Chapter 10

SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

Stonehill Vs. Diokno the documents, papers and cash money

[20 SCRA 383; L-19550; 19 Jun 1967] the courts that issued the warrants, to b
with law —
Facts:
Respondents-prosecutors contentions
Upon application of the officers of the government named on the
margin1 — hereinafter referred to as Respondents-Prosecutors — that the contested search warrants are v
several judges2 — hereinafter referred to as Respondents-Judges — accordance with law;
issued, on different dates,3 a total of 42 search warrants against
petitioners herein4 and/or the corporations of which they were that the defects of said warrants, if any,
officers,5 directed to the any peace officer, to search the persons consent; and
above-named and/or the premises of their offices, warehouses and/or
that, in any event, the effects seized are
residences, and to seize and take possession of the following personal
against herein petitioners, regardless of
property to wit:
aforementioned searches and seizures.
Books of accounts, financial records, vouchers, correspondence,
receipts, ledgers, journals, portfolios, credit journals, typewriters, and
other documents and/or papers showing all business transactions
The documents, papers, and things seize
including disbursements receipts, balance sheets and profit and loss
of the warrants in question may be split
statements and Bobbins (cigarette wrappers) as "the subject of the
namely: (a) those found and seized in th
offense; stolen or embezzled and proceeds or fruits of the offense," or
aforementioned corporations, and (b) th
"used or intended to be used as the means of committing the offense,"
residences of petitioners herein.
which is described in the applications adverted to above as "violation
of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue Issue:
(Code) and the Revised Penal Code."
Whether or not those found and seized i
Petitioners contentions are: aforementioned corporations are obtaine

they do not describe with particularity the documents, books and Whether or not those found and seized i
things to be seized; herein are obtained legally.

cash money, not mentioned in the warrants, were actually seized; Held:
Chapter 10
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
they hold therein may be. Indeed, it is well settled that the legality of
a seizure can be contested only by the party whose rights have been
impaired thereby, and that the objection to an unlawful search and
seizure is purely personal and cannot be availed of by third parties.
With respect to the documents, papers and things seized in the
residences of petitioners herein, the aforementioned resolution of June
29, 1962, lifted the writ of preliminary injunction previously issued by
this Court, thereby, in effect, restraining herein Respondents-
Prosecutors from using them in evidence against petitioners herein.
Two points must be stressed in connection with this constitutional
mandate, namely: (1) that no warrant shall issue but upon probable
cause, to be determined by the judge in the manner set forth in said
provision; and (2) that the warrant shall particularly describe the
things to be seized.
None of these requirements has been complied with in the contested
warrants. Indeed, the same were issued upon applications stating that
the natural and juridical person therein named had committed a
"violation of Central Ban Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal
Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code." In other words, no specific
offense had been alleged in said applications. The averments thereof
with respect to the offense committed were abstract. As a
consequence, it was impossible for the judges who issued the warrants
to have found the existence of probable cause, for the same
presupposes the introduction of competent proof that the party against
whom it is sought has performed particular acts, or committed specific
omissions, violating a given provision of our criminal laws. As a matter
of fact, the applications involved in this case do not allege any specific
acts performed by herein petitioners. It would be the legal heresy, of
the highest order, to convict anybody of a "violation of Central Bank
FACTS:
Petitioner Alvarez asks that the warrant
ordering the search and seizure of certai
any time of day and night as well as the
of the Anti-Usury Board to retain the art
and set aside and the items be returned
Petitioner contends that Agent Almeda h
the facts which was served as the basis
warrant. That he got it only from a reliab
warrant issued is illegal.
The articles had not been brought imme
issued the search warrant.
The Anti-Usury Board insinuates in its an
cannot now question the validity of the s
proceedings had subsequent to the issua
waived his constitutional rights in propos
agreed to pay a fine of P200 for the purp
proceeding or proceedings.
ISSUE:
WON the requirements to find probable c
the judge
WON the search and seizure warrant is v
HELD:
Chapter 10
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

depositions in writing. It is the practice in this jurisdiction to attach the

affidavit of at least the applicant or complainant to the application.

l It is admitted that the judge who issued the search warrant, in this
case, relied exclusively upon the affidavit made by agent Mariano G.
Almeda and that he did not require nor take the deposition of any
other witness. The affidavit of the agent, in this case, was insufficient
because his knowledge of the facts was not personal but merely
hearsay.

