SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
occupant committed a criminal activity;
SEARCH WARRANT
Rule 126 (ROC)
Section 1. Search warrant defined. — A search warrant is an
order in writing issued in the name of the People of the
Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer,
commanding him to search for personal property described
therein and bring it before the court.
Section 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. — 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.
People v. Aruta
 A search may be conducted by law enforcers only on
the strength of a search warrant validly issued by a
judge as provided in Article III, Section 2 of the
Constitution which provides:
o 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 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.
 This constitutional guarantee is not a blanket
prohibition against all searches and seizures as it
operates only against “unreasonable” searches and
seizures. Searches and seizures are normally
unreasonable unless authorized by a validly issued
search warrant or warrant of arrest.
 Articles which are the product of unreasonable
searches and seizures are inadmissible as
evidence.
o Sec. 3(2). Any evidence obtained in violation
of this or the preceding section shall be
inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in
any proceeding.
 WHEN A WARRANTLESS SEARCH IS ALLOWED
1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest
recognized under Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules of
Court 8 and by prevailing jurisprudence;
2. Seizure of evidence in “plain view,” the elements of
which are:
(a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid
warrantless arrest in which the police are
legally present in the pursuit of their official
duties;
(b) the evidence was inadvertently
discovered by the police who had the right to
be where they are;
(c) the evidence must be immediately
apparent, and
(d) “plain view” justified mere seizure of
evidence without further search;
3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the
government, the vehicle’s inherent mobility reduces
expectation of privacy especially when its transit in
public thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable
suspicion amounting to probable cause that the
4. Consented warrantless search;
5. Customs search;
6. Stop and Frisk; and
7. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances.
 The essential requisite of probable cause must still
be satisfied before a warrantless search and seizure
can be lawfully conducted.
o Probable cause generally 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.
o It likewise refers to the existence of such
facts and circumstances which could lead a
reasonably discreet and prudent man to
believe that an offense has been committed
and that the item(s), article(s) or object(s)
sought in connection with said offense or
subject to seizure and destruction by law is
in the place to be searched.
o Before a search warrant can be issued, it
must be shown by substantial evidence
that the items sought are in fact seizable by
virtue of being connected with criminal
activity, and that the items will be found in
the place to be searched.
Manalili v. CA
 Stop and Frisk - the vernacular designation of the
right of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street,
interrogate him, and pat him for weapons.
 People v. Lacerna recognized five exceptions to the
rule against warrantless search and seizure: (1)
search incidental to a lawful arrest, (2) search of
moving vehicles, (3) seizure in plain view, (4) customs
search, and (5) waiver by the accused themselves of
their right against unreasonable search and seizure.
o In these cases, the search and seizure may
be made only with probable cause as the
essential requirement.
 Stop-and-frisk has already been adopted as another
exception to the general rule against a search without
a warrant.
o There are many instances where a search
and seizure can be effected without
necessarily being preceded by an arrest, one
of which is stop-and-frisk.
World Wide Web Corporation v. People
 In the issuance of a search warrant, probable cause
requires "such facts and circumstances that would
lead a reasonably prudent man to believe that an
offense has been committed and the objects sought in
connection with that offense are in the place to be
searched."
 The things to be seized must be described with
particularity. Technical precision of description is not
required. It is only necessary that there be reasonable
particularity and certainty as to the identity of the
property to be searched for and seized, so that the
warrant shall not be a mere roving commission.
Indeed, the law does not require that the things to be
seized must be described in precise and minute detail
as to leave no room for doubt on the part of the
searching authorities. If this were the rule, it would be
virtually impossible for the applicants to obtain a
 warrant as they would not know exactly what kind of
things to look for. Any description of the place or thing
to be searched that will enable the officer making the
search with reasonable certainty to locate such place
or thing is sufficient.
 A search warrant need not describe the items to
be seized in precise and minute detail. The
warrant is valid when it enables the police officers
to readily identify the properties to be seized and
leaves them with no discretion regarding the
articles to be seized.
NATURE OF SEARCH WARRANT PROCEEDING
PLDT v. Alvarez
 The purposes of the constitutional provision against
unlawful searches and seizures are to: (i) prevent the
officers of the law from violating private security in
person and property and illegally invading the sanctity
of the home; and (ii) give remedy against such
usurpations when attempted or committed.
 REQUIREMENTS FOR SEARCH WARRANT:
(1) the existence of probable cause; (2) the probable
cause must be determined personally by the judge;
(3) the judge must examine, in writing and under oath
or affirmation, the complainant and the witnesses he
or she may produce; (4) the applicant and the
witnesses testify on the facts personally known to
them; and (5) the warrant specifically describes the
place to be searched and the things to be seized.
 A search warrant proceeding is a special criminal
and judicial process akin to a writ of discovery.
o Responds only to an incident in the main
case; an order granting or denying it may be
questioned only thru a petition for certiorari
(Rule 65).
o The higher court must determine if there was
GAB from the lower court. GAB: capricious
and whimsical exercise of judgment
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or to the
exercise of power in an arbitrary or despotic
manner by reason of passion or personal
hostility or in a manner so patent and gross
as to amount to an invasion of positive duty
or to the virtual refusal to perform the duty
enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of
the law.
o In such proceeding, it must be determined
whether the requirements and limitations
provided under the Constitution and the
Rules of Court were properly complied
with, from the issuance of the warrant up
to its implementation. Strict compliance
with the constitutional and procedural
requirements is required. A judge who issues
a search warrant without complying with
these requirements commits grave abuse of
discretion.
