You are on page 1of 10

SEARCHES AND SEIZURES suspicion amounting to probable cause that the

occupant committed a criminal activity;
SEARCH WARRANT 4. Consented warrantless search;
5. Customs search;
Rule 126 (ROC) 6. Stop and Frisk; and
7. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances.
Section 1. Search warrant defined. — A search warrant is an  The essential requisite of probable cause must still
order in writing issued in the name of the People of the be satisfied before a warrantless search and seizure
Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer, can be lawfully conducted.
commanding him to search for personal property described o Probable cause generally signifies a
therein and bring it before the court. reasonable ground of suspicion supported by
circumstances sufficiently strong in
Section 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. — A person themselves to warrant a cautious man to
lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or believe that the person accused is guilty of
anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the the offense with which he is charged.
commission of an offense without a search warrant. o It likewise refers to the existence of such
facts and circumstances which could lead a
People v. Aruta reasonably discreet and prudent man to
 A search may be conducted by law enforcers only on believe that an offense has been committed
the strength of a search warrant validly issued by a and that the item(s), article(s) or object(s)
judge as provided in Article III, Section 2 of the sought in connection with said offense or
Constitution which provides: subject to seizure and destruction by law is
o Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in the place to be searched.
in their persons, houses, papers, and effects o Before a search warrant can be issued, it
against unreasonable searches and seizures must be shown by substantial evidence
of whatever nature and for any purpose shall that the items sought are in fact seizable by
be inviolable, and no search warrant or virtue of being connected with criminal
warrant of arrest shall issue except upon activity, and that the items will be found in
probable cause to be determined personally the place to be searched.
by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the Manalili v. CA
witnesses he may produce, and particularly  Stop and Frisk - the vernacular designation of the
describing the place to be searched and the right of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street,
persons or things to be seized. interrogate him, and pat him for weapons.
 This constitutional guarantee is not a blanket  People v. Lacerna recognized five exceptions to the
prohibition against all searches and seizures as it rule against warrantless search and seizure: (1)
operates only against “unreasonable” searches and search incidental to a lawful arrest, (2) search of
seizures. Searches and seizures are normally moving vehicles, (3) seizure in plain view, (4) customs
unreasonable unless authorized by a validly issued search, and (5) waiver by the accused themselves of
search warrant or warrant of arrest. their right against unreasonable search and seizure.
 Articles which are the product of unreasonable o In these cases, the search and seizure may
searches and seizures are inadmissible as be made only with probable cause as the
evidence. essential requirement.
o Sec. 3(2). Any evidence obtained in violation  Stop-and-frisk has already been adopted as another
of this or the preceding section shall be exception to the general rule against a search without
inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in a warrant.
any proceeding. o There are many instances where a search
 WHEN A WARRANTLESS SEARCH IS ALLOWED and seizure can be effected without
1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest necessarily being preceded by an arrest, one
recognized under Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules of of which is stop-and-frisk.
Court 8 and by prevailing jurisprudence;
2. Seizure of evidence in “plain view,” the elements of World Wide Web Corporation v. People
which are:  In the issuance of a search warrant, probable cause
(a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid requires "such facts and circumstances that would
warrantless arrest in which the police are lead a reasonably prudent man to believe that an
legally present in the pursuit of their official offense has been committed and the objects sought in
duties; connection with that offense are in the place to be
(b) the evidence was inadvertently searched."
discovered by the police who had the right to  The things to be seized must be described with
be where they are; particularity. Technical precision of description is not
(c) the evidence must be immediately required. It is only necessary that there be reasonable
apparent, and particularity and certainty as to the identity of the
(d) “plain view” justified mere seizure of property to be searched for and seized, so that the
evidence without further search; warrant shall not be a mere roving commission.
