Page | 1

The Right Against Unreasonable Searches & Seizures:

A BASIC GUIDE
By Atty. Alexis F. Medina 1 San Sebastian College, Institute of Law
Sections 2 and 3 (2) of Article III of the Constitution provide:

"SECTION 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. SEC 3. x x x (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of x x x the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

GUIDE OUTLINE
1. How to determine if the search or seizure violates the Constitutional prohibition 2. How to determine if the search or seizure is a government action 3. How to determine if the search or seizure is unreasonable

4. How to determine the legal consequences of the unlawful search or seizure

Atty. Alexis F. Medina. AB Political Science, University of the Philippines (UP), Diliman; Order of the Purple Feather (OPF), UP, College of Law; Valedictorian, San Sebastian College, Manila, Institute of Law; Senior Associate, Ponce Enrile Reyes & Manlastas Law Offices (Pecabar)

Page | 2

I. DOES THE SEARCH OR SEIZURE VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION?

Protection guaranteed: Immunity of persons, not places
The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is the immunity of one's person, which includes his residence, his papers, and other possessions. The guarantee refers to "the right of personal security" of the individual. What is sought to be protected against the State's unlawful intrusion are persons, not places. To conclude otherwise would lead to the absurd logic that for a person to be immune against unreasonable searches and seizures, he must be in his home or office, within a fenced yard or a private place. The Bill of Rights belongs as much to the person in the street as to the individual in the sanctuary of his bedroom. 2

Basic Requirements for the constitutional prohibition to apply The search or seizure violates the prohibition under Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, if it is: 1. 2. a government or state action; and unreasonable

Requirement No.1: Government/State action Rule: The search or seizure must be an action by the government or state, otherwise the Constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures and the exclusionary rule will not apply. 3 The protection against unreasonable searches and seizures proscribes only governmental action. It is wholly inapplicable to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official." 4
2
3

People v. Valdez, 25 September 2000 People v. Bangcarawan, 384 SCRA 525, 11 July 2002; People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57, 18 January 1991 4 United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984). Note that in the United States, the State Action Doctrine was originally applied to First Amendment rights (freedom of speeh, religion, association, assembly) and Fourteenth Amendment rights (due process and equal protection).

Page | 3

Reason: The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures applies as a restraint directed only against the government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law. It could only be invoked against the State. 5 This is because Bill of Rights governs the relationship between the individual and the state, and not the relation between private individuals. 6

Requirement No. 2: Unreasonable Search or Seizure What the constitution prohibits are unreasonable searches and seizures.
The constitutional guarantee is not a blanket prohibition against all searches and seizures as it operates only against unreasonable searches and seizures. Searches and seizures are as a rule unreasonable unless authorized by a validly issued search warrant or warrant of arrest. 7 Reasonableness is the touchstone of the validity of a government search or intrusion. 8 Reasonable searches and seizures are allowed The Constitutional proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures does not, of course, forestall reasonable searches and seizure. What constitutes a reasonable or even an unreasonable search in any particular case is purely a judicial question, determinable from a consideration of the circumstances involved. 9

II.
People v. Bangcarawan, 384 SCRA 525, 11 July 2002; People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57, 18 January 1991; see also People v. Hipol, 407 SCRA 179, 22 July 2003) 6 See People v. Marti 18, 193 SCRA 57 January 1991; People v. Mendoza, 301 SCRA 66, 18 January 1999; Burdeau v. McDowell (256 US 465 (1921), State v. Bryan (457 P.2d 661 [1968]; Walker v. State (429 S.W.2d 121), Bernas v. US (373 F.2d 517) 7 People v. Libnao, 395 SCRA 407, 20 January 2003 8 Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board, 570 SCRA 411, 03 November 2008
5

People v. Chua Ho San, 17 June 1999

Page | 4

IS THE SEARCH OR SEIZURE A GOVERNMENT ACTION?

