You are on page 1of 14

Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Case Doctrines 1

Dean Joan Largo

RIGHT AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

CASE FACTS/ ISSUE RULING


Sec 2
Republic v Whether there was a valid search and
- - Revolutionary government withheld the operation of the 1973 Constitution which guaranteed
Sandiganbayan seizure for other items other than the private respondents exclusionary right; no Bill of Rights was not effective (no constitutional
firearms as specified in the search warrant right against unreasonable search and seizures)
(without showing that these items could be - Protection accorded to individuals under the Covenant and the Declaration remained in effect
the subject of warrantless search and during the interregnum (directives and orders of the rev government did not repudiate them)
seizures)
Search and Seizure, when unreasonable
Manalili v CA - Whether a search and seizure could be - STOP AND FRISK—right of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street, interrogate him and
effected without necessarily being pat him for weapons for effective crime prevention to investigate possible criminal behaviour
preceded by an arrest even where there is insufficient probable cause to make an actual arrest; NOT ABANDON THE
- Wallet with suspected marijuana residue RULE THAT WHEN PRACTICABLE, MUST OBTAIN ADVANCE JUDICIAL APPROVAL OF
was confiscated during a surveillance SEARCHES AND SEIZURES THROUGH A WARRANT PROCEDURE (EXCUSED ONLY FOR
- Police Officer had sufficient reason to stop EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES)
Manalili to investigate if he was actually - Right against unreasonable searches and seizures is not absolute
high on drugs (search was valid, being akin - 5 exceptions against warrantless search and seizure
to a stop and frisk) 1. Search incidental to a lawful arrest
2. Search of moving vehicles
3. Seizure in plain view
4. Customs search
5. Waiver by the accused themselves of their right
- STOP AND FRISK—exception to warrantless search and seizure; search and seizure can be
effected without preceded by an arrest

Requisites for valid issuance


Agcoaili v Molina - Agcaoili alleged that respondent in - PC (for warrant of arrest)—facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet
conducting the preliminary investigation in and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be
a crim case failed to exercise utmost care in arrested
the issuance of a warrant of arrest (as - Hearsay evidence cannot be bases of probable cause
based on the statements of 2 witnesses - Determination of PC is a function of the judge and not for the provincial fiscal
who had no personal knowledge of the
commission)
- Respondent explained that the RTC has
final say and disposition on the existence of
PC
People v Estrada - Estrada filed with a charge of plunder (4
Billion pesos)
- After prosecution finished presenting its
evidence, Estrada filed a demurrer to
evidence
- Court upheld TC’s order which quashed the

vanillaela
Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Case Doctrines 2
Dean Joan Largo

search warrant it issued and ordered the


return of the seized goods on the ground
that the warrant failed to satisfy the
constitutional requirements for issuance
- Partial reconsideration granted that seized
drugs can no longer be returned (absence
of a permit or authority from the approp
government agency)
Stonehill v Diokno - Prosecution made issuance of 42 search - can only assail the search conducted in the residences but not those done in the corporation's
warrants to search persons and premises premises (corporation has a personality separate and distinct from the personality of its
of several personal properties for violation officers or herein petitioner)
of Central Bank Laws etc - Only the party whose rights has been impaired can validly object the legality of a seizure--a
- Contended that the search warrants are purely personal right which cannot be exercised by a third party (right to object belongs to
null and void for being violative of the the corporation)
Constitution
- Whether or not the petitioner can validly
assail the legality of the search and seizure
in both premises
People v CA - Properties consisted of 27 units of - Search warrant that does not relate to a specific offense is in violation of the doctrine in
transformers Stonehill v Diokno
- NBI applied for and secured the questioned - Definition of PC—facts and circumstances antecedent to the issuance of the warrant that in
search warrant to seize the transformers themselves are sufficient to induce a cautious person to rely on them and to act in pursuance
“under repair” thereof
- Search warrant issued left the space in the - Requisites of issuing for a search warrant:
caption for the nature of the offense in (1) Probable cause in CONNECTION WITH 1 SPECIFIC OFFENSE
black indicating the uncertainty of (2) to be determined personally by the judge
petitioner and court as to the crime (3) after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
committed produce
(4) particularly describing the place to be searched and things to be seized
Personal Determination by a judge
Fenix v CA - Sgt Vidal charged petitioners with serious - Power of judge to determine PC for warrant of arrest is in Art 3, Sec 2 (warrant of arrest shall
illegal detention in San Carlos Seminary issue only upon a judges’ personal determination of the evidence against the accused)
- Doble heard about the existence of the - Judges’ finding of probable cause—based on a determination of the existence of facts and
alleged rigging of the 2004 elections; Ong circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that an
arrived to tell Doble he would be presented offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested
to the media as its source - Prosecutor’s finding of PC—determines PC by ascertaining the existence of facts sufficient to
- Panel found probable cause to charge engender well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is
petitioners (did not give serious probably guilty thereof
consideration to counter-affidavits) - Judges:
- Petitioners urged the court to personally (1) Dismiss if evidence failed to establish PC
evaluate the Resolution of the panel to (2) Issue warrant of arrest upon finding of PC
determine existence of PC of the warrants (3) Order prosecutor to present additional evidence within 5 days from notice in case of
of arrest doubt
- RTC dismissed case for lack of probable
cause

vanillaela
Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Case Doctrines 3
Dean Joan Largo