3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the Indeed, the law does not require that the things to be
government, the vehicle’s inherent mobility reduces seized must be described in precise and minute detail
expectation of privacy especially when its transit in as to leave no room for doubt on the part of the
public thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable searching authorities. If this were the rule, it would be
virtually impossible for the applicants to obtain a

Strict compliance any secondary or derivative evidence (the " fruit ") with the constitutional and procedural derived from it is also inadmissible. evidence subsequently obtained. Customs search. The  The Constitution lays down the general rule that a warrant is valid when it enables the police officers search and seizure must be carried on the strength of to readily identify the properties to be seized and a judicial warrant. (4) the applicant and the 4. Exigent and emergency circumstances. from the issuance of the warrant up "tree") is shown to have been unlawfully obtained. A judge who issues otherwise. Otherwise. The rule is based on the lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to principle that evidence illegally obtained by the State believe that an offense has been committed and that should not be used to gain other evidence because the objects sought in connection with the offense are the originally illegally obtained evidence taints all in the place sought to be searched. GAB: capricious  Otherwise known as the exclusionary rule or the and whimsical exercise of judgment fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. manner by reason of passion or personal Evidence obtained through unlawful seizures should hostility or in a manner so patent and gross be excluded as evidence because it is "the only as to amount to an invasion of positive duty practical means of enforcing the constitutional or to the virtual refusal to perform the duty injunction against unreasonable searches and enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of seizures. in writing and under oath 2. Stop and Frisk. to be searched that will enable the officer making the search with reasonable certainty to locate such place FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE DOCTRINE or thing is sufficient. or affirmation. GAB from the lower court. and effects are not o In such proceeding. Raquero officers of the law from violating private security in  The 1987 Constitution states that a search and person and property and illegally invading the sanctity consequent seizure must be carried out with a judicial of the home.  A search warrant proceeding is a special criminal and judicial process akin to a writ of discovery. illegal act. one’s person. it must be determined lightly infringed upon and are upheld. Alicando may be subject of the search warrant are . houses. illegally seized evidence is obtained as a a search warrant without complying with direct result of the illegal act. to its implementation. and (5) the warrant specifically describes the 6. the search and seizure leaves them with no discretion regarding the is deemed "unreasonable. Cogaed o Responds only to an incident in the main  The Constitution provides: case.  A search warrant need not describe the items to People v. (2) the probable however." It ensures that the fundamental rights to the law." Evidence procured on the articles to be seized. Any description of the place or thing offense” requirement of probable cause. this rule equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. them. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest. Valdez be seized in precise and minute detail. warrant as they would not know exactly what kind of very much intertwined with the “one specific things to look for. evidence obtained therefrom shall be inadmissible for  REQUIREMENTS FOR SEARCH WARRANT: any purpose in any proceeding. Search of evidence in plain view. once the primary source (the with. o The court must necessarily determine whether an offense exists to justify the INEVITABLE DISCOVERY DOCTRINE issuance or quashal of the search warrant because the personal properties that People v. admits of exceptions. Search of a moving vehicle. papers. seizures] shall be inadmissible for any o The higher court must determine if there was purpose in any proceeding. People v. namely: cause must be determined personally by the judge.  The purposes of the constitutional provision against unlawful searches and seizures are to: (i) prevent the People v. occasion of an unreasonable search and seizure is deemed tainted for being the proverbial fruit of a NATURE OF SEARCH WARRANT PROCEEDING poisonous tree and should be excluded. or to the prohibits the issuance of general warrants that exercise of power in an arbitrary or despotic encourage law enforcers to go on fishing expeditions. the complainant and the witnesses he 3. whether the requirements and limitations provided under the Constitution and the Additional Rules of Court were properly complied  According to this rule. and (ii) give remedy against such warrant. Consented warrantless search. or she may produce. and place to be searched and the things to be seized. Such evidence shall be inadmissible in evidence for any PLDT v. Alvarez purpose in any proceeding. it becomes unreasonable and any usurpations when attempted or committed. 1. but it defined as such facts and circumstances that would is equally inadmissible. The "fruit of the poisonous tree" is at least  In search warrant proceedings. otherwise. 7. Said proscription. Stated requirements is required. whereas the "fruit of the these requirements commits grave abuse of poisonous tree" is the indirect result of the same discretion. an order granting or denying it may be o Any evidence obtained in violation of [the questioned only thru a petition for certiorari right against unreasonable searches and (Rule 65). (1) the existence of probable cause. (3) the judge must examine. witnesses testify on the facts personally known to 5. probable cause is once removed from the illegally seized evidence.

Cogaed normal conditions. courts have recognized that warrant that meets all the requirements of this evidence derived from information obtained provision are reasonable. Querubin in whose possession it may be at the time of the  This constitutional right refers to the immunity of one's search and seizure. was alleged to have in invasion of one's physical freedom manifests itself. the search warrant was directed. such it is to pass the test of constitutionality. Probable cause at this stage can only exist if there is an offense alleged PRIVATE SEARCHES to be committed. search and seizure does not apply. moreover. stolen property must be owned by one other than the person Villanueva v. therefore. carry the burden of showing that the waiver of a  If the search is made upon the request of law constitutional right is one which is knowing. Since. and hence. The police officer be extended to acts committed by private individuals must communicate this clearly and in a language so as to bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful known to the person who is about to waive his or her intrusion by the government. Under one of the recognized accomplished through a warrant. the right against known as a police officer. it must be the poisonous tree. Chief of Staff (ESCRA) and seizure of the suitcase and the contraband  Fact that some of the personal properties seized items was therefore carried out without do not belong to the person against whom a government intervention.—The above rule (Sec. owned by him. In fact. is involved. is of no person. To be not necessary to hold that all evidence is fruit of impressed with such a quality. Bongcarawan less. it is not sufficient that the own and private purposes. a warrant must generally be first secured if and free from any coercion. The search Burgos v. not a sufficient constitutional protection against unreasonable ground to annul the same. However. intelligent. with a particular description of the place anyway by sources or procedures independent of to be searched. under subsection [b] of the above-quoted Section 2. The existence of probable shown that such evidence would have been cause must be established by the judge after asking inevitably gained even without the unlawful act. The police officer must unreasonable search and seizure cannot be also inform the person to be searched that any invoked for only the act of private individual. .  As a general rule. It may or may not be discharge any governmental function. and it is sufficient that the person government. as invariably through a search and seizure that such an petitioner Jose Burgos. doctrine as absolutely sacred if the evidence in question would have been inevitably discovered under People v. Necessarily.  