Sec 2 - Searches and Seizures Chap 8 - 9 - 29 PDF

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Malasugui, infra.], but the waiver must be

RIGHT AGAINST made by the person whose right is
UNREASONABLE invaded, not by one who is not duly
authorized to effect such waiver [People v.
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES Damaso, 212 SCRA 457].
c) The right applies as a distraint directed

Sec. 2. Art. Ill: “The right of the people to
only against the government and its
be secure in their persons, houses, papers
agencies tasked with the enforcement of
and effects against unreasonable searches
the law. The protection cannot extend to
and seizures of whatever nature and for
acts committed by private individuals so
any purpose shall be inviolable, and no
as to bring them within the ambit of
search warrant or warrant of arrest shall
alleged unlawful intrusion by the
issue, except upon probable cause to be
government [People v. Marti, 193 SCRA
determined personally by a judge, after
57]. This is reiterated in Waterous Drug
examination under oath or affirmation of
Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No. 113271,
the complainant and the witnesses he may
October 16, 1997, where the Supreme
produce, particularly describing the place
Court said that the Bill of Rights does not
to be searched, or the persons or things to
protect citizens from unreasonable
the seized.”
searches and seizures by private
individuals.
1. Scope of the protection.
(In this case, petitioner’s officer opened
a) The protection is available to all
an envelope addressed to the respondent
persons, including aliens, whether
and found therein a check evidencing
accused of a crime or not. Artificial
overprice in the purchase of medicine; the
persons are also entitled to the guarantee,
check was then deemed admissible in
although they may be required to open
evidence.) In People v. Mendoza, G.R. Nos.
their books of accounts for examination
109279-80, January 18, 1999, the same
by the State in the exercise of police and
principle was applied relative to the
taxing powers. See Moncada v. People’s
memorandum receipt and mission order
Court, 80 Phil 1.
(to carry firearms) discovered by the
accused-appellant’s father- in-law, a
b) The right is personal; it may be invoked
private citizen.
only by the person entitled to it [Stonehill
v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383]. As such, the
In People v. Bongcarawan, G.R. No.
right may be waived [Lopez v.
143944, July 11, 2002, the shabu in the
Commissioner of Customs, 68 SCRA 320],
baggage of the accused was found by
either expressly or impliedly [People v.
MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

"The oak fought the wind and was broken, the willow bent when it must and survived.”
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | DOMINGO, KEVIN

SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA|
Page | 1
MENDIOLA, MANILA
(private) security officers of the Indeed, even assuming that their arrest
interisland passenger vessel who then was illegal, their act of entering a plea
reported the matter to the Philippine during their arraignment constituted a
Coast Guard. The search and seizure of waiver by the accused of their right to
the suitcase and contraband items were question the validity of their arrest
carried out without government [People v. Cachola, G.R. Nos. 148712-15,
intervention. Accordingly, the January 21, 2004].
exclusionary rule may not be invoked.
- The filing of charges and the

d) What constitutes a reasonable or issuance of the warrant of arrest
unreasonable search and seizure in any against a person invalidly detained
particular case is purely a judicial will cure the defect of that
question, determinable from a detention, or at least deny him the
consideration of the circumstances right to be released [Francisco
involved [Valmonte v. De Villa, 178 SCRA Juan Larranaga v. Court of
211]. But where the search and Appeals, G.R. No. 130644, March
consequent seizure offish allegedly caught 13, 1998].
by the use of explosives was made
without a warrant, and a search warrant
was obtained by the officers only much DOES THE CONSTITUTION PROHIBIT
later, it was held that there was a ALL TYPES OF SERCHES AND
violation of this constitutional guarantee SEIZURES?
[Manlavi v. Gacott, 244 SCRA 50], - No. Only unreasonable SS.
e) Objections to the warrant of arrest WHAT ARE THE 2 Parts of Sec. 2, Art.
must be made before the accused enters III?
his plea [People v. Codilla, 224 SCRA 1. Constitutional guarantee
104; People v. Robles, G.R. No. 101335, 2. Requisites of search warrant
June 8, 2000]. Failure to do so constitutes
a waiver of his right against unlawful WHAT IS A WARRANT?
restraint of liberty [People v. Penaflorida, - Warrant is an order in writing
G.R. No. 130550, September 2, 1999, issued in the name of the People of
reiterating Filoteo v. Sandiganbayan, the Philippines, signed by a judge
263 SCRA 222; People v. Gastador, G.R. and directed to a peace officer.
No. 123727, April 14, 1999].
WHAT IS A SEARCH WARRANT?


Page | 2
MENDIOLA, MANILA
- A search warrant is an order in days from its receipt. Within ten

writing issued in the name of the (10) days after the expiration of
People of the Philippines, signed the period, the officer to whom it
by a judge and directed to a peace was assigned for execution shall
officer, commanding him to search make a report to the judge who
for personal property described issued the warrant. In case of his
therein and bring it before the failure to execute the warrant, he
court. shall state the reasons therefore.
(Sec. 4, Rule 113)
MAY A SEARCH WARRANT BE ISSUED
FOR THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WOA and SW
REAL PROPERTY? (NACHURA)
- No. Real property cannot be a
subject of a search warrant ii) Warrant of Arrest. A warrant of arrest
because of physical impossibility is said to particularly describe the person
to bring the property before the to be seized if it contains the name/s of
court. Under RoC, only personal the person/s to be arrested. If the name of
property may be subject of search the person to be arrested is not known,
warrant, which may be: then a “John Doe” warrant may be issued.
A “John Doe" warrant will satisfy the
a. Subject of offense. constitutional requirement of
b. Stolen or embezzled and its fruits. particularity of description if there is
c. Used or intended to be used for the some descriptio persona which will
commission of the offense. enable the officer to identify the accused.
WHAT IS THE LIFETIME OF A SEARCH ia) In Pangandaman v. .Casar,

WARRANT? 159 SCRA 599, warrants issued
- A search warrant shall be valid for against “50 John Does”, none of
ten (10) days from its date. whom the witnesses could identify,
Thereafter it shall be void. (Sec. 10, were Considered as “general
Rule 126) warrants”, and thus, void.
- A warrant of arrest has no lifetime iii) Search Warrant. A search warrant

and it is valid until served. But the may be said to particularly describe the
head of the office to whom the things to be seized when the description
warrant of arrest was delivered for therein is as specific as the circumstances
execution shall cause the warrant will ordinarily allow [People v. Rubio, 57
to be executed within ten (10) Phil 384]; or when the description


Page | 3
MENDIOLA, MANILA
expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law, marijuana” was held to satisfy the
by which the warrant officer may be requirement for particularity of
guided in making the search and seizure; description.
or when the things described are limited
to those which bear direct relation to the iiib) Furthermore, a search
offense for which the warrant is being warrant is severable. Thus, in Uy v.
issued [Bache & Co. v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823], Bureau of Internal Revenue, G.R.
If the articles desired to be seized have No. 129651, October 20, 2000, the
any direct relation to an offense Supreme Court said that the
committed, the applicant must necessarily general description of most of the
have some evidence other than those documents in the warrant — if
articles, to prove said offense; and the there are others particularly
articles subject of search and seizure described — will not invalidate the
should come in handy merely to entire warrant. Those items which
strengthen such evidence [Columbia are not particularly described may
Pictures v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. simply be cut off without
111267, September 20, 1996]. destroying the whole warrant. This
ruling is reiterated in Microsoft
Corporation v. Maxicorp, Inc., G.R.
iiia) However, in Kho v. Judge No. 140946, September 13, 2004.
Makalintal, G.R. No. 94902- OS,
April 21, 1999, it was held that the iiic) Only the articles particularly
failure to specify detailed described in the warrant may be
descriptions in the warrant does seized. In People v. Salanguit,
not necessarily make the warrant a supra., where the warrant
general warrant. Citing Justice authorized only the seizure of
Francisco, the Supreme Court said shabu, and not marijuana, the
that the “description of the seizure of the latter was held
property to be seized need not be unlawful. In Del Rosario v. People,
technically accurate nor G.R. No. 142295, May 31, 2001, the
necessarily precise, and its nature Supreme Court said that the search
will necessarily vary according to warrant was no authority for the
whether the identity of the police officers to seize the firearm
property, or its character, is a which was not mentioned, much
matter of concern. The description less described with particularity,
is required to be specific only in so in the warrant.
far as circumstances will allow.”
Thus, in People v. Tee, supra., “an
undetermined amount of

Page | 4
MENDIOLA, MANILA
In Veroy v. Layague, 210 SCRA 97, support of their application

it was held that even while the for a warrant. Thus, where
offense of illegal possession of the warrant designated the
firearms is malum prohibitum, it place to be searched as
does not follow that the subject “Abigail’s Variety Store, Apt.
firearm is illegal per se. Thus, 1207, Area F, Bagong Buhay
inasmuch as the consent to the Ave., Sapang Palay, San Jose
search was limited in scope to the del Monte, Bulacan”, and
search for NPA rebels, the the search was made at Apt.
confiscation of the firearm was No. I which was
held invalid. immediately adjacent to the
store (but an independent
iiid) Place to be searched. The unit), it was held in People
place to be searched should, v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
likewise be particularly described. 126379, June 26, 1998,
In Paper Industries Corporation of that there was an
the Philippines v. Asuncion, 307 infringement of the
SCRA 253, the search warrant constitutional guarantee,
issued to search the compound of the clear intention of the
petitioner for unlicensed firearms requirement being that the
was held invalid for failing to search be confined to the
describe the place with place so described in the
particularity, considering that the warrant.
compound is made up of 200
buildings, 15 plants, 84 staff Similarly, in Yousef Al
houses, 1 airstrip, 3 piers, 23 Ghoul v. Court of Appeals,
warehouses, 6 depots, and 800 G.R. No. 126859,
miscellaneous structures, spread September 4, 2001, where
out over 155 hectares. the search warrant
authorized the search of
iiidl) The place to be Apartment No. 2, Obinia
searched, as described in Compound, Caloocan City,
the warrant, cannot be but the searching party
amplified or modified by extended the search and
the peace officers’ own seizure of firearms to
personal knowledge of the Apartment No. 8 in the
premises or the evidence same compound, the
which they adduced in Supreme Court, while


Page | 5
MENDIOLA, MANILA
upholding the validity of Chairman, a receipt evidencing

the search of Apartment No. rental payment for the house at
2, invalidated the search Dama de Noche, and the school ID
done at Apartment No. 8. of her daughter who testified in
court. The authorities did not
iiie) The Constitution requires conduct any prior surveillance. It
search warrants to particularly was only when they implemented
describe not only the place to be the warrant that they coordinated
searched, but also the persons to with barangay officials, and one of
be searched. In People v. Tiu Won the barangay officials informed the
Chua, G.R. No. 149878, July 1, police officers that Ising Gutierrez
2003, the validity of the search Diwa and Priscilla del Norte were
warrant was upheld despite the one and the same person, but said
mistake in the name of the persons barangay official was not
to be searched, because the presented in court. Thus, the Court
authorities conducted surveillance held that the prosecution failed to
and a test-buy operation before prove the guilt of the accused
obtaining the search warrant and beyond reasonable doubt.
subsequently implementing it.
They had personal knowledge of
the identity of the persons and the
place to be searched, although they HYPO: Judge issued SW on July 1.
did not specifically know the Police received it on July 10. He
names of the accused. The implemented the same on July 12.
situation in People v. Priscilla del Valid?
Norte, G.R. No. 149462, March 29, - No. Search warrant is valid only
2004, is different. The search within 10 days from the date of
warrant was issued against one issuance.
Ising Gutierrez Diwa, residing at
275 North Service Road corner
Cruzada St., Bagong Barrio, WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES OF A
Caloocan City. Arrested in the VALID SEARCH WARRANT?
house at the address named, and - A search warrant shall not issue
eventually charged, was Priscilla except upon probable cause in
del Norte, who claimed to be a connection with one specific
resident of 376 Dama de Noche, offense to be determined
Caloocan City, as later shown by personally by the judge after
the certification of the Barangay examination under oath or


Page | 6
MENDIOLA, MANILA
affirmation of the complainant and penalizes categories of offenses which are

the witnesses he may produce, and closely related or which belong to the
particularly describing the place to same class or species, thus, one search
be searched and the things to be warrant may be validly issued for several
seized which may be anywhere in violations thereof. This is reiterated in
the Philippines. (Sec. 4, Rule 126) People v. Salanguit, G.R. No. 133254-55
April 19 2001.
ii) Probable cause as applied to

