V-D. Arrests, Searches and Seizures Art. III, Sec. 2 and 3 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. Section 3. 1. The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law. 2. Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. Preliminaries

1. Definition, Source and Construction of provision a. Definition (search warrant)
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. ( Section 1, Rule 126, Revised Rules of Court)

b. Origin
The present constitutional provision on the guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure had its origin in the 1935 Charter (Section 1 [3], Article III) which was worded as ―The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined 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.‖ Said provision was in turn derived almost verbatim from the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which provided that ―The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.‖ (People vs. Andre Marti [GR 81561, 18 January 1991])

c. Construction
As the protection of the citizen and the maintenance of his constitutional rights is one of the highest duties and privileges of the court, these constitutional guaranties should be given a liberal construction or a strict construction in favor of the individual, to prevent stealthy encroachment upon, or gradual depreciation of, the rights secured by them (State vs. Custer County, 198 Pac., 362; State vs. McDaniel, 231 Pac., 965; 237 Pac., 373). Since the proceeding is a drastic one, it is the general rule that statutes authorizing searches and seizures or search warrants must be strictly construed (Rose vs. St. Clair, 28 Fed. [2d], 189; Leonard vs. U. S., 6 Fed. [2d], 353; Perry vs. U. S., 14 Fed. [2d], 88; Cofer vs. State, 118 So., 613). The Fourth Amendment‘s policy against unreasonable searches and seizures authorizes warrants to search for contraband, fruits or instrumentalities of crime, or ―any property that constitutes evidence of the commission of a criminal offense.‖ Upon proper showing, the warrant is to issue ―identifying the property and naming or describing the person or place to be searched.‖ Probable cause for the warrant must be presented, but there is nothing in the Rule indicating that the officers must be entitled to arrest

the owner of the ―place‖ to be searched before a search warrant may issue and the ―property‖ may be searched for and seized. The Rule deals with warrants to search, and is unrelated to arrests. Nor is there anything in the Fourth Amendment indicating that absent probable cause to arrest a third party, resort must be had to a subpoena. (Zurcher vs. Stanford Daily [436 US 547, 31 May 1978]) Searches and seizures, in a technical sense, are independent of, rather than ancillary to, arrest and arraignment (ALI, A Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure, Commentary 491; Proposed Off. Draft 1975).

2. Court’s Function, as to Search and Seizure a. Issuance of search warrants, and power to quash warrants
It is undisputed that only judges have the power to issue search warrants. (Salazar vs. Achacoso, 183 SCRA 145 [1990]) This function is exclusively judicial. Inherent in the courts‘ power to issue search warrants is the power to quash warrants already issued. In this connection, the Supreme Court has ruled that the motion to quash should be filed in the court that issued the warrant unless a criminal case has already been instituted in another court, in which case, the motion should be filed with the latter. (People vs. Court of Appeals, 291 SCRA 400 [1998]). Because of the fundamental public interest in implementing the criminal law, the search warrant, a heretofore effective and constitutionally acceptable enforcement tool, should not be suppressed on the basis of surmise and without solid evidence supporting the change. Forbidding the warrant and insisting on the subpoena instead when the custodian of the object of the search is not then suspected of crime, involves serious hazards to criminal investigation. (Zurcher vs. Stanford Daily [436 US 547, 31 May 1978])

b. Determination of validity of search 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. (Valmonte v. De Villa, 178 SCRA 211, 216 [1989]) 1. Purpose and Importance of the guaranty

a. Purpose
The purpose of the constitutional provisions against unlawful searches and seizures is to prevent violations of private security in person and property, and unlawful invasions of the sanctity of the home, by officers of the law acting under legislative or judicial sanction, and to give remedy against such usurpations when attempted. (Adams vs. New York, 192 U. S., 585.) But it does not prohibit the Government from taking advantage of unlawful searches made by a private person or under authority of state law. (Weeks vs. United States, 232 U. S., 383; Burdeau vs. McDowell, 256 U. S., 465.) The house of every one is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury and violence, as for his repose. (Semayne‘s Case, 77 Eng. Rep. 194, 5 Co. Rep. 91a, 91b, 195 [K. B.]) The overriding respect for the sanctity of the home that has been embedded in our traditions since the origins of the Republic‖ meant that absent a warrant or exigent circumstances, police could not enter a home to make an arrest. An arrest warrant founded on probable cause implicitly carries with it the limited authority to enter a dwelling in which the suspect lives when there is reason to believe the suspect is within. (Payton v. New York , 445 U. S. 573, 603-604 (1980])

b. Importance
As explained in People v. Burgos (144 SCRA 1) citing Villanueva v. Querubin (48 SCRA 345): ―It is deference to one‘s personality that lies at the core of this right but it could be also looked upon as a recognition of a constitutionally protected area, primarily one‘s home, but not necessarily thereto confined. (Cf. Hoffa v. United States, 385 US 293 [1966]) What is sought to be guarded is a man‘s

Schermerber v. 19 June 1967]) b. Landynski in his authoritative work (Search and Seizure and the Supreme Court [1966]). 384 US 757 [1966] and Boyd v. et al. Who May Invoke the Right? a. 116 630 [1886]). (People vs. et al. Art. which is called upon to refrain from any invasion of his dwelling and to respect the privacies of his life.prerogative to choose who is allowed entry to his residence. California. (Stonehill. is his castle. (Cf. 384 US 757 [1966]. 18 January 1991]) The constitutional right (against unreasonable search and seizure) refers to the immunity of one‘s person.Ed. and then only under stringent procedural safeguards. Thus is outlawed any unwarranted intrusion by government. 18 January 1991]) The legality of a seizure can be contested only by the party whose rights have been impaired thereby. 1048) 3. 547. his house. for in the traditional formulation. and that the objection to an unlawful search and seizure is purely personal and cannot be availed of by third parties. which is called upon to refrain from any invasion of his dwelling and to respect the privacies of his life. Andre Marti [GR 81561. Thus. 116 US 616 [1886]). There the state. and was not intended to be a limitation upon other than governmental agencies. Its origin and history clearly show that it was intended as a restraint upon the activities of sovereign authority. United States. In that haven of refuge. p. The restraint stayed with the State and did not shift to anyone else. Brennan. 256 US 465 [1921]. 41 S Ct. There the state. could fitly characterize constitutional right as the embodiment of a `spiritual concept: the belief that to value the privacy of home and person and to afford its constitutional protection against the long reach of government is no less than to value human dignity. Andre Marti [GR 81561. United States. (People vs. for in the traditional formulation. however powerful. however humble. Cf. 65 L. (ibid. 2. To Whom Directed 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. and its protection applies to governmental action. vs. does not as such have access except under the circumstances above noted.‖ 2. however humble. and that his privacy must not be disturbed except in case of overriding social need. from interference by government. Diokno. in relation to the phraseology of the 1935 Constitution) relate to the issuance of either a search warrant or warrant of arrest vis-a-vis the responsibility of the judge in the issuance thereof. McDowell. California. The Fourth Amendment gives protection against unlawful searches and seizures. [GR L-19550. Thus is outlawed any unwarranted intrusion by government. his house. 74). Corporations . and Boyd v. it could only be invoked against the State to whom the restraint against arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power is imposed. his papers. J. included in which is his residence. In the same vein. as against such authority it was the purpose of the Fourth Amendment to secure the citizen in the right of unmolested occupation of his dwelling and the possession of his property. however powerful. (Villanueva v. III. (Burdeau v. whether citizen or alien. Schmerber v. does not as such have the access except under the circumstances above noted. and other possessions. his individuality can assert itself not only in the choice of who shall be welcome but likewise in the kind of objects he wants around him. 48 SCRA 345 [1972]. In general Alleged violations against unreasonable search and seizure may only be invoked against the State by an individual unjustly traduced by the exercise of sovereign authority. subject to the right of seizure by process duly served. Querubin. is his castle. The modifications introduced deviate in no manner as to whom the restriction or inhibition against unreasonable search and seizure is directed against. The modifications introduced in the 1987 Constitution (RE: Sec.

