CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2

(Notes and Cases)

By

Atty. GALLANT D. SORIANO, MNSA

Lt. Col. PN (M)
SEARCHES and SEIZURES

(Article III, Section 2)

 SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

Art. III, Sec. 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
MAIN inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue
except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the
PROVISION 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.

Art. III, Sec. 2(1) - The privacy of communications and

ADDITIONAL correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the
PROVISION court or when public safety or requires otherwise as prescribed by
law.

Art. III, Sec. 3(1) - Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the
BOLSTERING
preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
PROVISION proceeding. EXCLUSIONARY RULE
 3 RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE III, SECTION 2
a. right of the people to be secure;
Protection covers:
1st b. in their persons, houses, papers, and effects;
1. privacy of person himself;
RIGHT
c. against unreasonable searches and seizures;
(inviolable) 2. inviolability of a person’s home
and his possessions.
d. of whatever nature and for any purpose.

a. No search warrant shall issue except upon probable cause; Exceptions:

b. to be determined personally by the judge; 1. search incidental to lawful arrest;

2nd 2. seizure of evidence in plain view;
RIGHT c. after examination under oath or affirmation of the 3. search of moving vehicle;
complainant and the witnesses he may produce; and 4. consented warrantless search;
(not absolute)
5. Customs search;
d. particularly describing the place to be searched, and the 6. Stop and frisk;
persons or things to be seized. 7. exigent and emergency circumstances.

a. No warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause;

Exceptions: Sec. 5, Rule 113, Rules of
Court
b. to be determined personally by the judge;
3rd
1. flagrante delicto;
RIGHT c. after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce; and
(not absolute) 2. hot pursuit;
d. particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
3. fugitive;
persons or things to be seized.
 SCOPE OF PROTECTION
a. citizen or alien;
1. Available to all persons b. accused of crime or not;
c. artificial persons included
a. may be invoked only by the
2. Right is personal person entitled to it.
3. Can only be waived by a. not by one who is not duly
the person entitled to it. authorized to effect such waiver. person whose rights are invaded or one who is expressly
4. Right applies against the
a. does not extend to acts
government and its law committed by private individuals.
enforcement agencies.
Stonehill vs. Diokno, G.R. No. L-19550, June 19, 1967 -
right to object to admission of papers in evidence belongs
exclusively to the corporations, to whom the seized effects
belong, and may not be invoked by the corporate officers in
proceedings against them in their individual capacity.
Stonehill vs. Diokno, G.R. No. L-19550, June 19, 1967 -
legality of a seizure can be contested only by the party
whose rights have been impaired thereby.
People vs. Damaso, G.R. No. 93516, Aug. 12, 1992 -
Right from unreasonable searches and seizures, being
personal one, cannot be waived by anyone except the
authorized to do so in his or her not by one who is not duly
authorized to effect such waiver.
Waterous Drug vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 113271, Oct. 16,
1997 - Bill of Rights does not protect citizens from
unreasonable searches and seizures perpetrated by private
individuals.
People vs. Bongcarawan, G.R. No. 143944, July 11, 2002
- Search and seizure of suitcase and contraband items was
carried out without government intervention, and hence, the
constitutional protection against unreasonable search and
seizure does not apply.
 REQUISITES
OF
VALID WARRANT
 1. It must be based upon probable cause.
Burgos vs. Chief of Staff, G.R. No. L-64261, Dec. 26, 1984 - application and its supporting affidavits
must specify subversive materials. Mere generalization will not suffice. Bereft of such particulars as
would justify finding of existence of probable cause, said allegation cannot serve as basis for issuance
of search warrant.

2. Probable cause must be determined personally by the judge.

Morano vs. Vivo, G.R. No. L-22196, June 30, 1967 - constitutional guarantee set forth in Sec. 1 (3),
Art. III of the Constitution, requiring that the issue of probable cause be determined by a judge, does
not extend to deportation proceedings.

Soliven vs. Makasiar, G.R. No. 82585, Nov. 14, 1988 - “Personally determine” refers to the exclusive
and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause.
Judge is not required to personally examine complainant and his witnesses.

Salazar vs. Achacoso, G.R. No. 81510, March 14, 1990 - Sec. of Labor, not being a judge may no
longer issue search or arrest warrants. Art. 38 of Labor Code, empowering Labor Sec. to issue search
and arrest warrants in illegal recruitment cases is declared unconstitutional.

