Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Case Doctrines
Dean Joan Largo
RIGHT AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
CASE FACTS/ ISSUE
Sec 2
Republic v Whether there was a valid search and
- -
Sandiganbayan seizure for other items other than the
firearms as specified in the search warrant
(without showing that these items could be
the subject of warrantless search and
seizures)
Search and Seizure, when unreasonable
Manalili v CA - Whether a search and seizure could be
effected without necessarily being
preceded by an arrest
- Wallet with suspected marijuana residue
was confiscated during a surveillance
- Police Officer had sufficient reason to stop
Manalili to investigate if he was actually
high on drugs (search was valid, being akin
to a stop and frisk)
Requisites for valid issuance
Agcoaili v Molina - Agcaoili alleged that respondent in
conducting the preliminary investigation in
a crim case failed to exercise utmost care in
the issuance of a warrant of arrest (as
based on the statements of 2 witnesses
who had no personal knowledge of the
commission)
- Respondent explained that the RTC has
final say and disposition on the existence of
PC
People v Estrada - Estrada filed with a charge of plunder (4
Billion pesos)
- After prosecution finished presenting its
evidence, Estrada filed a demurrer to
evidence
- Court upheld TC’s order which quashed the
1
RULING
Revolutionary government withheld the operation of the 1973 Constitution which guaranteed
private respondents exclusionary right; no Bill of Rights was not effective (no constitutional
right against unreasonable search and seizures)
- Protection accorded to individuals under the Covenant and the Declaration remained in effect
during the interregnum (directives and orders of the rev government did not repudiate them)
- STOP AND FRISK—right of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street, interrogate him and
pat him for weapons for effective crime prevention to investigate possible criminal behaviour
even where there is insufficient probable cause to make an actual arrest; NOT ABANDON THE
RULE THAT WHEN PRACTICABLE, MUST OBTAIN ADVANCE JUDICIAL APPROVAL OF
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES THROUGH A WARRANT PROCEDURE (EXCUSED ONLY FOR
EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES)
- Right against unreasonable searches and seizures is not absolute
- 5 exceptions against warrantless search and seizure
1. Search incidental to a lawful arrest
2. Search of moving vehicles
3. Seizure in plain view
4. Customs search
5. Waiver by the accused themselves of their right
- STOP AND FRISK—exception to warrantless search and seizure; search and seizure can be
effected without preceded by an arrest
- PC (for warrant of arrest)—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
- Hearsay evidence cannot be bases of probable cause
- Determination of PC is a function of the judge and not for the provincial fiscal
vanillaela
Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Case Doctrines
Dean Joan Largo
search warrant it issued and ordered the
return of the seized goods on the ground
that the warrant failed to satisfy the
constitutional requirements for issuance
- Partial reconsideration granted that seized
drugs can no longer be returned (absence
of a permit or authority from the approp
government agency)
Stonehill v Diokno - Prosecution made issuance of 42 search
warrants to search persons and premises
of several personal properties for violation
of Central Bank Laws etc
- Contended that the search warrants are
null and void for being violative of the
Constitution
- Whether or not the petitioner can validly
assail the legality of the search and seizure
in both premises
People v CA - Properties consisted of 27 units of
transformers
- NBI applied for and secured the questioned
search warrant to seize the transformers
“under repair”
- Search warrant issued left the space in the
caption for the nature of the offense in
black indicating the uncertainty of
petitioner and court as to the crime
committed
Personal Determination by a judge
Fenix v CA - Sgt Vidal charged petitioners with serious
illegal detention in San Carlos Seminary
- Doble heard about the existence of the
alleged rigging of the 2004 elections; Ong
arrived to tell Doble he would be presented
to the media as its source
- Panel found probable cause to charge
petitioners (did not give serious
consideration to counter-affidavits)
- Petitioners urged the court to personally
evaluate the Resolution of the panel to
determine existence of PC of the warrants
of arrest
- RTC dismissed case for lack of probable
cause
2
- can only assail the search conducted in the residences but not those done in the corporation's
premises (corporation has a personality separate and distinct from the personality of its
officers or herein petitioner)
- Only the party whose rights has been impaired can validly object the legality of a seizure--a
purely personal right which cannot be exercised by a third party (right to object belongs to
the corporation)
- Search warrant that does not relate to a specific offense is in violation of the doctrine in
Stonehill v Diokno
- Definition of PC—facts and circumstances antecedent to the issuance of the warrant that in
themselves are sufficient to induce a cautious person to rely on them and to act in pursuance
thereof
- Requisites of issuing for a search warrant:
(1) Probable cause in CONNECTION WITH 1 SPECIFIC OFFENSE
(2) to be determined personally by the judge
(3) after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce
(4) particularly describing the place to be searched and things to be seized
- Power of judge to determine PC for warrant of arrest is in Art 3, Sec 2 (warrant of arrest shall
issue only upon a judges’ personal determination of the evidence against the accused)
- Judges’ finding of probable cause—based on a determination of the existence of facts and
circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that an
offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested
- Prosecutor’s finding of PC—determines PC by ascertaining the existence of facts sufficient to
engender well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is
probably guilty thereof
- Judges:
(1) Dismiss if evidence failed to establish PC
(2) Issue warrant of arrest upon finding of PC
(3) Order prosecutor to present additional evidence within 5 days from notice in case of
doubt
vanillaela
Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Case Doctrines
Dean Joan Largo
- Panel dismissed without considering the
counteraffidavits was committed with GAD
Abdula v Guiani - Complaint for murder was filed but was
dismissed by the provincial prosecutor
- WON the Warrant of Arrest should be set
aside and declared void ab initio.