Hence. 50 L. after all. In the issuance of search warrants. Sitchon [GR 144309.Although.‖ (People vs. against unreasonable searches and seizures. commanding him to search for personal property and bring it before the court. 23 November 2001]) . 23 November 2001]) Conditions for a valid warrant a) Existence of Probable Cause 1. the Rules of Court requires a finding of probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be determined personally by the judge after examination of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. ―the determination of probable cause during a preliminary investigation has been described as an executive function. vs. whether an information should be filed in court. vs. ed. (Zurcher vs. 23 November 2001]) In applying the ―probable cause‖ standard ―by which a particular decision to search is tested against the constitutional mandate of reasonableness. Henkel. issued in the name of the People of the Philippine Islands. (Hale v. (People vs. under the 4th Amendment. vs. and the second. Burgos v. an officer of a corporation which is charged with a violation of a statute of the state of its creation. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized. The first is to determine whether a warrant should issue or be quashed. Stanford Daily [436 US 547. A corporation is. 288 SCRA 262 [1998]. Sitchon [GR 144309. Aruta. Court of Appeals. It can only be proceeded against by due process of law. and the preliminary investigation before an authorized officer on the other. citing Section 95. and is protected. 29 January 1937]. as amended by section 6 of Act 2886) Crime should exist first. 31 May 1978]) 2. AFP [GR 64261. Chief of Staff. 652. cannot refuse to produce the books and papers of such corporation.‖ The critical element in a reasonable search is not that the owner of the property is suspected of crime but that there is reasonable cause to believe that the specific ―things‖ to be searched for and seized are located on the property to which entry is sought. since there is no crime to speak of. 291 SCRA 400 [1998]) The proceedings for the issuance/quashal of a search warrant before a court on the one hand. Valid warrant A search warrant is an order in writing. One is not bound by the other‘s finding as regards the existence of a crime. the search warrant does not even begin to fulfill these stringent requirements and is therefore defective on its face. 201 U. Probable cause in issuance of warrants distinguished from probable cause in preliminary investigation While the power to issue search warrants upon showing probable cause is a function which is exclusively judicial. Court of First Instance of Tayabas [GR 45358. (Alvarez vs.‖ it is necessary ―to focus upon the governmental interest which allegedly justifies official intrusion‖ and that in criminal investigations a warrant to search for recoverable items is reasonable ―only when there is ‗probable cause‘ to believe that they will be uncovered in a particular dwelling. General Orders 58. Its property cannot be taken without compensation. against unlawful discrimination. construed Probable cause for a search is defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the item(s).S. article(s) or object(s) sought in connection with said offense or subject to seizure and destruction by law is in the place to be searched. the court must necessarily resolve whether or not an offense exists to justify the issuance or quashal of the search warrant. signed by a judge or a justice of the peace. (Solid Triangle Sales Corp.) 4. (Solid Triangle Sales Corp. or of an act of Congress passed in the exercise of its constitutional powers. The purpose of each proceeding differs from the other. 26 December 1984]) In the determination of probable cause. a corporation is entitled to immunity. Probable cause defined. 43. under the 14th Amendment. Sitchon [GR 144309. but an association of individuals under an assumed name and with a distinct legal entity. (Solid Triangle Sales Corp. In organizing itself as a collective body it waives no constitutional immunities appropriate to such body. are proceedings entirely independent of each other. and directed to a peace officer.

In General . looking at every person who came near. People v. Balingan. There is. People v. The same rule applies to crossing the street per se. the search was held to be incidental to a lawful arrest because of ―suspicious‖ circumstances: People v. To this class of cases belong People v. Balingan was a search of a moving vehicle. Significantly.. People v. Tudtud [GR 144037. Reliable information alone is insufficient. (People v. Jr. probable cause exists in the following instances: (a) where the distinctive odor of marijuana emanated from the plastic bag carried by the accused. however. Rule 113 to apply. is actually committing.. Maspil. For the exception in Section 5 (a). Recently. Maspil. would transport marijuana in a bag to Manila. these cases. Valdez. the Court ruled. does not justify a warrantless arrest under said Section 5 (a). he failed to present his passport and other identification papers when requested to do so. 304 SCRA 140 [1999]) b) Personal determination by judge 1. 160 SCRA 646 [1988]) (b) where an informer positively identified the accused who was observed to be acting suspiciously. nor does holding a bag on board a trisikad sanction State intrusion. is actually committing. Jr. come under some other exception to the rule against warrantless searches. 188 SCRA 751 [1990]) (d) where Narcom agents had received information that a Caucasian coming from Sagada. Gonzales. the arresting authorities were acting on information regarding an offense but there were no overt acts or suspicious circumstances that would indicate that the accused has committed. Malmsteadt. (People v. Binad Sy Chua. Claudio. 241 SCRA 277 [1995]) and (i) where the appearance of the accused and the color of the bag he was carrying fitted the description given by a civilian asset. Tangliben. Balingan. the mere act of looking from side to side while holding one‘s abdomen. (People v. Rule 113. or is attempting to commit a crime. Mountain Province had in his possession prohibited drugs and when the Narcom agents confronted the accused Caucasian because of a conspicuous bulge in his waistline. Maspil. (People vs. de Guzman (likewise a bulge on the waist of the accused. In the following cases. thus deviating from Burgos. in turn. Bagista was both. riding a motorcycle. involved a checkpoint search. who was wearing tight-fitting clothes). 193 SCRA 122 [1991]) (g) where the arresting officers had received a confidential information that the accused. except the last two. Bagista. Personal knowledge was also required in the case of People v. Reliable information as basis for probable cause Notwithstanding tips from confidential informants and regardless of the fact that the search yielded contraband. Thus. and People v. would be boarding MV Dona Virginia and probably carrying shabu with him. Lo Ho Wing. and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. 236 SCRA 325 [1994]) (h) where police officers received an information that the accused. People v. Valdez. Nevertheless. People v. (People v.3. whose identity as a drug distributor was established in a previous test-buy operation. who was walking towards a hotel clutching a sealed Zest-O juice box. Tangliben (accused was ―acting suspiciously‖). Neither does putting something in one‘s pocket. and Lising and Montilla were consented searches. (People v. or is attempting to commit the same. in People v. who was carrying a suspicious-looking gray luggage bag. two elements must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating he has just committed. Saycon. the great majority of cases conforms to the rule in Burgos. another set of jurisprudence that deems ―reliable information‖ sufficient to justify a search incident to a warrantless arrest under Section 5 (a). handing over one‘s baggage. (People v. connoting personal knowledge on the part of the arresting officer. the Court declared invalid the arrest of the accused. 184 SCRA 220 [1990]) (c) where the accused who were riding a jeepney were stopped and searched by policemen who had earlier received confidential reports that said accused would transport a quantity of marijuana. Malmstedt (a bulge on the accused‘s waist). and People v. Doria. Montilla. In these cases. Jr. Rule 113. more faithfully adheres to the letter of Section 5(a). People v. which. Note the phrase ―in his presence‖ therein. 26 September 2003]) In fine. or of standing on a corner with one‘s eyes moving very fast. (People v. (People v. 198 SCRA 401 [1991]) (f) where the moving vehicle was stopped and searched on the basis of intelligence information and clandestine reports by a deep penetration agent or spy — one who participated in the drug smuggling activities of the syndicate to which the accused belong — that said accused were bringing prohibited drugs into the country. Lising.

