of the return, the result, and other actions of the judge.

A violation of this section shall constitute contempt of court.

Sec. 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. – A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous
weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense
without a search warrant.

Sec. 14. Motion to quash a search warrant or to suppress evidence; where to file. – A motion to quash a
search warrant and/or to suppress evidence obtained thereby may be filed in and acted upon only by the
court where the action has been instituted. If no criminal action has been instituted, the motion may be
filed in and resolved by the court that issued search warrant. However, if such court failed to resolve the
motion and a criminal case is subsequently filed in another court, the motion shall be resolved by the
latter court.
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 1, LA UNION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff
SEARCH WARRANT NO._54____

-Versus- FOR: ROBBERY

SALDY LANORIA
SAMUEL LANORIA

APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT

The Applicant, PCPL. REYNALDO MARZAN of the SAN JUAN POLICE STATION, after having been
duly sworn, states:

That on __4th Day __., ____March______ personally appeared to the office of San Juan, Police
Station and reported that SALDY LANORIA AND SAMUEL LANORIA located at ILI SUR,
SAN JUAN, LA UNION is engaged in the illegal operation of _BANK
ROBBERY_______________; (See Photos and Sketch as Annex “A”).

That relative to the said information, at around 2:00 PM the informer and __victim__ together with the
undersigned conducted investigation and surveillance operation at __BANCO DE SAN JUAN_____,
located at ___ILI SUR, SAN JUAN____, __LA UNION__. The undersigned together with
__WITNESS__ and ___INFORMAN_ inquires to the said office about ____5:00 PM___.

That on the said occasions SALDY LANORIA AND SAMUEL LANORIA disclosed that they are
(illegal activities). (See photos & sketch and See Attached Calling Card, List of Requirements,
Studio Romano Job Order Form & MTC Job Information as
Annexes “B” - “C”)
 (modus operandi).

Further, investigation conducted disclosed that DAY

On the ensuing investigation, SALDY LANORIA AND SAMUEL LANORIA found to be

Engaged in the operation of illegal activities;

That on the said investigation and surveillance operation the undersigned confirmed and believes
that SALDY LANORIA AND SAMUEL LANORIA and/or any of its Officer, Agents,
employees of ___BANCO DE SAN JUAN____________, is indeed engaged in __Bank
Robbery_.

The properties, articles, objects and items which are used and/or intended to be used in the
commission of the afore-stated offense in the possession of the SALDY LANORIA AND
SAMUEL LANORIA includes the following:

a. Leads
b.
The undersigned has personally verified the report thru surveillance and investigation activities together
with __Barangay Officials DOMINADOR BERNADO,GERINO PAJIMOLA, DANILO GUNDRAN and
____2 Police Officer____, to ascertain the veracity thereof and found the same to be true and correct;

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, the Undersigned respectfully prays:

a. that the Honorable Court include in the Search Warrant and express authority to conduct the raid of
the above-mentioned premises at any time of the day or night including SATURDAYS and
SUNDAYS considering that these are the days when the customer traffic are at its peak and to break
open the premises to be searched should the owner thereof refuse entry in the premises or is absent
therein.
 b. that this Honorable Court cause the immediate issuance of a Search Warrant commanding any Peace
Officer to conduct a search on the above-described premises and to seize the above-described items
to be dealt with as the law directs;

(Date), (Place).
PCPL. REYNALDO MARZAN
Applicant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 3rd _ day of March, 2021_

Stefanie Nanette Zalameda

Presiding Judge

CERTIFICATION AND VERIFICATION

I, THE UNDERSIGNED, under oath, depose and say that:

1. I am the applicant in the above-entitled application for Search Warrant;

2. I personally caused the preparation of the foregoing application for Search Warrant and have
read its content and the allegations therein, which are true and correct to my own personal
knowledge and belief.
3. I further certify that (a) I have not therefore commenced or filed any application for a Search
Warrant involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and to the best
of my knowledge, no such other application for Search Warrant is pending therein; (b) If there is
such other pending Application for Search Warrant, I will therefore inform this Honorable Court
of the present status thereof; (c) If I should thereafter learn that the same and similar application
for Search Warrant has been filed or its pending , I shall report that fact within five (5) days there
from to this Honourable Court, wherein the aforesaid application for Search Warrant has been
filed.

