Requisites for the issuance of
prosecutor to present additional evidence within 5
WARRANT:
1. Probable cause
2. Determination of probable cause personally by
the judge
3. After examination under oath or affirmation of
the complainant or witnesses he may produce
4. Particularity of description
I. PROBABLE CAUSE
must refer to one specific offense
In DANGEROUS DRUGS- search warrant may
validly issued for several violations thereof.
EXample- where search warrant was issued for
the siezure of shabu and drug paraphernalia. But
probbale cause was found to exist only with
shabu. The warrant cannot be invalidated in too.
It is still valid with respect to shabu.
II. DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE
PERSONALLY BY THE JUDGE
issuance of warrant of arrest is NOT a ministerial
function of the judge
While he could rely on the findings of the fiscal,
he is not bound thereby.
Determination of PC is the function of judge;
judge alone!
*ISSUANCE OF A WARRANT OF ARREST
sufficient that the judge personally determine
the existence of PC.
1. NOT necessarily that he should personally
examine the complainant and the witnesses.
2. The judge should evaluate the report and the
supporting document submitted by the
prosecutor OR
3. require the submission of the supporting
affidavits of the witnesses to aid him in the
determination of whether PC exists.
*2 KINDS OF DETERMINATION OF PC
1. EXECUTIVE DETERMINATION of PC- concerns
itself with whether there is enough to support an
information being filed
2. JUDICIAL DETERMINATION of PC- determines
whether a warrant of arrest should be issued.
THUS, the determination of PC for the issuance of
A warrant of arrest is within the exclusive province
of the JUDGE!
If the judge relied solely on the certification of the
prosecutor, then he cannot said to have personally
determined the existence of PC, and therefore the
warrant of arrest is VOID.
PRELIMINARY INQUIRY- determines probable cause
for the issuance of warrant of arrest
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION- ascertain whether
the offender should be held for trial or released
Judge may immediately dismiss the case if the
evidence on record clearly fails to establish PC.
If he finds PC, he shall issue warrant of arrest or
commitment order.
In case of doubt as to PC, the judge may order the
days from the notice and the issue must be
resolved by the court within 30 days frim the filing
of the complaint.
CRESPO DOCTRINE
public prosecutor controls and directs the
prosecution of criminal offenses.
In case of clashof views bet a judge (who did not
investigate) and the fiscal who conducted a
reinvestigation, the fiscal or prosecutor prevails!
Judge who conducted PI, for him to issue a warrant
of arrest, the investigating judge must:
1. Have examined under oath and in writing, the
complainant and his witnesses
2. Be satisfied that there is PC
3. That there is a need to place the respondent
under immediate custody in order not to
frustrate the ends of justice.
ISSUANCE OF SEARCH WARRANT
judge must personally examine in the form of
searching questions and answers in writing and
under oath the complainants and any witnesses he
may produce on facts personally known to them
and attach to the record their sworn statements
together with any affidavits submitted.
SEARCH WARRANT
the proceeding is not against the person but is
solely for the discovery and to get possession of
personal property.
where the judge not only asked searching
question but leading questions as well, NOT
IMPROPER because the complainant and witnesses
were reticent and had ti be made to explain.
III. AFTER EXAMINATION, UNDER OATH OR
AFFIRMATION OF THE COMPLAINANT AND THE
WITNESSES HE MAY PRODUCE
the personal examination must not be merely pro
forma or routinary BUT must be probing and
exhausting
PURPOSE: to satisfy the examining magistrate as
to the existence of PC.
Evidence offered by the complainant and the
witnesses should be based on their own personal
knowledge and not on mere information or belief.
OATH must refer to the truth of the facts within
the personal knowledge of the applicant or
witnesses.
ABSENT the element of personal knowledge,
warrant is not based on PC, thus a nullity.
Where the police officers acted not merely on the
information given by the THAI ROYAL POLICE but
also conducted a surveillance, held that the
police officers had personal knowledge.
If the judge fails to determine PC by personally
examining the applicant and his witnesses in the
form of searching questions before issuing a
search warrant, constitutes grave abuse of
discretion.
IV. PARTICULARITY OF DESCRIPTION
this requirement is primarily meant to enable the
law enforcers serving the warrant to:
1. Readily identify the properties to be seized and
thus prevent them from seizing the wrong
items.
2. Leave said peace officers with no discretion
regarding the articles to be seized and thus
prevent unreasonable searches and seizures.
3. It also aims at preventing violations of the
security of persons and property, and unlawful
invasions of the sanctity of the home and giving
remedy against such usurpation when
attempted.
GENERAL WARRANTS
prOscribed and unconstitutional.
Where search warrant charged violations of 2
special laws, was considered a scatter-shot
warrant and was declared void.