People vs. Inting, G.R. No. 88919, July 25, 1990 - determination of probable cause is a function of
the Judge. It is not for the Provincial Fiscal nor for the Election Supervisor to ascertain. Only the Judge
and the Judge alone makes this determination.
3. Determination must be made after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce.

Mata vs. Bayona, G.R. No. 50720, March 26, 1984 - Mere affidavits of the complainant and
his witnesses are not enough to sustain the issuance of a search warrant.

4. It must particularly describe the place to be searched and the

persons or things to be seized.

Pangandaman vs. Casar, G.R. No. 71782, April 14, 1988 - Warrants against “50 John Does”
none of whom the witnesses could identify were considered as general warrants and thus void.

People vs. Salanguit, G.R. No. 133254, Apr. 19, 2001 - Only the articles described in the
warrant may be seized. The warrant authorized only the seizure of shabu, and not marijuana,
the seizure of the latter was held unlawful.

People vs. Tee, G.R. No. 140546, Jan. 20, 2003 - “An undetermined amount of marijuana”
satisfies the requirement for particularity in a search warrant. Technical precision of description
is not required particularly, where by the nature of the goods to be seized, their description
must be rather general, since the requirement of a technical description would mean that no
warrant could issue.
WARRANTLESS ARRESTS
WARRANTLESS ARRESTS - Sec. 5, Rule 113, Rules of Court

a) person to be arrested;
1. FLAGRANTE b) is actually committing or is attempting to commit an offense;
DELICTO
c) in his presence (arresting officer)

a) an offense had just been committed;

b) there is probable cause to believe;

2. HOT PURSUIT c) based on his personal knowledge of facts or other
circumstances;

d) that the person to be arrested has committed the offense.

a) person to be arrested is a prisoner;

b) who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he

is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case
3. FUGITIVE is pending;

c) or who has escaped while being transferred from one

confinement to another.
FLAGRANTE DELICTO
 FLAGRANTE DELICTO

People vs. Hindoy, G.R. No. 132662, May 10 2001 - The identity of the accused as the sellers
and possessors of the seized marijuana cannot be doubted, for they were caught in flagrante
delicto in a standard police buy-bust operation. The search, being incident to a
lawful arrest, was valid notwithstanding the absence of a warrant. 

People vs. Sy Chua, G.R. No. 136066, Feb. 4, 2003 - “reliable information” alone,
absent any overt act indicative of a felonious enterprise in the presence and within the view of the
arresting officers, is not sufficient to constitute  probable cause that would justify
an in flagrante delicto arrest.

People vs. Bohol, G.R. No. 171729, July 28, 2008 - the arresting officers were justified in
arresting Bohol as he had just committed a crime when he sold the shabu to PO2 Estrada. A buy-
bust operation is a form of entrapment which has repeatedly been accepted
to be a valid means of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law.

People vs. Pavia, G.R. No. 202687, Jan. 14, 2015 - flagrante delicto to be valid, two requisites
must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is
done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. When an accused is caught
in flagrante delicto, the police officers are not only authorized but are duty-
bound to arrest him even without a warrant.
HOT PURSUIT
 HOT PURSUIT

People vs. Sucro, G.R. No. 93239, March 18, 1991 - Sucro had just sold marijuana stick to
Macabante, and therefore, had just committed an illegal act of which the police
officers had personal knowledge, being members of the team which monitored
Sucro's nefarious activity. Police officers have personal knowledge of the actual commission of
the crime when it had earlier conducted surveillance activities of the accused.

Rolito Go vs. CA, G.R. No. 101837, Feb. 11, 1992 - it cannot be considered as within the meaning
of “the offense had just been committed” inasmuch as six days had already lapsed; neither
did the policemen have personal knowledge of facts that Go shot Maguan.

People vs. Gerente, G.R. No. 95847, March 10, 1993 - policemen arrested Gerente only some
three (3) hours after Gerente and his companions had killed Blace.

People vs. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 127755, April 14, 1999 - arrest of del Rosario came a day
after the consummation of the crime and not immediately thereafter. As such, the crime had
not been "just committed" at the time the accused was arrested.