PCPL. REYNALDO MARZAN

Applicant

Date: March 03, 2021

Catbagan, Sandy Angenette A.
Bs- Criminology
ACADEMIC PAPER

ADMISSABILITY OF EVIDENCE

What is Evidence? Evidence is defined as any material which tends to persuade the court of the
truth or probability of some fact alleged or asserted before it. There are three types of evidence
namely: oral testimony, documentary evidence, real evidence and circumstantial evidence.

Relevance and admissibility

As a rule, any evidence which is relevant is admissible unless there is some other rules of evidence
that excludes it. The reason why the prosecutor will tender evidence is to persuade the court of the
truth of the facts upon which the success of his case depends. Then any proof of the facts that
has no bearing to the charge laid before the court cannot assist or help the court in deciding
the matter, hence they are regarded as irrelevant and therefore inadmissible. Insistence to tender
irrelevant and inadmissible evidence is likely to cloud issues, waste time and expenses and lead to
examination of collateral issues and may definitely confuse the court.
There are four categories of relevance and any evidence which falls outside these categories must
be excluded.
(a) Facts in issue: they are the facts which one or other of the parties must prove or disprove in order to
succeed in his case. Therefore section 224 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act 1981 states
that”, no evidence , as to any fact , matter or thing, which is irrelevant or immaterial and cannot adduce
prove or disprove any point or fact at issue in the case which is being tried , shall be admissible.

(b) Evidence relevant to a fact in issue: Facts are not directly in issue yet they are relevant because they
help to facilitate prove or disprove facts in issue. The way to establish that these facts are relevant is to
look at the logic and common experience.

(c) Evidence of the facts relevant to credibility

These are the facts which are intended to persuade the court whether to believe or disbelief a particular
witness. For example, any evidence which shows that a witness should not be believed because he is
likely to be bias or he is bribed or has a faulty memory are factors which are relevant to the issue as to
whether he can be trusted or be relied by the court as fair and honest witness.
(d) Evidence of facts relevant to admissibility
There are some evidence which on the face of it can be deemed relevant but due to the fact that they are
excluded by the rules of evidence, they are inadmissible. This simply means that, the fact that evidence
is relevant does not mean that it is admissible. For example, statements forming part and parcel of
lawyer client relationship even if they can appear to be helpful they cannot be admissible .Wife cannot
testify against husband before the court of law where the husband is charged.

Admissability
The evidence that pass the relevance test as shown above are said to be admissible evidence
unless in certain circumstances they are excluded by rules of evidence regardless of whether they
are facts in issue, evidence of facts relevant to facts in issue , evidence of facts relevant to
admissibility and credibility.
Catbagan, Sandy Angenette A.
Bs- Criminology

ACADEMIC PAPER

MIRANDA WARNING

The Miranda Warning is the statement of the rights provided for the person who is taken into
custody. The procedure should be realized before the interrogation process is started. It is the
obligation of policemen to inform the arrested person that he or she can remain silent before the
attorney is present. There are several variants of the Miranda Warning, and they can be various in
different states.

The most typical warning starts with “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can
and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot
afford an attorney, one will be provided for you” It is also necessary to receive the positive answer
to the question “Do you understand the rights I have just read to you?”

When this question is not answered because the person does not know the language or cannot
provide the answer because of the definite disabilities, the necessary conditions should be created
to inform the person about the rights and receive the answer on understanding the warning . The
ignorance of this question and answer can result in misconceptions and further legal
consequences.

However, there are many details associated with Miranda Rights. People should be informed
about their rights to remain silent and speak in the presence of the attorney only when they are
arrested officially. When the person is not arrested, but he should be asked about the definite
crime, the Miranda Rights do not work.