The baggage of the accused-appellant was searched by the vessel security personnel. if waivers are not to be presumed. or be intervention of police authorities. It was only after they SCOPE OF PROTECTION found shabu inside the suitcase that they called the Philippine Coast Guard for assistance. There must be a particular description of the place and the things to be People v. Also. The prosecution and the police the constitutional meaning of the term. from interference by consequence. Another exception refuses to treat the seized. Ownership. included in which is his residence. the warrant frames the GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE searches done by the law enforcers. the search is made at the behest or initiative of  For a valid waiver by the accused of his or her the proprietor of a private establishment for its constitutional right. Jr. and without the police officer introduce himself or herself. the protection any of his or her objections that the circumstances do against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot not amount to a reasonable search. In all cases. warrants. searching questions and answers. whether citizen or alien. to be cases is whether the evidence to which the objection determined by a judge after examination under oath is made would not have been discovered at all but for or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he the illegality or would have been discovered may produce. Marti searched. it is possession of the property sought to be seized. This warrant requires the illegally is not absolutely inadmissible under the existence of probable cause that can only be fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine where it is determined by a judge. The fundamental nature of a person’s constitutional right to privacy requires no People v. it relation to the articles and property seized under the is made clear that he is not to be thus molested. and other possessions. one of the properties that NATURE / WAIVER OF RIGHT may be seized is stolen property. constitutional rights. not inaction on his or her part will amount to a waiver of the law enforcers. searches conducted with a  In a long line of cases. and the persons or things to be the illegality. Rule 126) does not require that the property to be o The vessel security officer in the case at bar seized should be owned by the person against whom is a private employee and does not the search warrant is directed. enforcers. which should not be exceptions. his against whom the warrant is directed has control or papers.  Courts have generally approved the view that it is unless its reasonableness could be shown. There must be an assurance given to the police officer that the accused fully VESSEL SECURITY OFFICER understands his or her rights.  Where the property was taken into custody of the  Cogaed’s silence or lack of aggressive objection was police at the specific request of the manager and a natural reaction to a coercive environment brought where the search was initially made by the owner about by the police officer’s excessive intrusion into there is no unreasonable search and seizure within his private space. 1. In sum. the more appropriate question in such issued unless probable cause is shown.

not the individual making the recording a telephone conversation. Maxicorp o The “device or arrangement” contemplated  The judge determining probable cause must do so by law refers to instruments whose only after personally examining under oath the installation or presence cannot be presumed complainant and his witnesses. Requisites for issuing search warrant. article(s) or object(s) violate Sec. 4200 as the use could not be secured at the time of application. and the judge must depose in writing the complainant and his CONCEPT witnesses.  A search warrant in the nature of a general  The essential requisite of probable cause must still warrant is constitutionally objectionable. IAC  The law refers to a "tap" of a wire or cable or the use People v. the thereof cannot be considered as "tapping" applicant must show a justifiable reason therefor the wire or cable of a telephone line. of the existence of probable cause.S. 4. therefore invalid. Probable cause demands more than bare connection with the offense are in the place sought to suspicion. it to be seized under the search warrants in question must be shown by substantial evidence cannot be characterized differently. that the items sought are in fact seizable by virtue of being connected with criminal RA 4200 (Anti-wire tapping) activity. Aruta warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause in . pamphlets. it requires less than evidence which would be searched. Constitution requires no less than personal knowledge by the complainant or his witnesses of DETERMING PROBABLE CAUSE the facts upon which the issuance of a search warrant may be justified. the findings examination under oath or affirmation of the of the judge should not disregard the facts before him complainant and the witnesses he may produce. after conducting the examination. Chief of Staff Laud v. they are not knowledge of the petitioner or his witnesses. by their very nature. authorized the search for ‘books. Supreme Court for being too general. as o An extension telephone cannot be placed in in the present case . Estrada of a "device or arrangement" for the purpose of  Probable cause must be the best evidence that secretly overhearing. the nor run counter to the clear dictates of reason. knowledge and control of the applicant who could dictagraph or the other devices enumerated easily produce the same. But if the best evidence in Section 1 of RA No. records. and that the items will be found in the place to be searched.—In be satisfied before a warrantless search and seizure Stanford v. instance. a crime discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that it was committed by the has been committed and that the objects sought in accused. The during the examination by the judge. Burgos v. o Probable cause generally signifies a cards. justify conviction.” was declared void by the believe that the person accused is guilty of U. more likely than not.and such evidence is within the the same category as a dictaphone. 54-197 of the Connecticut General sought in connection with said offense or Statutes [the statute dealing with the crime of subject to seizure and destruction by law is conspiracy]” was held to be a general warrant.. There must be either a physical introduction of such evidence is necessary especially interruption through a wiretap or the deliberate in cases where the issue is the existence of the installation of a device or arrangement in order to negative ingredient of the offense charged .for overhear. memoranda. The description of the articles sought o Before a search warrant can be issued. . or record the spoken words. of common usage and their purpose is because the purpose thereof is to convince the precisely for tapping. and that reasonably discreet and prudent man to portion of a search warrant which authorized the believe that an offense has been committed seizure of any “paraphernalia which could be used to and that the item(s). and the operation of the themselves to warrant a cautious man to Communist Party in Texas. receipts. telephone extension in this case was not installed for that purpose. directions to “seize any evidence in o It likewise refers to the existence of such connection with the violation of SDC 13-3703 or facts and circumstances which could lead a otherwise” have been held too general. Microsoft v. Mere affidavits are not enough. intercepting. Reliable information PROBABLE CAUSE is insufficient. The the communication. the absence of a license required by law. State of Texas. affidavit and seeking the issuance of the warrant. intercepting or committing magistrate. the search warrant which can be lawfully conducted. People  Probable cause for a search is defined as such facts  A finding of probable cause needs only torest on and circumstances which would lead a reasonably evidence showing that. The oath required by the party or parties being overheard must refer to the truth of the facts within the personal because. The existence depends to a large  In mandating that "no warrant shall issue except upon degree upon the finding or opinion of the judge probable cause to be determined by the judge. – A search People v. pictures. intercept.. recordings reasonable ground of suspicion supported by and other written instruments concerning the circumstances sufficiently strong in Communist Parties of Texas. However. Person Authorized (Rule 126) Sec. In like the offense with which he is charged. manner. and in the place to be searched. or recording could be obtained under the circumstances. lists. Gaanan v.

