POLITICAL LAW REVIEW

Lecture 14, Thursday, Sept. 17, 2020

5. Searches and Seizures201

a. Concept

Not just a circumscription of the power of the state over a person’s home and
possessions. More important, it protects the privacy and sanctity of the person himself.
It is a guarantee of the right of the people to be secure in their “persons…against
unreasonable searches and seizures”. It is therefore also a guarantee against unlawful
arrests and other forms of restraint on the physical liberty of the person. The
constitutional guarantee is not a prohibition of all searches and seizures but only of
“unreasonable” searches and seizures.
Available to all persons, including aliens, whether accused of a crime or not. Artificial persons
are also entitled to the guarantee, although they may be required to open their books of
accounts for examination by the state in the exercise of police and taxing powers.
b. Warrant Requirement

(1) Requisites

1. Probable Cause202
2. Determination of probable cause to be determined personally by the judge
after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he
may produce203

201 “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.”
(Art. III, Sec. 2).
202 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
Unlike proof of probable cause for warrant of arrest, probable cause for a search
warrant need not point to a specific offender. But in either case, it should be emphasized
that what is required is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but merely probable cause.
Evidence required to establish guilt is not necessary.
203 Art. III, Sec. 2

What the constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the
issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of the probable cause. In satisfying himself
of the existence of the probable cause for the issuance of the warrant of arrest, the judge
is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses and on the basis
thereof issue a warrant of arrest. He may also rely on the prosecutor’s report or if on the
basis thereof, he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the prosecutor’s report and
require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a
conclusion as to the existence of probable cause. (Soliven v. Makasiar, 167 SCRA 393)
Where the court upheld that in the exercise of the exclusive and personal
responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of the probable cause
for the issuance of the warrant of arrest, the judge is not required to personally examine
the complainant and his witnesses (Cruz Jr. v. People, 233 SCRA 439): in the preliminary

49
 3. Must refer to one specific offense
4. Particularity of description204
c. Warrantless Searches

Instances of Valid Warrantless Searches and Seizures:

1. When the right is voluntarily waived205

2. When there is valid reason to “stop-and-frisk”206

3. Where the search207 is an incident to a lawful arrest208.
4. Search of Vessels and Aircrafts209
5. Search of Moving Vehicles/Automobiles at borders or constructive borders210
6. Where prohibited articles are in plain view211

examination for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the court is not tasked to review in
detail the evidence submitted during the preliminary investigation. It is sufficient that the
judge personally evaluates the report and supporting documents submitted by the
prosecution in determining probable cause.
204 The court concluded in the case of People vs. Veloso, 42 Phil 886 that it is invariably

recognized that the warrant for the apprehension of an unnamed party is void
“except those causes where it contains a descriptio personae such as will enable the
officer to identify the accused.” The description must be sufficient to indicate clearly
the proper person upon whom the warrant is to be served. There is, however, a limit to
John Doe warrants. Thus, a warrant for the arrest of fifty John Does is of the nature of a
general warrant which does not satisfy the requirement of particularity of description.
(Pangandaman v. Casar 159 SCRA 599)
The “scatter-shot warrant” charging more than one offense was declared null and
void and the seizure of the money, which was not indicated in the warrant was held
unlawful.
205 Requisites of Valid Waiver:

1.That the right exists

2.That the persons involved had knowledge, either actual or constructive, of the
existence of such right
3.That the said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right.
206 The vernacular designation of the right of a police officer to stop a citizen on the

street, interrogate him and pat him for weapon(s). (Terry v. Ohio 392 US 1)
207 and seizure
208 Rule: Apply strictly Rule 126, Sec. 13, 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure:

“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”.
209 Where a fishing vessel found to be violating fishery laws maybe seized without a

warrant on two grounds: firstly, because they are usually equipped with powerful
motors that enable them to elude pursuit and secondly, because the seizure would
be an incident to a lawful arrest. (Roldan v. Arca, 65 SCRA 336)
210 Rule: Vehicles/automobiles may be searched only at borders or constructive

borders. Search made within the interior of territory is justified only if there is probable
cause.

