Study Plan

Constitutional Law II
Mickey Ingles
April 11 – 22, 2022

Article III, Section 2.

Study pointers:
• Know the codal by heart. Verbatim.
• Break down the codal into elements. Memorize the elements.
• When reading the cases, always take note which specific word or phrase of the codal
the case is interpreting. It’ll help guide you moving forward in your understanding of
every word of the codal.

When is a search a “search”?

1. *SJS v. DDB 570 SCRA 410 (mandatory drug testing, requirement of a valid search)

Study pointers:
• Can a school (public or private) conduct a routine check on lockers and bags to see
if students are hiding contraband like weapons, pornography, or drugs?

Requisites of a valid warrant

1. *People v. Veloso - 48 PHIL. 169 (John Doe warrant, description personae)

2. *Stonehill v. Diokno – 20 SCRA 383 (general warrants, rule on exclusion)
3. *Central Bank v. Morfe – 20 SCRA 507 (general pattern of business)
4. *Bache & Co. v. Ruiz - 37 SCRA 823 (depositions made by clerk) [Search Warrant]
5. *Soliven v. Makasiar - 167 SCRA 394 (judge not required to personally examine)
[Arrest Warrant}
6. *Lim, Sr. v. Judge Felix – 194 SCRA 292 (certification used by judge)
7. *People v. Francisco, G.R. 129035, Apr. 22, 2002 (different address of house)

Studypointers:
• What’s a general warrant?
• Is there an exception to the requirement of specificity?
• Who can object to or raise issues on searches and seizures?
• What’s the exclusionary rule? And what’s the practical reason behind it?
• When it comes to the personal determination of probable cause by a judge, what’s
the difference between an arrest warrant and a search warrant? When can a judge
rely on the certification of the fiscal?
• Differentiate People v. Francisco v. People v. Veloso (which is cited in Francisco).

Warrantless searches and seizures.

1. *MHP v. CA - 226 SCRA 227 (boy scout; enough time to apply for the warrant)
2. *People v. CFI - 101 SCRA 86 (moving vehicle)
3. *Roan v. Gonzales - 145 SCRA 687 (custodial legis)
4. *People v. Lo Ho Wing – 193 SCRA 122 (drug case – Hong Kong)
5. *People v. Malmstedt – 198 SCRA 401 (bus to Sagada)
6. *Posadas v. CA - 188 SCRA 288
7. *People v. De Gracia - 233 SCRA 716
8. *Aniag v. COMELEC - 237 SCRA 424 (gun ban; checkpoint)
9. *Malacat v. CA – 283 SCRA 159 (fast moving eyes)
10. *Padilla v. CA – 269 SCRA 402
11. *People v. Aruta – 288 SCRA 626
12. *Asuncion v. CA – G.R. 125959 February 1, 1999 (shabu in vehicle)
13. *People v. Valdez – G.R. 127801 March 3, 1999
14. *People v. Canton, G.R. 148825, Dec. 27, 2002 (airport search)
Constitutional Law II (Ingles)

15. *Esquillo v. People – 629 SCRA 370

16. *Luz v. People – 667 SCRA 421
17. *Disini v. Sec. of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, February 18, 2014
18. *Dela Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 209387, January 11, 2016
19. **Saluday v. People, G.R. No. 215305, April 3, 2018 (distinction between
“reasonable search” and “warrantless search”)

Study pointers:
• The general rule is that a warrant is required before a search. The exceptions are:
o Search incidental to a lawful arrest
o Consented searches (waiver)
o Moving vehicle
o Checkpoints
o Plain view
o Stop and frisk
o Enforcement of customs laws
o Airports checks
o Exigent circumstances
• Know the 1) purpose/rationale and 2) requisites of each valid warrantless search
and seizure.
o What’s the rationale of stop-and-frisk? How can you reconcile this rationale
with Esquillo?
o Which exception(s) does not require probable cause?
• Which cases above discuss which particular valid warrantless search and seizure?
Did the facts of the case allow the application of any of the enumerated exceptions?
o Be mindful of the facts. Read these cases carefully.
o It’s important to match the case to the particular exception to have a clearer
understanding and better retention. We remember stories more than
concepts. Anchoring the exceptions to a particular case or story will do
wonders for your retention and understanding.

Searches and seizures “of whatever nature and for whatever purpose.”

1. *Material Distributors v. Natividad - 84 PHIL. 127 (Rules of Court – production of

documents)
2. *Camara v. Municipal Court - 387 US 523 (housing inspector)

Study pointers:
• Camara is an American Case. Can this be applied to the Philippine setting? Can a
building inspector or government regulator enter a business establishment or even a
house without a warrant on the guise of oversight or public safety?
o Go back to Esquillo. There’s an enumeration of exceptions quoted in the
case. See if there’s anything that can be a basis for the local application of
Camara.
o When applying for a local business permit, can the local government require
the periodic inspection of premises as a condition to secure the permit?

Warrantless arrests
1. *Harvey v. Defensor-Santiago - 162 SCRA 840 (pedophilia)
2. *People v. Aminnudin - 163 SCRA 402 (disembarking from ship)
3. *People v. Burgos - 144 SCRA 1 (seditious materials; arrested while plowing)
4. *Umil v. Ramos - 187 SCRA 311 (Main) and October 3, 1991 (MR) (continuing
offense)
5. *Go v. CA – 206 SCRA 138 (arrested without warrant six days after commission)
6. *People v. Mengote - 210 SCRA 174 (looking side to side)
7. *Manalili v. CA – 280 SCRA 400 (drug user with red eyes and swaying side to side)
8. *People v. Jayson – 282 SCRA 166
9. *Pestillos v. Generoso – 739 SCRA 337

2
Constitutional Law II (Ingles)

10. *Commerciante v. People – 763 SCRA 587

11. *Ongcoma Hadji v. People – 768 SCRA 584

Study pointers:
• Study the cases along with Rule 113, Sections 5 and 13 (Rules of Court), which
helpfully enumerate the instances when warrantless arrests are valid.
• Note the difference between being arrested for a crime and being convicted of a
crime. What are the standards for both?
• What are the requisites of each valid warrantless arrest? What’s the rationale?
• Match the cases above with the particular valid warrantless arrest. Did the facts of
the case allow the application of any of the enumerated exceptions?
• What are the three kinds of probable cause under Pestillos?