Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Consti 2 Cases For Quiz 3
Consti 2 Cases For Quiz 3
Same; Same; Same; A cabinet which is locked could no longer be Same; Same; Bill of Rights; Constitutional Law; The Bill of Rights is the
considered as an area within the arrestee’s immediate control because bedrock of constitutional government.—The Bill of Rights is the bedrock of
constitutional government. If people are stripped naked of their rights as Same; Same; Same; Same; The Constitution guarantees the right of the
human beings, democracy cannot survive and government becomes people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against
meaningless. This explains why the Bill of Rights, contained as it is in Article III unreasonable searches and seizures.—The Constitution guarantees the right
of the Constitution, occupies a position of primacy in the fundamental law of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects
way above the articles on governmental power. against unreasonable searches and seizures.Any evidence obtained in
violation of said right shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding. While the power to search and seize may at times be necessary
to the public welfare, still it must be exercised and the law implemented
Same; Same; Same; Presumption of Innocence; It would be better to set
without contravening the constitutional rights of citizens, for the
free ten men who might probably be guilty of the crime charged than to
enforcement of no statute is of sufficient importance to justify indifference to
convict one innocent man for a crime he did not commit.—Without the
the basic principles of government.
illegally seized firearm, Valeroso’s conviction cannot stand. There is simply no
sufficient evidence to convict him. All told, the guilt of Valeroso was not VILLANUEVA V. PEOPLE
proven beyond reasonable doubt measured by the required moral certainty
for conviction. The evidence presented by the prosecution was not enough to Constitutional Law; Criminal Procedure; Arrests; Warrantless Arrests;
overcome the presumption of innocence as constitutionally ordained. Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, lays down
Indeed, it would be better to set free ten men who might probably be guilty the basic rules on lawful warrantless arrests either by a peace officer or a
of the crime charged than to convict one innocent man for a crime he did not private person.—Accused-appellant was arrested without a warrant. Section
commit. 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, lays down the basic
rules on lawful warrantless arrests either by a peace officer or a private
LUZ V. PEOPLE person, as follows: Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.—A peace
officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When,
Same; Same; Same; Same; Warrantless Searches; Instances When a
in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
Warrantless Search is Allowed.—The following are the instances when a
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has
warrantless search is allowed: (i) a warrantless search incidental to a lawful
just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal
arrest; (ii) search of evidence in “plain view”; (iii) search of a moving vehicle;
knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has
(iv) consented warrantless search; (v) customs search; (vi) a “stop and frisk”
committed it; and (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has
search; and (vii) exigent and emergency circumstances. None of the above-
escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final
mentioned instances, especially a search incident to a lawful arrest, are
judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped
applicable to this case.
while being transferred from one confinement to another.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Whether consent to the search was in fact
Same; Same; Same; Illegal Searches and Seizures; A waiver of an illegal
voluntary is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of all the
arrest is not a waiver of an illegal search.—A waiver of an illegal arrest,
circumstances.—Whether consent to the search was in fact voluntary is a
however, is not a waiver of an illegal search. Records have established that
question of fact to be determined from the totality of all the circumstances.
both the arrest and the search were made without a warrant. While the
Relevant to this determination are the following characteristics of the person
accused has already waived his right to contest the legality of his arrest, he is
giving consent and the environment in which consent is given: (1) the age of
not deemed to have equally waived his right to contest the legality of the
the defendant; (2) whether the defendant was in a public or a secluded
search. Jurisprudence is replete with pronouncements on when a warrantless
location; (3) whether the defendant objected to the search or passively
search can be conducted. These searches include: (1) search of a moving
looked on; (4) the education and intelligence of the defendant; (5) the
vehicle; (2) seizure in plain view; (3) customs search; (4) waiver or consented
presence of coercive police procedures; (6) the defendant’s belief that no
search; (5) stop-and-frisk situation; (6) search incidental to a lawful arrest;
incriminating evidence would be found; (7) the nature of the police
and (7) exigent and emergency circumstance.
questioning; (8) the environment in which the questioning took place; and (9)
the possibly vulnerable subjective state of the person consenting. It is the DELA CRUZ V. PEOPLE
State that has the burden of proving, by clear and positive testimony, that
the necessary consent was obtained, and was freely and voluntarily given. In Constitutional Law; Criminal Procedure; Searches and Seizures; Searches
this case, all that was alleged was that petitioner was alone at the police pursuant to port security measures are not unreasonable per se. The
station at three in the morning, accompanied by several police officers. These security measures of x-ray scanning and inspection in domestic ports are
circumstances weigh heavily against a finding of valid consent to a akin to routine security procedures in airports.—With port security
warrantless search. personnel’s functions having the color of state-related functions and deemed
agents of government, People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57 (1991), is inapplicable in
Same; Same; Same; Same; Stop and Frisk; The stop and frisk is merely a the present case. Nevertheless, searches pursuant to port security measures
limited protective search of outer clothing for weapons.—Neither does the are not unreasonable per se. The security measures of x-ray scanning and
search qualify under the “stop and frisk” rule. While the rule normally applies inspection in domestic ports are akin to routine security procedures in
when a police officer observes suspicious or unusual conduct, which may lead airports.