- respondent admits that he issued the
questioned warrant as there was "no
reason for (him) to doubt the validity of the
certification made by the Assistant
Prosecutor
- statement is an admission that respondent
relied solely and completely on the
certification made by the fiscal that
probable cause exists (CONSEQUENTLY,
THE WARRANT OF ARREST SHOULD BE
DECLARED NULL AND VOID)
PICOP v Asuncion - Police Chief Inspector applied for a search
warrant
- Judge Asuncion issued the contested search
warrant
- police enforced the search warrant at the
PICOP compound and seized a number of
firearms and explosives
- search warrant is invalid because:
(1) the trial court failed to examine
personally the complainant and the other
deponents;
(2) SPO3 Cicero Bacolod, who appeared
during the hearing for the issuance of the
search warrant, had no personal
knowledge that petitioners were not
licensed to possess the subject firearms;
and
(3) the place to be searched was not
described with particularity.
3
- It must be stressed that the 1987 Constitution requires the judge to determine probable
cause "personally," a requirement which does not appear in the corresponding provisions of
our
previous constitutions
- What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing
judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause
- he shall:
(1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal
regarding the existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest;
or
(2) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscal's report and
require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a
conclusion as to the existence of probable cause
- determination of probable cause by the prosecutor is for a purpose different from that which
is to be made by the judge:
(1) Whether there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense
charged and should be held for trial is what the prosecutor passes upon.
(2) The judge, on the other hand, determines whether a warrant of arrest should be issued
against the accused,
- Second, since their objectives are different, the judge cannot rely solely on the report of the
prosecutor in finding probable cause to justify the issuance of a warrant of arrest
- What is required, rather, is that the judge must have sufficient supporting documents upon
which to make his independent judgment or, at the very least, upon which to verify the
findings of the prosecutor as to the existence of probable cause.
- requisites of a valid search warrant:
(1) probable cause is present;
(2) such presence is determined personally by the judge;
(3) the complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce are personally examined by the
judge, in writing and under oath or affirmation;
(4) the applicant and the witnesses testify on facts personally known to them; and
(5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the things to be seized
vanillaela
Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Case Doctrines
Dean Joan Largo
People v Tuan -2 informants reported that Tuan had been
selling marijuana
- Filed Application for a Search Warrant
- Judge personally examined SPO2 and
informants before issuing search warrant
- Tea was allowed entry into the house even
though accused was not around by
accused’s father
- WON there was a probable cause for the
judge to issue a Search Warrant and
whether the warrant described the place to
be searched (YES)
- WON the warrant particularly described
the place to be searched (YES)
Particularity of description
People v Veloso - Veloso found guilty of crime of resistance of
agents of authority but was contested to be
justifiable for illegality of the John Doe
search warrant (Veloso insisted to refuse
his search)
- “Parliamentary Club” nothing more than a
gambling house
Alvarez v CFI - Petitioner asks that search warrant
ordering search at any time of certain
accounting books or documents belonging
to him in his residence be declared illegal
and all seized articles be returned to him
- Books and docs to be used as evidence
against him in violation of Anti-Usury Law
as money-lender charging usurious rates of
interest
- Chief of Secret Service of AUL Board did not
swear to the truth of his statements upon
his own knowledge of the facts but upon
information received by him from a reliable
person
- Judge issued warrant upon the affidavit
(search was opposed by petitioner)
4
- Requisites for Issuing a Search Warrant:
(1) Probable cause (reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently
strong to warrant a cautious man to believe that the person accused is guilty of the
offense; or an offense is committed ad the item in connection with offense is in the place
to be searched)
(2) PC determined personally by the judge
(3) Judge must examine, under oath the complainant and such witnesses
(4) Warrant issued must particularly describe place and things
- Substantial basis—questions of the examining judge brought out such facts and
circumstances as would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe...
