Arrest and Searches and Seizures

Article III, 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 complainants and witnesses he may produce, and particularly
describing the place to be search and the persons and things to be seized.

SCOPE AND APPLICATION

- Constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures is available even to corporations.
- Stonehill v. Diokno

(a) those found and seized in the offices of the aforementioned corporations, and

petitioners herein have no cause of action to assail the legality of the contested
warrants and of the seizures made in pursuance thereof, for the simple reason that said
corporations have their respective personalities, separate and distinct from the personality of
herein petitioners, regardless of the amount of shares of stock or of the interest of each of
them in said corporations, and whatever the offices they hold therein may be.
it is well settled that the legality of a seizure can be contested only by the party whose
rights have been impaired thereby, and that the objection to an unlawful search and seizure is
purely personal and cannot be availed of by third parties. Consequently, petitioners herein may
not validly object to the use in evidence against them of the documents, papers and things
seized from the offices and premises of the corporations adverted to above, since the right to
object to the admission of said papers in evidence belongs exclusively to the corporations, to
whom the seized effects belong, and may not be invoked by the corporate officers in
proceedings against them in their individual capacity

(b) those found and seized in the residences of petitioners

using them in evidence against petitioners herein.

(1) whether the search warrants in question, and the searches and seizures made under the
authority thereof, are valid or not, and (2) if the answer to the preceding question is in the negative,
whether said documents, papers and things may be used in evidence against petitioners herein.

Petitioners maintain that the aforementioned search warrants are in the nature of general warrants
and that accordingly, the seizures effected upon the authority there of are null and void. In this
connection, the Constitution 13 provides:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon
probable cause, to be determined 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.
Two points must be stressed in connection with this constitutional mandate, namely: (1) that no
warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by the judge in the manner set forth
in said provision; and (2) that the warrant shall particularly describe the things to be seized.

None of these requirements has been complied with in the contested warrants.

- People V. Marti

On the other hand, the case at bar assumes a peculiar character since the evidence
sought to be excluded was primarily discovered and obtained by a private person, acting in a
private capacity and without the intervention and participation of State authorities. Under the
circumstances, can accused/appellant validly claim that his constitutional right against
unreasonable searches and seizure has been violated? Stated otherwise, may an act of a
private individual, allegedly in violation of appellant's constitutional rights, be invoked against
the State?

We hold in the negative. In the absence of governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed
by the Constitution cannot be invoked against the State.

As this Court held in Villanueva v. Querubin (48 SCRA 345 [1972]:

1. This constitutional right (against unreasonable search and seizure) refers to the immunity of
one's person, whether citizen or alien, from interference by government, included in which is
his residence, his papers, and other possessions.

That the Bill of Rights embodied in the Constitution is not meant to be invoked against acts of
private individuals finds support in the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission. True,
the liberties guaranteed by the fundamental law of the land must always be subject to
protection. But protection against whom? Commissioner Bernas in his sponsorship speech in
the Bill of Rights answers the query which he himself posed, as follows:

First, the general reflections. The protection of fundamental liberties in the essence of
constitutional democracy. Protection against whom? Protection against the state. The Bill of
Rights governs the relationship between the individual and the state. Its concern is not the
relation between individuals, between a private individual and other individuals. What the Bill
of Rights does is to declare some forbidden zones in the private sphere inaccessible to any
power holder. (Sponsorship Speech of Commissioner Bernas , Record of the Constitutional
Commission, Vol. 1, p. 674; July 17, 1986; Emphasis supplied)

The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures therefore applies as a
restraint directed only against the government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of
the law. Thus, it could only be invoked against the State to whom the restraint against
arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power is imposed.
 If the search is made upon the request of law enforcers, a warrant must generally be first
secured if it is to pass the test of constitutionality. However, if the search is made at the behest
or initiative of the proprietor of a private establishment for its own and private purposes, as in
the case at bar, and without the intervention of police authorities, the right against
unreasonable search and seizure cannot be invoked for only the act of private individual, not
the law enforcers, is involved. In sum, the protection against unreasonable searches and
seizures cannot be extended to acts committed by private individuals so as to bring it within
the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the government.