Rule: A search by a private individual, without the intervention of the police, is not covered by the constitutional prohibition
If the search is made at the behest or initiative of the proprietor of a private establishment for its own and private purposes, and without the intervention of police authorities, the right against unreasonable search and seizure cannot be invoked.10 Thus, in People v. Bangcarawan, 11the baggage of the accused was searched by the vessel security personnel. It was only after they found shabu inside the suitcase that they called the Philippine Coast Guard for assistance. The Supreme Court ruled that the search and seizure of the suitcase and the contraband items were carried out without government intervention, and hence, the search did not come under the Constitutional prohibition, and the seized shabu was deemed admissible as evidence.

III. IS THE SEARCH OR SEIZURE UNREASONABLE?

Unreasonable Searches and Seizures 1. Unreasonable: Searches and seizures without a warrant
A search and seizure must be carried through or with a judicial warrant; otherwise, such search and seizure becomes unreasonable. 12 Searches, seizures and arrests are normally unreasonable unless authorized by a validly issued search warrant or warrant of arrest. 13 No arrest, search and seizure can be made without a valid warrant issued by a competent judicial authority. The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be

People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57, 18 January 1991 384 SCRA 525, 11 July 2002 12 People v. Nuevas, 516 SCRA 463, 22 February 2007; People v. Compacion, 361 SCRA 540, 20 July 2001; People v. Valdez, 345 SCRA 357, 25 September 2000; People v. Tudtud, 482 SCRA 142, 26 September 2003; Pita v. Court of Appeals, 178 SCRA 362,05 October 1989; People v. Chua Ho San, 308 scra 432, 17 June 1999; People v. Barros, 231 SCRA 557, 565 13 David v. Macapagal-Arroyo 489 SCRA 162, 03 May 2006
10 11

Page | 5
secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. 14 The Constitution bars State intrusions to a person's body, personal effects or residence except if conducted by virtue of a valid search warrant issued in compliance with the procedure outlined in the Constitution and reiterated in the Rules of Court; otherwise such search and seizure become unreasonable within the meaning of the aforementioned constitutional provision. 15

2. warrant

Unreasonable: Searches and seizures under an invalid

If the search warrant is null and void, the searches and seizures made therein are illegal.16 The search warrant must strictly comply with the requirements of the Constitution and the statutory provisions. Failure to comply with any requirement mandated by law for the issuance of a search warrant renders such search warrant invalid, the subsequent search unlawful, and evidence obtained therefrom inadmissible.
17

If the search warrant is null and void, the searches and seizures made therein are illegal.18

Requisites for a valid search warrant

(1) It must be issued upon probable cause; (2) The probable cause must be determined by the judge himself and not by the applicant or any other person; (3) In the determination of probable cause, the judge must examine, under oath or affirmation, the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may produce; and (4) The warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized.19 A search warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be determined personally by the judge
People v. Valdez, 03 March 1999 People v. Chua Ho San, 17 June 1999; People v. Barros 231 SCRA 557, 565 16 See Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383, 19 June 1967; Bache and Co., (Phil.) Inc. v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823, 27 February 1971 17 See People v. Mamaril 22, 420 SCRA 662, January 2004; PICOP v. Asuncion, 307 SCRA 253, 19 May 1999; See also Asian Surety v. Herrera, 54 SCRA 312, 20 December 1973; Alvarez v. CFI Tayabas, 64 Phil 33, 29 January 1937; Burgos v. Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 800, December 1984
14 15

See Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383, 19 June 1967; Bache and Co., (Phil.) Inc. v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823, 27 February 1971 19 Section 2, Article III, 1987 Constitution; Hon Ne Chan v. Honda Motor, 541 SCRA 249, 19 December 2007
18