Those people, who are not in custody and not officially interrogated, are not protected with
references to the Miranda Rights. In this case, the persons’ answers to the policemen’s questions
can be used against them. And the opposite side of the process is presented in the fact that when
the person is in custody he must be provided with the Miranda warning without references to the
situation and place.
 The importance of Miranda Rights is in their protective character. However, the persons should be
responsible in relation to their rights and freedoms and understand the situations when the
Miranda Warning is not provided. The necessity to inform the persons in custody about their
rights is a result of misconceptions and violating the human rights with references to Ernesto
Miranda’s case. It is important to protect the suspects from being accused because of their
possible self-incrimination, and the developed Miranda Warning is the effective preventive
procedure used by policemen in the process of arresting suspects.

MIRANDA RIGHT

 You have the right to remain silent.

 Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of Law.
 You have the right to talk to a lawyer and have him present with you while you are being questioned.
 If you cannot afford the services of a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you before any
questioning you wish.
 You can decide at any time to exercise these rights and not answer any questions or make any
statements.
Catbagan, Sandy Angenette A.
Bs- Criminology
ACADEMIC PAPER

FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE

What is Fruit of the Poisonous Tree?

The fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor that was developed by the Courts of the United
States of America. The meaning of this metaphor is that, evidence (fruit) is inadmissible if it has been
obtained as a result of illegal search, arrest and coercive interrogation (i.e. the source of the evidence is
poisonous).

What is Exclusionary Rule?

- Is a legal rule, based on constitutional law,that prevents evidence collected or analyzed in violation of
the defendant's constitutional rights from being used in a court of law. This may be considered an
example of a prophylactic rule formulated by the judiciary in order to protect a constitutional right. The
exclusionary rule may also, in some circumstances at least, be considered to follow directly from the
constitutional language, such as the Fifth Amendment's command that no person "shall be compelled in
any criminal case to be a witness against himself" and that no person "shall be deprived of life, liberty or
property without due process of law."

What Law state about Exclusionary Rule?

- The Exclusionary Rule is embodied in Section 3 (2), Article 3, of the 1987 Constitution, which provides
that “any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for
any purpose in any proceeding.” This provision prevents the government from using pieces of
evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution, particularly the provisions on the Bill of Rights. It
aims to protect its citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures conducted by the State through its
agents like the military and other law enforcement agencies. The provision tells us that evidence
obtained and confiscated on the occasion of such unreasonable searches and seizures is deemed polluted,
stained or contaminated and should be excluded for being a fruit of the poisonous tree. Hence, it is
inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding.

- It is said that the EXCLUSIONARY RULE HAS THREE PURPOSES.

1. The deterrence of unreasonable searches and seizures as stated ‘The rule is calculated to prevent, not
repair. Its purpose is to deter to compel respect for constitutional guaranty in the only effective
available way by removing the incentive to disregard it.
 2. Second is the ‘imperative of judicial integrity,’ i.e., that the courts do not become ‘accomplices in
the wilful disobedience of a Constitution they are sworn to uphold…by permitting unhindered
governmental use of the fruits of such invasions. A ruling admitting evidence in a criminal trial has
the necessary effect of legitimizing the conduct which produced the evidence, while an application
of the exclusionary rule withholds the constitutional imprimatur.

3. Third is the more recent purpose pronounced by some members of the United States Supreme Court
which is that ‘of assuring the people all potential victims of unlawful government conduct that the
government would not profit from its lawless behavior, thus minimizing the risk of seriously
undermining popular trust in government.’ The focus of concern here is not the police but the public.

Are evidence seized without a search warrant valid and admissible?

 Yes, When a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive search, such a warrantless search has
been held to be valid only as long as the officers conducting the search have reasonable or probable
cause to believe before the search that they will find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a
crime, in the vehicle to be searched.
 Republic of the Philippines
Department of the Interior and Local Government
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
Regional Office 1
Carlatan, San Fernando, La Union
Tel. No. 026-2737-288

COMPLAINT SHEET
Complaint No. 568 Date: March 04, 2021

1. REPORTED THRU: Previously Reported to other agency:

[ • ] In Person [ ] Yes [ • ] No
[ ] Telephone If yes;
[ ] Other a. To what agency
_____________________________
b. BY whom
__________________________________
c. Date/time
__________________________________

