Right Against Unreasonable Search & Seizure

RIGHTS AGAINST
UNREASONABLE SEARCH &

SEIZURE
ARTICLE III, SECTION 2 OF 1987 CONSTITUTION
By: CYPRES, ANDRES & LLORENTE, ADRIENNE
“IT MAY BE FRAIL; ITS ROOF MAY SHAKE;
THE RAIN MAY ENTER; THE WIND MAY
ENTER. BUT THE KING OF ENGLAND MAY
NOT ENTER; ALL HIS FORCES DARE NOT
CROSS THE THRESHOLD OF THE RUINED
TENEMENT. “AWE SURROUNDED AND
MAJESTY CLOTHED THE KING, BUT THE
HUMBLEST SUBJECT MIGHT SHUT THE
DOOR OF HIS COTTAGE AGAINST HIM AND
DEFEND FROM INTRUSION THAT PRIVACY
WHICH WAS AS SACRED AS THE KINGLY
PREROGATIVES.”
RIGHT TO PRIVACY

 the right to be let alone
 "no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his
privacy" and "everyone has the right to the protection of the
law against such interference or attacks." ( Universal Declaration of Human Rights )

 Zones of Privacy

the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, which is the basis of the right to
be let alone

the right to privacy of communication and correspondence
RIGHTS AGAINST
UNREASONABLE SEARCH &
SEIZURE
ARTICLE III, SECTION 2 OF 1987 CONSTITUTION
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.
Are Search and Seizures Prohibited under the
Constitution?
> NO. As a general rule, searches conducted with warrant that

meets all requirements of Article III section 2 of the Constitution
are reasonable. This warrant requires the existence of probable
cause that can only be determined by a judge.
What are the instances when searches without warrant
may be reasonable?
1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest.

2. Seizure of evidence in "plain view,"
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 occupant committed a criminal activity;
4. Consented warrantless search;
5. Customs search;
6. Stop and frisk; and
7. Exigent and emergency circumstances
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.
A VALID WARRANT MUST:

REQUISITES FOR THE ISSUANCE:
 It must be based on PROBABLE CAUSE.
 The probable cause must be determined personally by the judge.
 The determination must be made after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce.
 It must particularly described the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized.
July 31, 2017
G.R. No. 227038
JEFFREY MIGUEL y REMEGIO, Petitioner
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
ISSUES:

W/N BANTAY BAYANS ARE CONSIDERED AS LAW
ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES OF THE GOVERNMENT
FOR THE PURPOSE OF APP. OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS
( Right against unreasonable search & seizure).

W/N THE WARRANTLESS ARREST WAS VALID AND LEGAL.

W/N THE ITEMS SEIZED ARE ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE.
July 31, 2017
G.R. No. 227038
vs.
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

FACTS:

BB were doing their rounds around their barangay, when they received a report of a
man whose drunk and showing off his private parts.

The 2 BB’s approached the man and asked for his ID but the later failed. The petitioner
emptied his pockets and then revealing a pack of cigarettes containing 1 cigarette and
2 rolled papers containing dried marijuana, which prompted the BBs to seize the items
and brought the petitioner to the police station together with the seized items.

Petitioner’s version was he was just urinating in front of his workplace, then the 2 BBs
approached him and frisked him, seized his belongings and handcuffed him and
brought to the barangay hall.

July 31, 2017
G.R. No. 227038
vs.
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

He was then detained for about an hour before being taken to the Ospital
ng Makati and to another office where a bald police officer questioned him.
Thereafter, he was taken back to the barangay hall where they showed him
two (2) sticks of marijuana joints allegedly recovered from him.

The RTC ruled finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime for
violation of RA 9165.

That the warrantless search and arrest was valid. as petitioner was
scandalously showing his private parts at the time of his arrest. Therefore,
the resultant search incidental to such arrest which yielded the seized
marijuana in petitioner's possession was also lawful which the CA affirmed.
July 31, 2017
G.R. No. 227038
vs.
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

RULING

Yes. In People v. Malngan, barangay tanod and the Barangay Chairman were deemed as
law enforcement officers for purposes of applying Article III of the Constitution. In People v.
Lauga, this court held that a "bantav bayan," in relation to the authority to conduct a
custodial investigation under Article III, Section 12 of the Constitution, "has the color of a
state-related function and objective insofar as the entitlement of a suspect to his
constitutional rights[.]"