FROM NACHURA illegal possession of firearms should be
REQUISITES OF A VALID WARRANT such facts and circumstances which
would lead a reasonably discreet and
a) Probable Cause. Such facts and prudent man to believe that a person is in
circumstances antecedent to the issuance possession of a firearm and that he does
of the warrant that in themselves are not have the license or permit to possess
sufficient to induce a cautious man to rely the same.
on them and act in pursuance thereof
[People v. Syjuco, 64 Phil 667; Alvarez v. In Nala v. Barroso, G.R. No.
CFI, 64 Phil 33], For a search: “such facts 153087, August 7, 2003, nowhere in the
and circumstances which would lead a affidavit of the witness or the applicant
reasonably discreet and prudent man to was it mentioned that the petitioner had
believe that an offense has been no license to possess a firearm. Neither
committed and that the objects sought in was there a certification from the
connection with the offense are in the appropriate government agency that
place sought to be searched” [Burgos v. petitioner was not licensed to possess a
Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 800]. See also firearm. The search warrant is, therefore,
Corro v. Using, 137 SCRA 541; Prudente null and void.
v. Dayrit 180 SCRA 69. ’
iii) In cases involving violation of
i) Must refer to one specific PD 49 (Protection of Intellectual
offense [Asian Surety v. Herrera, 54 Property), a basic requirement for the
SCRA 312; Castro v. Pabalan, 70 SCRA validity of the search warrant is the
477]. However, in People v. Dichoso, 223 presentation of the master tape of the
SCRA 174, it was held that the Dangerous copyrighted films from which the pirated
Drugs Act of 1972 is a special law that films are supposed to have been copied
deals specifically with dangerous drugs [20th Century Fox v. Court of
which are subsumed into prohibited and Appeals,162 SCRA 655].
regulated drugs, and defines and


Page | 7
MENDIOLA, MANILA
But this decision, which was judge; and the judge alone makes this
promulgated on August 19, 1988, should determination.
apply only prospectively, and should not
apply to parties who relied on theold The same rule applies in election offenses
doctrine and acted in good faith even if, in such cases, the preliminary
[Columbia Pictures v. Court of Appeals, investigation is done by the Comelec
237 SCRA 367, cited in Columbia [People v. Delgado, 189 SCRA 715].
Pictures v. Court of Appeals, 262 SCRA
219]. i) Issuance of a Warrant of
Arrest. It is sufficient that the
iv) Where a search warrant was issued for judge “personally determine” the
the seizure of shabu and drug existence of probable cause. It is
paraphernalia, but probable cause was not necessary that he should
found to exist only with respect to the personally examine the
shabu, the warrant cannot be invalidated complainant and his witnesses
in toto; it is still valid with respect to the [Soliven v. Makasiar, 167 SCRA
shabu [People v. Salanguit, supra.]. 393].
b) Determination of probable cause In Reyes v. Montesa, 247 SCRA 85,

personally by a judge. In Placer v. the Supreme Court said that a
Villanueva, 126 SCRA 463, reiterated in hearing is not necessary for the
Lim v. Judge Felix, 194 SCRA 292, the determination of the existence of
Supreme Court ruled that the issuance of probable cause for the issuance of
a warrant of arrest is not a ministerial a warrant of arrest. The judge
function of the judge. While he could rely should evaluate the report and
on the findings of the fiscal, he is not prosecutor or require the
bound thereby. Thus, the determination submission of the supporting
of probable cause depends to a large affidavits of witnesses to aid him in
extent upon the finding or opinion of the determining whether probable
judge who conducted the required cause exists.
examination of the applicant and the
witnesses [Kho v. Judge Makalintal, G.R. Likewise, in Webb v. De Leon, 247
No. 94902-06, April 21, 1999, citing SCRA 652, it was held that the
Luna v. Plaza, 26 SCRA 310]. In People v. judge would simply personally
Inting, 187 SCRA 788, the Supreme Court review the initial determination of
emphasized that the determination of the prosecutor to see if it is
probable cause is the function of the supported by substantial evidence.
He merely determines the


Page | 8
MENDIOLA, MANILA
probability, not the certainty, of witnesses to aid him in

guilt of the accused and, in so arriving at a conclusion as
doing, he need not conduct a de to the existence of probable
novo hearing. Indeed, in the cause. It is not obligatory,
preliminary examination for the but merely discretionary,
issuance of a warrant of arrest, the upon the judge to issue a
judge is not tasked to review in warrant of arrest, even
detail the evidence submitted after having personally
during the preliminary examined the complainant
investigation; it is sufficient that and his witnesses for the
the judge should personally determination of probable
evaluate the report and supporting cause. Whether it is
documents submitted by the necessary to arrest the
prosecution in determining accused in order not to
probable cause [Cruz v. People, frustrate the ends of justice
233 SCRA 439], This was is left to his sound
reiterated in People v. Court of judgment and discretion
Appeals and Cerbo, G.R. No. [Cruz v. Judge Areola, A.M.
126005, January 21, 1999 and in No. RTJ-01-1642, March 06,
Raro v. Sandiganbayan, July 14, 2002].
2000.
ib) Thus, the determination
of probable cause for the
ia) Following established issuance of a warrant of
doctrine and procedure, the arrest is within the
judge shall (1) personally exclusive province of the
evaluate the report and the judge. In Sales v.
supporting documents Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
submitted by the fiscal 143802, November 16,
regarding the existence of 2001, the Supreme Court,
probable cause and, on the citing People v. Judge
basis thereof, issue a Inting, 189 SCRA 788, said:
warrant of arrest; or (2) if,
on the basis thereof, he (1) the
finds no probable cause, he determination of
may disregard the probable cause is a
prosecutor’s report and function of the judge
require the submission of and the judge alone;
supporting affidavits of

Page | 9
MENDIOLA, MANILA
arrest. In this case,

(2) the the Supreme Court
preliminary inquiry found that there was
made by the undue haste in the
prosecutor does not filing of the
bind the judge, as it information; the
is the report, the State Prosecutors
affidavits, the were over-eager to
transcript of file the case and
stenographic notes, secure the warrant
if any, and all other of arrest. The
supporting Sandiganbayan
documents behind should have taken
the prosecutor’s careful note of the
certification which contradictions in the
are material in testimony of
assisting the judge in complainant’s
his determination of witnesses as well as
probable cause; the improbabilities
in the prosecution
(3) judges evidence.
and prosecutors
alike should ic) If the judge relied solely
distinguish the on the certification of the
preliminary inquiry Prosecutor [since all the
which determines records of the preliminary
probable cause for investigation were still in
the issuance of the Masbate], then he cannot be
warrant of arrest said to have personally
from the preliminary determined the existence of
investigation proper probable cause, and,
which ascertains therefore, the warrant of
whether the arrest issued by him is null
offender should be and void [Lim v. Felix, 194
held for trial or be SCRA 292, reiterated in
released; and (4) Roberts v. People, 294
only a judge may SCRA 307], In Ho v. People,
issue a warrant of G.R. No. 106632, October 9,


Page | 10
MENDIOLA, MANILA
1997, the warrant of arrest

issued by the ic1) Sec. 6, Rule 112
Sandiganbayan was of the Revised Rules
invalidated because it was on Criminal
based merely on the report Procedure now
and recommendation of the embodies the rulings
investigating prosecutor; in Soliven and Lim,
there was no showing that with modifications,
the court personally as follows:
determined the existence of
probable cause by “Sec. 6. When
independently examining warrant of arrest
sufficient evidence may issue. - (a) By
submitted by the parties the Regional Trial
during the preliminary Court - Within ten
investigation. Likewise, it days from the filing
was held that there is of the complaint or
failure to comply with this information, the
requirement where the judge shall
judge merely relied on the personally evaluate
resolution of the Panel of the resolution of the
Prosecutors and the latter’s prosecutor and its
certification that probable supporting evidence.
cause existed. Judges and He may immediately
prosecutors should dismiss the case if
distinguish the preliminary the evidence on
inquiry, which determines record clearly fails to
probable cause for the establish probable
issuance of a warrant of cause. If he finds
arrest from the preliminary probable cause, he
investigation proper, which shall issue a warrant
ascertains whether the of arrest, or a
offender should be held for commitment order if
trial or released. The first is the accused has
made by the judge; the already been
second is done by the arrested pursuant to
prosecutor [Allado v. a warrant issued by
Diokno, 232 SCRA 192]. the judge who


Page | 11
MENDIOLA, MANILA
conducted the investigating

preliminary prosecutor had
investigation or submitted to the
when the complaint respondent judge
or information was only the resolution
filed pursuant to Sec. after his preliminary
7 of this Rule. In case investigation of the
of doubt on the case and the
existence of affidavit-complaint
probable cause, the of the private
judge may order the complainant. The
prosecutor to prosecutor failed to
present additional include the affidavits
evidence within five of the witnesses of
days from notice and the private
the issue must be complainant, and the
resolved by the latter’s reply
court within thirty affidavit, the
days from the filing counter-affidavit of
of the complaint or the petitioner, as
information.” well as the evidence
adduced by the
ic2) Thus, in Okabe private complainant.
v. Judge Gutierrez,
G.R. No. 150185,
May 27, 2004, the id) More reprehensible was
Supreme Court the action of the judge who
found the issued a warrant of arrest
respondent judge to not only without following
have committed the procedure to determine
grave abuse of the existence of probable
discretion cause but was so negligent
amounting to lack or not to notice that there was
excess of jurisdiction not even a prosecutor’s
in finding probable certification to rely upon
cause for the because there was no
petitioner’s arrest, information that had yet
because the been filed in court
[Talingdan v. Judge

Page | 12
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Eduarte, A. M. No. RTJ-01- officer designated for that

1610, October 02, 2001], purpose.
However, a judge was
likewise sanctioned for In Crespo v. Mogul, it was
failing to issue a warrant of emphasized that the public
arrest where there was a prosecutor controls and
clear showing of the directs the prosecution of
existence of probable cause, criminal offenses, and
and as a result of such where there is a clash of
failure, the accused could views between a judge who
no longer be apprehended did not investigate and a
[Concerned Citizen of fiscal who conducted a re-
Maddela v. Judge Yadao, investigation, those of the
A.M. No. RTJ-01-1639, prosecutor would normally
December 12, 2002]. prevail.
ie) The determination of Accordingly, in Gozos v.

probable cause during a Tac-An, G.R. No. 123191,
preliminary investigation is December 17, 1998, where
judicially recognized as an the trial judge conducted an
executive function and is inquiry not only to
made by the prosecutor determine the existence of
[Ledesma v. Court of probable cause, but also to
Appeals, G.R. No. 113216, determine what the charge
September 5, 1997]. The should be and who should
primary objective of a be charged, it was held that
preliminary investigation is the judge acted beyond his
to free a respondent from authority. Thus, in
the inconvenience, expense, Dupasquierv. Court of
ignominy and stress of Appeals, G.R. No. 112089,
defending himself in the January 24, 2001, it was
course of a formal trial, held that courts must
until the reasonable respect the discretion of the
probability of his guilt has prosecutor in his findings
been passed upon in a more and determination of
or less summary probable cause in
proceeding by a competent preliminary investigation.
When the prosecutor is not


Page | 13
MENDIOLA, MANILA
convinced that he has the under oath, the complainants and any
quantum of evidence at witnesses he may produce on facts
hand to support the personally known to them, and attach to
averments, he is under no the record their sworn statements
obligation to file the together with any affidavits submitted.
criminal information. See Silva v. Presiding Judge, 203 SCRA
140; Mata v. Bayona, 128 SCRA 388.
if) In the cases when it is
the judge who himself iia) A search warrant proceeding is,
conducts the preliminary in no sense, a criminal action or
investigation, for him to the commencement of a
issue a warrant of arrest, prosecution. The proceeding is not
the investigating judge one against any person, but is
must: solely for the discovery and to get
possession of personal property. It
(1) have examined, is a special and peculiar remedy,
under oath and in writing, drastic in nature, and made
the complainant and his necessary because of public
witnesses; necessity. It resembles in some
(2) be satisfied that respect with what is commonly
there is probable cause; and known as John Doe proceedings.
(3) that there is a While an application for a search
need to place the warrant is entitled like a criminal
respondent under action, it does not make it such an
immediate custody action [United Laboratories, Inc. v.
in order not to Isip, G.R. No. 163958, June 28,
frustrate the ends of 2005],
justice [Mantaring v.
Judge Roman, 254 iib) Where the judge failed to
SCRA158]. conform with the essential
requisites of taking the deposition
in writing and attaching them to
the record, it was held that search
ii) Issuance of a Search Warrant. Section warrant is invalid, and the fact that
4, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court the objection thereto was raised
requires that the judge must personally only during the trial is of no
examine in the form of searching moment, because the absence of
questions and answers, in writing and such depositions was discovered


Page | 14
MENDIOLA, MANILA
only after the arrest and during the i) For the procedure in the
trial [People v. Mamaril, G.R. No. issuance of a warrant of arrest, see
147607, January 22, 2004], Soliven v. Makasiar, supra.
However, the Bill of Rights does ii) The evidence offered by the
not make it an imperative complainant and his witnesses
necessity that the depositions be should be based on their own
attached to the records of an personal knowledge and not on
application for a search warrant. mere information or belief. The
The omission would not be fatal if oath required must refer to the
there is evidence on record truth of the facts within the
showing that such personal personal knowledge of the
examination was conducted and applicant or his witnesses, because
what testimony was presented the purpose is to convince the
[People v. Tee, G.R. Nos. 140546- committing magistrate, not the
47, January 20, 2003]. individual making the affidavit and
seeking the issuance of the
iic) Where the trial judge not only warrant, of the existence of
asked searching questions but probable cause [Cupcupin v.
leading questions, as well, the People, G.R. No. 132389,
same was not considered November 19, 2002], In Alvarez v.
improper, because the CFI, 64 Phil. 33, “reliable
complainant and the witnesses information” was held insufficient;
were reticent and had to be made in Burgos v. Chief of Staff, 133
to explain [Flores v. Sumaljag, SCRA 800, “evidence gathered and
290 SCRA 568]. collated by our unit” was not
sufficient; and in Quintero v. NBI,
c) After examination, under oath or 162 SCRA 467, NBI Agent Castro
affirmation, of the complainant and the knew nothing of his personal
witnesses he may produce. The knowledge that Quintero
personal examination must not be merely committed an offense, while
routinary or pro forma, but must be Congressman Mate’s statement
probing and exhaustive. The purpose of was characterized by several
this rule is to satisfy the examining omissions and replete with
magistrate as to the existence of probable conclusions and inferences, lacking
cause. the directness and definiteness
which would have been present
had the statement dealt with facts


