You are on page 1of 5

Roan v.

Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687 (1986)
FACTS: The challenged search warrant was issued by the respondent judge on May 10, 1984.
The petitioner's house was searched two days later but none of the articles listed in the warrant
was discovered. However, the officers conducting the search found in the premises one Colt
Magnum revolver and eighteen live bullets which they confiscated. They are now the bases of
the charge against the petitioner.
Respondent Judge said that when PC Capt. Mauro P. Quinosa personally filed his application for
a search warrant on May 10, 1984, he appeared before him in the company of his two (2)
witnesses, Esmael Morada and Jesus Tohilida, both of whom likewise presented to him their
respective affidavits taken by Pat. Josue V. Lining, a police investigator. As the application was
not yet subscribed and sworn to, he proceeded to examine Captain Quillosa on the contents
thereof to ascertain, among others, if he knew and understood the same. Afterwards, he
subscribed and swore to the same before him.
ISSUE: Whether the Respondent Judge failed to comply with the proper procedure in issuing the
Search Warrant.
HELD: Yes, mere affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are thus not sufficient. The
examining Judge has to take depositions in writing of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce and attach them to the record. Such written deposition is necessary in order that the
Judge may be able to properly determine the existence or non-existence of the probable cause,
to hold liable for perjury the person giving it if it will be found later that his declarations are false.
We, therefore, hold that the search warrant is tainted with illegality by the failure of the Judge to
conform with the essential requisites of taking the depositions in writing and attaching them to
the record, rendering the search warrant invalid. (See Rule 126, Sec 4)
The respondent judge also declared that he "saw no need to have applicant Quillosa's
deposition taken considering that he was applying for a search warrant on the basis of the
information provided by the witnesses whose depositions had already been taken by the
In other words, the applicant was asking for the issuance of the search warrant on the basis of
mere hearsay and not of information personally known to him, as required by settled

Respondent justified their act on the ground that they were acting under superior orders and that
the measures was necessary due to the aggravation of peace and order problem in their place.
Whether or not the confiscated items shall be considered admissible.
Whether or not the finger-printing, photographing and paraffin-test is protected by the
constitutional right against self-incrimination.
No, superior orders cannot countermand the Constitution. There is no excuse for the
constitutional shortcuts done by the military. Also, the aggravation of peace and order problem in
their place does not excuse the non-observance of the constitutional guaranty against
unreasonable searches and seizure (Art III Sec. 2, 1973 Philippine Constitution).
The arrest does not fall also under the warrantless arrest provided for by Rule 113 Sec. 5 of the
Rules of Court. Therefore, all the firearms and ammunition taken from the raided compound are
inadmissible in evidence in any proceedings against petitioners.
With respect to the finger-printing, photographing and paraffin-testing, the acts are not covered
by the protection against self-incrimination, for it only applies to testimonial compulsion.

Alih vs. Castro
151 SCRA 279
June 23, 1987
Respondents who were members of the Philippine marine and defense forces raided the
compound occupied by petitioner in search of loose firearms, ammunitions and explosives. A
shoot-out ensued after petitioners resisted the intrusion by the respondents, killing a number of
men. The following morning, the petitioners were arrested and subjected to finger –printing,
paraffin testing and photographing despite their objection. Several kinds of rifle, grenades and
ammunitions were also confiscated.
The petitioners filed an injunction suit with a prayer to have the items illegally seized returned to
them and invoked the provisions on the Bill of Rights

Rizal Alih et. al., vs Castro
GR No L-69401

June 23, 1987

A group of more than 200 Philippine marines and home defense forces raided the compound
occupied by the petitioners (Rizal Alih et. al.) is search of loose firearms, ammunition and other
explosives. The people inside the compound resisted the invasion and a crossfire between the
Philippine marines and the petitioner occurred, resulting in number of casualties. The petitioners
surrendered the next morning and 16 occupants were arrested, later to be finger-printed,
paraffin-tested and photographed over their objection. The military also inventoried and
confiscated several M16 rifles, M14 rifle, rifle grenades and rounds of ammunition.
