AN ALTERNATIVE, OFF-CAMPUS COURSE WORK ON

ARRESTS, SEARCHES, AND SEIZURES1 (WEEK 2)

Constitutional Law II
Atty. Mark Lawrence C. Badayos

INSTRUCTIONS

 This is a guided coursework. Herein, you are provided with a framework on how to
go about your assigned readings. Moreover, you are also guided as to the relevance of each
of the case that you will be reading.
 To ensure that you are reading the materials in full text, specific questions are
provided hereunder. These questions shall also serve as your specific guides.
 You are to work with your respective groups.
 Each group is expected to come up with an output in the form of “Group Notes”
(Think “Tanya Notes”). The same must be submitted on or before March 28, 2020
(Saturday), 11:59 PM.

PART IV: WARRANTLESS ARRESTS

1. Prescinding from Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, arrests may only be
valid if they are done pursuant to a valid warrant. However, as a matter of exception, the
Rules of Court provide for limited instances when a valid arrest may be made even without
a warrant. Specifically, Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Court provides for three (3)
instances, thus:

“Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a

private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is

actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

(b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause
to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that
the person to be arrested has committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a
penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is
temporarily confined while his case is pending or has escaped while
being transferred from one confinement to another.

In cases falling under paragraph (a) and (b) above, the person arrested
without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police

1
This course was impelled by the suspension of physical classes as part of the efforts in containing
the spread of the Coronavirus disease (Covid-19).
 station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with section 7
of Rule 112.”

2. While the Rules of Court only provide for three (3) instances, there is a fourth
instance – when the right to contest the illegality of the arrest was waived. Each of which
shall be tackled in turn.

3. Before proceeding, take particular notice as well that both a peace officer and a
private person may carry out a warrantless arrest in any of the three (3) instances
provided for under Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Court. When a private person carries
out the warrantless arrest, such is called a “citizen’s arrest.”

IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO

4. In the case of People v. Aminnudin,2 the Supreme Court highlighted the legal
infirmity of an arrest for noncompliance with the requisites of an in flagante delicto
exception.

i. What was the criminal charge against Aminnudin?

ii. What were the circumstances surrounding the arrest of Aminnudin?
iii. Based on testimony, what impelled the arresting officers to plan the arrest of
Aminnudin? How long were they sitting on such information?
iv. Was there a sense of urgency in the case to forego with securing a warrant?
v. Was there any overt act by Aminnudin which may have been used to carry
out a warrantless arrest?
vi. Must the seized marijuana be admitted in evidence? Support your answer.

5. In the case of People v. Molina,3 the Supreme Court explained whether a

warrantless arrest may be justified based on “reliable information” sans any overt act
indicating the commission of a crime.

i. What was the criminal charge against Molina?

ii. What were the circumstances surrounding the arrest of Molina?

2
G.R. No. 74869, 6 July 1988: “The Court strongly supports the campaign of the government against
drug addiction and commends the efforts of our law-enforcement officers against those who
would inflict this malediction upon our people, especially the susceptible youth. But as
demanding as this campaign may be, it cannot be more so than the compulsions of the Bill of
Rights for the protection of the liberty of every individual in the realm, including the basest of
criminals. The Constitution covers with the mantle of its protection the innocent and the guilty
alike against any manner of high-handedness from the authorities, however praiseworthy their
intentions.” CC: Duterte

3
G.R. No. 133917, 19 February 2001: “To sanction disrespect and disregard for the Constitution in the
name of protecting the society from lawbreakers is to make the government itself lawless and to
subvert those values upon which our ultimate freedom and liberty depend.” CC: Duterte
 iii. In the case, the Supreme Court cited the cases of People v. Chua Ho San,
People v. Doria, and People v. Aminnudin to explain the requirement of
“probable cause” to carry out a warrantless arrest. What must be the basis of
probable cause and how did the Supreme Court discuss the same in the case?
iv. What are the two (2) requisites, highlighted by the Supreme Court in the
case, in order to carry out a valid in flagrante delicto arrest?
v. Were these requisites complied with?

6. In the case of People v. Mengote,4 it can be read that a warrantless arrest may be
justified on the basis of ‘reasonable suspicion’ or ‘probable cause’ that a crime is being
committed. However, such ‘reasonable suspicion’ or ‘probable cause’ must arise from overt
acts indicating the commission of a crime.

i. What was the criminal charge against Mengote?

ii. What were the overt acts which impelled the police officers to carry out a
warrantless arrest?
iii. Was the arrest a valid in flagrante delicto arrest?