- Description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer serving the warrant can, with
reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended and distinguish it from other
places
- Description of place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can, with
reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended
- Officer making lawful arrest may take any property found upon person arrested which was
used for the commission of the crime or its fruit or may furnish person means of committing
violence or escape or may be used as evidence on the trial of the cause but not otherwise
- JOHN DOE WARRANTS (Exception)—warrant for the apprehension of an UNNAMED Party is
void EXCEPT where it contains a DESCRIPTIO PERSONAE such as will enable the officer to
identify the accused (description must be sufficient to indicate clearly the proper person upon
whom the warrant is served)
- Search warrant definition—order in writing, issued in the name of the PPI signed by a judge
or a justice of the peace and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for
personal property and bring it before the court
- Statutes authorizing searches and seizures or search warrants must be strictly construed
- Oath definition—any form of attestation by which a party signifies that he is bound in
conscience to perform an act faithfully and truthfully; must refer to the truth of the facts
within the personal knowledge of the petitioner or his witnesses to convince the committing
magistrate of existence of PC
- What constitutes a reasonable search or seizure is purely a judicial question, determinable
from a consideration of the circumstances involved (purpose, presence of PC, manner search
is made, place or thing searched)
- If affidavit of the applicant is sufficient, judge may dispense that of other witnesses (if
insufficient, duty of judge t require affidavit of one or more witnesses for purpose of
determining PC to warrant issuance of warrant)
- Search made at night when it is positively asserted in the affidavit that the property is on the
person or in the place ordered to be searched (warrant was issued unreasonably and does not
appear in the affidavit articles were in possession and in the place indicated—cannot be made
at night)
- Affidavit to be presented (used as a basis to determine PC) must contain particular
description of the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized (but where the
vanillaela
Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Case Doctrines
Dean Joan Largo
People v CA, 1998 - Search warrant was served against Hussain
which resulted in his arrest with 3 other
Pakistanis and in the seizure of their
personal belongings
- Submitted a Motion to Quash Search
Warrant and declare evidence obtained
inadmissible on the ground that the place
searched was other than and separate from
the place stated in the warrant
Vallejo v CA (test) - NBI Agent filed a sworn application for
search warrant on the Office of Registry of
Deeds to seize documents (being used to
intended to be used for Falsification of
Land Titles)
- Motion to Quash Search Warrant for failure
to describe the persons or things to be
seized and was violative of the Const
Warrantless Arrest
People v Laguio Jr - Respondent acquitted on 3 diff cases filed
against him after demurrer to evidence was
granted due to illegal arrest, search and
seizure
- No valid warrantless arrest as “reliable
information” alone absent any overt act
indicative of felonious enterprise is not
sufficient to constitute PC
- Respondent was merely walking from
Maria’s Apartment and to his BMW when
police arrested him, frisked and searched
his person (not committing any visible
offense)
People v Tabar - Prosecuted for selling and delivering
without authority marijuana cigarettes and
5
nature of the goods, description must be general, not required that technical description is
given)
- Seizure of books and documents by means of search warrant to use them as evidence in a
criminal case against the person in whose possession they were found is unconstitutional
because it makes warrant unreasonable (equivalent to violation of prohibiting against
compulsion of accused to testify against himself)
- Search warrant illegal because:
(1) Warrant based solely upon affidavit not based on personal knowledge of facts for PC
(2) Warrant issued for sole purpose of seizing evidence to be later used in the criminal
proceedings that might be instituted against the petitioner
- Place described in the warrant which is the only place that may be legitimately searched was
not that which the officers who applied for the warrant had in mind, with the result that what
they actually subjected to the search was a place other than that stated
- Essential for warrant to particularly describe the place to be searched (intention being that
the search be confined strictly to the place described)
- Search Warrant is constitutionally infirm; void for lack of particularity
- Sec 2, Art 3
- Rule 126 of Revised Rules of Crim Pro—Requisites for issuing search warrant
- Necessary that there be reasonable particularity and certainty as to the identity of the
property to be searched for and seized (not required to be described in precise and minute
detail)
- Sufficient as to any description of the place or thing to be searched that will enable officer
making search with reasonable certainty to locate place or thing (but must preclude any
possibility of seizing any other property)
- Search warrant must be issued for one specific offense
- Warrantless search may be conducted as an incident to a valid warrantless arrest (lawful
arrest FIRST before search can be made)
- If there are valid reasons to conduct lawful search and seizure which thereafter shows that
the accused is currently committing a crime, accused may be lawfully arrested in flagrante
delicto
- Warrantless search incidental to illegal arrest is unlawful
- Warrantless arrest may be effected (Sec 5)
(1) In flagrante delicto (person must execute overt act and done in the presence of officer)