him to believe that a criminal act may be afoot, the stop and frisk is merely a
limited protective search of outer clothing for weapons. Constitutional Law; Criminal Procedure; Warrantless Searches and Seizures;
The Supreme Court (SC) lays down the exceptions where warrantless
Same; Same; Same; Same; Warrantless Searches; In Knowles v. Iowa, 525 searches are deemed legitimate: (1) warrantless search incidental to a
U.S. 113 (1998), the U.S. Supreme Court held that when a police officer lawful arrest; (2) seizure in “plain view”; (3) search of a moving vehicle; (4)
stops a person for speeding and correspondingly issues a citation instead of consented warrantless search; (5) customs search; (6) stop and frisk; and (7)
arresting the latter, this procedure does not authorize the officer to conduct exigent and emergency circumstances.—The Constitution safeguards a
a full search of the car.—In Knowles v. Iowa,the U.S. Supreme Court held person’s right against unreasonable searches and seizures. A warrantless
that when a police officer stops a person for speeding and correspondingly search is presumed to be unreasonable. However, this court lays down the
issues a citation instead of arresting the latter, this procedure does not exceptions where warrantless searches are deemed legitimate: (1) warrant-
authorize the officer to conduct a full search of the car. The Court therein less search incidental to a lawful arrest; (2) seizure in “plain view”; (3) search
held that there was no justification for a full-blown search when the officer of a moving vehicle; (4) consented warrantless search; (5) customs search; (6)
does not arrest the motorist. Instead, police officers may only conduct stop and frisk; and (7) exigent and emergency circumstances.
minimal intrusions, such as ordering the motorist to alight from the car or
doing a patdown.
Constitutional Law; Criminal Procedure; Searches and Seizures; Customs in this case — which, based on jurisprudence, are not illegal per se for as long
Searches; Customs searches, as exception to the requirement of a valid as its necessity is justified by the exigencies of public order and conducted in
search warrant, are allowed when “persons exercising police authority a way least intrusive to motorists.
under the customs law . . . effect search and seizure . . . in the enforcement
of customs laws.”—The consented search conducted on petitioner’s bag is Same; Same; When a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive
different from a customs search. Customs searches, as exception to the search such a warrantless search has been held to be valid only as long as
requirement of a valid search warrant, are allowed when “persons exercising the officers conducting the search have reasonable or probable cause to
police authority under the customs law . . . effect search and seizure . . . in believe before the search that they will find the instrumentality or evidence
the enforcement of customs laws.” The Tariff and Customs Code provides the pertaining to a crime, in the vehicle to be searched.—It is well to clarify,
authority for such warrantless search, as this court ruled in Papa, et al. v. however, that routine inspections do not give police officers carte blanche
Mago, et al., 22 SCRA 857 (1968): The Code authorizes persons having police discretion to conduct warrantless searches in the absence of probable cause.
authority under Section 2203 of the Tariff and Customs Code to enter, pass When a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive search — as
through or search any land, enclosure, warehouse, store or building, not opposed to a mere routine inspection — such a warrantless search has been
being a dwelling house; and also to inspect, search and examine any vessel or held to be valid only as long as the officers conducting the search have
aircraft and any trunk, package, box or envelope or any person onboard, or reasonable or probable cause to believe before the search that they will find
stop and search and examine any vehicle, beast or person suspected of the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime, in the vehicle to be
holding or conveying any dutiable or prohibited article introduced into the searched.
Philippines contrary to law, without mentioning the need of a search warrant
in said cases.
PEOPLE V. MANAGO
Constitutional Law; Searches and Seizures; Section 2, Article III of the 1987
Constitution mandates that a search and seizure must be carried out
through or on the strength of a judicial warrant predicated upon the
existence of probable cause, absent which such search and seizure becomes
unreasonable within the meaning of the said constitutional provision.—
Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution mandates that a search and
seizure must be carried out through or on the strength of a judicial warrant
predicated upon the existence of probable cause, absent which such search
and seizure becomes “unreasonable” within the meaning of the said
constitutional provision. To protect the people from unreasonable searches
and seizures, Section 3(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that
evidence obtained and confiscated on the occasion of such unreasonable
searches and seizures are deemed tainted and should be excluded for being
the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree.
Same; Same; Three (3) instances when warrantless arrests may be lawfully
effected.—There are three (3) instances when warrantless arrests may be
lawfully effected. These are: (a) an arrest of a suspect in flagrante delicto; (b)
an arrest of a suspect where, based on personal knowledge of the arresting
officer, there is probable cause that said suspect was the perpetrator of a
crime which had just been committed; and (c) an arrest of a prisoner who has
escaped from custody serving final judgment or temporarily confined during
the pendency of his case or has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another.
Same; Same; Police checkpoints are not illegal per se for as long as its
necessity is justified by the exigencies of public order and conducted in a
way least intrusive to motorists.—A variant of searching moving vehicles
without a warrant may entail the setup of military or police checkpoints — as