Ricardo C. Facts : As a Measure to maintain
The checkpoints are n not
Valmonte vs Gen peace and Order and providing an
Renato De Villa atmosphere conducive to social and
economic and political development
of NCR, the NCRDC installed
various checkpoints in various parts
of Valenzuela City.
PETITIONER: because of the
installation of the checkpoints, the
residents of Valenzuela are worried
of being harassed and of their safety
being placed in whimsical disposition
of the military.
PP VS ESCAO Facts : Law enforcers of the Makati
police were maning a checkpoint
along gil puyat. They were checking
the cars going to pasay stopping
those which they found to be
suspicious and imposing merely a
running stop to others. PO3 Suba
saw a long firearm on the lap of the
person seated at the passenger
seat. They asked the driver to open
the door, PO3 suba seized the long
firearm and M-1 Us CARBINE
FROM usana. When Escao upon the
order of the police parked along gil
puyat the other passengers were
searched for more weapons and
yielded a .45 caliber firearm.
LATER they were requested to go to
the police station and was requested
to open the truck and there they
noticed a blue bag hashish.
ALVAREZ vs THE FACTS: There was certain
COURT OF FIRST information that was received that
ISSUE: Whether Doctrine: Not all Held : No.
or not the check- searches and seizures unreasonable. It was merely to enable
ups of the car are forbidden there are NCRDC to pursue its mission of
without the those which are establishing effective territorial defense and
benefit of the reasonable. The act of maintain peace and order. The right of the
warrant is valid the officer in merely state to protect the people and an
drawing aside a the individual’s right to searches and seizure
curtain of the vehicle or the former should prevails
simply looks into a
vehicle or flashes a light
therein is not
unreasonable..
ISSUE: W/N The DOCTRINE: Not all HELD: No. The search is legal. The
search was legal searches are illegal. For checkpoint was conducted in pursuant to
as long as the vehicle is a gun ban. PO3 said that they merely
neither searched nor its asked the cars which they found
occupants are subjected suspicious sych as those whose windows
to body search said are heavily tinted just to see if the
routine checks cannot passengers were carrying guns. They
be regarded as a were merely directing their flashlights
violation of an inside the cars they would stop without
individuals right against opening the doors and subjecting the
searches and seizure passenger to a body search.
With regard to the search of the car in the
police station, the same cannot be
considered invalid because there was
consent on the part of ESCAO as he
seemed to have freely accompanied the
police officer to the car.
ISSUE : W/NOT DOCTRINE: A search Held : The search and seizure are illegal
the search warrant shall not issue for the FF reasons
INSTANCE the petitioner was keeping warrant is illegal except upon probable a. Because the warrant was based
documents into his house because based cause and upon solely upon the affidavit of the
documents, receipts, list, chits which upon the affidavit application supported by petitioner who had no personal
shows that he was charging usury of Mariano oath particulary knowledge of the facts upon
rates. The judges of the same date Almeda declaring describing the place to probable cause
issued the said warrant which is that he had no be searched and the b. Because the warrant was issued
subject matter ordering the search of personal person or thing to be for the sole purpose of seizing
the petitioner’s house ( books and knowledge with seized. evidence which would later be
documents) However, agent seized regard to the “ not only probable used for criminal proceeding that
even the original documents and that basis of the cause but the search may later be used as evidence
the items seized were not search warrant a warrant must be based against the petitioner.
immediately brought after the judge mere report upon an application
issues their warrant. supported by oath of
applicant and the
witness he may
produce.
“The oath required must
refer to the truth of the
facts within the personal
knowledge of the
petitioner or his witness
thereof.”