People vs. Recepcion, G.R. No. 141943, Nov. 13, 2002 - accused committed the crime at 1:15
o’clock a.m. of July 28, 1999 in Caloocan City. Bulacan Police - lunchtime on 29 July 1999, arrested all
the eight accused. The arrest of appellants has been made in “hot pursuit,” an
exception from the rule that warrantless arrests are illegal.
WARRANTLESS SEARCHES
1. Search of vessels and aircrafts (Customs Searches).

Roldan vs. Arca, G.R. No. L-25434, July 25, 1975 Search and seizure without search warrant
of vessels and air crafts for violations of the customs laws have been the traditional exception
to the constitutional requirement of a search warrant, because the vessel can be quickly moved
out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the search warrant must be sought before such
warrant could be secured.

2. Search of moving vehicles.

Valmonte vs. De Villa, G.R. No. 83988, Sept. 29, 1989 - “Stop and Search” without warrant
at military or police checkpoints is not illegal per se so long as it is required by exigencies of
public order and conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists.

Caballes vs. CA, G.R. No. 136292, Jan. 15, 2002 - police officers did not merely conduct a
visual search or visual inspection of herein petitioner's vehicle. They had to reach inside the
vehicle, lift the kakawati leaves and look inside the sacks before they were able to see the
cable wires. It cannot be considered a simple routine check.

People vs. Libnao, G.R. No. 136860, Jan. 20, 2003 - warrantless search and seizure of moving
vehicles are allowed in recognition of the impracticability of securing a warrant under said
circumstances as the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which
the warrant may be sought.
3. Search (and seizure) is an incident of lawful arrest.

Pita vs. CA, G.R. No. 80806, Oct. 5, 1989 - A person charged with an offense may
be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the
commission of the offense but the search must have been an incident to a lawful arrest,
and the arrest must be on account of a crime committed.

People vs. Malmstedt, G.R. No. 91107, June 19, 1991 - Malmstedt was searched and
arrested while transporting prohibited drugs (hashish). A crime was actually being
committed by the accused and he was caught in flagrante delicto. Thus, the search
made upon his personal effects falls squarely under paragraph (1) of the foregoing
provisions of law, which allow a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest.

Espano vs. CA, G.R. No. 120431, April 1, 1998 - A warrantless search incidental to
lawful arrest may be made only within the permissible area of search, or place within the
immediate control of person being arrested.

People vs. Chua Ho San, G.R. No. 128222, June 17, 1999 - There must be first a
lawful arrest before a search can be made - process cannot be reversed. the search was
not incidental to an arrest.  There was no warrant of arrest and the warrantless arrest
did not fall under the exemptions allowed by the Rules of Court. 
4. When right is waived or consented searches.

People vs. Omaweng, G.R. No. 99050, Sept. 2, 1992 - When one voluntarily submits to a
search or consents to have it made on his person or in his premises, he is precluded from later
complaining thereof. The right to be secure from unreasonable search may, like every right, be
waived and such waiver may be made either expressly or impliedly.

People vs. Canton, G.R. No. 202687, Jan. 14, 2015 - earch made pursuant to routine airport
security procedure is allowed under RA 6235, which provides that every airline ticket shall
contain a condition that hand-carried luggage, etc. shall be subject to search.

5. When there is valid reason to stop and frisk.

Manalili vs. CA, G.R. No. 113447, Oct. 7, 1997 - In Terry vs. Ohio, “stop and frisk” was
defined as the right of police officer to stop a citizen on street, interrogate him and pat him for
weapons whenever he observes unusual conduct which leads him to conclude that criminal
activity may be afoot.

People vs. Sy Chua, G.R. No. 136066, Feb. 4, 2003 - Police failed to observe Requisites of
stop-and-frisk: 1) police must introduce themselves and make initial inquiries; 2) approach and
restrain a person who manifests unusual suspicious conduct, 3) in order to check the latter’s
outer clothing for possibly concealed weapons.
6. Evidence in plain view.
People vs. Musa, G.R. No. 96177, Jan. 27, 1993 - plain view doctrine is usually applied where police officer is
not searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes upon an incriminating
object. 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..

People vs. Figueroa, G.R. No. 97143, Oct. 2, 1995 - where while serving a warrant of arrest, police officers
searched the house and found a pistol, a magazine and seven rounds of ammunition, the seizure of the firearm
was held lawful, because the objects seized were in plain view of the officer who had right to be in the place
where he was.

