LAW: ANTI-GRAFT ACT of 1960. Sec.

7:
required periodical submittal of sworn
statements of financial conditions, assets
THE RIGHT AGAINST UNREASONABLE and liabilities of an official or employee of
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES the government after he had once
i. A. What is “this” right? submitted such a sworn statement upon
It is the right to be left alone. assuming office.
(Liberty)
B. What other rights are anchored PETITIONER: violative of due process as an
to this right? oppressive exercise of police power and as
an unlawful invasion of the constitutional
1. Right to Due Process right to privacy implicit on the ban against
2. “Right” to Privacy
a. The privacy of
unreasonable search and seizure construed
communication and together with the prohibition against self-
correspondence shall incrimination
be inviolable except
upon lawful order of the RULING: Anti-Graft Act of 1960 –
court or when public Constitutional. There was no violation of
FACTS:
FACTS: The
Theaccused
accused was on board
appellant wenta to
safety and order require due process. There was no constitutional
otherwise. [Sec. 1(5), ship. On the sameagency
a forwarding ship, a woman who 4
to sphere.
send
intrusion into the personal The
Art. III. 1935 noticed
packagesher jewelry
to was missing
Switzerland. The
constitutional guarantee against
Constitution] suspected
proprietor the(a accused
private of stealing
person) the
opened
3. Protection against unreasonable
unreasonable search and seizure does not
same.
the 5boxes
members for offinal
the crew looked in
inspection
search and seizure [Sec. 1(3). give freedom from testimonial
for and subsequently
accordance with found
their thestandard
Art. III. 1935 Constitution] compulsion.
4. Liberty of Abode [Sec. 1(4). Art.
accused.
operating procedure. He took samples
III. 1935 Constitution] of the contents
Prosecution: Withto thethe NBI. Contents
consent of the
ii. 1935 v. 1987 were later found out to be marijuana
accused, the crew members searched
1935 flowering
What cannot be stressed his suitcase tops.
and found a brown bag
and smallAn plastic packs containing
Information was filed
white crystalline substance (suspected
against appellant for violation of the
shabu). TheyDrugs
Dangerous immediately
Act (RAinformed
6425).
the Coast Guard regarding the packets
which were Accused-appellant
later confirmed to contends
be
that the evidence subject of the
shabu.
imputed offense had been obtained in
Accused:
violationTheof crew forcibly openedrights
his constitutional
and searched
against the suitcase thereby
unreasonable search and
violating
seizure right against
and unreasonable
privacy of
search and seizure.
communication. This, he claims,
renders the evidence inadmissible.
RULING:
The accused was charged with a
LIBERTIES
violation MAY
of the BE INVOKED
Dangerous Drugs ActONLY
ofAGAINST
1972 THE STATE NOT UPON
PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS.
RULING: The right against
In this case, the liberties
unreasonable search and seizure mayguaranteed
by the
was Constitution
does not applycannot
because be invoked
in this
case, the search and seizure ofwere
against the State because the
absence by the
conducted of crew governmental
and without
interference.
government intervention.

WHO ARE CONSIDERED BY THE SUPREME
COURT AS LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS,
AGAINST WHOM THE RIGHT AGAINST
UNREASONABLE SEARHCES AND
SEIZURES MAY BE PUT UP
 Barangay Tanods
 Bantay Bayan
 Port Personnel
Del Castillo v. People
Police officers conducted a surveillance and
test-buy operation based on an information that
the petitioner was engaged in selling shabu. To
aid them in their pursuit of the petitioner, they
enlisted the help of two barangay tanods. In
the presence of the barangay tanod Nelson
Gonzaldo and the petitioner’s sister searched
the house of petitioner and the nipa hut in front
of said house. One barangay tanod was able
to confiscate from the nipa hut several
articles, including four (4) plastic packs
containing white crystalline substance, later
on confirmed to be shabu.
Petitioner: Nipa hut was no longer within the
“permissible area” that may be searched
because it was not included in the warrant.
OSG: The constitutional guaranty against
unreasonable searches and seizure is
applicable only against government authorities
and not to private individuals such as the
barangay tanod
RULING:
Having been established that the assistance of
the barangay tanods was sought by the police
authorities who effected the searched warrant,
the same barangay tanods therefore acted as
agents of persons in authority. Section 388 of
the Local Government Code also describes the
function of a barangay tanod as an agent of
persons in authority.
Barangay tanods were acting as agents of a
person in authority during the conduct of the
search. Thus, the search conducted was
unreasonable and the confiscated items are
inadmissible in evidence.
People v. Lauga
FACTS: A father raped his 13-year old
daughter. On trial, a “bantay bayan”
(Banting) in the barangay testified as
witness for the prosecution. His
assistance was sought after the victim
was brough to her grandmother’s house.
The bantay bayan found appellant in his
house wearing only his underwear. At
the police outpost, the accused admitted
to the bantay bayan that he raped his
daughter.
Appellant contests the admissibility in evidence
of his alleged confession with a "bantay bayan"
RULING:
The extrajudicial confession of appellant,
which was taken without a counsel,
inadmissible in evidence.
BANTAY BAYAN – recognized by the LGU to
perform functions relating to the preservation of
peace and order at the barangay level.
Any inquiry he makes has the color of a state-
related function and objective insofar as the
entitlement of a suspect to his constitutional
rights provided for under Article III, Section 12 of
the Constitution.
A “bantay bayan” a group of male residents
living in [the] area organized for the purpose of
keeping peace in their community[,which is] an
accredited auxiliary of the . . . PNP” (Philippines
v. Buendia)
Sec 1(g) of EO No. 309:
Each barangay shall have a Peace and Order
Committee to serve as implementing arm of the
City/Municipal and Order Council at the
Barangay level. This committee includes:
(1) the Punong Barangay as Chairman;
(2) Chairman of the Sangguniang
Kabataan;
(3) a Member of the Lupon Tagapamayapa;
(4) a Barangay Tanod; and
 (5) at least three (3) Members of Existing port police officers in this case, considering that
Barangay-based Anti-Crime or port personnel are not necessarily law enforcers,
neighborhood Watch Groups or a both should be considered agents of
Non-government Organization government under Article III of the Constitution.
Representative well-known in his The actions of port personnel during routine
community security checks at ports have the color of a
state-related function.
Dela Cruz v. People

FACTS:

Petitioner was an on-the-job trainee of an inter-

island vessel. While buying a ticket to go home
to Iloilo, he allegedly left his bag on the floor with
a porter. When he placed his bag on the x-ray
scanning machine, the operator saw 3 firearms
inside his bag.

When asked by the baggage inspector if the bag

was his, the petitioner said yes and consented to
manual inspection of the bag. The baggage
inspector called the attention of a Port Police
Officer. The petitioner’s bag was inspected
again and 3 revolvers were found therein.

He arrested and was charged with violation of

RA 8294. He was also informed of his
constitutional rights.

Petitioner’s Argument: There was no valid

waiver against warrantless search.

RTC: Search conducted by the port authorities

was reasonable and valid since the accused
was caught in flagrante delicto.

RULING:

The Philippine Ports Authority was

subsequently given police authority through
Executive Order No. 513

Cebu Port Authority was created to specifically

administer all ports located in the Province of
Cebu.

The Cebu Port Authority has adopted security

measures imposed by the Office for
Transportation Security, including the National
Security Programme for Sea Transport and
Maritime Infrastructure.

The Cebu Port Authority is clothed with

authority by the state to oversee the security of
persons and vehicles within its ports. While
there is a distinction between port personnel and