27 February 1971].‖ The determination of whether or not a probable cause exists calls for the exercise of judgment after a judicial appraisal of facts and should not be allowed to be delegated in the absence of any rule to the contrary.‖ The Court states. cannot be consider a personal examination. The oath required must refer to the truth of the facts within the personal knowledge of the petitioner or his witnesses. (Phil. Ruiz [GR L-32409. and administering the oath to the complainant and his witness. however. defenses under the Constitution or applicable statutes. and . Ruiz [GR L-32409. Court of First Instance of Tayabas [GR 45358. Codal references modified to suit present Constitution and Rules of Court) Mere affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are thus not sufficient. 27 February 1971]) Sufficiency of deposition or affidavit. pursuant to Article III. (Roan v. and (6) Any conviction is subject to appeal. The examining Judge has to take depositions in writing of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce and attach them to the record. (4) If. for it requires the judge. The true test of sufficiency of a deposition or affidavit to warrant issuance of a search warrant is whether it has been drawn in a manner that perjury could be charged thereon and the affiant be held liable for damage caused. The oath required must refer to the truth of the facts within the personal knowledge of the applicant for search warrant. is more emphatic and candid. (2) The authorities must convince the court that the materials sought to be seized are ―obscene‖. to a few words of warning against the commission of perjury. 145 SCRA 694) Listening to the stenographer‘s readings of her notes. before issuing a search warrant. (1) The authorities must apply for the issuance of a search warrant from a judge. 25 November 1986.‖ c) Examination of witnesses The implementing rule in the Revised Rules of Court. and to propound initial and follow-up questions which the judicial mind. was in the best position to conceive. it may issue the search warrant prayed for. Rule 126. (5) The proper suit is then brought in the court under Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code. (Bache & Co. and/or his witnesses. Ruiz [GR L-32409. GR 71410.) Inc. an obscenity rap is in order. (Bache & Co. These were important in arriving at a sound inference on the all-important question of whether or not there was probable cause. of the existence of probable cause. vs. Section 5. Court of Appeals.) Inc. (Alvarez vs. probable cause exists. vs. not the individual making the affidavit and seeking the issuance of the warrant. Codal references modified to suit present Constitution and Rules of Court) 2. 5 October 1989. because the purpose thereof is to convince the committing magistrate. however. The appellate court may assess whether or not the properties seized are indeed ―obscene. 27 February 1971].‖ (Bache & Co. for by that manner the Judge did not have the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the complainant and his witness. if in their opinion. The reading of the stenographic notes to the Judge did not constitute sufficient compliance with the constitutional mandate and the rule. Section 2. (3) The judge must determine whether or not the same are indeed ―obscene:‖ the question is to be resolved on a case-to-case basis and on His Honor‘s sound discretion. (Phil. A search warrant should particularly describe the place to be searched and the things to be seized. or remedies against abuse of official power under the Civil Code or the Revised Penal code. GR 80806. on account of its training. 29 January 1937]) d) Particularity of description Purpose. The evident purpose and intent of this requirement is to limit the things to be seized to those. to ―personally examine on oath or affirmation the complainant and any witnesses he may produce. not of the facts merely reported by a person whom one considers to be reliable. that ―these do not foreclose.Personal examination by the judge of the complainant and his witnesses is necessary to enable him to determine the existence or non-existence of a probable cause. vs. Gonzales. Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court. and pose a clear and present danger of an evil substantive enough to warrant State interference and action. (Phil. in the opinion of the court. Obscene Materials The case of Pita vs.) Inc. Article III of the 1987 constitution . both of which prohibit the issuance of warrants except ―upon probable cause. and Section 4.

— An application for search warrant shall be filed with the following: 1. For compelling reasons stated in the application. the reasonable purpose of the warrant issued would be defeated by mere technicalities. as this would mean that no warrant could issue. (Yousef Al-Ghoul vs. Rubio.. vs. As a corollary. their description must be rather general. et al. (Bache and Co. 384. with reasonable effort. Description of items to be seized While it is true that the property to be seized under a warrant must be particularly described therein and no other property can be taken thereunder. The officer must forthwith deliver the property seized to the judge who issued the warrant. v. Court of Appeals [GR 126859.]. return and proceedings thereon. etc. dissent of Abad Santos. it is not required that a technical description be given. Sec. 37 SCRA 823. [Phil. 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 (People vs. all others of a similar nature but not bearing the exact technical descriptions could not be lawfully subject to seizure. Revised Rules of Court). 384). 14 December 1989]) 2. One of the tests to determine the particularity in the description of objects to be seized under a search warrant is when the things described are limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. – 1. together with a true inventory thereof duly verified under oath.only those. et al. 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 (idem. Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed. Description of Place The rule is that a description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can. to the end that ―unreasonable searches and seizures‖ may not be made.. 2 Section 2. 886. Warrantless searches Rule 126. Villareal. Rule 126. we could not logically conclude that where the description of those goods to be seized have been expressed technically. 12 Section 12. .). yet the description is required to be specific only in so far as the circumstances will ordinarily allow. However. — that abuses may not be committed. Ruiz. or when the things described are limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued (Sec. 835 [1971]) 5. 57 Phil. the application shall only be made in the court where the criminal action is pending. Sec. if the criminal action has already been filed. Dayrit [GR 82870. 389 [1932]) Where by the nature of the goods to be seized. (Prudente vs. particularly described in the search warrant — to leave the officers of the law with no discretion regarding what articles they shall seize. J. 896) 1. Delivery of property and inventory thereof to court. Objects of Seizure Rule 126. Rubio. 42 Phil. (In People v. or any court within the judicial region where the warrant shall be enforced. ascertain and identify the place intended to be searched. Court where application for search warrant shall be filed. any court within the judicial region where the crime was committed if the place of the commission of the crime is known. (Uy Kheytin. 57 Phil.. 2. however. Inc. 3. 6.. 4 September 2001]) Tests. Otherwise.