Page | 15
MENDIOLA, MANILA
which Congressman Mate actually

witnessed. In Sony Music In People v. Delos Reyes, G.R. No.
Entertainment v. Judge Espanol, 140657, October 25, 2004, the
G.R. No. 156804, March 14, 2005, Supreme Court said that it is
the Supreme Court said that absent axiomatic that the examination
the element of personal knowledge must be probing and exhaustive
by the applicant or his witnesses of and not merely routinary, general,
the facts upon which the issuance peripheral or perfunctory. If the
of the search warrant may be Judge fails to determine probable
justified, the warrant is deemed cause by personally examining the
not based on probable cause and is applicant and his witnesses in the
a nullity, the issuance being, in form of searching questions before
legal contemplation, arbitrary. In issuing a search warrant, it
Mata v. Bayona, 128 SCRA 388, it constitutes grave abuse of
was held that mere affidavits of the discretion.
complainant and his witnesses
were not enough to sustain the d) Particularity of description. In
issuance of a search warrant. People v. Tee, G.R. Nos. 140546- 47,
January 20, 2003, it was held that this
iii) But in People v. Wooicock, 244 requirement is primarily meant to enable
SCRA 235, where the police the law enforcers serving the warrant to
officers acted not merely on the
information given by the Thai (1) readily identify the properties to be
Royal Police, but also conducted seized and thus prevent them from
thorough surveillance on the seizing the wrong items; and
accused, it was held that the police (2) leave said peace officers with no
officers had personal knowledge. discretion regarding the articles to be
seized and thus prevent unreasonable
iv) In Columbia Pictures v. Judge searches and seizures. Earlier, in Corro v.
Flores, 223 SCRA 761, the Using, 137 SCRA 541, the Court said that
Supreme Court held that the judge the evident purpose of this requirement is
must strictly comply with the to leave the officers of the law with no
constitutional and statutory discretion regarding what articles they
requirements for the issuance of a should seize, to the end that unreasonable
search warrant, including the need searches and seizures may not be made
to personally examine the and abuses may not be committed. It is
applicant and the witnesses also aimed at preventing violations of
through searching questions. security of persons and property, and


Page | 16
MENDIOLA, MANILA
unlawful invasions of the sanctity of the THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE

home, and giving remedy against such AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES
usurpation when attempted [People v. AND SEIZURES APPLIES ONLY TO
Damaso, 212 SCRA 457]. GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE AND
CANNOT BE INVOKED AGAINST
PRIVATE INTRUSIONS. On the other
hand, the case at bar assumes a peculiar
character since the evidence sought to be
WHAT IS PROBABLE CAUSE? excluded was primarily discovered and
- Probable cause refers to such facts obtained by a private person, acting in a
and circumstances antecedent to private capacity and without the
the issuance of the warrant, that intervention and participation of State
are in themselves sufficient to authorities. Under the circumstances, can
induce a cautious man to rely upon accused/appellant validly claim that his
them and act in pursuance thereof. constitutional right against unreasonable
searches and seizure has been violated?
- For a search: “such facts and Stated otherwise, may an act of a private
circumstances which would lead a individual, allegedly in violation of
reasonably discreet and prudent appellant's constitutional rights, be
man to believe that an offense has invoked against the State?
been committed and that the
objects sought in connection with We hold in the negative. In the absence of
the offense are in the place sought governmental interference, the liberties
to be searched.” guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be
invoked against the State. As this Court
- For an arrest: “such facts and held in Villanueva v. Querubin (48 SCRA
circumstances which would lead a 345 [1972]: "1. This 'constitutional right
reasonably discreet and prudent (against unreasonable search and
person to believe that an offense seizure) refers to the immunity of one's
has been committed by the person person, whether citizen or alien, from
sought to be arrested.” interference by government, included in
which is his residence, his papers, and
other possessions . . . ". . . There the state,
however powerful, does not as such have
People vs. Marti [G.R. No. 81561, the access except under the
January 18, 1991] circumstances above noted, for in the
traditional formulation, his house,
however humble, is his castle. Thus is


Page | 17
MENDIOLA, MANILA
outlawed any unwarranted intrusion by the search and seizure clauses are
government, which is called upon to restraints upon the government and its
refrain from any invasion of his dwelling agents, not upon private individuals,
and to respect the privacies of his life . . ." (citing People v. Potter, 240 Cal. App.2d
621, 49 Cap. Rptr, 892 (1966); State v.
In Burdeau v. McDowell (256 US 465 Brown, Mo., 391 S.W.2d 903 (1965);
(1921), 41 S Ct. 547; 65 L.Ed. 1048), the State v. Olsen, Or., 317 P.2d 938 (1957).
Court there in construing the right against
unreasonable searches and seizures Likewise appropos is the case of Bernas v.
declared that: "(t)he Fourth Amendment US (373 F.2d 517 (1967). The Court
gives protection against unlawful there said:
searches and seizures, and as shown in "The search of which appellant complains,
previous cases, its protection applies to however, was made by a private citizen —
governmental action. Its origin and the owner of a motel in which appellant
history clearly show that it was intended stayed overnight and in which he left
as a restraint upon the activities of behind a travel case containing the
sovereign authority, and was not intended evidence**** complained of. The search
to be a limitation upon other than was made on the motel owner's own
governmental agencies; as against such initiative. Because of it, he became
authority it was the purpose of the Fourth suspicious, called the local police,
Amendment to secure the citizen in the informed them of the bag's contents, and
right of unmolested occupation of his made it available to the authorities.
dwelling and the possession of his
property, subject to the right of seizure by "The fourth amendment and the case law
process duly served." applying it do not require exclusion of
evidence obtained through a search by a
The above ruling was reiterated in State v. private citizen. Rather, the amendment
Bryan (457 P.2d 661 [1968]) where a only proscribes governmental action."
parking attendant who searched the The mere presence of the NBI agents did
automobile to ascertain the owner thereof not convert the reasonable search
found marijuana instead, without the effected by Reyes into a warrantless
knowledge and participation of police search and seizure proscribed by the
authorities, was declared admissible in Constitution. Merely to observe and look
prosecution for illegal possession of at that which is in plain sight is not a
narcotics. search. Having observed that which is
open, where no trespass has been
And again in the 1969 case of Walker v. committed in aid thereof, is not search
State (429 S.W.2d 121), it was held that (Chadwick v. State, 429 SW2d 135).


Page | 18
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Where the contraband articles are tasked with the enforcement of the law.
identified without a trespass on the part Thus, it could only be invoked against the
of the arresting officer, there is not the State to whom the restraint against
search that is prohibited by the arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of
constitution. That the Bill of Rights power is imposed. If the search is made
embodied in the Constitution is not meant upon the request of law enforcers, a
to be invoked against acts of private warrant must generally be first secured if
individuals finds support in the it is to pass the test of constitutionality.
deliberations of the Constitutional However, if the search is made at the
Commission. True, the liberties behest or initiative of the proprietor of a
guaranteed by the fundamental law of the private establishment for its own and
land must always be subject to protection. private purposes, as in the case at bar,
But protection against whom? and without the intervention of police
Commissioner Bernas in his sponsorship authorities, the right against
speech in the Bill of Rights answers the unreasonable search and seizure cannot
query which he himself posed, as follows: be invoked for only the act of private
individual, not the law enforcers, is
"First, the general reflections. The involved. In sum, the protection against
protection of fundamental liberties in the unreasonable searches and seizures
essence of constitutional democracy. cannot be extended to acts committed by
Protection against whom? Protection private individuals so as to bring it within
against the state. The Bill of Rights governs the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by
the relationship between the individual the government.
and the state. Its concern is not the relation
between individuals, between a private
individual and other individuals. What the
Bill of Rights does is to declare some PEOPLE vs. MARTI
forbidden zones in the private sphere G.R. No. 81561, January 18,1991
inaccessible to any power holder."
FACTS: Andre Marti went to the booth of
(Sponsorship Speech of Commissioner the Manila Packing and Export
Bernas; Record of the Constitutional Forwarders in the Pistang Pilipino
Commission, Vol. 1, p. 674; July 17, Complex, Ermita, Manila, carrying with
1986; Emphasis supplied) The them 4 gift- wrapped packages. The
constitutional proscription against packages were not inspected by Anita
unlawful searches and seizures therefore Reyes, the proprietress, as Marti refused,
applies as a restraint directed only who assured her that the packages simply
against the government and its agencies


Page | 19
MENDIOLA, MANILA
contained books, cigars, and gloves and ISSUE: Whether or not an act of a private
were gifts to his friend in Zurich. individual, allegedly in violation of
However, before delivery of appellant's box appellant's constitutional rights, be
to the Bureau of Customs and/ or Bureau invoked against the state?
of Posts, Mr. Job Reyes, proprietor and
husband of Anita Reyes, following standard RULING: NO. In the absence of
operating procedure, opened the boxes for governmental interference, the liberties
final inspection. When he opened guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be
appellant's box, a peculiar order emitted invoked against the State. This
therefrom. His curiosity aroused. He constitutional right refers to the
squeezed one of the bundles allegedly immunity of one's person, whether
containing gloves and felt dried leaves citizen or alien, from interference by
inside. Opening one of the bundles, he government.The contraband in the case
pulled out a cellophane wrapper at bar came into possession of the
protruding from the opening of one of the government without the latter
gloves. He made an opening on one of the transgressing appellant's rights
cellophane wrappers and took several against unreasonable searches and
grams of the contents thereof. Job Reyes seizures.
reported the incident to the NBI and
requested a laboratory examination of the The constitutional proscription against
samples he extracted from the cellophane unlawful searches and seizures applies as
wrapper. It turned out that the dried a restraint directed only against the
leaves were marijuana flowering tops as government and its agencies tasked
certified by the forensic chemist of the with the enforcement of the law. Thus, it
Narcotics Section of the NBI. could only be invoked against the State to
whom the restraint against arbitrary
Thereafter, an information was filed and unreasonable exercise of power is
against appellant for violation of R.A. imposed. If the search is made at the
6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act). Appellant behest or initiation of the proprietor of
contends that the evidence subject of the a private establishment for its own and
imputed offense had been obtained in private purposes, as in the case at bar,
violation of his constitutional rights and without the intervention of police
against unreasonable searches and authorities, the right against
seizures and unreasonable searches and seizures
privacy of communication and therefore cannot be invoked for only the act of
argues that the same should be held private individuals, not law enforcers, is
inadmissible in evidence. involved. In sum, the protection against
unreasonable searches and seizures


Page | 20
MENDIOLA, MANILA
cannot be extended to acts committed them in said corporations, and whatever

by private individuals so as to bring it the offices they hold therein may be.
within the ambit of alleged unlawful
intrusion by the government. Indeed, it is well settled that the legality
of a seizure can be contested only by the
WHAT IS THE RRASON FOR DENYING party whose rights have been impaired
TO APPLY THE GUARANTEE AGAINST thereby, and that the objection to an
UNREASONABLE SS? unlawful search and seizure is purely
- Constitution does not concern personal and cannot be availed of by third
itself with relations between and parties. Consequently, petitioners herein
among individuals. may not validly object to the use in
evidence against them of the documents,
papers and things seized from the offices
and premises of the corporations
Stonehill vs. Diokno [G.R. No. L-19550, adverted to above, since the right to
June 19, 1967] object to the admission of said papers in
evidence belongs exclusively to the
THE RIGHT AGAINST UNREASONABLE corporations, to whom the seized effects
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES IS PERSONAL. belong, and may not be invoked by the
Thus, the documents, papers, and things corporate officers in proceedings against
seized under the alleged authority of the them in their individual capacity. Indeed,
warrants in question may be split into (2) it has been held:
major groups, namely:
(a) those found and seized in the offices of ". . . that the Government's action in
the aforementioned corporations and gaining possession of papers belonging to
(b) those found seized in the residences of the corporation did not relate to nor did it
petitioners herein. affect the personal defendants. If these
papers were unlawfully seized and
As regards the first group, we hold that thereby the constitutional rights of or any
petitioners herein have no cause of action one were invaded, they
to assail the legality of the contested were the rights of the corporation and not
warrants and of the seizures made in the rights of the other defendants. Next, it
pursuance thereof, for the simple reason is clear that a question of the lawfulness
that said corporations have their of a seizure can be raised only by one
respective personalities, separate and whose rights have been invaded.
distinct from the personality of herein Certainly, such a seizure, if unlawful,
petitioners, regardless of the amount of could not affect the constitutional
shares of stock or of the interest of each of


