Spouses Veroy v.

Layague

FACTS: The Veroys moved to QC and left their house in Davao City to a caretaker.Capt. Obrero raided
the house based on an information that rebel soldiers are allegedly hiding there. With the help of
caretakers, they were able to enter only up to the yard since the owner was not around and they did not
have a search warrant. They contacted Mrs. Veroy, and explained that the house was reportedly being
used as a hideout and recruitment center of rebel soldiers. Mrs. Veroy then gave permission to search the
house with the condition that Major Macasaet, a long-time family friend, must be there during the search.
Despite the qualified consent, the officers entered various rooms, including the children’s room, and
confiscated a .45 caliber gun and other effects, which were the basis of the charge of illegal possession of
firearms against them.
Despite the fact that the warrants for their arrest have not yet been served on them, petitioners voluntarily
surrendered themselves to Brig. Gen. Pantaleon Dumlao, PC-CIS Chief, since it was the CIS that initiated
the complaint. However, the latter refused to receive them on the ground that his office has not yet
received copies of their warrants of arrest.
The Spouses Veroy assailed the admissibility of the evidence for being obtained in violation of their
constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure.

ISSUES: Whether or not the permission by the owner of the house is sufficient to legalize the search and
warrant.

RULING: Petitioners alleged that while Capt. Obrero had permission to enter their house, it was merely
for the purpose of ascertaining the presence of the alleged "rebel" soldiers. The permission did not include
the authority to conduct a room to room search inside the house. The items taken were, therefore,
products of an illegal search, violative of their constitutional rights. As such, they are inadmissible in
evidence against them.

The permission to enter a house and search for persons and effects may be qualified, and the searching
officer may not act in excess of the authority granted to him.
Although the offense of illegal possession of firearms is a malum prohibitum, it does not follow that the
subjects may be seized simply because they are prohibited. A search warrant is still necessary in the
context of this case.

People vs. Damaso

FACTS: A Philippine Constabulary officer and some companions went to the house rented by accused-
appellant where they were allowed entry into the house by the house help. upon entering, they saw radio
sets, pamphlets, Xerox copiers and a computer machine. They asked and were granted permission to look
around by the persons inside the house. In one of the rooms, they saw books used for subversive
orientation, one M-14 rifle, bullets and ammunitions, among others. They confiscated the articles and
brought them to their headquarters for final inventory. They likewise brought the persons found in the
house to the headquarters for investigation. Said persons revealed that appellant was the lessee of the
house and owned the items confiscated therefrom.
ISSUES: Whether there was waiver on the part of Damaso to allow the warrantless search of his house.
RULING: Damaso was singled out as the sole violator of PD 1866, in furtherance of, or incident to, or in
connection with the crime of subversion. There is no substantial and credible evidence to establish the
fact that the appellant is allegedly the same person as the lessee of the house where the M-14 rifle and
other subversive items were found or the owner of the said items. Even assuming for the sake of argument
that Damaso is the lessee of the house, the case against him still will not prosper, the reason being that the
law enforcers failed to comply with the requirements of a valid search and seizure proceedings. The
constitutional immunity from unreasonable searches and seizures, being a personal one cannot he waived
by anyone except the person whose rights are invaded or one who is expressly authorized to do so in his
or her . The records show that Damaso was not in his house at that time Luz Tanciangco and Luz
Morados, his alleged helper, allowed the authorities to enter it. There is no evidence that would establish
the fact that Luz Morados was indeed Damaso's helper or if it was true that she was his helper, that
Damaso had given her authority to open his house in his absence. The prosecution likewise failed to show
if Luz Tanciangco has such an authority. Without this evidence, the authorities' intrusion into Damaso's
dwelling cannot be given any color of legality. While the power to search and seize is necessary to the
public welfare, still it must be exercised and the law enforced without transgressing the constitutional
rights of the citizens, for the enforcement of no statute is of sufficient importance to justify indifference to
the basic principles of government. As a consequence, the search conducted by the authorities was illegal.
It would have been different if the situation here demanded urgency which could have prompted the
authorities to dispense with a search warrant. But the record is silent on this point. The fact that they came
to Damaso's house at nighttime, does not grant them the license to go inside his house. Accordingly, the
decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED and the appellant is acquitted with costs de oficio.

LOPEZ VS COMM. OF CUSTOMS

FACTS:
Petitioner Tomas Velasco was not inside their rented hotel room when a team of agents raided their room
and seized documents and papers. They were allowed entry inside said room by a woman who appeared
to be petitioner’s wife but turned out to be a manicurist.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there was consent to allow the warrantless search and seizure of Velasco’s rented hotel
room.

RULING:
YES. The Supreme Court held that the state policy of minimizing smuggling must be carried out with due
respect for constitutional rights, and that whenever there is a showing that the safeguards of the
fundamental law are disregarded, then judicial redress is appropriate. But such is not the case here
Where, at the time the government agents entered and searched the hotel room then being rented by
petitioner, a woman who appeared to be the wife of petitioner was inside the room, and, upon being
informed of the purpose of the search, invited the petitioners to enter and search the room and even
voluntarily gave the documents and things requested by the officers, even if the said woman, who could
be aptly described as the wrong person, at the wrong place, at the wrong time, was not the wife of
petitioner, but a mere manicurist by occupation, the officers of the law could not be blamed if they acted
on the appearances. There was a person inside who for all indications was ready to accede to their
request. Even common courtesy alone would have precluded them from inquiring too closely as to why
she was there. Under said circumstances, there was consent sufficient in law to dispense with the need for
a search warrant.