 In search warrant proceedings, probable cause is
defined as such facts and circumstances that 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.
o The court must necessarily determine
whether an offense exists to justify the
issuance or quashal of the search
warrant because the personal properties that
may be subject of the search warrant are
very much intertwined with the “one specific
offense” requirement of probable cause.
FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE DOCTRINE
People v. Valdez
 The Constitution lays down the general rule that a
search and seizure must be carried on the strength of
a judicial warrant. Otherwise, the search and seizure
is deemed "unreasonable." Evidence procured on the
occasion of an unreasonable search and seizure is
deemed tainted for being the proverbial fruit of a
poisonous tree and should be excluded. Such
evidence shall be inadmissible in evidence for any
purpose in any proceeding.
People v. Raquero
 The 1987 Constitution states that a search and
consequent seizure must be carried 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 v. Cogaed
 The Constitution provides:
o Any evidence obtained in violation of [the
right against unreasonable searches and
seizures] shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding.
 Otherwise known as the exclusionary rule or the
fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, this rule
prohibits the issuance of general warrants that
encourage law enforcers to go on fishing expeditions.
Evidence obtained through unlawful seizures should
be excluded as evidence because it is "the only
practical means of enforcing the constitutional
injunction against unreasonable searches and
seizures." It ensures that the fundamental rights to
one’s person, houses, papers, and effects are not
lightly infringed upon and are upheld.
Additional
 According to this rule, once the primary source (the
"tree") is shown to have been unlawfully obtained,
any secondary or derivative evidence (the " fruit ")
derived from it is also inadmissible. Stated
otherwise, illegally seized evidence is obtained as a
direct result of the illegal act, whereas the "fruit of the
poisonous tree" is the indirect result of the same
illegal act. The "fruit of the poisonous tree" is at least
once removed from the illegally seized evidence, but it
is equally inadmissible. The rule is based on the
principle that evidence illegally obtained by the State
should not be used to gain other evidence because
the originally illegally obtained evidence taints all
evidence subsequently obtained.
INEVITABLE DISCOVERY DOCTRINE
People v. Alicando
  Courts have generally approved the view that it is
not necessary to hold that all evidence is fruit of
the poisonous tree. Under one of the recognized
exceptions, the more appropriate question in such
cases is whether the evidence to which the objection
is made would not have been discovered at all but for
the illegality or would have been discovered
anyway by sources or procedures independent of
the illegality. Another exception refuses to treat the
doctrine as absolutely sacred if the evidence in
question would have been inevitably discovered under
normal conditions.
 In a long line of cases, courts have recognized that
evidence derived from information obtained
illegally is not absolutely inadmissible under the
fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine where it is
shown that such evidence would have been
inevitably gained even without the unlawful act.
PRIVATE SEARCHES
GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE
People v. Marti
 Where the property was taken into custody of the
police at the specific request of the manager and
where the search was initially made by the owner
there is no unreasonable search and seizure within
the constitutional meaning of the term.
 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, 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.
VESSEL SECURITY OFFICER
People v. Bongcarawan
 The baggage of the accused-appellant was searched
by the vessel security personnel. It was only after they
found shabu inside the suitcase that they called the
Philippine Coast Guard for assistance. The search
and seizure of the suitcase and the contraband
items was therefore carried out without
government intervention, and hence, the
constitutional protection against unreasonable
search and seizure does not apply.
o The vessel security officer in the case at bar
is a private employee and does not
discharge any governmental function.
NATURE / WAIVER OF RIGHT
Villanueva v. Querubin
 This constitutional right 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. Since, moreover, it is
invariably through a search and seizure that such an
invasion of one's physical freedom manifests itself, it
is made clear that he is not to be thus molested,
unless its reasonableness could be shown. To be
impressed with such a quality, it must be
accomplished through a warrant, which should not be
issued unless probable cause is shown, to be
determined by a judge after examination under oath
or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he
may produce, with a particular description of the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be
seized.
People v. Cogaed
 As a general rule, searches conducted with a
warrant that meets all the requirements of this
provision are reasonable. This warrant requires the
existence of probable cause that can only be
determined by a judge. The existence of probable
cause must be established by the judge after asking
searching questions and answers. Probable cause at
this stage can only exist if there is an offense alleged
to be committed. Also, the warrant frames the
searches done by the law enforcers. There must be a
particular description of the place and the things to be
searched.
 Cogaed’s silence or lack of aggressive objection was
a natural reaction to a coercive environment brought
about by the police officer’s excessive intrusion into
his private space. The prosecution and the police
carry the burden of showing that the waiver of a
constitutional right is one which is knowing, intelligent,
and free from any coercion. In all cases, such
waivers are not to be presumed.