7. The case of People v. Laguio5 is another case which illustrates an invalid arrest in
flagrante delicto.

i. Who were the accused in this case and what were the criminal charges
against them?
ii. What were the prior circumstances which prodded the arrest of Wang?
iii. What motion/s was/were filed by the Defense camp after the prosecution
rested its case? Who was the judge of the RTC and how did he resolve the
motion/s? What was his basis/es?
iv. May a warrantless search be done pursuant to a lawful warrantless arrest?
v. What were the overt acts of Wang surrounding his arrest? Were these acts
sufficient to carry out a warrantless arrest?

8. The case of People v. Claudio6 is an example of a case in which the Supreme Court

4
G.R. No. 87059, 22 June 1992: “This should be a lesson to other peace officers. Their impulsiveness
may be the very cause of the acquittal of persons who deserve to be convicted, escaping the
clutches of the law because, ironically enough, it has not been observed by those who are
supposed to enforce it.” CC: Duterte

5
G.R. No. 128587, 16 March 2007: “[t]hose who are supposed to enforce the law are not justified in
disregarding the rights of the individual in the name of order. Order is too high a price for the
loss of liberty. As Justice Holmes once said, "I think it is less evil that some criminals should
escape than that the government should play an ignoble part." It is simply not allowed in free
society to violate a law to enforce another, especially if the law violated is the Constitution
itself.” CC: Duterte

6
G.R. No. 72564, 15 April 1988.
upheld the validity of the warrantless arrest in flagrante delicto. What were the overt acts
in this case that prompted the police officer to carry out an arrest?

9. Take particular notice, however, of the cases of People v. Tangliben7 and People v.
Maspil.8 In both cases, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of a warrantless arrest in
flagrante delicto pursuant to a tipped reliable information. This is in stark contrast to the
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of People v. Aminnudin. What facts were
present in the cases of Tangliben and Maspil which were not present in the case of
Aminnudin?

HOT PURSUIT

10. Survey the following cases: People v. Del Rosario,9 People v. Samus,10 Go v. Court
of Appeals,11 People v. Gerente,12 Robin Padilla v. Court of Appeals,13 and People v.
Abriol.14 After which, supply the answers to the following questions:

i. In which cases did the Supreme Court find a valid warrantless arrest and in
which cases did it not?
ii. What were the criminal charges against the respective accused and what
were the circumstances surrounding the commission of their respective
crimes?
iii. In each case, who arrested the accused and how long since the commission of
the crime were the arrests made?
iv. What were the circumstances leading from the commission of the crimes
leading to the arrest?
v. What are the salient relevant differing nuances in the cases in which the
Supreme Court found a valid warrantless arrest from those in which it did
not?

ARREST OF AN ESCAPEE

7
G.R. No. L-63630, 6 April 1990.

8
G.R. No. 85177, 20 August 1990.

9
G.R. No. 12755, 14 April 1999.

10
G.R. No. 135957, 17 September 2002.

11
G.R. No. 101837, 11 February 1992.

12
G.R. No. 95847, 10 March 1993.

13
G.R. No. 121917, 12 March 1997.

14
G.R. No. 123137, 17 October 2001.
 11. There is not much to be tackled here. The provision under the Rules of Court is to be
taken as it is.

WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO QUESTION THE ILLEGALITY OF THE ARREST

12. In essence, when the right is voluntarily waived, then the illegality of the arrest may
no longer by invoked to effect the release of the person arrested. The question then
becomes: how may an accused waive his right to question the illegality of the arrest?

13. The answer to the foregoing question is found in the following cases, for instance:
People v. Cunanan15 and People v. Cachola.16

PART V: WARRANTLESS SEARCHES

14. As in arrests, prescinding from Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution,
searches and seizures may only be valid if they are done pursuant to a valid search
warrant. However, there are exceptions, such that even without a warrant, searches and
seizures may still be upheld as validly made. Unlike arrests, however, the instances of valid
warrantless searches are not provided for by the Rules of Court, but by jurisprudence, save
for searches incidental to a lawful arrest.