Petitioner filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus with preliminary injunction and
restraining order. Their purpose was to recover the articles seized from them, to prevent these
from being used as evidence against them, and to challenge their finger-printing, photographing
and paraffin-testing being violative of their right against self-incrimination. Petitioner argued that
the arms and ammunition were taken without a search warrant as required by law under Sec. 3
of the 1973 Constitution, and it be declared inadmissible in relation to Sec 4 (2) of the 1973

The respondents admitted that the operation was done without a warrant but reasoned that they
were acting under superior orders and that operation was necessary because of the aggravation
of the peace and order problem due to the assassination of the city mayor.
Whether or not the seizing of the items and the taking of the fingerprints and photographs of the
petitioners and subjecting them to paraffin testing are violative of the bill of Rights and are
inadmissible as evidence against them.
The court held that superior orders nor the suspicion that the respondents had against
petitioners did not excuse the former from observing the guaranty provided for by the
constitution against unreasonable searches and seizure. The petitioners were entitled to due
process and should be protected from the arbitrary actions of those tasked to execute the law.
Furthermore, there was no showing that the operation was urgent nor was there any showing of
the petitioners as criminals or fugitives of justice to merit approval by virtue of Rule 113, Section
5 of the Rules of Court.

Kho. Arugay. Phase I.the court observed that it would be odd to acknowledge that respondent was entitled to trial-related rights guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. May 16. applied with the same court for the issuance of search warrants against the said petitioner in his house at No. Pp.S. Eduardo T. The Court of Appeals affirmed.S. ISSUES: 1. Nor is there any indication that the Amendment was understood by the Framers' contemporaries to apply to United States activities directed against aliens in foreign territory or in international waters. Held: The Fourth Amendment does not apply to the search and seizure by United States agents of property owned by a nonresident alien and located in a foreign country. 264-275. 1989 Decided February 28. now petitioner. KHO and ELIZABETH ALINDOGAN. Argued November 7. Following his arrest. The District Court granted his motion to suppress the evidence. 264. 259 UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ. However. 264-266. Relying on INS v. the effort and time spent in researching on the details to be embodied in the warrant would render the purpose of the search nugatory. BF Homes. Indeed. it would be virtually impossible for the applicants to obtain a warrant as they would not know exactly what kind of things they are looking for. the petition at bar is hereby DISMISSED. and 90-15.a Mexican citizen and resident believed to be a leader of an organization that smuggles narcotics into this country . The confiscated items were verified in Camp Crame and were proven that all of them are unlicensed. Lopez-Mendoza. 90-14. after which he issued Search Warrant Nos. that the said warrants comply with Constitutional and statutory requirements. RULING: The Court believes. searched his Mexican residences and seized certain documents. Whether or not the issuance of the search warrant by the respondent Judge valid? 2. Paranaque.which held that American citizens tried abroad by United States military officials were entitled to Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections . Porto Rico. civil and administrative laws for their problem at hand.The items seized. ROBERTO L.. Otherwise.S. what is assailed is the validity of the issuance of the warrant. Salvador applied for the issuance of search warrants by the respondent Judge against Banjamin V. Pp. No pronoucement as to costs. respondents. 259 (1990) 494 U. The law does not require that the things to be seized must be described in precise and minute detail as to leave no room for doubt on the part of the searching authorities. Moonwalk.which speaks in the . Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents. since a Fourth Amendment violation is fully accomplished at the time of an unreasonable governmental intrusion whether or not the evidence seized is sought for use in a criminal trial. not an exclusion of his body as evidence when it may be material. 90-12.” BENJAMIN V.S. As Justice Holmes put it in Holt v. 494 U. 6539. 90-11. Ramona Tirona St. 298 . and that the DEA agents had failed to justify searching the premises without a warrant. Paranaque. Citing Reid v. (c) The Fourth Amendment's drafting history shows that its purpose was to protect the people of the United States against arbitrary action by their own Government and not to restrain the Federal Government's actions against aliens outside United States territory. in his residence at No. photographing and paraffin-testing as violative of the provision against self-incrimination. have been instituted against the petitioners. WHEREFORE. 