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. (2) Search of evidence in ―plain view‖. The consent must be voluntary in order to validate an otherwise illegal detention and search. the vehicle‘s inherent mobility reduces expectation of privacy especially when its transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause that the occupant committed a criminal activity. Locsin. Rule 126 of the Rules of Court and prevailing jurisprudence). §136. The last includes a valid warrantless search and seizure pursuant to an equally valid warrantless arrest. (68 Am Jur 2d Searches and Seizures. (4) Consented warrantless search. the rule is. The Constitutional proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures does not. consent to a search is not to be lightly inferred. Id. and intelligently given. the result. (Sec. specific. to wit: (1) arrests in flagrante delicto. the police officers‘ request to search personnel effects was orally articulated to the accused and in such language that left no room for doubt that the latter fully . and (3) arrests of escaped prisoners. Requisites for issuing search warrant. the consent is unequivocal. uncontaminated by any duress or coercion. 65 Phil. however.. (5) stop and frisk situations (Terry search). 689 695). Sec. 10781079 [1999]) a) Valid Waiver The constitutional immunity from unreasonable searches and seizures. 17 June 1999]) The following instances are not deemed ―unreasonable‖ even in the absence of a warrant: (1) Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest. (68 Am Jur 2d Searches and Seizures.2. (People v. and other actions of the judge. Chua Ho San [GR 128222. (3) Search of a moving vehicle. But in these cases. 1073. The judge shall see to it that subsection (a) hereof has been complied with. (2) seizure in plain view. for.. Bolasa. while as a rule. (6) Stop and Frisk. 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 Rules of Court recognize permissible warrantless arrests. (3) customs searches.) The Supreme Court is not unmindful of cases upholding the validity of consented warrantless searches and seizure. is not absolute and such warrantless searches and seizures have long been deemed permissible by jurisprudence in instances of (1) search of moving vehicles. — 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. but must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. and (7) Exigent and emergency circumstances. Highly regulated by the government. (2) arrests effected in hot pursuit. A violation of this section shall constitute contempt of court. the issuing judge shall ascertain if the return has been made. and if none. 3. shall summon the person to whom the warrant was issued and require him to explain why no return was made. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines. Ten (10) days after issuance of the search warrant. an arrest is considered legitimate if effected with a valid warrant of arrest.) Hence.‖ This interdiction against warrantless searches and seizures. forestall reasonable searches and seizure. ―otherwise such search and seizure become ‗unreasonable‘ within the meaning of the aforementioned constitutional provision. 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.e. 378 Phil. of course. If the return has been made. the Constitution bars State intrusions to a person‘s body. i. and (6) search incidental to a lawful arrest. 12. (5) Customs search. being a personal one cannot he waived by anyone except the person whose rights are invaded or one who is expressly authorized to do so in his or her behalf (De Garcia v. (4) waiver or consent searches. §135. (People vs. Verily. 4 Section 4.

Vol. 630. ( People v. pp. 8th ed.) Implied acquiescence to the search. Florida vs.. 67 C. (Schneckloth vs. but is merely a demonstration of regard for the supremacy of the law. Commission on Elections. 544. Court of Appeals. (People vs. 412 U. 308 SCRA 432 [1999]) The question whether a consent to a search was in fact voluntary is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of all the circumstances. of the existence of such a right. 218) In case of consented searches or waiver of the constitutional guarantee against obtrusive searches. 1181. but a submission to the authority of the law. 65 Phil 689 [1938]. Chua Ho San [GR 128222. 269 US 20. It is.) When one is legally arrested for an offense. . (Carroll vs. I. (United States vs. 1180. United States.) b) Incident to lawful arrest The most important exception to the necessity for a search warrant is the right of search and seizure as an incident to a lawful arrest.S. by clear and positive testimony. (7) the nature of the police questioning. that the necessary consent was obtained and that it was freely and voluntarily given.) As the constitutional guaranty is not dependent upon any affirmative act of the citizen. that the right exists. 460 U. 280 SCRA 72. or waiving his constitutional rights. The process cannot be reversed. but instead they hold that a peaceful submission to a search or seizure is not a consent or an invitation thereto. The rationale for permitting such a search is to prevent the person arrested from obtaining a weapon to commit violence. secondly. (6) the defendant‘s belief that no incriminating evidence will be found. (Const. the courts do not place the citizen in the position of either contesting an officer‘s authority by force. or to reach for incriminatory evidence and destroy it. 17 June 1999]. The right to search includes in both instances that of searching the person of him who is arrested.. if there was any. the accused even verbally replied to the request demonstrating that he also understood the nature and consequences of such request. and an officer has the right to make an arrest without a warrant of a person believed by the officer upon reasonable grounds to have committed a felony. citing Aniog v. 436-437 [1994]) In any event.. 237 SCRA 424. it must first appear. citing Pasion Vda. in order to find and seize things connected with the crime as its fruits or as the means by which it was committed. (People vs. first. (People vs. (3) whether he objected to the search or passively looked on. Royer. Tillman. it is fundamental that to constitute a waiver of a constitutional right. A lawful arrest may be made either while a crime is being committed or after its commission. Bustamonte. In some instance. 144 SCRA 1. and lastly. 16 [1986]. the failure to resist or object to the execution of the warrant does not constitute an implied waiver of constitutional right. Burgos. that said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right. as Judge Cooley observes. (People v. 491. I.) A search incident to a lawful arrest is limited to the person of the one arrested and the premises within his immediate control. 446 U. It is the State which has the burden of proving. 963 F. that the person involved had knowledge. Chua Ho San. whatever is found in his possession or in his control may be seized and used in evidence against him. could not have been more than mere passive conformity given under intimidating or coercive circumstances and is thus considered no consent at all within the purview of the constitutional guarantee. Locsin. 299) Relevant to this determination are the following characteristics of the person giving consent and the environment in which consent is given: (1) the age of the defendant. 267 US 132.. (Agnello vs. 2d 137. 175 [1997].) While a contemporaneous search of a person arrested may be effected to deliver dangerous weapons or proofs or implements used in the commission of the crime and which search may extend to the area within his immediate control where he might gain possession of a weapon or evidence he can destroy. (56 C. citing Malacat v. Mendenhall.understood what was requested.S. a valid arrest must precede the search. (8) the environment in which the questioning took place. actual or constructive. J. (4) the education and intelligence of the defendant. de Garcia v. United States. United States vs. 91 [1997]. (5) the presence of coercive police procedures. Lim. 283 SCRA 159. J. and (9) the possibly vulnerable subjective state of the person consenting. Encinada.S. (2) whether he was in a public or secluded location.

for searching through all the desk drawers or other closed or concealed areas in that room itself. the issuing judge shall ascertain if the return has been made. and (c) immediate apparent illegality of the evidence before the police.‖ 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. 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. 2. (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have the right to be where they are. 23 June 1969) Rule 126. the officer‘s safety might well be endangered. California. 27 January 1993]. (Coolidge v. 1073. return and proceedings thereon. Otherwise. 390 U. for that matter. of course. Elements Under the ―plain view doctrine. Musa [GR 96177. Ed. Musa [GR 96177. 2d 564 [1971]) The elements of plain-view are: (a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties.29 L. he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. shall summon the person to whom the warrant was issued and require him to explain why no return was made. 19 April 2001]) When an arrest is made. (Roan v. and the arrest itself frustrated. New Hampshire. United States. (b ) inadvertent discovery of the evidence. 1078-1079 [1999]) 2. and if none. the result. therefore.Ed. however. United States. 378 Phil. Gonzales. 3. supra) The object must be open to eye and hand and its discovery inadvertent. (Chimel v. Delivery of property and inventory thereof to court. (d) ―plain view‖ justified mere seizure of evidence without further search. for a search of the arrestee‘s person and the area ‗within his immediate control‘ — construing that phrase to mean the area from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.S.S. 433. When object is in plain view The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly be in a position from which he can particularly view the area. Rules of Court Section 12. The judge shall see to it that subsection (a) hereof has been complied with. And the area into which an arrestee might reach in order to grab a weapon or evidentiary items must. Section 12. In addition. 234. for routinely searching any room other than that in which an arrest occurs — or. together with a true inventory thereof duly verified under oath. There is ample justification. (People v. and other actions of the judge. 2d 1067 [1968]) For this doctrine to apply. (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent. (Harris v. be governed by a like rule. 2d 685. c) Plain view doctrine 1. there must be: (a) prior justification. 697 [1986]) It is clear that an object is in plain view if the object itself is plainly . 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. A violation of this section shall constitute contempt of court. (People v. Ed. 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. – 1. it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search the person arrested in order to remove any weapons that the latter might seek to use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape. 403 U. Ten (10) days after issuance of the search warrant. supra) In the course of such lawful intrusion. There is no comparable justification. If the return has been made. 27 January 1993]. The officer must forthwith deliver the property seized to the judge who issued the warrant.Salanguit [GR 133254-55. it is entirely reasonable for the arresting officer to search for and seize any evidence on the arrestee‘s person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction. 19 L. citing Coolidge v. (People v. 145 SCRA 687. New Hampshire. 23 L. citing Harris v. Bolasa.

