RULE 126 - SEARCH AND SEIZURE1

Re ad : Rian o , p p . 253-305

Pertinent Documents & Pleadings:

(1) Search Warrant;
(2) Documents as basis for issuance:
Request for Issuance;
Affidavit/s of complainant or witnesses
Others (Photographs, sketches, etc.)
(3) Motion to Quash Search Warrant
(4) Motion to Suppress
(5) Motion for Return of Property Seized

I. Nature, scope and definition

A. Definition & Nature
Const. (1987), art. III, Secs. 2, 3;
Rule 126, Secs. 1, 13;
Moncado abandoned & “Exclusionary Rule” adopted:
Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383 (1967);T
See J. Castro, dissenting
“People not places”; “reasonable expectation of privacy” test:
Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347 (1967);T
Carpenter v. U.S., June 22, 2018 T
Protection against “unreasonable” not “reasonable” searches:
Saluday v. People, G.R. No. 215305, April 3, 2018 (EB)T
Warrantless search presumed “unreasonable”; “protects persons not places”;
“plain view”:
People v. Valdez, 341 SCRA 25 (2000)**T
GPS attached to vehicle is a search; Katz not substitute for trespassory test:
U.S. v. Jones, 565 US (2012)T
Private searches:
Governmental interference:
People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57 (1991);T
Right of lawful occupant as against right of property owner to search:
Silahis International Hotel, Inc. V. Panlilio, G.R. No. 163087, 02-20-2006
Vessel Security officer:
People v. Bongcarawan, 384 SCRA 525 (2002)
See: Is spousal or privacy of communication as exception?
Zulueta v. C.A., 253 SCRA 699 (1996)T
Search & Seizure in Civil Cases of Infringement
A.M. No. 02-1-06-SC, Jan. 30, 2002 (Rule on Search and

1
Updated July 2018.

-1-
 (Rule 126)

Seizure in Civil Actions for Infringement of Intellectual

Property Rights)
Yao v. People, G.R. No. 168306, June 19, 2007

B. Constitutional and statutory boundaries; limitations on State action

1. Nature of right protected; waiver of protected right
Katz v. U.S., supra
Deference to one's personality at the core of this right:
Villanueva v. Querubin, 48 SCRA 349 (1972);
Legality of "areal target zonings" or saturation drives":
Guanzon v. De Villa, 181 SCRA 623 (1990);
Note: Read dissenting and concurring opinions.
Governmental transgression
People v. Marti, supra

2. Scope of protection
Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 3(1);
Katz v. U.S., supra
People v. Valdez, supra
Saluday, supra

“Enhanced Senses” and “Reasonable expectation of privacy”:

Thermal imaging device:
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001)T
Aerial observation“naked eye:
California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986)
Aerial search using device:
Dow Chemicals v. U.S., 476 U. S. 227 (1986)
Sniff Dog:
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005)
Curtilage as part of the home:
Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. ___ (2013) -
Aldo’s reliability and probable cause:
Florida v. Harris, No. 11–817. Argued October 31, 2012,
Decided February 19, 2013
“Plant” as an illegal search:
Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293 (1966)
Garbage search:
California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988) -T
Washington vs. Boland, 115 Wn.2d 57 (1990); 800P.2d 1112
GPS Tracking device:
U.S. v. Jones, 565 U. S. ____; 132 S. Ct. 945 (Jan. 23, 2012)T
Airport searches:

-2-
 (Rule 126)

People v. Canton, G.R. No. 148825, December 27, 2002

Porch search by “sniff-dog”:
Florida v. Jardines, No. 11–564. Argued October 31,
2012—Decided March 26, 2013

RA 4200 4200 (Anti-wire Tapping Law):

Nature of the conversation is immaterial:
Ramirez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 93833, September 28, 1995
Extension line:
Gaanan vs. IAC, G.R. No. L-69809 October 16, 1986

RA 9372 (Human Security Act of 2007):

