A LAW

ENFORCEMENT’S
GUIDE TO BILL
OF RIGHTS
Prepared by: Atty. Al Joseph Javier
SEARCH AND SEIZURE
Article III, Sec.2, The right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature 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 searched and the persons or things to be seized. 
General Rule
There must be a valid search warrant, issued by a
magistrate clothed with power to issue or refuse to
issue search warrants. 
 A SEARCH WARRANT MUST HAVE:
The witnesses have first had knowledge of the specific crimes committed using
the five sense, must be personally examined by a judge

The items to be seized should be specific, all things that are not included
should be left out, the place must also be specific.

The person does not need to be named, although it must include a description
that would help officers to know the person to be searched.
Particularity of Description
The warrant should indicate the items to be seized. Things or items that
are not included in the warrant should not be seized. While the
description is not specific, but it must also be substantial to help officers
determine the items to be seized. It must also provide a descripto
personae that would help the police search for the accused
 PROBABLE CAUSE
The primary requirement for a search. The term deals with
probabilities. They deal with factual and technical
considerations which would lead a prudent man to believe
that a crime was committed. It should be supported by facts
and circumstances.
 DETERMINATION
The determination of probable cause is limited to a judge.
The judge can only issue a warrant if he or she had
personally examined the complainant under oath. They can
also conduct preliminary examinations. (Sesbreno vs. CA)
WITNESSESS
A witness must possess personal knowledge that a crime was
committed. To identify it must be observable using the 5
senses. The person must have first hand knowledge that a
specific act was committed and that the items sought is
related to the said act. 
PLACE
The place should be exact in the nature of the object to be
searched, and a search outside of the said demarcation is
invalid.

THING
A probable cause for a search warrant need not to be specific
in t, and largely depends on a case to case basis
CASE 1:
SEARCH OF
MOVING VEHICLES
At around 11:30 in the morning, an officer on duty received a phone call from
a concerned citizen, who informed the said office that a certain male individual
[would] be transpiring marijuana from Kalinga and into the Province of
Isabela. The officer relayed the information to their deputy commander, and
arranged a possible joint operation with the PDEA. The said officers then
proceeded to the detachment.

At around 1:00 in the afternoon, the officer received a text message which
stated that the subject male person who would transport marijuana [was]
wearing a collared white shirt with green stripes, red ball cap, and was carrying
a blue sack on board a passenger jeepney, with plate number AYA 270 bound
for Roxas, Isabela. Subsequently, a joint checkpoint was strategically organized
at the command post.
CASE 1:
SEARCH OF
MOVING VEHICLES
The passenger jeepney then arrived at around 1:20 in the afternoon, wherein
the police officers checkpoint flagged down the said vehicle and told its driver
to park on the side of the road. Officers approached the jeepney and saw the
man seated at the rear side of the vehicle. The police officers asked the man if
he is the owner of the blue sack in front of him, which the latter answered in
the affirmative.

The said officers then requested to open the blue sack. After opening the sack,
officers saw four (4) bricks of suspected dried marijuana leaves, wrapped in
newspaper and an old calendar. The officers then arrested the man. 
QUESTION
Can the police conduct a warrantless intrusive search of a
vehicle on the sole basis of an unverified tip relayed by an
anonymous informant? 
NO.
In Valmonte vs. Villa, the SC provides that search of moving vehicles (checkpoints) must
satisfy the following: 

● Must be limited to a visual search

● A routine check consisting of a brief question or two

● The occupants cannot be subjected to a body search unless there is probable cause. 

● The inspection is placed in a fixed area that is well lighted

Simply stated, a more extensive and intrusive
search that goes beyond a mere visual search of the
vehicle necessitates probable cause on the part of
the apprehending officer.

“Law enforcers cannot act solely on the basis of

confidential or tipped information. A tip is still
hearsay no matter how reliable it may be. It is
not sufficient to constitute probable cause in the
absence of any other circumstance that will
arouse suspicion.”
CASE 2:
SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO
ARREST
At around 12:45 in the morning of May 24, 2010, a Bantay Bayan
operative of Barangay San Antonio Village was doing his rounds
when he purportedly received a report of a man showing off his
private parts at another street. The operative went to the said street
and saw a visibly intoxicated person, which they later identified as
herein petitioner, urinating and displaying his private parts while
standing in front of a gate enclosing an empty lot. 
 
 CASE 2:
SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO ARREST
The operative approached petitioner and asked him where he lived,
and the latter answered Kaong Street. The operative then said that he
also lived in the same street but petitioner looked unfamiliar to him,
so he asked for an identification card, but petitioner failed to produce
one.