 For a valid waiver by the accused of his or her
constitutional right, it is not sufficient that the
police officer introduce himself or herself, or be
known as a police officer. The police officer must
also inform the person to be searched that any
inaction on his or her part will amount to a waiver of
any of his or her objections that the circumstances do
not amount to a reasonable search. The police officer
must communicate this clearly and in a language
known to the person who is about to waive his or her
constitutional rights. There must be an assurance
given to the police officer that the accused fully
understands his or her rights. The fundamental nature
of a person’s constitutional right to privacy requires no
less.
SCOPE OF PROTECTION
Burgos v. Chief of Staff (ESCRA)
 Fact that some of the personal properties seized
do not belong to the person against whom a
search warrant was directed, not a sufficient
ground to annul the same.—The above rule (Sec. 1,
Rule 126) does not require that the property to be
seized should be owned by the person against whom
the search warrant is directed. It may or may not be
owned by him. In fact, under subsection [b] of the
above-quoted Section 2, one of the properties that
may be seized is stolen property. Necessarily, stolen
property must be owned by one other than the person
in whose possession it may be at the time of the
search and seizure. Ownership, therefore, is of no
consequence, and it is sufficient that the person
against whom the warrant is directed has control or
possession of the property sought to be seized, as
petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr. was alleged to have in
relation to the articles and property seized under the
warrants.
  A search warrant in the nature of a general
warrant is constitutionally objectionable.—In
Stanford v. State of Texas, the search warrant which
authorized the search for ‘books, records, pamphlets,
cards, receipts, lists, memoranda, pictures, recordings
and other written instruments concerning the
Communist Parties of Texas, and the operation of the
Communist Party in Texas,” was declared void by the
U.S. Supreme Court for being too general. In like
manner, directions to “seize any evidence in
connection with the violation of SDC 13-3703 or
otherwise” have been held too general, and that
portion of a search warrant which authorized the
seizure of any “paraphernalia which could be used to
violate Sec. 54-197 of the Connecticut General
Statutes [the statute dealing with the crime of
conspiracy]” was held to be a general warrant, and
therefore invalid. The description of the articles sought
to be seized under the search warrants in question
cannot be characterized differently.
RA 4200 (Anti-wire tapping)
Gaanan v. IAC
 The law refers to a "tap" of a wire or cable or the use
of a "device or arrangement" for the purpose of
secretly overhearing, intercepting, or recording
the communication. There must be either a physical
interruption through a wiretap or the deliberate
installation of a device or arrangement in order to
overhear, intercept, or record the spoken words.
o An extension telephone cannot be placed in
the same category as a dictaphone,
dictagraph or the other devices enumerated
in Section 1 of RA No. 4200 as the use
thereof cannot be considered as "tapping"
the wire or cable of a telephone line. The
telephone extension in this case was not
installed for that purpose.
o The “device or arrangement” contemplated
by law refers to instruments whose
installation or presence cannot be presumed
by the party or parties being overheard
because, by their very nature, they are not
of common usage and their purpose is
precisely for tapping, intercepting or
recording a telephone conversation.
PROBABLE CAUSE
CONCEPT
Burgos v. Chief of Staff
 Probable cause for a search is defined as 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.
 In mandating that "no warrant shall issue except upon
probable cause to be determined by the judge, ... after
examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce; the
Constitution requires no less than personal
knowledge by the complainant or his witnesses of
the facts upon which the issuance of a search
warrant may be justified.
People v. Aruta
 The essential requisite of probable cause must still
be satisfied before a warrantless search and seizure
can be lawfully conducted.
o Probable cause generally 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.
o It likewise refers to the existence of such
facts and circumstances which could lead a
reasonably discreet and prudent man to
believe that an offense has been committed
and that the item(s), article(s) or object(s)
sought in connection with said offense or
subject to seizure and destruction by law is
in the place to be searched.
o Before a search warrant can be issued, it
must be shown by substantial evidence
that the items sought are in fact seizable by
virtue of being connected with criminal
activity, and that the items will be found in
the place to be searched.
People v. Estrada
 Probable cause must be the best evidence that
could be obtained under the circumstances. The
introduction of such evidence is necessary especially
in cases where the issue is the existence of the
negative ingredient of the offense charged - for
instance, the absence of a license required by law, as
in the present case - and such evidence is within the
knowledge and control of the applicant who could
easily produce the same. But if the best evidence
could not be secured at the time of application, the
applicant must show a justifiable reason therefor
during the examination by the judge.
Microsoft v. Maxicorp
 The judge determining probable cause must do so
only after personally examining under oath the
complainant and his witnesses. The oath required
must refer to the truth of the facts within the personal
knowledge of the petitioner or his witnesses,
because the purpose thereof is to convince the
committing magistrate, not the individual making the
affidavit and seeking the issuance of the warrant, of
the existence of probable cause. Reliable information
is insufficient. Mere affidavits are not enough, and the
judge must depose in writing the complainant and his
witnesses.
Laud v. People
 A finding of probable cause needs only torest on
evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime
has been committed and that it was committed by the
accused. Probable cause demands more than bare
suspicion; it requires less than evidence which would
justify conviction. The existence depends to a large
degree upon the finding or opinion of the judge
conducting the examination. However, the findings
of the judge should not disregard the facts before him
nor run counter to the clear dictates of reason.