PP VS VELOSO Facts : A reliable information that the W/N The search DOCTRINE: Rules in HELD:No. The search warrant did not
parliamentary club was nothing more on VELOSO is case the warrant for the identity JOHN DOE without difficulty. The
than a gambling club. On May 19 valid? apprehension of the description must be sufficient to indicate
1923, Townsend had been in the person is unknown. clearly the person uoin whom the warrant
club and verified such fact.As a There must be a is to be served. What is stated in the
result, det Geronimo of the secret descriotion warrant is merely “ John Doe has a
servce of the city of manila applied apprehended. The certain apparatus in his possession in a
for and obtained a search warrant description must be building occupied by him .”
from Judge Garduno of the sufficient to clearly
municipal court. Outside the indicate the proper
parliamentary club fifty person were person that the warrant
apprehended by the police one of is to be served.
them was VELOSO.He told him that
they caught the wrong person
PLACER VS FACTS : A certification of an
VILLANUEVA investigating Fiscal of the existence
of Probable cause. Upon the
directive of Fiscal Guiitan , that
probable cause exist the judge
issued an order to determine the
propriety of the warrant of arrest.
STONEHILL VS 42 Search warrants were issued to
DIOKNO collect books of acocunts, financial
reports vouchers , correspondence .
However, cash which were not
mentioned in the warrant was seized
Central bank vs FACTS : A member of the
MORFE intelligence division filed with the
main court of manila an application
for search warrant. “ After
observation and personal
investigation of the premises “ are
being used unlawfully” are used
illegally for banking activities
W/N the judge DOCTRINE: The judge
can merely rely can rely upon the fiscal’s
on the certification of probable
investigating cause and on the basis
prosecutor’s thereof issue a warrant
recommendation arrest. The issuance of
of P cause the warrant is not a
mere ministerial function
it calls for the exercise
of a judicial discretion on
the part of the issuing
magistrate. The
recommendation of the
fiscal is merely advisory
and the judge can
choose whether to adopt
it or not
ISSUE: W/N The DOCTRINE: Fruit of the
seizure of the poisonous tree doctrine-
cash was valid those fruits from an
unlawful seizure cannot
be seized.
Issue: Is the
search legal
HELD: Yes. The judge can merely rely on
the fiscal’s recommendation of probable
cause.
Ruling : No The seizure is not valid . The
thing to be seized must be particulary
described and to eliminate general
warrants.
Kinds of Warrant:
1. Those found and seized in the
office of the corporation
2. Those found and seized residence
Take property “the subject of the offense,
stolen or embezzled “ “ those intended to
commit a crime “
Ruling ; There is probable cause. The
records clearly suggest that the
transactions objected to by the bank
constitute the general pattern of the
business of the organization. The main
purpose thereof “ to extend financial
assistance thereof
 Upon filing of an application, the
municipal court issued the warrant
aboe to search the premises for
there are sufficient reason to
believe- upon the examination under
OATH of a detective of the MPD and
said intelligence officer of the bank
COLUMBIA FACTS : Columbia picture lodged a
PICTURE VS CA formal complaint against Sunshine
home video for violating film piracy.
The NBI Agent applied for a searh
warrant for the video paraphernalia
The search warrant is served
There are several paraphernalia
seized
BURGOS VS Search warrant for office and printing
CHIEF OF STA machines, equipment, prapheranalia
motor vehicle and office and printing
machines other articles used in the
printing publication alleged to be in
possession of petitioner burgos
publisher editor of “We forum” were
seized
PP VS TEE Appellant is a chinese national in his
forties a business man a raid was
made in his residence wherein huge
amount of marijuana was seized.
Appellant asked Abratique to find
him a place for storage of smuggled
ISSUE: W/N THE PROBABLE CAUSE - HELD: The warrant was not issued with a
SEIZURE IS cause or circumstances probable cause. The master films were
VALID which would lead a not presented for comparion to determine
reasonably discrete and whether the latter is an unauthorized
prudent man to believe reproduction of the former.
that the offense had just
been committed and the
object sought in
connection with the
offense are in the place
to be seized
ISSUE: W/N one “ SEIZE any document”- too general in
search warrant nature. The description of the articles
which was used sought to be seized under the search
to examine 2 warrant cannt be seized if the character is
places is valid different .
“ Probable Cause” does not exist- the
mere statement of Col Abadilla is not
enough there must be supporting docs
which determine’s prob cause. The
personal knowledge is needed for the
purpose of convincing the judge that prob
cause exist.