Page | 21
MENDIOLA, MANILA
rights of defendants whose property had Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code."
not been seized or the privacy of whose In other words, no specific offense had
homes had not been disturbed; nor could been alleged in said applications. The
they claim for themselves the benefits of averments thereof with respect to the
the Fourth Amendment, when its offense committed were abstract. As a
violation, if any, was with reference to the consequence, it was impossible for the
rights of another. Remus vs. United judges who issued the warrants to have
States (C.C.A.) 291 F. 501, 511. It follows, found the existence of probable cause, for
therefore, that the question of the the same presupposes the introduction of
admissibility of the evidence based on an competent proof that the party against
alleged unlawful search and seizure does whom it is sought has performed
not extend to the personal defendants but particular acts, or committed specific
embraces only the corporation whose omissions, violating a given provision of
property was taken . . ." (A. our criminal laws. As a matter of fact, the
Guckenheimer & Bros. Co. vs. United applications involved in this case do not
States, [1925] 3F. 2d, 786, 789, allege any specific acts performed by
Emphasis supplied.) herein petitioners. It would be a legal
heresy, of the highest order, to convict
GENERAL WARRANTS ARE anybody of a "violation of Central Bank
PROSCRIBED BY THE CONSTITUTION. Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal
Two points must be stressed in Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code,"
connection with this constitutional — as alleged in the aforementioned
mandate, namely: applications — without reference to any
determinate provision of said laws or
(1) that no warrant shall issue but upon codes.
probable cause, to be determined by the
judge in the manner set forth in said To uphold the validity of the warrants in
provision; and question would be to wipe out completely
(2) that the warrant shall particularly one of the most fundamental rights
describe the things to be seized. guaranteed in our Constitution, for it
would place the sanctity of the domicile
None of these requirements has been and the privacy of communication and
complied with in the contested warrants. correspondence at the mercy of the
Indeed, the same were issued upon whims, caprice or passion of peace
applications stating that the natural and officers.
juridical persons therein named had
committed a "violation of Central Bank This is precisely the evil sought to be
Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal remedied by the constitutional provision


Page | 22
MENDIOLA, MANILA
above quoted — to outlaw the so-called declaring his rights to be secure against
general warrants. It is not difficult to such searches and seizures, is of no value,
imagine what would happen, in times of and, so far as those thus placed are
keen political strife, when the party in concerned, might as well be stricken from
power feels that the minority is likely to the Constitution. The efforts of the courts
wrest it, even though by legal means. and their officials to bring the guilty to
punishment, praiseworthy as they are, are
EXCLUSIONARY DOCTRINE. However, not to be aided by the sacrifice of those
most common law jurisdictions have great principles established by years of
already given up this approach and endeavor and suffering which have
eventually adopted the exclusionary rule, resulted in their embodiment in the
realizing that this is the only practical fundamental law of the land."
means of enforcing the constitutional
injunction against unreasonable searches
and seizures. In the language of Judge STONEHILL vs. DIOKNO
Learned Hand: G.R. No. L-19550, June 19, 1967
"As we understand it, the reason for the Facts: Upon application of the officers of
exclusion of evidence competent as such, the government (respondent
which has been unlawfully acquired, is prosecutors), several judges (respondent
that exclusion is the only practical way of judges) issued a total of 42 search
enforcing the constitutional privilege. In warrants against petitioners & or the
earlier times the action of trespass against corporations of which they were officers,
the offending official may have been directed to any peace officer, to search the
protection enough; but that is true no persons named and/ or the premises of
longer. Only in case the prosecution their offices, warehouses, and/ or
which itself controls the seizing officials, residences, and to seize several personal
knows that it cannot profit by their wrong, properties as the "subject of the offense;
will that wrong be repressed". stolen or embezelled or the fruits of the
offense," or "used or intended to be used
In fact, over thirty (30) years before, the as the means of committing the offense"
Federal Supreme Court had already as violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff
declared: and Customs Laws (TCC), NIRC and the
RPC."
"If letters and private documents can thus
be seized and held and used in evidence Alleging that the aforementioned search
against a citizen accused of an offense, the warrants are null & void, said petitioners
protection of the 4th Amendment, Stonehill, et.al. filed w/ the SC this


Page | 23
MENDIOLA, MANILA
original action for certiorari, prohibition, Penal Code."No specific offense had been
mandamus and injunction. alleged in said applications. The
averments thereof with respect to the
Issues: offense committed were abstract. As a
1. Whether the right against unlafwful consequence, it was impossible for the
search and seizures may be invoked by judges who issued the warrants to have
artificial beings? found the existence of a probable cause, for
2. Whether or not the search warrants in the same presupposes the introduction of
question were validly issued? competent proof that the party against
3. Whether or not the articles seized by whom it is sought has performed
virtue of the warrants are admissible in particular acts, or committed specific
evidence? omissions, violating a given provision of
our criminal laws.
Held:
1. YES. Artificial beings are also entitled to To uphold the validity of the warrants in
the guarantee although they may be question would be to wipe out completely
required to open their books of accounts one of the most fundamental rights
for examination by the State in the guaranteed in our Constitution, for it
exercise of POLICE POWER. would place the sanctity of the domicile
and the privacy of communication and
2. NO. Two points must be stressed in correspondence at the mercy of the
connection with Art. III, Section 2 of the whims, caprice or passion of peace
Constitution: officers. This is precisely the evil sought
to be remedied by the constitutional
(a) that no warrant shall issue but upon provision above quoted — to outlaw the
probable cause to be determined by the so-called general warrants. It is not
judge in the manner set forth therein; and difficult to imagine what would happen,
in times of keen political strife, when
(b) that the warrant shall particularly the party in power feels that the
describe the things to be seized. minority is likely to wrest it, even
though by legal means.
None of these requirements has been
complied with. Indeed, the same were Such is the seriousness of the
issued upon applications stating that the irregularities committed in connection
natural and juridical persons therein with the disputed search warrants, that
named had committed a "violation of this Court deemed it fit to amend Section
Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs 3 of Rule 122 of the former Rules of Court
Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised 14 by providing in its counterpart, under


Page | 24
MENDIOLA, MANILA
the Revised Rules of Court 15 that "a General search warrants are outlawed
search warrant shall not issue upon because they place the sanctity of the
probable cause in connection with one domicile and the privacy of
specific offense." Not satisfied with this communication and correspondence at
qualification, the Court added thereto a the mercy of the whims, caprice or
paragraph, directing that "no search passion
warrant shall issue for more than one of peace officers. The warrants
specific offense." The grave violation of sanctioned the seizure of all records of
the Constitution made in the application the petitioners and the aforementioned
for the contested search warrants was corporations, whatever their nature, thus
compounded by the description therein openly contravening the explicit
made of the effects to be searched for and command of our Bill of Rights-- THAT
seized, to wit: THE THINGS TO BE SEIZED BE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED-- as well as
"Books of accounts, financial records, tending to defeat its major objective: the
vouchers, journals, correspondence, elimination of general warrants.
receipts, ledgers, portfolios, credit
journals, typewriters, and other 3. NO. Relying upon Moncado vs. People's
documents and/or papers showing all Court (80 Phil. 1), Respondent-
business transactions including Prosecutors maintain that, even if the
disbursement receipts, balance sheets searches and seizures under
and related profit and loss statements." consideration were unconstitutional, the
documents, papers and things thus seized
Thus, the warrants authorized the search are admissible in evidence against
for and seizure of records pertaining to petitioners herein.
ALL business transactions of petitioners
herein, regardless of whether the Upon mature deliberation, however, we are
transactions were legal or illegal. The unanimously of the opinion that the
warrants sanctioned the seizure of all position taken in the Moncado case must
records of the petitioners and the be abandoned. Said position was in line
aforementioned corporations, whatever with the American common law rule, that
their nature, thus openly contravening the the criminal should not be allowed to go
explicit command of our Bill of Rights — free merely "because the constable has
that the things to be seized be particularly blundered," upon the theory that the
described — as well as tending to defeat constitutional prohibition against
its major objective: the elimination of unreasonable searches and seizures is
general warrants. protected by means other than the
exclusion of evidence unlawfully obtained,


Page | 25
MENDIOLA, MANILA
such as the common-law action for Resolution of June 29, 1962 are null and
damages against the searching officer, void.
against the party who procured the
issuance of the search warrant and
against those assisting in the execution of CAN A PERSON INVOKE THIS RIGHT
an illegal search, their criminal AGAINST SS ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER
punishment, resistance, without liability INDIVIDUAL?
to an unlawful seizure, and such other - No. It is a personal right.
legal remedies as may be provided by - A corporation has a separate and
other laws. distinct personality. A board
resolution is needed to invoke this
However, most common law jurisdictions right on behalf of a corporation.
have already given up this approach and
eventually adopted THE EXCLUSIONARY HYPO:
RULE, realizing that this is the only DAR EMPLOYEE SEARCHED THE
practical means of enforcing the CLOSET OF HER FRIEND AND FOUND
constitutional injunction against SHABU, CAN HER FRIEND INVOKE
unreasonable searches and seizures. In RIGHT AGAINST UNREASONABLE SS
the language of Judge Learned Hand: AGAINST THE STATE?
- No. It may be invoked only if the
"As we understand it, the reason for the search is made by law enforcement
exclusion of evidence competent as such, agencies and the State itself.
which has been unlawfully acquired, is
that exclusion is the only practical way
of enforcing the constitutional privilege.
In earlier times the action of trespass
against the offending official may have LEOVIGILDO U. MANTARING,
been protection enough; but that is true complainant, vs. JUDGE MANUEL A.
no longer. Only in case the prosecution ROMAN, JR., RTC, Branch 42,
which itself controls the seizing officials, Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro; and
knows that it cannot profit by their JUDGE IRENEO B. MOLATO, MTC,
wrong, will that wrong be repressed". Bongabon, Oriental Mindoro,
respondents.
We hold, therefore, that the doctrine [A.M. No. RTJ-93-964. February 28,
adopted in the Moncado case must be, as 1996] Mendoza, J.:
it is hereby, abandoned; that the warrants
for the search of three (3) residences of Facts: On the application by a police
herein petitioners, as specified in the officer, respondent judge issued a search


Page | 26
MENDIOLA, MANILA
warrant which resulted in the seizure requires the showing of probabilities as to

from a certain Joel Gamo of a home-made different facts. In the case of search
gun, a hand grenade, five live warrants, the determination is based on
ammunitions for Cal. 38 and three live the finding that:
ammunitions for 12 gauge shotgun; a
complaint for Illegal Possession of (1) the articles to be seized are connected
Firearms and Ammunition was filed to a criminal activity and
against Gamo in which the herein (2) they are found in the place to be
complainant Leovigildo, Sr. and his son, searched. It is not necessary that a
Leovigildo, Jr., were included and that particular person be implicated.
finding that the house in which the
firearms and ammunition had been found On the other hand, in arrest cases, the
was owned by complainant and his son, determination of probable cause is based
respondent judge concluded that there on a finding that a crime has been
was probable cause to believe that committed and that the person to be
complainant and his son were guilty of arrested has committed it. It is now
illegal possession of firearms and settled that in issuing warrants of arrest
ammunition and accordingly ordered in preliminary investigations, the
their arrest. Respondent judge claims that investigating judge must:
he inhibited himself from the case after he
was (a) have examined in writing and under
ordered by the Executive Judge, RTC, oath the complainant and his witnesses
Branch 41, Pinamalayan, Oriental by searching
Mindoro. Complainant contends that as questions and answers;
the search warrant was issued only (b) be satisfied that probable cause exists;
against Gamo and Mantaring, Jr. it was and
wrong for respondent judge to find (c) that there is a need to place the
probable cause against him on the theory respondent under immediate custody in
that, as owners of the house in which the order not to frustrate the ends of justice.
firearms and ammunitions were found,
they had constructive possession of the In this case the respondent judge ordered
same. the issuance of warrant of arrest solely
on his finding of probable cause, totally
Issue: Whether or not there was valid omitting to consider the third
basis for issuance of the warrant of arrest requirement that
there must be a need to place the
Ruling: No. The issuance of a search respondent under immediate custody “in
warrant and of a warrant of arrest order not to


Page | 27
MENDIOLA, MANILA
frustrate the ends of justice.” normally issued after filing of

information.
- In a search warrant, no case is filed
Mantaring vs. Roman yet; likened to a fishing expedition.
- Persons named in WOA need not
be included in SW Prosecutions PC
vs. Judge PC
- Normally, WOA is issued after Soliven vs. Makasiar [G.R. No. 82585,
filing of the information November 14, 1988]
FOR WARRANTS OF ARRESTS, THE

EXPLAIN THOROUGHLY THE SO- JUDGES ARE NOT REQUIRED TO
CALLED PERSONAL EXAMINATION: PERSONALLY EXAMINE THE
- SEARCH WARRANT – Personal COMPLAINANT AND HIS WITNESSES.
Examination by Searching The addition of the word "personally"
questions and answers after the word "determined" and the
- WARRANT OF ARREST – Personal deletion of the grant of authority by the
evaluation of fiscal’s report or 1973 Constitution to issue warrants to
affidavits "other responsible officers as may be
authorized by law", has apparently
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN convinced petitioner Beltran that the
PROBABLE CAUSE MADE BY Constitution now requires the judge to
PROSECUTOR AND MADE BY THE personally examine the complainant and
JUDGE? his witnesses in the determination of
- The purpose of the probable cause probable cause for the issuance of
made by the prosecutor is to file an warrants of arrest. This is not an accurate
information and is executive in interpretation. What the Constitution
character underscores is the exclusive and personal
- The purpose of the probable case responsibility of the issuing judge to
made by the judge is for the satisfy himself the existence of probable
issuance of WOA or SW and is cause. In satisfying himself of the
judicial in character. existence of probable cause for the
issuance of a warrant of arrest, the judge
IS THE PROCEDURE STRICTER IN is not required to personally examine the
OBTAINING A SEARCH WARRANT? complainant and his witnesses.
- No. In Arrest warrant probable
cause is already determined by the Following established doctrine and
prosecutor; arrest warrant is procedure, he shall:


Page | 28
MENDIOLA, MANILA
(1) personally evaluate the report and the phrase “other responsible officers as may
supporting documents submitted by the be authorized by law” was omitted.
fiscal regarding the existence of probable
cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a Issue: Is the petitioner’s contention
warrant of arrest; or correct?
(2) if on the basis thereof he finds no
probable cause, he may disregard the Held: No. The pertinent Constitutional
fiscal's report and require the submission provision is highlighted herein below:
of supporting affidavits of witnesses to
aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to Art. III, Sec. 2. The right of the people to
the existence of probable cause. Sound be secure in their persons, houses,
policy dictates this procedure, otherwise papers and effects against
judges would be unduly laden with the unreasonable searches and seizures of
preliminary examination and whatever nature and for any purpose
investigation of criminal complaints shall be inviolable, and no search
instead of concentrating on hearing and warrant or warrant of arrest shall
deciding cases filed before their courts. issue except upon probable cause to be
determined personally by the judge
after examination under oath or
SOLIVEN VS MAKASIAR affirmation of the complainant and the
GR No. 82585, November 14, 1988 witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be
Facts: Petitioner Luis Beltran contends, searched and the persons or things to
among others, that his constitutional be seized.
rights were violated when respondent
judge issued a warrant of arrest against The addition of the word "personally"
him without personally examining the after the word "determined" and the
complainant and the witnesses, if any, to deletion of the grant of authority by the
determine probable cause. Petitioner 1973 Constitution to issue warrants to
contends that the Constitution now "other responsible officers as may be
requires the judge to personally examine authorized by law", has apparently
the complainant and his witnesses in his convinced petitioner Beltran that the
determination of probable cause for the Constitution now requires the judge to
issuance of warrants of arrests. personally examine the complainant and
The basis for his contention was the fact his witnesses determination of probable
that the word “personally” was added cause for the issuance of warrants of
after the word “determined”, and the arrest. This is not an accurate
interpretation.


Page | 29
MENDIOLA, MANILA
FOR SEARCH WARRANTS, THE JUDGE

What the Constitution underscores is the MUST PERSONALLY EXAMINE THE
exclusive and personal responsibility of COMPLAINANT AND HIS WITNESSES
the issuing judge to satisfy himself the THROUGH SEARCHING QUESTIONS. The
existence of probable cause . In satisfying purpose of the constitutional provision
himself of the existence of probable cause against unlawful searches and seizures is
for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, THE to prevent violations of private security in
JUDGE IS NOT REQUIRED TO person and property, and unlawful
PERSONALLY EXAMINE THE invasion of the sanctity of the home, by
COMPLAINANT AND HIS WITNESSES. officers of the law acting under legislative
or judicial sanction, and to give remedy
Following established doctrine and against such usurpations when attempted.
procedure, he shall:
(1)personally evaluate the report and Thus, Sections 3 and 4, Rule 126 of the
the supporting documents submitted by Rules of Court provide for the requisites
the fiscal regarding the existence of for the issuance of a search warrant, to
probable cause and, on the basis wit:
thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or
(2) if on the basis thereof he finds no "SECTION 3. Requisite for issuing
probable cause, he may disregard the search warrant. — A search warrant
fiscal's report and require the shall not issue but upon probable cause in
submission of supporting affidavits of connection with one specific offense to be
witnesses to aid him in arriving at a determined personally by the judge after
conclusion as to the existence of examination under oath or affirmation of
probable cause. the complainant and the witnesses he
may produce, and particularly describing
Sound policy dictates this procedure, the place to be searched and the things to
otherwise judges would be unduly laden be seized.
with the preliminary examination and
investigation of criminal complaints "SECTION 4. Examination of
instead of concentrating on hearing and complainant; record. — The judge must,
deciding cases filed before their courts. before issuing the warrant, personally
examine in the form of searching
questions and answers, in writing and
Silva vs. Presiding Judge of RTC, Negros under oath the complainant and any
Oriental [G.R. No. 81756, October 21, witnesses he may produce on facts
1991] personally known to them and attach to


Page | 30
MENDIOLA, MANILA
the record their sworn statements Warrant No. 1, directing the police
together with any affidavits submitted." officers to search the room of Marlon
Silva in the residence of Nicomedes Silva
Based on the aforecited constitutional and for violation of RA 6425 otherwise known
statutory provisions, the judge must, as Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. During
before issuing a search warrant, the search conducted by the police
determine whether there is probable officers, they also seized money belonging
cause by examining the complainant and to petitioner Antonieta Silva
witnesses through searching questions amounting to P1,231.40.
and answers.
Thereafter, Antonieta Silva filed a motion
In the case of Prudente vs. Dayrit, G.R. No. for the return of the said amount on the
82870, December 14, 1989, 180 SCRA 69, ground that the search warrant only
767 this Court defined "probable cause" authorized the police officers to seize
as follows: "The 'probable cause' for a marijuana dried leaves, cigarettes and
valid search warrant, has been defined 'as joint, and that said officers failed or
such facts and circumstances which would refused to make a return of the said
lead a reasonably discreet and prudent search warrant in violation of Sec. 11,
man to believe that an offense has been Rule 126 of the Rules of Court.
committed, and that objects sought in
connection with the offense are in the place Issue: Whether or not petitioners’ right to
sought to be searched'. This probable cause personal liberty and security of homes
must be shown to be within the personal against unreasonable searches and
knowledge of the complainant or the seizures as contemplated in Art. III, Sec. 2
witnesses he may produce and not based of the 1987 Constitution was violated.
on mere hearsay."
Held: Yes. The abovementioned section
and Secs. 3 and 4, Rule 126 of the Rules of
SILVA vs. HON. Judge of RTC of Negros Court provide that the judge must, before
Oriental issuing a search warrant, determine,
GR No. 81756, October 21, 1991 whether there is probable cause by
examining the complainant and witness
Facts:
through searching questions and
On June 12, 1986, Villamor, Jr., chief of the
answers. The Court held that the judge
PC Narcom Detachment in Dumaguete
failed to comply with the legal
City, Province of Negros Oriental, filed an
requirement that he must examine the
Application for Search Warrant with the
applicant and his witness in the form of
RTC against petitioners Silva. Respondent
Judge, on the same day issued Search searching questions and answers in order


Page | 31
MENDIOLA, MANILA
to determine the existence of probable examine the witness in the form of

causes as provided in the said statutory searching questions and answers.
provision. Pertinent portion of the decision reads:
The depositions of the witnesses did not "Moreover, a perusal of the deposition of
only contain leading questions but it P/Lt. Florencio Angeles shows that it was
was also very broad. The questions too brief and short. RESPONDENT JUDGE
propounded to the witnesses were in DID NOT EXAMINE HIM 'IN THE FORM
fact, not probing but were merely OF SEARCHING QUESTIONS AND
routinary. The deposition was already ANSWERS'. ON THE CONTRARY, THE
mimeographed and all that the QUESTIONS ASKED WERE LEADING AS
witnesses had to do was fill in their THEY CALLED FOR A SIMPLE 'YES' OR
answers on the blanks provided. 'NO' ANSWER. As held in Quintero vs. NBI,
'the questions propounded by respondent
“The 'probable cause' required to justify Executive Judge to the applicant's witness
the issuance of a search warrant are not sufficiently searching to establish
comprehends such facts and probable cause. Asking of leading
circumstances as will induce a cautious questions to the deponent in an
man to rely upon them and act in pursuant application for search warrant, and
thereof.Of the 8 questions asked, the 1st, conducting of examination in a general
2nd and 4th pertain to identity. The 3rd manner, would not satisfy the
and 5th are leading not searching requirements for issuance of a valid
questions. The 6th, 7th and 8th refer to search warrant." Thus, in issuing a
the description of the personalities to be search warrant, the judge must strictly
seized, which is identical to that in the comply with the constitutional and
Search Warrant and suffers from the statutory requirement that he must
same lack of particularity. The determine the existence of probable
examination conducted WAS GENERAL cause by personally examining the
IN NATURE AND MERELY REPETITIOUS applicant and his witnesses in the form
of the deposition of said witness. Mere of searching questions and answers. His
generalization will not suffice and does failure to comply with this requirement
not satisfy the requirements or constitutes grave abuse of discretion. As
probable cause upon which a warrant "the capricious disregard by the judge in
may issue." not complying with the requirements
before issuance of search warrants
Likewise, this Court previously declared constitutes abuse of discretion". The
that search warrants issued are invalid if officers implementing the search warrant
it is due to the failure of the judge to clearly abused their authority when they


Page | 32
MENDIOLA, MANILA
seized the money of Antonieta Silva. This

is highly irregular considering that Warrants of arrest issued by a JUDGE –
Antonieta Silva was not even named as is a preliminary step to prosecution and
one of the respondents, that the warrant to acquire jurisdiction.
did not indicate the seizure of money but
only of marijuana leaves, cigarettes and
joints, and that the search warrant was
issued for the seizure of personal
MORANO VS VIVO
property
This is an exception to the general
(a) subject of the offense and rule:
(b) used or intended to be used as means However, in Morano v. Vivo, 20 SCRA
of committing an offense and NOT for 562, it was held that orders of arrest may
personal property stolen or embezzled or be issued by administrative authorities,
other proceeds of fruits of the offense. but only for the purpose of carrying out a
Thus, the then presiding Judge Ontal final finding of a violation of law, e.g., an
likewise abused his discretion when he order of deportation or an order of
rejected the motion of petitioner contempt, but not for the sole purpose of
Antonieta Silva seeking the return of her investigation or prosecution. This is
seized money. reiterated in Sy v. Domingo, infra., where
the Supreme Court held that the Bureau
of Immigration may issue a warrant of
Silva vs. Presiding Judge arrest only for the purpose of carrying out
- Searching questions and answers – a final decision of deportation or when
SW there is sufficient proof of the guilt of the
alien.
WHY ARE THE RULES MORE LENIENT
FOR WARRANT OF ARREST?
- Because there are previous Morano vs. Vivo [G.R. No. L-22196, June
proceedings before the issuance of WOA: 30, 1967]
1. Complaint
2. Preliminary investigation OTHER GOVERNMENT OFFICERS MAY
3. Information ISSUE WARRANTS, BUT ONLY TO
ENFORCE FINAL JUDGMENTS. Section 1
On the other hand, for SW no case has (3), Article III of the Constitution, we
been filed yet. Further, it is intended to perceive, does not require judicial
secure evidence in connection with the intervention in the execution of a final
crime. There is no evidence yet, hence, order of deportation issued in accordance
stricter procedure. with law. The constitutional limitation

Page | 33
MENDIOLA, MANILA
contemplates an order of arrest in the and a proceeding for deportation are

exercise of judicial power as a step separate and independent."
preliminary or incidental to prosecution
or proceedings for a given offense or In consequence, the constitutional
administrative action, not as a measure guarantee set forth in Section 1(3),
indispensable to carry out a valid decision Article III of the Constitution aforesaid
by a competent official, such as a legal requiring that the issue of probable cause
order of deportation, issued by the be determined by a judge, does not extend
Commissioner of Immigration, in to deportation proceedings. The view, we,
pursuance of a valid legislation. here express finds support in the
discussions during the constitutional
The following from American convention. The convention recognized,
Jurisprudence, is illuminating: "It is as sanctioned by due process, possibilities
thoroughly established that Congress has and cases of deprivation of liberty, other
power to order the deportation of aliens than by order of a competent court.
whose presence in the country it deems
hurtful. Owing to the nature of the Indeed, the power to deport or expel
proceeding, the deportation of an alien aliens is an attribute of sovereignty. Such
who is found in this country in violation of power is planted on the "accepted maxim
law is not a deprivation of liberty without of international law, that every sovereign
due process of law. This is so, although the nation has the power, as inherent in
inquiry devolves upon executive officers, sovereignty, and essential to self-
and their findings of fact, after a fair preservation, to forbid the entrance of
though summary hearing, are made foreigners within its dominions." So it is,
conclusive." that this Court once aptly remarked that
there can be no controversy on the fact
"The determination of the propriety of that where aliens are admitted as
deportation is not a prosecution for, or a temporary visitors, "the law is to the
conviction of, crime; nor is the effect that temporary visitors who do not
deportation a punishment, even though depart upon the expiration of the period
the facts underlying the decision may of stay granted them are subject to
constitute a crime under local law. The deportation by the Commissioner of
proceeding is in effect simply a refusal by Immigration, for having violated the
the government to harbor persons whom limitation or condition under which they
it does not want. The coincidence of local were admitted as non-immigrants
penal law with the policy of congress is (Immigration Law, Sec. 37(a),
purely accidental, and, though supported subsection (7) C.A. 613, as amended)"
by the same facts, a criminal prosecution