Requisite of a Valid Warrant

1. Existence of Probable Cause
a. Probable cause for issuance of search warrant

RULINGS:
People cs. Alunday
Case dytuy jay bontoc jay ada plantation na ti marijuana.
ISSUE: Was the arrest of the accused valid?
RULING:
YES. Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court provides that a peace officer or a private person
may, without a warrant, arrest a person when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit, an offense.
Section 5(a) refers to arrest in flagrante delicto. In flagrante delicto means caught in the act of
committing a crime. This rule, which warrants the arrest of a person without warrant, requires that
the person arrested has just committed a crime, or is committing it, or is about to commit an offense,
in the presence or within view of the arresting officer.

SPO1 Saipen saw accused-appellant personally cutting and gathering marijuana plants. Thus,
accused-appellant's arrest on 3 August 2000 was legal, because he was caught in flagrante delicto;
that is, the persons arrested were committing a crime in the presence of the arresting officers.

People vs. Doria

Buy bust mt dytuy. Ni doria talaga nakitransact isuna ngem ni gaddao ket inbaga na lng
nga kasbwat. So ni gaddao na acquit.

ISSUE: Whether or not the warrantless arrest of Doria is valid.

Whether or not the search of Gaddao’s person and house, and the admissibility of the pieces of
evidence obtained therefrom was valid.

Ruling:
Yes, the warrantless arrest of accused-appellant Doria is not unlawful.

Under Section 5 (a), as above-quoted, a person may be arrested without a warrant if he "has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense."
Here, Appellant Doria was caught in the act of committing an offense. When an accused is
apprehended in flagrante delicto as a result of a buy-bust operation, the police are not only
authorized but duty-bound to arrest him even without a warrant.

No, Accused-appellant Gaddao was not caught red-handed during the buy-bust operation to give
ground for her arrest under Section 5 (a) of Rule 113. She was not committing any crime. Contrary to
the finding of the trial court, there was no occasion at all for appellant Gaddao to flee from the
policemen to justify her arrest in "hot pursuit." In fact, she was going about her daily chores when
the policemen pounced on her.

Since the warrantless arrest of accused-appellant Gaddao was illegal, it follows that the search of her
person and home and the subsequent seizure of the marked bills and marijuana cannot be deemed
legal as an incident to her arrest.

Macad vs. People

Case dytuy about mt keni police officer nga nakasakay ti bus jay bontoc tas nasuspect na
nga ada marijuana na. Awan load na suta han na nainform kakadwa na plus han suna
naka uniform dat time. Ada ti probable cause tapnu masearch na jy tau ngem awan
inuray na py nagsardeng jay lugan kasi nu moving vehicle han agbalin agseaech nu awan
warrant. Idi kinamat na ijay cattinult aomething, timmaray so kinamat da tas inopen da
ket confirmed so pwede hay arrest.

ISSUE: WON the warrantless arrest is valid.

RULING: Yes, PO1 Falolo acquired probable cause to conduct a warrantless arrest on petitioner. There
were numerous circumstances and overt acts which show that PO1 Falolo had probable cause to
effect the said warrantless arrest: (1) the smell of marijuana emanating from the carton baggage; (2)
the irregular shape of the baggage; (3) the hardness of the baggage; (4) the assent of petitioner in
the inspection of his baggage but running away at the sight of SPO2 Suagen; and (5) leaving behind
his baggage to avoid the police officers.

Hence, the arrest is valid.

Revaldo v. People
Case dytuy jay kayu nga illegal na nga ifurfurnish. Valid isuna kasi awan permit na. Basta
dyta

ISSUE: Whether the warrantless search and seizure conducted by the police officers was legal.

RULING: Yes, the police officers had the authority to arrest petitioner, even without a warrant,
because Section 80 of the Forestry Code authorizes the forestry officer or employee of the DENR or
any personnel of the PNP to arrest, even without a warrant, any person who has committed or is
committing in his presence any of the offenses defined by the Forestry Code and to seize and
confiscate the tools and equipment used in committing the offense or the forest products gathered or
taken by the offender.
Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling in "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 presented as evidence.

Hence, the warrantless search is valid.