Exception to R.A. 4200, Interception and Recording of Communications
Sec. 7-16
Rule 126, sec. 13;

Rule on Cybercrime Warrants (A.M. No.17-11-03-SC)

[Effective August 18, 2018]
See: R.A. No. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012)
Sec. 4 (Cybercrime Offenses)
Sec. 5 (Other Offenses)
Sec. 6 (Crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal
Code, as amended, and other special laws, if committed by,
through, and with the use of Information and Communications
Technology ICT)

C. Types
1. With A Search Warrant
a. Generally
Rule 126, sec. 1;
People v. Aruta, 288 SCRA 626 (1998)T
Manalili v. CA, 280 SCRA 400 (1997)

b. Venue of application; jurisdiction of court

Rule 126, sec. 2;
Ad m in is trativ e Matte r No . 99-10-09-SC (Re s o lu tio n
Clarify in g th e Gu id e lin e s o n th e Ap p lic atio n fo r th e
En fo rc e ab ility o f Se arc h Warran ts ) Jan u ary 25, 2000;
BP 129 (as amended by RA 7691), sec. 21;
Interim Rules (January 11, 1983), par. A3;
Laud v. People, GR. No. 199032, Nov. 20, 2014T
Spouses Marimla v. People, G.R. No. 158467, [October 16,
2009], 619 PHIL 56-69
Malaloan v. CA, 232 SCRA 249 (1994)**T

-3-
 (Rule 126)

People v. CA, 291 SCRA 400 (1998);

Search warrant proceedings is not a criminal action, but

means by the State to procure relevant evidence of crime:
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Mendoza,
G.R. No. 170425, [April 23, 2012]T

Rule on Cybercrime Warrants (A.M. No.17-11-03-SC)

Section 2.1. Venue of Criminal Actions
Section 2.2. Where to File an Application for a Warrant
Section 2.3. Incidents Related to the Warrant When a Criminal Action is
Instituted.

c. Requisites for issuance

Rule 126, sec. 1; cf. Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 2;
Abuan v. People, G.R. No. 168773. October 27, 2006
PICOP v. Asuncion, 307 SCRA 253 (1999)
Rule on Cybercrime Warrants (A.M. No.17-11-03-SC)

(1) Concept of probable cause in search warrants

Burgos v. Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 800 (1984) EB;
Stonehill v. Diokno, supra

(2) Determining probable cause:

i) Person Authorized: Who determines?

Const. (1987), Art. III, sec. 2;
Rule 126, Sec. 4, Sec. 5;
Personal determination by the judge:
Bache v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823 (1971)
Searching questions reduced in writing and deposition
Atttached to the records:
People v. Mamaril, 420 SCRA 662 (2004)T

Kho v. Makalintal, 306 SCRA 70**

Tan v. Sy Tiong Gue, 613 SCRA 98 (2010)
Ogayon v. People, G.R. No. 188794, Sept. 2, 2015T

ii) Procedure: How is it determined?

Rule 126, sec. 5;
Pe rs o n al e xam in atio n b y s e arc h in g q u e s tio n s
o f c o m p lain an t, d e p o s itio n & w itn e s s e s :
Examination must be probing and exhaustive, not merely routinary, general,
peripheral, perfunctory or pro-forma:
People v. Choi, G.R. No. 152950, August 3, 2006T

-4-
 (Rule 126)

Examination not simple rehash of witness’ affidavits:

Roan v. Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687 (1984)**
Information from confidential informant & buyer:
Cunanan v. People, G.R. No. 237116, [November 12, 2018]T
Kho vs. Makalintal, supra
Bache v. Ruiz, supra
PICOP v. Asuncion, supra
People v. Tuan, supra

iii) One specific offense:

Rule 126, Sec. 4;
Coca-Cola v. Gomez, 571 SCRA 18 (2008)