The Court is convinced that the acts of the Bantay Bayan - or any barangay-based or other
volunteer organizations in the nature of watch groups - relating to the preservation of peace
and order in their respective areas have the color of a state-related function. As such, they
should be deemed as law enforcement authorities for the purpose of applying the Bill of
Rights under Article III of the 1987 Constitution to them.
July 31, 2017
G.R. No. 227038
vs.
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

No. A lawful arrest may be effected with or without a warrant.
Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. - A peace officer or a private person may, without a 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;
(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; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or 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.
 In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith
delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with Section 7 of Rule
112.

In both instances, the officer's personal knowledge of the fact of the commission of an offense is essential.

The prosecution's claim that petitioner was showing off his private parts was belied by the aforesaid testimonies. Clearly, these
circumstances do not justify the conduct of an in Flagrante delicto arrest, considering that there was no overt act constituting a
crime committed by petitioner in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. Neither do these circumstances
necessitate a "hot pursuit" warrantless arrest as the arresting Bantay Bayan operatives do not have any personal knowledge of
facts that petitioner had just committed an offense.
July 31, 2017
G.R. No. 227038
vs.
PERLAS-BERNABE, J

NO. there must first be a lawful arrest before a search can be made and that such
process cannot be reversed. The Bantay Bayan operatives conducted an illegal search
on the person of petitioner. Consequently, the marijuana purportedly seized from him on
account of such search is rendered inadmissible in evidence pursuant to the
exclusionary rule under Section 3 (2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution.
September 2, 2015
G.R. No. 188794
HONESTO OGA YON y DIAZ, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PIDLIPPINES, Respondent.
BRION, J.:
ISSUES:

W/N THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS VALID.

W/N THE SEARCH IS VALID.

W/N THE SEIZED ITEMS ARE ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE.
September 2, 2015
G.R. No. 188794
vs.
BRION, J.:

FACTS:

Police Chief together with the members of PNP Albay proceeded to the accused house, to enforce the Search
Warrant no. AEK 29-2003. The warrant was for the seizure of shabu and drug paraphernalia allegedly kept and
concealed in the premises of Ogayon’s house.

Some members of the police team went to the comfort room located about five meters away from Ogayon’s house.
When they searched the area, they found an object (wrapped in a piece of paper with blue prints) that fell from the
wooden braces of the roof.

The search of the comfort room also uncovered four (4) disposable lighters, one (1) knife measuring six inches long,
used aluminum foil, one (1) roll of aluminum foil, and a "Dorco" blade.12 SPO4 Caritos then placed his initials on the
two (2) plastic sachets before joining the rest of the police officers who were conducting a search in Ogayon’s
house. The police officers who searched Ogayon’s house found live ammunition for an M-16 rifle. After conducting
the search, the police team prepared a Receipt of Property Seized.13 The receipt was signed by the seizing officers,
representatives from the Department of Justice and the media, and two (2) barangay officials who were present
during the entire operation.
September 2, 2015
G.R. No. 188794
vs.
BRION, J.:

On defense’ version: Ogayon disowned the knowledge of the illegal drugs and claimed that he only saw the items upon
inventory, such claim was corroborated by his wife. Ogayon asserted that prior to the search, he was asleep in his house.
His wife Zenaida woke him up because several policemen and barangay officials came to his house. He claimed that the
police team did not present any search warrant before conducting the search, and it was only during trial that he saw a
copy of the warrant.

He recounted that the police officers, splitting into two groups, conducted a simultaneous search of his house and the
comfort room located nearby. He noticed that SPO4 Caritos, who was part of the group that searched the comfort room,
came out and went to the Barangay Hall. Shortly after, SPO4 Caritos returned, accompanied by Tanod Lagana. SPO4
Caritos again went inside the comfort room, leaving Tanod Lagana waiting outside. SPO4 Caritos thereafter came out
from the comfort room and ran towards Ogayon’s house while shouting "positive, positive."

RTC ruled convicting Ogayon of the crime charged, relying on the presumption of regularity.