ISSUE : W/N the 1. General warrant- technical
search warrant description is not required it is
was to general enough that the nature of the
W/N NBI goods seized are determinable
complied with the RATIO : To readily identify the property to
basic be seized
 cigarettes. Abaratique brought
appellant tp his friend, Ballesteros
who had a house for rent in baguio.
Appellant rented the same.
Ballesteros later learned that the
boxes where marijuana he later told
abratique. Abratique brought him to
grandmothers house NAZARea later
told the brother in law that there was
a drug inside.
PP VS DEL FACTS : SPO1 Lumabas and their
NORTE group was tasked to serve a search
warrant against a certain ising diwa
residing in xxx address for a violation
of drug act. They were ordered to
seize and take possession of an
undetermined quantity of shabu and
marijuana leaves, They coordinated
with the barangay officials and
proceded to the house pointed out to
them by the local official. A woman
opened the door , they informed her
that they have a search warrant byt
appellant suddenly closed and
locked the door.
DEFENSE: SHE WAS MERELY
VISITING HER FRIEND MARILYN
THE TRUE owner of the house
requirement of To leave the peace officer without
the valid warrant discretion to det the article to be seized.
“SUFFICIENT AMOUNT” – the offense
alleged need not need because any
amount of MARIJUANA would be illegal.
Adress did not clearly indicate the identity
of the place indicated- it is sufficient that
the officer serving the warrant can by
reasonable effort ascertain the identity of
the accused. – even though the address
in the search warrant did not clearly state
his address.
ISSUE : w/n the DOCTRINE ; BURDEN HELD; No the search is not valid. Failed
search is valid OF PROOF IN THE to establish who owed the house. Mere
POSSESSION OF presence at the scene of the crime did not
ILELGAL DRUGS make one liable.
Mistake in the name of the persom
1. That the accused subject of to the search must be
is in possession particularly described.
of the object What is stated in the warrant is “ ISING”
identified as a the accused alleged that ising is her
prohibited drug sister, she even said that during her arrest
2. Such possession she pointed to ISING. The authorities did
is not authorized not have personal knowledge with regard
by law to the seatch . They did not conduct a
3. Accussed freely surveliance and that they did not ascertain
and consciously if “ ISING OR PRICILLA “ was actually a
possessed same person .
drugs.
 BANK SECRECY Rule

Facts : Branch Manager Marquez received an order from the Ombudsman to produce several bank documents for the purpose of
inspection in camera relative to various accounts maintained at Union Bank of the Philippines. The account to be inspected is the
account in connection to a case pending with the Ombudsman. Mr George Trivinio purchased 51 Manager’s checks for a total of
272.1 Million at traders bank. FFIB panel met in conference with petitioner Lourdes Marquez and Atty Fe Macalino at the banks main
office. The meeting was for the purpose of allowing the petitioner and Atty Macalino to view the check furnished by Traders Royal
Bank. After convincing themselves of the veracity of the checks, Atty Macalino advised Marquez to comply with the order of the
Ombudsman. Petitoner then agreed to a camera inspection

Petitoner later asked for more time asking for more time to respond to the order. The reason is that despite diligent efforts and
from the account numvers presented cannot be identified since the checks are issued in cash or bearer. Even if the cash were
payable to cash or bearer the name of the depositors could easily be identified. The ombudsman later issued an order directing
petitioner to produce the bank documents relative to the account in issue. Petitioner filed a TRO alleging harassment on the part of
the ombudsman.

ISSUE: Whether petitioner may be cited for indirect contempt for failure to produce the documents requested by the ombudsman

Ruling : No. In camera Inspection is not valid (Anti wiretapping law and The secrecy of the bank deposits acts and the intellectual
property code.

Bank Secrecy Rule exemption

Where the depositor consents in writing

1. Impeachment case
2. By court order in bribery or dereliction of duty cases against public officials
3. Deposit is subject to litigation
4. Unexplained wealth In camera inspection may be allowed only if there is a pending case before the court of competent
jurisdiction. Further, the account must be clearly identified, the inspection limited to the subject matter of the pending case.