l When the affidavit of the applicant of the complaint contains

sufficient facts within his personal and direct knowledge, it is sufficient COLLECTOR OF CUSTOM
the judge is satisfied that there existed probable cause; G.R. No. L-34038 / JUNE 18, 1976 /
– Return of property illegally
l when the applicant's knowledge of the facts is mere hearsay, the
affidavit of one or more witnesses having a personal knowledge of the
fact is necessary. SUMMARY. Collector of Customs, Salva
Cesar T. Makapugay, a letter complaint
l We conclude, therefore, that the warrant issued is likewise illegal
Circuit Criminal Court for violation of: (
because it was based only on the affidavit of the agent who had no
Internal Revenue Code, as amended b
personal knowledge of the facts.
Central Bank Circular No. 265, in relatio
2 No. 265, otherwise known as The Cent
3601 and 3602 of Republic Act No. 193
l NO. In view of the foregoing and under the above-cited authorities, it and 2530 (m) 1 of the same Act. Respon
appears that the affidavit, which served as the exclusive basis of the of the properties. Petitioner Collector of
search warrant, is insufficient and fatally defective by reason of the order due to the “prior institution of seiz
manner in which the oath was made, and therefore, it is hereby held refusal prompted respondent Makapuga
that the search warrant in question and the subsequent seizure of the Disobedience” under Article 231 of the R
books, documents, and other papers are illegal and do not in any way City Fiscal of Pasay City. SC ruled in favo
warrant the deprivation to which the petitioner was subjected.
DOCTRINE. A circuit court judge cann
Moreover, Section 101 of General Orders, No. 58 authorizes that the goods seized by the Collector of C
Chapter 10
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

FACTS.