Ogayon appealed to CA questioning the validity of the search warrant claiming it was unproperly issued and thus invalid
for lack of transcript showing that the issuing judge conducted an examination of the applicant for search warrant and his
witnesses.
September 2, 2015
G.R. No. 188794
vs.
BRION, J.:

RULING:

No. The Search Warrant is not valid. Under Section 2, Article III of the Constitution, the existence of probable cause for the issuance of
a warrant is central to the right, and its existence largely depends on the finding of the judge conducting the examination. 27 To
substantiate a finding of probable cause, the Rules of Court specifically require that – Rule 126, Sec. 5. Examination of complainant;
record. – 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 the witnesses he may produce on facts personally known to them and attach to the record their
sworn statem gether with the affidavits submitted.

The Constitution requires is for the judge to conduct an "examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses
he may produce," after which he determines the existence of probable cause for the issuance of the warrant. The examination
requirement was originally a procedural rule found in Section 98 of General Order No. 58, 30 but was elevated as part of the guarantee
of the right under the 1935 Constitution.31 The intent was to ensure that a warrant is issued not merely on the basis of the affidavits of
the complainant and his witnesses, but only after examination by the judge of the complainant and his witnesses. As the same
examination requirement was adopted in the present Constitution, we declared that affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are
insufficient to establish the factual basis for probable cause.32 Personal examination by the judge of the applicant and his witnesses is
indispensable, and the examination should be probing and exhaustive, not merely routinary or a rehash of the affidavits.

September 2, 2015
G.R. No. 188794
vs.
BRION, J.:

The records, therefore, bear no evidence from which we can infer that the
requisite examination was made, and from which the factual basis for probable
cause to issue the search warrant was derived. A search warrant must conform
strictly to the constitutional requirements for its issuance; otherwise, it is void.
Based on the lack of substantial evidence that the search warrant was issued
after the requisite examination of the complainant and his witnesses was
made, the Court declares Search Warrant No. AEK 29-2003 a nullity.

No. As the Search warrant was declared invalid. Thus a search conducted from it is delared invalid and illegal.

Exclusionary Rule. Evidence seized from an illegal search should be considered inadmissible evidence.
G.R. No. 196045 February 21, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,
v.
AMADOR PASTRANA AND RUFINA ABAD, Respondents.
MARTIRES, J.:
ISSUE:

W/N THE SEARCH WARRANT IS INVALID FOR
INCLUDING 2 OFFENSE.
G.R. No. 196045 February 21, 2018
v.
MARTIRES, J.:

FACTS:

NBI special investigator Ogerlan filed for an application for a Search Warrant before RTC of
respondents Pastrana and Abad for the allegation that a scheme to defraud foreign
investors is being done in their place supported by an affidavit of Alghirain, one of the
complainants from Saudi Arabia.

The information alleged that the respondents are committing a violation under R.A 8799 or
Securities Regulation Code and also estafa under 315 of RPC. The SW provides to search
and seize, and 89 boxes were seized with the following documents: Telephone bills, list of
brokers and 201 files, Sales agreement, official receipts, credit advise, fax messages, client
message slips, company brochures, letter heads, envelopes, 40 magazines stands of
broker’s records, offshore incorporation papers, lease contracts and vouchers/ledgers.
G.R. No. 196045 February 21, 2018
v.
MARTIRES, J.:

Abad moved to quash the SW on the ground that it was
issued with 2 offenses, one under SRC and one under
RPC which contravenes the basic tenet of rules of criminal
procedures. The RTC ruled declaring the SW null and
void for failure to comply with the requirement of a valid
search warrant. Appealed to the CA, the CA affirmed the
RTC’s decision, which pronounced that the SW failed to
pass the test of particularity.
G.R. No. 196045 February 21, 2018
v.
MARTIRES, J.:

RULING:

Yes. Basic tenet of a search warrant is it must be issued for one specific offense only. It is a
constitutional requirement for its validity based on probable cause to prevent the issuance of a
scatter-shot warrant.

The SW in question issued for a violation of RA 8799 is not an offense in itself for there are
several punishable acts under the said law. Even the charge of estafa under Art. 315 of RPC is
vague for there are 3 ways of committing the said crime.

The questioned SW lacks the particularity in the description of the things sought for seizure.
This constitutional requirement is primarily meant to enable the law enforcers to serve the
warrant to (1)readily identify the properties to be seized and thus prevent them from seizing
the wrong items; and (2) leave said peace officers with no discretion regarding the articles to
be seized and thus prevent unreasonable searches and seizures. It is not, however, required
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.
G.R. No. 238865, January 28, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
vs.
BILLY ACOSTA
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

ISSUES:

W/N THE SEARCH WAS VALID AND COMPLIES WITH
THE REQUISITES FOR PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE TO
APPLIES.