69 L. Musa [GR 96177. However. In other words. 4. but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object.29 L. 429 SW2d 135). Ker v. (People v. contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. Where the object seized was inside a closed package. the extension of the original justification is legitimate only where it is immediately apparent to the police that they have evidence before them.Ed. 726 [1963]. search incident to lawful arrest. State. 429 SW2d 122 [1968]). 71 L. 27 January 1993]) Once the valid portion of the search warrant has been executed.exposed to sight. may extend beyond the person of the one arrested to include the premises or surroundings under his immediate control. Salanguit [GR 133254-55. 453 U. the ‗plain view‘ doctrine may not be used to extend a general exploratory search from one object to another until something incriminating at last emerges. As has been explained that ―What the ‗plain view‘ cases have in common is that the police officer in each of them had a prior justification for an intrusion in the course of which he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. 27 January 1993]) Merely to observe and look at that which is in plain sight is not a search. Of course. or if its contents are obvious to an observer.S. New Hampshire. whether by its distinctive configuration. State. Musa [GR 96177. 751 [1981]) It must be immediately apparent to the police that the items that they observe may be evidence of a crime. California. or some other legitimate reason for being present unconnected with a search directed against the accused — and permits the warrantless seizure.‖ (People vs. then the article is deemed in plain view. (People v. Of course. 1202 [1927]. 27 January 1993]) 3. as an incident to a suspect‘s lawful arrest. The difficulty arises when the object is inside a closed container. 420. 433. What the ‗plain view‘ cases have in common is that the police officer in each of them had a prior justification for an intrusion in the course of which he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. its transparency. if the package is such that an experienced observer could infer from its appearance that it contains the prohibited article. hot pursuit. the object itself is not in plain view and therefore cannot be seized without a warrant. State of California 374 US 23. Objects in 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 as evidence. Lee 274 US 559. the extension of the original justification is legitimate only where it is immediately apparent to the police that they have evidence before them. 19 April 2001] citing Coolidge v. 2d 564 [1971]) . is not search (Chadwick v.Ed. hot pursuit. search incident to lawful arrest. Having observed that which is open. the ‗plain view‘ doctrine may not be used to extend a general exploratory search from one object to another until something incriminating at last emerges. or some other legitimate reason for being present unconnected with a search directed against the accused — and permits the warrantless seizure. then the contents are in plain view and may be seized. Plain-view objects as evidence The warrantless search and seizure. 10 L. (People v. Ed. The doctrine serves to supplement the prior justification — whether it be a warrant for another object. there is not the search that is prohibited by the constitution (US v. Ed. if the package proclaims its contents. Musa [GR 96177. Moore v. Limitations to plain-view The ―plain view‖ doctrine may not be used to launch unbridled searches and indiscriminate seizures nor to extend a general exploratory search made solely to find evidence of defendant‘s guilt.2d. the ―plain view doctrine‖ can no longer provide any basis for admitting the other items subsequently found. but where the officer merely saw what was placed before him in full view. When the discovery of the evidence did not constitute a search. (Robbins v. Where the contraband articles are identified without a trespass on the part of the arresting officer. 403 U. The doctrine serves to supplement the prior justification –whether it be a warrant for another object. The ―plain view‖ doctrine neither justify the seizure of the object where the incriminating nature of the object is not apparent from the ―plain view‖ of the object.S. where no trespass has been committed in aid thereof. 2d 744. the warrantless seizure of the object was legal on the basis of the ―plain view‖ doctrine and upheld the admissibility of said evidence. The ―plain view‖ doctrine is usually applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused.

if any prohibited materials or substances are found. 1966 ed. Passengers attempting to board an aircraft routinely pass through metal detectors. 25 July 1975]) 2. and (2) the more pressing interest of safety and self-preservation which permit the police officer to take steps to assure himself that the person with whom he deals is not armed with a deadly weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against the police officer. and the reduced privacy expectations associated with airline travel.‖ it nevertheless holds that mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a ―stop and frisk. With increased concern over airplane hijacking and terrorism has come increased security at the nation‘s airports. 149. the gravity of the safety interests involved. Feb. 28. 774. 300). (Terry vs. hence it is not practicable to require a search warrant before such search or seizure can be constitutionally effected (Papa vs. and any weapons seized may properly be introduced in evidence against the person from whom they were taken. Philippine Constitutional Law. L-27360. a ―stop-and-frisk‖ serves a two-fold interest: (1) the general interest of effective crime prevention and detection. p. The same exception should apply to seizures of fishing vessels breaching our fishery laws: They are usually equipped with powerful motors that enable them to elude pursuing ships of the Philippine Navy or Coast Guard. These announcements place passengers on notice that ordinary constitutional protections against warrantless searches and seizures do not apply to routine airport procedures. 770. U. Should these procedures suggest the presence of suspicious objects. Immigration laws 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. pp.d) Enforcement of fishing. Such a search is a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. 225.. customs and immigration laws 1. 10 June 1968]) While probable cause is not required to conduct a ―stop and frisk. in light of the police officer‘s experience and surrounding conditions. 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. and notices in their airline tickets that they are subject to search and. 22 SCRA 857. Such recognition is implicit in airport security procedures. because the vessel can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the search warrant must be sought before such warrant could be secured. physical searches are conducted to determine what the objects are. Fishing and customs laws Search and seizure without search warrant of vessels and air crafts for violations of the customs laws have been the traditional exception to the constitutional requirement of a search warrant. 871-74. p. 1968. where in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries. There is little question that such searches are reasonable. signs. Carroll vs. Indeed. which expectation society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. travelers are often notified through airport public address systems. to warrant the belief that the person detained has weapons concealed about him. Magoncia vs. 132. The Bill of Rights. under appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner. (People vs.S. Ohio [392 US 1.. Arca [GR L-25434.‖ A genuine reason must exist. which underlies the recognition that a police officer may. 80 Phil. Gonzales. (Roldan vs. 267. such would be subject to seizure. (Malacat vs. Justice Fernando. 1972 ed. given their minimal intrusiveness. Mago. 12 December 1997]) f) Search of moving vehicles . Finally. approach a person for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior even without probable cause. Palacio. 18 December 2000]) e) ―Stop and frisk‖ 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 presently dangerous. 158. Court of Appeals [GR 123595. their carry-on baggage as well as checked luggage are routinely subjected to x-ray scans. Johnson [GR 138881.