Page | 34
MENDIOLA, MANILA
And, in a case directly in point, where the P4,000.00. She married Morano, a Filipino
power of the Commissioner to issue citizen. The Commissioner of Immigration
warrants of arrest was challenged as asked them to leave the country due to
unconstitutional because "such power is the expiration of the extensions they
only vested in a judge by Section 1, applied for. Instead of leaving, they
paragraph 3, Article III of our petitioned the CFI of Manila for mandamus
Constitution", this Court declared — to compel the Commissioner to cancel
petitioners’ Alien Certificate of
"This argument overlooks the fact that the Registration; prohibition to stop the
stay of appellant Ng Hua To as temporary Commissioner from issuing a warrant of
visitor is subject to certain contractual arrest. The trial court ruled in favour of
stipulations as contained in the cash bond Chan but dismissed the petition with
put up by him, among them, that in case of respect to Fu Yan Fun. Both petitioners
breach the Commissioner may require the and respondent appealed. Petitioners
recommitment of the person in whose assail the constitutionality of Sec. 37 (a) of
favor the bond has been filed. The the Immigration Act of 1940, which states
Commissioner did nothing but to enforce that, “The following aliens shall be arrested
such condition. Such a step is necessary to upon the warrant of the Commissioner of
enable the Commissioner to prepare the Immigration or any other officer
ground for his deportation under section designated by him for the purpose and
37 (a) of Commonwealth Act 613. A deported upon the warrant of the
contrary interpretation would render Commissioner of Immigration after a
such power nugatory to the detriment of determination by the Board of
the State." Commissioners of the existence of the
ground deportation as charged against the
alien xxx.” Petitioners contend that the
above provision trenches upon the
MORANO VS VIVO constitutional mandate in Art. III, Sec. 1
GR no. L-22196, June 30, 1967 (3). They say that the Constitution limits
to judges the authority to issue
Facts: On November 23, 1961, Petititoner warrants of arrest.
Chan Sau Wah, a Chinese citizen, arrived
in the Philippines to visit her cousin, Issue: Whether or not Sec. 37 (a) of the
Sameul Malaps, together with her minor Immigration Act of 1940 is
son, with her first marriage, Fu Yan Fun. unconstitutional.
They were permitted in the Philippines
under a temporary visitor’s visa for 2 Held: No. The Court held that, Sec. 1 (3),
months after they posted a cash bond of Art. III does not require judicial


Page | 35
MENDIOLA, MANILA
intervention in the execution of a final congress is purely accidental, and, though

order of deportation issued in accordance supported by the same facts, a criminal
with law. The constitutional limitation prosecution and a proceeding for
contemplates an order of arrest in the deportation are separate and independent.
exercise of judicial power AS A STEP
PRELIMINARY OR INCIDENTAL TO In consequence, the constitutional
PROSECUTION OR PROCEEDINGS FOR A guarantee set forth in Section 1(3),
GIVEN OFFENSE OR ADMINISTRATIVE Article III of the Constitution aforesaid
ACTION, not as A MEASURE requiring that the issue of probable
INDISPENSABLE TO CARRY OUT A VALID cause be determined by a judge, does
DECISION BY A COMPETENT OFFICIAL , not extend to deportation proceedings.
such as legal order of deportation, The view, we, here express funds support
issued by the Commissioner of in the discussions during the
Immigration, in pursuance of a valid constitutional convention. The convention
legislation. It is thoroughly established recognized, as sanctioned by due process,
that Congress has power to order the possibilities and cases of deprivation of
deportation of aliens whose presence in liberty, other than by order of a
the country it deems hurtful. Owing to competent court.
the nature of the proceeding, the
deportation of an alien who is found in Indeed, the power to deport or expel
this country in violation of law is not a aliens is an attribute of sovereignty. Such
deprivation of liberty without due power is planted on the "accepted maxim
process of law. of international law, that every sovereign
nation has the power, as inherent in
This is so, although the inquiry devolves sovereignty, and essential to self-
upon executive officers, and their preservation, to forbid the entrance of
findings of fact, after A fair though foreigners within its dominions." So it is,
summary hearing, are made conclusive. that this Court once aptly remarked that
The determination of the propriety of there can be no controversy on the fact
deportation is not a prosecution for, or that where aliens are admitted as
a conviction of, crime; nor is the temporary visitors, "the law is to the
deportation a punishment, even though effect that temporary visitors who do not
the facts underlying the decision may depart upon the expiration of the period
constitute a crime under local law . The of stay granted them are subject to
proceeding is in effect simply a refusal deportation by the Commissioner of
by the government to harbor persons Immigration, for having violated the
whom it does not want . The coincidence limitation or condition under which they
of local penal law with the policy of were admitted as non-immigrants


Page | 36
MENDIOLA, MANILA
(Immigration Law, Sec. 37(a), effecting final order of deportation.

subsection (7) C.A. 613, as amended). WA under section 2 is for
prosecution purposes, not to effect
And, in a case directly in point, where the final finding of violation of law.
power of the Commissioner to issue
warrants of arrest was challenged as
unconstitutional because "such power is People vs. Mengote distinguished from
only vested in a judge by Section 1, Posadas vs. CA.
paragraph 3, Article III of our - The issue hinges on the credibility
Constitution", this Court declared — of police officers. In posadas, the
suspect ran. While in Mengote,
"This argument overlooks the fact that there was anonymous call and one
the stay of appellant Ng Hua To as of the 2 suspects was seen holding
temporary visitor is subject to certain his abdomen, looking from left to
contractual stipulations as contained in right in a broad daylight. Malay mo
the cash bond put up by him, among masakit lang ang tiyan niya!
them, that in case of breach the (Rivera 2011)
Commissioner may require the
recommitment of the person in whose What are different permissible
favor the bond has been filed. The warrantless searches?
Commissioner did nothing but to 1. Warrantless search incidental to a
enforce such condition. Such a step is lawful arrest;
necessary to enable the Commissioner 2. Search of evidence in "plain view;"
to prepare the ground for his 3. Search of a moving vehicle;
deportation under section 37 (a) of 4. Consented warrantless search;
Commonwealth Act 613. A contrary 5. Customs search;
interpretation would render such 6. Stop and Frisk; and
power nugatory to the detriment of the 7. Exigent and emergency circumstances.
State." It is in this context that we rule (Stephen Sy vs. People, G.R. No. 182178,
that Section 37 (a) of the Immigration Act August 15, 2011, citing People v.
of 1940 is not constitutionally proscribed. Rancho, G.R. No. 186529, August 3,
2010.
DOCTRINE:
What is the different between arrest HARVEY VS SANTIAGO
issued by Immigration Commissioner
from arrest under Sec. 2? An aberrant case is Harvey v. Santiago,
- Warrant of arrest issued by 162 SCRA 840, where the Supreme Court
commissioner is for the purpose of upheld the validity of the arrest of


Page | 37
MENDIOLA, MANILA
pedophiles on orders of Immigration BY THE COMMISSIONER OF

Commissioner Santiago because there IMMIGRATION TO ENFORCE A FINAL
was probable cause, occasioned by DECISION OF DEPORTATION. Section
months of surveillance made by CID 37(a) is not constitutionally proscribed
agents on the suspected pedophiles. (Morano vs. Vivo, L-22196, June 30,
According to the Court, the requirement 1967, 20 SCRA 562). The specific
that probable cause is to be determined constraints in both the 1935 and 1987
only by a judge does not extend to Constitutions, which are substantially
deportation cases which are not criminal identical, contemplate prosecutions
but purely administrative in nature. The essentially criminal in nature.
existence of probable cause justified the Deportation proceedings, on the other
arrest, as well as the seizure of the photo hand, are administrative in character. An
negatives, photographs and posters order of deportation is never construed as
without warrant. Furthermore, a punishment. It is preventive, not a penal
petitioners were found with young boys process. It need not be conducted strictly
in their respective rooms, and under the in accordance with ordinary Court
circumstances, the CID agents had proceedings.
reasonable ground to believe that
petitioners had committed “pedophilia” It is of course well-settled that
which, though not punished under the deportation proceedings do not constitute
Revised Penal Code, is behavior offensive a criminal action. The order of
to public morals and violative of the deportation is not a punishment, it being
declared policy of the State to promote merely the return to his country of an
and protect the physical, moral, spiritual alien who has broken the conditions upon
and social wellbeing of our youth. [Note which he could continue to reside within
that this case was decided prior to the our borders. The deportation proceedings
enactment of R.A. 7610 (Special are administrative in character, summary
Protection of Children Against Child in nature, and need not be conducted
Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination strictly in accordance with the ordinary
Act)]. court proceedings. It is essential, however,
that the warrant of arrest shall give the
alien sufficient information about the
charges against him, relating the facts
Harvey vs. Santiago [G.R. No. 82544, relied upon. It is also essential that he be
June 28, 1988] given a fair hearing with the assistance of
counsel, if he so desires, before
WARRANTS FOR THE ARREST OF unprejudiced investigators. However, all
UNDESIRABLE ALIENS MAY BE ISSUED the strict rules of evidence governing


Page | 38
MENDIOLA, MANILA
judicial controversies do not need to be To rule otherwise would be to render the

observed; only such as are fundamental authority given the Commissioner
and essential, like the right of cross- nugatory to the detriment of the State.
examination. Hearsay evidence may even "The pertinent provision of
be admitted, provided the alien is given Commonwealth Act No. 613, as amended,
the opportunity to explain or rebut it. which gives authority to the
Commissioner of Immigration to order
The ruling in Vivo vs. Montesa (G. R. No. the arrest of an alien temporary visitor
24576, July 29, 1968, 24 SCRA 155) that preparatory to his deportation for failure
"the issuance of warrants of arrest by the to put up new bonds required for the stay,
Commissioner of Immigration, solely for is not unconstitutional. ". . . Such a step is
purposes of investigation and before a final necessary to enable the Commissioner to
order of deportation is issued, conflicts prepare the ground for his deportation
with paragraph 3, Section 1 of Article III of under Section 37[a] of Commonwealth
the Constitution" (referring to the 1935 Act 613. A contrary interpretation would
Constitution) 3 is not invocable herein. render such power nugatory
Respondent Commissioner's Warrant of to the detriment of the State." (Ng Hua To
Arrest issued on 7 March 1988 did not vs. Galang, G.R. No. 10145, February 29,
order petitioners to appear and show 1964, 10 SCRA 411).
cause why they should not be deported.
They were issued specifically "for "The requirement of probable cause, to be
violation of Sections 37, 45 and 46 of the determined by a Judge, does not extend to
Immigration Act and Section 69 of the deportation proceedings." (Morano vs.
Revised Administrative Code." Before that, Vivo, supra, citing Tiu Chun Hai vs.
deportation proceedings had been Commissioner, infra). There need be no
commenced against them as undesirable "truncated" recourse to both judicial and
aliens on 4 March 1988 and the arrest administrative warrants in a single
was a step preliminary to their possible deportation proceedings. The foregoing
deportation. "Section 37 of the does not deviate from the ruling in Qua
Immigration Law, which empowers the Chee Gan vs. Deportation Board (G. R.
Commissioner of Immigration to issue No. 10280, September 30, 1963, 9 SCRA
warrants for the arrest of overstaying 27 [1963]) reiterated in Vivo vs.
aliens is constitutional. The arrest is a step Montesa, supra, that "under the express
preliminary to the deportation of the aliens terms of our Constitution (the 1935
who had violated the condition of their Constitution), it is therefore even doubtful
stay in this country." (Morano vs. Vivo, L- whether the arrest of an individual may be
22196, June 30, 1967, 20 SCRA 562). ordered by any authority other than a
judge if the purpose is merely to determine


Page | 39
MENDIOLA, MANILA
the existence of a probable cause, leading Held:

to an administrative investigation." For, as
heretofore stated, probable cause had 1. YES. There can be no question that the
already been shown to exist before the right against unreasonable searches and
warrants of arrest were issued. seizures guaranteed by Article III, Section
2 of the 1987 Constitution, is available to
all persons, including aliens, whether
accused of crime or not (Moncado vs.
HARVEY VS SANTIAGO People's Court, 80 Phil. 1 [1948]. One of
GR No. 82544, June 28, 1988 the constitutional requirements of a valid
search warrant or warrant of arrest is
Facts: Petitioners were among the that it must be based upon probable cause.
twenty-two suspected pedophiles who Probable cause has been defined as
were apprehended after a three-month referring to "such facts and circumstances
surveillance by the Commission on antecedent to the issuance of the warrant
Immigration and Deportation (CID) in that in themselves are sufficient to induce
Pagsanjan, Laguna. They were a cautious man to rely on them and act in
apprehended by virtue of Mission Orders pursuance thereof”.
issued by respondent Santiago. Petitioner
contends the validity of their detention in The 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure
CID Detention Center, assailing, inter alia, also provide that an arrest without a
that respondent violated Art. III, Sec. 2 of warrant may be effected by a peace officer
the 1987 Constitution prohibiting or even a private person
unreasonable searches and seizures since
CID agents were not clothed with valid (1) when such person has committed,
Warrants of arrest, search and seizures as actually committing , or is attempting to
required by the said provision. commit an offense in his presence; and
(2) when an offense has, in fact, been
committed and he has personal knowledge
Issues: of facts indicating that the person to be
1. Whether or not there was a valid arrested has committed it (Rule 113,
warrantless arrest? Section 5).
2. Assuming arguendo that the arrest was
not valid, is there a valid basis for the In this case, the arrest of petitioners
confinement of herein petitioner? was based on probable cause
3. Is the Constitutional prohibition against determined after close surveillance for
warrantless arrest & searches applicable three (3) months during which period
herein? their activities were monitored. The