The bank personnel and the account holder must be notified to be present during the inspection and such inspection may
cover only the account identified in the present case.In the present case there is no pending litigation before any court of
competent authority. What the ombudsman wanted to do is to fish additional evidence to formally charge Lagdameo with the
Sandiganbayan. There is no pending case in court that would warrant the opening of the bank account for inspection
 Warrantless Search

PP VS ROSA FACTS : Menguin was charged under RA Issue : W/N Doctrine : HELD: No the arrest and
ARUTA 6425 engaging in transporting 8kg and 5 kg the seizure 1.Warrantless search incidental to the seizure is not valid. In
MENGUIN of Marijuana. and arrest is lawful arrest recognized under sec the present case, the
P/T Alberto was tipped of by his informant valid 12 and Rule 126 accused cannot be said to
known as “Benjie” that a certain Rosa would 2. Seizure of evidence in Plain view be committing a crime.
be arriving from Baguio City the following day the elements are She was merely crossing
with large volumes of marijuana. a. a prior valid intrusion based on the street and was not
While thus positioned, a victory liner bus with the valid warrantless arrest which acting in any manner that
body number 474 and the letters BGO printed the police are legally present in the would engager a
on its front and back bumpers stopped in pursuit of his official duties reasonable ground for the
front of the PNB building at around 6:30 in b. the evidence was inadvertently NARCOM agent to
the evening of the same day when 2 females discovered by the police who had suspect and conclude that
and a male got off. It was in this stage that the rights to be where they are she was committing a
the INFORMANT pointed out to them Aling c. the evidence must be crime.
Rosa who was then carrying a traveling bag. immediately apparent and
After ascertaining that the accused is Aling d. the Plainview justified mere With regard to the search,
Rosa the team approached her and seizure of evidence without further there is no probable
introduced themselves as NARCOM agents. search cause for NARCOM
When p/lt Abello asked Aling Rosa the latter 3. Search of a moving vehicle. agents to effect a search
handed it to her and upon inspection they Highly regulated by the government. in the bag of the
determined that it is Marijuana plastic bags The vehicles mobility reduce the Appellant. Since the
expectation of privacy. arrest is illegal it should
4. Consented warrantless search follow that the search was
5. Customs search similarly illegal and not
6. Stop and Frisk being incidental t lawful
7. Exigent and Emergency arrest. Also, there was no
Circumstance consent on the part of the
the accused because it
Warrantless arrest- in flagrante was not voluntary for
delicto there is intimidation and
coercion. Silence does
not mean consent
NOLASO VS FACTS: Aguilar- Roque and Nolasco were Is the search In case of Public Order, search HELD: Since Aguilar-
CRUZ arrested by CSG group at the intersection of valid ( there warrant can be dispensed with Roque has been charged
 Mayon Street and P. Margall Street in Qc. At
the same day, the premies were also
searched
A search warrant was also issued
PAPA VS Facts : Alagao head of the counter-
MAGO intelligence unit of MPD acting upon a
reliable information received on Nov 3 1996 a VALID
certain shipment of personal effects allegedly
misdeclared and undervalued would be
released the following day from the cists zone
of Manila.
At around 4:30 in the afternoon , elements of
counter-intelligence init went afer the trucks
and intercepted them at the Agrifina Cirle.
The trucks were later seized on the
instruction of the chiefo of police
Pp vs CFI RASAC was informe by an undisclosed
informant that a shipment of highly dutiable
goods would be transported to Manila from
angeles City on a blue dodge car.
On the same day. A light blue dodge car with
a plate 21-87-73 driven by Sgt Jessie Hope
as it was approaching towards the exit was
approached. The RASAC agents gave a
chase and overtook SGT Hope’s car to stop
but the latter instead of heeding made a U-
TURN BACK TO THE North diversion road,
was no
reasonable
time between
issuance of
the warrant
and the arrest.