50
 7. Inspection of buildings and other premises for the enforcement of fire, sanitary
and building regulations
8. Search and Seizure under exigent and emergency circumstances212
9. Conduct of “areal target zoning” and “saturation drive” in the exercise of
military powers of the President

10. Visual search at checkpoints

d. Warrantless Arrests

“A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

1. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually

committing or is attempting to commit an offense213

2. 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
committed it214

211 Under this exception, the objects “falling in the plain view of an officer who has a
right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be
introduced in evidence.”
Rule: The discovery must be inadvertent.
Thus, if an officer encounters prohibited objects only after poking around, the
discovery would not be inadvertent.
212 Where the SC deemed it a bounden duty, in light of advertence thereto by the

parties, to delve into the legality of the warrantless search conducted by the raiding
team. The instant case falls under one of the exceptions to the prohibition against
warrantless search. There was general chaos and disorder at that time because of the
simultaneous and intense firing within the vicinity of the office and in the nearby
Camp Aguinaldo which was under attack by rebel forces. The courts in the
surrounding areas were obviously closed and for that matter, the building and houses
therein were deserted. The raiding team had no opportunity to apply for and secure
a search warrant from the courts. Under such urgency and exigency of the moment,
a search warrant could lawfully be dispensed with. (People v. de Gracia, July 6, 1994)
213 The most common application of this in flagrante delicto rule is the buy-bust

operation conducted to enforce the Dangerous Drugs Act. A buy-bust operation is a

form of entrapment. The method is for an officer to pose as a buyer. He however
neither instigates nor induces the accused to commit a crime because in these cases
the seller has already decided to commit a crime. Since the offense happens right
before the eyes of the officer, there is no need for a warrant either for the seizure of
the goods or for the apprehension of the offender.
214 Otherwise known as the rule on hot pursuit arrests. In effecting this type of arrest, it

is not enough that there is reasonable ground to believe that the person to be
arrested has committed a crime. A crime must in fact or actually have been
committed first. The fact of the commission of the offense must be undisputed.
Law enforcement officers may not actually witness the execution of acts constituting
the offense, but they must have direct knowledge or view of the crime right after its
commission. They should know for a fact that a crime was committed.
Also, the arresting officers themselves must have personal knowledge of facts
showing that the person to be arrested, the suspect, performed the criminal act.

51
 3. 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 temporarily confined while his
case is pending or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. 215

e. Administrative Arrests216

Warrant of Arrest may be issued by administrative authorities but only for purpose
of carrying out a final finding of a violation of a law, cannot be for purpose of investigation.

There is an administrative arrest as an incident to deportation proceedings.

f. Drug, Alcohol and Blood Tests

A law requiring mandatory drug testing for students of secondary and tertiary
schools is constitutional. It is within the prerogative of educational
institutions to require, as a condition for admission, compliance with reasonable school
rules and regulations and policies. To be sure, the right to enroll is not absolute; it is
subject to fair, reasonable, and equitable requirements.

A law requiring mandatory drug testing for officers

and employees of public and private offices is constitutional.

As the warrantless clause217 is couched and as has been held, “reasonableness”

is the touchstone of the validity of a government search or
intrusion. Whether a search issued hews to the reasonableness
standard is judged by the balancing of the government
mandated intrusion on the individual’s privacy interest against the promotion of some
compelling state interest. In the criminal context, reasonableness requires showing
probable cause to be personally determined by a judge. Given that the drug
testing policy for employees and students for that matter
under R.A. 9165 is in the nature of administrative search needing what was referred
to in the Veronia case as “swift and informal procedures,” the
probable cause standard is not required or even practicable.218

215 Sec. 5, Rule 113, 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure

216 Where the SC ruled that the constitutional provision against unreasonable
searches and seizures does not require judicial intervention in the execution of a final
order of deportation issued in accordance with law. It contemplates an order of arrest
in the exercise of judicial power as a step preliminary to prosecution for a given
offense of administrative action, not as a measure indispensable to carry out a valid
decision by a competent official, such as legal order or deportation issued by the
Commission on Immigration in pursuance of a valid legislation. The requirement for
probable cause does not extend to deportation proceedings. (Morano v. Vivo, 20
SCRA 562)
217 Sec. 2, Art. III of the Constitution
218 SJS v. DDB and PDEA, G.R. No. 157870, Nov. 3, 2008

52