- Panel dismissed without considering the


counteraffidavits was committed with GAD
Abdula v Guiani - Complaint for murder was filed but was - It must be stressed that the 1987 Constitution requires the judge to determine probable
dismissed by the provincial prosecutor cause "personally," a requirement which does not appear in the corresponding provisions of
- WON the Warrant of Arrest should be set our
aside and declared void ab initio. previous constitutions
- respondent admits that he issued the - What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing
questioned warrant as there was "no judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause
reason for (him) to doubt the validity of the - he shall:
certification made by the Assistant (1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal
Prosecutor regarding the existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest;
- statement is an admission that respondent or
relied solely and completely on the (2) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscal's report and
certification made by the fiscal that require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a
probable cause exists (CONSEQUENTLY, conclusion as to the existence of probable cause
THE WARRANT OF ARREST SHOULD BE - determination of probable cause by the prosecutor is for a purpose different from that which
DECLARED NULL AND VOID) is to be made by the judge:
(1) Whether there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense
charged and should be held for trial is what the prosecutor passes upon.
(2) The judge, on the other hand, determines whether a warrant of arrest should be issued
against the accused,
- Second, since their objectives are different, the judge cannot rely solely on the report of the
prosecutor in finding probable cause to justify the issuance of a warrant of arrest
- What is required, rather, is that the judge must have sufficient supporting documents upon
which to make his independent judgment or, at the very least, upon which to verify the
findings of the prosecutor as to the existence of probable cause.
PICOP v Asuncion - Police Chief Inspector applied for a search - requisites of a valid search warrant:
warrant (1) probable cause is present;
- Judge Asuncion issued the contested search (2) such presence is determined personally by the judge;
warrant (3) the complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce are personally examined by the
- police enforced the search warrant at the judge, in writing and under oath or affirmation;
PICOP compound and seized a number of (4) the applicant and the witnesses testify on facts personally known to them; and
firearms and explosives (5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the things to be seized
- search warrant is invalid because:
(1) the trial court failed to examine
personally the complainant and the other
deponents;
(2) SPO3 Cicero Bacolod, who appeared
during the hearing for the issuance of the
search warrant, had no personal
knowledge that petitioners were not
licensed to possess the subject firearms;
and
(3) the place to be searched was not
described with particularity.

vanillaela
Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Case Doctrines 4
Dean Joan Largo

People v Tuan -2 informants reported that Tuan had been - Requisites for Issuing a Search Warrant:
selling marijuana (1) Probable cause (reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently
- Filed Application for a Search Warrant strong to warrant a cautious man to believe that the person accused is guilty of the
- Judge personally examined SPO2 and offense; or an offense is committed ad the item in connection with offense is in the place
informants before issuing search warrant to be searched)
- Tea was allowed entry into the house even (2) PC determined personally by the judge
though accused was not around by (3) Judge must examine, under oath the complainant and such witnesses
accused’s father (4) Warrant issued must particularly describe place and things
- WON there was a probable cause for the - Substantial basis—questions of the examining judge brought out such facts and
judge to issue a Search Warrant and circumstances as would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe...
whether the warrant described the place to - Description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer serving the warrant can, with
be searched (YES) reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended and distinguish it from other
- WON the warrant particularly described places
the place to be searched (YES)
Particularity of description
People v Veloso - Veloso found guilty of crime of resistance of - Description of place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can, with
agents of authority but was contested to be reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended
justifiable for illegality of the John Doe - Officer making lawful arrest may take any property found upon person arrested which was
search warrant (Veloso insisted to refuse used for the commission of the crime or its fruit or may furnish person means of committing
his search) violence or escape or may be used as evidence on the trial of the cause but not otherwise
- “Parliamentary Club” nothing more than a - JOHN DOE WARRANTS (Exception)—warrant for the apprehension of an UNNAMED Party is
gambling house void EXCEPT where it contains a DESCRIPTIO PERSONAE such as will enable the officer to
identify the accused (description must be sufficient to indicate clearly the proper person upon
whom the warrant is served)
Alvarez v CFI - Petitioner asks that search warrant - Search warrant definition—order in writing, issued in the name of the PPI signed by a judge
ordering search at any time of certain or a justice of the peace and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for
accounting books or documents belonging personal property and bring it before the court
to him in his residence be declared illegal - Statutes authorizing searches and seizures or search warrants must be strictly construed
and all seized articles be returned to him - Oath definition—any form of attestation by which a party signifies that he is bound in
- Books and docs to be used as evidence conscience to perform an act faithfully and truthfully; must refer to the truth of the facts
against him in violation of Anti-Usury Law within the personal knowledge of the petitioner or his witnesses to convince the committing
as money-lender charging usurious rates of magistrate of existence of PC
interest - What constitutes a reasonable search or seizure is purely a judicial question, determinable
- Chief of Secret Service of AUL Board did not from a consideration of the circumstances involved (purpose, presence of PC, manner search
swear to the truth of his statements upon is made, place or thing searched)
his own knowledge of the facts but upon - If affidavit of the applicant is sufficient, judge may dispense that of other witnesses (if
information received by him from a reliable insufficient, duty of judge t require affidavit of one or more witnesses for purpose of
person determining PC to warrant issuance of warrant)
- Judge issued warrant upon the affidavit - Search made at night when it is positively asserted in the affidavit that the property is on the
(search was opposed by petitioner) person or in the place ordered to be searched (warrant was issued unreasonably and does not
appear in the affidavit articles were in possession and in the place indicated—cannot be made
at night)
- Affidavit to be presented (used as a basis to determine PC) must contain particular
description of the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized (but where the