(3) Description of things to be seized

Purpose of particularity of place to be searched

and things to be seized:
Corro v. Lising, G.R. No. L-69899 July 15, 1985** T
Kho v. Macalintal, supra;
Microsoft Corporation v. Maxicorp, Inc., 438 SCRA 224 (2004)
Bache vs. Ruiz, supra;
Property need not be owned by petitioner:
Burgos v. Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 800 (1984) EB;
Name of accused not essential:
People v. Tiu Won Chua, G.R. No. 149878, [July 1, 2003]

(4) Description of place to be searched

Place described in the search warrant, is only place that
may be legitimately searched:
People v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126379, [June 26, 1998]T
People v. Estrada, 296 SCRA 383 (1998)T
Esquillo vs. People, G.R. No. 182010, August 25, 2010
Roan vs. Gonzales, supra
PICOP v. Asuncion, supra
People v. C.A., supra

d. Things that may be seized

Rule 126, sec. 3;
Laud v. People, GR. No. 199032, Nov. 20, 2014T
Burgos vs. Chief of Staff, supra
California v. Greenwood, supra
Washington vs. Boland, supra
Rules on DNA Evidence A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC October 2, 2007
People v. Umanito, G.R. #172607 Oct. 26, 2007T
People v. Umanito, G.R. #172607, April 16, 2009T
Buccal swab after arrest:

-5-
 (Rule 126)

Maryland v. King, No. 12–207. Argued February 26,

2013—Decided June 3, 2013T
Blood Test for DUI:
Missouri v. McKeeny, U.S. No. 11–1425. Argued January 9, 2013
—Decided April 17, 2013T

e. Form and content of warrant; lifetime of warrant:

Rule 126, sec. 1, 6, 10;
Bache v. Ruiz, supra
Mustang Lumber v. CA, 257 SCRA 430 (1996)T

f. Validity of warrant
People v. Estrada, supra
People v. CA, supra

g. Scope of Search with Warrant of Arrest

Valeroso v. C.A., G.R. No. 164815, 2009-09-03T

2. Warrantless Search & Seizure:

a. Search incident to lawful arrest
Rule 126, sec. 13;
People v. Aruta, G.R. No. 120915 April 3, 1998T
“Reliabe information” insufficient:
People v. Racho, G.R. No. 186529, August 3, 2010T
“Personal Knowledge of overt act . . .”:
Malacat v. CA, G.R. No. 123595 [December 12, 1997]EB T
Other cases:
People v. Molina, G.R. No. 133917, February 19, 2001**
U.S. v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973)
People v. Valdez, supra
People v. Padilla, 269 SCRA 402 (1997);
People v. Chua Ho San, 308 SCRA 432 (1999);
Cadua v. CA, 312 SCRA 703 (1999);
People v. Binad Chua, G.R. Nos. 136066-67, February 4, 2003
Office of the Court Administrator v. Barron, 297 SCRA 376 (1998);
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969)T
Nolasco v. Paño, 147 SCRA 509 (1987);T
Cf. Nolasco v. Paño, 139 SCRA 152 (1985);
See Dissenting opinions of J. Teehankee, J. Abad Santos
& J. Cuevas
Posadas v. CA, 188 SCRA 288 (1990)
People vs. Cuizon, 265 SCRA 325
Malacat v. CA, 283 SCRA 159 (1997)**T
Maryland v. King, No. 12–207. Argued February 26,
2013—Decided June 3, 2013 T

Rule on Cybercrime Warrants (A.M. No.17-11-03-SC)

-6-
 (Rule 126)

Warrantless Search of Computers & Cell Phones:

Computers:
Anonymous Letter-complaint Against Atty. Miguel
Morales, Clerk of Court, Metropolitan Trial Court of
Manila, A.M. No. P-08-2519 November 19, 2008*T
Polo v. David, G.R. No. 181881, October 18, 2011** T

