1.
Terry Search
In Terry v. Ohio, stop and frisk was defined as the vernacular designation of the
right of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street, interrogate him and pat him for
weapons whenever he observes unusual conduct which leads him to conclude that
criminal activity may be afoot. In this case, the policemen chanced upon the accused
who had reddish eyes, walking in a swaying manner, and who appeared to be high
on drugs; thus, the search.
Requisites: 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 latter’s outer clothing for possibly
concealed weapons. The apprehending police officer must have a genuine
reason, in accordance with the police officer’s 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 the principle to apply.
2. Plain View
Objects 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. The “plain view”
doctrine is usually applied where the police officer is not searching for evidence
against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes upon an incriminating
object [People v. Musa, 217 SCRA 597].
Requisites. In People v. Musa, the elements of a valid seizure based on the “plain
view” doctrine, as follows:
(i) a prior valid intrusion based on the warrantless arrest in which the
police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties;
(ii) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have
the right to be where they are;
(iii) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and
(iv) “plain view” justified the seizure of the evidence without any further
search.
* No extensive search
3. Pornography
In Miller v. California, which established basic guidelines, to wit:
(1) whether the average person, applying contemporary standards, would find
that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
(2) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual
conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and
(3) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political
or scientific value.
No one will be subject to prosecution for the sale or exposure of obscene materials-
unless these materials depict or describe patently offensive “hard core” sexual
conduct. What remains clear is that obscenity is an issue proper for judicial
determination and should be treated on a case-to-case basis, and on the judge’s
sound discretion [Fernando v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159751, December 6,
2006].
* Consider Pita v CA – need probable cause to be determined by the judge
4. Probable Cause in Search Warrant
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.
Probable Cause For A Search Warrant is defined as such facts and circumstances
which would lead a reasonably discrete 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.
Probable cause in Warrant of Arrest
Such facts and circumstances antecedent to the issuance of the warrant that in
themselves are sufficient to induce a cautious man to rely on them and act in
pursuance thereof. [People v. Syjuco (1937)]
A finding of probable cause needs only to rest 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
5. Exclusionary Rule: Evidence obtained in violation of Sec. 2, Art. Ill, shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding [Sec. 3 (2), Art. Ill], , because it is
“the fruit of the poisoned tree.”
The Constitution provides:
Any evidence obtained in violation of [the right against unreasonable
searches and seizures] shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding.
Such originated from Stonehill v. Diokno. 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.
6. Libel
A public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary,
or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the
dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken
the memory of one who is dead [Art. 353, Revised Penal Code].
The law also presumes that malice is present in every defamatory imputation.
Thus, Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code provides that:
“Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true,
if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown, except in the
following cases:
a. It is published for social or civic duty
A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any
legal, moral or social duty; and
b. It is a purely factual statement
A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any
judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature,
or of any statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings
c. Refers to acts performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions.
Paragraph 2 aforequoted refers to a qualifiedly privileged communication, the
character of which is a matter of defense that may be lost by positive proof of express
malice on the part of the accused. Once it is established that the article is of a
privileged character, the onus of proving actual malice rests on the plaintiff who must
then convince the court that the offender was prompted by malice or ill will. When
this is accomplished the defense of privilege becomes unavailing. [Santos v. Court
of Appeals, No. L-45031, 21 October 1991, 203 SCRA 110, 114]
7. Requisite of Valid Search Warrant:
a. There must be probable cause—facts and circumstances that would
engender a well-founded belief in a reasonable prudent and discreet man that a
crime has been committed and the things and objects to be seized can be found in
the place to be searched
b. Which must be determined by the judge personally through searching
and probing questions—questions not merely answerable by yes or no but
could be answered by the applicant and the witnesses on facts personally known to
them
c. (Upon whom?) By complainant and the witnesses he may produce are
personally examined by the judge, in writing and under oath and
affirmation
d. (Based on what?) The applicant and the witnesses testify on facts
personally known to them
e. The probable cause must be in connection with the specific offense
f. The warrant specified describes the person and place to be searched
and the things to be seized
g. The sworn statement together with the affidavits of the witnesses must be
attached to the record
8. Consented Search
When the right is voluntarily waived. For the valid waiver of a constitutional right, it
must appear first that the right exists; secondly, that the person involved had
knowledge, either actual or constructive, of the existence of such right; and
thirdly, that the said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right [De
Garcia v. Locsin, 65 Phil 689]. The consent must be voluntary, i.e., unequivocal,
specific and intelligently given, uncontaminated by any duress or coercion. Hence,
consent to a search is not to be lightly inferred, but must be shown by clear and
convincing evidence.
A checkpoint search may either be a mere routine inspection, or it may involve an
extensive search. For a mere routine inspection, the search is normally permissible
when it is limited to a mere visual search, where the occupants are not subjected to
a physical or body search. On the other hand, when the vehicle is stopped and
subjected to an extensive search, it would be constitutionally permissible only if the
officers conducting the search had reasonable or probable cause to believe, before
the search, that either the motorist is a law offender or they will find the
instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime in the vehicle to be searched
[Caballes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 136292, January 15, 2002]
9. Administrative Due Process (Ang Tibay v CIR) (RTDEDTB)
a. Right to a hearing which includes right to present one’s case and submit
evidence in support thereof
b. Tribunal must consider the evidence presented
c. Decision must have something to support it
d. Evidence must be substantial
e. Decision must be rendered on the evidence presented
f. Tribunal or judges must act on its own independent consideration of
the facts and the law of the controversy
g. The board or body should render its decision in such manner that the
parties will know the various issues involved and reasons for the
decision
NOTE: Illegal drug paraphernalia and dangerous drugs are categorized as a single
offense in the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
NOTE: Minnesota v Dickerson
In affirming, the state Supreme Court held that both the stop and the frisk of
respondent were valid under Terry v. Ohio, but found the seizure of the cocaine to
be unconstitutional. Refusing to enlarge the "plain-view" exception to the Fourth
Amendment's warrant requirement, the court appeared to adopt a categorical rule
barring the seizure of any contraband detected by an officer through the sense of
touch during a patdown search. The court further noted that, even if it recognized
such a "plain-feel" exception, the search in this case would not qualify because it
went far beyond what is permissible under Terry.
would be justified by the same practical considerations that inhere in the plain-view
context.
10. When Is There a Lawful Warrantless Arrest?
1. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (In Flagrante Delicto)
2. 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; (Hot Pursuit)
3. 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 (escapee from penal institution)
11. Instances Would A Search And Seizure Without A Warrant Be Allowed
1. A warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest
a. Arrest must be lawful
b. It must be contemporaneous with the arrest in both time and place
c. Within the vicinity of the person arrested, immediate control, which is
the evidence of the offense or weapon
2. Search of evidence in plain view
3. Search of a moving vehicle
a. Must be cursory
b. Can’t make a thorough search; just have to take a look; not to open trunks
4. Consented warrantless searches