DETERMING PROBABLE CAUSE
Person Authorized (Rule 126)
Sec. 4. Requisites for issuing search warrant. – A search
warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause in
connection with one specific offense to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witness he may
produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched
and the things to be seized which may be anywhere in the
Philippines.
People v. Tuan
 A magistrate’s determination of probable cause for the
issuance of a search warrant is paid great deference
by a reviewing court, as long as there was substantial
basis for that determination. Substantial basis
means that the questions of the examining judge
brought out such facts and circumstances as would
lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to
believe that an offense has been committed, and the
objects in connection with the offense sought to be
seized are in the place sought to be searched.
People v. Mamaril
 In determining the existence of probable cause, it
is required that: (1) the judge must examine the
complainant and his witnesses personally; (2) the
examination must be under oath; and (3) the
examination must be reduced in writing in the form of
searching questions and answers.
 Mere affidavits of the complainant and his
witnesses are thus not sufficient. The examining
Judge has to take depositions in writing of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce and
to attach them to the record. Such written deposition
is necessary in order that the Judge may be able to
properly determine the existence or non-existence of
the probable cause, to hold liable for perjury the
person giving it if it will be found later that his
declarations are false.
Tan v. Sy Tiong Gue
 A search warrant may be issued only if there is
probable cause in connection with only one specific
offense alleged in an application on the basis of the
applicant’s personal knowledge and his or her
witnesses.
Personal Examination by Searching Questions on the
Complainant and Witness
Hon Ne Chan v. Honda
 It is settled that in determining probable cause, a
judge is duty-bound to personally examine under
oath the complainant and the witnesses he may
present. Emphasis must be laid on the fact that the
oath required must refer to the truth of the facts within
the personal knowledge of the petitioner or his
witnesses, because the purpose thereof is to
convince the committing magistrate, not the
individual making the affidavit and seeking the
issuance of the warrant, of the existence of probable
cause. Search warrants are not issued on loose,
vague or doubtful basis of fact, or on mere suspicion
or belief.
Description of Place to be Searched
Roan v. Gonzales
 To be valid, a search warrant must be supported by
probable cause to be determined by the judge or
some other authorized officer after examining the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce. No
less important, there must be a specific description of
the place to be searched and the things to be seized,
to prevent arbitrary and indiscriminate use of the
warrant
PICOP v. Asuncion
 In view of the manifest objective of the constitutional
safeguard against unreasonable search, the
Constitution and the Rules limit the place to be
searched only to those described in the warrant.
Thus, this Court has held that this constitutional right
[i]s the embodiment of a spiritual concept: the belief
that to value the privacy of home and person and to
afford its constitutional protection against the long
reach of government is no less than to value human
dignity, and that his privacy must not be disturbed
except in case of overriding social need, and then
only under stringent procedural safeguards.
Additionally, the requisite of particularity is related to
the probable cause requirement in that, at least under
some circumstances, the lack of a more specific
description will make it apparent that there has not
been a sufficient showing to the magistrate that the
described items are to be found in a particular place.
 What is material in determining the validity of a
search is the place stated in the warrant itself, not
what the applicants had in their thoughts, or had
represented in the proofs they submitted to the court
issuing 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.
Things that May Be Seized
People v. Salanguit
 Under the plain view doctrine, unlawful objects
within the plain view of an officer who has the right to
be in the position to have that view are subject to
seizure and may be presented in evidence.
o For this doctrine to apply, there must be: (a)
prior justification; (b) inadvertent discovery of
the evidence; and (c) immediate apparent
illegality of the evidence before the police.
 Once the valid portion of the search warrant has
been executed, the plain view doctrine can no
longer provide any basis for admitting the other
items subsequently found.
 What the plain view cases have in common is that the
police officer in each of them had a prior justification
for an intrusion in the course of which he came
inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating
the accused. The doctrine serves to supplement the
prior justification whether it be a warrant for another
object, hot pursuit, search incident to lawful arrest, or
some other legitimate reason for being present
unconnected with a search directed against the
accused and permits the warrantless seizure. Of
course, the extension of the original justification is
legitimate only where it is immediately apparent to the
police that they have evidence before them; the plain
view doctrine may not be used to extend a general
exploratory search from one object to another
until something incriminating at last emerges.
Burgos v. Chief of Staff
  Section 2, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court,
enumerates the personal properties that may be
seized under a search warrant, to wit:
o Sec. 2. Personal Property to be seized. — A
search warrant may be issued for the search
and seizure of the following personal
property:
[a] Property subject of the offense;
[b] Property stolen or embezzled and other
proceeds or fruits of the offense; and
[c] Property used or intended to be used as
the means of committing an offense.
 The above rule does not require that the property
to be seized should be owned by the person
against whom the search warrant is directed. It
may or may not be owned by him. In fact, under
subsection [b] of the above-quoted Section 2, one of
the properties that may be seized is stolen property.