at least under  In determining the existence of probable cause. The examining represented in the proofs they submitted to the court Judge has to take depositions in writing of the issuing the warrant. and the dignity. or on mere suspicion accused and permits the warrantless seizure. PICOP v. Salanguit  A search warrant may be issued only if there is  Under the plain view doctrine. a longer provide any basis for admitting the other judge is duty-bound to personally examine under items subsequently found. Substantial basis [i]s the embodiment of a spiritual concept: the belief means that the questions of the examining judge that to value the privacy of home and person and to brought out such facts and circumstances as would afford its constitutional protection against the long lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to reach of government is no less than to value human believe that an offense has been committed. the extension of the original justification is legitimate only where it is immediately apparent to the Description of Place to be Searched police that they have evidence before them. Things that May Be Seized Tan v. to hold liable for perjury the conducting the search. Mamaril the probable cause requirement in that. Sy Tiong Gue People v. of the existence of probable some other legitimate reason for being present cause. the plain view doctrine can no  It is settled that in determining probable cause. Of or belief. hot pursuit. it some circumstances. Gonzales exploratory search from one object to another  To be valid. not the prior justification whether it be a warrant for another individual making the affidavit and seeking the object. Additionally. Tuan safeguard against unreasonable search. there must be a specific description of personally by the judge after examination under oath or the place to be searched and the things to be seized.  Once the valid portion of the search warrant has Hon Ne Chan v. the lack of a more specific is required that: (1) the judge must examine the description will make it apparent that there has not complainant and his witnesses personally. and particularly describing the place to be searched warrant and the things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines. complainant and the witnesses he may produce and  The particularization of the description of the to attach them to the record. probable cause to be determined by the judge or some other authorized officer after examining the Burgos v. and that his privacy must not be disturbed objects in connection with the offense sought to be except in case of overriding social need. or had witnesses are thus not sufficient. o For this doctrine to apply. and only in the warrant itself. oath the complainant and the witnesses he may  What the plain view cases have in common is that the present. No . examination must be reduced in writing in the form of  What is material in determining the validity of a searching questions and answers. a search warrant must be supported by until something incriminating at last emerges. because the purpose thereof is to the accused. the requisite of particularity is related to People v. affirmation of the complainant and the witness he may to prevent arbitrary and indiscriminate use of the produce. unconnected with a search directed against the vague or doubtful basis of fact. person giving it if it will be found later that his declarations are false. Honda been executed. this Court has held that this constitutional right basis for that determination. Such written deposition place to be searched may properly be done only is necessary in order that the Judge may be able to by the Judge. (2) the been a sufficient showing to the magistrate that the examination must be under oath. not  Mere affidavits of the complainant and his what the applicants had in their thoughts. or issuance of the warrant. there must be: (a) prior justification. witnesses. search incident to lawful arrest. and then seized are in the place sought to be searched. by a reviewing court. The doctrine serves to supplement the convince the committing magistrate. and (3) the described items are to be found in a particular place. course. Chief of Staff complainant and the witnesses he may produce. Asuncion  In view of the manifest objective of the constitutional People v. as long as there was substantial Thus.connection with one specific offense to be determined less important. the plain view doctrine may not be used to extend a general Roan v. Emphasis must be laid on the fact that the police officer in each of them had a prior justification oath required must refer to the truth of the facts within for an intrusion in the course of which he came the personal knowledge of the petitioner or his inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating witnesses. search is the place stated in the warrant itself. it properly determine the existence or non-existence of cannot be left to the discretion of the police officers the probable cause. and (c) immediate apparent Complainant and Witness illegality of the evidence before the police. the  A magistrate’s determination of probable cause for the Constitution and the Rules limit the place to be issuance of a search warrant is paid great deference searched only to those described in the warrant. unlawful objects probable cause in connection with only one specific within the plain view of an officer who has the right to offense alleged in an application on the basis of the be in the position to have that view are subject to applicant’s personal knowledge and his or her seizure and may be presented in evidence. only under stringent procedural safeguards. (b) inadvertent discovery of Personal Examination by Searching Questions on the the evidence. Search warrants are not issued on loose.