before the search. CA. 966 F 2d 868. 389. they are but a vehicle constructed for travel and transportation on highways. 132) 2. such a warrantless search would be constitutionally permissible only if the officers conducting the search have reasonable or probable cause to believe. it not being practicable to secure a judicial warrant before searching a vehicle.ed. animal. 37 L. 977 F 2d 706. they furnish for successful commission of crime a disguising means of silent approach and swift escape unknown in the history of the world before their advent. the rules governing search and seizure have over the years been steadily liberalized whenever a moving vehicle is the object of the search on the basis of practicality. a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive search. 686]) Peace officers may lawfully conduct searches of moving vehicles — automobiles. et al. with their easily noted individuality. 269 SCRA 402 [1997]. the privacy of which the law especially guards from search and seizure without process.‘ which is itself is no small matter. 185 SCRA 665 [1990]). (People v. 27 A. (People v. One such form of search of moving vehicles is the ―stop-and-search‖ without warrant at military or police checkpoints which has been declared to be not illegal per se (People vs.. Lo Ho Wing. are rare. that is. CA.. Manner of search In carrying out warrantless searches of moving vehicles. is a matter of common knowledge. chastity. — without need of a warrant. since such vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant may be sought. which has multiplied by quantity production and taken possession of our highways in battalions. citing United States vs. (Almedia-Sanchez vs. and decency. etc. to robbery.drawn vehicles. United States.) Thus. 221 SCRA 494 [1993]. however. United States vs. Valmonte v. 379. 29 March 1994]) Highly regulated by the government. The question of their police control and reasonable search on highways or other public places is a serious question far deeper and broader than their use in so-called ―bootlegging‘ or ‗rum running. (People v.1.. A warrantless search of a moving vehicle is justified on the ground that it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. the vehicle‘s inherent mobility reduces expectation of privacy especially when its transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause that the occupant committed a criminal activity. Parker. trucks. that either the motorist is a law-offender or the contents or cargo of the vehicle are or have been instruments or the subject matter or the proceeds of some criminal offense. 2d 596. 928 F 2d 365. (People v. 214 SCRA 63 [1992]. While a possession in the sense of private ownership. however. 29 March 1994]) When. The baffling extent to which they are successfully utilized to facilitate commission of crime of all degrees.. Their active use is not in homes or on private premises. confronts proper administration of our criminal laws. McCoy. This is so considering that before a warrant could be obtained. burglary. People vs. Barros [GR 90640. the vehicles are neither really searched nor their occupants subjected to physical or body searches. and murder. (Asuncion vs. (Padilla vs. 984 F 2d 806. Bagista.R. provided such searches are made at borders or ―constructive borders‖ like checkpoints near the boundary lines of the State. the place. Exala. United States vs.S. Carrol vs. Rem. United States. Whether search of and seizure from an automobile upon a highway or other public place without a search warrant is unreasonable is in its final analysis to be determined as a judicial question in view of all the circumstances under which it is made. rape. United States vs. 302 SCRA 490 (1999). 193 SCRA 122 [1991]) Searches without warrant of automobiles is also allowed for the purpose of preventing violations of smuggling or immigration laws. Barros [GR 90640. and not a theory. Constructed as covered vehicles to standard form in immense quantities. 267 U. Case [320 Mich. de Villa. 190 N. from those against morality. Rationale The automobile is a swift and powerful vehicle of recent development. ..W. the examination of the vehicles being limited to visual inspection. Rusher. et al. until the slower. things and persons to be searched must be described to the satisfaction of the issuing judge — a requirement which borders on the impossible in the case of smuggling effected by the use of a moving vehicle that can transport contraband from one place to another with impunity. Upon that problem a condition.L. and with a capacity for speed rivaling express trains. peace officers are limited to routine checks.

First. does not give the police officers unlimited discretion to conduct indiscriminate searches without warrants if made within the interior of the territory and in the absence of probable cause. 2d 377 cited in Hermann. p. Escaño. Minimal interference Routine checkpoint stops do not intrude similarly on the motoring public. (4) where the occupants are not subjected to a physical or body search. (3) flashes a light therein without opening the car‘s doors. The search which is normally permissible in this instance is limited to the following instances: (1) where the officer merely draws aside the curtain of a vacant vehicle which is parked on the public fair grounds. 323 SCRA 754 [2000].S. the potential interference with legitimate traffic is minimal.. The physical intrusion of a part of the body of an agent into the vehicle goes beyond the area protected by the Fourth Amendment (United States vs. Pierre. Malmstedt. Motorists using these highways are not taken by surprise as they know. (2) agents of the Narcotics Command (‖Narcom‖) of the Philippine National Police (‖PNP‖) had received a confidential report from informers that a sizeable volume of marijuana would be transported along the route where the search was conducted. The . Routine inspections are not regarded as violative of an individual‘s right against unreasonable search. vs. had in his possession prohibited drugs and when the Narcom agents confronted the accused Caucasian.Valmonte vs. et al. Bagista. (4) Narcom agents had received confidential information that a woman having the same physical appearance as that of the accused would be transporting marijuana. the case falls under one of the exceptions to the prohibition against a warrantless search. or may obtain knowledge of. Martinez-Fuerte. citing U. 198 SCRA 401 (1991]) The Court has in the past found probable cause to conduct without a judicial warrant an extensive search of moving vehicles in situations where (1) there had emanated from a package the distinctive smell of marijuana.. 317 SCRA 594 [1999]. et al. for that matter. People vs. before the search. (Caballes vs. Second checkpoint operations both appear to and actually involve less discretionary enforcement activity. (5) the accused who were riding a jeepney were stopped and searched by policemen who had earlier received confidential reports that said accused would transport a large quantity of marijuana. such a warrantless search would be constitutionally permissible only if the officers conducting the search have reasonable or probable cause to believe. (People vs. he failed to present his passport and other identification papers when requested to do so. (People vs. 246). vs. 6 July 1994]) h) Checkpoints 1. for as long as it is warranted by the exigencies of public order and conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists (People vs. the building and houses therein were deserted … [and that] the military operatives … had reasonable ground to believe that a crime was being committed. 1994 ed. (3) Narcom agents had received information that a Caucasian coming from Sagada. Court of Appeals [GR 136292. and (6) where the routine check is conducted in a fixed area. Mountain Province. de Gracia [GR 102009-10. 15 January 2002]) g) Emergency circumstances As there was general chaos and disorder at that time … [that] the courts in the surrounding areas were obviously closed and. because of a conspicuous bulge in his waistline. de Villa. 428 U. (5) where the inspection of the vehicles is limited to a visual search or visual inspection. CA. (2) simply looks into a vehicle. 3. Existence of probable cause The mere mobility of these vehicles. On the other hand. however. 932 F.S. and (6) where the moving vehicle was stopped and searched on the basis of intelligence information and clandestine reports by a deep penetration agent or spy. 214 SCRA 63 [1992]). A checkpoint may either be a mere routine inspection or it may involve an extensive search. Search and Seizure Checklists. when a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive search. the location of the checkpoints and will not be stopped elsewhere. 543). 178 SCRA 211 [1989]). that either the motorist is a law-offender or they will find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime in the vehicle to be searched (Obra.