(2) Based on personal knowledge of officer there is PC that suspect was author of a crime just
committed
(3) Escaped prisoner (after conviction or temporarily confined)
- When a crime is committed in the presence of policemen, a warrantless arrest can be
performed in which a search on the person arrested can be done for proof of the commission
vanillaela
Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Case Doctrines 6
Dean Joan Largo

other drugs to a person who posed as a of an offense without the corresponding warrants
buyer - Waiver of the constitutional right is done when there is voluntary submission to the search
- 17 year old boy was first arrested then and seizure (when one submits and consents to the search, he is precluded from later
followed to a shanty where Carmelina went complaining thereof)
out and proceeded to arrest and search her - Waiver of the right may either be expressly or impliedly
People v Doria - Charged with violation of Dangerous Drugs - When the warrantless arrest is illegal, it follows that the search of her person and home and
Act of 1972 the subsequent seizure cannot be deemed legal as incident to her arrest
- TC found the existence of a syndicated - When an accused is apprehended in flagrante delicto as a result of a buy-bust operation, the
crime group but erred in admitting as law enforcement agents are not only authorized but also duty-bound to arrest him even
evidence marijuana fruiting found inside without a warrant
the carton box because they were obtained - Lawful warrantless arrest (Rules on Crim Pro)—reasonable suspicion must be founded on
through a warrantless search and not come probable cause coupled with good faith; suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably
in the plain view doctrine guilty of committing the offense based on actual facts
- Accused was not caught red-handed during - Plain view doctrine—when not in plain view, its seizure without the search warrant is in
the buy-bust operation to give ground for violation of the right
her arrest
People v - Accused (Swedish national) charged for - Where search is made pursuant to a lawful arrest, there is no need for a search warrant
Malmstedt violation of Dangerous Drugs Act - When arrest without a warrant is lawful (in flagrante delicto; offense is committed and he has
- Accused went to Baguio and rode a bus personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it;
where there was a temporary checkpoint to escaped prisoner)
check all vehicles coming from the
Cordillera region (prompted by persistent
reports that vehicles from Sagada were
transporting marijuana; additional
information about a Caucasian possessed
drugs)
- Being the only Caucasian, he was asked for
his papers and when failed to produce
such, was asked to bring out the bulge from
his waist where a derivative of marijuana
was found
- Accused was searched and arrested while
transporting prohibited drugs (Crime was
actually being committed); there was
sufficient probable cause for said officers to
believe that accused was then and there
committing a crime (accused was acting
suspiciously)
People v - Not at the moment of his arrest committing - When the warrantless arrest is not legal, there can be no valid warrantless search and seizure
Aminudin a crime nor was it shown that he was about incidental to the arrest
to do so (as he was descending the - No urgency present (could have procured the needed warrants from the information they
gangplank; only when informer pointed received)
him to be carrying the marijuana did the
officers arrest him)
- Officers were acting on a tip they received

vanillaela
Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Case Doctrines
Dean Joan Largo
from an informer
Go v CA - Arrest took place 6 days after the shooting
of Maguan (officers were not present at the
time petitioner allegedly shot Maguan; or
did the shooting just been committed_
- Information to which the police acted upon
was the eyewitness and the guard who
took down the plate number (information
was not “personal knowledge”)
People v Acut - Accused charged for Possession of
Dangerous Drugs
- Shootout occurred whie PO3 Din was
having his haircut where vehicles were
registered under Acut’s name
- Police conducted a “hot pursuit” operation
by setting up a checkpoint whereby the
vehicle passed by. The policed searched the
vehicle and found nothing but frisked Acut
discovering the plastic sachet of shabu
- Element of personal knowledge was
present but element of immediacy was not
met (when warrantless arrest was effected,
investigation and verification proceedings
were already conducted; would have been
enough to procure the warrants)
- No lawful arrest= invalid incidental search;
search was made before arrest
Malacat v CA - Petitioner charged for possessing a hand
grenade without license and permit
7
- Instances of warrantless arrest (Sec 5, Rule 113; Rules on CrimPro)
- Umil v Ramos: SC sustained legality of the warrantless arrests from 1-14 days after the actual
commission of the offenses when they constituted continuing crimes
- No arrest when person voluntarily placed himself at the disposal of the authorities (not state
his surrender)
- Evidence obtained from unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inadmissible in evidence
for any purpose in any proceeding
- Exception to the need of a warrant for a valid search is a search incidental to a lawful arrest
- In warrantless arrests (pursuant to Sec 5 (b)), it is essential that personal knowledge is
coupled with immediacy (otherwise, arrest may be nullified and items yielded through the
search will be inadmissible)
- Pestilos v Generoso:
: immediacy—“offense has just been committed” and “personal knowledge of facts and
circumstances that the person to be arrested committed it”; guarantees that the police had no
time to base their PC finding on facts obtained after an exhaustive investigation; time gap
between commission and arrest widens, info gathered are prone to become contaminated and
subjected to external factors etc.