Cellphones:
Riley v. California, June 25, 2014 T

b. Consented search
People v. Malasigui, 63 Phil. 221 (1936);
Alvarez v. CFI, 64 Phil. 48 (1937);
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973)
People vs. Cuizon, 265 SCRA 325

(1) Peaceful submission not consent to search

Garcia v. Locsin, 65 Phil. 689 (1938);
Written consent:
Roan v. Gonzales, supra

(2) Effect of voluntary surrender

People v. Agbot, 106 SCRA 325 (1981);

(3) Effect of posting bail

Rule 114, sec. 26;

c. “Stop and Frisk”, Roadblocks & Checkpoints,

and Other Less Intrusive Searches

“Sto p an d Fris k”:

Its origin:
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968);T
Other cases:
Malacat v. CA, G.R. No. 123595 [December 12, 1997]EB T
People v. Comprado, G.R. No. 213225, [April 4, 2018]T

People v. Binad Chua, supra

Esquillo v. People, 629 SCRA 370 (2010)T
Note - J. Bersamin dissenting
People v. Cogaed, G.R. No. 200334. July 30, 2014
Manalili, (?)
Airport. Customs and Port searches:
People v. Canton, G.R. No. 148825, Dec. 27, 2002, supra

-7-
 (Rule 126)

Dela Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 209387, [January 11, 2016]T

Roadblocks & Checkpoints:
Saluday v. People, G.R. No. 215305, April 3, 2018 (EB)T
People v. Comprado, G.R. No. 213225, [April 4, 2018] supra

City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000)

Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979);
Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444
Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325
People v. Manago, G.R. No. 212340, [August 17, 2016]T
Caballes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 136292, January 15, 2002;
People v. Lacerna, 278 SCRA 561 (1997)
People v. Solayao, 262 SCRA 255 (1996)
People v. Malmstedt, 198 SCRA 401(1991)
People vs. Encinada, G.R. No. 116720. October 2, 1997

Checkpoints:
Veridiano v. People, G.R. No. 200370, [June 7, 2017]T
Valmonte v. De Villa, 178 SCRA 211 (1989);
Aniag vs. COMELEC, 237 SCRA 424 (1994);
People v. Vinecario, 420 SCRA 280 (2004)

d. Moving vehicles/hot pursuit

People vs. Lapitaje, 397 SCRA 674 (2003)T
People v. Comprado, G.R. No. 213225, [April 4, 2018]T
Cf. Saluday, supra
Impracticability of a warrant:
People v. Bagista, G.R. No. 86218, September 18, 1992.
Read: J. Padilla dissenting
People v. Mariacos, G.R. No. 188611, June 16, 2010
Probable cause for search required:
People v. Balingan, 241 SCRA 277 (1995);
People v. Racho, G.R. No. 186529, August 3, 2010
Caballes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 136292, January 15, 2002;
Asuncion v. CA, 302 SCRA 490 (1999);
Roldan v. Arca, 65 SCRA 336 (1975);
People v. Lo Ho Wing, 193 SCRA 122 (1990);

e. "Plain View" & “Plain Touch” Doctrine:

People v. Cubcubin, Jr.
“PlainView”:
Moving the object is a search and not inadvertence?
Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987)T
People v. Musa, 217 SCRA 597 (1993);

-8-
 (Rule 126)

People v. Doria, 301 SCRA 668 (1999);

People v. Bolasa, 321 SCRA 459 (1999);
People v. Evaristo, 216 SCRA 431 (1992);
People v. Valdez, 341 SCRA 24 (2000)T

Partly defective warrant; limits of “plain view”

People v. Salanguit, 356 SCRA 683 (2001)T
“Plain Touch”:
Minnesota v. Dickerson, 113 S.Ct. 2130 (1993)

f. Private Searches & "State Expansion of Private Search"