vanillaela
Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Case Doctrines 5
Dean Joan Largo

nature of the goods, description must be general, not required that technical description is
given)
- Seizure of books and documents by means of search warrant to use them as evidence in a
criminal case against the person in whose possession they were found is unconstitutional
because it makes warrant unreasonable (equivalent to violation of prohibiting against
compulsion of accused to testify against himself)
- Search warrant illegal because:
(1) Warrant based solely upon affidavit not based on personal knowledge of facts for PC
(2) Warrant issued for sole purpose of seizing evidence to be later used in the criminal
proceedings that might be instituted against the petitioner
People v CA, 1998 - Search warrant was served against Hussain - Place described in the warrant which is the only place that may be legitimately searched was
which resulted in his arrest with 3 other not that which the officers who applied for the warrant had in mind, with the result that what
Pakistanis and in the seizure of their they actually subjected to the search was a place other than that stated
personal belongings - Essential for warrant to particularly describe the place to be searched (intention being that
- Submitted a Motion to Quash Search the search be confined strictly to the place described)
Warrant and declare evidence obtained
inadmissible on the ground that the place
searched was other than and separate from
the place stated in the warrant
Vallejo v CA (test) - NBI Agent filed a sworn application for - Search Warrant is constitutionally infirm; void for lack of particularity
search warrant on the Office of Registry of - Sec 2, Art 3
Deeds to seize documents (being used to - Rule 126 of Revised Rules of Crim Pro—Requisites for issuing search warrant
intended to be used for Falsification of - Necessary that there be reasonable particularity and certainty as to the identity of the
Land Titles) property to be searched for and seized (not required to be described in precise and minute
- Motion to Quash Search Warrant for failure detail)
to describe the persons or things to be - Sufficient as to any description of the place or thing to be searched that will enable officer
seized and was violative of the Const making search with reasonable certainty to locate place or thing (but must preclude any
possibility of seizing any other property)
- Search warrant must be issued for one specific offense
Warrantless Arrest
People v Laguio Jr - Respondent acquitted on 3 diff cases filed - Warrantless search may be conducted as an incident to a valid warrantless arrest (lawful
against him after demurrer to evidence was arrest FIRST before search can be made)
granted due to illegal arrest, search and - If there are valid reasons to conduct lawful search and seizure which thereafter shows that
seizure the accused is currently committing a crime, accused may be lawfully arrested in flagrante
- No valid warrantless arrest as “reliable delicto
information” alone absent any overt act - Warrantless search incidental to illegal arrest is unlawful
indicative of felonious enterprise is not - Warrantless arrest may be effected (Sec 5)
sufficient to constitute PC (1) In flagrante delicto (person must execute overt act and done in the presence of officer)
- Respondent was merely walking from (2) Based on personal knowledge of officer there is PC that suspect was author of a crime just
Maria’s Apartment and to his BMW when committed
police arrested him, frisked and searched (3) Escaped prisoner (after conviction or temporarily confined)
his person (not committing any visible
offense)
People v Tabar - Prosecuted for selling and delivering - When a crime is committed in the presence of policemen, a warrantless arrest can be
without authority marijuana cigarettes and performed in which a search on the person arrested can be done for proof of the commission

vanillaela
Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Case Doctrines 6
Dean Joan Largo

