You are on page 1of 4

6.

Warrantless Searches and Seizures [VOLUNTARY]

A. General Rule: Get a Search Warrant.


P9.5 People v. Aminuddin, 163 SCRA 402
P9.5 People v. Valdez, 341 SCRA 85
P10.5 People v. Oliver Edano, GR No. 188133, 729 SCRA 255, July 7, 2014
P10.5 Dale Grady v. North Carolina, March 30, 2015 (Use of GPS Tracker)

B. When is a search a “search”?


P10.5 Valmonte v. General de Villa – 178 SCRA 211 (Main) and 185 SCRA 655 (MR)
P11.5 Guazon v. De Villa – 181 SCRA 623

C. No Presumption of Regularity in Search Cases


P11.5 People v. Tudtud, GR 144037, Sept 26, 2003
P11.5 Sony Music v. Judge Espanol, GR 156804, March 14, 2005

D. Instances of Warrantless Searches and Seizures

P12.5 List: People v. Sevilla – 339 SCRA 625

i. Incidental to a Lawful Arrest


Sec. 12 Rule 16, Rules of Court

Two Requisites:
1. Item to be searched was within the arrestee’s custody or area of immediate control.
2. Search was contemporaneous with an arrest.

P12.5 Padilla v. CA, GR 121917 March 12, 1997


P12.5 Espano v. CA 288 SCRA 558 (1998)
P13.5 People v. De Lara – 236 SCRA 291
P13.5 People v. Leangsiri – 252 SCRA 213
P13.5 People v. Cuenco – GR 128277, Nov. 16, 1998
P1.6 People v. Che Chun Ting – 328 SCRA 592
P1.6 People v.Chi Chan, G.R. No. 189272, January 21, 2015

ii. Plain View

Requisites:
1. Prior valid intrusion
2. Evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police
3. Illegality of the evidence is immediately apparent; and
4. Noticed without further search.

P1.6 People v. Evaristo, 216 SCRA 413


P2.6 People v. Tabar, 222 SCRA 144 (1993)
P2.6 Roan v. Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687
P2.6 United Laboratories v. Isip – GR 163858 (June 28, 2005)
P3.6 People v. Doria – GR 125299, Jan. 22, 1999
P3.6 Del Rosario v. People, GR 142295, May 31, 2001

iii. Moving Vehicle


There must be a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause that the occupant
committed a criminal activity.

P3.6 Hizon v. Court of Appeals, 265 SCRA 517 (1996)


P4.6 Bagalihog v. Fernandez – 198 SCRA 614
P4.6 Aniag, Jr v. COMELEC, 237 SCRA 424 (1994)
P4.6 People v. Aminuddin, 163 SCRA 402
P5.6 People v. Malmstedt, GR 91107, June 19, 1991
P5.6 People v. Lo Ho Wing, GR 88017, Jan 21, 1991
P5.6 People v. Saycon – 236 SCRA 329
P6.6 People v. CFI – 101 SCRA 86
P6.6 People v. Barros – 231 SCRA 557
P6.6 Mustang Lumber v. CA – 257 SCRA 430
P7.6 People v. Lacerna – 278 SCRA 561

iv. Consent/Waiver

Requisites:
1.It must appear that the right exists.
2. The person involved had knowledge, either actual or constructive, of the existence of the right.
3. The person had actual intention to relinquish the right.

P7.6 De Garcia v. Locsin, 65 PHIL 689


P7.6 Caballes v. Court of Appeals, GR 136292, Jan 15, 2002
P8.6 People v. Agbot, 106 SCRA 325
P8.6 Lopez v. Commissioner of Customs, 68 SCRA 320 (1975)
P8.6 People v. Damaso, 212 SCRA 457
P9.6 People v. Asis, GR 142531, October 15, 2002
P9.6 Spouses Veroy v. Layague, GR 95632, June 18, 1992
P9.6 People v. Omaweng, 213 SCRA 462
P10.6 People v. Correa, 285 SCRA 679
P10.6 People v. Ramos, 222 SCRA 557
P10.6 People v. Tudtud, GR 144037, Sept 26, 2003
P11.6 People v. Tabar – 222 SCRA 144
P11.6 People v. Encinada – 280 SCRA 72
P11.6 People v. Aruta – 288 SCRA 626

v. Customs Search
P12.6 Papa v. Mago, 22 SCRA 857
P12.6 Pacis v. Pamaran, 56 SCRA 16
P12.6 People v. Gatward, 267 SCRA 785
P13.6 People v. Susan Canton, GR 148825, December 27, 2002
P13.6 People v. Johnson – 348 SCRA 526

vi. Stop and Frisk Situation


P13.6 Malacat: “Where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to
conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the person with
whom he is dealing may be armed and that the person with whom he is dealing may be armed and
presently dangerous, where in the course of investigation of this behavior he identifies himself as
a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the
encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or other’s safety, he is entitled for the
protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer
clothing of such person in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him.”

Malacat (1997): Probable cause is not required. However, mere suspicion or a hunch is not enough.
Rather, a “genuine reason must exist, in light of the police officer’s experience and surrounding
conditions, to warrant the belief that the person detained has weapons concealed about him.”

P1.7 Terry v. Ohio 392 US 1


P1.7 Posadas v. CA, GR NO. 89139, August 2, 1990
P1.7 People v. Solayao 202 SCRA 255 (1996)
P2.7 Malacat v. CA 283 SCRA 159 (1997)
P2.7 Manalili v. CA, GR 113447, October 7, 1997
P2.7 People v. Aruta, 288 SCRA 626 (1998)
P3.7 People v. Sy Chua, GR 136066, February 4, 2003
P3.7 People V. Victor Cogaed Y Romana, G.R. No. 200334, July 30, 2014

vii. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances

P3.7 People v. De Gracia, 233 SCRA 716 (1994)

*Drug, Alcohol and Blood Tests


Requisites to be valid:
1. It must be random, and
2. It must be suspicionless.

P4.7 Laserna v. DDB, GR 158633, Nov. 3, 2008: The constitutional validity of the mandatory,
random, and suspicionless drug testing for students emanates primarily from the waiver of their
right to privacy when they seek entry to the school, and from their voluntary submitting their
persons to the parental authority of school authorities.
In case of private and public employees, the constitutional soundness of the mandatory, random
and suspicious drug testing proceeds from the reasonableness of the drug test policy and
requirement.
However, there is no valid justification for mandatory drug testing for persons accused of crimes
punishable with at least 6 years and one day imprisonment as they are singled out and impleaded
against their will. The operative concepts in the mandatory drug testing are “randomness” and
“suspicionless.”
P4.7 Pimentel, Jr v. COMELEC, GR 161658, November 3, 2008: The mandatory drug test
requirements as a pre-condition for the validity of a certificate of candidacy of electoral candidates
not established under the Constitution, e.g. local government positions, is valid.