266-268. P. v HON. MAKALINTAL and NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. 1990 After the Government obtained an arrest warrant for respondent . 260] refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. 1990.S. another NBI agent. Whether or not the Motion to Quash filed by the petitioner (Kho) alleging that there was an abuse enforcement of the challenge search warrant valid? 3. NBI Agent Max B. (b) The Fourth Amendment phrase "the people" seems to be a term of art used in select parts of the Constitution and contrasts with the words "person" and "accused" used in Articles of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating criminal procedures. UNITED STATES v. whose privilege against selfincrimination is a fundamental trial right of criminal defendants.S. On the following day. concluding that the Fourth Amendment . otherwise known as the AntiCarnapping Act of 1972. where he was arrested. but not to Fourth Amendment protection. the respondent Judge conducted the necessary examination of the applicants and their witnesses. the petition for mandamus with preliminary and mandatory injunction to return all objects seized and to restrain respondent NBI from using the said objects as evidence. Bgy. 354 U. The operation by the respondents was done without a warrant and so the items seized during said operation should not be acknowledged in court as evidence. 1990. petitioners.. The manner of serving the warrant and of effecting the search are not an issue to be resolved here. which cannot be solved by their present motion to quash. for want of merit and on the ground that it has become moot and academic. 259. 45 Bb.the court concluded that the Constitution imposes substantive constraints on the Federal Government. as to the issue on finger-printing. the claim that extraterritorial aliens are entitled to rights under the Fifth Amendment . On the same day. 258 U. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. FACTS: On May 15. The question of whether there was abuse in the enforcement of the challanged search warrants is not within the scope of a Motion to Quash. See. In a Motion to Quash.applied to the searches. it occurred solely in Mexico. (d) The view that every constitutional provision applies wherever the Government exercises its power is contrary to this Court's decisions in the Insular Cases. But said evidence should remain in the custody of the law (custodia egis).. Thus. 18 “The prohibition of compelling a man in a criminal court to be a witness against himself is a prohibition of the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communications from him. Balzac v. petitioners have remedies under pertinent penal. has become moot and academic. Whether or not the Petitioners sought to restrain the respondent National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) from using the objects seized by virtue of such warrants in any case or cases filed or to be filed against them and to return immediately the said items valid. g. Covert. working with Mexican officials. 1 . the Fourth Amendment functions differently from the Fifth Amendment. and so holds. (a) If there were a constitutional violation in this case. having been the “fruits of the poisonous tree” were held inadmissible as evidence in any proceedings against the petitioners. NBI conducted the simultaneous searches on the said residences of the petitioner (Kho) and they were able to confiscate the above mention objects stated in the warrant and the simultaneous searches also resulted in the confiscation of various radio and telecommunication equipment. As aptly opined and ruled by the respondent Judge. which held that not all constitutional provisions apply to governmental activity even in territories where the United States has sovereign power.which protects "the people" against unreasonable searches and seizures . This suggests that "the people" [494 U. 1032 . e. Since the element of time is very crucial in criminal cases. 90-13. United States. 468 U. the court held that the prohibition against self-incrimination applies to testimonial compulsion only. On the same day. 326 McDivitt St. The search warrants were applied for after teams of NBI agents had conducted a personal surveillance and investigation in the two houses referred to on the basis of confidential information they received that the said places were being used as storage centers for unlicensed firearms and “chop-chop” vehicles. Pp.he was apprehended by Mexican police and transported here. 88-1353.where a majority assumed that illegal aliens in the United States have Fourth Amendment rights . Petitioner (Kho) question the validity of the warrant and filed a Motion to Quash the previous decision. even when it operates abroad. Considering that cases for Illegal Possession of Firearms and Explosives and Violation of Section 3 in relation to Section 14 of Republic Act No.