other drugs to a person who posed as a of an offense without the corresponding warrants
buyer - Waiver of the constitutional right is done when there is voluntary submission to the search
- 17 year old boy was first arrested then and seizure (when one submits and consents to the search, he is precluded from later
followed to a shanty where Carmelina went complaining thereof)
out and proceeded to arrest and search her - Waiver of the right may either be expressly or impliedly
People v Doria - Charged with violation of Dangerous Drugs - When the warrantless arrest is illegal, it follows that the search of her person and home and
Act of 1972 the subsequent seizure cannot be deemed legal as incident to her arrest
- TC found the existence of a syndicated - When an accused is apprehended in flagrante delicto as a result of a buy-bust operation, the
crime group but erred in admitting as law enforcement agents are not only authorized but also duty-bound to arrest him even
evidence marijuana fruiting found inside without a warrant
the carton box because they were obtained - Lawful warrantless arrest (Rules on Crim Pro)—reasonable suspicion must be founded on
through a warrantless search and not come probable cause coupled with good faith; suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably
in the plain view doctrine guilty of committing the offense based on actual facts
- Accused was not caught red-handed during - Plain view doctrine—when not in plain view, its seizure without the search warrant is in
the buy-bust operation to give ground for violation of the right
her arrest
People v - Accused (Swedish national) charged for - Where search is made pursuant to a lawful arrest, there is no need for a search warrant
Malmstedt violation of Dangerous Drugs Act - When arrest without a warrant is lawful (in flagrante delicto; offense is committed and he has
- Accused went to Baguio and rode a bus personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it;
where there was a temporary checkpoint to escaped prisoner)
check all vehicles coming from the
Cordillera region (prompted by persistent
reports that vehicles from Sagada were
transporting marijuana; additional
information about a Caucasian possessed
drugs)
- Being the only Caucasian, he was asked for
his papers and when failed to produce
such, was asked to bring out the bulge from
his waist where a derivative of marijuana
was found
- Accused was searched and arrested while
transporting prohibited drugs (Crime was
actually being committed); there was
sufficient probable cause for said officers to
believe that accused was then and there
committing a crime (accused was acting
suspiciously)
People v - Not at the moment of his arrest committing - When the warrantless arrest is not legal, there can be no valid warrantless search and seizure
Aminudin a crime nor was it shown that he was about incidental to the arrest
to do so (as he was descending the - No urgency present (could have procured the needed warrants from the information they
gangplank; only when informer pointed received)
him to be carrying the marijuana did the
officers arrest him)
- Officers were acting on a tip they received

vanillaela
Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Case Doctrines 7
Dean Joan Largo

from an informer
Go v CA - Arrest took place 6 days after the shooting - Instances of warrantless arrest (Sec 5, Rule 113; Rules on CrimPro)
of Maguan (officers were not present at the - Umil v Ramos: SC sustained legality of the warrantless arrests from 1-14 days after the actual
time petitioner allegedly shot Maguan; or commission of the offenses when they constituted continuing crimes
did the shooting just been committed_ - No arrest when person voluntarily placed himself at the disposal of the authorities (not state
- Information to which the police acted upon his surrender)
was the eyewitness and the guard who
took down the plate number (information
was not “personal knowledge”)
People v Acut - Accused charged for Possession of - Evidence obtained from unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inadmissible in evidence
Dangerous Drugs for any purpose in any proceeding
- Shootout occurred whie PO3 Din was - Exception to the need of a warrant for a valid search is a search incidental to a lawful arrest
having his haircut where vehicles were - In warrantless arrests (pursuant to Sec 5 (b)), it is essential that personal knowledge is
registered under Acut’s name coupled with immediacy (otherwise, arrest may be nullified and items yielded through the
- Police conducted a “hot pursuit” operation search will be inadmissible)
by setting up a checkpoint whereby the - Pestilos v Generoso:
vehicle passed by. The policed searched the : immediacy—“offense has just been committed” and “personal knowledge of facts and
vehicle and found nothing but frisked Acut circumstances that the person to be arrested committed it”; guarantees that the police had no
discovering the plastic sachet of shabu time to base their PC finding on facts obtained after an exhaustive investigation; time gap
- Element of personal knowledge was between commission and arrest widens, info gathered are prone to become contaminated and
present but element of immediacy was not subjected to external factors etc.
met (when warrantless arrest was effected, : circumstances—events or actions within the actual perception, personal evaluation or
investigation and verification proceedings observation of the police officer at the scene of the crime;
were already conducted; would have been : determination of PC and facts or circumstances should be made immediately after the
enough to procure the warrants) commission of the crime
- No lawful arrest= invalid incidental search; - There must be a lawful arrest FIRST before a search can be made
search was made before arrest - Search and seizure rules over moving vehicles are liberalized on the basis of practicality
(warrantless search of a moving vehicle is justified is not practicable to secure a warrant
because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the jurisdiction in which the warrant must be
sought; also to prevent violations of smuggling or immigration laws for borders)
- SETUP OF MILITARY OR POLICE CHECKPOINTS—not illegal as long as its necessity is justified
by the exigencies of public order and conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists; valid if
limited to:
(1) Where officer merely draws aside curtain of a vacant vehicle parked on public fair
grounds
(2) Simply looks into vehicle
(3) Flashes a light without opening doors
(4) Where occupants are not subjected to a physical or body search
(5) Where inspection of the vehicles is limited to visual search
(6) Where routine check is conducted in fixed area
- Where vehicle is subjected to an extensive search, warrantless search is valid only when the
officers have reasonable or PC to believe before the search that they will find the evidence
pertaining to a crime in the vehicle
Malacat v CA - Petitioner charged for possessing a hand - There must first be a lawful arrest before a search can be made
grenade without license and permit - STOP AND FRISK—limited to protective search of outer clothing for weapons; PC is not

vanillaela
Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Case Doctrines 8
Dean Joan Largo