Page |6
after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines. 20

Probable cause for a search warrant: Defined The existence of such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably 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 to be searched. 21 Probable cause: How determined To be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and his witnesses he may produce. 22 Probable cause: Personal knowledge required Absent the element of personal knowledge by the applicant or his witnesses of the facts upon which the issuance of a search warrant may be justified, the warrant is deemed not based on probable cause and is a nullity, its issuance being, in legal contemplation, arbitrary.23 Search warrant does not justify search & seizure of any evidence A search warrant is not a sweeping authority for a fishing expedition to seize and confiscate any and all kinds of evidence or articles relating to a crime. Nothing should be left to the discretion of the officer executing the warrant. 24 Test of particularity of description
A search warrant may be said to particularly describe the things to be seized when the description therein is as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow; or when the description expresses a conclusion of fact not of law by which the warrant officer may be guided in making the search and seizure; or when the things described are limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. 25

GENERAL RULE:
Section 4, Rule 126, Rules of Court Sony Music v. Espanol, et al., 453 SCRA 360, 14 March 2005; Nala v. Barroso, 408 SCRA 529, 07 August 2003; Santos v. Pryce Gases, 538 SCRA 474, 23 November 2007) 22 Section 2, Article III, 1987 Constitution
20 21

23
24 25

(Sony Music v. Espanol, et al., 453 SCRA 360, 14 March 2005)

(Unilab. Isip, 461 SCRA 575, 28 June 2005; People v. Francisco, 387 SCRA 569, 22 August 2002) Bache and Co., (Phil.) Inc. v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823, 27 February 1971; Columbia pictures versus court of Appeals, 262 SCRA 219, 20 September 1996; Uy v. BIR, 345 SCRA 36, 20 October 2000)

Page | 7 A search or seizure by the government without a judicial warrant is unreasonable and thus, illegal.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE: Warrantless searches that are reasonable and, thus, valid
The Constitutional proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures does not forestall reasonable searches and seizure. What constitutes a reasonable or even an unreasonable search in any particular case is purely a judicial question, determinable from a consideration of the circumstances involved. 26 In the following instances, the search is reasonable even without a warrant: (1) (2) (3) (4) search incident to a lawful arrest; search of a moving motor vehicle; search in violation of customs laws; seizure of evidence in plain view;

(5) search when the accused himself waives his right against unreasonable searches and seizures (consented search); (6) stop and frisk (Terry search); and search arising from exigent and emergency circumstances.27

(7)

26

People v. Chua Ho San, 308 SCRA 432, 17 June 1999

27

People v. Tudtud, 412 SCRA 427, 26 September 2006; Epie v. Ulat-Marredo, 518 SCRA 641, 22 March 2007; People v. Sarap 399 SCRA 503, March 26, 2003; People v. Nuevas, 516 SCRA 463, 22 February 2007; People v. Valdez, 304 SCRA 140, 03 March 1999

Page | 8

Other warrantless searches that are reasonable and valid

In People v. Agulay 28, the Supreme Court enumerated other instances of valid warrantless searches, specifically: - searches of vessels and aircraft for violation of immigration, customs and drug laws; - searches of automobiles at borders or constructive borders; and - searches of buildings and premises to enforce fire, sanitary, and building regulations. In People v. Johnston, the Supreme Court also held valid a warrantless search pursuant to routine airport security procedure, which is authorized under Section 9 of Republic Act No. 6235. 29 Under Section 6 of Commonwealth Act 613 or the Philippine Immigration Act as amended, immigration inspectors are empowered to go aboard and search for aliens on any vessel or other conveyance in which they believe aliens are being brought into the Philippines.

VALID WARRANTLESS SEARCHES & SEIZURES: A CLOSER LOOK (1) Search incident to a lawful arrest
Purpose of search 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. 30 There must first be a valid arrest before a search The law requires that there first be a valid arrest before a search can be made the process cannot be reversed. 31

28

26 September 2008

29
30

People v. Johnston 348 SCRA 526; People v. Macalaba 20 January 2003 Section 12, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure; People v. Che Chun Ting, 328 SCRA 592, 21 March 2000 31 People v. Binad Sy Chua, 396 SCRA 657, 04 February 2003; People v. Molina, 352 SCRA 174, 19 February 2001