the court would show probable cause must be the best concluded that "[w]hat a person knowingly evidence that could be obtained under the exposes to the public.—The Supreme Court deemed it fit to amend search warrant may be issued for the search Section 3 of Rule 122 of the former Rules of Court by and seizure of the following personal providing in its counterpart. 41.—The facts and circumstances that take it." existence of the negative ingredient of the offense charged—for instance. Ownership. Greenwood had left the trash there person to the privacy of his home and expressly so that the trash collector. safeguards before a search warrant can be issued scavengers. the same may be continued Jose de la Montana St. 4 April 1990 was a continuation of the search on 3  The place sought to be searched had not been April 1990 done under and by virtue of the search described with sufficient particularity in the warrant issued on 3 April 1990 by Executive Judge questioned search warrant.—The warrants authorized the search for at the time of the search and seizure. Again. thus openly contravening the explicit command of the Garbage search Bill of Rights—that the things to be seized be California v. and if its object or purpose reason therefor during the examination by the judge. CA (ESCRA) applicant who could easily produce the same. to wit:  Search warrant to issue for one specific o Sec. specific offense. under warrant should particularly describe the things to be subsection [b] of the above-quoted Section 2. as in the present case and such evidence is within the knowledge and control of the Mustang Lumber v.”  The above rule does not require that the property  Particular description of things to be seized. cannot be accomplished in one day. it may be continued under the same warehouse is owned by a different person. Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court. the proceeds or fruits of the offense. . Hence.  Section 2. because Greenwood had no reasonable expectation of privacy in it. and if its object or purpose cannot be residence is actually located at Lot No. the Court believed it to People v. stolen property must be owned by one business transactions not a particular other than the person in whose possession it may be description. upon probable cause in connection with one specific [b] Property stolen or embezzled and other offense. a stranger. Greenwood particularly described —as well as tending to defeat  The Court held that under the Fourth Amendment. 1.—We also affirm the rulings of both the to give meaning to the constitutional right of a person trial court and the Court of Appeals that the search on to the privacy of his home and personalities. Ruiz (ESCRA) seized under a search warrant. particularity in the questioned search warrant. Although Greenwood had hidden the trash from view by putting in opaque plastic bags and VALIDITY OF WARRANT expected it to be on the street only a short time before it would be taken to the dump. and Supreme Court added thereto a paragraph. Seizure of records pertaining to all Necessarily. and of against whom the search warrant is directed. one of seized. snoops. enumerates the personal properties that may be Bache and Co. 38 within the same compound. and it is transactions of petitioners herein. the warrant the following day. children.. Under Section 9. of the Constitution. 3. ten-day period. v. Thus. But if  Search Warrants. Estrada (ESCRA) be “common knowledge” that garbage at the side of  The necessity of requiring stringent procedural the street is “readily accessible to animals. and other members of the is to give meaning to the constitutional right of a public. — A offense. The warrant is directed has control or possession of warrants sanctioned the seizure of all records of the the property sought to be seized.” Not satisfied with this qualification. petitioners and corporations. Cebu City. the properties that may be seized is stolen property. Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. It Sec. no its major objective.—The place sought to Osorio. In fact. 516 San accomplished in one day. 2. while the the following day or days until completed. Sec. regardless of sufficient that the person against whom the whether the transactions were legal or illegal.” Moreover. directing [c] Property used or intended to be used as that “no search warrant shall issue for more than one the means of committing an offense. Mabolo. it could be served at any time within the said considering that private respondent Aiden Lanuza’s period. provided it is still within the respondent Judge is correct on this point. a search warrant has a lifetime of ten days. Personal Property to be seized. the same The necessity of requiring stringent procedural may be continued the following day or days until safeguards before a search warrant can be issued is completed. A search warrant has a lifetime the best evidence could not be secured at the time of of ten days and it could be served at any time application.— to be seized should be owned by the person Under Art. that “a search warrant shall not issue but [a] Property subject of the offense. is not a subject of Fourth Amendment necessary especially in cases where the issue is the protection. Quoting Katz v.  Seizure. whatever their nature. The said interrupted. when drugs sought to be seized were found in a warehouse the search under a warrant on one day was at Lot No. even in his own home or circumstances. the may or may not be owned by him. the elimination of general warrant was necessary to search the trash warrants. is of no consequence. could personalities. Rule 126 of the Rules of be searched had not been described with sufficient Court. the absence of a license FORM AND CONTENT OF WARRANT required by law. and seizure of records pertaining to all business therefore. United States. The introduction of such evidence is office. 111. the applicant must show a justifiable within the said period. under the Revised Rules property: of Court.