- Serious doubts surrounds the story of required; genuine reason must exist in light of police’s experience and surrounding conditions
police that a grenade was found in and to warrant the belief that person has weapons concealed
seized from petitioner : 2-fold interest—crime prevention and detection; safety and self-preservation
- Search conducted on petitioner was not
incidental to a lawful arrest
- No lawful arrest as there was lack of
personal knowledge on the police or overt
act of the petitioner indicating a crime was
just committed
Sindac v People - PNP conducted surveillance operations on - Search and seizure must be carried out through a judicial warrant predicated upon the
Sindac’s alleged drug trade existence of PC
- PNP witnessed a trade of sachet which - Evidence from unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inadmissible (proverbial fruit of a
prompted them to proceed and intro poisonous tree)
themselves as police; they ran but was able - Lawful arrest first before a search can be made
to apprehend one where they were able to - PC is based on officer’s personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be
seize the sachet of shabu from his pocket arrested has committed the crime (facts and circumstances pertain to actual facts or raw
- After initially determining it was shabu, evidence)
they proceeded to arrest him - “reliable information” alone is not sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest; required that the
- No lawful warrantless arrest made accused performs some overt act that would indicate that he has committed, is actually
committing or is attempting to commit an offense
- Arresting officers were not impelled by any urgency that would allow them to do away with
the requisite warrant
- Not question legality of the warrantless arrest constitutes a waiver only to any question on
the defect of the arrest and not on the inadmissibility of the evidence seized during an illegal
warrantless arrest
People v Mengote - Illegal possession of firearms on the - Inadmissible evidence due to lack of warrant and no valid warrantless arrest
strength mainly of the stolen pistol found - Impulsiveness of the police may be the very cause of the acquittal of those who deserve to be
on his person at the moment of his convicted because it has not been observed by those who are supposed to enforce it
warrantless arrest
- Police received a telephone call from an
informer of 3 suspicious looking persons;
surveillance team was dispatched
- Persons did no overt act to indicate
commission or attempt to commit a crime
Umil v Ramos - 8 petitions for habeas corpus denied for - Warrantless arrests in Sec 5 of Rule 113 of Rules of CrimPro
persons were lawfully arrested for having
freshly committed a crime and detained
with valid informations
People v Del - Charged as co-principal for Robbery with - Sec 5 (b), Rule 113—immediacy (offense just been committed) between arrest and
Rosario Homicide but pleaded exemption from commission (if there is appreciable lapse of time, warrant of arrest must be secured) and
liability for having acted under irresistible personal knowledge (of facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed
force (accused threatened him) the crime
- Arrest is not invalid when he was arrested - Illegality of arrest is waived when the person arrested submits to arraignment without any
on the day following the commission objection
People v Ayangao - Charged with transporting marijuana - Entering a plea upon arraignment and by actively participating in the trial, an accused is

vanillaela
Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Case Doctrines 9
Dean Joan Largo

- Police received info that a woman delivered deemed to have waived any objection to his arrest and warrantless search (any objection to
marijuana leaves for sale to pushers; the arrest or acquisition of jurisdiction over person must be before plea)
conducted a surveillance operation - People v Barros; People v Aruta—waiver of non-admissibility of “fruits” of invalid warrantless
- When the woman arrived carrying sacks, arrest and search is not to be casually presumed for the consti guarantee against
marijuana leaves were protruding unreasonable search and seizure
- Lawful arrest as accused was actually - Incidental search in warrantless arrest to search and seize dangerous weapons and things
committing a crime when arrested that may be used as proof
(transporting marijuana)—warrantless - Warrant is needed when police are given time to procure the needed warrant
search was also valid
People v Angeles - Charged with illegal possession of drugs - Person is stopped from assailing the legality of arrest if he fails to raise issue before
- Concerned citizen went to the police arraignment (waiver limited only to arrest)
station to report a pot session; police - Waiver of illegal warrantless arrest does not carry with it a waiver of inadmissibility of
immediately went to the house and when evidence seized during the illegal warrantless arrest
accused went out of the house, immediately - When acting under a tip, surveillance must first be conducted to determine PC then secure a
arrested him warrant
- Shabu found in the room were seized and - Plain view doctrine elements:
turned over (1) Prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which police are legally
- Court found inadmissible evidence among present for official duties
others (2) Evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have the right to be where they
are
(3) Evidence must be immediately apparent
(4) “plain view” justified mere seizure of evidence without further search
- Valid search without a warrant:
(1) Search incidental to a lawful arrest
(2) Plain view
(3) Moving vehicle
(4) Consented warrantless search
(5) Customs search
(6) Stop and frisk
(7) Exigent and emergency circumstances
Warrantless search
People v Chua Ho - Initially charged with illegal possession of - Any evidence obtained in violation of right is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding
San meth - What constitutes a reasonable search is purely a judicial question.
- Search made was not incidental to an arrest - PC with respect to arrest—facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonable discreet
(no warrant of arrest and warrantless and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the items sough in
arrest did not fall under the exceptions) connection therewith is in the place to be searched
- Unfamiliar speedboat was spotted, man - Lawful arrest must precede a valid search
alighted and was asked by the police to - Arrest is considered legitimate if effected with a valid warrant of arrest except:
open his bag which revealed plastic packed (1) In flagrante delicto
of substances - In presence of officer, actually committing or attempting to commit an offense
- Must have personal knowledge of facts or circumstances constitutive of PC
(2) Effected in hot pursuit
(3) Escaped prisoners
- Intrusion to a person’s body, effects or residence only by virtue of a valid search warrant
EXC to valid search without warrant:

vanillaela
Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Case Doctrines 10
Dean Joan Largo