 Petitioner Collector of Customs, Salvador T. Mascardo filed against ISSUE & RATIO.
Cesar T. Makapugay, a letter complaint with respondent Judge of the
Circuit Criminal Court for violation of NIRC, Central Bank Circular WON the items seized may be return
265 and RA 1937 claiming that Cesar T. Makapugay "with malicious
intention to defraud the government criminally, willfully and
feloniously brought into the country FORTY (40) cartons of "untaxed
The dismissal of a case, even with p
blue seal" Salem cigarettes and FIVE (5) bottles of Johny Walker
preliminary investigation does not bar
Scotch Whiskey, also "untaxed", without the necessary permit from
conviction if the evidence warrants the
the proper authorities. The respondent submitted a Baggage
next to impossible. For the enforcemen
Declaration Entry which did not declare the said articles.
deprive herein petitioner Collector o
 Respondent Judge assumed jurisdiction to conduct and did conduct
indispensable to a successful prosecu
the preliminary investigation, and on July 6, 1971, issued the
private respondent. Worse, the order nu
challenged order, dismissing "the case with prejudice and ordering
the customs official.
the return to private respondent the amount of P2,280.00, his
passport No. Ag-2456 FA - No. B103813, and one (1) box of air-
conditioning evaporator only, as well as the forfeiture of forty (40)
cartons of untaxed blue seal Salem cigarettes and five (5) bottles of Respondent Judge ignored the establi
Johnny Walker Scotch Whiskey" (p. 13, rec.). moment imported goods are actu
 Armed with said order, private respondent Makapugay control of the Customs authoritie
demanded that petitioner release the articles so stated. seizure had previously been issued
Petitioner Collector of Customs refused to obey the order due to the in connection with seizure and f
"prior institution of seizure proceedings thereon." The refusal Bureau of Customs acquires exclu
prompted respondent Makapugay to file a complaint for "Open imported goods for the purpose of e
Disobedience" under Article 231 of the Revised Penal Code, before subject to an appeal only to the Cour
the City Fiscal of Pasay City. review by the Supreme Court.
 Hence, this petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction, seeking
to annul and set aside the order dated July 6, 1971 on the ground Such exclusive jurisdiction precl
that respondent Judge has no power to conduct a preliminary Instance as well as the Circuit Crim
investigation of criminal complaints directly filed with him, cannot cognizance of the subject matter an
legally order the dismissal "with prejudice" of a criminal case after prerogative to replevin propertie
Chapter 10
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
Petitions dismissed. Writs lifted.
NOTES.
Fernando, J., concurring:
Constitutional law; Preliminary examination; Constitution confers of
circuit criminal judge power to conduct preliminary examination, but
said judges should curb any eagerness to make use of such
competence. It is my understanding then that the decision reached is
at most an affirmation that the present Constitution, as did the 1935
Constitution, confers the power to conduct preliminary examination
preparatory to issuing a warrant of arrest, to a circuit criminal court
judge. Even then, however, he should for sound policy reasons curb
any eagerness or propensity to make use of such competence. x x x
As to his competence regarding a preliminary investigation, it is my
understanding that the question has been left open.
Barredo, J., concurring in result:
Constitutional law; Preliminary examination; Congress did not intend
to confer on circuit criminal courts the power to conduct preliminary
investigations. Notwithstanding the scholarly and extended main
opinion, I am not persuaded that the legislature ever intended to
confer upon Circuit Criminal Courts the power to conduct preliminary
investigations. Not only the specific words of the above provision, but
the development of the law on preliminary investigations and
circumstances obtaining at the time R.A. 5179 was enacted point
unmistakably, in my considered opinion, to this conclusion.
first.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. An officer ma
weapons without a warrant, even withou
officer reasonably believes that the pers
dangerous.
Facts. The officer noticed the Petitioner
on a street corner while repeatedly walk
street. The men would periodically peer
talk some more. The men also spoke to
eventually followed up the street. The of
Petitioner and the other men were “casin
robbery. The officer decided to approach
given the nature of the behavior the offic
search of the men before questioning. A
produced a concealed weapon and the P
carrying a concealed weapon.
Issue. Whether a search for weapons w
arrest is an unreasonable search under t
United States Constitution (“Constitution
Held. The Supreme Court of the United
that it is a reasonable search when an of