this country. taken also were a portable typewriter and 2 wooden boxes. is misplaced. (e) Respondent's reliance on Reid. a portable typewriter and 2 boxes were seized. It does not specify what the subversive books and instructions are." And non-"fundamental" rights are not even guaranteed to inhabitants of unincorporated territories under U. Therefore. but did not expressly address the question whether. any restrictions on searches and seizures of nonresident aliens and their foreign property must be imposed by the political branches through diplomatic understanding. Question Does the Fourth Amendment apply to the search and seizure by United States agents of property that is owned by a nonresident alien and located in a foreign country? Argument under the Fifth Amendment." This Court's decisions expressly according differing protection to aliens than to citizens also undermine respondent's claim that treating aliens differently under the Fourth Amendment violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. chits. The Director General of the Mexican Federal Judicial Police authorized the searches. aliens with no attachment to this country might bring actions for damages to remedy claimed violations of the Fourth Amendment in foreign countries or in international waters. Any restrictions on searches and seizures incident to American action abroad must be imposed by the political branches through diplomatic understanding. extraterritorial aliens are not even entitled to rights Alvarez vs. receipts. Section 3. Pp. lists used by him as money lender/usurer charging usurious rates in violation of law.S. those cases in which aliens have been determined to enjoy certain constitutional rights establish only that aliens receive such protections when they have come within the territory of. At trial. after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. Affiant Almeda. border. Conclusion Decision: 6 votes for United States.S. Earlier that day. Pp.S. 339 U. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized. in fact. however.S sovereign control. The text of the Fourth Amendment concerns "the people. magistrate was ever received.has been emphatically rejected. 132 SCRA 152 (1985) FACTS: Milagros Aguilar-Roque was arrested together with Cynthia Nolasco by the Constabulary Security Group (CSG). Respondent. is an alien with no previous significant voluntary connection with the United States. since that case assumed that. is also misplaced. as contrasted with aliens without any substantial connection to the U. guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons.2d 1214. Milagros had been wanted as a high ranking officer of the CPP. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ Facts of the Case Rene Martin Verdugo-Urquidez was a citizen and resident of Mexico. and Members of the Executive and Legislative Branches would be plunged into a sea of uncertainty as to what might be reasonable in the way of searches and seizures conducted abroad. 763. her premises were searched and 428 documents.relatively universal term of "person" . who had no voluntary connection with this country that might place him among "the people. reversed.who are in this country voluntarily and presumably have accepted some societal obligations .. It is at once evident that the foregoing Search Warrant authorizes the seizure of personal properties vaguely described and not particularized. It is thus in the nature of a general warrant and infringes on the constitutional mandate requiring particular description of the things to be seized. Plyler v. The rule would apply not only to law enforcement operations abroad. Judge Cruz Paño issued a search warrant to be served at Aguilar-Roque’s leased residence allegedly an underground house of the CPP/NPA. papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose. See. supra. but no search warrant from a U. 856 F." suggesting a concern with persons who are part of the national community. 784 . Following his arrest. since that case stands only for the proposition that United States citizens stationed abroad could invoke the protection of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. 457 U.m. and that probable cause has not been properly established for lack of searching questions propounded to the applicant’s witness. ISSUE: WON the search warrant was valid? HELD: NO. treaty. AguilarRoque asked for suppression of the evidence on the ground that it was illegally obtained and that the search warrant is void because it is a general warrant since it does not sufficiently describe with particularity the things subject of the search and seizure. The Court of Appeals' reliance on INS v.embracing description which includes everything conceivable regarding the Communist Party of the Philippines and the National Democratic Front. 212 . Johnson v. It is an all.such as Armed Forces actions .S. what the manuals not otherwise available to the public contain to make them subversive or to enable them to be used for the crime of rebellion.S.would be entitled to Fourth Amendment protections. 