(1) Moving vehicle


(2) Plain view
(3) Customs
(4) Waiver or consented search
- To constitute a waiver:
a. First appear that the right exists
b. Person had knowledge, actual or constructive of the existence of right
c. Actual intention to relinquish right
(5) Stop and frisk
(6) Incidental to lawful arrest
Homar v People - Petitioner was initially found to be - There must be a valid warrantless search and seizure pursuant to an equally valid warrantless
jaywalking when police accosted him to arrest (Sec 5, Rule 113 of Rules of CrimPro) which must precede the search
walk at the pedestrian area when police - Filing of a criminal charge is not a condition precedent to prove a valid warrantless arrest
frisked him as he picked something up (prosecution is not relieved from its burden to prove valid warrantless arrest preceding the
from the ground resulting in the discovery warrantless search that produced the corpus delicti of the crime)
of a knife and shabu - Arrest—intention to arrest and intention to submit under the belief that submission is
- Failed to prove lawful warrantless arrest necessary
(not charged with jaywalking) before the - Waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not also mean a waiver of the inadmissibility of
search evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest
People v - Based on a report, the appellant was selling - “plain view” doctrine (while appellant was looking for the papers of the car in his clutch
Macalaba shabu but upon reaching his apartment did bag)—unlawful objects within the plain view of an officer who has the right to be in the
not find him there but caught him in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented in evidence
traffic while driving a carnapped vehicle - “Plain view” requirements:
- Shabu and other illegal items was exposed (1) Prior valid intrusion in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official
while appellant was getting the car’s duties
certificate of registration (2) Evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they
- Warrantless arrest/ search was a valid are
exemption (3) Evidence must be immediately apparent
(4) Plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search
- Exceptions for allowing warrantless searches and seizures (enumerated)
- Exceptions for allowing warrantless arrests (Sec 5, Rule 113 of Rules of CrimPro)
People v Valdez - Caught in flagrante delicto in planting and - GR: search and seizure must be carried on the strength of a judicial warrant
cultivating marijuana leaves - EXC: recognized exceptions for valid warrantless search and seizure
- Confiscated plants were evidently obtained - Right against unreasonable searches and seizures is the immunity of one’s person, which
during an illegal search and seizure (plants includes his residence, his papers and other possessions; “right of personal security” not
were not immediately apparent or in plain places
view therefore needing further search)—
inadmissible evidence
- Police had at least 1 day to obtain a
warrant from the information
People v - Spencer was arrested for selling marijuana - Warrantless search and seizure allowed under the plain view doctrine and that an arrest
Elamparo to buy-bust team, escaped and ran towards without warrant is lawful where an accused is caught in flagrante delicto
the house of Elamparo’s father where - 5 exceptions to the right against warrantless search and seizures judicially formulated
Elamparo was caught in flagrante delicto - Plain view doctrine (definition, requisites)
packing marijuana tops

vanillaela
Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Case Doctrines 11
Dean Joan Largo

