Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Labor Law Case Digests
Labor Law Case Digests
INTRO: The right against unreasonable search and seizure is at the top of the
hierarchy of rights; next only to the right to life, liberty and property – which
are all protected by the due process clause.
The right against unreasonable search and seizure is founded on the human
and constitutional right to enjoy life. And for life to be enjoyed, a person has
to be free and to be secure. He must be assured that, his freedom and
property, cannot be arbitrarily disregarded or transgressed by the State, even
in the name of public order.
“To sanction disrespect and disregard for the Constitution in the name of
protecting the society from lawbreakers is to make the government itself
lawless and to subvert those values upon which our ultimate freedom and
liberty depend.”
1
Q. What is meant by the terms “SEARCH”, and “SEIZURE” ?
GEN. RULE (Sec. 2): The people has the right 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.
PURPOSE: To protect the privacy and sanctity of the person and of his house and
other possessions against arbitrary intrusions by the State or govt. officers.
Thus, before any person’s property is searched and seized, certain legal
procedures must be complied with, particularly the obtaining of a search
and seizure warrant.
2
Q. What may be seized under a search warrant?
DISCUSSION:
3
3. JUDGE MUST EXAMINE UNDER OATH OR AFFIRMATION OF THE
COMPLAINANT AND THE WITNESSES HE MAY PRODUCE;
a. Bache & Co. (Phil.) Inc. vs. Ruiz, GR L-32409, 27 Feb. 1971 - “xxx the search
warrant was void inasmuch as first, there was no personal examination conducted by
the Judge of the complainant (De Leon) and his witness (Logronio). The Judge did not
ask either of the two any question the answer to which could possibly be the basis for
determining whether or not there was probable cause against Bache & Co. and
Seggerman.
The participation of the Judge in the proceedings which led to the issuance of Search
Warrant 2-M-70 was thus limited to listening to the stenographer's readings of her
notes, to a few words of warning against the commission of perjury, and to
administering the oath to the complainant and his witness. This cannot be considered a
personal examination.”
b. Prudente vs. Dayrit, GR 82870, 14 December 1989 – x x x the judge must, before
issuing the warrant, personally examine in the form of searching questions and
answers, in writing and under oath, the complainant and any witness he may
produce, on facts personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn
statements together with any affidavits submitted.
In his application for search warrant, P/Major Alladin Dimagmaliw stated that "he has
been informed" that Nemesio Prudente "has in his control and possession" the
firearms and explosives described therein, and that he "has verified the report and
found it to be a fact."
On the other hand, in his supporting deposition, P/Lt. Florenio C. Angeles declared
that, as a result of their continuous surveillance for several days, they "gathered
information from verified sources" that the holders of the said firearms and explosives
are not licensed to possess them.
In other words, the applicant and his witness had no personal knowledge of the facts
and circumstances which became the basis for issuing the questioned search warrant,
but acquired knowledge thereof only through information from other sources or
persons.
While it is true that in his application for search warrant, applicant P/Major
Dimagmaliw stated that he verified the information he had earlier received that
petitioner had in his possession and custody the firearms and explosives described in
the application, and that he found it to be a fact, yet there is nothing in the record to
show or indicate how and when said applicant verified the earlier information acquired
by him as to justify his conclusion that he found such information to be a fact. He might
have clarified this point if there had been searching questions and answers, but there
were none. In fact, the records yield no questions and answers, whether searching or
not, vis-a-vis the said applicant.
4
Evidently, the allegations contained in the application of P/ Major Alladin Dimagmaliw
and the declaration of P/Lt. Florenio C. Angeles in his deposition were insufficient basis
for the issuance of a valid search warrant.
Thus, a warrant must include the street address and clear description of the
location [Example: a two-story white house in 123 Camia St. Juna Subd. Davao
City]. A warrant for one side of a duplex does not authorize search of the other
side. The same is true of apartments or condo units. It is not enough that you state,
Ecoland Condominium.... state the specific unit, floor no., street address, location.
A warrant must describe as fully as possible all the things to be looked for in
connection with a crime that has been committed or is about to be committed. The
descriptions must be specific [Example: fake car stereo units bearing the mark
“Sony”, model nos. 110-15, 125-16, made in China, etc.]
Obviously, the warrant gives the police officers unbridled and thus illegal authority
to search all the structures found inside the PICOP compound.
Because the search warrant was procured in violation of the Constitution and the
Rules of Court, all the firearms, explosives and other materials seized were "inadmissible
for any purpose in any proceeding."
Bache & Co. (Phil.) Inc. vs. Ruiz , GR L-32409, 27 February 1971 --
“x x x the search warrant does not particularly describe the things to be seized. Search
Warrant No. 2-M-70 tends to defeat the major objective of the Bill of Rights, i.e., the
elimination of general warrants, for the language used therein is so all-embracing as to
include all conceivable records of the corporation, which, if seized, could possibly
render its business inoperative. Thus, Search Warrant 2-M-70 is null and void.
5
Q. Who may invoke the right against unreasonable search and seizure under
Sec.2?
Maybe INVOKED or WAIVED by the Person directly Affected
It is a PERSONAL RIGHT
Available to ALL PERSONS (citizen, alien & artificial persons)
“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. (Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383 (1967);
People v. Damaso, 212 SCRA 457 )
A. It is directed against the Govt. & its agencies tasked with enforcement of
the law. It does not apply to private individuals.