259. much less aliens. Article IV of the Constitution. There is absent a definite guideline to the searching team as to what items might be lawfully seized thus giving the officers of the law discretion regarding what articles they should seize as. Eisentrager. Pp. and his legal but involuntary presence here does not indicate any substantial connection with this country. treaty or legislation. the Fourth Amendment applies to illegal aliens in the United States. The arrest took place at 11:30 a. (f) The Court of Appeals' rule would have significant and deleterious consequences for the United States in conducting activities beyond its [494 U. On the basis of the documents seized. supra. the district court granted Verdugo-Urquidez's motion to suppress the evidence on the ground that the search violated the Fourth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. At noon of the same day. In cooperation with the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). where he was arrested for various narcotics-related offenses. which speaks in the relatively more universal term of "person. Lopez-Mendoza. a DEA agent sought authorization to search Verdugo-Urquidez's residences for evidence. 202. and have developed substantial connections with. In the recent rulings of this Court. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES > Examination of witnesses Facts: The Anti-Usury Board of the Department of Justice presented to Judge David a sworn affidavit that a certain Narciso Alvarez is in possession of books.which might result in "searches and seizures.S. UNITED STATES v. Nolasco vs." Under the rule. but also to other foreign operations . or legislation. 1984. g. Even assuming such aliens . chief of the . houses. 273-275. 269-273. 261] borders. Cruz Pano. It also specifically provides that no Search Warrant shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined by the Judge or such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law. Doe. their situation differs from that of respondent. of August 6. Mexican police officers apprehended and transported him to the U. charges of subversion and rebellion by the CSG were filed by but the fiscal’s office merely charged her and Nolasco with illegal possession of subversive materials. e. Moreover. 268-269. 3 vote(s) against Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment No. Similarly. search warrants of similar description were considered null and void for being too general. CFI ARRESTS.

banknotes. if the affidavit of the applicant or complainant is sufficient. At a hearing on respondent's motion to suppress the marihuana. etc. The suspicious activity was a violent crime. the articles seized was not brought immediately to the custody of the judge who issued the SW. is insufficient and fatally defective by reason of the manner in which the oath was made. The men also spoke to a third man whom they eventually followed up the street. an oath includes any form of attestation by which a party signifies that he is bound in conscience to perform an act faithfully and truthfully. prior to stopping the vehicle. TERRY VS OHIO Brief Fact Summary. it is the practice in this jurisdiction to attach the affidavit of at least the applicant or complainant to the application. It is admitted that the judge who issued the search warrant in this case. Inasmuch as the affidavit of the agent was insufficient because his knowledge of the facts was not personal but merely hearsay. Harlan”) agreed with the majority. even without probable cause. Terry (the “Petitioner”). that there was suspicion of a violent act. The officer believed that the Petitioner and the other men were “casing” a store for a potential robbery. the affidavit of one or more witnesses having a personal knowledge of the facts is necessary. Thereafter. Thus the warrant issued is likewise illegal because it was based only on the affidavit of the agent who had no personal knowledge of the facts. the search warrant and the subsequent seizure of the books. paragraph 3. credit receipts. of the existence of probable cause. cashbooks. of Article III of the Constitution and Section 97 of General Orders 58 require that there be not only probable cause before the issuance of a search warrant but that the search warrant must be based upon an application supported by oath of the applicant and the witnesses he may produce. Douglas”) dissented. The patrolman was not acting pursuant to any standards. and therefore. and given the nature of the behavior the officer decided to perform a quick search of the men before questioning. was stopped and searched by an officer after the officer observed the Petitioner seemingly casing a store for a potential robbery. When the affidavit of the applicant or complainant contains sufficient facts within his personal and direct knowledge. he had observed neither traffic or equipment violations nor any suspicious activity. bankbooks. and if the officer’s suspicions were correct then he would be in a dangerous position to approach the men for questioning without searching them. Whether a search for weapons without probable cause for arrest is an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution (”Constitution”)? Held. A typical beat officer would be unduly burdened by