W/N THE SEIZED ITEMS ARE ADMISSIBLE TO
EVIDENCE.
G.R. No. 238865, January 28, 2019
vs.
BILLY ACOSTA
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

FACTS:

a case for violation of RA 9165 for illegal planting and Cultivation of Marijuana Plant.

Salucana reported to them a mauling incident where Acosta purportedly hit him on the head with a wood
and that also Acosta is cultivation an illegal marijuana in his house.

Salucana's foregoing reports prompted the police to proceed on Acosta’s house, upon arrival they have
positively identified Acosta outside walking towards his house. The police rushed to Acosta and arrested
him even before he could get inside its house.

After arrest, the police found inside his house, 13 hills of marijuana plants planted beneath the gabi
plants just outside the accused’s house around a meter away from where he was arrested. Upon
discovery of the marijuana, the police called for the Barangay Captain and members to witness the
uprooting of the plants then brought to the police station for marking and inventory of the seized items.

The RTC found him guilty and that the identity, integrity, and evidentiary value of the illegal marijuana
plants were duly preserved as the chain of custody was proved by the prosecution.

G.R. No. 238865, January 28, 2019
vs.
BILLY ACOSTA
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

The CA affirmed the RTC ruling.[17] It held that the requirements of the
"plain view" doctrine were complied with in that the police officers: (a) had
prior justification to be in the area in order to apprehend Acosta for the
mauling incident; (b) did not purposefully search for the marijuana plants
but came across them inadvertently in the course of the arrest as they
were in their line of sight; and (c) were able to recognize the marijuana
plants owing to their different foliar characteristics from the "gabi" plants.
The CA likewise found that the prosecution sufficiently established
beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime charged against
Acosta, and all the links constituting the chain of custody.
G.R. No. 238865, January 28, 2019
vs.
BILLY ACOSTA
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

RULING:

The 'plain view' doctrine applies when the following requisites
concur: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence
has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from
which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of
evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately
apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be
evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.
G.R. No. 238865, January 28, 2019
vs.
BILLY ACOSTA
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly be in a position
from which he can particularly view the area. In the course of such lawful intrusion, he came
inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The object must be open to
eye and hand and its discovery inadvertent.

In this case, the first and third requisites were not seriously contested by Acosta. Instead, he
argues that the second requisite is absent since the discovery of the police officers of the
marijuana plants was not inadvertent as it was prompted by Salucana. After a careful review of
the records, this Court is inclined to agree.

In People v. Valdez,[28] the Court held that the "plain view" doctrine cannot apply if the officers
are actually "searching" for evidence against the accused, to wit: 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. Clearly, their discovery of the
cannabis plants was not inadvertent.
G.R. No. 238865, January 28, 2019
vs.
BILLY ACOSTA
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

The seized marijuana plants were not "immediately apparent" and a "further search" was
needed. In sum, the marijuana plants in question were not in "plain view" or "open to eye
and hand." The "plain view" doctrine, thus, cannot be made to apply.

the second requisite for the "plain view" doctrine is absent. For the police officers were
armed with knowledge they would naturally be more circumspect in their observations. In
effect, they proceeded to Acosta's abode, not only to arrest him for the mauling incident,
but also to verify Salucana's report that Acosta was illegally planting marijuana.

Considering that the "plain view" doctrine is inapplicable to the present case, the seized
marijuana plants are inadmissible in evidence against Acosta for being fruits of the
poisonous tree.

March 22, 2017
G.R. No. 200396
MARTIN VILLAMOR y TAYSON, and VICTOR BONAOBRA y GIANAN, Petitioners
vs
PEOPLE OF THE PIDLIPPINES
DEL CASTILLO, J.:

ISSUES:

W/N THE WARRANTLESS ARREST and SEARCH IS
VALID.
March 22, 2017
G.R. No. 200396
vs
DEL CASTILLO, J.:

FACTS:

Petitioner is charged with a violation of section 3(c) of RA 9287 for collecting and soliciting bets for an illegal numbers game locally known as
“lotteng” and possessing a list of various numbers, a calculator, a cellphone, and cash.