Necessarily, stolen property must be owned by one
other than the person in whose possession it may be
at the time of the search and seizure. Ownership,
therefore, is of no consequence, and it is
sufficient that the person against whom the
warrant is directed has control or possession of
the property sought to be seized.
Garbage search
California v. Greenwood
 The Court held that under the Fourth Amendment, no
warrant was necessary to search the trash
because Greenwood had no reasonable expectation
of privacy in it. Although Greenwood had hidden the
trash from view by putting in opaque plastic bags and
expected it to be on the street only a short time before
it would be taken to the dump, the Court believed it to
be “common knowledge” that garbage at the side of
the street is “readily accessible to animals, children,
scavengers, snoops, and other members of the
public.” Moreover, Greenwood had left the trash there
expressly so that the trash collector, a stranger, could
take it. Quoting Katz v. United States, the court
concluded that "[w]hat a person knowingly
exposes to the public, even in his own home or
office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment
protection."
FORM AND CONTENT OF WARRANT
Mustang Lumber v. CA (ESCRA)
 Search Warrants; A search warrant has a lifetime
of ten days and it could be served at any time
within the said period, and if its object or purpose
cannot be accomplished in one day, the same
may be continued the following day or days until
completed.—We also affirm the rulings of both the
trial court and the Court of Appeals that the search on
4 April 1990 was a continuation of the search on 3
April 1990 done under and by virtue of the search
warrant issued on 3 April 1990 by Executive Judge
Osorio. Under Section 9, Rule 126 of the Rules of
Court, a search warrant has a lifetime of ten days.
Hence, it could be served at any time within the said
period, and if its object or purpose cannot be
accomplished in one day, the same may be continued
the following day or days until completed. Thus, when
the search under a warrant on one day was
interrupted, it may be continued under the same
warrant the following day, provided it is still within the
ten-day period.
Bache and Co. v. Ruiz (ESCRA)
 Search warrant to issue for one specific
offense.—The Supreme Court deemed it fit to amend
Section 3 of Rule 122 of the former Rules of Court by
providing in its counterpart, under the Revised Rules
of Court, that “a search warrant shall not issue but
upon probable cause in connection with one specific
offense.” Not satisfied with this qualification, the
Supreme Court added thereto a paragraph, directing
that “no search warrant shall issue for more than one
specific offense.”
 Particular description of things to be seized.—
Under Art. 111, Sec. 1, of the Constitution, and of
Sec. 3, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court, the
warrant should particularly describe the things to be
seized.
 Seizure; Seizure of records pertaining to all
business transactions not a particular
description.—The warrants authorized the search for
and seizure of records pertaining to all business
transactions of petitioners herein, regardless of
whether the transactions were legal or illegal. The
warrants sanctioned the seizure of all records of the
petitioners and corporations, whatever their nature,
thus openly contravening the explicit command of the
Bill of Rights—that the things to be seized be
particularly described —as well as tending to defeat
its major objective; the elimination of general
warrants.
VALIDITY OF WARRANT
People v. Estrada (ESCRA)
 The necessity of requiring stringent procedural
safeguards before a search warrant can be issued
is to give meaning to the constitutional right of a
person to the privacy of his home and
personalities.—The facts and circumstances that
would show probable cause must be the best
evidence that could be obtained under the
circumstances. The introduction of such evidence is
necessary especially in cases where the issue is the
existence of the negative ingredient of the offense
charged—for instance, the absence of a license
required by law, as in the present case and such
evidence is within the knowledge and control of the
applicant who could easily produce the same. But if
the best evidence could not be secured at the time of
application, the applicant must show a justifiable
reason therefor during the examination by the judge.
The necessity of requiring stringent procedural
safeguards before a search warrant can be issued is
to give meaning to the constitutional right of a person
to the privacy of his home and personalities.
 The place sought to be searched had not been
described with sufficient particularity in the
questioned search warrant.—The place sought to
be searched had not been described with sufficient
particularity in the questioned search warrant,
considering that private respondent Aiden Lanuza’s
residence is actually located at Lot No. 41, 516 San
Jose de la Montana St., Mabolo, Cebu City, while the
drugs sought to be seized were found in a warehouse
at Lot No. 38 within the same compound. The said
warehouse is owned by a different person. Again, the
respondent Judge is correct on this point.
  The inadequacy of the description of the
residence of private respondent sought to be
searched has characterized the questioned search
warrant as a general warrant, which is violative of
the constitutional requirement.—This Court has
held that the applicant should particularly describe the
place to be searched and the person or things to be
seized, wherever and whenever it is feasible. In the
present case, it must be noted that the application for
search warrant was accompanied by a sketch of the
compound at 516 San Jose de la Montana St.,
Mabolo, Cebu City. The sketch indicated the 2-storey
residential house of private respondent with a large
“X” enclosed in a square. Within the same compound
are residences of other people, workshops, offices,
factories and warehouse. With this sketch as the
guide, it could have been very easy to describe the
residential house of private respondent with sufficient
particularity so as to segregate it from the other
buildings or structures inside the same compound.
But the search warrant merely indicated the address
of the compound which is 516 San Jose de la
Montana St., Mabolo, Cebu City. This description of
the place to be searched is too general and does not
pinpoint the specific house of private respondent.