W/N THE Doctrine : The code authorized
SEIZURE IS persons having police authority
under the tariff and customs code to
pass through or search any land,
enclosure, warehouse, store or
building to inspect or search and
examine any vessel, aircraft and
any rich or package, any dutiable or
prohibited article introducted into
the ph contrary to law without need
of warrant in the said cases.
“ In case of dwelling house – this
can only be searched with a warrant
W/N THE Searches and seizure without a
SEIZURE IN warrant can only be allowed if there
THE MOVING is proable cause- a belief
VEHICLE reasonably arising out of
WITHOUT A circumstance known to the seizojg
WARRANT IS officer that an automobile or other
VALID behicle containts that which by law
is subject to seizure and destriction
with Rebellion which is a
crime against public
order, the warrant for her
arrest has not be served
for a considerable period
of time and that she was
arrested in her dwelling
the search within hald
hour of her arrest did not
need for a warrant
because of the possible
effects of public order.
HELD: The search was
valid and accordance with
law and by that seizure
the BOC had acquired
jurisdiction over the foods
for the purpose of the
enforcement of the
customs and tariffs laws
to the exclusion of CFI
MANILA
HELD : THE SEARCH IS
VALID
Not a mere false alarm –
the informant followed
was with them wherein he
identified an approaching
car as one descrived by
him a week earlier to be
the suspected carrier of
untaxed merchandize .
Therefore, he did not
 he cannot go through because there were
buses in front of him there he was arrested.
The agents saw 4 boxes at the back of his
seat revealing some untaxed items
Caballes vs FACTS : While on a routine Patrol in ISSUE : W/N Search is permissible :
PP Barangay Sampalucan he spotted a the consti right 1. Where the officer merely
passenger jeep unusually covered with was violated draws aside the curtain of a
Kakawati leaves. when the vacant vehicle whichi s
Suspecting that the keep was loaded with vehicle was parked on the public fair
smuggled goods, the two police officers seized grounds
flagged down the vehicle ( asked what was CAN MERE 2. Simply looks into a vehicle
loaded on the jeep he did not answer) SUSPICION 3. Flashes as light therein
Appellant consent, the police checked the BE without opeming the car
cargo and discovered bundles of 3.08 PROBABLE doors
aluminum galvanized conductor wires CAUSE 4. Where the occipants are not
weighed 700 kg a subjected to a physical pr
body search or visual
inspection
5. Routine check is conducted
in a fixed area.
PLAINVIEW DOCTRINE
1. Plainly exposed to sight
2. Package are in a
transparent package
wherein its content are
obvious or identifiable
CONSENT
1. The age of the defendant
2. Whether he was in a public
or secluded location
3. Whether he objected to the
search or passively looked
upon
4. The education and
intelligence of the defendant
5. The presence of coercive
merely acted upon a mere
hearsay but upin an info
HELD. NO PROBABLE
CAUSENo the police
officer did not merely
conduct a visual search or
visual inspection of herein
petitioner’s vehicle. They
had to reach inside the
vehicle LIFT the kakawati
leaves and LOOK inside
the sacks vefore they
were able to see the
cable wires ot cannot be
considered to be a mere
routine checks . Mere
suspicion cannot amount
to probable cause. In the
present case, there is no
probable cause.
In the present case, the
police DEMANDED to let
them view the vehicle and
not asked.

Obra vs CAPetitioner Obra received a letter from
Jeannette Grybos on behalf of the Gillies
Heirs that spouses James Brett and June
Brett had been conducting illegal mining
activities in an area in Brgy. Palasan Benguet
the land was allegedly belonged to the Gillies
Heirs. On the same day, OBRA wrote a letter
to Brig Gen Dumpot the commanding
General of Regional Unified Comand of the
Phil Constabulary requesting for an
assistance in apprehending a truck used by
Bretts.
On July 1, 1985 an Isuzu Elf Truck was
seized by Morales as it was entering the
Mamakar Mining area in benguet.