The Garcia v. dwelling of the compound which is 516 San Jose de la house or other immobile structure. did not raise the issue or assign the same as an error  In the instances where a warrant is not necessary to before this Court. supported by circumstances Mabolo. (2) that the searched. the presence or constitutional guarantee against obtrusive searches. coupled factories and warehouse. (5) searches of automobiles at for appellant Pua. Mabolo. he operations. search warrant may readily be obtained But the search warrant merely indicated the address when the search is made in a store. any possible effect a valid search or seizure. of the existence of such right. the inadequacy of the description of the can quickly be moved out of the locality or residence of private respondent sought to be jurisdiction where the warrant must be searched has characterized the questioned search sought. Computers (naskip lahat ng mga US cases lolz) RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE CONSENTED SEARCH / WRITTEN CONSENT Umamito ??? People v. and building challenge the validity of his arrest and search. which is violative of articles seized cannot be admitted in evidence against the constitutional requirement. must be founded on probable cause. recognized as exceptions to the requirement of a judicial warrant. be said vehicles. People v.. i. held that the applicant should particularly describe the o The grounds of suspicion are reasonable place to be searched and the person or things to be when. the manner in which the is fundamental that to constitute a waiver. facts. Locsin . CA uniqueness of the circumstances involved including  In case of consented searches or waiver of the the purpose of the search or seizure. it could have been very easy to describe the officers making the arrest. a lawful arrest. like every right. (4) searches of moving  What has been said for Cuizon cannot. People thereof. the suspicion that the present case. offices. Malasugui WARRANTLESS SEARCHES  When one voluntarily submits to a search or Exceptions consents to have it made of his person or premises. taking into account.  The inadequacy of the description of the essential requisite of probable cause must be satisfied residence of private respondent sought to be before a warrantless search and seizure can be searched has characterized the questioned search lawfully conducted. A reasonable suspicion therefore are residences of other people. alas. The sketch indicated the 2-storey sufficiently strong in themselves to create the residential house of private respondent with a large probable cause of guilt of the person to be “X” enclosed in a square. (6) where out on him and Lee may have been illegal for not the prohibited articles are in plain view.e. which is violative of the constitutional requirement. as well regulations.—This Court has the person arrested. warrant as a general warrant. (2) as an incident to waiver may be made either expressly or impliedly. sanitary. (7) being incident to a lawful warrantless arrest. While the search and arrest carried borders or constructive borders. the Caballes v. Cebu City. he is precluded from later complaining Esquillo v. among other things. on an pinpoint the specific house of private respondent. it must be noted that the application for person to be arrested is probably guilty of search warrant was accompanied by a sketch of the committing the offense is based on actual compound at 516 San Jose de la Montana St. This description of impracticable to obtain a warrant when the the place to be searched is too general and does not search is conducted on a mobile ship. it absence of probable cause. But it is Montana St. and the character of the articles procured. search or seizure is purely a judicial question. it is necessary that the officer PEACEFUL SUBMISSION TO A SEARCH effecting the arrest or seizure must have been impelled to do so because of probable cause. Within the same compound arrested. customs. aircraft. it must search and seizure was made.. be waived and such o (1) consented searches. person involved had knowledge. and (8) stop and frisk as the admission of the evidence obtained thereby. Accordingly. Mariscos said person had an actual intention to relinquish the  It is well to remember that in the instances we have right. or in other motor vehicles since they Thus. With this sketch as the with good faith on the part of the peace guide. residential house of private respondent with sufficient  Moving Vehicle particularity so as to segregate it from the other o This exception is easy to understand. in the absence of actual belief of the seized. the determination of challenge thereto based on constitutional what constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable grounds is deemed waived. wherever and whenever it is feasible. In the arresting officers.. The right to be secure from unreasonable  Exceptions from Search Warrant search may. workshops. (3) searches of vessels and aircraft for violation of immigration. the place or thing first appear that (1) the right exists. and (3) the People v. Cebu City. Cuizon and drug laws. the warrant as a general warrant. Without probable cause. A buildings or structures inside the same compound. the searches of buildings and premises to unfortunate fact is that appellant Pua failed to enforce fire. either actual or constructive.