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously agreed that the cocaine in this case was a. The right exists
inadmissible as evidence even though the Court held that officers were allowed to
b. Person making the consent knows that he has the right
assume that an object was contraband through touch.
c. In spite of the knowledge of the right, he voluntarily and intelligently gives
“ If a police officer lawfully pats down a suspect's outer clothing and feels an
his consent
object whose contour or mass makes its identity immediately apparent, there has
been no invasion of the suspect's privacy beyond that already authorized by the 5. Customs searches
officer's search for weapons; if the object is contraband, its warrantless seizure
6. Stop and frisk / Terry Search
7. Exigent and emergency circumstances (In times of war and within military
operations)

8. Checkpoints

9. Republic Act requiring inspections or body checks in airports

12. Police power is the power of the State to promote public welfare by
restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property. The power of
eminent domain is the inherent right of the State to condemn private property to
public use upon payment of just compensation.

Requisites of Valid Police Power:

(a) the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular
class, require the interference by the State (lawful subject)

(b) the means employed are reasonably necessary for the attainment of the object
sought and not unduly oppressive upon individuals (lawful means)

Sec. 9, Art. Ill of the Constitution, in mandating that “private property shall not be
taken for public use without just compensation”, merely imposes a limit on the
government’s exercise of this power and provides a measure of protection to the
individual’s right to property. An ejectment suit should not ordinarily prevail over the
State’s power of eminent domain [Republic v. Tagle]

Requisites of Eminent Domain:

1. Necessity
2. Must be private property
3. Taking in the constitutional sense
4. For public use or welfare
5. Payment of Just Compensation or full and fair equivalent of the property
taken