PP VS FACTS : Captain Vasco the commanding
MALMSTEDT officer of the First Regional Command
stationed at Camp Dangwa ordered his man
to set up temporary checkpoints for the
purpose of checking all vehicles coming from
the Cordilleria Region. The order was ,ade
pm the account of persistent reports that
vehicle coming from Sagada were
transporting marijuana and other prohibited
drugs. The commanding officer also received
police procedure
6. That the defendant belief
that no incriminating
evidence will be found
7. That nature of the police
questioning
8. The environment in which
the questioning took place,
9. The possibly vulnerable
subjective state of the
person consenting it
W/N the Public official must conduct an
seizure of the investigation to find probable cause
truck without regarding the complaint
warrant is with
probable Search of a moving vehicle- the
cause or if it is truck was seized entering the
valid mining area it was not transporting
materials outside the mining area.
On the ground of mobility from them
owing vehicle makes it possible for
the vehicle to be searched to move
out of the locality or jurisdiction in
which the warrant should be sought.
W/N the Probable cause of DRUG CASE
search 1. When there is a smell of
incidental to marijuana emanating from a
lawful arrest is plastic bag owned by the
valid for IN accused
FLAGRANTE 2. The accused was acting
DELICTO suspiciously
3. When the accused
attempted to flee
HELD: No . Probable
cause does not exist. In
the present case,the
petitioner Obra letter to
private respondent clearly
states that an
investigation is to be
conducted in order to
verify the veracity of the
complaint. The actions of
Petitioner violated consti
rights when he merely
relied on the letter
complaint of Grybos
without investigation.
HELD:The information that a
Caucasian was coming from
Sagada coupled with the act
that the accused does not want
to present his passport would
mean probable cause exist a
reasonable belief that accused
was trying to hide something To
deprive the NARCOM agents of
the ability and facility to act
accordingly, including, to search
 a tip that a caucian man was coming from even without warrant, in the light
Sagada having possession prohibited drugs of such circumstances, would be
The accused was riding the bus that to sanction impotence and
afternoon whe suddenly the petioners ineffectiveness in law
voarded the bus and announced that they enforcement, to the detriment of
were members of the NARCOM and that they society.
would conduct an inspection. The accused
was the ONLY foreigner in the bus. During
the inspection, the police officer noticed a
bulge on accused’s waist. Suspecting the
buldge to be a gun the officer asked for the
accused passport and other papers. The
bulging thing turned out to be a pouch bag.
When opened, noticed 4 suspicious looking
objects wrapped in brown packing tape,
prompting the officer to open the same which
turned out to be hashish.

ROAN VS Petitioner claims that he was a victim of W/N THE The individual may knowingly agree HELD: The said search
GONZALES illegal searches and seizure conducted by SEARCH IS to be searched or waive objections does not come into the
military authorities. The challenged search VALID to an illegal search. And it has also purview of plain view
warrant was issued by judge on May 10 been held that prohibited articles doctrine. The respondent
1984. The petitioner’s house was searched 2 may be taken without a warrant if cannot claim that they
days later but none of the articles listed in the they are open to ete and hand and stumbled upon the bullets
warrant was discovered. However, the the [peace officer comes upon them inadvertently because the
officers conducted the search found colt inadvertently said gun was not in plain
magnum revolver and confiscated the same. view when they were
taken
People vs The informant of a buy bust , saw a young W.N THE Wararnt is not needed when in HELD: Appellant placed
Tabar boy approached their informant and handed SEIZURE IS flagrante delicto the packs of Marijuana
cigarettes to him who in turn handed the VALID sticks under the rolled
marked money to the young boy. Then the pair of pants which she
informant gave them the pre arranged signal was then carrying at the
then they approached the boy said they are time she hurriedly left
police officer. The boy was in a possession of when she saw her
marijuana, Appellant’s aunt was caught with nephew being arrested.