That an informant call the police that there was an ongoing illegal numbers games at the residence of Bonaobra then the police team
proceeded to Bonaobra residence to confirm it.

The police team parked outside the compound fenced by bamboo slats installed 2 inches apart which allowed them to see what was going on
inside. According to the police officers, they saw the accused in the act of counting bets.

The police team introduced themselves as police and confiscated the items found on the table consisting of cash, the papelitos, a calculator, a
cellular phone, and a pen.

In defense, the accused presented 6 witnesses, testifying that Villamor went to Bonaobra’s house to pay a debt he owed to the latter’s wife.
Villamor gave Bonabora the 2,000php which the latter placed on the top of the table.. that when Bonaobra was at the door, a man kicked the
fence, which later was identified as PD Penaflor (police), grabbed Bonaobra’s arm and said. “Caught in the act ka!” Florencio went outside
and asked PD Penaflor for a search warrant. Then 2 more men took the money on the table. Then made board to the whicle and brought to
the police station.

RTC - The court convicted them guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Appealed to the CA, the CA affirmed the RTC’s decisiom brushed aside
Bonaobra’s argument that his right to due process of law was violated when he was convicted of a crime different to which he was charged.
Aggrieved, it appealed to the SC.
March 22, 2017
G.R. No. 200396
vs
DEL CASTILLO, J.:

RULING:

The court found that the right to unreasonable search and seizure was violated by the
arresting officers when they barged into his compound without a valid warrant of arrest
and search warrant.

The evidence seized by the police are inadmissible evidence against the petitioner, the
same having been obtained in violation of the said right.

Sec 2, Article III of 1987 constitution requires a judicial warrant based on the existence
of probable cause before search and an arrest be made effected by the law
enforcement agents. Without such warrant, a search or seizure becomes unreasonable
within the context of the Constitution and any evidence obtained must be inadmissible.
March 22, 2017
G.R. No. 200396
vs
DEL CASTILLO, J.:

The warrantless arrest conducted by the police team was unlawful at
the same time does not satisfy the requirements of an in flagrante
delicto arrest.
Under section 5 of Rule 113 or Rules of Court, a lawful arrest may be effected even without warrant in the
following instances: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or
is attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has in fact 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; and (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment
or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped
while being transferred from one confinement to another.
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith
delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with Section 7 of Rule
112.
G.R. No. 200334 July 30, 2014
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent-Appellee,
vs.
VICTOR COGAED y ROMANA, Accused-Appellant.
Facts:
Victor Cogaed was riding a jeepney with a bag from Barangay Lun-Oy
and during a checkpoint, the driver of the jeepney he rode made a signal
to the police telling that Cogaed was carrying marijuana inside Cogaeds
bag; the police officer then approached Cogaed and asked the accused
about the contents of his bags. Cogaed replied that he did not know what was
inside and that he was just transporting the bag in favor of Arvin,
a barriomate" Cogaed subsequently opened the bag revealing the bricks of
marijuana inside. He was then arrested by the police officer.
G.R. No. 200334 July 30, 2014
vs.
Issue: Whether or not there was a valid search and seizure?