People v. Marti, supra
People v. Bongcarawan, G.R. No. 143944. July 11, 2002
State v. Von Bulow, 475 A.2d 995
See: Zulueta v. C.A., 253 SCRA 699 (1996)

g. Extraordinary circumstances:
People v. De Gracia, 233 SCRA 716 (1994);
Bringham City v. Stuart, 126 S.Ct. 1943 (2006)

h. Concepts of : "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree"; "Attenuation";

Its origin:
Nardone v. U.S., 308 U.S. 338
Further application:
"Attenuation"
Wong Sun v. U.S., 371 U.S. 471
"Inevitable Discovery"
Nix vs. Williams, 467 U.S. 431

II. Procedure for service of warrant; post-service procedure

A. Service of warrant
1. Time of search
Rule 126, sec. 9;
2. Two-witness rule
Rule 126, sec. 8;
Dabon v. People, G.R. No. 208775, [January 22, 2018]T
People v. Gesmundo, 219 SCRA 743 (1993);
Quintero v. NBI, G.R. No. L-35149, [June 23, 1988]
Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. v. Bright Future Technologies, Inc.,
G.R. No. 169156, [February 15, 2007], 544 PHIL 754-763)
3. Breaking of door or window to effect search
Rule 126, sec. 7;
People vs. Huang Zhen Hua, 439 SCRA 350 (2004)

-9-
 (Rule 126)

B. Post-service procedure
People v. Gesmundo, supra
1. Issuance of Receipt
Rule 126, sec. 11;
Signing receipt without counsel violates right
against self-incrimination:
People v. Lacbanes, 270 SCRA 193 (1997);
2. Delivery of property and inventory; return and proceedings on the
return:
Rule 126, sec. 12;
People v. Gesmundo, supra
3. “Chain of Custody” Rule and Requisites in searches and seizures
under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, or the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 as amended by R.A. No. 10640:
People v. Lim y Miranda, G.R. No. 231989, [September 4, 2018]) E.B.T

III. Remedies against unreasonable search and seizure

1. “Exclusionary Rule”: Motion to quash search
warrant or suppress evidence :
Art. III, Sec. 3 (2)
Rule 126, Sec. 14;
RA 8493, sec. 2(d) (cf. Rule 118, sec. 2[d];)
Waiver of right for failure to object during trial?:
Ogayon v. People, G.R. No. 188794 , [September 2, 2015]T
Candelaria v. RTC Br. 42, G.R. No. 173861. July 14, 2014T
Abuan v. People, G.R. No. 168773. October 27, 2006T
Standing to question:
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 170425, [April
23, 2012]T
Stonehill v. Diokno, supra

Bache v. Ruiz, supra

Rakes v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978);
PICOP v. Asuncion, supra
Solid Triangle Sales Corporation v. Sheriff of RTC QC,
Branch 9, G.R. No. 144309, November 23, 2001

2. Where to file motion to quash/suppress:

Malaloan v. CA, 232 SCRA 249 (1994)**T
Garaygay v. People, G.R. No. 135503, [July 6, 2000]

3. Waiver of Jurisdiction & Non Waiver of Admissibility:

People vs. Lapitaje, 397 SCRA 674 (2003);
Esquillo vs. People, G.R. No. 182010, August 25, 2010 T

-10-
 (Rule 126)

4. Return of property illegally seized:

Uy Kheytin v. Villareal, 42 Phil. 892 (1920);
Magoncia v. Palacio, 80 Phil. 170 (1948);
Collector v. Villaluz, 71 SCRA 356 (1976);
Mata v. Bayona, 128 SCRA 388 (1984);

4. Criminal liability and Civil Damages:

Rev. Pen. Code, Arts. 128, 129, 130, 206;
MHP Garments v. CA, 236 SCRA 227 (1994);
Remedy against warrantless searches:
Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those legally obtained (Art.
129) & Searching domicile without witnesses (Art. 130)
Galvante v. Casimiro, G.R. No. 162808, April 22, 2008
Civil Damages:
Silahis International Hotel, Inc. V. Panlilio, G.R. No. 163087, 02-20-2006

-11-