The operative then repeated the request for an identification card, but
instead, petitioner emptied his pockets, revealing a pack of cigarettes
containing one (1) stick of cigarette and two (2) pieces of rolled paper
containing dried marijuana leaves, among others. This prompted the
operatives  to seize the foregoing items, take petitioner to the police
station, and turn him, as well as the seized items, 
QUESTION
Is the marijuana leaves admissible as evidence? 
NO.
 A search incidental to a lawful arrest requires that there must first be a lawful arrest
before a search is made. Otherwise stated, a lawful arrest must precede the search;
"the process cannot be reversed.” In the present case the marijuana leaves serves as
the corpus delicti of the crime, and is thus inadmissible in court.
 
 An officer may take from an arrested person any money or property found in his or
her possession which might be evidence used in a trial. 

 The search should be within arms length of the person or an area of immediate
control.
CASE 3:
SEARCH IN PLAIN VIEW

A went to a Police Station to report a mauling incident where his

neighbor, B purportedly hit him with a piece of wood. He also
reported that B was illegally planting marijuana. A’s foregoing reports
prompted police officers to proceed to B’s home. Thereat, A
positively identified B who was then walking on the trail leading
towards his house. The police officers then arrested B before he
entered his home.
CASE 3:
SEARCH IN PLAIN VIEW

After the arrest, the officers saw 13 suspected marijuana plants

planted beneath the "gabi" plants just outside B’s home, and around a
meter away from where he was arrested. Upon seeing the marijuana,
the officers uprooted of the suspected marijuana plants. Thereafter,
they brought B and the uprooted marijuana plants to the police station
for the marking and inventory of the seized items. 
QUESTION
Is the marijuana leaves admissible as evidence? 
No. The e seizure of evidence in "plain view"
applies only: where the police officer is not
searching for evidence against the accused, but
inadvertently comes across an incriminating
object.

Clearly, their discovery of the cannabis plants

was not inadvertent. The seized marijuana
plants were not "immediately apparent" and a
"further search" was needed.

The discovery should be inadvertent. If an officer

encounters evidence while poking around, it is no
longer believed to be inadvertent. 
 The waiver must be made expressly or
impliedly, provided that it satisfies the

WAIVER OF following requirement; 

 The right exists

RIGHTS
 The person knows that such right exists
 The person has an actual intention to
relinquish such right 

Silence or even the act of opening his

bag under the coercion of the military
does not equate to a waiver of right.
The waiver should only be invoked by the
person, or someone that is permitted to waive the
said right. For example, a permission granted to
look for rebel soldiers is not a permission to look
for firearms. 
QUESTION
Can a person refuse an airport check up?
NO.
an d m a ll ro u ti n e ch eckups
Airpo rt
v e a lo w ex p e ct ati o n o f privacy.
ha

o v er, such pla ces a lso announce

More
-up.
that there will be a check
CASE 4:
SEARCH UNDER EXIGENT
CIRCUMSTANCE
In 1989, while government buildings were attacked by rebels,
authorities set up surveillance at a Eurocar shop in Quezon City.
Following a shooting incident outside of the shop, authorities raided
the building and found munitions, explosives, and heavy firearms
inside the building in the possession of the janitor, De Gracia.

De Gracia contend that the firearms did not belong to him, but to a
certain Col. Matillano who at that time, was detained for his alleged
role in instigating the coup d’etat. 
QUESTION
Is the search and seizure valid?
Given the state of the country with the ongoing
rebellion, the court held that the authorities have
probable cause to search the premises without a
warrant. Grave acts such as rebellion do not need a
judicial warrant as the act of seizing and detaining
the rebels are less dangerous. 

Warrantless search may be made under urgent and

exigent circumstances such as a coup d’etat where
officers believe that a crime is being committed,
and that courts are closed. (People vs De Gracia). 
CASE 5 :
STOP AND FRISK

● In the morning of March 17, 2010, police officers received

information from a police asset that the accused, A was standing
outside the Municipal Tourism Office of Dingras, Ilocos Norte
with a gun tucked in his waistband. To verify this information, the
police chief organized a team. Together, they proceeded to the
Municipal Tourism Office located around 20 meters from the
police station.
CASE 5 :
STOP AND FRISK

About five (5) to eight (8) meters away from the Municipal Tourism
Office, the police chief saw A standing outside the building. The team
slowly approached him for fear that he might fight back. As he moved
closer, the police chief saw a bulge on A’s waist, which the police
officer deduced to be a gun due to its distinct contour.
CASE 5 :
STOP AND FRISK