7. Inspection of buildings and other premises for the enforcement of

fire, sanitary and building regulations.
Camara vs. Mun. Court, 387 US 523, June 5, 1967 - Search warrants which are required in nonemergency
situations should normally be sought only after entry is refused. In the nonemergency situation here, appellant
had a right to insist that the inspectors obtain a search warrant.

8. Search and seizure under exigent and emergency circumstances.

People vs. De Gracia, G. R. Nos. 102009, July 6, 1994 - the absence of a judicial warrant is no legal
impediment to arresting or capturing persons committing overt acts of violence against government forces in
pursuance of the rebellious movement. The arrest or capture is thus impelled by the exigencies of the situation
that involves the very survival of society and its government and duly constituted authorities.
EXCLUSIONARY RULE
 EXCLUSIONARY RULE

Art. III, Sec. 3(2) - “Any evidence obtained in

CONSTITUTIONAL violation of this or the preceding section shall
PROVISION be inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding.”

a. if the source (the "tree") of the evidence or evidence

FRUIT OF THE itself is tainted;
POISONOUS TREE
DOCTRINE b. then anything gained (the "fruit") from it is tainted as
well.

a. to deter police from using illegal means;

PURPOSE
b. to obtain evidence.
 EXCLUSIONARY RULE

Alih vs. Castro

G.R. No. L-6940, June 23, 1987

a. As the search of Alih's premises was violative of the Constitution, all firearms and
ammunition taken from the raided compound are inadmissible in evidence in any of the
proceedings against Alih. These articles are "fruits of the poisonous tree.

b. As Judge Learned Hand observed, "Only in case the prosecution which itself controls the
seizing officials, knows that it cannot profit by their wrong, will the wrong be repressed.

People vs. Salazar

G.R. No. 99355, Aug. 11, 1997

a. Granting arguendo that appellants were illegally arrested, such arrest did not invest these
eyewitness accounts with constitutional infirmity as “fruits of the poisonous tree.” 

b. Considering that their conviction could be secured on the strength of the testimonial
evidence given in open court which are not inadmissible in evidence.
PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION
AND CORRESPONDENCE
PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Art. III, Sec. 3(1) - “The privacy of communications and
CONSTITUTIONAL correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of
PROVISION the court or when public safety requires otherwise as prescribed
by law.”

a. it guarantees that the content of sealed letters and letters in transit;

PURPOSE b. is never revealed and are not opened;

c. by government officials or any other third party.

a. upon lawful order of the court;

EXCEPTIONS
b. when public safety requires otherwise as prescribed by law.

Sec. 1 - “It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by
all the parties to any private communication or spoken word, to tap
ANTI
any wire or cable or by using any other device or arrangement, to
WIRETAPPING secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication or spoken
ACT word by using a device commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph
(RA 4200)
or detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape-recorder, or however
otherwise described.”
PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Gaanan vs. IAC, G.R. No. L-69809, Oct. 16, 1986 - use of telephone extension for
the purpose of overhearing private conversation without authorization did not violate RA
4200 because a telephone extension devise was neither among those "device(s) or
arrangement(s)" enumerated therein.

Ramirez vs. CA, G.R. No. 93833, Sept. 28, 1995 - law makes it illegal for any person,
not authorized by all the parties to any private communication to secretly record such
communication by means of a tape recorder. The law makes no distinction as to whether
the party sought to be penalized by the statute ought to be a party other than or
different from those involved in the private communication.

Zulueta vs. CA, G.R. No. 107383, Feb. 20, 1996 - intimacies between husband and
wife do not justify any one of them in breaking the drawers and cabinets of the other
and in ransacking them for any telltale evidence of marital infidelity. A person, by
contracting marriage, does not shed his/her integrity or his right to privacy as an
individual and the constitutional protection is ever available to him or to her.
PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Disini vs. Sec. of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, Feb. 11, 2014 - Petitioners
simply fail to show how government effort to curb computer-related identity
theft violates the right to privacy and correspondence as well as the right to
due process of law.

Vivares vs. St. Theresa’s College, G.R. No. 202666, Sept. 29, 2014 - We
cannot afford protection to persons if they themselves did nothing to place
the matter within the confines of their private zone. OSN users must be
mindful enough to learn the use of privacy tools, to use them if they desire
to keep the information private, and to keep track of changes in the
available privacy settings, such as those of Facebook, especially because
Facebook is notorious for changing these settings and the site's layout often.
END