3. Nature of Complaint/Info 4. Place of Occurrence/Incident 5. Date/time

Bank Robbery Ili Sur, San Juan, La Union March 3, 2021/

2:00 PM
6. Name of Complainant/Informer 7. Address 8. Tel No.
Dezena Roaquin Naguituban, San Juan, La Union 09098747504

9. Name(s) of Victim(s) 10. Age 11.Sex 12. Address 13. Tel No.

Manuelito Sagun 54 male Cacapian, San Juan, La 09109767583

Union

14. Name(s) of Suspect(s) 15. Alias 16.Sex 17.Age 18. Address

Saldy Lanoria Demong Male 48 Cabaroan, San Juan, La
Union
Samuel Lanoria Tokmol Male 39 Cabaroan, San Juan, La
Union
19. Name(s) of Witness(es) 20. Address 21. Tel No.
Dezena Lanoria
Naguituban, San Juan, La Union

Loida Cabanban Bacsayan, San Juan, La Union

Solomon Cruz San Gabriel, La Union
Angelita Carino Panicsican, San Juan, La Union
22. Brief facts/narrative of complaint (Use back page, if necessary)

That on March 03, 2021, approximately 2:00 in the afternoon, all around is busy in depositing and
withdrawing money at the Banco de San Juan. Suddenly a car came and stopped near the entrance of
the bank. In few seconds, four masked men with weapons entered the bank. Wherein victim one,
Manuelito Sagun Security Guard, was shot by one of the suspects, as a result the victim sustained
multiple gunshot wound in the different parts of the body. Then after that, they took positions and
warned the people of dire consequences if they tried to move. They told everyone to raise hands and
turn their faces towards the wall. Two of the men went to the Manager’s office and demanded the
kits to the strong room; they had snapped the connections of all the telephones. The robbers then
entered the strong room and instructed the cashier to open the cash box. They took all the cash and
filled it in the bags. Then, hurriedly all the robbers left the bank using their getaway vehicle and
warned everyone that it anyone tried to follow, they would kill them.

23. Remarks of the receiving officer (especially if reporter refused to be identified):

a. Dialect (Accent): ___Iloko, Tagalog_____

b. Female/Male: Male
c. Possible Age: ____45______________
d. Possible place where the caller is: ___Banco De San Juan_________
e. Intoxicated or not: _______no______________________________
f. Others:: _________________________________________________________

I certify that the details of the complaint/info SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this
stated above are true and correct to the best of _4th day of March, 2021 at Carlatan, Regional
my knowledge. Police Station.

DEZENA _ROAQUIN_______
Printed Name & Signature of
Complainant/Informer

Date/Time/Complaint/Info Received 27. Printed name/Signature of Receiving Officer

March 4, 2021, 9:00 AM PSSg. JAKE SALDY MONTEFALCO

Assigned to: 29. Noted by:

Pmsgt. JUDE BARLONGAY COP SANDY ANGENETTE CATBAGAN

CONFIDENTIAL
 Republic of the Philippines
Department of the Interior and Local Government
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
Regional Office
Carlatan, San Fernando, La Union

Date: March 03, 2021

INVENTORY SHEET/RECEIPT FOR PROPERTY / GOODS RECOVERED

Inventory Sheet of article/items seized from the premise/establishment of SALDY LANORIA

AND SAMUEL LANORIA located at ILI SUR, SAN JUAN, LA UNION by virtue of SAN
JUAN POLICE STATION.

ITEMS/ ARTICLES QUANTITY/ UNITS

1. CALIBRE 45 2
2. AK 47 1
3. M1 GARAND CARBINE 3
CONVERSION
4. MONEY BAG 30 MILLION
5. GET AWAY VEHICLE AKG 98708

Pcpl. Simon Brix Lopez

(Seizing Officer)

Witness by:

DOMINADOR BERNADO
BRGY CAPTAIN
GERINO PAJIMOLA
BRGY KAGAWAD

DANILO GUNDRAN
BRGY KAGAWAD