DEC 15 2020 CONSTI

WARRANTS
GR: SEARCH/SEIZURE VALID WITH WARRANT

VALID WARRANT
PROBABLE CAUSE for search is def as such facts or circ which would a lead a reasonable discreet
and prudent man to believe that an offense had been committed

Burgos v Chief of Staff

MALAYA, WE FORUM
SC: INVALID WARRANT. No PC for the search. No allegation of fact in the application. No
allegation that could effect PC, seize nothing specific giving policemen unlimited power to seize
anything as they see fit.
Warrant is an order from the judge to the police to seize something. Here, the police
determines PC because the order actually says to the police read everything then determine
what is subversive.
Specific thing
Prior determination by the judge.

CHANDLER V MILLER
Drug testing requirement for candidates; USSC: BLANKET SUSPICIONLESS SEARCH

P V CHUA HO SAN
Boat looked different, he flee when police approached him. Running away not crime

P V MOLINA
Trike; holding a bag inside trisikad, such is not a crime. PRIOR to the illegal search no authority
to search him. If PO did not search, then they would not know about the drugs.

AAA V CARBONELL
Rape case. Boss asked employee to run errand, when AAA came back everyone was gone, no
light in the office then the boss raped her. Rape was initially dismissed but was raffled to Manila
because boss said petitioner and her witnesses failed to take the stand.
SC: GAD. There was already complete records of the case to arrest the boss. There was already
a prior proceeding.

P V PASTRANA AND ABAD

Boiler room operation. Raid.
SC: Search warrant did not say what offense was committed so how do you know the articles
to be seized.

DE LE CRUZ V P
Extortion. NBI entrapped dirty cop. Blood test PO. Then filed Dangerous Drugs.
SC: reasonable limits of their authority. No connection between the extortion case and the
blood test.

STA ROSA MINING V FISCAL ZABALA

After filing of info, FISCALS are not clothed with power without consent of court to dismiss
criminal action.
Prior to filing, fiscal have power to determine probable cause, after info is filed, fiscal has no
power to dismiss case.

AMARGA V ABBAS
PC FISCAL V PC JUDGE
Fiscal is executive

PADERRANGO V DRILON
To hold a person for trial is the fiscal’s PC

PITA V CA
Mayor and police does not determine PC to issue search and seizure

ABDULLA V GUIANI

Court cannot simply rely on the proesec’s investigation. CONSTI: REQUIRES PERSONALLY
DETERMINES PC

PARTICULARITY OF DESCRIPTION
LAUD V P
DDS-DAVAO DEATH SQUAD
There was a person who testified against DDS, actually buried the bodies. Buried in the cave. He
gave directions to reach the cave. Cave was located, bodies (5) were found there.
LAUD: not particularly describe because no address.
SC: SPECIFIC enough so long as PO can find the place and the things seized: bodies. Only
particularity

MICROSOFT V MAXICORP
Fake Microsoft products; claim: defective warrant

SC: Partially defective warrant remains valid as to the valid. A warrant is severable.

P V SALANGUIT
Specific enough.

DEL CASTILLO V P
Nipa hut 20m away from the residence. Residence is the one described in the warrant.
Inadmissible; fruit of the poisonous tree. Police should not have discretion.

DIMAL AND CASTILLO V P

Overbroad warrant will comply with the particularity when the affidavit filed is physically
attached to the application.

NOLASCO V CRUZ PANO

If warrant does not specify books and instructions are, or manuals; no PC. DECRIPTO THAT IS
A CONCLUSION OF LAW IS NOT ALLOWED. CONCLUSION OF FACT ALLOWED.

PICOP V ASSUNCION
Place not specified. Fishing expedition. Address houses many offices/building.

YOUSED AL GHOUL V CA
No authority to go the next apartment.
Specificity in the object to be seized need not be to the smallest detail.

DEL ROSARIO V P
Limited to the items described in the warrant.

UNILAB V ISIP
IP case
Another fake med was found in the premises instead of the one described in the warrant.
SC: Cannot take the other med, plainview is N/A.

ONE SPECIFIC OFFENSE

LAUD V P
Not specific because 5 murders.
SC: different counts but 1 specific offense, nothing illegal about that.

OLAES V P
What is controlling is the body of the warrant, not the caption of the warrant.

CHIA V COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

Not a general warrant because several stores. It was particularly identified in the warrant.

PERSONAL EXAMINATION
Mamaril

PASION V DE GRACIA
INVALID because judge did not personally examine.
ALVAREZ
Affidavit was based not on personal knowledge. Illegally issued.
MATA V BAYONA
Lost stenog notes because not attached to the record. Hence, no evid to support judge’s
determination, hence invalid.

PRUDENTE V DAYRIT
Prudente Pres PUP; red-tagged by Marcos because of Light A Fire Movement; supposed
firearms in his office in PUP.
SC: OBVI, judge did not ask searching questions.
Logical questions must be asked. To make sure judges exercise real discretion.