Luz vs. People

Case dytuy jay awan helmet na ti violation ak et dyta ngem idi innala da suna ijay pnp
ada nakita da nga Marijuana na so kinita da nu MJ talaga. Nagbaliktad jay case na kuma
so invalid jay search da kasi di violation ak et helmet.

ISSUE: Whether traffic stops are considered to be under custody of the law.

RULING: No, the court held that without valid arrest, the person cannot be considered under custody
and the questioning cannot be considered under custodial investigation for the person's Miranda
Rights to operate. In this case, the accused is not arrested, and the questioning made during the
traffic stop cannot be considered as under custodial investigation. Consequently, the search made by
police officers relying on an invalid warrantless arrest was also invalid. Therefore, making the
evidences obtained during such traffic stop invalid and inadmissible.

Hence, the rts’s decision wat reversed and Luz was acquitted.

Antiquera vs. People

Madama patrol ti police dtuy tapos dyta agasawa pinagsuspetyaan da so sinurut da gana
simrek da balay da tapos ada nakita da jewelry box nga ada MJ na jy uneg so naarrest da
ngem invalid kasi han na meet requirements ti warrantless arrest.

ISSUE: Whether or not there was valid warrantless arrest?

RULING: or 4 prvate pason ma), wthou a warant arest a person wen, nhis presence, he
person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense."
This is an arrest in flagrante delicto." The overt act constituting the crime MUST be done in the
presence or within the view of the arresting officer.
The circumstances in the present case do not make out a case of arrest made in in flagrante delicto.

Clearly, no crime was plainly exposed to the view of the arresting officers that authorized the arrest
of accused Antiquera without warrant under the above-mentioned rule. Considering that his arrest
was illegal, the search and seizure that resulted from it was likewise illegal.

BUY BUST CASE:

People vs. Dumagay
Aglaklako ni Dumagay ti mophine.

ISSUE: Whether or not the buy-bust operation was valid.

RULING: Yes, A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment used to apprehend drug peddlers. It is
considered valid as long as it passes the “objective test,” which demands that “the details of the
purported transaction during the buy-bust operation must be clearly and adequately shown, i.e., the
initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, and the promise or
payment of the consideration until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug
subject of the sale.”

Hence, the appeal is granted.

TIPS CASE:
People vs. Sapla
Kalinga case dytuy ta hay drugs from tabuk iyapan da isabela. So ada nagtio knyada nga
nakasakay jeep ni sapla karga ti karton nga MJ. So during jay search, nakita da jay drugs
ngem haan na met valid req.
ISSUE: Whether or not an informant’s tip is sufficient to engender probable cause?

Whether or not the police officers may justify the search as a search of a moving vehicle.

RULING: No, the Supreme Court has always said that a mere informant’s tip is not sufficient to
engender probable cause. The police officer receiving the informant’s tip must rely on his senses. The
police officer must not adopt the suspicion initiated by another person. The police officer, with his/her
personal knowledge, must observe the facts leading to the suspicion of an illicit act and not merely
rely on the information passed on to him/her.

No. As a rule, searches and seizures must be done with a court issued warrant. There are exceptions
such as search of a moving vehicle where a valid warrantless search and seizure may be effected.
But this exception comes with strict parameters which are: a) if the vehicle is parked on public fair
grounds, the officer may only draw aside its curtain, b) the officer may only look into the vehicle, c)
the officer may only flash a light without opening the vehicle’s doors, d) the occupants of the vehicle
are not subjected to physical/body search, e) limited to visual search, f) if done as a routine check,
must be conducted in a fixed area.

This case does not fall under search of a moving vehicle because the target of the search was not the
jeepney boarded by Sapla but rather the target was the person of Sapla. Based on the testimony of
the police officers, their actual target was the person fitting the description provided by the tip which
corresponded to Sapla and not the vehicle.

Hence, the search and seizure conducted was invalid and any evidence obtained therefrom is
inadmissible. Sapla was acquitted.

People vs. Rancho

Aglako suna ti drugs on board suna bus apan baler aurora tas pagbaba na, innala suna
policr apan police station tas nakita da white envelope drugs. Invalid
ISSUE: WON the warrant of arrest was violated.