and a limited search for weapons on a p
reasonably believes could be armed. A ty
unduly burdened by being prohibited fro
the officer suspects to be armed.
Dissent. Justice William Douglas (“J. Do
Chapter 10
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
Justice Byron White (“J. White”) agreed with the majority, but he
emphasized that the particular facts of the case, that there was
suspicion of a violent act, merit the forcible stop and frisk.
Discussion. The facts of the case are important to understand the
Supreme Court’s willingness to allow the search. The suspicious
activity was a violent crime, armed robbery, and if the officer’s
suspicions were correct then he would be in a dangerous position to
approach the men for questioning without searching them. The officer
also did not detain the men for a long period of time to constitute an
arrest without probable cause.
Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S. Ct. 1727 (1967)
FACTS: On November 6, 1963, a Housing inspector (Health
Department) entered an apartment building for a routine annual
inspection. The building manager told him that Camara, who leased
the ground floor, was living in part of the space, which was not
authorized for residential usage. The inspector confronted Camara and
was refused entry to the space. Two days later, the inspector returned,
and was again denied entry. A citation was mailed to Camara, and he
failed to appear at the district attorney’s office, as ordered. Two weeks
later, two more inspectors again visited Camara and informed him that
he was in violation of the law.
Camara was charged with violating a California law requiring him to
permit warrantless inspections of his residence by housing inspectors.
He was arrested and filed a writ of prohibition on the charge. The
lower courts, basing their opinion on earlier Supreme Court rulings,
upheld the charge against Camara.
ISSUE: May the law require warrantless inspections of property?
designating an area in need of inspection
blanket warrant for that area. The appro
upon the passage of time, the nature of
the entire area. The Court stated that:
“The warrant procedure is designed to g
search private property is justified by a r
interest. But reasonableness is still the u
public interest justifies the intrusion con
probable cause to issue a suitably restric
approach neither endangers time-honore
criminal investigations nor makes a nulli
requirement in this area. It merely gives
competing public and private interests h
best fulfills the historic purposes behind
free from unreasonable government inva
BURGOS, SR. V. CHIEF
[133 SCRA 800; G.R. NO. 64
Facts:
Petitioners assail the validity of 2 search
7, 1982 by respondent Judge Cruz-Pano
Instance of Rizal, under which the premi
Project 6, Quezon City, and 784 Units C
Avenue, Quezon City, business addresse
and "We Forum" newspapers, respective
and printing machines, equipment, parap
other articles used in the printing, public
said newspapers, as well as numerous p
Chapter 10
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
the validity of the same before this Court. Respondents also assail the
petition on ground of laches (Failure or negligence for an unreasonable
and unexplained length of time to do that which, by exercising due
diligence, could or should have been done earlier. It is negligence or
omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a
presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it
or declined to assert it). Respondents further state that since
petitioner had already used as evidence some of the documents seized
in a prior criminal case, he is stopped from challenging the validity of
the search warrants.
Petitioners submit the following reasons to nullify the questioned
warrants:
1. Respondent Judge failed to conduct an examination under oath or
affirmation of the applicant and his witnesses, as mandated by the
above-quoted constitutional provision as well as Sec. 4, Rule 126 of
the Rules of Court.
2. The search warrants pinpointed only one address which would be
the former abovementioned address.
3. Articles belonging to his co-petitioners were also seized although
the warrants were only directed against Jose Burgos, Jr.
4. Real properties were seized.
5. The application along with a joint affidavit, upon which the warrants
were issued, from the Metrocom Intelligence and Security Group could
not have provided sufficient basis for the finding of a probable cause
upon which a warrant may be validly issued in accordance with Section
3, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution.
Issue:
Whether or Not the 2 search warrants w
executed.
Held:
In regard to the quashal of warrants tha
initially filed to the lower court, this Cou
petition in view of the seriousness and u
Issue raised, not to mention the public in
search of the "We Forum" offices which w
widely publicized in all metropolitan daili
special circumstance justifies this Court
to suspend its rules. With the contention