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, 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.
It is unreasonable when the search & seizure is done without any validly
issued search warrant.
7
Q. What is meant by the “FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE DOCTRINE”?
o According to this doctrine, not only is evidence illegally seized
inadmissible, but any evidence or testimony obtained later as a result
of the illegally seized evidence, is also inadmissible.
o Example: If the police illegally entered the garage of the suspect a day after the
homicide, and accidentally found the gun used in the shooting, this gun cannot be
admitted in the trial to prove that this is the same gun that the suspect used in the
shooting of the homicide victim, for this was illegally searched/seized. This is so even if
it is established: i) that the serial number of the gun is found to be registered in the
name of the suspect; and ii.) that the ballistic tests confirmed that the bullets extracted
from the victim came from this gun.
Also, other evidences found in the gun such as for example: a.) finger prints of the
suspect on the gun; b.) specks of blood and tissue of the victim on the gun barrel – will
be inadmissible in the trial, for the gun was a product of an illegal warrantless search
and seizure.
o Search and seizure may be made without a warrant and the evidence
obtained therefrom may be admissible in the following instances:
8
The abovecited EXCEPTIONS to the search warrant rule and the
exclusionary rule have evolved for many reasons - perhaps to temper
the harshness of the law, trying to balance this with our need to combat
criminality.
These legal precedents which serve as exceptions to the rule that search
warrant must be obtained before a search and seizure may be effected,
also arise from actual police work and practices in the field.
DISCUSSION:
INSTANCES of VALID WARRANTLESS SEARCH & SEIZURE
Note that Sec. 5, Rule 113 of the revised Rules of Court, recognizes
lawful arrest without a warrant --
“A peace officer or a private person may, without warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (arrest in
flagrante delicto);
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause
to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances
that the person to be arrested has committed it; (arrest effected in hot
pursuit); and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a
penal establishment or a place where he is serving final judgment or
is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped
while being transferred from one confinement to another. (arrest of
escaped prisoners)
o Study/Discuss Cases of :
a. ROBIN PADILLA v. CA, G.R No. 121917, Mar. 1997, 269 SCRA 402
b. PEOPLE vs. MOLINA, G.R 133917, 19 February 2001 (En Banc):
c. PEOPLE vs. TUDTUD, GR 144037, 26 September 2003
10
DISCUSSION:
INSTANCES of VALID WARRANTLESS SEARCH & SEIZURE:
Requisite Elements:
(a) Prior valid intrusion into a place;
(b) Evidence was inadvertently discovered by police who
had the right to be where they are;
(c) Illegality of the evidence must be immediately
apparent;
(d) Evidence is noticed without further search.
NOTE:
To be exempt from a warrantless search and seizure under the
plain view doctrine, the discovery of the evidence must be
“inadvertent” (unintentional; by chance).
Source: De Garcia v. Locsin, 65 Phil. 689 [1938]; People v. Barros, 231 SCRA 557, [1994]
Note that:
i.) Passive conformity, or failure to resist or object to the execution of
warrant, or request by the officers to search, given under coercive or
intimidating circumstances, DOES NOT CONSTITUTE IMPLIED WAIVER
OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT or CONSENT. (People v. Tudtud, GR No.
144037, Sept. 26, 2003)
ii.) Allowing members of the military to enter the premises, and accused -
appellant’s silence during the unreasonable search and seizure could not
be construed as voluntary submission or an implied acquiescence to
warrantless search and seizure, especially when the raiding team was
intimidatingly numerous and heavily armed. Lack of objection is not
tantamount to a waiver of his constitutional right or a voluntary submission
to the warrantless search and seizure. (People v. Comapacion, G.R No.
12
124442, July 20, 2001; People v. Tudtud, GR No. 144037, Sept. 26, 2003; Vergara
v. People, GR No. 170180, Nov. 23, 2007)
Study: Papa v. Mago, 22 SCRA 857, 1968; Pacis v. Pamaran, 56 SCRA 16, 1974
The Stop and Frisk rule originated from the US Supreme Court
decision of Terry v. Ohio, 392 US, 1,88 S. Ct., 1868, 20 L. Ed.
2d 889 (1968)
- This decision gave police the right to temporarily detain and search somebody if there
are specific articulable facts leading a reasonable police officer to believe a crime might
be occurring.
Q. What are the 2 fold interest or Grounds for Stop & Frisk?
a.) Crime prevention and detection
b.) Safety and self-protection of the police officer and others in
the immediate area; to assure that the person he is dealing
with is not armed with a deadly weapon that can be used
against the police officer. (Malacat v. CA, 283 SCRA 159).
Q. What is the test used in determining legality of a stop [and frisk] situation?
A. A stop must meet the "totality of circumstances test", looking at the whole picture,
from the perspective of both the officer and the suspect.
FRISK:
Frisk - is a type of search that requires a lawful stop.
It involves contact or patting of the outer clothing to detect by sense of touch if a
concealed weapon is being carried. The one and only purpose of a frisk is to dispel
suspicions of danger (to the officer and other persons; i.e., that this person isn't
armed & dangerous).
14
A frisk is a search for concealed weapons, necessarily involving an invasion of
privacy.
SPECIAL SITUATIONS:
Military or police checkpoints.
15