The fact that the others safety. the about him. but a submission to the authority People v. to warrant the belief his sister. but instead they hold officer observes unusual conduct which that a peaceful submission to a search or leads him reasonably to conclude in light of seizure is not a consent or an invitation his experience that criminal activity may be thereto. as Judge Cooley observes. where in the course of People v. to warrant the belief that the illegally seized objects. secondly. dealing may be armed and presently dangerous. the courts do not place the citizen in cannot be reversed.—The confession itself. therefore be emphasized that a search and . and where nothing in knowledge. the position of either contesting an officer's  Stop and Frisk authority by force. in light of the police constitute a violation of an accused's officers experience and surrounding constitutional right against admissibility of conditions. People with which it is so replete.the act of a police officer to stop a have supplied and the obvious attempt to mitigate his citizen on the street. contention that the confiscation or seizure of the gun  Two-Fold Interest of a Stop and Frisk was illegal. The taking of appellant's gun holds that mere suspicion or a hunch will from his house by two barrio councilmen with not validate a stop-and-frisk. alleged fact from pure imagination to be placed in in order to check the latters outer clothing for appellant's confession. or waiving his o We merely hold today that where a police constitutional rights. it must appear first that the himself as a policeman and makes right exists. actual or constructive. but is merely a demonstration of afoot and that the persons with whom he is regard for the supremacy of the law. vengeance because the victim was the one who o The police officer should properly introduce ordered the killing of his brother Ansog Agbot. as narrated by the victim's husband to the that the person to be held has weapons (or barrio captain. and lastly. of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault EFFECT OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER him. o While probable cause is not required to People v. in accordance with the found its way to the confession is the incident just police officers experience and the before the shooting when appellant hurled a threat at surrounding conditions.—The verity of appellant's person detained has weapons concealed admission of guilt having been firmly established. It is. of the existence of the initial stages of the encounter serves to such a right. that a police officer may. his liability therein is evidence of its voluntariness. The police approach and restrain a person who investigators could not have just conceived of this manifests unusual and suspicious conduct. the failure on the part of the petitioner and her bookkeeper to resist or object to the execution of the warrant does not constitute an STOP AND FRISK implied waiver of constitutional right.  Search Incidental to a Lawful Arrest o As the constitutional guaranty is not o The law requires that there first be arrest dependent upon any affirmative act of the before a search can be made the process citizen. with consent cause. The taking possible criminal behavior even without probable of the gun from his house was. that said person had an actual dispel his reasonable fear for his own or intention to relinquish the right. It should freedom to tell his story. With his confession. therefore. The general interest of effective crime prevention as evidence is not permissible. committed the offense would be but a natural approach a person for purposes of investigating consequence of his having admitted guilt. which underlies the recognition devoid of factual or legal basis. Agbot (ESCRA) conduct a stop-and-frisk. which appellant alone could  Stop and Frisk . clearly becomes and detection. had appellant not been allowed full contraband) concealed about him. and acquiescence that would not constitute a violation 2. and pat him for liability by alleging that he did the act in a fit of weapon(s) or contraband. The improbability of a sister ordering the killing of a apprehending police officer must have a brother. whom he deals is not armed with a deadly  The confession of the accused states details that weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be only accused would know the attempt to mitigate used against the police officer. The more pressing interest of safety and self- of the constitutional guaranty against the admissibility preservation which permit the police officer to of illegally seized objects as evidence against an take steps to assure himself that the person with accused. Binad Chua of the law. it nevertheless  Constitutional Law. under appropriate his voluntarily surrendering the weapon with which he circumstances and in an appropriate manner. there being no search warrant and its use 1. considering the extreme possibly concealed weapons. Barros investigating this behavior he identifies  To constitute a waiver. the earmarks of voluntariness.  In any event. bears himself and make initial inquiries. that the person involved had reasonable inquiries. what should have genuine reason. A genuine appellant's acquiescence and consent would not reason must exist. by the facts Esquillo v. For the motive of the killing. he is entitled for the protection accused failed to object to the entry into his of himself and others in the area to conduct a house does not amount to a permission to make a carefully limited search of the outer clothing search therein. interrogate him.

from the moment the goods are vehicle. (4) where the warrant of seizure or detention had previously been occupants are not subjected to a physical or issued by the Collector of Customs in connection with body search. The search cannot. seizure should precede the arrest for this building. or merchandise cannot be reversed. without security personnel had no knowledge yet of what mentioning the need of a search warrant in said were hidden on SUSANs body. o In the present case. and (6) where the routine check having police authority under Section 2203 of the is conducted in a fixed area. Tariff and Customs Code to enter. "stop-and-search" without warrant at military or police checkpoints which has been declared to be not People v. the process should find any goods. inside the packages. absence of probable cause. Canton conveying any dutiable or prohibited article introduced  Prior to the strip search in the ladies’ room. or to stop and search and examine any vehicle. thereon. Aminnudin illegal per se.  