DEFINITION / DOCTRINE UNREASONABLE REASONABLE

Section 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.
Probable cause
 to be determined personally by the judge
 after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainants and the witnesses
 particularly describing the place to be searched
 particularly describing the persons or things to be seized

RULE 126
Search and Seizure
SECTION 1. Search Warrant Defined. — A search warrant is an order in writing issued in the
name of the People of the Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer,
commanding him to search for personal property described therein and bring it before the
court.
 order in writing
 signed by a judge
 directed to a peace officer
 search for personal property described
 bring it before the court
probable cause – such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and Roan v. Gonzales
prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in Intruder = police officers
connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched (possession – firearms)
Probable cause
r to be determined personally by the
judge

Caballes v. Court of Appeals

People v. Jerry Sapla
probable cause – a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently Caballes v. Court of Appeals
strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man’s belief that the person accused is guilty of the
offense with which he is charged
probable cause – a belief reasonably arising out of circumstances known to the seizing officer People v. Jerry Sapla
that an automobile or other vehicle contains an item, article, or object which by law is subject
to seizure and destruction
 DEFINITION / DOCTRINE UNREASONABLE REASONABLE
In what instances may warrantless searches be effected?
Roan v. Gonzales (1986)
*Caballes v. Court of Appeals (2002)
*People v. Jerry Sapla (2020)
**People v. Compacion (2001)
People v. Escaño (2000)
Valmonte v. De Villa (1989)
People v. Bolasa (1999)
People v. Doria (1999)
Malacat v. Court of Appeals (1997)
1. *Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest. When the person being arrested is Chimel v. California United States v. Robinson
frisked for weapons that he may otherwise be able to use against the arresting officer (burglary) Intruder = Officer Jenks
Requirements of Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest Intruder = California Police (driving with expired license / possession –
 Limited to the person of the accused – for officer safety against weapons  warrant of arrest heroin)
which may be used to escape r search incidental to lawful arrest  probable cause
 Limited to the area within his immediate control – for preservation of evidence exceeded the area within the  limited to person of the accused
and protection from weapons immediate control
People v. Doria
In what instances may warrantless arrests be effected? People v. Bolasa  as to Doria because caught in
People v. Bolasa (1999) (marijuana repacking) flagrante delicto Rule 113 Sec. 5 (b)
People v. Escordial (2002) Intruder = police officers
People v. Doria (1999) r lawful arrest
Malacat v. Court of Appeals (1997) r plain view

RULE 113 People v. Escordial

Arrest r lawful arrest – 1 week after already
SECTION 5. Arrest Without Warrant; When Lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, r out of court identification
without a warrant, arrest a person:
a. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually  pro reus
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;  defense of alibi
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 People v. Doria
committed it; and r Gaddao illegal arrest
c. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal r Plain view
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.

RULE 130
 DEFINITION / DOCTRINE UNREASONABLE REASONABLE
SECTION 36. personal knowledge - derived from his own perception

Out of Court Identification

1. police show-up – the accused alone is brought face to face with the witness for
identification
2. police line-up – the suspect is identified by a witness from a group of persons gathered
for that purpose

buy-bust operation – a form of entrapment employed by peace officers as an effective way of

apprehending a criminal in the of the commission of an offense

entrapment – the ways and means are resorted to by the peace officer for the purpose of
trapping and capturing lawbreaker in the execution of his criminal plan

instigation – induces the would-be accused into the commission of the offense and himself as
a co-principal

RULE 126
Search and Seizure
SECTION 13. Search Incident to Lawful Arrest. — 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.
2. *Search of Moving Vehicles. Motor cars may be inspected at borders to prevent Caballes v. Court of Appeals
smuggling of aliens and contraband and even in the interior upon a showing of Intruder = 2 police officers
probable cause (theft – aluminum conductor wires)
Reasonable if r probable cause = kakawati leaves on
a. Officer merely draws aside the curtain of a vacant vehicle which is parked on the jeep
public fair grounds
b. Simply looks into a vehicle
c. Flashes a light therein without opening the car’s doors
Checkpoints People v. Escaño
d. Occupants are not subjected to a physical or body search Intruder = Makati Police
e. Inspection of vehicles is limited to a visual inspection  checkpoint was valid in view of the
f. Routine check is conducted in a fixed area COMELEC gun ban
**for the purpose of preventing violations of smuggling or immigration laws  search of trunk was valid because it
was a consented search

Valmonte v. De Villa
Intruder = NCR District Command
 DEFINITION / DOCTRINE UNREASONABLE REASONABLE
 checkpoint because of NPA sparrow
units attacking
 has the requirements for a valid
checkpoint