petitioners gave an explanation evidenci
other extra-judicial efforts to remedy the
presumption that they have abandoned
the seized property.
On the enumerated reasons:
1. This objection may properly be consid
petitioners themselves conceded during
1983, that an examination had indeed b
judge of Col. Abadilla and his witnesses.
2. The defect pointed out is obviously a
two search warrants were applied for an
and intent were to search two distinct pr
absurd and illogical for respondent judge
intended for one and the same place.
Chapter 10
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
machineries in question, while in fact bolted to the ground, remain
movable property susceptible to seizure under a search warrant.
5. The broad statements in the application and joint affidavit are mere
conclusions of law and does not satisfy the requirements of probable
cause. Deficient of such particulars as would justify a finding of the
existence of probable cause, said allegation cannot serve as basis for
the issuance of a search warrant and it was a grave error for
respondent judge to have done so. In Alvarez v. Court of First
Instance, this Court ruled that "the oath required must refer to the
truth of the facts within the personal knowledge of the petitioner or his
witnesses, because the purpose thereof is to convince the committing
magistrate, not the individual making the affidavit and seeking the
issuance of the warrant, of the existence of probable cause." Another
factor which makes the search warrants under consideration
constitutionally objectionable is that they are in the nature of general
warrants. The description of the articles sought to be seized under the
search warrants in question are too general.
With regard to the respondents invoking PD 885, there is an absence
of any implementing rules and regulations promulgated by the Minister
of National Defense. Furthermore, President Marcos himself denies the
request of military authorities to sequester the property seized from
petitioners. The closure of the premises subjected to search and
seizure is contrary to the freedom of the press as guaranteed in our
fundamental law. The search warrants are declared null and void.
People vs. Burgos
Rule of Law: In a warrantless arrest, th
who has just committed, is committing,
offense must have personal knowledge o
Facts: Cesar Masamlok personally and v
authorities stating that he was forcibly re
Burgos (D) as member of the NPA, threa
firearm against his life, if he refused. Pu
INP members went to the house of the B
plowing his field when they arrived. One
Burgos (D) and asked him about the fire
denied having any firearm, but later, Bu
place below their house where a gun wa
After recovery of said firearm, Burgos (D
cogon where the officers recovered alleg
Burgos (D) further admitted that the fire
Nestor Jimenez, team leader of sparrow
Issues: Is the warrantless arrest valid?
valid?
Ruling: No. Under Section 6(a) of Rule 1
person who has just committed, is comm
an offense must have personal knowledg
must also be committed in his presence
Chief of Police, 80 Phil. 859).
There is no such personal knowledge in t
was possessed by the arresting officers,
Chapter 10
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
may have been committed. The fact of the commission of the offense
must be undisputed. The test of reasonable ground applies only to the
identity of the perpetrator.
In this case, the Burgos (D) was arrested on the sole basis of
Masamlok's verbal report. Masamlok led the authorities to suspect that
the accused had committed a crime. They were still fishing for
evidence of a crime not yet ascertained. The subsequent recovery of
the subject firearm on the basis of information from the lips of a
frightened wife cannot make the arrest lawful. If an arrest without
warrant is unlawful at the moment it is made, generally nothing that
happened or is discovered afterward can make it lawful. The fruit of a
poisoned tree is necessarily also tainted.
Roan v. Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687 (1986)
FACTS:
The challenged search warrant was issued by the respondent judge on
May 10, 1984. The petitioner's house was searched two days later but
none of the articles listed in the warrant was discovered. However, the
officers conducting the search found in the premises one Colt Magnum
revolver and eighteen live bullets which they confiscated. They are
now the bases of the charge against the petitioner.
Respondent Judge said that when PC Capt. Mauro P. Quinosa
personally filed his application for a search warrant on May 10, 1984,
he appeared before him in the company of his two (2) witnesses,
Esmael Morada and Jesus Tohilida, both of whom likewise presented to
ISSUE: Whether the Respondent Judge
proper procedure in issuing the Search W
HELD:
Yes, mere affidavits of the complainant
sufficient. The examining Judge has to ta
the complainant and the witnesses he m
the record. Such written deposition is ne