Page | 40
MENDIOLA, MANILA
existence of probable cause justified the the beginning" (Matsura vs. Director of
arrest and the seizure of the photo Prisons, 77 Phil. 1050 [1947]).
negatives, photographs and posters
without warrant. Those articles were That petitioners were not "caught in the
seized as an incident to a lawful arrest act" does not make their arrest illegal.
and, are therefore, admissible in Petitioners were found with young boys
evidence (Section 12, Rule 126, 1985 in their respective rooms , the ones with
Rules on Criminal Procedure). John Sherman being naked, Under those
circumstances the CID agents had
2. YES. Even assuming arguendo that reasonable grounds to believe that
the arrest of petitioners was not valid at petitioners had committed "pedophilia"
its inception, the records show that defined as "psycho sexual perversion
formal deportation charges have been involving children" ( Kraft-Ebbing
filed against them, as undesirable Psychopatia Sexualis, p. 555; "Paraphilia
aliens, on 4 March 1988. Warrants of (or unusual sexual activity) in which
arrest were issued against them on 7 children are the preferred sexual object"
March 1988 "for violation of Section 37, (Webster's Third New International
45 and 46 of the Immigration Act and Dictionary, 1971 ed., p. 1665) [Solicitor
Section 69 of the Administrative Code." A General's Return of the Writ, on p. 10].
hearing is presently being conducted by While not a crime under the Revised
a Board of Special Inquiry. The restraint Penal Code, it is behavior offensive to
against their persons, therefore, has public morals and violative of the
become legal. The Writ has served its declared policy of the State to promote
purpose. The process of the law is being and protect the physical, moral,
followed (Cruz vs. Montoya, L-39823, spiritual, and social well-being of our
February 25, 1975, 62 SCRA 543). youth (Article II, Section 13, 1987
"Where a person's detention was later Constitution). At any rate, the filing by
made by virtue of a judicial order in petitioners of a petition to be released
relation to criminal cases subsequently on bail should be considered as a
filed against the detainee, his petition waiver of any irregularity attending
for habeas corpus becomes moot and their arrest and estops them from
academic" (Beltran vs. Garcia, L-49014, questioning its validity (Callanta v.
April 30, 1979, 89 SCRA 717). "It is a Villanueva, L-24646 & L-24674, June 20,
fundamental rule that a writ of habeas 1977, 77 SCRA 377; Bagcal vs. Villaraza, L-
corpus will not be granted when the 61770, January 31, 1983, 120 SCRA 525).
confinement is or has become legal,
although such confinement was illegal at 3. NO. The deportation charges instituted
by respondent Commissioner are in


Page | 41
MENDIOLA, MANILA
accordance with Section 37(a) of the with ordinary Court proceedings. "It is
Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, in of course well-settled that deportation
relation to Section 69 of the Revised proceedings do not constitute a
Administrative Code. Section 37(a) criminal action. The order of
provides in part: deportation is not a punishment, it
being merely the return to his country
(a) The following aliens shall be of an alien who has broken the
arrested upon the warrant of the conditions upon which he could
Commissioner of Immigration and continue to reside within our borders.
Deportation or any other officer The deportation proceedings are
designated by him for the purpose and administrative in character, summary
deported upon the warrant of the in nature, and need not be conducted
Commissioner of Immigration and strictly in accordance with the ordinary
Deportation after a determination by court proceedings . It is essential ,
the Board of Commissioners of the however, that the warrant of arrest
existence of the ground for deportation shall give the alien sufficient
as charged against the alien; information about the charges against
him, relating the facts relied upon. It is
The foregoing provision should be also essential that he be given a fair
construed in its entirety in view of the hearing with theassistance of counsel, if
summary and indivisible nature of a he so desires, before unprejudiced
deportation proceeding, otherwise, the investigators. However, all the strict
very purpose of deportation proceedings rules of evidence governing judicial
would be defeated. controversies do not need to be
observed; only such as are fundamental
Section 37(a) is not constitutionally and essential, like the right of cross-
proscribed (Morano vs. Vivo, L- 22196, examination.
June 30, 1967, 20 SCRA 562). The
specific constraints in both the 1935 - FINAL ORDER is not intended to
and 1987 Constitutions, which are acquire jurisdiction over the
substantially identical, contemplate person.
prosecutions essentially criminal in
nature. Deportation proceedings, on the
other hand, are administrative in
character . An order of deportation is SALAZAR VS. ACHACOSO [183 SCRA
never construed as a punishment. It is 145; G.R. NO. 81510; 14 MAR 1990]
preventive, not a penal process. It need
not be conducted strictly in accordance


Page | 42
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Facts: Rosalie Tesoro of Pasay City in a confiscated against her will and were
sworn statement filed with the POEA, done with unreasonable force and
charged petitioner with illegal intimidation.
recruitment. Public respondent Atty.
Ferdinand Marquez sent petitioner a
telegram directing him to appear to the Issue: Whether or Not the Philippine
POEA regarding the complaint against Overseas Employment Administration (or
him. On the same day, after knowing that the Secretary of Labor) can validly issue
petitioner had no license to operate a warrants of search and seizure (or arrest)
recruitment agency, public respondent under Article 38 of the Labor Code
Administrator Tomas Achacoso issued a
Closure and Seizure Order No. 1205 to
petitioner. It stated that there will a Held: Under the new Constitution, “. . . no
seizure of the documents and search warrant or warrant of arrest shall
paraphernalia being used or intended to issue except upon probable cause to be
be used as the means of committing illegal determined personally by the judge after
recruitment, it having verified that examination under oath or affirmation of
petitioner has— (1) No valid license or the complainant and the witnesses he
authority from the Department of Labor may produce, and particularly describing
and Employment to recruit and deploy the place to be searched and the persons
workers for overseas employment; (2) or things to be seized”. Mayors and
Committed/are committing acts prosecuting officers cannot issue
prohibited under Article 34 of the New warrants of seizure or arrest. The Closure
Labor Code in relation to Article 38 of the and Seizure Order was based on Article
same code. A team was then tasked to 38 of the Labor Code. The Supreme Court
implement the said Order. The group, held, “We reiterate that the Secretary of
accompanied by mediamen and Labor, not being a judge, may no longer
Mandaluyong policemen, went to issue search or arrest warrants. Hence,
petitioner’s residence. They served the the authorities must go through the
order to a certain Mrs. For a Salazar, who judicial process. To that extent, we
let them in. The team confiscated assorted declare Article 38, paragraph (c), of the
costumes. Petitioner filed with POEA a Labor Code, unconstitutional and of no
letter requesting for the return of the force and effect… The power of the
seized properties, because she was not President to order the arrest of aliens for
given prior notice and hearing. The said deportation is, obviously, exceptional. It
Order violated due process. She also (the power to order arrests) cannot be
alleged that it violated sec 2 of the Bill of made to extend to other cases, like the
Rights, and the properties were one at bar. Under the Constitution, it is


Page | 43
MENDIOLA, MANILA
the sole domain of the courts.” (c) Property used or intended to

Furthermore, the search and seizure beused as means for the commission of an
order was in the nature of a general offense.
warrant. The court held that the warrant
is null and void, because it must identify -It is not necessary that the property to be
specifically the things to be seized. searched or seized should be owned by
the person against whom the warrant is
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. issued; it is sufficient that the property is
Article 38, paragraph (c) of the Labor within his control or possession [Burgos v.
Code is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 800]
and null and void. The respondents are
ORDERED to return all materials seized as
a result of the implementation of Search
and Seizure Order No. 1205. NACHURA
Only a judge may validly issue a warrant.

The Constitution grants the authority to
- The purpose is for investigation. issue a warrant of arrest or a search
Secretary of Labor has no warrant only to a judge upon fulfillment
authority to issue warrant of arrest. of certain basic constitutional
requirements. In Salazar v. Achacoso,
183 SCRA 145, Art. 38 of the Labor Code
WHAT ARE UNREASONABLE SEARCHES of the Philippines, which grants the
AND SEIZURES? Secretary of Labor and Employment the
- Reasonableness does not depend authority to issue orders of arrest, search
on the existence or absence of a and seizure, was declared
warrant. unconstitutional, because the Labor
“All illegal SS are unreasonable Secretary is not a judge.
while lawful ones are reasonable. “
In Republic (PCGG) v. Sandiganbayan,
255 SCRA 438, an order issued by PCGG
PROPERTIES SUBJECT TO SEIZURE [Sec. directing the respondent to submit all
2, Rule 126, Rules of Court]: bank documents which the PCGG
representative might find necessary and
(a) Subject of the offense; relevant to the investigation was held to
(b) Stolen or embezzled property be in the nature of a search warrant
and other proceeds or fruits of the which the PCGG cannot validly issue,
offense; and because


Page | 44
MENDIOLA, MANILA
the PCGG is not a Judge. for this search warrant", appearing in

the affidavit, the agent answered: "It has
Exception. However, in Morano v. Vivo, been reported to me by a person whom I
20 SCRA 562, it was held that orders of consider to be reliable that there are being
arrest may be issued by administrative kept in said premises, books, documents,
authorities, but only for the purpose of receipts, lists, chits, and other papers used
carrying out a final finding of a violation by him in connection with his activities as a
of law, e.g., an order of deportation or an money- lender, charging a usurious rate of
order of contempt, but not for the sole interest, in violation of the law" and in
purpose of investigation or prosecution. attesting the truth of his statements
This is reiterated in Sy v. Domingo, infra., contained in the affidavit, the said agent
where the Supreme Court held that the stated that he found them to be correct
Bureau of Immigration may issue a and true to the best of his knowledge and
warrant of arrest only for the purpose of belief.
carrying out a final decision of
deportation or when there is sufficient Section 1, paragraph 3, of Article III of
proof of the guilt of the alien. the Constitution, relative to the bill of
rights, provides that "The right of the
people to be secure in their persons, houses,
Alvarez vs. CFI [G.R. No. 45358, January papers, and effects against unreasonable
29, 1937] searches and seizures shall not be violated,
and no warrants shall issue but upon
THE PROBABLE CAUSE MUST BE probable cause, to be determined by the
BASED ON PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF judge after examination under oath or
THE affirmation of the complainant and the
COMPLAINANT OR HIS WITNESSES. The witnesses he may produce, and particularly
petitioner claims that the search warrant describing the place to be searched, and
issued by the court is illegal because it has the persons or things to be seized."
been based upon the affidavit of agent
Mariano G. Almeda in whose oath he Section 97 of General Orders, No. 58
declared that he had no personal provides that "A search warrant shall not
knowledge of the facts which were to issue except for probable cause and upon
serve as a basis for the issuance of the application supported by oath particularly
warrant but that he had knowledge describing the place to be searched and the
thereof through mere information person or thing to be seized." It will be
secured from a person whom he noted that both provisions require that
considered reliable. To the question there be not only probable cause before
"What are your reasons for applying the issuance of a search warrant but that


Page | 45
MENDIOLA, MANILA
the search warrant must be based upon defined in the Constitution or in General
an application supported by oath of the Orders, No. 58, and it is said to have no
applicant and the witnesses he may fixed, absolute or unchangeable meaning,
produce. although the term has been defined in
general language. All illegal searches and
OATH, DEFINITION - In its broadest seizures are unreasonable while lawful
sense, an oath includes any form of ones are reasonable. What constitutes a
attestation by which a party signifies that reasonable or unreasonable search or
he is bound in conscience to perform an seizure in any particular case is purely a
act faithfully and truthfully; and it is judicial question, determinable from a
sometimes defined as an outward pledge consideration of the circumstances
given by the person taking it that his involved, including the purpose of the
attestation or promise is made under an search, the presence or absence of
immediate sense of his responsibility to probable cause, the manner in which the
God. The oath required must refer to the search and seizure was made, the place or
truth of the facts within the personal thing searched, and the character of the
knowledge of the petitioner or his articles procured.
witnesses, because the purpose thereof is
to convince the committing magistrate, IN ISSUING WARRANTS, WITNESSES
not the individual making the affidavit ARE NOT NECESSARY AS LONG AS THE
and seeking the issuance of the warrant, PROBABLE CAUSE IS SUFFICIENTLY
of the existence of probable cause. The ESTABLISHED BY THE COMPLAINANT.
true test of sufficiency of an affidavit to Another ground alleged by the petitioner
warrant issuance of a search warrant is in asking that the search warrant be
whether it has been drawn in such a declared illegal and cancelled is that it
manner that perjury could be charged was not supported by other affidavits
thereon and affiant be held liable for aside from that made by the applicant. In
damages caused. other words, it is contended that the
search warrant cannot be issued unless it
UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE be supported by affidavits made by the
- It will likewise be noted that section 1, applicant and the witnesses to be
paragraph 3, of Article III of the presented necessarily by him. Section 1,
Constitution prohibits unreasonable paragraph 3, of Article III of the
searches and seizures. Unreasonable Constitution provides that no warrants
searches and seizures are a menace shall issue but upon probable cause, to be
against which the constitutional determined by the judge after
guaranties afford full protection. The term examination under oath or affirmation of
"unreasonable search and seizure" is not the complainant and the witnesses he