What the CONSTITUTION SEEKS TO AVOID are
search warrants of broad and general
characterization or sweeping descriptions which
will authorize police officers to indertake a fishing
expedition to seize and confiscate any and all
kinds of evidence or articles relating to an
offense.
WARRANT OF ARREST
is said to particularly describe the person to be
seized IF It contains the names/s of the person/s
to be arrested.
If name not known, john doe will satisfy the
constitutional requirement.
Example: 50 john does - general warrant- void
SEARCH WARRANT
a search warrant may be said to particularly
describe the things to be seized:
1. when the description therein is specific as the
circumstances ordinarily allow.
2. When the description expressed a conclusion
of facts, not of law
3. When the things described therein are limited
to those which bear direct relation to the offense
for which the warrant is being issued.
FAILURE to specify detailed descriptions in the
warrant not necessarily make the warrant a
general warrant.
SC- description of the property to be seized need
not be technically be accurate nor necessarily
precise, and its nature will necessarily vary
according to whether the ifentity of the property or
its character is a matter if concern.
Search warrant is severable.
General description of the most of the documents
in the warrant will not invalidate the entire
warrant.
Those items which are not particularly described
may simply be CUT OFF without destroying the
whole warrant.
* ONLY the articles particularly described in the
warrant may be seized.
* Example:
1. where the warrant authorized only the seizure of
shabu and not of marijuana, the seizure of the
latter was held UNLAWFUL.
2. Search warrant was no authority for the police
to seize the firearm which are not mentioned,
much less describe in the the warrant
3. Warrant is for the search of NPA rebels,
confiscation of the firearm was INVALID.
PLACE TO BE SEARCHED.
the place to searched should likewise be
described with particularity.
Description of the place is sufficient IF the officer
with warrant can, with reasonable effort,
ascertain and identify the place intended and
distinguish it from other places in the community.
The search warrant issued to search the
compound of the petitioner for unlicensed firearm
was INVALID. Failing to particularly describe the
place with particularity considerjng that the
compound is made up of 200 buildings
The place to be search as described in the
warrant CANNOT BE MODIFIED OR AMPLIFIED BY
THE POLICE OFFICERS OWN PERSONAL
KNOWLEDGE of the premises or the evidence
which they adduced in support of their
application.
CONSTITUTION REQUIRES search warrants to
particularly describe not only the place but also
the persons to be searched.
- the SC UPHELD the validity of the search warrant
despite the mistake in the name of the persons
to be searched because the police officers
conducted the surveillance and test buy
operation before obtaining the search warrant
and subsequently implementing it.
- They had personal knowledge of the identity of
the persons and the place to be searched,
although they did not know the answer.
PROPERTIES SUBJECT TO SEIZURE- sec2 Rule 126
ROC
1. Subject of the offense
2. Stolen or embezzled property and other
proceeds or fruits of the offense
3. Property used or intended to be used as means
for the commission of an offense.
It is not necessary that the property to be
searched or seized should be own by the person
against whom the warrant is issued
SUFFICIENT- that the property is within his control
or possession
CONDUCT OF THE SEARCH- sec 27, Rule 126
No search of a house, room or any of the
premises shall be made except in the presence of
the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his
family or in the absence of the latter, in the
presence of 2 witnesses of sufficient age and
discretion, residing in the same locality. Failure to
comply with this requirement invalidates the
search.
-the police officer may use force in entering the
dwelling IF justified by the Rule 126 ROC.
The occupants refused to open the door despite
the fact that the searching party knocked on the
door several times, and the agents saw suspicious
movements of the people inside the house. These
circumstances justified the searching parties
forcible entry, as it was done on the apprehension
that the execution of their mission would be
frustrated unless they did so.
WARRANTLESS ARRESTS
1. Hot pursuit
2. Inflagrante delicto
3. Abscond rule
4. Escape rule
A. IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO (caught in the act)-
When the person to be arrested has committed,
is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense in his presence.
Rebellion is a continuing offense. Rebel may be
arrested anytime, with or without warrant, as he is
deemed to be in the act of committing the offense
at anytime of the day or night.
Kidnapping with serious illegal detention is a
continuing crime ONLY when the deprivation of
liberty is persistent and continuing from one place
to another
When the police officer sees the offense, although
at a distance, or hears the disturbances created
thereby, and proceeds at once to the scene, he
may effect an arrest without warrant. Offense is
deemed committed in the presence or within the
view of the officer.
Hot pursuit- the arrest of the accused inside his
house following hot pursuit of the of the person
who committed the offense of inflagrante delicto
was held VALID
Arrest made after entrapment operation does not
require a warrant of arrest. It is valid.
