The right of a man, together with his love-ones, is protected by the Bill of Rig hts under Article 3, Section

2 of the Philippine Constitution. It states that, The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effec ts against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any pur pose 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 exami nation under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may pro duce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or th ings to be seized. As a general rule, before a police officer can arrest or search a person, he mus t validly first secure a warrant of arrest or search warrant. Without it, any ev idence that can be obtained by such shall become inadmissible evidence in court. Elements of a good evidence It must be relevant It must be material It must be competent Requisites for a valid warrant of arrest or search warrant There should be probable cause It must be personally determined by a judge It should be examined under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witne ss he may produce. Place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized should be particular , not general. Only party affected may contest legality of seizure effected by search warrants. O fficers of certain corporations, from which documents, papers and things were se ized by means of search warrants, have no cause of action to assail the legality of the seizures because said corporations have personalities distinct and separ ate from those of said officers. The legality of a seizure can be contested only by the party whose rights have been impaired thereby. The objection to an unlaw ful search is purely personal and cannot be availed of by third parties. When illegally seized evidence is admissible. Officers of certain corporations can not validly object to the use in evidence against them of the documents, papers and things seized from the offices and premises of the corporations since the ri ght to object to their admission in evidence belongs exclusively to the corporat ions, to which the seized effects belong, and may not be invoked by the corporat e officers in proceedings against them in their individual capacity. Requisites for issuing search warrants. The Constitution provides that no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by the judge, and that the warrant shall particularly describe the things to be seized. General search warrants. Search warrants, issued upon applications stating that th e natural and juridical persons therein named had committed a violation of Centr al Bank laws, tariff and customs laws, Tax Code and Revised Penal Code do not sa tisfy the constitutional requirements because no specific offense had been alleg ed in said applications. It was impossible for the judges, who issued the warran ts, to have found the existence of probable cause, which presupposes the introdu ction of competent proof that the party against whom it is sought has performed particular acts or committed specific omissions in violation of a specific penal provision. Why general warrants are outlawed. General search warrants are outlawed because th ey place the sanctity of the domicile and the privacy of communication and corre spondence at the mercy of the whims, caprice or passion of peace officers. Provision of Revised Rules of Court. To prevent the issuance of general warrants, the Supreme Court amended the Old Rules of Court by providing in the Revised Rul es of Court that no search warrant shall issue for more than one specific offense . Warrants not describing particularly the things to be seized. Search warrants auth orizing the seizure of books of accounts and records showing all the business tra nsactions of certain persons, regardless of whether the transactions were legal o r illegal, contravene the explicit command of the Bill of Rights that the things to be seized should be particularly described and defeat its major objective of eliminating general warrants. [Stonehill vs. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383(1967)]

Warrant-less Arrests In flagrante delicto Hot pursuit Escapee Warrant-less Searches Search incident to lawful arrest o Arrest precedes search Consented Search Plain-view search Checkpoints Administrative Searches At airports