15. The following are instance of valid warrantless searches:

i. Consented Search
ii. Search incidental to a lawful arrest
iii. Plain View Doctrine
iv. Stop and Frisk or Terry Search
v. Search of vessels and aircrafts
vi. Search of moving vehicles
vii. Inspection of buildings and other premises for the enforcement of fire,
sanitary, and building regulations
viii. Customs Search
ix. Exigent and emergency circumstances

CONSENTED SEARCH

16. The cases of People v. Omaweng17 and People v. Lacerna18 are some of the many

15
G.R. No. 198024, 16 March 2015.

16
G.R. Nos. 148712-15, 21 January 2004.
17
G.R. No. 99050, 2 September 1992.

18
G.R. No. 109250, 5 September 1997.
cases illustrating instances of a valid consented search, that is to say that the right against
unreasonable searches and seizures was validly waived.

i. In these cases, what were the criminal charges involved and who were
indicted for them?
ii. In these cases, what were the items seized and who seized them?
iii. In these cases, how was the waiver/consent given?
iv. May implied acquiescence be considered as consent freely given?

17. Are searches made pursuant to routine airport security procedure valid? The
answer to said question may be found in People v. Susan Canton.19 Supply the answer and
provide the relevant facts of said case.

18. On the other hand, the following cases illustrate instances of an invalid search and
seizure for the reason that no valid waiver or consent was given: People v. Barros,20 Aniag
v. COMELEC,21 and People v. Tudtud.22

i. In these cases, what were the criminal charges involved and who were
indicted for them?
ii. In these cases, what were the items seized and who seized them?
iii. In these cases, how was the purported waiver/consent given?
iv. Why were they not considered by the Supreme Court as valid waiver?

19. Finally, in the case of People v. Damaso,23 the Supreme Court ruled that waiver
must be given by the person whose right is violated. Supply the relevant facts of the case
relating to such pronouncement of the Supreme Court and the reasoning made by it.

SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO A LAWFUL ARREST

20. This exception is authorized by Rule 126, Section 13 of the Rules of Court which
provides:

“Rule 126, Section 13. A person lawfully arrested may be searched for
dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute
proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant.”

19
G.R. No. 148825, 27 December 2002.

20
G.R. No. 90640, 29 March 1994.

21
G.R. No. 104961, 7 October 1994.

22
G.R. No. 144037, 26 September 2003.
23
G.R. No. 93516, 12 August 1992.
 21. In the case of People v. Calantiao,24 the Supreme Court highlighted the purpose of
allowing a warrantless search and seizure as an incident to a lawful arrest.

i. Who is the accused and what was the criminal charge against him?
ii. What were the circumstances surrounding his arrest and the subsequent
search and seizure?
iii. Was the warrantless search and seizure valid?
iv. According to the Supreme Court, what is the purpose of allowing a
warrantless search and seizure as an incident to a lawful arrest?
v. What does the phrase “within the area of his immediate control” mean?

22. The cases of People v. Montilla25 and People v. Luisito Go26 illustrate instances of a
valid warrantless search and seizure incidental to a lawful arrest. Supply the answers to the
following questions:

i. In the case of People v. Montilla, who is the accused and what was the
criminal charge against him?
ii. What were the circumstances surrounding his arrest and the subsequent
search and seizure?
iii. What made the warrantless search and seizure valid, that is to say what
made the arrest preceding the search valid?
iv. Suppose the Supreme Court found that the exception of search incidental to a
lawful arrest cannot be countenanced, could there have been another
exception to anchor the validity of the search and seizure on?
v. In the case of People v. Luisito Go, who is the accused and what was the
criminal charge against him?
vi. What were the circumstances surrounding his arrest and the subsequent
search and seizure of the gun? How about the drug paraphernalia?
vii. What made the warrantless search and seizure valid, that is to say what
made the arrest preceding the search valid?
viii. Suppose the Supreme Court found that the exception of search
incidental to a lawful arrest cannot be countenanced, could there have been
another exception to anchor the validity of the search and seizure on?

23. Compare the two (2) immediately foregoing cases to the case of People v. Aruta,27
in which the Supreme Court invalidated the search and seizure made purportedly
incidental to a lawful arrest.

24
G.R. No. 203984, 18 June 2014.

25
G.R. No. 123872, 30 January 1998.

26
G.R. No. 116001, 14 March 2001.
27
G.R. No. 120915, 13 April 1998.
 i. Who is the accused and what was the criminal charge against him?
ii. What were the circumstances surrounding the arrest and the subsequent
search and seizure?
iii. Why was the warrantless search and seizure valid, that is to say what made
the arrest preceding the search invalid?

24. In a valid warrantless search and seizure incidental to a lawful arrest, what is the
permissible area of the search? The answer to such question may be found in the cases of
People v. Che Chun Ting28 and People v. Cubcubin.29 In both cases, where were the
accused arrested and what was the scope of the search made by the arresting officers?
What pieces of evidence were considered by the Supreme Court as seized outside the
immediate control of the accused?

PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE

25. In the case of People v. Musa,30 the Supreme Court surveyed American
jurisprudence, and in which cases, the earlier applications of the plain view doctrine were
made.

i. Who is the accused and what was the criminal charge against him?
ii. What item was purported to have been seized in plain view and what are the
circumstances surrounding the seizure?
iii. Was such item legally seized by the police officers? Why or why not?
iv. What American jurisprudence was used by the Supreme Court to compare
the present case? What were the distinctions drawn by the Supreme Court?
v. May the plain view doctrine be used for exploratory searches? Why or why
not?

26. In the more recent case of People v. Sarap,31 the Supreme Court clearly identified
the requisites that must be complied with for a proper application of the plain view
doctrine.

i. Who is the accused and what was the criminal charge against him?
ii. What item was purported to have been seized in plain view and what are the
circumstances surrounding the seizure?
iii. What are the requisites of plain view?
iv. Was such item legally seized by the police officers? Why or why not?
v. Was the warrantless arrest valid in this case? Why or why not?

28
G.R. No. 130568, 31 March 2000.

29
G.R. No. 136267, 10 July 2001.

30
G.R. No. 96177, 27 January 1993.
31
G.R. No. 132165, 26 March 2003.
 27. Take the case of People v. Figueroa32 for example. Here, the Supreme Court found
that there was a valid seizure in plain view of a pistol, a magazine and seven rounds of
ammunition. What were the circumstances surrounding the seizure of said items and why
were they validly seized in plain view?

28. If the object seized is in inside a closed package, is it seized in plain view? The
answer to such question is found in the cases of Caballes v. Court of Appeals33 and People
v. Nuevas.34 Supply the answer and give a summary of the relevant facts in the foregoing
cases.

29. Another interesting case which laid down a jurisprudential principle pertaining to
plain view is the case of People v. Salanguit.35 Supply the answers to the following
questions:

i. Is it possible for a search and seizure to be invalid if a prior search and

seizure was made pursuant to a lawful search warrant?
ii. What are the relevant facts of the case leading to the answer to the previous
question?

30. Then, inquire into the case of United Laboratories v. Isip.36 Expound the
requirement of inadvertence and the ‘immediately apparent’ test explained by the Supreme
Court in said case.

STOP AND FRISK OR TERRY SEARCH

31. Take this problem: suppose a police officer is on a routine patrol duty and he
observes two people outside a variety store. Both his experience and training tell him that
their acts are consistent with acts of people with criminal designs although he has no
concrete facts showing probable cause that a crime has been committed or that it is
actually being committed. He knows that mere suspicion is not sufficient to make a valid
arrest, but his instincts honed by years of experience in the streets tell him something
untoward is imminent. May he briefly stop the persons, ask them questions and engage in a
protective search for a concealed weapon short of a full-scale arrest? The Supreme Court of
the United States addressed a similar situation in 1968 in the landmark case of Terry v.

32
G.R. No. 97143, 27 June 1991.

33
G.R. No. 136292, 15 January 2002.

34
G.R. No. 170233, 22 February 2007.

35
G.R. Nos. 133254-55, 19 April 2001.

36
G.R. No. 163858, 28 June 2005.
Ohio.37 Read the case and supply the answer to the question. Provide a summary of the
relevant facts and ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

32. Read the cases of People v. Chua38 and Esquillo v. People.39 Supply the answers to
the following questions:

i. What is/are the difference/s between a search incidental to a lawful arrest

and a terry search or a stop and frisk?
ii. What is the justification for allowing a terry search?
iii. What is the allowable scope of a stop and frisk?
iv. Is ‘probable cause’ similar with ‘genuine reason?’ What is required in order
to properly carry out a terry search?
v. What are the relevant facts in the foregoing cases in relation to the answers
to the previous questions?

OTHER EXCEPTIONS

33. As to the other exceptions, find at least two cases decided by the Supreme Court
explaining each of them respectively. Summarize the relevant facts and the relevant
discussion of the Supreme Court relating to such.

PART VI: WARRANTLESS SEARCHES

34. By now, after reading all the foregoing cases, you must have already understood
what the ‘Exclusionary Rule’ is. Summarize the rules pertaining to such rule and provide
legal bases.

37
392 U.S. 1.

38
G.R. Nos. 136066-67, 4 February 2003.

39
G.R. No. 182010, 25 August 2010.