People v. Suzuki 😁
Intruder = PASCOM police officers
 checkpoint in airport valid
Requirements for reasonable search of a bus while in transit People v. Jerry Sapla  consented search
1) The manner of the search must be least intrusive Intruder = team of police officers  animus possidendi
2) The search must not be discriminatory (transportation – 4 bricks of marijuana leaves
3) It must be confined to ensuring public safety in blue sack)
4) It must convince the courts that precautionary measures were in place that no r probable cause = double hearsay
evidence was planted (text message from anonymous
concerned citizen)
3. Vessels and aircraft are also traditionally removed from the operation of the rule
because of their mobility and their relative ease in fleeing the state's jurisdiction
**for violation of customs laws
4. *Consented warrantless search. The individual may knowingly agree to be searched or
waive objections to an illegal search
Requirements for voluntary consent
 unequivocal
 specific
 intelligently given
 uncontaminated by any duress / coercion
Waiver
 the right exists
 that the person involved had knowledge, either actual or constructive, of the
existence of such right
 person had an actual intention to relinquish the right
5. *Seizure of evidence in plain view. It has also been held that prohibited articles may People v. Compacion 😁
be taken without warrant if they are open to eye and hand and the peace officer Intruder = Narcotics Command (NARCOM)
comes upon them inadvertently police officers
Plain View doctrine (cultivation – 2 marijuana plants)
 if the object itself is plainly exposed to sight r plain view requirements
 if the package is such that an experienced observer could infer from its r waiver
appearance that it contains the prohibited article  the right exists
**Requirements for Plain View doctrine  that the person involved had
 DEFINITION / DOCTRINE UNREASONABLE REASONABLE
 a prior valid intention based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police knowledge, either actual or
are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties constructive, of the
 the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have the right to existence of such right
be where they are  person had an actual
 the evidence must be immediately apparent intention to relinquish the
 plain view justified when there is seizure of evidence without further search right

People v. Valdez
Intruder = 5 police officers
(cultivation – 7 marijuana plants)
r plain view requirements
r admissible confession
 it must be voluntary
 it must be made with the
assistance of competent and
independent counsel
 it must be express
 it must be in writing
6. *Customs search
7. *Stop and frisk situations (Terry Patdown) Malacat v. Court of Appeals Terry v. Ohio
reasonable suspicion – specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational Intruder = police officers (possible robbery of store)
inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion (possession – hand grenade) Intruder = Officer McFadden
Terry patdown – a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in attempt r reasonable suspicion  reasonable suspicion
to discover weapons which might be used to assault him
8. *Exigent and emergency circumstances People v. De Gracia
Intruders = NCR Defense Command
(possession – ammunition and explosives)
 Emergency = coup d’etat
 Courts were closed
 Animus possidendi
9. **In cases of inspection of buildings and other premises for the enforcement of fire,
sanitary and building regulations
John Doe warrant People v. Veloso
General Rule: Intruder = police gambling squad
A John Doe warrant is void because a search warrant must conform strictly to the (gambling)
requirements of the constitutional and statutory provisions under which it is issued.  has descriptio personae in search
warrant even if John Doe warrant
Exception:  particularly describing the place to
 DEFINITION / DOCTRINE UNREASONABLE REASONABLE
When there is descriptio personae – indicates clearly the proper person or persons upon be searched
whom the warrant is to be served; and should state his  particularly describing the persons or
 personal appearance and peculiarities things to be seized
 give his occupation
 place of residence
 other circumstances by means of which he can be identified
General Warrant Stonehill v. Diokno
General Rule: Intruder = NBI agents
A general warrant is void because a search warrant must conform strictly to the requirements (unclear charges)
of the constitutional and statutory provisions under which it is issued. Probable cause
r particularly describing the place to
be searched
r particularly describing the persons or
things to be seized
Particular Description People v. Court of Appeals
 particularly describing the place to be searched Intruder = police officers
 particularly describing the persons or things to be seized (possession – firearms and explosives)
General Rule: r place searched was different from
What is material in determining the validity of a search is the place stated in the warrant the one stated in the warrant
itself, not what the applicants had in their thoughts, or had represented in the proofs they
submitted to the court issuing the warrant.
Secrecy of Bank Deposits Law (RA 1405) Marquez v. Desierto
General Rule: Intruder = ombudsman
Non-disclosure r No pending litigation under RA 3019,
Exceptions: only pending investigation
1. depositor consents in writing
2. impeachment case
3. court order in bribery / dereliction of duty cases
4. deposit is subject to litigation
5. Sec. 8, RA 3019, unexplained wealth cases
People v. Jerry Sapla
People v. Valdez
Nardone v. United States
People v. Alicando
Fruit of the poisonous tree
 Evidence procured on the occasion of an unreasonable search and seizure is deemed
tainted for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree and should be excluded. Such
evidence shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding.
 DEFINITION / DOCTRINE UNREASONABLE REASONABLE
 According to this rule, once the primary source (the "tree") is shown to have been
unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence (the " fruit") derived from it
is also inadmissible. 
 Stated otherwise, illegally seized evidence is obtained as a direct result of the illegal
act, whereas the "fruit of the poisonous tree" is the indirect result of the same illegal
act. The "fruit of the poisonous tree" is at least once removed from the illegally seized
evidence, but it is equally inadmissible.