Thus, the inadequacy of the description of the
residence of private respondent sought to be
searched has characterized the questioned search
warrant as a general warrant, which is violative of the
constitutional requirement.
RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE
Umamito ???
WARRANTLESS SEARCHES
Exceptions
Esquillo v. People
 Exceptions from Search Warrant
o (1) consented searches; (2) as an incident to
a lawful arrest; (3) searches of vessels and
aircraft for violation of immigration, customs,
and drug laws; (4) searches of moving
vehicles; (5) searches of automobiles at
borders or constructive borders; (6) where
the prohibited articles are in plain view; (7)
searches of buildings and premises to
enforce fire, sanitary, and building
regulations; and (8) stop and frisk
operations.
 In the instances where a warrant is not necessary to
effect a valid search or seizure, the determination of
what constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable
search or seizure is purely a judicial question,
taking into account, among other things, the
uniqueness of the circumstances involved including
the purpose of the search or seizure, the presence or
absence of probable cause, the manner in which the
search and seizure was made, the place or thing
searched, and the character of the articles procured.
People v. Mariscos
 It is well to remember that in the instances we have
recognized as exceptions to the requirement of a
judicial warrant, it is necessary that the officer
effecting the arrest or seizure must have been
impelled to do so because of probable cause. The
essential requisite of probable cause must be satisfied
before a warrantless search and seizure can be
lawfully conducted. Without probable cause, the
articles seized cannot be admitted in evidence against
the person arrested.
o The grounds of suspicion are reasonable
when, in the absence of actual belief of the
arresting officers, the suspicion that the
person to be arrested is probably guilty of
committing the offense is based on actual
facts, i.e., supported by circumstances
sufficiently strong in themselves to create the
probable cause of guilt of the person to be
arrested. A reasonable suspicion therefore
must be founded on probable cause, coupled
with good faith on the part of the peace
officers making the arrest.
 Moving Vehicle
o This exception is easy to understand. A
search warrant may readily be obtained
when the search is made in a store, dwelling
house or other immobile structure. But it is
impracticable to obtain a warrant when the
search is conducted on a mobile ship, on an
aircraft, or in other motor vehicles since they
can quickly be moved out of the locality or
jurisdiction where the warrant must be
sought.
Computers
(naskip lahat ng mga US cases lolz)
CONSENTED SEARCH / WRITTEN CONSENT
People v. Malasugui
 When one voluntarily submits to a search or
consents to have it made of his person or
premises, he is precluded from later complaining
thereof. The right to be secure from unreasonable
search may, like every right, be waived and such
waiver may be made either expressly or impliedly.
People v. Cuizon
 What has been said for Cuizon cannot, alas, be said
for appellant Pua. While the search and arrest carried
out on him and Lee may have been illegal for not
being incident to a lawful warrantless arrest, the
unfortunate fact is that appellant Pua failed to
challenge the validity of his arrest and search, as well
as the admission of the evidence obtained thereby; he
did not raise the issue or assign the same as an error
before this Court. Accordingly, any possible
challenge thereto based on constitutional
grounds is deemed waived.
Caballes v. CA
 In case of consented searches or waiver of the
constitutional guarantee against obtrusive searches, it
is fundamental that to constitute a waiver, it must
first appear that (1) the right exists; (2) that the
person involved had knowledge, either actual or
constructive, of the existence of such right; and (3) the
said person had an actual intention to relinquish the
right.
PEACEFUL SUBMISSION TO A SEARCH
Garcia v. Locsin
  In any event, the failure on the part of the petitioner
and her bookkeeper to resist or object to the
execution of the warrant does not constitute an
implied waiver of constitutional right. It is, as Judge
Cooley observes, but a submission to the authority
of the law.
o As the constitutional guaranty is not
dependent upon any affirmative act of the
citizen, the courts do not place the citizen in
the position of either contesting an officer's
authority by force, or waiving his
constitutional rights; but instead they hold
that a peaceful submission to a search or
seizure is not a consent or an invitation
thereto, but is merely a demonstration of
regard for the supremacy of the law.
People v. Barros
 To constitute a waiver, it must appear first that the
right exists; secondly, that the person involved had
knowledge, actual or constructive, of the existence of
such a right; and lastly, that said person had an actual
intention to relinquish the right. The fact that the
accused failed to object to the entry into his
house does not amount to a permission to make a
search therein.
EFFECT OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER
People v. Agbot (ESCRA)
 Constitutional Law; The taking of appellant's gun
from his house by two barrio councilmen with
appellant's acquiescence and consent would not
constitute a violation of an accused's
constitutional right against admissibility of
illegally seized objects.—The verity of appellant's
admission of guilt having been firmly established, the
contention that the confiscation or seizure of the gun
was illegal, there being no search warrant and its use
as evidence is not permissible, clearly becomes
devoid of factual or legal basis. With his confession,
his voluntarily surrendering the weapon with which he
committed the offense would be but a natural
consequence of his having admitted guilt. The taking
of the gun from his house was, therefore, with consent
and acquiescence that would not constitute a violation
of the constitutional guaranty against the admissibility
of illegally seized objects as evidence against an
accused.