People v Johnson - Shabu was seized during the routine frisk - Persons may lose the protection of the search and seizure clause by exposure of their persons
at the airport as pursuant to airport or property to the public in a manner reflecting a lack of subjective expectation of privacy
security procedures (valid warrantless which expectation society is prepared to recognize as reasonable (e.g. airport security)
search= admissible evidence) - Announcements of searches place passengers on notice that ordinary consti protections
- Valid warrantless arrest as in flagrante against warrantless searches and seizures do not apply to routine airport procedures
delicto - Other personal effects should be returned which are not:
(1) Subject of the offense
(2) Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or fruits of the offense
(3) Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense
People v Mendoza - Convicted for parricide and illegal - People v Marti—constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures refers
possession of firearm and ammunition to the immunity of one’s person from interference by government and it cannot be extended
- Implied that the gun belongs to the victim; to acts committed by private individuals (warrant is dispensable)
dispute about the unlicensed gun and not
about the illicit relationship
Papa v Mago - Acting upon a reliable information that a - Bureau of Customs acquires exclusive jurisdiction over imported goods for purposes of
certain shipment of personal effects, enforcing the Customs laws (from when goods are actually in possession and control of
allegedly misdeclared and undervalued Bureau even in absence of warrant)
would be released; police conducted - Customs acquired jurisdiction over goods when seized to the exclusion of regular courts for
surveillance; seized and detained the 2 purposes of enforcement of customs and tariff laws
trucks and their cargo - Tariff and Customs Code does not require a search warrant to enforce customs and tariff laws
(“Except in the search of a dwelling house, police authority under the customs law may effect
search and seizure without search warrant in the enforcement of customs laws”)
- Law enforcers tasked to effect the enforcement of the customs and tariff laws are authorized
to search and seize without a warrant any article when there is reasonable cause to suspect
that the items have been introduced in the Phils in violation of tariff and customs laws
Padilla v CA - Manarang and Perez witnessed the vehicle - Grounds for warrantless arrests
hit a person and ran from the scene - Objection to an invalid warrantless arrest must be made before plea
- When Padilla was caught up showing a gun - 5 instances when a warrantless search and seizure of property is valid
tucked in his waist which not properly - Voluntary surrender of firearm indicates a waiver of his right against the alleged search and
documented when he alighted with both seizure (failure to quash the information stopped him from assailing the purported defect)
his hands raised - Search of a moving vehicle when search was conducted with probable cause to believe, before
the search, that either motorist is a law-offender or contents of vehicle are instruments or
subject matter or proceeds of an offense
- 2-tiered test of an incidental search
(1) Item to be searched (vehicle) was within the arrestee’s custody or area of immediate
control
(2) Search was contemporaneous with the arrest
People v Mariacos - Checkpoint to intercept a suspected - PC must first be satisfied before a warrantless search and seizure can be conducted; without
transportation of marijuana which did not PC= inadmissible evidence
yield any suspect or marijuana - Reasonable suspicion must be founded on PC coupled with good faith on the police making
- Police received info about carrying of the arrest
marijuana in a jeepney to which police - Rules on search and seizure liberalized whenever a moving vehicle is the object of the search
boarded; peeked inside the contents of the on the basis of practicality (impracticable to obtain a warrant when they can quickly be
suspected (and described) plastic to which moved out of the locality or jurisdiction where warrant must be sought)
he found the marijuana; arrested Mariacos - Search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the arrest if the police has

vanillaela
Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Case Doctrines 12
Dean Joan Largo

- Search is valid; vehicle carrying the drugs PC to make the arrest at the outset of the search
was about to leave
- Police had PC to search the packages
allegedly containing illegal drugs because
of information
People v Suzuki - At the Bacolod Airport Terminal carrying a - Search conducted pursuant to routine airport security procedure was an exception to the
box which activated the detector and proscription against warrantless searches
revealed the marijuana - To be considered a search incidental to a lawful arrest, law requires there must be a lawful
- Search by Police Aviation Security arrest before the search
Command (PASCOM) was reasonable as
provided under RA 6235
- Court noted that he voluntarily consented
to the search and when the marijuana was
found, he was caught in flagrante delicto
justifying his arrest without a warrant
Salvador v People - Search made by the PAF Team on - No need for search warrant when properly effected search and seizure exercising police
petitioner and his co-accued was in the authority under the customs law
nature of a customs search - Search of moving vehicle is a valid exception to the requirement of a search warrant for
- During search, petitioner was on board a practicability
moving PAL aircraft tow truck
- Aircraft mechanics of PAL nabbed by
intelligence operatives of the Phil Air Force
during surveillance operations for
possessing smuggled watches and jewelries
- Team conducted a search when the
uniform was partly open showing a girdle
where a package fell
Epie v Ulat- - Police received an information from a - GR: search must be with a judicial warrant
Marredo confidential agent that a jeepney was - EXC: People v Sarap—exceptions where sarch and seizure may be conducted without a
loaded with Benguet pine lumber; warrant (only requirement in these exceptions is the presence of PC)
established a checkpoint to which the jeep - PC—existence of such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonable, discreet and
did not stop when flagged down; conducted prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in
a chase connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched
- Found lumber to which the driver and - People v Aruta—in warrantless searches, PC must only be based on reasonable ground of
companions admitted they had no permit suspicion or belief that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed
to transport such; immediately arrested - Search in a moving vehicle is held to be an exception provided that PC is present to justify
- People v Vinecarao—where vehicle sped away after noticing a checkpoint even after being
flagged down, there exists PC to justify a reasonable belief
Dela Cruz v - X-ray machine operator saw what - Routine baggage inspections by port authorities are not unreasonable
People appeared to be 3 firearms inside the bag to - With regard to search and seizures, the standard imposed on private persons is different from
which he was arrested for being caught in that imposed on state agents or authorized government authorities
flagrante delicto - Evidence obtained against the accused was not procured by the state acting through its police
- Presentation of petitioner’s bad for x-ray officers or authorized government agencies (Bill of Rights does not govern relationships
scanning was voluntary (voluntarily between individuals)
submitted his bag for inspection to the port - Voluntary submission to the search of his person precludes the person from claiming an

vanillaela
Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Case Doctrines 13
Dean Joan Largo