A warrantless search of a moving vehicle is  SEC. which they had probably cause to believe  The scope of a search pursuant to airport security had been so unlawfully brought into the country. be said to have been done incidental to a duty. not being a dwelling house. beast or person suspected of holding or People v. In a search incidental to a lawful any manner contrary to law. subject to search for prohibited materials or  One such form of search of moving vehicles is the substances. and if they arrest before a search can be made. which not give the police officers unlimited discretion to shall constitute a part of the conduct indiscriminate searches without warrants if contract between the passenger made within the interior of the territory and in the and the air carrier. which must still limited to weapons. search and examine any vehicle. Every ticket issued to a justified on the ground that it is not practicable to passenger by the airline or air secure a warrant because the vehicle can be carrier concerned shall contain quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in among others the following which the warrant must be sought. for as long as it is warranted by the  Vessels and aircraft are subject to warrantless exigencies of public order and conducted in a way searches and seizures for violation of the customs least intrusive to motorists. (5) where the inspection of the seizure and forfeiture proceedings. Still and all. the search was made pursuant to routine airport security procedure ROADBLOCKS AND CHECKPOINTS (RA 6235). the law requires that there be first a lawful charge of the vehicle or beast or otherwise. the police officers of the white crystalline substances but also to stop. does allowed to board the aircraft. and also to principle to apply. know yet whether a crime was being committed. to procedure is not confined only to search for seize and secure the same. and the vehicle or beast weapons under the Terry search doctrine. and seizure of. the o From the said provision. Holder near the boundary lines of the State. suspect there was merchandise which was subject to therefore. pass through or search any land. Searches condition printed thereon: Holder without warrant of automobiles is also allowed for the hereof and his hand-carried purpose of preventing violations of smuggling or luggage(s) are subject to search for immigration laws. provided such searches are made . o Routine inspections are not regarded as violative of an individual's right against Customs Officers unreasonable search. which they believed to be shabu. or had been introduced into the United States in lawful arrest. Passengers are also be present in such a case. hence. it is clear that the important thing is that there was probable cause search. Mago limited to the following instances: (1) where  It is the settled rule. warehouse. 9. beast or person on which or whom they should that SUSAN was arrested. whether by the person in arrest. or envelope or any person on Airport Searches and Disembarking from Vessels board. store or PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE . as well. even if no opening the car's doors. therefore. refusing to be searched shall not be  The mere mobility of these vehicles. It  It is lawful for customs officers not only to board and was only after the strip search upon the discovery by search vessels within their own and adjoining districts. for the purposes of enforcement of the public fair grounds. The search which is normally permissible in this instance is Papa v. This constitutes another exception to the proscription against Caballes v. for trial and forfeiture. A checkpoint may either law because these vehicles may be quickly moved out be a mere routine inspection or it may involve an of the locality or jurisdiction before the warrant can be extensive search. CA warrantless searches and seizures. inspect. package. the airport into the Philippines contrary to law. is not to conduct the warrantless search. unlike in the Terry search. (2) simply looks into a customs laws. inclosure. secured. search and examine any vessel or aircraft and any trunk. wares. vehicles is limited to a visual search or visual  The Tariff and Customs Code authorizes persons inspection. that the Bureau of the officer merely draws aside the curtain of Customs acquires exclusive jurisdiction over imported a vacant vehicle which is parked on the goods. (3) flashes a light therein without actually in its possession or control. they did not cases. however. prohibited at borders or 'constructive borders' like checkpoints materials or substances.

De Gracia(ESCRA)  It is admitted that the military operatives who raided the Eurocar Sales Office were not armed with a search warrant at that time. vicinity of the office and in the nearby Camp (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the Aguinaldo which was under attack by rebel forces. which was in Calantiao’s possession. This is so because "[o]bjects 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. Under such executed. (a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid there was general chaos and disorder at that time warrantless arrest in which the police are legally because of simultaneous and intense firing within the present in the pursuit of their official duties. Calantiao  The Plain View Doctrine is actually the exception to the inadmissibility of evidence obtained in a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest outside the suspect’s person and premises under his immediate control. bongcarawan) EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES People v. There People v. subsequently found. as part of the search incident to Calantiao’s lawful arrest. manifested that on December 5. The trial judge himself evidence. they deliberately opened it. the occupants thereof refused to open the door despite requests for them to do so. The police officers did not inadvertently come across the black bag. a search provide any basis for admitting the other items warrant could lawfully be dispensed with. for that matter. Prior to the raid. it is our considered opinion that the  The seizure of evidence in "plain view" applies only instant case falls under one of the exceptions to the where the police officer is not searching for prohibition against a warrantless search. In the first evidence against the accused. The presence of an unusual quantity of People v. ppl v. marti. thereby compelling the former to break into the office. PRIVATE SEARCHES AND STATE EXPANSION OF PRIVATE SEARCH (ppl v. The Eurocar Sales Office is obviously not a gun store and it is definitely not an armory or arsenal which are the usual depositories for explosives and ammunition. People v. and The courts in the surrounding areas were obviously (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent. Under the foregoing without further search. Furthermore. but inadvertently place. the raiding team had no right to be in the position to have that view are opportunity to apply for and secure a search subject to seizure and may be presented in warrant from the courts. the plain view doctrine can no longer urgency and exigency of the moment. there was a surveillance conducted on the premises wherein the surveillance team was fired at by a group of men coming from the Eurocar building. The raid was actually precipitated by intelligence reports that said office was being used as headquarters by the RAM. facts obtaining in this case. the building and houses (d) plain view justified mere seizure of evidence therein were deserted. the military operatives. unlawful objects cause to warrant their action. his court was closed. had reasonable ground to believe that a crime was being committed. 1989 when the raid  Once the valid portion of the search warrant has been was conducted. circumstances. and closed and. When the military operatives raided the place. taking into account the comes across an incriminating object. under the within the plain view of an officer who has the situation then prevailing." o The Plain View Doctrine thus finds no applicability in Calantiao’s situation because the police officers purposely searched him upon his arrest. Valdez high-powered firearms and explosives could not be  REQUISITES: justifiably or even colorably explained. It is primarily and solely engaged in the sale of . Salanguit was consequently more than sufficient probable  Under the plain view doctrine. automobiles. police who have the right to be where they are. In addition.