 The confession of the accused states details that
only accused would know the attempt to mitigate
his liability therein is evidence of its
voluntariness.—The confession itself, by the facts
with which it is so replete, which appellant alone could
have supplied and the obvious attempt to mitigate his
liability by alleging that he did the act in a fit of
vengeance because the victim was the one who
ordered the killing of his brother Ansog Agbot, bears
the earmarks of voluntariness. The police
investigators could not have just conceived of this
alleged fact from pure imagination to be placed in
appellant's confession, considering the extreme
improbability of a sister ordering the killing of a
brother. For the motive of the killing, what should have
found its way to the confession is the incident just
before the shooting when appellant hurled a threat at
his sister, as narrated by the victim's husband to the
barrio captain, had appellant not been allowed full
freedom to tell his story.
STOP AND FRISK
People v. Binad Chua
 Search Incidental to a Lawful Arrest
o The law requires that there first be arrest
before a search can be made the process
cannot be reversed.
 Stop and Frisk
o We merely hold today that where a police
officer observes unusual conduct which
leads him reasonably to conclude in light of
his experience that criminal activity may be
afoot and that the persons with whom he is
dealing may be armed and presently
dangerous, where in the course of
investigating this behavior he identifies
himself as a policeman and makes
reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in
the initial stages of the encounter serves to
dispel his reasonable fear for his own or
others safety, he is entitled for the protection
of himself and others in the area to conduct a
carefully limited search of the outer clothing
of such persons in an attempt to discover
weapons which might be used to assault
him.
o While probable cause is not required to
conduct a stop-and-frisk, it nevertheless
holds that mere suspicion or a hunch will
not validate a stop-and-frisk. A genuine
reason must exist, in light of the police
officers experience and surrounding
conditions, to warrant the belief that the
person detained has weapons concealed
about him.
 Two-Fold Interest of a Stop and Frisk
1. The general interest of effective crime prevention
and detection, which underlies the recognition
that a police officer may, under appropriate
circumstances and in an appropriate manner,
approach a person for purposes of investigating
possible criminal behavior even without probable
cause.
2. The more pressing interest of safety and self-
preservation which permit the police officer to
take steps to assure himself that the person with
whom he deals is not armed with a deadly
weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be
used against the police officer.
Esquillo v. People
 Stop and Frisk - the act of a police officer to stop a
citizen on the street, interrogate him, and pat him for
weapon(s) or contraband.
o The police officer should properly introduce
himself and make initial inquiries,
approach and restrain a person who
manifests unusual and suspicious conduct,
in order to check the latters outer clothing for
possibly concealed weapons. The
apprehending police officer must have a
genuine reason, in accordance with the
police officers experience and the
surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief
that the person to be held has weapons (or
contraband) concealed about him. It should
therefore be emphasized that a search and
 seizure should precede the arrest for this
principle to apply.
Airport Searches and Disembarking from Vessels
People v. Canton
 Prior to the strip search in the ladies’ room, the airport
security personnel had no knowledge yet of what
were hidden on SUSANs body; hence, they did not
know yet whether a crime was being committed. It
was only after the strip search upon the discovery by
the police officers of the white crystalline substances
inside the packages, which they believed to be shabu,
that SUSAN was arrested. The search cannot,
therefore, be said to have been done incidental to a
lawful arrest. In a search incidental to a lawful
arrest, the law requires that there be first a lawful
arrest before a search can be made; the process
cannot be reversed.
 The scope of a search pursuant to airport security
procedure is not confined only to search for
weapons under the Terry search doctrine.
o In the present case, the search was made
pursuant to routine airport security procedure
(RA 6235). This constitutes another
exception to the proscription against
warrantless searches and seizures.
 SEC. 9. Every ticket issued to a
passenger by the airline or air
carrier concerned shall contain
among others the following
condition printed thereon: Holder
hereof and his hand-carried
luggage(s) are subject to search for
, and seizure of, prohibited
materials or substances. Holder
refusing to be searched shall not be
allowed to board the aircraft, which
shall constitute a part of the
contract between the passenger
and the air carrier.
o From the said provision, it is clear that the
search, unlike in the Terry search, is not
limited to weapons. Passengers are also
subject to search for prohibited materials or
substances.
People v. Aminnudin
 Vessels and aircraft are subject to warrantless
searches and seizures for violation of the customs
law because these vehicles may be quickly moved out
of the locality or jurisdiction before the warrant can be
secured.
Customs Officers
Papa v. Mago
 It is the settled rule, therefore, that the Bureau of
Customs acquires exclusive jurisdiction over imported
goods, for the purposes of enforcement of the
customs laws, from the moment the goods are
actually in its possession or control, even if no
warrant of seizure or detention had previously been
issued by the Collector of Customs in connection with
seizure and forfeiture proceedings.
 The Tariff and Customs Code authorizes persons
having police authority under Section 2203 of the
Tariff and Customs Code to enter, pass through or
search any land, inclosure, warehouse, store or
building, not being a dwelling house; and also to
inspect, search and examine any vessel or aircraft
and any trunk, package, or envelope or any person on
board, or to stop and search and examine any
vehicle, beast or person suspected of holding or
conveying any dutiable or prohibited article introduced
into the Philippines contrary to law, without
mentioning the need of a search warrant in said
cases.