BUY-BUST OPERATION is a valid in flagrante arrest,
Subsequent search of the person arrested and of
the premises within his immediate control is valid
as an incident ti a lawful arrest
SC- defense of frame up and extortion by the
police officers is a common and standard defense
in most dangerous drugs. disfavored as it can
easily be concocted and fabricated
UNLAWFUL
-where the police acting as poseur buyer in a buy
bust operation but instead of arresting the suspect
and taking him after the sale, went to
headquarters and filed his report. It was only on
the evening of the same day that the police officer
without warrant arrested the suspect at the latters
house where dried marijuana were found and
confiscated.
To constitute IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO:
10320. The person to be arrested must
execute an overt act indicating that he has just
committed, is actually committing or is
attempting to commit a crime; and
10321. Such overt act is done in the
presence or within the view if the arresting
officer
NOT IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO
16384. Accussed while holding a bag inside
a tricycle cannot be said committing, attempting
to commit or committed a crime. Its matters not
that he responded boss, if possible, we will
settle this as such is an equivocal statement
which standing alone will not constitute PC to
effect an arrest in flagrante arrest.
16385. The apprehending officer had
already prior knowledge from the same
informant. Considering that the identity address
and activities of the suspected culprit were
already ascertained 2 years ago. There were no
reason why the police officer could have not
obtained a judicial warrant before arresting the
accused appellant and searching him.
16386. Mere discovery of the marked
money on the person of the accused did not
mean that he was caught in the act of selling
marijuana. Marked money was not prohibited
per se. Would not retroactively validate the
warrantless serch and seizure
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
- there must be compliance with sec 21 of RA 9165
- Non- compliance is tantamount to failure in
establishing the identity of the corpus delicti
- Immediately after the seizure and confiscation,
conduct physical inventory of the seized items
photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the person/s from whom it is
confiscated or his representative or counsel with
an elective public official and representative of
National prosecution
- Within 24 hrs from confiscation and seizure, the
same shall be submitted to the PDEA FORENSIC
LABORATORY for a qualitative a d quantitative
examination.
- Certification of the forensic laboratory
examination results shall be issued immediately
after the receipt of the subject items.
- 4 aspects:
17960. The natures of the substances or
items seized
17961. The quantity -same-
17962. The relation -same- to the incident
allegedly causing their seizure
17963. The relation of the substances or the
items seized to the person/s alleged to have
been in possession of or peddling them.
-the prosecution must be able to account for each
link in the chain of custody over the dangerous
drug, from the moment it was seized from the
accused up to the time it was presented in the
court as proof of corpus delicti
- police officer admitted that he did not pit any
markings on the 2 plastic sachets handed to him
after the buy bust operation. There was failure to
comply with the chain of custody, and the
accused may be acquitted.
- marking after seizure is the starting point in the
custodial chain, VITAL that the seized contraband
be immediately marked because succeeding
handlers of the specimen will use the marking as
reference.
- Absence of markings is crucial element of the
crime that warrants the reversal of the judgment
conviction.
B. HOT PURSUIT - when an offense had just been
committed and there is PC to believe, based on his
personal knowledge of the facts or of other
circumstances, that the person to ne arrested has
committed the offense.
2 stringent requirements
. An offense has just been committed and
. The person making the arrest has PC to believe,
based on his personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances, that the person to be arrested
had committed it.
- there must be an IMMEDIACY between TIME OF
THE OFFENSE IS COMMITTED And the TIME OF
ARREST
- If there was an appreciable lapse of time
between arrest and the commission of the crime
a warrant of arrest must be secured!
NO VALID ARREST
- arrest came a day after the offense was
committed and thus the offense had not just
committed. Police officer had no personal
knowledge of facts indicating that the person to
be arrested had committed the offense, since
they were not present and not actual eye witness
of the crime
- 6 days after shooting, the petitioner presented
himself before san juan police station to verify
news that he was being hunted, the police
detained him because an eyewitness has
positively identified him. NO VALID ARREST. Not
within the meaning of the offense had just been
committed inasmuch as six days already
elapsed.
- The police officer was only armed with the
knowledge of suspects attire
VALID ARREST
-where the policemen saw the victim dad at the
hospital and when they inspected the crime scene,
they found the instruments of death and the
eyewitness reported the happening and pointed to
Gerente as one of the killers, the warrantless arrest
of Gerente was only 3 hrs after the killing was
held VALID, since policemen had personal
knowledge of the violent death of the victim and
the facts that Gerente and 2 ithers killed the
victim. (Pp vs. Gerente)
- police officers had arrived less than an hour after
the alleged mauling; they found atty. Generoso
wounded; atty. Generoso positively identified the
petitioners as those responsible. Petitioners and
atty. generoso lived in the same neighborhood
and when the police officer confronted the
petitioners they did not deny their participation.
