Searches and Seizures

1. Concept
2. Warrant Requirement
3. Warrantless Searches
4. Warrantless Arrests
5. Administrative Arrests
6. Drug, Alcohol and Blood Tests

1987 Philippine Constitution

ART. III, 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.

Basic Principles:

1. Personal It may be invoked only by the person entitled to it. [Stonehill vs. Diokno (1967)]

2. It may be waived expressly or impliedly only by the person whose right is invaded, not by one
who is not duly authorized to effect such waiver. [People vs. Damaso (1992)].

3. The right cannot be set up against acts committed by private individuals. The right applies as a
restraint directed only against the government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of
the law. The protection cannot extend to acts committed by private individuals so as to bring
them within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the government. [People vs. Marti
(1991)]

4. Objections to the warrant of arrest must be made before the accused enters his plea. [People v.
Codilla, 224 SCRA 104; People v. Robles, G.R. No. 101335, June 8, 2000].

5. Natural Persons- It protects all persons including aliens [Qua Chee Gan vs. Deportation Board
(1963)].
6. Artificial Persons- Artificial persons are protected to a limited extent. [Bache & Co. Inc vs. Ruiz
(1971)] The opening of their account books is not protected, by virtue of police and taxing
powers of the State.
7. The Warrant must refer to one specific offense. [Asian Surety v. Herrera, 54 SCRA 312; Castro v.
Pabalan, 70 SCRA 477]

8. The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 is a special law that deals specifically with dangerous drugs
which are subsumed into ―prohibited and ―regulate drugs, and defines and penalizes
categories of offenses which are closely related or which belong to the same class or species;
thus, one search warrant may be validly issued for several violations thereof. [People v. Dichoso,
223 SCRA 174] The doctrine was reiterated in People v. Salanguit, G.R. No. 133254055, April 19,
2001.

9. Requisites of Warrant:
a. Existence of probable cause:
Warrant of Arrest- Such facts and circumstances antecedent to the issuance of the warrant
that in themselves are sufficient to induce a cautious man to rely on them and act in
pursuance thereof. [People v. Syjuco, 64 Phil. 667; Alvarez v. CFI, 64 Phil 33]

Search Warrant- Such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably 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. [Burgos v. Chief of Staff,
133 SCRA 800].

b. Determination of probable cause made personally by the judge [Placer v. Villanueva 126
SCRA 463; Lim v. Judge Felix, 194 SCRA 292].

c. After personal examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses
he may produce.
It must be done in the form of searching questions and answers, in writing and under oath
(Rule 126, Sec. 6, ROC). Mere affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are thus not
sufficient. The examining Judge has to take depositions in writing of the complainant and
the witnesses he may produce and attach them to the record.

d. Such written deposition is necessary in order that the Judge may be able to properly
determine the existence or non-existence of the probable cause, to hold liable for perjury
the person giving it if it will be found later that his declarations are false.

e. It is axiomatic that the examination must be probing and exhaustive, not merely routinary or
pro-forma, if the claimed probable cause is to be established.
 f. The examining magistrate must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit but must
make his own inquiry on the intent and justification of the application. [Roan vs. Gonzales
(1984)]

g. On the basis of their personal knowledge of the facts they are testifying to.

h. The warrant must describe particularly the place to be searched and the persons or things to
be seized.

The requirement is primarily meant to enable the law enforcers serving the warrant to:
(1) readily identify the properties to be seized and thus prevent them from seizing the wrong
items; and
(2) leave said peace officers with no discretion regarding the articles to be seized and thus
prevent unreasonable searches and seizures. [People v. Tee, G.R. Nos. 140546-47, January 20, 2003].

PLACE TO BE SEARCHED
The search warrant issued to search petitioner‘s compound for unlicensed firearms was held
invalid for failing to describe the place with particularity, considering that the compound was made up
of 200 buildings, 15 plants, 84 staff houses, 1 airstrip etc. spread out over 155 hectares. [PICOP vs.
Asuncion (1999)].

DESCRIPTION OF PERSONS SEARCHED

Search warrant is valid despite the mistake in the name of the persons to be searched. The
authorities conducted surveillance and test-buy ops before obtaining the SW and subsequently
implementing it. They had personal knowledge of the identity of the persons and the place to be
searched, although they did not specifically know the names of the accused. [People vs. Tiu Won Chua
(2003)]

GENERAL WARRANT- One that:

(1) does not describe with particularity the things subject of the search and
seizure; and
(2) where probable cause has not been properly established. It is a void warrant.
[Nolasco vs. Paño (1985)].

Conduct of the Search

(Sec. 7, Rule 126, ROC)- The conduct of the searh must be made in the presence of a lawful
occupant thereof or any member of his family, OR if the occupant or members of the family are absent,
in the presence of 2 witnesses of - sufficient age - discretion - residing in the same locality.
Force may be used in entering a dwelling if justified by Rule 126 ROC. Failure to comply with
Sec. 7 Rule 126 invalidates the search. [People vs. Gesmundo (1993)].
If the occupants of the house refused to open the door despite the fact that the searching party/
authorities knocked several times, and the agents saw suspicious movements of the people inside the
house, forcible entry like destroying the gate or door is justified. [People vs. Salanguit (2001)].