and that the reasons put forth in Frank v. United States v. (U. (People v. de Villa. when conducted in a fixed area. Probable cause defined Probable cause means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion. Bati. is based on actual facts. People v. 263 [1991]. We may assume that such officials will be unlikely to locate a checkpoint where it bears arbitrarily or oppressively on motorists as a class. and since field officers may stop only those cars passing the checkpoint. (Valmonte vs. Municipal Court of the City and Country of San Francisco [387 US 523. Admittedly.S. Exercise of police power Checkpoints may also be regarded as measures to thwart plots to destabilize the government. the suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the offense. A reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded on probable cause. 851 [1917]. 24 May1989]) 3. discomfort and even irritation to the citizen. 195 SCRA 388 [1990] and People v. 36 Phil. These routine checks. Contrary to the assumption of Frank v. and the inspection of the vehicle is limited to a visual search. Martinez-Fuerte. Maryland and in other cases for upholding these warrantless searches are insufficient to justify so substantial a weakening of the Fourth Amendment‘s protections. 301 SCRA 668 [1999]. as where the survival of organized government is on the balance. (Camara vs. that the stops are duly authorized and believed to serve the public interest. The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when. but by officials responsible for making overall decisions as to the most effective allocation of limited enforcement resources. Ramos 186 SCRA 184 [1990]) . checkpoints will have absolutely no reason to remain. citing Umil v. to a certain extent. health. are part of the price we pay for an orderly society and a peaceful community. 2d 1116 [1976]) 2. Doria. that such searches when authorized and conducted without a warrant procedure lack the traditional safeguards which the Fourth Amendment guarantees to the individual. de Villa. 5 June 1967]) 7. 49 L Ed. (Valmonte vs. de Villa.e.regularized manner in which established checkpoints are operated is visible evidence. Maryland. i. as a rule. there is less room for abusive or harassing stops of individuals them there was in the case of roving-patrol stops.. on motorist‘s right to ―free passage without interruption‖. or where the lives and safety of the people are in grave peril. 428 US 543. 189 SCRA 97 [1990]. Moreover. in the absence of actual belief of the arresting officers. in the interest of public security. it involves only a brief detention of travellers during which the vehicle‘s occupants are required to answer a brief question or two. but it cannot be denied that. [GR 83988. the routine checkpoint stop does intrude. the checkpoints during abnormal times. checkpoints may be allowed and installed by the government. are even less intrusive. reassuring to lawabiding motorists. Ramos. 24 May 1989]) i) Inspection of buildings Administrative searches are significant intrusions upon the interests protected by the Fourth Amendment. that when the situation clears and such grave perils are removed. a claim that a particular exercise of discretion in locating or operating a checkpoint is unreasonable is subject to post-stop judicial review. v. Sucro. 202 SCRA 251. Arrests with warrant a. [GR 83988. Fourth Amendment interests are not merely ―peripheral‖ where municipal fire. coupled with good faith on the part of the peace officers making the arrest. 29 September 1989]) Under exceptional circumstances. Extent For as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to a body search. when conducted within reasonable limits. supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. said routine checks cannot be regarded as violative of an individual‘s right against unreasonable search. People v. and housing inspection programs are involved whose purpose is to determine the existence of physical conditions not complying with local ordinances. (Valmonte vs. Implicit in this proposition is. Santos. [GR 83988. At the cost of occasional inconvenience. The location of a fixed checkpoint is not chosen by officers in the field.

notwithstanding tips from confidential informants and regardless of the fact that the search yielded contraband. (People v. that the accused perform some overt act that would indicate that he ―has committed. wherein the right to effect a warrantless arrest should be considered as legally authorized.‖ or where ―a probable cause exists. the mere act of looking from side to side while holding one‘s abdomen.‖ It should.Thus. The judge. on the other hand. the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. the judge cannot rely solely on the report of the prosecutor in finding probable cause to justify the issuance of a warrant of arrest. there should be no confusion as to their distinct objectives.‖ b. handing over one‘s baggage. does not justify a warrantless arrest under said Section 5 (a). 8586 [1997]) Specifically with respect to arrests. 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. In satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. even if both should base their findings on one and the same proceeding or evidence. Following established doctrine and procedure. and correlatively. Probable cause distinguished from prima facie evidence The confusing concepts of ―prima facie evidence‖ and ―probable cause‖ were clarified and set aright by the 1985 amendment of the Rules of Court which provides in Rule 112 thereof that the quantum of evidence required in preliminary investigation is such evidence as suffices to ―engender as well founded belief‖ as to the fact of the commission of the crime and the respondent‘s probable guilt thereof. riding a motorcycle. or of standing on a corner with one‘s eyes moving very fast. or is attempting to commit an offense. is that ―reliable information‖ alone is not sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest under Section 5 (a). Neither does putting something in one‘s pocket. be in that sense. that the investigating fiscal ―finds cause to hold the respondent for trial. he shall: (1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and. Makasiar. Tudtud [GR 144037. Montilla. it is such 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. Second. Thus. (Soliven vs. therefore. in addition. whether there is a necessity for placing him under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. or (2) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause. The same rule applies to crossing the street per se. Obviously and understandably. (People v. the determination of probable cause by the prosecutor is for a purpose different from that which is to be made by the judge.. Encinada. has been reduced and liberalized. 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. 26 September 2003]) d.‖ Thus. 280 SCRA 72. (People vs. 285 SCRA 703. determines whether a warrant of arrest should be issued against the accused. It has the same meaning as the related phraseology used in other parts of the same Rule. (1 Bernas 87) In People v. Reliable information as basis for probable cause The long-standing rule in this jurisdiction. applied with a great degree of consistency. Montilla. on the basis thereof. that is. the contents of the prosecutor‘s report will support his own conclusion that there is reason to charge the . since their objectives are different. looking at every person who came near. (285 SCRA 703 [1998]) the Court acknowledged that ―the evidentiary measure for the propriety of filing criminal charges. i. for effecting warrantless arrest.e. the term probable cause had been understood to mean a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man‘s belief that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged. 167 SCRA 398) First. Personal determination by judge What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. 720-721 [1998]) c. is actually committing. Rule 113. issue a warrant of arrest. as held in Inting. The rule requires. nor does holding a bag on board a trisikad sanction State intrusion.

the person to be arrested has . the Constitution. It simply means that sufficient facts must be presented to the judge or magistrate issuing the warrant to convince him. There is no law which prohibits him from reaching the conclusion that ―probable cause‖ exists from the statement of the prosecuting attorney alone. counter-affidavits. 280 SCRA 365) The question whether ―probable cause‖ exists or not must depend upon the judgment and discretion of the judge or magistrate issuing the warrant. or any other person whose statement or affidavit is entitled to credit in the opinion of the judge or magistrate. The point is: he cannot rely solely and entirely on the prosecutor‘s recommendation. other than the prosecutor‘s bare report. His conclusion as to whether ―probable cause‖ existed or not is final and conclusive. If he decides. call such witnesses as he may deem necessary before issuing the warrant. This Court has consistently held that a judge fails in his bounden duty if he relies merely on the certification or the report of the investigating officer. This responsibility of determining personally and independently the existence or nonexistence of probable cause is lodged in him by no less than the most basic law of the land. rather. without warrant. 41-42) Law and jurisprudence in fact require stricter grounds for valid arrests and searches without warrant than for the issuance of warrants therefore. What is required. upon the proof presented. not that the particular person has committed the crime. however. at the very least. upon which to legally sustain his own findings on the existence (or nonexistence) of probable cause to issue an arrest order. we repeat. Lastly. 1. arrest a person: (a) when. It does not mean that particular facts must exist in each particular case. or he must have personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested perpetrated the crime that had just occurred. if any) upon which to make his independent judgment or. Although the prosecutor enjoys the legal presumption of regularity in the performance of his official duties and functions. in his presence. affidavits. but also so much of the records and the evidence on hand as to enable the His Honor to make his personal and separate judicial finding on whether to issue a warrant of arrest. In the former. People. which in turn gives his report the presumption of accuracy. no objection can be made upon constitutional grounds against the issuance of the warrant. if he is not satisfied. he must have supporting evidence. We do not intend to unduly burden trial courts by obliging them to examine the complete records of every case all the time simply for the purpose of ordering the arrest of an accused. Thus. is that the judge must have sufficient supporting documents (such as the complaint. (People vs. 26 September 2003]) 8. as Respondent Court did in this case. Ocampo. However. in his judgment at least. Hence. In the latter case.accused for an offense and hold him for trial. then his conclusion is sufficient upon which to issue the warrant for arrest.‖ (Ho vs. Warrantless arrests The Rules of Court recognizes permissible warrantless arrests. Parenthetically. it is not required that the complete or entire records of the case during the preliminary investigation be submitted to and examined by the judge. commands the judge to personally determine probable cause in the issuance of warrants of arrest. there existed ―probable cause‖ for believing that the person against whom the warrant is issued is guilty of the crime charged. but that there is probable cause for believing that the person whose arrest is sought committed the crime charged. the arresting person must have actually witnessed the crime being committed or attempted by the person sought to be arrested. 18 Phil. He may. Tudtud [GR 144037. made upon the investigation by the prosecuting attorney. the prosecutor could ease the burden of the judge and speed up the litigation process by forwarding to the latter not only the information and his bare resolution finding probable cause. upon which to verify the findings of the prosecutor as to the existence of probable cause. the judge simply determines personally from testimonies of witnesses that there exists reasonable grounds to believe that a crime was committed by the accused. that probable cause exists. The issuance of the warrant of arrest is prima facie evidence that. the judge must decide independently. a peace officer or a private person may. No rule can be laid down which will govern the discretion of the court in this matter. If he is satisfied that ―probable cause‖ exists from the facts stated in the complaint. sworn statements of witnesses or transcript of stenographic notes. (US vs.