authorities) invalid warrantless search


- Consented search herein is different from a customs search (Tariff and Cusoms Code provides
the authority for such warrantless search)
Comerciante v - Police was patrolling the area when he - GR: Search and seizure must be carried out with a judicial warrant predicated upon the
People spotted the 2 men showing “improper and existence of PC
unpleasant movements” with one of them - Sec 3(2) of Art 3—exclusionary rule that evidence obtained and confiscated in unreasonable
handing plastic sachets to the other searches and seizures are deemed tainted and should be excluded for being the proverbial
- Thinking that it was shabu, police fruit of a poisonous tree (inadmissible for any proceeding)
approached and arrested them confiscating - There has to be a genuine reason to serve purposes of the “stop and frisk” exception and not
2 sachets confirmed with shabu mere suspicion and not have to be PC
- No lawful arrest since it was highly - Warrantless arrests—officer’s personal knowledge of the fact of the commission of an offense
implausible that officer was able to identify is absolutely required (Sec5a—police witnesses the crime; Sec5b—knows for a fact that a
with reasonable accuracy the miniscule crime has just been committed)
substances; no other over act could be - Sec 5(b) for warrantless arrests provides that at the application of the time of the arrest, an
properly attributed to rouse suspicion offense had in fact just been committed and the arresting officer had personal knowledge of
facts indicating the accused committed it.
- Requisites of warrantless arrests that must concur:
(1) 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
(2) Overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer
Checkpoint Searches
Valmonte v Gen. - NCRDC activated to conduct security - Burden is to the state to demonstrate the reasonableness of the search
De villa operations within its area of responsibility - Checkpoints have become “search warrants” unto themselves (a roving one at that)
and peripheral areas to establish an - Setting up of the checkpoints may be considered as a security measure to enable the NCRDC
effective territorial defense installing to pursue its mission of establishing effective territorial defense and maintaining peace and
checkpoints order
- Petitioner avers that the checkpoints make - Checkpoints may also be regarded as measures to thwart plots to destabilize the government
residents worry about being harassed and - Checkpoints during these abnormal times, when conducted within reasonable limits, are part
their safety was at the whimsical of the price we pay for an orderly society and a peaceful community
disposition of the military manning the
checkpoints (increased when one was
gunned down for ignoring or refusing to
submit to the checkpoint)
People v Escano - During the COMELEC gun ban, a checkpoint - Not all checkpoints are illegal; those which are warranted by the exigencies of public order
was put up stopping those they found and are conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists are allowed
suspicious and imposing merely a running - For as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to a body search and
stop on the others the inspection of the vehicle is limited to a visual search, cannot be regarded as violative
- Stopped a car to which they saw a long - Checkpoints need not be announced as it may forewarn those who intend to violate
firearm on the lap of the person seated and - Legitimacy of checkpoints may still be inferred from their fixed location and the regularized
found more weapons and hashish manner in which they operate
- Valid search; Checkpoint was conducted in
pursuance of the gun ban
- Search of the vehicle was done with the
consent (without objection)
Immunity from Arrest (Art 6, Sec 11)

vanillaela
Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Case Doctrines 14
Dean Joan Largo

WHO v Aquino - Petitioner enjoyed diplomatic immunity - Diplomatic immunity carries with it personal inviolability, inviolability of the official’s
between Phils and WHO properties, exemption from local jurisdiction and exemption from tax and customs duties
- Petitioner’s personal effects (entered Phils - Diplomatic immunity is a political question; duty of the courts to accept the claim of immunity
free from duties and taxes) were subjected upon approp suggestion by the principal law officer of the government
to a search warrant for alleged violation of - Courts may not exercise their jurisdiction by seizure and detention of property as to
Tariff and Customs law embarrass the executive arm of the government in conducting foreign relations
- RA 75—safeguard the jurisdictional immunity of diplomatic officials; declares null and void
writs or processes prosecuted whereby the person of an ambassador or public minister is
arrested or imprisoned or his goods or chattels are seized or attached and makes it a penal
offense for every person by whom the same is obtained or prosecuted
Effect of Invalid Search and Seizure (Sec 3(2))
Stonehill v Diokno - Prosecution made issuance of 42 search - can only assail the search conducted in the residences but not those done in the corporation's
warrants to search persons and premises premises (corporation has a personality separate and distinct from the personality of its
of several personal properties for violation officers or herein petitioner)
of Central Bank Laws etc - Only the party whose rights has been impaired can validly object the legality of a seizure--a
- Contended that the search warrants are purely personal right which cannot be exercised by a third party (right to object belongs to
null and void for being violative of the the corporation)
Constitution - Requisites for Issuance of Search Warrant
- Whether or not the petitioner can validly (1) No warrant issue but upon PC to be determined by the judge
assail the legality of the search and seizure (2) Warrant shall particularly describe the things to be seized
in both premises - General Warrants outlawed by Constitution
- Defective warrant—No specific offense had - Sec 3(2) of Art 3—exclusionary rule that evidence obtained and confiscated in unreasonable
been alleged in the application of the searches and seizures are deemed tainted and should be excluded for being the proverbial
warrant; impossible for judge to find PC; fruit of a poisonous tree (inadmissible for any proceeding)
warrants authorized the search for records
pertaining to all business transactions
whether legal or not

vanillaela