 Marijuana When she was asked to
spread out, the package
of marijuana was exposed
to the policemen
therefore, the crime be
committed in flagrante
delicto or plain view
Aniag vs
Comelec

Peole vs
tutud

Verona vs A Policy wherein all students participating in W.N THE The fourth amendment does not HELD: The ordinance is
Acton interscholastic athletics must sign a form DRUG TEST protect all subjective expectation of valid. Student Athletes by
consenting to the testing and must obtain a IS VALID privacy but only those that society going out for theteam
written consent of their parents. Athletes are recognise a legitimate. The voluntarily subject
tested at the beginning of each session for supervisory relationship between themselves to a dggree of
each sport. In addition once a week of the the petitioner and state justifies a regulation even higher
season the names of the athletes are placed degree of impingement upon a than those imposed on
in a pool from a student where two adults privacy that would not be student’s generally.
random pick names of 10% of athletes for constitutional if applied to the public Students within the school
Random Drug testing at large. environment have a
“ LOCO PARENTIS”- parents palce lesser expectation of
“ SPECIAL NEEDS BEYOND THE NORML minor children in private schools privacy than the members
NEED OF FOR THE LAW JUSTIFIES NO and teachers et al act as loco of the population
WARRANT” – the need to maintain ordre parentis generally.
People v Acting on a confidential tip supplied by a w/n the DOCTRINE WARRANTLESS
Compacion police informant that the accused was searches and 1. When the owner of the
growing and cultivating marijuana plants. The seizures are premises voluntarily submits
police conducted a surveillance of the valid to a search
residence of accused-appellant who was then 2. When the owner of the
barangay captian wherein they saw 2 tall premises waives his right
plants in the backyard of the accused where against incursion
they suspected the same to be marijuana 3. When search is incidental to
plants.They applied for a search warrant but lawful arrest
due to jurisdictional issue they were not 4. When it is made on vessels
granted the same. The team arrived and aircradts for violation of
nonetheless without a warrant. Upon custom laws
knocking they were asked to enter he was 5. When it is made on
immediately asked by SPO4 about the automobles for the purpose
suspected marijuana plants and he admitted of preventing violations of
that he planted and cultivated the same for smuggling or immigration
his wife. law
6. Plainview
7. Stop and Frisk
8. Search is under emergeny
situation
PLAINVIEW DOCTRINE
1. A Prior valid intention based
on valid warrantless arret in
which the police are legally
present in pursuit of their
official duties
2. The evidence was
inadvertently discovered by
the police who have the right
to where they are
3. The evidence must be
immediately apparent and
4.Justified were the seizure of
evidence without further search
HELD : THE SEARCH
AND SEIZURE is not
valid. The accused did not
consent to the seach and
seizure. The act of
allowing the members of
MILITARY to enter cannot
be construed as condent.
Intimidation because they
were armed
In the present case
plainview doctrine cannot
be invoked. They forced
their way in the premises
without the consent of the
accused. It is undisputed
that a prior surveillance
was already done on the
suspicion that he was
growing and cultivating
marijuana when they
allegedly came n plain
ciew of mj plants. When
the agents entered his
premises their intention
was to seized the said
plant , hence they did not
come to the said plant
inadvertently therefore,
plainview doctrine cant
apply.
People v de Rolando De Gracia was charged in two w/n there is a DOCTRINE: Military officials had HELD: Prior to raid, there
Gracia ) separate information for illegal possession of valid search reasonable ground to believe that a was a surveillance
ammunition in furtherance of rebellion. A warrant crime was being committed there conducted on the
surveillance which actually started on the was more than sufficient probable premises wherein the
night of nov 30 1989 at around 10:00 pm was cause to warrant their action. The surveillance team was
conducted pursuant to an intelligence report arrest or capture is thus impleed by fired at by a group coming
received by the division that the said the exigencies of the situation that from EUROCAR building.
establishment was being occupied by involves the survival of the When military men raided
elements of RAM-SFP as a communication authorities. the place the occupants
command post. Searching team were able to refused to open the dooe
confiscate thigs and arrested de gracia as the despite request
only person present in theroom compelling break the
door. The unusual firing
from not a gun store could
not be justified or even
colourably explained. In
additional there was
general chaos and
disorder and intensive
firing within the vicinity of
the office and in the
nearby camp Aguinaldo.