being prohibited from searching individuals that the officer suspects to be armed. when the officer reasonably believes that the person may be armed and dangerous. it is sufficient if the judge is satisfied that there exists probable cause. promulgated by either his department or the State Attorney General. didn’t say that the information was based on his personal knowledge but was only received by him from a reliable source. The officer approached the Petitioner for questioning and decided to search him first. Alvarez elevated the matter to the SC and prayed that the search warrant as well as the order of the judge authorizing the Anti-Usury Board to retain custody be declared null and void. Issue: Whether the SW issued by the judge is illegal for having solely as basis the affidavit of Agent Almeda in whose oath the latter declared that he had no personal knowledge of the facts which were to serve as basis for the issuance of the warrant but he had knowledge thereof only through information secured from a person whom he considered reliable. The Constitution does not provide that it is of an imperative necessity to take the depositions of the witnesses to be presented by the applicant or complainant in addition to the affidavit of the latter. the judge may dispense with that of other witnesses. An officer may perform a search for weapons without a warrant. Subsequently. The officer also did not detain the men for a long period of time to constitute an arrest without probable cause. The officer noticed the Petitioner talking with another individual on a street corner while repeatedly walking up and down the same street. or procedures pertaining to document spot checks. the agents raided the subject place and seized different documents namely. documents and other papers are illegal. DELAWARE VS PROUSE Syllabus A patrolman in a police cruiser stopped an automobile occupied by respondent and seized marihuana in plain view on the car floor. The affidavit. The true test of sufficiency of an affidavit to warrant issuance of a search warrant is whether it has been drawn in such a manner that perjury could be charged thereon and affiant be held liable for damages caused. the patrolman testified that. Discussion. The purpose of both in requiring the presentation of depositions is nothing more than to satisfy the committing magistrate of the existence of probable cause. The trial court granted the . the judge issued the warrant ordering the search of Alvarez’ house. The Petitioner. White”) agreed with the majority. Issue. armed robbery. Justice William Douglas (”J. Alvarez moved that the agents of the Board be declared guilty of contempt and prays that all articles in question be returned to him because the SW issued was illegal. Synopsis of Rule of Law. On June 4. relied exclusively upon the affidavit made by agent Almeda and that he did not require nor take the deposition of any other witness. and it is sometimes defined as an outward pledge given by the person taking it that his attestation or promise is made under an immediate sense of his responsibility to God. when the applicant’s knowledge of the facts is mere hearsay. bills of lading. which served as the exclusive basis of the search warrant. guidelines. merit the forcible stop and frisk. Ruling: Section 1. stubs. On the other hand. Respondent was subsequently indicted for illegal possession of a controlled substance. it is the duty of the judge to require the affidavit of one or more witnesses for the purpose of determining the existence of probable cause to warrant the issuance of the search warrant. A quick frisking of the Petitioner produced a concealed weapon and the Petitioner was charged with carrying a concealed weapon. The oath required must refer to the truth of the facts within the personal knowledge of the petitioner or his witnesses. Facts. Further. the Anti-Usury Board pleaded that they be allowed to retain custody of the articles seized for further investigation. because the purpose thereof is to convince the committing magistrate. reasoning that the majority’s holding would grant powers to officers to authorize a search and seizure that even a magistrate would not possess. Dissent. When the judge sustained the latter’s motion. and that he made the stop only in order to check the driver's license and the car's registration. but he emphasized that the particular facts of the case.task force. Concurrence. 1936. Justice Byron White (”J. not the individual making the affidavit and seeking the issuance of the warrant. In its broadest sense. The men would periodically peer into a store window and then talk some more. John W. but he emphasized an additional necessity of the reasonableness of the stop to investigate the crime. Therefore. The Supreme Court of the United States (”Supreme Court”) held that it is a reasonable search when an officer performs a quick seizure and a limited search for weapons on a person that the officer reasonably believes could be armed. The officer decided to approach the men for questioning. The facts of the case are important to understand the Supreme Court’s willingness to allow the search. Justice John Harlan (”J.