or is attempting to commit a crime. the person to be arrested has committed. 301 SCRA 668. or their equivalent. is actually committing. Doria. In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above. when lawful. Molina [GR 133917. (People vs. and 3. 308 SCRA 432. twelve (12) hours.committed. or offenses punishable by afflictive or capital penalties. The arrest. (People v. Section 5. Rule 113. to quell the rebellion. Chua Ho San. therefore. 444 [1999]. and (c) when the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or a place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending. Panganiban in People v. Sec. or their equivalent and thirty-six (36) hours. When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it. Obviously the . or for committing non-violent acts but in furtherance of the rebellion. two requisites must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed. 125. 5 Section 5. than for the purpose of immediately prosecuting them in court for a statutory offense. in his presence. is actually committing. or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another (arrest of escaped prisoners). the person detained shall be informed of the cause of his detention and shall be allowed upon his request. (b) when an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it (arrest effected in hot pursuit). or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. or is attempting to commit an offense. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities. Rebellion as Continuing Offense The arrest of persons involved in the rebellion whether as its fighting armed elements. eighteen (18) hours. and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. and the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (as amended). Art. absent any overt act indicative of a felonious enterprise in the presence and within the view of the arresting officers. for crimes or offenses punishable by light penalties. — A peace officer or a private person may.) To constitute a valid in flagrante delicto arrest. to communicate and confer at any time with his attorney or counsel. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending. 2. for crimes. without a warrant. need not follow the usual procedure in the prosecution of offenses which requires the determination by a judge of the existence of probable cause before the issuance of a judicial warrant of arrest and the granting of bail if the offense is bailable. Revised Penal Code Article 125. the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule 112. Arrest without warrant. When. arrest a person: 1. 19 February 2001]) Rule 113. it is settled that ―reliable information‖ alone. is actually committing. — The penalties provided in the next preceding article shall be imposed upon the public officer or employee who shall detain any person for some legal ground and shall fail to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within the period of. (Concurring Opinion of Justice Artemio V. are not sufficient to constitute probable cause that would justify an in flagrante delicto arrest. or is attempting to commit an offense (arrest in flagrante delicto). 720 [1999]) As applied to in flagrante delicto arrests. for crimes or offenses punishable by correctional penalties. is more an act of capturing them in the course of an armed conflict. In every case. or their equivalent.

or hears the disturbances created thereby and proceeds at once to the scene thereof. must have personal knowledge of such fact or as recent case law adverts to. merely seizing their persons and detaining them while any of these contigencies continues cannot be less justified. or any other milder acts but really in pursuance of the rebellious movement. the procurement of a search warrant is required before a law enforcer may validly search or seize the person. a peace officer or a private person may without a warrant. It is not necessary that the arresting officers have direct knowledge of the crime. Even if it were. the person to be arrested has committed. This doctrine is based on the rule that an arrest can be made without warrant when an offense has just been committed and the arresting officer has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that a crime has just been committed. If killing and other acts of violence against the rebels find justification in the exigencies of armed hostilities which (are) of the essence of waging a rebellion or insurrection. papers or effects of any individual. Sucro [GR 93239. (People vs. Doria. therefore. arrest a person. When one was not caught in flagrante nor was a crime about to be committed or had just been committed. ―Has just been committed‖ It is not sufficient that a crime was indeed committed but it is required that the said crime has just been committed. Warrantless arrests cannot be resorted to when police officers have ample opportunity to secure a warrant of arrest. But they must have direct knowledge or view of the crime right after its commission.absence of a judicial warrant is no legal impediment to arresting or capturing persons committing overt acts of violence against government forces. Otherwise. house.) Marked Money The discovery of the marked money on [a person] did not mean he was caught [in fragrante delicto]. Even expediency could not be invoked to dispense with the obtention of the warrant. The marked money was not prohibited per se. 161. .. Ernesto L. 2003 Edition. 301 SCRA 668) 2. (People vs. (Pineda. Chua Ho San [GR 128222. 26 May 1993]) Lack of Urgency As a general rule. The Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. The arrest or capture is thus impelled by the exigencies of the situation that involves the very survival of society and its government and duly constituted authorities. (People vs. or is attempting to commit an offense. 9 July 1990]) Committed in the Presence of Police Officers An offense is committed in the presence or within the view of an officer. in his presence. 18 March 1991]) Personal Knowledge of the Offense In cases of in flagrante delicto arrests. 17 June 1999]) Time of Arrest 1. the arrest is illegal. The proximity of time of commission of the crime must be close to the time of the arrest. The arresting officer. there is no justification for the warrantless arrest allowed under Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. although at a distance. Ramos [GR 81567. most assuredly so in case of invasion. when the officer sees the offense. within the meaning of the rule authorizing an arrest without a warrant. (People vs. when. Hot Pursuit Paragraph (b) of Section 5 is otherwise known as the doctrine of ―hot pursuit‖ arrests. is actually committing. that fact alone would not retroactively validate the warrantless search and seizure. Enrile [GR 74189. (Umil vs. personal knowledge of facts or circumstances convincingly indicative or constitutive of probable cause.

100 [1993]). (People vs. dated 14 August 1987. for the legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over their persons. (People vs. Sundays and holidays shall likewise be taken cognizance of and acted upon by any judge of the court having jurisdiction of the place to be searched. which reads ―3. De Guzman. 231 SCRA 701. De Guia. cannot render void all other proceedings including those leading to the conviction of the appellants and his co-accused. 224 SCRA 93.Applications made during weekends and holidays. the accused submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court. during Saturdays. 710 [1994]. The Supreme Court‘s Circular 19. 227 SCRA 614. (People vs. People vs. that the issuance is urgent‖ merely provides for a guideline. to the satisfaction of the judge. even if illegal. departure from which would not necessarily affect the validity of an otherwise valid search warrant. nor can the state be deprived of its right to convict the guilty when all the facts on record point to their culpability. Manlulu. The warrantless arrest. 27 November 2001]) Validity of Conviction The illegal arrest of an accused is not sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after trial free from error. Dayrit [GR 82870. but in such cases the applicant shall certify and state the facts under oath. (Prudente vs. thereby curing any defect in their arrest. Applications filed after office hours. Plana [GR 128285. 14 December 1989]) Effect of Entry of Plea By pleading ―not guilty‖ at their arraignment. 626 [1993]) .