People v Received a tip from an unnamed informer w/n THE PLAINVIEW- only applies when the No search warrant was
Valdez anout the presence of a marijuana plantation SEARCH OF police officer is NOT searching for issued by the judge after
allegedly near the place of appellant’s hut. MJ PLANT Is an evidence but inadvertently persona determination of
The police officer arrived at the place and lawful comes across an incriminating the existence of probable
where they found appellant in his nipa hut object. cause. The police had at
they thenn proceeded to look around the area least 1 day to get the
where appellannnt had his kaingin and saw 7 warrant they had the
five foot flowering MJ plant in two roys. name of the informant byt
Appellant admitted they were his plants they still did not do so.
The plain view doctrine
does not apply in this
case. The discovery of
the plants was not
inadvertent. SP02 SAID

Board of Student Activities Drug Testing Policy SPECIAL NEEDS- A search is
Education v adopted by Oklahoma school district requires reasonable when supported by
Earls (US all middle and high school student to consent special needs beyond the normal
to urinary test in order to participate in extra need for law enforcement. Because
curricular activity. reasonableness inquiry cannot
disregard the school’s custodial
responsibility for children.
Dissenting- “individual suspicion
test” – READ GINSBURG OPINION
THAT they had to look
into the area in order to
look for the incriminating
object. The discovery
therefore is not apparent
and that further search is
needed.
HELD:Policy effectively
protects the safety and
health fo the student.
Preventing drug use s an
important governmental
concern,. The health and
safety requirement
applies with equal force to
the Tecumseh’s children.
The need to prevent and
deter for a school testing
policy. Given the
nationwide epidemic of
drug use and the
evidence of increase drug
use in TECUMSEH
schools it was entirely
reasonable for the school
to enforce this drug
testing policy.
 SEARCHES AND SEIZURE OF WHATEVER NATURE AND WHATEVER PURPOSE
MATERIAL DISTRIBUTORS Sarreal filed a complaint seeking a money
VS HARRY LYONS judgment against the petitioner on three
causes of action
On May 27. 1947 Sarreal filed a motion for
the production and inspection of the
following documents ( books and papers of
material distributors, all individual ledgers
specially of the follwong persons. All letters
exchanged between material dostributors
inc. Wichita Kansans lyons etc. all
cablegrams exchange.
Allegation the material seized were used as
a fishing expedition
The said articles seized contains evidence
material to the matters involved in the case
and are in poseession, custody or control of
the petitioners therein. (?)
CAMARA VS MUNICIPAL Appellant was charged with violating the
TRAIL COURT San Francisco Housing code for refusing
after three efforts of the city housing
inspectors to secure his consent to allow
warrantless inspection of the ground floor
quarters which he leased and residential
use of which allegedly violated the
apartment building’s occupancy
IN RE VICKY OCAYA Mere suspicion that one is communist party
or new people’s army member is a valid
ground of his arrest without warrant.
NO. EVEN if ocular inspection of the
annex may revela falsification therof
by the petitioner the petitioner cannot
exempt themselves from the
production of said exhibits for mre
inspection and copying inasmuch as
the constitutional prohibition against
self incrimination has been extended
in specific case only to the production
of documents as evidence and only
when the person producing them is
made to take the witness stand and
identify them under oath and not the
production of such documents but
mere inspection.
Mere inspection is not self
incrimination
Public Held: NO THE CHARGE CANNOT
Immediacy PROSPER. There was no emergency
demanding IMMEDIATE access. In
fact, the petitioners even made three
trips to the building in an attempt to
obtain appellant was unable to obtain
a warrant. Though the appellant was
able to enter the public portion of the
building this does not content that
such consent is sufficient to authorize
inspection fo appellants premises.
Appellsnt may not constitutionally be
convicted
HELD :
1. When in his presence, the
person to he arrested has
committed is actually
 committing or is attempting to
cocmmit an offense
2. When an offense has in fact
just have been committed and
he has personal knowledge of
facts indicating that the person
to be arrested has committed
it.
Based on probable cause-