Judge may be able to properly determine
existence of the probable cause, to hold
giving it if it will be found later that his d
We, therefore, hold that the search warr
the failure of the Judge to conform with
taking the depositions in writing and atta
record, rendering the search warrant
4)
The respondent judge also declared that
applicant Quillosa's deposition taken con
for a search warrant on the basis of the
witnesses whose depositions had already
undersigned.
In other words, the applicant was asking
warrant on the basis of mere hearsay an
personally known to him, as required by
ALIH v. CAST
Chapter 10
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
self-incrimination. The Court did not agree. However, as the arrest and
search was without warrant, the petitioners were set free.
DOCTRINES:
The prohibition against self-incrimination applies to testimonial
compulsion only. The prohibition of compelling a man in a criminal
court to be witness against himself is a prohibition of the use of
physical or moral compulsion to extort communications from him, not
an exclusion of his body as evidence when it may be material.
FACTS:
On November 25, 1984, a contingent of more than two hundred
Philippine marines and elements of the home defense forces raided the
compound occupied by the petitioners at Gov. Alvarez street,
Zamboanga City, in search of loose firearms, ammunition and other
explosives.
The military operation was commonly known and dreaded as a “zona”
which was not unlike the feared practice of the kempeitai during the
Japanese Occupation. The initial reaction of the people inside the
compound was to resist the invasion with a burst of gunfire. No one
was hurt as presumably the purpose was merely to warn the intruders
and deter them from entering.
Unfortunately, as might be expected in incidents like this, the situation
aggravated soon enough. The soldiers returned fire and a bloody
shoot-out ensued, resulting in a number of casualties.
On December 21,1984, the petitioners c
for prohibition and mandamus with preli
restraining order.
Their purpose was to recover the articles
these from being used as evidence again
their finger-printing, photographing
violative of their right against self-in
ISSUE:
[1] WON the military arrest without war
[2] WON the petitioners finger-printing,
testing is violative of their right against s
RATIO:
[1]
Superior orders cannot, of course, count
fact that the petitioners were suspected
excuse the constitutional short-cuts the
The precarious state of lawlessness in Za
question certainly did not excuse the non
constitutional guaranty against unreason
There was no state of hostilities in the ar
could, the repressions committed therein
Chapter 10
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
need the armor of the Constitution, to protect them, not from a
deserved sentence, but from arbitrary punishment.
[2]
The objection to the photographing, fingerprinting and paraffin-testing
of the petitioners deserves slight comment.
The prohibition against self-incrimination applies to testimonial
compulsion only.
As Justice Holmes put it in Holt v. United States, “the prohibition of
compelling a man in a criminal court to be a witness against himself is
a prohibition of the use of physical or moral compulsion to
extort communications from him, not an exclusion of his body as
evidence when it may be material.
DISPOSITIVE:
The search of the petitioners’ premises on November 25, 1984, is
hereby declared ILLEGAL and all the articles seized as a result thereof
are inadmissible in evidence against the petitioners in any
proceedings. However, the said articles shall remain in custodia legis
pending the outcome of the criminal cases that have been or may later
be filed against the petitioners.
PEOPLE VS. MALMSTEDT
[198 SCRA 401; G.R. No. 91107; 19 Jun 1991]
Accused Mikael Malmstedt, a Swedish na
for the third time in December 1988 as a
country sometime in 1982 and 1985.
In the evening of 7 May 1989, accused l
arrival thereat in the morning of the follo
Sagada and stayed in that place for two
morning of May 11, 1989, the accused w
in Sagada.
At about 8: 00 o'clock in the morning of
Captain Alen Vasco, the Commanding Of
Command (NARCOM) stationed at Camp
set up a temporary checkpoint at Kilome
Mountain Province, for the purpose of ch
from the Cordillera Region. The order to
said area was prompted by persistent re
from Sagada were transporting marijuan
Moreover, information was received by t
NARCOM, that same morning that a Cau
had in his possession prohibited drugs. T
(7) NARCOM officers, in coordination wit
a checkpoint at the designated area at a
morning and inspected all vehicles comin
The two (2) NARCOM officers started the
going towards the rear of the bus. Accus
riding the bus was seated at the rear the
During the inspection, CIC Galutan notic
Suspecting the bulge on accused's waist
for accused's passport and other identific
Chapter 10
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