: circumstances—events or actions within the actual perception, personal evaluation or
observation of the police officer at the scene of the crime;
: determination of PC and facts or circumstances should be made immediately after the
commission of the crime
- There must be a lawful arrest FIRST before a search can be made
- Search and seizure rules over moving vehicles are liberalized on the basis of practicality
(warrantless search of a moving vehicle is justified is not practicable to secure a warrant
because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the jurisdiction in which the warrant must be
sought; also to prevent violations of smuggling or immigration laws for borders)
- SETUP OF MILITARY OR POLICE CHECKPOINTS—not illegal as long as its necessity is justified
by the exigencies of public order and conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists; valid if
limited to:
(1) Where officer merely draws aside curtain of a vacant vehicle parked on public fair
grounds
(2) Simply looks into vehicle
(3) Flashes a light without opening doors
(4) Where occupants are not subjected to a physical or body search
(5) Where inspection of the vehicles is limited to visual search
(6) Where routine check is conducted in fixed area
- Where vehicle is subjected to an extensive search, warrantless search is valid only when the
officers have reasonable or PC to believe before the search that they will find the evidence
pertaining to a crime in the vehicle
- There must first be a lawful arrest before a search can be made
- STOP AND FRISK—limited to protective search of outer clothing for weapons; PC is not
vanillaela
Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Case Doctrines
Dean Joan Largo
- Serious doubts surrounds the story of
police that a grenade was found in and
seized from petitioner
- Search conducted on petitioner was not
incidental to a lawful arrest
- No lawful arrest as there was lack of
personal knowledge on the police or overt
act of the petitioner indicating a crime was
just committed
Sindac v People - PNP conducted surveillance operations on
Sindac’s alleged drug trade
- PNP witnessed a trade of sachet which
prompted them to proceed and intro
themselves as police; they ran but was able
to apprehend one where they were able to
seize the sachet of shabu from his pocket
- After initially determining it was shabu,
they proceeded to arrest him
- No lawful warrantless arrest made
People v Mengote - Illegal possession of firearms on the
strength mainly of the stolen pistol found
on his person at the moment of his
warrantless arrest
- Police received a telephone call from an
informer of 3 suspicious looking persons;
surveillance team was dispatched
- Persons did no overt act to indicate
commission or attempt to commit a crime
Umil v Ramos - 8 petitions for habeas corpus denied for
persons were lawfully arrested for having
freshly committed a crime and detained
with valid informations
People v Del - Charged as co-principal for Robbery with
Rosario Homicide but pleaded exemption from
liability for having acted under irresistible
force (accused threatened him)
- Arrest is not invalid when he was arrested
on the day following the commission
People v Ayangao - Charged with transporting marijuana
8
required; genuine reason must exist in light of police’s experience and surrounding conditions
to warrant the belief that person has weapons concealed
: 2-fold interest—crime prevention and detection; safety and self-preservation
- Search and seizure must be carried out through a judicial warrant predicated upon the
existence of PC
- Evidence from unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inadmissible (proverbial fruit of a
poisonous tree)
- Lawful arrest first before a search can be made
- PC is based on officer’s personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be
arrested has committed the crime (facts and circumstances pertain to actual facts or raw
evidence)
- “reliable information” alone is not sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest; required that the
accused performs some overt act that would indicate that he has committed, is actually
committing or is attempting to commit an offense
- Arresting officers were not impelled by any urgency that would allow them to do away with
the requisite warrant
- Not question legality of the warrantless arrest constitutes a waiver only to any question on
the defect of the arrest and not on the inadmissibility of the evidence seized during an illegal
warrantless arrest
- Inadmissible evidence due to lack of warrant and no valid warrantless arrest
- Impulsiveness of the police may be the very cause of the acquittal of those who deserve to be
convicted because it has not been observed by those who are supposed to enforce it
- Warrantless arrests in Sec 5 of Rule 113 of Rules of CrimPro
- Sec 5 (b), Rule 113—immediacy (offense just been committed) between arrest and
commission (if there is appreciable lapse of time, warrant of arrest must be secured) and
personal knowledge (of facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed
the crime
- Illegality of arrest is waived when the person arrested submits to arraignment without any
objection
- Entering a plea upon arraignment and by actively participating in the trial, an accused is
vanillaela
Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Case Doctrines
Dean Joan Largo
- Police received info that a woman delivered
marijuana leaves for sale to pushers;
conducted a surveillance operation
- When the woman arrived carrying sacks,
marijuana leaves were protruding
- Lawful arrest as accused was actually
committing a crime when arrested
(transporting marijuana)—warrantless
search was also valid
People v Angeles - Charged with illegal possession of drugs
- Concerned citizen went to the police
station to report a pot session; police
immediately went to the house and when
accused went out of the house, immediately
arrested him
- Shabu found in the room were seized and
turned over
- Court found inadmissible evidence among
others
Warrantless search
People v Chua Ho - Initially charged with illegal possession of
San meth
- Search made was not incidental to an arrest
(no warrant of arrest and warrantless
arrest did not fall under the exceptions)
- Unfamiliar speedboat was spotted, man
alighted and was asked by the police to
open his bag which revealed plastic packed
of substances
9
deemed to have waived any objection to his arrest and warrantless search (any objection to
the arrest or acquisition of jurisdiction over person must be before plea)
- People v Barros; People v Aruta—waiver of non-admissibility of “fruits” of invalid warrantless
arrest and search is not to be casually presumed for the consti guarantee against
unreasonable search and seizure
- Incidental search in warrantless arrest to search and seize dangerous weapons and things
that may be used as proof
- Warrant is needed when police are given time to procure the needed warrant
- Person is stopped from assailing the legality of arrest if he fails to raise issue before
arraignment (waiver limited only to arrest)
- Waiver of illegal warrantless arrest does not carry with it a waiver of inadmissibility of
evidence seized during the illegal warrantless arrest
- When acting under a tip, surveillance must first be conducted to determine PC then secure a
warrant
- Plain view doctrine elements:
(1) Prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which police are legally
present for official duties
(2) Evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have the right to be where they
are
(3) Evidence must be immediately apparent
(4) “plain view” justified mere seizure of evidence without further search
- Valid search without a warrant:
(1) Search incidental to a lawful arrest
(2) Plain view
(3) Moving vehicle
(4) Consented warrantless search
(5) Customs search
(6) Stop and frisk
(7) Exigent and emergency circumstances
- Any evidence obtained in violation of right is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding
- What constitutes a reasonable search is purely a judicial question.