(2) WON the evidence was admissible in evidence.

RULING:
(1) No, reliable information alone is not sufficient probable cause to effect a valid warrantless arrest.
The Supreme Court required the showing of some over act indicative of the criminal design.
(
2) No. This is an instance of seizure of the "fruit of the poisonous tree." Hence, the
The 1987 Constution states that a search and consequent seizure must be caried out with a
judicial warrant; otherwise, it becomes unreasonable and any evidence obtained therefrom shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. Said proscription, however, admits of exceptions,
namely:
1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest;
2. Search of evidence in "plain view;"
3. Search of a moving vehicle;
4. Consented warrantless search;
5. Customs search;
6. Stop and Frisk; and
7. Exigent and emergency circumstances.

People vs. Tudtud

Han na gamjn naawatan dytuy jy question police nga openen mi man ta karton mo so its
ALL RIGHT kunana. Hehe invalid

ISSUE: Whether or not Tudtud’s implied acquiescence (Tudtud’s statement of “it’s alright”) is
considered a waiver.
RULING: No, The right against unreasonable searched and seizures is secured by Sec. 2, Art. 3 of the
Constitution. Appellants implied acquiescence, if at all, could not have been more than mere passive
conformity given under coercive or intimidating circumstances and is, thus, considered no consent at
all within the purview of the constitutional guarantee.

Consequently, appellants lack of objection to the search and seizure is not tantamount to a waiver of
his constitutional right or a voluntary submission to the warrantless search and seizure.

Hence, tudtud and naret are aquitted.

Warrantless arrest

The probable cause to justify warrantless arrest ordinarily signifies a reasonable ground of
suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious
man to believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged,or an
actual belief or reasonable ground of suspicion, based on actual facts.

The Constitution of the Philippines, under Article III, Section 2, explicitly provides that no search
or arrest shall be made except with a warrant. However, there are legally sanctioned exceptions
to this rule, and one such notable exception is in the case of "in flagrante delicto" arrests,
commonly experienced during buy-bust operations.

IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO: LEGAL FRAMEWORK

"In flagrante delicto" or "caught in the act" arrests are permissible without a warrant under Rule
113, Section 5(a) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. This provision applies when a
person has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense in the
presence of the arresting officer. It is in these instances, such as buy-bust operations targeting
illegal drug trade, that law enforcement agencies claim an exemption from the warrant
requirement.

What is a search warrant?

A search warrant is an order in writing, issued in the name of the People of the Philippine
Islands, signed by a judge or a justice of the peace, and directed to a peace officer, commanding
him to search for personal property and bring it before the court. [Alvarez vs. Court of First
Instance of Tayabas, G.R. No. 45358, 29 January 1937]

2. What are the requisites of a valid search warrant?

The requisites are:

a. There must be probable cause;

b. The probable cause must be determined personally by a judge;

c. It must be issued after examination, under oath or affirmation, of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce;

d. The warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to
be seized
 3. What is probable cause?

Probable cause refers to 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.

4. What are the properties which may be seized under a search warrant?

The properties subject of seizure under Rule 126, Sec. 2 of the Rules of Court are:

a. Subject of the offense;

b. Stolen or embezzled property and other fruits or proceeds of the offense; and

c. Property used or intended to be used as a means for the commission of an offense.

A John Doe warrant is an arrest warrant for an individual whose name is not known to law
enforcement. These types of warrants may be issued by a court for an individual known by sight
but not by name.
This type of warrant may also be issued when a crime scene yields DNA evidence of the suspect.

1. In-Flagrante Delicto Arrests:

 A person can be arrested without a warrant if, in the presence of the police officer, the person has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. Essentially, the police officer
is witnessing the crime as it happens.

2. Hot Pursuit Arrests:

 A police officer may arrest a person without a warrant if the person has just committed an offense, and
the officer has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person is responsible for the crime. The
arrest must be made shortly after the criminal act.

3. Arrests of Escaped Prisoners:

  If a person has escaped from prison or detention or is evading the service of a valid sentence, they can
be arrested without a warrant.

4. Arrest of a Person who Voluntarily Surrendered:

 A person who voluntarily surrendered and confessed to committing a crime before any law enforcement
personnel or government functionary can be taken into custody without a warrant.