Page |9

Limits to the scope of search incidental to a lawful arrest

As to Area: Immediate Control Test The seizure of evidence or dangerous weapons must be either on the person of the one arrested or within the area of his immediate control. The phrase within the area of his immediate control means the area from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence. 32 Should be limited to the area within which the person to be arrested can reach for a weapon or for evidence that he or she can destroy. 33 As to Subject As to subject, the search must only be with respect to the person of the suspect, and things that may be seized from him are limited to "dangerous weapons" or "anything which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense." 34 A gun on a table or in a drawer in front of one who is arrested can be as dangerous to the arresting officer as one concealed in the clothing of the person arrested. 35 As to Time The search must be contemporaneous with the lawful arrest. The search must be conducted at about the time of the arrest or immediately thereafter and only at the place where the suspect was arrested, or the premises or surroundings under his immediate control. 36

(2) Search of a moving motor vehicle

Limited car inspection: Valid even without probable cause Routine inspections of motor vehicles are normally permissible in the following instances: (1) where the officer merely draws aside the curtain of a vacant vehicle which is parked on the public fair ground; (2) simply looks into a vehicle; (3) flashes a light therein without opening the car's doors; (4) where the occupants are not subjected to a physical or body search; (5) where the inspection of the vehicles is limited to a visual search or visual inspection; and (6) where the routine check is conducted in a fixed area.37 Visual search: Probable cause not required When there is no probable cause, peace officers are limited to routine checks where the examination of the vehicle is limited to visual inspection. 38
32

Valeroso v. Court of Appeals, 3 September 2009, G.R. No. 16481; People v. Cubcubin, 360 SCRA 690, 10 July

2001 33 People v. Estella, 395 SCRA 553, 21 January 2003 34 People v. Che Chun Ting, 328 SCRA 592, 21 March 2000
35

Valeroso v. Court of Appeals, 3 September 2009, G.R. No. 16481; People v. Estella, 395 SCRA 553, 21 January

2003 36 People v. Che Chun Ting, 328 SCRA 592, 21 March 2000 37 Caballes v. Court of Appeals, 15 January 2002 38 People v. Libnao, 325 SCRA 407, 20 January 2003

P a g e | 10

Extensive search: Probable cause required When a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive search, such would be constitutionally permissible only if the officers made it upon probable cause, i.e., upon a belief, reasonably arising out of circumstances known to the seizing officer, that an automobile or other vehicle contains as item, article or object which by law is subject to seizure and destruction, 39 or instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime, in the vehicle to be searched. 40 Extensive search must be done only when it is not practicable to secure a warrant Warrantless search of a moving vehicle is allowed only when it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the area or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. 41 Search of moving vehicle principle applies to fishing vessels and boats Search and seizure without search warrant of vessels and aircrafts for violations of customs laws have been the traditional exception to the constitutional requirement of a search warrant. It is rooted on the recognition that a vessel and an aircraft, like motor vehicles, can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the search warrant must be sought and secured. The same exception ought to apply to seizures of fishing vessels and boats breaching fishery laws. 42

(3) Search in violation of customs laws

Enforcers of customs and tariff laws are authorized to effect searches, seizures, and arrests, and to make seizure, among others, of any cargo, articles or other movable property when the same may be subject to forfeiture or liable for any fine imposed under customs and tariff laws. They could lawfully open and examine any box, trunk, envelope or other container wherever found when he had reasonable cause to suspect the presence therein of dutiable articles introduced into the Philippines contrary to law; and likewise to stop, search and examine any vehicle, beast or person reasonably suspected of holding or conveying such articles. Based on Section 2203 of the Tariff and Customs Code, except in the case of the search of a dwelling house, persons exercising police authority under the customs law may effect search and seizure without a search warrant in the enforcement of customs laws. 43 (emphases supplied)

39 40 41 42

People v. Libnao, 325 SCRA 407, 20 January 2003 People v. Lapitaje, 392 SCRA 674, 19 February 2003 People v. Lapitaje, 392 SCRA 674, 19 February 2003 Hizon v. CA, 265 SCRA 517, 13 December 1996 Papa v. Mago, 22 SCRA 257, 28 February 1968; see also Salvador v, People, 463 SCRA 489, 15 July 2005