- PC with respect to arrest—facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonable discreet
and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the items sough in
connection therewith is in the place to be searched
- Lawful arrest must precede a valid search
- Arrest is considered legitimate if effected with a valid warrant of arrest except:
(1) In flagrante delicto
- In presence of officer, actually committing or attempting to commit an offense
- Must have personal knowledge of facts or circumstances constitutive of PC
(2) Effected in hot pursuit
(3) Escaped prisoners
- Intrusion to a person’s body, effects or residence only by virtue of a valid search warrant
EXC to valid search without warrant:
vanillaela
Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Case Doctrines
Dean Joan Largo
Homar v People - Petitioner was initially found to be
jaywalking when police accosted him to
walk at the pedestrian area when police
frisked him as he picked something up
from the ground resulting in the discovery
of a knife and shabu
- Failed to prove lawful warrantless arrest
(not charged with jaywalking) before the
search
People v - Based on a report, the appellant was selling
Macalaba shabu but upon reaching his apartment did
not find him there but caught him in the
traffic while driving a carnapped vehicle
- Shabu and other illegal items was exposed
while appellant was getting the car’s
certificate of registration
- Warrantless arrest/ search was a valid
exemption
People v Valdez - Caught in flagrante delicto in planting and
cultivating marijuana leaves
- Confiscated plants were evidently obtained
during an illegal search and seizure (plants
were not immediately apparent or in plain
view therefore needing further search)—
inadmissible evidence
- Police had at least 1 day to obtain a
warrant from the information
People v - Spencer was arrested for selling marijuana
Elamparo to buy-bust team, escaped and ran towards
the house of Elamparo’s father where
Elamparo was caught in flagrante delicto
packing marijuana tops
10
(1) Moving vehicle
(2) Plain view
(3) Customs
(4) Waiver or consented search
- To constitute a waiver:
a. First appear that the right exists
b. Person had knowledge, actual or constructive of the existence of right
c. Actual intention to relinquish right
(5) Stop and frisk
(6) Incidental to lawful arrest
- There must be a valid warrantless search and seizure pursuant to an equally valid warrantless
arrest (Sec 5, Rule 113 of Rules of CrimPro) which must precede the search
- Filing of a criminal charge is not a condition precedent to prove a valid warrantless arrest
(prosecution is not relieved from its burden to prove valid warrantless arrest preceding the
warrantless search that produced the corpus delicti of the crime)
- Arrest—intention to arrest and intention to submit under the belief that submission is
necessary
- Waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not also mean a waiver of the inadmissibility of
evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest
- “plain view” doctrine (while appellant was looking for the papers of the car in his clutch
bag)—unlawful objects within the plain view of an officer who has the right to be in the
position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented in evidence
- “Plain view” requirements:
(1) Prior valid intrusion in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official
duties
(2) Evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they
are
(3) Evidence must be immediately apparent
(4) Plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search
- Exceptions for allowing warrantless searches and seizures (enumerated)
- Exceptions for allowing warrantless arrests (Sec 5, Rule 113 of Rules of CrimPro)
- GR: search and seizure must be carried on the strength of a judicial warrant
- EXC: recognized exceptions for valid warrantless search and seizure
- Right against unreasonable searches and seizures is the immunity of one’s person, which
includes his residence, his papers and other possessions; “right of personal security” not
places
- Warrantless search and seizure allowed under the plain view doctrine and that an arrest
without warrant is lawful where an accused is caught in flagrante delicto
- 5 exceptions to the right against warrantless search and seizures judicially formulated
- Plain view doctrine (definition, requisites)
vanillaela
Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Case Doctrines
Dean Joan Largo
People v Johnson - Shabu was seized during the routine frisk
at the airport as pursuant to airport
security procedures (valid warrantless
search= admissible evidence)
- Valid warrantless arrest as in flagrante
delicto
People v Mendoza - Convicted for parricide and illegal
possession of firearm and ammunition
- Implied that the gun belongs to the victim;
dispute about the unlicensed gun and not
about the illicit relationship
Papa v Mago - Acting upon a reliable information that a
certain shipment of personal effects,
allegedly misdeclared and undervalued
would be released; police conducted
surveillance; seized and detained the 2
trucks and their cargo
Padilla v CA - Manarang and Perez witnessed the vehicle
hit a person and ran from the scene
- When Padilla was caught up showing a gun
tucked in his waist which not properly
documented when he alighted with both
his hands raised
People v Mariacos - Checkpoint to intercept a suspected
transportation of marijuana which did not
yield any suspect or marijuana
- Police received info about carrying of
marijuana in a jeepney to which police
boarded; peeked inside the contents of the
suspected (and described) plastic to which
he found the marijuana; arrested Mariacos
11
- Persons may lose the protection of the search and seizure clause by exposure of their persons
or property to the public in a manner reflecting a lack of subjective expectation of privacy
which expectation society is prepared to recognize as reasonable (e.g. airport security)
- Announcements of searches place passengers on notice that ordinary consti protections
against warrantless searches and seizures do not apply to routine airport procedures
- Other personal effects should be returned which are not:
(1) Subject of the offense
(2) Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or fruits of the offense
(3) Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense
- People v Marti—constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures refers
to the immunity of one’s person from interference by government and it cannot be extended
to acts committed by private individuals (warrant is dispensable)
- Bureau of Customs acquires exclusive jurisdiction over imported goods for purposes of
enforcing the Customs laws (from when goods are actually in possession and control of
Bureau even in absence of warrant)
- Customs acquired jurisdiction over goods when seized to the exclusion of regular courts for
purposes of enforcement of customs and tariff laws
- Tariff and Customs Code does not require a search warrant to enforce customs and tariff laws
(“Except in the search of a dwelling house, police authority under the customs law may effect
search and seizure without search warrant in the enforcement of customs laws”)
- Law enforcers tasked to effect the enforcement of the customs and tariff laws are authorized
to search and seize without a warrant any article when there is reasonable cause to suspect
that the items have been introduced in the Phils in violation of tariff and customs laws
- Grounds for warrantless arrests
- Objection to an invalid warrantless arrest must be made before plea
- 5 instances when a warrantless search and seizure of property is valid
- Voluntary surrender of firearm indicates a waiver of his right against the alleged search and
seizure (failure to quash the information stopped him from assailing the purported defect)
- Search of a moving vehicle when search was conducted with probable cause to believe, before
the search, that either motorist is a law-offender or contents of vehicle are instruments or
subject matter or proceeds of an offense
- 2-tiered test of an incidental search
(1) Item to be searched (vehicle) was within the arrestee’s custody or area of immediate
control
(2) Search was contemporaneous with the arrest
- PC must first be satisfied before a warrantless search and seizure can be conducted; without
PC= inadmissible evidence
- Reasonable suspicion must be founded on PC coupled with good faith on the police making
the arrest
- Rules on search and seizure liberalized whenever a moving vehicle is the object of the search
on the basis of practicality (impracticable to obtain a warrant when they can quickly be
moved out of the locality or jurisdiction where warrant must be sought)
- Search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the arrest if the police has
vanillaela
Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Case Doctrines
Dean Joan Largo
- Search is valid; vehicle carrying the drugs
was about to leave
- Police had PC to search the packages
allegedly containing illegal drugs because
of information
People v Suzuki - At the Bacolod Airport Terminal carrying a
box which activated the detector and
revealed the marijuana
- Search by Police Aviation Security
Command (PASCOM) was reasonable as
provided under RA 6235
- Court noted that he voluntarily consented
to the search and when the marijuana was
found, he was caught in flagrante delicto
justifying his arrest without a warrant
Salvador v People - Search made by the PAF Team on
petitioner and his co-accued was in the
nature of a customs search
- During search, petitioner was on board a
moving PAL aircraft tow truck
- Aircraft mechanics of PAL nabbed by
intelligence operatives of the Phil Air Force
during surveillance operations for
possessing smuggled watches and jewelries
- Team conducted a search when the
uniform was partly open showing a girdle
where a package fell
Epie v Ulat- - Police received an information from a
Marredo confidential agent that a jeepney was
loaded with Benguet pine lumber;
established a checkpoint to which the jeep
did not stop when flagged down; conducted
a chase
- Found lumber to which the driver and
companions admitted they had no permit
to transport such; immediately arrested
Dela Cruz v - X-ray machine operator saw what
People appeared to be 3 firearms inside the bag to
which he was arrested for being caught in
flagrante delicto
- Presentation of petitioner’s bad for x-ray
scanning was voluntary (voluntarily
submitted his bag for inspection to the port
12
PC to make the arrest at the outset of the search
- Search conducted pursuant to routine airport security procedure was an exception to the
proscription against warrantless searches
- To be considered a search incidental to a lawful arrest, law requires there must be a lawful
arrest before the search
- No need for search warrant when properly effected search and seizure exercising police
authority under the customs law
- Search of moving vehicle is a valid exception to the requirement of a search warrant for
practicability
- GR: search must be with a judicial warrant
- EXC: People v Sarap—exceptions where sarch and seizure may be conducted without a
warrant (only requirement in these exceptions is the presence of PC)
- PC—existence of such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonable, discreet and
prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in
connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched
- People v Aruta—in warrantless searches, PC must only be based on reasonable ground of
suspicion or belief that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed
- Search in a moving vehicle is held to be an exception provided that PC is present to justify
- People v Vinecarao—where vehicle sped away after noticing a checkpoint even after being
flagged down, there exists PC to justify a reasonable belief
- Routine baggage inspections by port authorities are not unreasonable
- With regard to search and seizures, the standard imposed on private persons is different from
that imposed on state agents or authorized government authorities
- Evidence obtained against the accused was not procured by the state acting through its police
officers or authorized government agencies (Bill of Rights does not govern relationships
between individuals)
- Voluntary submission to the search of his person precludes the person from claiming an
vanillaela
Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Case Doctrines
Dean Joan Largo
authorities)
Comerciante v - Police was patrolling the area when he
People spotted the 2 men showing “improper and
unpleasant movements” with one of them
handing plastic sachets to the other
- Thinking that it was shabu, police