The Chief saw the object on A’s waist, and confirmed that there was a
gun tucked in his waistband. He disarmed A of the .45 caliber
handgun inside a holster, after which he arrested him for violating the
election gun ban and brought him to the police station for an inquest
proceeding. 
QUESTION
Is the search and seizure valid?
● There is a probable cause satisfied by a
suspicious belief for officers to believe that a
harm or a crime might be committed. (Terry
vs. Ohio) 

NOTE:
Looking from side to side, or running away
is not sufficient to be ruled as probable cause. It
must be anchored on a genuine reason. 
WARRANTLESS
ARREST
INFLAGRANTE
DELICTO
The arresting officer must have a personal knowledge
that a crime is being committed.

Buy bust operations are allowed, however not all

forms of entrapment is valid. What is prohibited is the
seduction of another person into a criminal career. 

Moreover, cases of rebellion and conspiracy are

considered as a continuing crime and that the accused
is presumed to be committing the crime even in his
sleep. 
HOT PURSUIT Mere presumption is
insufficient as there must be a
crime committed first and that
the arresting officer must
have a personal knowledge
that a crime is being
committed. 
QUESTION
Alden stole 500,000 pesos from Uniwide Malolos. Two
hours later, the Malolos Police led by Arjo responded to
scene and a high-speed car chase ensued.

Does the example qualify as a hot pursuit?

The undue delay of the police officers to respond
to the scene cannot qualify as a hot pursuit,
specifically since the scene of the crime was
merely a few blocks away from the station.

In fact, by that time, the police even had the

opportunity to secure a warrant.

REMEMBER: Hot pursuit must follow

immediately after the crime. As long as the police
did not stop from chasing a suspect, even if such
chase went on for two days, it would still qualify
for the same.
ESCAPED FROM
PRISON
QUESTION: can a prisoner who had escaped
from a hospital arrest qualify as a person
escaping from prison?

ANSWER: YES, as long as the person is

deprived of his/her liberty.
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION
Article III, Sec. 12,  Section 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission
of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and
to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the
person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These
rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate
the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary,
incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof
shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as
well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar
practices, and their families.
 REQUIREMENTS OF
A JUDICIAL
CONFESSION
  The confession must be voluntary;
 The confession must be made with
the assistance of competent and
independent counsel;
 The confession must be express; and,
 The confession must be in writing.
 ● A and B went to the police station to admit their

Case No. 6 participation in a recent murder.

● The police immediately conducted an

investigation and put their confessions in
writing. The investigators however could not at
once get the services of a lawyer to assist the
accused.

● Upon their acquiescence and assurance that

they understood their rights and did not require
the services of counsel, the investigation was
conducted with a priest, the municipal mayor,
and the police chief in attendance to listen to
the witness.
 ● Both A and B issued a voluntary statement in

Case No. 6 their participation in the crime.

● They also shared the same story to a reporter,

and a tape of their confession was aired. They
were also subsequently brought to the PAO
office in which they affirmed their crime. 

● However, in a sudden turn of events, the two

pleaded not guilty, and claimed that their
testimony was coerced and was made without
the presence of a counsel. 
QUESTION
Is A and B’s confession valid?
Pursuant to R.A. 7438, a counsel must always be
present unless it satisfies the following conditions:
(a) counsel of the accused must be absent,
(b) (b) a valid waiver must be executed.

Note: If the lawyer's role is diminished to being

that of a mere witness to the signing of a prepared
document albeit an indication therein that there
was compliance with the constitutional rights of
the accused, the requisite standards guaranteed by
Art. III, Sec. 12, par. (1), are not met.
DOJ CIRCULAR 61
 
SECTION 1.Concept .—Inquest is an informal and summary
investigation con-ducted by a public prosecutor in criminal
cases involving persons arrested and detained without the
benefit of a warrant of arrest issued by the court for the
purpose of deter-mining whether or not said persons should
remain under custody and correspondingly be charged in
court. 
DOJ CIRCULAR 61
SEC. 3.Commencement and Termination of Inquest.—The inquest
proceedings shall be
considered commenced upon receipt by the Inquest Officer from the law
enforcement authorities
of the complaint/referral documents which should include:
a. the affidavit of arrest;
b. the investigation report;
c. the statement of the complainant and witnesses; and
d. other supporting evidence gathered by the police in the course of the
latter’sinvestigation of the criminal incident involving the arrested
or detained person.
 02
THANK YOU