43

P a g e | 11 (4) doctrine) Seizure of evidence in plain view (plain view

Under the plain view doctrine, objects failing in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in that position to have that view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant and may be introduced in evidence. 44

Elements of a valid seizure of evidence in plain view (a) A prior valid intrusion in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties; (b) The evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have the right to be where they are; (c) The evidence must be immediately apparent; (d) Plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search. 45 Evidence in plain view may be seized, although not described in the search warrant 46 Meaning of immediately apparent At the time of the discovery of the object or facts or at the moment of seizure, the officer has probable cause to connect the object to criminal activity. 47 Meaning of inadvertence The officer must not have known in advance of the location of the evidence and intend to seize it. Discovery is not anticipated. 48

(5) Search when the accused himself waives his right against unreasonable searches and seizures (consented search)
The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal right which may be waived expressly or impliedly. 49

Consent must be unequivocal, specific and intelligently given The consent to the search must be voluntary, unequivocal, specific, and intelligently given, uncontaminated by any duress or coercion. The consent to a search must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. 50 Requisites for a valid waiver In case of consented searches or waiver of the constitutional guarantee against obtrusive searches, it must first appear that (1) the right exists; (2) the person involved
Abelita v. Doria, 14 August 2009; People v. Doria, 301 SCRA 668,22 January 1999; People v. Lagman, 573 SCRA 225, 08 December 2008 45 People v. Nuevas, 576 SCRA 463; 22 February 2007; People v. Compacion, 361 SCRA 540, 20 July 2001 46 Unilab v. Isip, 461 SCRA 575, 28 June 2005
44

47
48 49 50

Unilab v. Isip, 461 SCRA 575, 28 June 2005 Unilab v. Isip, 461 SCRA 575, 28 June 2005 People v. Cubcubin, 360 SCRA 690, 10 July 2001 People v. Nuevas 22 February 2007, 576 SCRA 463

P a g e | 12
had knowledge, either actual or constructive, of the existence of such right; and (3) the said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right. 51

Peaceful submission is not consent Peaceful submission to a search or seizure is not a consent or an invitation thereto, but is merely a demonstration of regard for the supremacy of the law. 52 The accused is not to be presumed to have waived the unlawful search simply because he failed to object. 53 The presumption is against waiver of constitutional right.
54

(6) Stop and frisk (Terry search)

Scope Limited protective search of outer clothing for weapons.
55

When stop and frisk is valid Where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and dangerous, where in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him. 56 Mere suspicion is not enough for a stop-and-frisk; there must be genuine reason to believe that the person has a concealed weapon Mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a stop-and-frisk. A genuine reason must exist, in light of the police officers experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person detained has weapons concealed about him. 57

(7) Search arising from exigent and emergency circumstances

In People v. De Gracia (233 SCRA 716, [1994]), there were intelligence reports that the building was being used as headquarters by the RAM during a coup detat. A surveillance team was fired at by a group of armed men coming out of the building and the occupants of said building refused to open the door despite repeated
51
52

People v. Nuevas, 576 SCRA 463, 22 February 2007 People v. Nuevas, 576 SCRA 463, 22 February 2007; People v. Comnpacion, 361 SCRA 540, 20 July 2009

53
54

People v. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1; People v. Compacion, 361 SCRA 540, 20 July 2001 People v. Burgos 144 SCRA 1, 1986; People v. Compacion, 361 SCRA 540, 20 July 2001; People v. Aruta 288 SCRA 626 55 People v. Binad Sy Chua, 396 SCRA 657, 04 February 2003; Malacat v. People, 283 SCRA 159, 12 December 1997 56 People v. Binad Sy Chua, 396 SCRA 657, 04 February 2003; Malacat v. People, 283 SCRA 159, 12 December 1997 57 People v. Binad Sy Chua, 396 SCRA 657, 04 February 2003; Malacat v. People, 283 SCRA 159, 12 December 1997

P a g e | 13
requests. There were large quantities of explosives and ammunitions inside the building. Nearby courts were closed and general chaos and disorder prevailed. The existing circumstances sufficiently showed that a crime was being committed. In short, there was probable cause to effect a warrantless search of the building. 58

Probable cause: The basic requirement in all warrantless searches

In People v Aruta 3 April 1998, the Supreme Court declared that the essential requisite of probable cause must still be satisfied before a warrantless search and seizure can be lawfully conducted. In searches and seizures effected without a warrant, it is necessary for probable cause to be present.