G.R. No. 200334 July 30, 2014
vs.
Ruling: No. There was no valid search and seizure. As a general rule, searches conducted
with warrant that meets all requirements of Article III section 2 of the Constitution are
reasonable. This warrant requires the existence of probable cause that can only be
determined by a judge.
However, there are instances when searches without warrant may be reasonable, such as:
1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest.
2. Seizure of evidence in "plain view,"
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
occupant committed a criminal activity;
4. Consentedwarrantless search;
5. Customs search;
6. Stop and frisk; and
7. Exigent and emergency circumstances
The search involved in this case was initially a "stop and frisk" search, but it did not comply with all the requirements of reasonability
required by the Constitution.
G.R. No. 200334 July 30, 2014
vs.
"Stop and frisk" searches (sometimes referred to as Terrysearches) are necessary for law enforcement. That is, law enforcers should be given the
legal arsenal to prevent the commission of offenses. However, this should be balanced with the need to protect the privacy of citizens in
accordance with Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.
The balance lies in the concept of"suspiciousness" present in the situation where the police officer finds himself or herself in. This may be
undoubtedly based on the experience ofthe police officer. Experienced police officers have personal experience dealing with criminals and criminal
behavior. Hence, they should have the ability to discern — based on facts that they themselves observe — whether an individual is acting in a
suspicious manner. Clearly, a basic criterion would be that the police officer, with his or her personal knowledge, must observe the facts leading to
the suspicion of an illicit act.
In the case at hand, there was no single suspicious circumstance and there was no approximation of probable cause requirement for the warrant
less arrest. In fact, the assessment of suspicion was not made by the police officer, but by the jeepney driver and the person searched was not even
the person mentioned by the informant. Likewise, the facts do not qualify as a search incidental to a lawful arrest because at the time of his
apprehension, Cogaed has not committed, was not committing, or was about to commit a crime. Hence, there can be no overt act within the plain
view of the police officer that Cogaed was in possession of drugs at that time.
G.R. No. 200370
MARIO VERIDIANO y SAPI, Petitioner
vs.
Facts:
The police team received a call from a certain concerned citizen that a certain
“Baho” who was later identified as Veridiano was on his way to San Pablo
carrying illegal drugs. Thereafter, the police team set up a check point to for
Veridiano. They chanced upon Veridiano riding a jeepney and immediately
asked the passengers to disembark. Thee police officers recovered from
Veridiano a “tea bag” believe to be an illegal drugs.
G.R. No. 200370
vs.
Issue: Whether or not there was a valid warrantless search against petitioner?
G.R. No. 200370
vs.
Ruling:
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."78rnt78 For there to be a
lawful arrest, law enforcers must be armed with a valid warrant. Nevertheless, an arrest may also be effected without a
warrant.
There are three (3) grounds that will justify a warrantless arrest. Rule 113, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure provides:
Section 5. Arrest Without Warrant; When Lawful. -A peace officer or a private person may, without a 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;
(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; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or 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.
G.R. No. 200370
vs.
In this case, petitioner's arrest could not be justified as an inflagrante delicta arrest under
Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the Rules of Court. He was not committing a crime at the
checkpoint. Petitioner was merely a passenger who did not exhibit any unusual conduct in
the presence of the law enforcers that would incite suspicion. In effecting the warrantless
arrest, the police officers relied solely on the tip they received. Reliable information alone
is insufficient to support a warrantless arrest absent any overt act from the person to be
arrested indicating that a crime has just been committed, was being committed, or is about
to be committed. Likewise, petitioner in this case was a mere passenger in a jeepney who
did not exhibit any act that would give police officers reasonable suspicion to believe that
he had drugs in his possession. Reasonable persons will act in a nervous manner in any
check point. There was no evidence to show that the police had basis or personal
knowledge that would reasonably allow them to infer anything suspicious.
G.R. No. 215305
MARCELO G. SALUDAY, Petitioner
vs
Facts:
On 5 May 2009, Bus No. 66 of Davao Metro Shuttle was flagged down by Task
Force Davao of the Philippine Army at a checkpoint near the Tefasco Wharf in
Ilang, Davao City. SCAA Junbert M. Buco (Buco), a member of the Task Force,
requested all male passengers to disembark from the vehicle while allowing
the female passengers to remain inside. He then boarded the bus to check the
presence and intercept the entry of any contraband, illegal firearms or
explosives, and suspicious individuals. SCAA Buco asked the petitioner’s to
open their bag, which thereafter, bared illegal firearms and ammunition.
G.R. No. 215305
vs
Issue: Whether or not the search was illegal?

G.R. No. 215305
vs
Ruling:
On the issue on the illegality of the search, the Supreme Court disagrees with the Petitioner. Section 2, Article III
of the Constitution applies only to unreasonable searches or seizures.
The prohibition of unreasonable search and seizure emanates from one’s right to privacy. When a person displays
an expectation of privacy, which the society is ready to recognize as reasonable, the State cannot violate a
person’s right against unreasonable search or seizure (Katz vs. United States). In addition, one’s expectation of
privacy to be reasonable, it must counter the safety and welfare of the people.
The Supreme Court did not agree to the Petitioner’s position that his failure to object to the search cannot be
construed as an implied waiver. Constitutional immunity against unreasonable searches and seizures is a
personal right that can be waived. However, the waiver should be voluntary, clear, specific and intelligently given,
absent any duress or coercion.
G.R. No. 182534
ONGCOMA HADJI HOMAR, Petitioner,
vs.
Facts:
The petitioner was charged for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165. The
information states that petitioner was crossing a “No Jaywalking” portion.
The officer immediately apprehended the petitioner resulting in the recovery
of a knife. Thereafter, Tangcoy conducted a thorough search on the
petitioner’s body and found a confiscated sachet containing what he
suspected as shabu.
G.R. No. 182534
ONGCOMA HADJI HOMAR, Petitioner,
vs.
Issue: Whether or not there was a valid search:

Ruling:
No. The prosecution failed to prove that a lawful warrantless arrest preceded the search conducted on
the petitioner’s body. To determine the admissibility of the seized drugs in evidence, it is indispensable
to ascertain whether or not the search which yielded the alleged contraband was lawful. There must
be a valid warrantless search and seizure pursuant to an equally valid warrantless arrest, which must
precede the search. For this purpose, the law requires that there be first a lawful arrest before a
search can be made, the process cannot be reversed. Clearly, no arrest preceded the search on the
person of the petitioner. When Tan and Tangcoy allegedly saw the petitioner jaywalking, they did not
arrest him but accosted him and pointed to him the right place for crossing. In fact, according to the
RTC, Tan and Tangcoy "immediately accosted him and told him to cross the designated area. Hence, it
may be concluded that the lawful search incident to a lawful warrantless arrest for jaywalking
appears to be an afterthought in order to justify a warrantless arrest conducted on the person of the
petitioner.
G.R. No. 213225
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee
vs
RENANTE COMPRADO Y BRONOLA, Accused-Appellant
On 15 July 2011, at 6:30 in the evening, a confidential informant (CJ) sent a text message to

Police Inspector Dominador Orate, that an alleged courier of marijuana together with a
female companion was sighted at Cabanglasan, Bukidnon. The alleged courier had in his
possession a backpack containing marijuana and would be traveling from Bukidnon to
Cagayan de Oro City. Thus, the police officers put up a checkpoint.
At 11:00 o'clock in the evening, the policemen stopped the bus bearing the said body and
plate numbers. P/Insp. Orate, Police Officer 3 Teodoro de Oro (PO3 De Oro), Senior Police
Officer 1 Benjamin Jay Reycitez (SPOJ Reycitez), and PO1 Rexie Tenio (PO1 Tenio) boarded
the bus and saw a man matching the description given to them by the CI. The man was seated
at the back of the bus with a backpack placed on his lap. After P/Insp. Orate asked the man to
open the bag, the police officers saw transparent cellophane containing dried marijuana
leaves.
G.R. No. 213225
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee
vs
RENANTE COMPRADO Y BRONOLA, Accused-Appellant
Issue: Whether or not there was a valid search

Ruling:
No. The Court finds that the totality of the circumstances in this case is not sufficient to incite a genuine reason
that would justify a stop-and-frisk search on accused-appellant. An examination of the records reveals that no
overt physical act could be properly attributed to accused-appellant as to rouse suspicion in the minds of the
arresting officers that he had just committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime.
Here, without the tip provided by the confidential informant, accused-appellant could not be said to have
executed any overt act in the presence or within the view of the arresting officers 'Which would indicate that he
was committing the crime of illegal possession of marijuana. Neither did the arresting officers have personal
knowledge of facts indicating that accused-appellant had just committed an offense. Again, without the tipped
information, accused-appellant would just have been any other bus passenger who was minding his own
business and eager to reach his destination. It must be remembered that warrantless arrests are mere exceptions
to the constitutional right of a person against unreasonable searches and seizures, thus, they must be strictly
construed against the government and its agents. While the campaign against proliferation of illegal drugs is
indeed a noble objective, the same must be conducted in a manner which does not trample upon well-
established constitutional rights. Truly, the end does not justify the means.

Right Against Unreasonable Search & Seizure

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Right Against Unreasonable Search & Seizure

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RIGHTS AGAINST

UNREASONABLE SEARCH &

> NO. As a general rule, searches conducted with warrant that

1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest.

Issue: Whether or not there was a valid search and seizure?

Issue: Whether or not the search was illegal?

Issue: Whether or not there was a valid search:

On 15 July 2011, at 6:30 in the evening, a confidential informant (CJ) sent a text message to

Issue: Whether or not there was a valid search

You might also like