Law Dictionary

Question A.5, Political Law, 2019 Bar Exam

Notice: The following suggested answers simulate those that a bar examinee may provide as an answer to a bar exam question. Thus, specific citations (i.e., republic acts, articles/sections, jurisprudence, etc.) are not provided because it is not required in the bar exam. For purposes other than answering the bar exam, please be reminded that proper referencing or legal citation is required.

Question A.5, Political Law, 2019 Bar Exam

At about 5:30 A.M. of September 15, 2019 Police Senior Inspector Officer A of the Manila Police District Station received a text message from an unidentified civilian informer that one Mr. Z would be meeting up later that morning with two (2) potential sellers of drugs at a nearby restaurant. As such, Officer A decided to hang around the said place immediately.

At about 9:15 A.M., two (2) male passengers. Named A and Y, who were each carrying a traveling bag, alighted from a bus in front of the restaurant. A transport barker, serving as a lookout for Officer A, signaled to the latter that X and Y were “suspicious-looking.”

As the two were about to enter the restaurant, Officer A stopped them and asked about the contents of their bags. Dissatisfied with their response that the bags contained only clothes, Officer A proceeded to search the bags and found packs of shabu therein. Thus, X and Y were arrested, and the drugs were seized from them. According to Officer A, a warrantless search was validly made pursuant to the stop and frisk rule; hence, the consequent seizure of the drugs was likewise valid.

(a) What is the stop and frisk rule? (2.5%)

(b) Was the stop and frisk rule validly invoked by Officer A? If not, what is the effect on the drugs seized as evidence? Explain. (2.5%)

Suggested Answer:

(a) Stop and frisk rule – refers to a valid warrantless search made by a law enforcer who has personal knowledge of facts, which would engender a reasonable degree of suspicion of an illicit act. Law enforcers are given the legal arsenal to prevent the commission of offenses based on a genuine reason, as determined by the police officer, to warrant a belief that the person searched was carrying a weapon.

(b) No. Answer

Under the jurisprudence, for a valid stop and frisk search, the arresting officer must have had personal knowledge of facts, which would engender a reasonable degree of suspicion of an illicit act. Rule

In the case at bar, Officer A had no personal knowledge of a possible illicit act that was being committed by X and Y. Instead, his knowledge is based on hearsay from an anonymous text and a signal from a transport barker identifying X and Y as “suspicious-looking”. Apply

Thus, Officer A did not validly invoke the stop and frisk rule resulting in the inadmissibility as evidence of the seized drugs. Conclusion

Disclaimer: All information is for educational and general information only. These should not be taken as professional legal advice or opinion. Please consult a competent lawyer to address your specific concerns. Any statements or opinions of the author are solely his own and do not reflect that of any organization he may be connected.

Suggested Answers

Question B.20, Labor Law, 2019 Bar Exam

Discuss the differences between compulsory and voluntary/optional retirement as well as the minimum benefits provided under the Labor Code for retiring employees of private establishments.

Question X, Labor Law, 2017 Bar Exam

A. The labor sector has been loudly agitating for the end of labor-only contracting, as distinguished from job contracting. Explain these two kinds of labor

Top Read

Coup d’etat, Revised Penal Code

1. Concept Article 134-A. Coup d’etat; How committed. – The crime of coup d’etat is a swift attack accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or

Question IV, Civil Law, 2017 Bar Exam

(a) Distinguish antichresis from usufruct? (3%) (b) Distinguish commodatum from mutuum. (3%) Suggested Answer: (a) By the contract of antichresis the creditor acquires the right

Video Lessons

Legal Maxims

delegatus non potest delegare

Latin maxim. • “that a delegated power may not be further delegated by the person to whom such power is delegated, and that in all

nemo tenetur seipsum accusare

Latin maxim. • “No one is bound to accuse himself.” (Google Translate; See Villaflor v. Summers, En Banc, G.R. No. 16444, September 8, 1920) •

verba legis non est recedendum

Latin maxim. • “from the words of a statute there should be no departure” (Chavez v. JBC, En Banc, G.R. No. 202242, July 17, 2012)

Read more


Grave scandal, Revised Penal Code

1. Concept Article 200. Grave scandal. – The penalties of arresto mayor and public censure shall be imposed upon any person who shall offend against

You cannot copy content of this page