 It is lawful for customs officers not only to board and
search vessels within their own and adjoining districts,
but also to stop, search and examine any vehicle,
beast or person on which or whom they should
suspect there was merchandise which was subject to
duty, or had been introduced into the United States in
any manner contrary to law, whether by the person in
charge of the vehicle or beast or otherwise, and if they
should find any goods, wares, or merchandise
thereon, which they had probably cause to believe
had been so unlawfully brought into the country, to
seize and secure the same, and the vehicle or beast
as well, for trial and forfeiture.
ROADBLOCKS AND CHECKPOINTS
Caballes v. CA
 A warrantless search of a moving vehicle is
justified on the ground that it is not practicable to
secure a warrant because the vehicle can be
quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in
which the warrant must be sought. Searches
without warrant of automobiles is also allowed for the
purpose of preventing violations of smuggling or
immigration laws, provided such searches are made
at borders or 'constructive borders' like checkpoints
near the boundary lines of the State.
 The mere mobility of these vehicles, however, does
not give the police officers unlimited discretion to
conduct indiscriminate searches without warrants if
made within the interior of the territory and in the
absence of probable cause. Still and all, the
important thing is that there was probable cause
to conduct the warrantless search, which must still
be present in such a case.
 One such form of search of moving vehicles is the
"stop-and-search" without warrant at military or police
checkpoints which has been declared to be not
illegal per se, for as long as it is warranted by the
exigencies of public order and conducted in a way
least intrusive to motorists. A checkpoint may either
be a mere routine inspection or it may involve an
extensive search.
o Routine inspections are not regarded as
violative of an individual's right against
unreasonable search. The search which is
normally permissible in this instance is
limited to the following instances: (1) where
the officer merely draws aside the curtain of
a vacant vehicle which is parked on the
public fair grounds; (2) simply looks into a
vehicle; (3) flashes a light therein without
opening the car's doors; (4) where the
occupants are not subjected to a physical or
body search; (5) where the inspection of the
vehicles is limited to a visual search or visual
inspection; and (6) where the routine check
is conducted in a fixed area.
PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE

People v. Valdez
 REQUISITES:
(a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid
warrantless arrest in which the police are legally
present in the pursuit of their official duties;
(b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the
police who have the right to be where they are; and
(c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and
(d) plain view justified mere seizure of evidence
without further search.
 The 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.
People v. Salanguit
 Under the plain view doctrine, unlawful objects
within the plain view of an officer who has the
right to be in the position to have that view are
subject to seizure and may be presented in
evidence.
 Once the valid portion of the search warrant has been
executed, the plain view doctrine can no longer
provide any basis for admitting the other items
subsequently found.
automobiles. The presence of an unusual quantity of
high-powered firearms and explosives could not be
justifiably or even colorably explained. In addition,
there was general chaos and disorder at that time
because of 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. Under the foregoing
circumstances, it is our considered opinion that the
instant case falls under one of the exceptions to the
prohibition against a warrantless search. In the first
place, the military operatives, taking into account the
facts obtaining in this case, had reasonable ground
to believe that a crime was being committed. There
was consequently more than sufficient probable
cause to warrant their action. Furthermore, under the
situation then prevailing, the raiding team had no
opportunity to apply for and secure a search
warrant from the courts. The trial judge himself
manifested that on December 5, 1989 when the raid
was conducted, his court was closed. Under such
urgency and exigency of the moment, a search
warrant could lawfully be dispensed with.

People v. Calantiao
 The Plain View Doctrine is actually the exception to
the inadmissibility of evidence obtained in a
warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest outside
the suspect’s person and premises under his
immediate control. This is so because "[o]bjects in the
‘plain view’ of an officer who has the right to be in the
position to have that view are subject to seizure and
may be presented as evidence."
o The Plain View Doctrine thus finds no
applicability in Calantiao’s situation because
the police officers purposely searched him
upon his arrest. The police officers did not
inadvertently come across the black bag,
which was in Calantiao’s possession; they
deliberately opened it, as part of the search
incident to Calantiao’s lawful arrest.

PRIVATE SEARCHES AND STATE EXPANSION OF

PRIVATE SEARCH

(ppl v. marti, ppl v. bongcarawan)

EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES

People v. De Gracia(ESCRA)
 It is admitted that the military operatives who raided
the Eurocar Sales Office were not armed with a
search warrant at that time. The raid was actually
precipitated by intelligence reports that said office was
being used as headquarters by the RAM. Prior to the
raid, there was a surveillance conducted on the
premises wherein the surveillance team was fired at
by a group of men coming from the Eurocar building.
When the military operatives raided the place, the
occupants thereof refused to open the door despite
requests for them to do so, thereby compelling the
former to break into the office. The Eurocar Sales
Office is obviously not a gun store and it is definitely
not an armory or arsenal which are the usual
depositories for explosives and ammunition. It is
primarily and solely engaged in the sale of