Sir: if the consti is strict on the judge when it comes to warrants and they have the training
and expertise, isn’t it logical that it should be stricter to LEOs?

SEARCH OF ONE’S BODY

Dna, drug

SJS V DANGEROUS DRUGS

Drug testing of candidates, employees and students.
Candidates- cannot be tested because it adds requirement not stated in the constitution
But the 2 others may be tested:
1. Reduced expectation of privacy; subjective test: were you expecting privacy, objective
test: does society thinks such is an expectation.
EEs: ERs should know who they are employing.

Students: parens patriea

LUCAS V LUCAS
Paternity case; child wanted to have the father tested. Father does not want to because based
on hearsay.
SC: Father is right. No PC. No prima facie evidence that he is the father. There should be evid
other than the DNA test to allow the DNA test.

SEARCH
GR: WARRANT
XPN: VALID WARRANTLESS SEARCHES

Waiver
SITALA
Plain view
Moving vehicles
Stop and frisk
Customs, fishing and Immigration law

WAIVER
Consent that is unequivocal, specific, and intelligently given, uncontaminated by any duress
or coercion, will validate a search without a warrant.

P V OMAWENG
Consented search of boot of a car.

P V CORREA
Failure to object is consent, car search

P V RAMOS
Stood up is waiver. Under her seat, MJ.

P V BARROS
Peaceful submission to a search is not necessarily consent or waiver but merely a
demonstration of regard for the supremacy of the law.

POLLO V CONSTANTINO DAVID

CSC Chairman seized computers of regional office following tip that POLLO also defends officers
he is supposed to prosecute. In the computer, the pleadings were found. Pollo says right to
privacy violated.
Gov’t comp is public, it was in his office, not password protected, gov’t prop cannot be used
for private purposes.

VEROY V LAYAGUE
Rebels were allegedly hiding in their house. PO is friends with owners, consented search.
Found documents.

SC: No consent to open cabinets, only to look for rebels.

P V DAMASO
Only owner of the house may waive his right against unreasonable search.

LOPEZ V COMM OF CUSTOMS

Smuggled goods in a boat. Owner would check in a hotel. Found wife; attaché case was
opened because wife consented. Apparently, not the wife. Only the manicurist who was at
that time in the room was VALID waiver that authorized the search LOL there was
representation that they were husband and wife.
CABALLES V CA
Intimidating circ, not a valid waiver

P V ASIS
DEAFMUTE could not possible give consent. Even the wife cannot waive it for him because
such right is personal.

P V TUDTUD
Passive conformity under intimidating circ is not a valid waiver.

SITALA
Why allowed? Premise: arrest is legal. LEO has the right to take anything illegal from you and
to protect himself/herself. Under their control only.

CHIMEL V CALI
Only immediate control of person arrested. Beyond that illegal.

P V MALMSTEAD
Foreigner from Cordirella with drugs, Malmstead had belt bag; it was suspicious and couldn’t
give ID. MJ found in the belt bag. 2 bags in front of him also had MJ, driver of the bus said it
belonged to him.
SC: VALID

ESPANO V CA
Arrested outside of his house so house was no longer in his immediate control.

P V TANGLIBEN
Justified by the urgency of the case: intelligence info/tip
*now it must be coupled with overt acts

P V CHE CHUN TING

P V LIBNAO
Here, there was an overt act.

PLAIN VIEW
Patently illegal
LEO must have right to be where he was when he acquired the view
Spontaneous view, hindi hinanap

P V MUSA
Banga in it Plastic bag inside something wrapped in newspaper, turns out MJ.
SC: INVALID. It must be immediately apparent. Here, there was a search.

PADILLA V CA
Robin hit and run; he fled, but was pursued when he had his hands up, he was carrying .45 in
his waist and open car door revealed armalite. Armalite mag in his pocket.

SC: Legal because plain view.

Sir: should be SITALA not plain view.

P V VALDEZ
MJ plant found at the back of the house is not plain view. Officers had to enter the prop and
search before seeing the plant.

P V COMPACION
After surveillance op, MJ was found, police said it was PV.
SC: NO not PV.

ARIZONA V HICKS
Wayward bullet in an apartment. Found stereo equipment, pushed stereo to see serial
number. Confirmed that it was the same subject of the robbery.
Unjustified warrantless search hence inadmissible.

P V HUANG ZEN HUA

PV can be invoked so long as PO has the right to be there.

P V BOLASA
Teabags
They intentionally peaked through the window. Then they came in the house.

STOP AND FRISK

Terry search
Terry v Ohio

ANIAG V COMELEC

P V USANA

P V VINECARIO

P V GARDON MENTOY
Checkpoint
There was an intensive search not cursory.

EMERGENCY CIRC
P V DE GRACIA
Camp Aguinaldo
Hindi alam saan galling paputok, valid, there was general emergency. Besides no private citizens
because of the ongoing coup de etat.