5. Lawful Arrests during Checkpoints:

 While routine inspections during checkpoints don't justify a warrantless arrest, if, during the course of
the checkpoint inspection, there's visible evidence of a clear violation of the law (like illegal possession
of firearms or prohibited drugs), a warrantless arrest may be made.

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.

1. What is a search warrant?

A search warrant is an order in writing, issued in the name of the People of the Philippine
Islands, signed by a judge or a justice of the peace, and directed to a peace officer, commanding him
to search for personal property and bring it before the court. [Alvarez vs. Court of First Instance of
Tayabas, G.R. No. 45358, 29 January 1937]

2. What are the requisites of a valid search warrant?

The requisites are:

a. There must be probable cause;

b. The probable cause must be determined personally by a judge;

c. It must be issued after examination, under oath or affirmation, of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce;

d. The warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to
be seized
 3. What is probable cause?

Probable cause refers to 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.

4. What are the properties which may be seized under a search warrant?

The properties subject of seizure under Rule 126, Sec. 2 of the Rules of Court are:

a. Subject of the offense;

b. Stolen or embezzled property and other fruits or proceeds of the offense; and

c. Property used or intended to be used as a means for the commission of an offense.

5. When are checkpoints allowed?

In the case of Valmonte vs. De Villa, the Supreme Court had the occasion to rule that checkpoints
are not illegal per se. Thus, under exceptional circumstances, as where the survival of organized
government is on the balance, or where the lives and safety of the people are in grave peril,
checkpoints may be allowed and installed by the government. Routine inspection and a few questions
do not constitute unreasonable searches. If the inspection becomes more thorough to the extent of
becoming a search, this can be done when there is deemed to be probable cause. In the latter
situation, it is justifiable as a warrantless search of a moving vehicle.

For as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to a body search, and
the inspection of the vehicle is limited to a visual search, said routine checks cannot be regarded as
violative of an individual’s right against unreasonable search. [Valmonte v. General de Villa, G.R. No.
83988, 24 May 1990]
 6. Is it required that the property to be searched should be owned by the person against whom
the search warrant is directed?

No. In Burgos, Sr. v. Chief of Staff, AFP [133 SCRA 800], the Supreme Court enunciated that it is
sufficient that the property is under the control or possession of the person sought to be searched.

7. Should the address in the search warrant match the actual place to be searched?

Yes, the address in the search warrant must match the actual place to be searched. In People vs.
Court of Appeals [ 291 SCRA 400], the Supreme Court ruled that the place to be searched, as set out
in the warrant, cannot be amplified or modified by the officers’ own personal knowledge of the
premises, or the evidence they adduced in support of their application for the warrant. The
particularization of the description of the place to be searched may properly be done only by the
Judge, and only in the warrant itself; it cannot be left to the discretion of the police officers
conducting the search.

8. What are the instances when a search may be made without a warrant?

The following instances allow a search without a warrant:

a. When there is a valid waiver of the right

b. Where the search is incidental to a valid arrest

c. Where the prohibited articles are in plain view. An example of such situation is when a
policeman is chasing a criminal and during the said chase, the policeman stumbled upon a drug den
where drugs and paraphernalia were scattered around.

d. In Stop and frisk situations or pursuant to a Terry Search. In the US case of Terry vs. Ohio, a
Terry Search has been defined as the right of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street,
interrogate him and pat him for weapons whenever he observes unusual conduct which leads him to
conclude that criminal activity may be afoot.

e. Search of moving vehicles

 f. Enforcement of immigration and customs law

g. Search under exigent and emergency measures

9. If the security guard in a mall wants to open my bag and check the inside thereof, isn’t there
a violation of my right against unreasonable search?

No, there is no violation of your right. Private search is not covered by the constitutional
guarantee. In the case of People vs. Marti [193 SCRA 57], the Supreme Court ratiocinated that in the
absence of governmental interference, the constitutional right against unreasonable search and
seizure cannot invoked against the State. The protection against unreasonable search and seizure
cannot be extended to acts committed by private individuals so as to bring it within the ambit of
alleged unlawful intrusion by the government.