who is a resident of Valenzuela.] NO. In this connection. and the Union of Lawyers and Advocates For People’s Rights (ULAP) sought the declaration of checkpoints in Valenzuela. The permissibility of a particular law enforcement practice is judged by balancing its intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests. its holding instead depending upon its view of the reach of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Not all searches and seizures are prohibited. 83988 September 29. cf. 662-663.2d 1359. Given the physical and psychological intrusion visited upon the occupants of a vehicle by a random stop to check documents. the checkpoints during these abnormal times. for example. the manning of checkpoints by the military is susceptible of abuse by the men in uniform. they prayed that respondents Renato De Villa and the National Capital Region District Command (NCRDC) be directed to formulate guidelines in the implementation of checkpoints for the protection of the people. these do not constitute unreasonable search. No. maintaining peace and order. Brignoni-Ponce. in the same manner that all governmental power is susceptible of abuse. and therefore violative of the Fourth Amendment. United States v. [p649] (b) The State's interest in discretionary spot checks as a means of ensuring the safety of its roadways does not outweigh the resulting intrusion on the privacy and security of the persons detained. . Petitioners Atty. Pp. are part of the price we pay for an orderly society and a peaceful community. the National Capital Region District Command (NCRDC) was activated pursuant to Letter of Instruction 02/87 of the Philippine General Headquarters. II. affirmed. The setting up of the questioned checkpoints in Valenzuela (and probably in other areas) may be considered as a security measure to enable the NCRDC to pursue its mission of establishing effective territorial defense and maintaining peace and order for the benefit of the public. nor are they shorn of those interests when they step from the sidewalks into their automobiles. The Checkpoints Case : Valmonte v. zzzzzzz in an automobile does not lose all reasonable expectation of privacy simply because the automobile and its use are subject to government regulation. Between the inherent right of the state to protect its existence and promote public welfare and an individual's right against a warrantless search which is however reasonably conducted. 653-655. That court's opinion shows that. THE FACTS On 20 January 1987. Ricardo Valmonte. and providing an atmosphere conducive to the social. the Court may take judicial notice of the shift to urban centers and their suburbs of the insurgency movement. Checkpoints may also be regarded as measures to thwart plots to destabilize the government. 3. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed. military and police checkpoints DO NOT violate the right of the people against unreasonable search and seizures. when conducted within reasonable limits. even though the purpose of the stop is limited and the resulting detention quite brief. Do the military and police checkpoints violate the right of the people against unreasonable search and seizures? III. Pp.: I. In the alternative. even if the State Constitution would have provided an adequate basis for the judgment below. Held: 1. at the cost of occasional inconvenience. Pp. (d) The holding in this case does not preclude Delaware or other States from developing methods for spot checks that involve less intrusion or that do not involve the unconstrained exercise of discretion. Pp. AFP. 651-653.motion to suppress. J. 382 A. G. with the mission of conducting security operations within its area of responsibility and peripheral areas. Metro Manila. most likely brought about by deteriorating economic conditions – which all sum up to what one can rightly consider. voting 13-2.” not to mention the abundance of unlicensed firearms and the alarming rise in lawlessness and violence in such urban centers. so clearly reflected in the increased killings in cities of police and military men by NPA “sparrow units. Questioning of all oncoming traffic at roadblock-type stops is one possible alternative. Metro Manila and elsewhere as unconstitutional. or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law. the NCRDC installed checkpoints in various parts of Valenzuela. not all of which are reported in media. As part of its duty to maintain peace and order. in the interest of public security. stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. xxx. 2. THE ISSUE THE RULING [The Court. Where. Those which are reasonable are not forbidden. Metro Manila. Petitioners contended that the checkpoints gave the respondents blanket authority to make searches and seizures without search warrant or court order in violation of the Constitution. or simply looks into a vehicle. for the purpose of establishing an effective territorial defense. discomfort and even irritation to the citizen. or flashes a light therein. But. True. DISMISSED the petition. 663. (a) Stopping an automobile and detaining its occupants constitute a "seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. 1989 (173 SCRA 211) DECISION PADILLA. P. This Court has jurisdiction in this case even though the Delaware Supreme Court held that the stop at issue not only violated the Federal Constitution but also was impermissible under the Delaware Constitution. 653-663. as abnormal times. De Villa. 873. A reasonable search is not to be determined by any fixed formula but is to be resolved according to the facts of each case. Except where there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered. People are not shorn of all Fourth Amendment protection when they step from their homes onto the public sidewalk. finding the stop and detention to have been wholly capricious. the former should prevail. the court did not intend to rest its decision independently on the State Constitution.R. economic and political development of the National Capital Region. 422 U. the officer merely draws aside the curtain of a vacant vehicle which is parked on the public fair grounds. at the very least.