IV. WHAT ARE THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF AN UNLAWFUL SEARCH OR SEIZURE?

1. The exclusionary rule applies: Evidence obtained is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. If a search or seizure is unreasonable, any evidence obtained therefrom is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. 59

. .

Thus, evidence obtained during an illegal search or seizure .

(a) (b)

is inadmissible to prove the guilt of the accused. cannot be used to legally obtain other evidence.

60

Evidence obtained from/as a result of evidence obtained in an illegal search would also be inadmissible for being fruit of the poisonous tree.
also cited in People v. Aruta, 288 SCRA 626, 03 April 1998 Sections 2, and 3 [2], Art. III, 1987 Constitution; People v. Nuevas, 576 SCRA 463, 22 February 2007; See also People v. Che Chun Ting, 328 SCRA 592, 21 March 2000; People v. Sarap, 399 SCRA 503, 26 March 2003; People v. Bangcarawan, 384 SCRA 525, 11 July 2002
58 59

60

See People v. Sarap, 399 SCRA 503, 26 March 2003; People v. Francisco, 387 SCRA 592, 22 August 2002; People v. Valdez, 341 SCRA 253, 25 September 2000; People v. Asis, 391 SCRA 108, 15 October 2002

P a g e | 14
Under, the exclusionary rule known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree," once the primary source (the "tree") is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence (the "fruit") derived from it is also inadmissible. The rule is based on the principle that evidence illegally obtained by the State should not be used to gain other evidence because the originally illegally obtained evidence taints all evidence subsequently obtained.61

(c) arrest.

62

cannot be used to justify a subsequent warrantless

2. Even if the search was unlawful, and the evidence obtained was excluded, the court may still convict the accused on the basis of other pieces of admissible evidence. 63
Thus, in People v. Che Chun Ting, 64 the Supreme Court declared that the search in the condominium unit of the accused was illegal (the area was not within the immediate control of the accused at the time of the arrest), and the shabu seized therein was inadmissible as evidence. However, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the accused on the basis of evidence consisting of, among others, shabu which was found in bag of the accused at the time the police arrested him in flagrante delicto in a buy-bust operation. 65

3. If the items seized in an illegal search are contraband or prohibited by law, the same cannot be returned to the owner. 66
However, objects and properties the possession of which is prohibited by law cannot be returned to their owners notwithstanding the illegality of their seizure. 67

4. If the items seized in an illegal search contraband, the same should be returned to the owner. 68

are

not

People v. Alicando 321 Phil 656, 12 December 1995; People v. Domantay 307 SCRA 1, 09 May 1999; People v. Conde, 356 SCRA 415, 10 April 2001
61 62 63

See People v. Sarap, 399 SCRA 503, 26 March 2003

See People v. Che Chun Ting, 328 SCRA 592, 21 March 2000 and People v. Rondero, 320 SCRA 383, 09 December 1999 64 21 March 2000
65
66 67

See also People v. Rondero 09 December 1999)

Castro v. Pabalan, 70 SCRA 477, 30 April 1976; People v. Che Chun Ting, 328 SCRA 592, 21 March 2000 People v. Che Chun Ting 21 March 2000 68 See Bache and Co., (Phil.) Inc. v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823, 27 February 1971; Burgos v. Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 800, 26 December 1984; Nala v. Barroso, 408 SCRA 529, 07 August 2003

P a g e | 15
Seized items that are products of an illegal search, and are not contraband per se, nor objects in connection with the offense, should be returned to the person from whom the same were taken. 69

69

See Nala v. Barroso 07 August 2003