Thereafter, accused was invited outside the bus for questioning. But therefore, the prohibited drugs which we
before he alighted from the bus, accused stopped to get two (2) illegal search are not admissible as evide
travelling bags from the luggage carrier. Upon stepping out of the bus,
the officers got the bags and opened them. A teddy bear was found in Issue:
each bag. Feeling the teddy bears, the officer noticed that there were
bulges inside the same which did not feel like foam stuffing. It was Whether or Not the contention of the acc
only after the officers had opened the bags that accused finally the RTC ruling be reversed.
presented his passport.
Held:
Accused was then brought to the headquarters of the NARCOM at
The Constitution guarantees the right of
Camp Dangwa, La Trinidad, Benguet for further investigation. At the
their persons, houses, papers and effect
investigation room, the officers opened the teddy bears and they were
searches and seizures. However, where
found to also contain hashish. Representative samples were taken
to a lawful arrest, there is no need to ob
from the hashish found among the personal effects of accused and the
arrest without a warrant may be made b
same were brought to the PC Crime Laboratory for chemical analysis.
person under the following circumstance
In the chemistry report, it was established that the objects examined
Sec. 5 Arrest without warrant; when law
were hashish. a prohibited drug which is a derivative of marijuana.
private person may, without a warrant, a
Thus, an information was filed against accused for violation of the
Dangerous Drugs Act.
(a) When, in his presence, the person to
actually committing, or is attempting to
ACCUSED‘S DEFENSE
(b) When an offense has in fact just bee
During the arraignment, accused entered a plea of "not guilty." For his
personal knowledge of facts indicating th
defense, he raised the issue of illegal search of his personal effects. He
has committed it; and
also claimed that the hashish was planted by the NARCOM officers in
his pouch bag and that the two (2) travelling bags were not owned by
(c) When the person to be arrested is a
him, but were merely entrusted to him by an Australian couple whom
from a penal establishment or place whe
he met in Sagada. He further claimed that the Australian couple
or temporarily confined while his case is
intended to take the same bus with him but because there were no
being transferred from one confinement
more seats available in said bus, they decided to take the next ride
and asked accused to take charge of the bags, and that they would
Chapter 10
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
search warrant when the search was made over the personal effects of
accused, however, under the circumstances of the case, there was
sufficient probable cause for said officers to believe that accused was
then and there committing a crime.
Probable cause has been defined as such facts and circumstances
which could lead a reasonable, discreet and prudent man to believe
that an offense has been committed, and that the objects sought in
connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.
Warrantless search of the personal effects of an accused has been
declared by this Court as valid, because of existence of probable
cause, where the smell of marijuana emanated from a plastic bag
owned by the accused, 10 or where the accused was acting
suspiciously, 11 and attempted to flee.
The appealed judgment of conviction by the trial court is hereby
affirmed. Costs against the accused-appellant.
VALMONTE V. GENERAL DE VILLA G.R. No. 83988 September
29, 1989
FACTS:
Petitioner Valmonte and ULAP Assocation filed for prohibition with
preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order, seeking the
declaration of checkpoints in Valenzuela, Metro Manila or elsewhere, as
unconstitutional and the dismantling and banning of the same or, in
the alternative, to direct the respondents to formulate guidelines in the
implementation of checkpoints, for the protection of the people.
According to Petitioners, they filed the petition because they were
ISSUE:
WON the installations of the checkpoints
right against illegal search and seizures.
HELD:
NO. Not all searches and seizures are pr
reasonable are not forbidden. A reasona
determined by any fixed formula but is t
facts of each case.
In the case at bar, the setting up of the
Valenzuela (and probably in other areas)
security measure to enable the NCRDC t
establishing an effective territorial defen
order for the benefit of the public. Check
as measures to thwart plots to destabiliz
interest of public security. In this connec
judicial notice of the shift to urban cente
insurgency movement, so clearly reflecte
cities of police and military men by NPA
mention the abundance of unlicensed fir
lawlessness and violence in such urban c
reported in media, most likely brought a
economic conditions — which all sum up
consider, at the very least, as abnormal
right of the state to protect its existence
and an individual's right against a warra
reasonably conducted, the former should
True, the manning of checkpoints by the
Chapter 10
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
Furthermore, the Court stressed that the constitutional right against
unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal right invocable only
by those whose rights have been infringed, or threatened to be
infringed. What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search and
seizure in any particular case is purely a judicial question,
determinable from a consideration of the circumstances involved.
Petitioner Valmonte's general allegation to the effect that he had been
stopped and searched without a search warrant by the military
manning the checkpoints, without more, i.e., without stating the
details of the incidents which amount to a violation of his right against
unlawful search and seizure, is not sufficient to enable the Court to
determine whether there was a violation of Valmonte's right against
unlawful search and seizure.
Hence, petition dismissed.
UMIL VS. RAMOS
[187 SCRA 311; G.R. NO. 81567; 3 OCT 1991]
Facts:
On 1 February 1988, military agents were dispatched to the St. Agnes
Hospital, Roosevelt Avenue, Quezon City, to verify a confidential
information which was received by their office, about a "sparrow man"
(NPA member) who had been admitted to the said hospital with a
gunshot wound. That the wounded man in the said hospital was
among the five (5) male "sparrows" who murdered two (2) Capcom
mobile patrols the day before, or on 31 January 1988 at about 12:00
confined thereat, he was positively ident
the one who murdered the 2 CAPCOM m
Issue:
Whether or Not Rolando was lawfully arr
Held:
Rolando Dural was arrested for being a m
outlawed subversive organization. Subve
offense, the arrest without warrant is jus
was committing as offense when arreste
subversion, conspiracy or proposal to co
or offenses committed in furtherance the
constitute direct assaults against the sta
continuing crimes.
Ople vs. Torres [Rights of Privacy]
GR No. 127685. July 23, 1998
FACTS:
This is a petition raised by Senator Blas
Administrative Order No. 308 or the Ado
Computerized Identification Reference S
Fidel V. Ramos. The petitioner contends
said A.O. will violate the rights of the cit
by the Constitution. Ople vs. Torres [Rig
ISSUE:
Chapter 10
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
Yes.
The right to privacy as such is accorded recognition independently of
its identification with liberty; in itself, it is fully deserving of
constitutional protection.
The right of privacy is guaranteed in several provisions of the
Constitution:
"Sections 3 (1), 1, 2, 6, 8 and 17 of the Bill of Rights
Sec. 3. The privacy of communication and correspondence
shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or
when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed
by law.
Sec. 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the
equal protection of the laws.
Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and
seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall
issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally
by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized.
Sec. 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within
societies for purposes not contrary t
abridged.
Sec. 17. No person shall be compell
himself.
Read: Soliven vs. Makasiar
The right to privacy is a fundamental rig
Constitution, hence, it is the burden of g
No. 308 is justified by some compelling s
narrowly drawn. A.O. No. 308 is predicat
(1) the need to provide our citizens and
conveniently transact business with basi
providers and other government instrum
(2) the need to reduce, if not totally erad
and misrepresentations by persons seek
debatable whether these interests are co
the issuance of A.O. No. 308. Ople vs. T
But what is not arguable is the broadnes
overbreadth of A.O. No. 308 which if imp
right to privacy in clear and present dan
The possibilities of abuse and misuse of
computer technology are accentuated wh
individual lacks control over what can be
much less verify the correctness of the d
They threaten the very abuses that the B