The police officer had personal knowledge of the
facts or circumstances.
- Warrantless arrest was valid as it was made after
the fatal shooting and pursuit of the fast-moving
vehicle seeking to elude the pursuing police
officers
PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS in arrest
without warrant must be BASED on PC, which
means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of
suspicion.
PROBABLE CAUSE (PC) for an arrest without
warrant is such a reasonable ground for suspicion
supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in
themselves to warrant a reasonable man in
believing the accused to be guilty.
The fact that robbery was never brought to trial
does not mean that the legality of the was tainted,
for such arrest does not depend upon indubitable
existence of the crime.
*NBI agents could NOT, regardless of their
suspicion, authorize the arrest of the students
without a warrantor even effect the arrest
themselves, because only the courts could decide
the question of PC
C. ESCAPE RULE or ARREST OF AN ESCAPEE
When the person to be arrested is a PRISONER who
has escape from
1. a penal establishment or place where he is
serving final judgment or
2. temporarily confined whole his case is pending
or
3. Has escape while being transferred from one
confinement to another.
D. WHEN THE RIGHT IS VOLUNTARILY
WAIVED.
- then the legality if the arrest may no longer be
invoked to effect the release of the person
arrested.
- Appellant is estopped from questioning the
illegality of his arrest when he voluntarily
submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court
by entering a plea of not guilty and by
participating in the trial.
- Question on the validity of the arrest must be
raised before entering a plea. Failure to do so
constitute a waiver of his right against unlawful
restraint of his liberty.
- Waiver is limited to the illegal arrest. Not extend
to the search made as incident thereto or to the
subsequent seizure of evidence allegedly found
during the search. Thus, any evidence obtained
in violation of the constitutional provision is
admissible in evidence under EXCLUSIONARY
RULE
GR: in number of cases, SC held that posting of
bail bonds constitutes a waiver of any irregularity
attending the arrest
XPN: but under RULE 114 sec 26, an application
for, or admission to, bail, shall NOT bar the
accused from challenging the validity of his arrest,
provided that he raises the challenge before
entering a plea.
The consequent filing of charges and the issuance
of a warrant of arrest against a person invalidly
detained will cure the defect of such detention or,
at least, deny him the right to be released.
WARRANTLESS SEARCHES
I. CONSENTED SEARCH. When the right is
voluntarily waived.
- for a valid waiver of constitutional right, it must
appear:
A. The right exist
B. That the person involved had knowledge either
actual or constructive, of existence of such
right
C. That the said person had an actual intention to
relinquish such right

- consent must be voluntary and unequivocal,

specific And intelligently given, uncontaminated
by any duress or coercion.
- Hence, consent to a search is not to be lightly
inferred, but must be shown by clear and
convincing evidence.

VALID WAIVER
1. The accused, driving a vehicle, was stopped at
a checkpoint, and when the vehicle was
inspected, the soldiers asked permission to see
the contents of the bag which was partially
covered by a spare tire. The accused consented
and upon inspection the bag was full of
marijuana.
2. The policemen opened a tin can in the jeepney
of the accused but the accused did not protest,
SC held that there was consent.
3. The accused gave NBI Agents written consent
to inspect his bag
4. The right was deemed waived because the
accused did not object to the admissibility of
the evidence during the trial, and the
submissive stance after the discovery of the
bag and the absence of any protest which thus
confirmed their acquiescence.
5. Searches of the passengers at the airport- sec.9
RA 6235 provides that every ticket issued to a
passenger by the airline or air carrier
concerned shall contain among other the ff in
printed thereon holder hereof and his hand-
carried luggage/s are subject to search for, and
seizure of, prohibited materials or substances.
Holders refusing to be searched shall not be
allowed to board the aircraft, which shall
constitute a part of the contract between the
passenger and the air carrier.

NO VALID WAIVER
1. SILENCE of the accused was not construed as
consent rather it was a demonstration of
regard for the supremacy of the law -
warrantless arrest was INVALID ( pp vs. Barros)
6. Consent given under intimidating or
coercive circumstances is NOT CONSENT
within the purview of constitutional guarantee
(aniag vs. comelec)
1. The fact that the person failed to object to
object to a search does NOT tantamount to
permission thereto. -Presumption of
regularity is diminished by the allegations of
the appellants that the arresting officer pointed
a gun to them before asking them to open the
subject box. (Pp vs. tutud)
2. The accused did not waive his right when he
allowed the police officers to search his bag.
Accused silence or lack of aggressive objection
was a natural reaction to a coercive
environment brought about by the police
officers excessive intrusion to his private
space. (Pp vs. cogaed)