Searches and seizures
seizures. The government, in
1. What are the requisites for
searches and seizures with a
valid warrant?
CODE: JPEPO
1.The existence of probable cause
is determined personally by the
JUDGE.
2. It must be issued upon a
finding of PROBABLE CAUSE.
3. The judge must EXAMINE
UNDER OATH the complainant
and the witnesses he may
produce.
4. The warrant must
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBE the
place to be searched and person
or things to be seized.
5. It must be in connection with
ONE SPECIFIC offense. (Art. III,
Sec.2)
2. Soliven v. Makasiar - The
judge is not required to examine
personally. He is only required to
determine probable cause
personally. He may satisfy
himself by fiscal reports, if not, he
may require submission of
affidavit of witnesses.
3. John Doe – description
personae
4. People v. Marti –in the
absence of governmental
interference, the safeguard
against unreas. s&s cannot be
extended to private individuals;
4. Disini v. Sec of Justice –
Since computer data
constitutes personal property,
they are protected from
unreasonable searches and
effect, seizes and places the
computer data under its control
and disposition without a warrant
Other types of search
1. Mandatory drug test
School – random and suspicion
less; to stamp out illegal drugs
and not to prosecute criminals
-students waived their right
to privacy when they seek entry
to school
Issuance of warrant
A. Salazar v. Achacoso -
Only a judge may validly
issue a warrant of arrest or
a search warrant, upon
fulfillment of Constitutional
requirements.
Exception:
Morano v. Vivo -
Administrative Authorities for
carrying out a final finding of a
violation of law
Warrantless arrest
3 requisites
Ongcoma Hadji Homar v. People
2 requisites of valid in flagrante
delicto arrest
1. Overt act (ctd, cmtg,
attmptng)
2. done in the presence or
within the view of the
arstng ofcr
People v. Uzman y Betican
 SEARCH WARRANT
One type of in flagra

1. Buy-bust/entrapment –
entrapment
formed by peace
officers
apprehend crimi in the
act of committing
(test-buy muna)

Go y Tambunting v. CA –
personal knowledge (nakakita ka
na ng tambunting in person?)
Not personal k. – derived sa
statements ng alleged eyewitness
na gunman daw si petitioner.

Reyes y Capistrano v. People

personal knowledge – the accused
exhibit over act within the view of
the ofcr suggesting that she was in
possession of drugs

3.Arrests of escapees

People v. Tokohisa Kimura- 2 days

after
Valid ba? Hindi. Because Kizaki
the arresting ofc has no personal
knowledge
Hindi naman sya cmt, cmtng,
attmptng. Hindi din present ung
mga police nung allegedly
ngbenta