approached and arrested them confiscating
2 sachets confirmed with shabu
- No lawful arrest since it was highly
implausible that officer was able to identify
with reasonable accuracy the miniscule
substances; no other over act could be
properly attributed to rouse suspicion
Checkpoint Searches
Valmonte v Gen. - NCRDC activated to conduct security
De villa operations within its area of responsibility
and peripheral areas to establish an
effective territorial defense installing
checkpoints
- Petitioner avers that the checkpoints make
residents worry about being harassed and
their safety was at the whimsical
disposition of the military manning the
checkpoints (increased when one was
gunned down for ignoring or refusing to
submit to the checkpoint)
People v Escano - During the COMELEC gun ban, a checkpoint
was put up stopping those they found
suspicious and imposing merely a running
stop on the others
- Stopped a car to which they saw a long
firearm on the lap of the person seated and
found more weapons and hashish
- Valid search; Checkpoint was conducted in
pursuance of the gun ban
- Search of the vehicle was done with the
consent (without objection)
Immunity from Arrest (Art 6, Sec 11)
13
invalid warrantless search
- Consented search herein is different from a customs search (Tariff and Cusoms Code provides
the authority for such warrantless search)
- GR: Search and seizure must be carried out with a judicial warrant predicated upon the
existence of PC
- Sec 3(2) of Art 3—exclusionary rule that evidence obtained and confiscated in unreasonable
searches and seizures are deemed tainted and should be excluded for being the proverbial
fruit of a poisonous tree (inadmissible for any proceeding)
- There has to be a genuine reason to serve purposes of the “stop and frisk” exception and not
mere suspicion and not have to be PC
- Warrantless arrests—officer’s personal knowledge of the fact of the commission of an offense
is absolutely required (Sec5a—police witnesses the crime; Sec5b—knows for a fact that a
crime has just been committed)
- Sec 5(b) for warrantless arrests provides that at the application of the time of the arrest, an
offense had in fact just been committed and the arresting officer had personal knowledge of
facts indicating the accused committed it.
- Requisites of warrantless arrests that must concur:
(1) Person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is
actually committing or is attempting to commit a crime
(2) Overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer
- Burden is to the state to demonstrate the reasonableness of the search
- Checkpoints have become “search warrants” unto themselves (a roving one at that)
- Setting up of the checkpoints may be considered as a security measure to enable the NCRDC
to pursue its mission of establishing effective territorial defense and maintaining peace and
order
- Checkpoints may also be regarded as measures to thwart plots to destabilize the government
- Checkpoints during these abnormal times, when conducted within reasonable limits, are part
of the price we pay for an orderly society and a peaceful community
- Not all checkpoints are illegal; those which are warranted by the exigencies of public order
and are conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists are allowed
- For as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to a body search and
the inspection of the vehicle is limited to a visual search, cannot be regarded as violative
- Checkpoints need not be announced as it may forewarn those who intend to violate
- Legitimacy of checkpoints may still be inferred from their fixed location and the regularized
manner in which they operate
vanillaela
Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Case Doctrines
Dean Joan Largo
WHO v Aquino - Petitioner enjoyed diplomatic immunity
between Phils and WHO
- Petitioner’s personal effects (entered Phils
free from duties and taxes) were subjected
to a search warrant for alleged violation of
Tariff and Customs law
Effect of Invalid Search and Seizure (Sec 3(2))
Stonehill v Diokno - Prosecution made issuance of 42 search
warrants to search persons and premises
of several personal properties for violation
of Central Bank Laws etc
- Contended that the search warrants are
null and void for being violative of the
Constitution
- Whether or not the petitioner can validly
assail the legality of the search and seizure
in both premises
- Defective warrant—No specific offense had
been alleged in the application of the
warrant; impossible for judge to find PC;
warrants authorized the search for records
pertaining to all business transactions
whether legal or not
14
- Diplomatic immunity carries with it personal inviolability, inviolability of the official’s
properties, exemption from local jurisdiction and exemption from tax and customs duties
- Diplomatic immunity is a political question; duty of the courts to accept the claim of immunity
upon approp suggestion by the principal law officer of the government
- Courts may not exercise their jurisdiction by seizure and detention of property as to
embarrass the executive arm of the government in conducting foreign relations
- RA 75—safeguard the jurisdictional immunity of diplomatic officials; declares null and void
writs or processes prosecuted whereby the person of an ambassador or public minister is
arrested or imprisoned or his goods or chattels are seized or attached and makes it a penal
offense for every person by whom the same is obtained or prosecuted
- can only assail the search conducted in the residences but not those done in the corporation's
premises (corporation has a personality separate and distinct from the personality of its
officers or herein petitioner)
- Only the party whose rights has been impaired can validly object the legality of a seizure--a
purely personal right which cannot be exercised by a third party (right to object belongs to
the corporation)
- Requisites for Issuance of Search Warrant
(1) No warrant issue but upon PC to be determined by the judge
(2) Warrant shall particularly describe the things to be seized
- General Warrants outlawed by Constitution
- Sec 3(2) of Art 3—exclusionary rule that evidence obtained and confiscated in unreasonable
searches and seizures are deemed tainted and should be excluded for being the proverbial
fruit of a poisonous tree (inadmissible for any proceeding)
vanillaela