Page | 46
MENDIOLA, MANILA
may produce. Section 98 of General applicant or complainant contains

Orders, No.58 provides that the judge or sufficient facts within his personal and
justice must, before issuing the warrant, direct knowledge, it is sufficient if the
examine under oath the complainant and judge is satisfied that there exists
any witnesses he may produce and take probable cause; when the applicant's
their depositions in writing. It is the knowledge of the facts is mere hearsay,
practice in this jurisdiction to attach the the affidavit of one or more witnesses
affidavit of at least the applicant or having a personal knowledge of the facts
complainant to the application. It is is necessary. We conclude, therefore, that
admitted that the judge who issued the the warrant issued is likewise illegal
search warrant in this case, relied because it was based only on the affidavit
exclusively upon the affidavit made by of the agent who had no personal
agent Mariano G. Almeda and that he did knowledge of the facts.
not require nor take the deposition of any
other witness. Neither the Constitution
nor General Orders, No. 58 provides that
it is of imperative necessity to take the ALVAREZ VS CFI
depositions of the witnesses to be G.R. No. 45358, January 29, 1937
presented by the applicant or
complainant in addition to the affidavit of Facts: On June 3, 1936, the chief of the
the latter. The purpose of both in secret service of the Anti-Usury Board, of
requiring the presentation of depositions the Department of Justice, presented to
is nothing more than to satisfy the Judge Eduardo Gutierrez David then
committing magistrate of the existence of presiding over the Court of First Instance
probable cause. Therefore, if the affidavit of Tayabas, an affidavit alleging that
of the applicant or complainant is according to reliable information, the
sufficient, the judge may dispense with petitioner kept in his house in Infanta,
that of other witnesses. Tayabas, books, documents, receipts, lists,
chits and other papers used by him in
Inasmuch as the affidavit of the agent in connection with his activities as a money-
this case was insufficient because his lender, charging usurious rates of interest
knowledge of the facts was not personal in violation of the law. In his oath at the
but merely hearsay, it is the duty of the end of the affidavit, the chief of the secret
judge to require the affidavit of one or service stated that his answers to the
more witnesses for the purpose of questions were correct to the best of his
determining the existence of probable knowledge and belief. He did not swear
cause to warrant the issuance of the to the truth of his statements upon his
search warrant. When the affidavit of the own knowledge of the facts but upon the


Page | 47
MENDIOLA, MANILA
information received by him from a on the ground that the agents seized even
reliable person . the originals of the documents. As the
articles had not been brought
Upon the affidavit in question the judge, immediately to the judge who issued the
on said date, issued the warrant which is search warrant, the petitioner, through
the subject matter of the petition, his attorney, filed a motion on June 8,
ordering the search of the petitioner's 1936, praying that the agent Emilio L.
house at any time of the day or night, the Siongco, or any other agent, be ordered
seizure of the books and documents immediately to deposit all the seized
abovementioned and the immediate articles in the office of the clerk of court
delivery thereof to him to be disposed of and that said agent be declared guilty of
in accordance with the law. With said contempt for having disobeyed the order
warrant, several agents of the Anti-Usury of the court. The petitioner asks that the
Board entered the petitioner's store and warrant of June 3, 1936, issued by the
residence at seven o'clock on the night of Court of First Instance of Tayabas,
June 4, 1936, and seized and took ordering the search of his house and the
possession of the following articles: seizure, at any time of the day or night, of
internal revenue licenses for the years certain accounting books, documents and
1933 to 1936, one ledger, two journals, papers belonging to him in his residence
two cashbooks, nine order books, four situated in Infanta, Province of Tayabas,
notebooks, four check stubs, two as well as the order of a later date,
memorandums, three bankbooks, two authorizing the agents of the Anti-Usury
contracts, four stubs, forty-eight stubs of Board to retain the articles seized, be
purchases of copra, two inventories, two declared illegal and set aside, and prays
bundles of bills of lading, one bundle of that all the articles in question be
credit receipts, one bundle of stubs of returned to him.
purchases of copra, two packages of
correspondence, one receipt book Issue: Is the warrant of arrest herein
belonging to Luis Fernandez, fourteen illegally issued?
bundles of invoices and other papers,
many documents and loan contracts with Held: YES. Section 1, paragraph 3, of
security and promissory notes, 504 chits, Article III of the Constitution, relative to
promissory notes and stubs of used the bill of rights, provides that "The right
checks of the Hongkong & Shanghai of the people to be secure in their persons,
Banking Corporation. The search for and houses, papers, and effects against
seizure of said articles were made with unreasonable searches and seizures shall
the opposition of the petitioner who not be violated, and no warrants shall
stated his protest below the inventories issue but upon probable cause, to be


Page | 48
MENDIOLA, MANILA
determined by the judge after probable cause .The true test of

examination under oath or affirmation of sufficiency of an affidavit to warrant
the complainant and the witnesses he issuance of a search warrant is whether
may produce, and particularly describing it has been drawn in such a manner
the place to be searched, and the persons that PERJURY could be charged thereon
or things to be seized." Section 97 of and affiant be held liable for damages
General Orders, No. 58 provides that "A caused. It will likewise be noted that
search warrant shall not issue except section 1, paragraph 3, of Article III of the
for probable cause and upon Constitution prohibits unreasonable
application supported by oath searches and seizures.
particularly describing the place to be
searched and the person or thing to be Unreasonable searches and seizures are a
seized." It will be noted that both menace against which the constitutional
provisions require that there be not only guaranties afford full protection. The term
probable cause before the issuance of a "unreasonable search and seizure" is
search warrant but that the search not defined in the Constitution or in
warrant must be based upon an General Orders, No. 58, and it is said to
application supported by oath of the have no fixed, absolute or unchangeable
applicant and the witnesses he may meaning, although the term has been
produce . In its broadest sense, an defined in general language. Al l illegal
“ OATH” includes any form of searches and seizures are unreasonable
attestation by which a party signifies while lawful ones are reasonable. What
that he is bound in conscience to constitutes a reasonable or
perform an act faithfully and truthfully; unreasonable search or seizure in any
and it is sometimes defined as an particular case is purely a judicial
outward pledge given by the person question , determinable from a
taking it that his attestation or promise consideration of the circumstances
is made under an immediate sense of involved, including the purpose of the
his responsibility to God. search, the presence or absence of
probable cause, the manner in which
The oath required must refer to the the search and seizure was made, the
truth of the facts within the personal place or thing searched, and the
knowledge of the petitioner or his character of the articles Procured.
witnesses, because the purpose thereof
is to convince the committing In view of the foregoing and under the
magistrate, not the individual making above-cited authorities, it appears that
the affidavit and seeking the issuance of THE AFFIDAVIT , which served as the
the warrant, of the existence of exclusive basis of the search warrant, is


Page | 49
MENDIOLA, MANILA
insufficient and fatally defective by exclusively upon the affidavit made by

reason of the manner in which the oath agent Mariano G. Almeda and that he did
was made, and therefore, it is hereby not require nor take the deposition of any
held that the search warrant in other witness. Neither the Constitution nor
question and the subsequent seizure of General Orders, No. 58 provides that it is of
the books, documents and other papers imperative necessity to take the
are illegal and do not in any way depositions of the witnesses to be presented
warrant the deprivation to which the by the applicant or complainant in
petitioner was subjected. addition to the affidavit of the latter. The
purpose of both in requiring the
Another ground alleged by the petitioner presentation of depositions is nothing more
in asking that the search warrant be than to satisfy the committing magistrate
declared illegal and cancelled is that it of the existence of probable cause.
was not supported by other affidavits Therefore, if
aside from that made by the applicant. In the affidavit of the applicant or
other words, it is contended that the complainant is sufficient, the judge may
search warrant cannot be issued unless it dispense with that of other witnesses.
be supported by affidavits made by the Inasmuch as the affidavit of the agent in
applicant and the witnesses to be this case was insufficient because HIS
presented necessarily by him. Section 1, KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS WAS NOT
paragraph 3, of Article III of the PERSONAL but merely HEARSAY , it is
Constitution provides that no warrants the duty of the judge to require the
shall issue but upon probable cause, to be affidavit of one or more witnesses for
determined by the judge after the purpose of determining the
examination under oath or affirmation of existence of probable cause to warrant
the complainant and the witnesses he the issuance of the search warrant.
may produce. Section 98 of General When the affidavit of the applicant or
Orders, No. 58 provides that the judge or complainant contains sufficient facts
justice must, before issuing the warrant, within his personal and direct
examine under oath the complainant and knowledge, it is sufficient if the judge is
any witnesses he may produce and take satisfied that there exists probable
their depositions in writing. cause; when the applicant's knowledge
of the facts is mere hearsay, the
It is the practice in this jurisdiction to affidavit of one or more witnesses
attach the affidavit of at least the applicant having a personal knowledge of the
or complainant to the application. It is facts is necessary . We conclude,
admitted that the judge who issued the therefore, that the warrant issued is
search warrant in this case, relied likewise illegal because it was based


Page | 50
MENDIOLA, MANILA
only on the affidavit of the agent who technical description be given, as this
had no personal knowledge of the facts. would mean that no warrant could
issue. The only description of the articles
The petitioner alleged as another ground given in the affidavit presented to the
for the declaration of the illegality of the judge was as follows: "that there are being
search warrant and the cancellation kept in said premises books, documents,
thereof, the fact that it authorized its receipts, lists, chits and other papers used
execution at night. Section 101 of General by him in connection with his activities as
Orders, No. 58 authorizes that the search money-lender, charging a usurious rate of
be made at night when it is positively interest, in violation of the law."
asserted in the affidavit that the property
is on the person or in the place ordered to Taking into consideration the nature of
be searched. As we have declared the the articles so described, it is clear that
affidavit insufficient and the warrant no other more adequate and detailed
issued exclusively upon it illegal, our description could have been given,
conclusion is that the contention is equally particularly because it is difficult to
well founded and that the search could not give a particular description of the
legally be made at night. contents thereof. The description so
made substantially complies with the
One of the grounds alleged by the legal provisions because the officer of
petitioner in support of his contention that the law who executed the warrant was
the warrant was issued illegally is the thereby placed in a position enabling
lack of an adequate description of the him to identify the articles, which he did.
books and documents to be seized. The last ground alleged by the petitioner,
Section 1, paragraph 3, of Article III of the in support of his claim that the search
Constitution, and section 97 of General warrant was obtained illegally, is that
Orders, No. 58 provide that the affidavit the articles were seized in order that
to be presented, which shall serve as the the Anti-Usury Board might provide
basis for determining whether probable itself with evidence to be used by it in
cause exists and whether the warrant the criminal case or cases which might
should be issued, must contain a be filed against him for violation of the
particular description of the place to be Anti-Usury Law. (fishing expedition) At
searched and the person or thing to be the hearing of the incidents of the case
seized. These provisions are mandatory raised before the court, it clearly
and must be strictly complied with but appeared that the books and documents
where, by the nature of the goods to be had really been seized to enable the Anti-
seized, their description must be rather Usury Board to conduct an investigation
general, it is not required that a and later use all or some of the articles in


Page | 51
MENDIOLA, MANILA
question as evidence against the the personal property of the individual,

petitioner in the criminal cases that may they should be strictly construed;
be filed against him. The seizure of books
and documents by means of a search 3. That the search and seizure made are
warrant, for the purpose of using them as illegal for the following reasons:
evidence in a criminal case against the
person in whose possession they were (a) Because the warrant was based
found, is unconstitutional because it solely upon the affidavit of the
makes the warrant unreasonable, and it is petitioner who had NO personal
equivalent to a violation of the knowledge of the facts necessary to
constitutional provision prohibiting the determine the existence or non-
compulsion of an accused to testify existence of probable cause, and
against himself. Therefore, it appearing
that at least nineteen of the documents in (b) because the warrant was issued for
question were seized for the purpose of the sole purpose of seizing evidence
using them as evidence against the which would later be used in the
petitioner in the criminal proceeding or criminal proceedings that might be
proceedings for violation of the Anti- instituted against the petitioner, for
Usury Law, which it is attempted to violation of the Anti- Usury Law;
institute against him, we hold that the
search warrant issued is illegal and that 4. That as the warrant had been issued
the documents should be returned to him. unreasonably, and as it does not appear
positively in the affidavit that the
NOTE: In sum, the ruling may be articles were in the possession of the
summarized as follows: petitioner and in the place indicated,
neither could the search and seizure be
1. That the provisions of the made at night;
Constitution and General Orders, No. 58,
relative to search and seizure, should be 5. That although it is not mandatory to
given a liberal construction in favor of present affidavits of witnesses to
the individual in order to maintain the corroborate the applicant or
constitutional guaranties whole and in complainant in cases where the latter
their full force; has personal knowledge of the facts,
when the applicant's or complainant's
2. That since the provisions in question knowledge of the facts is merely
are drastic in their form and hearsay, it is the duty of the judge to
fundamentally restrict the enjoyment of require affidavits of other witnesses so
the ownership, possession and use of


Page | 52
MENDIOLA, MANILA
that he may determine whether necessary as long as PC is

probable cause exists ; sufficiently established by
complainant. Not mandatory
6. That a detailed description of the notwithstanding the use of “and”.
person and place to be searched and the - Affiant could be held liable for
articles to be seized is necessary, but perjury
where, by the nature of the articles to be - It should be the personal
seized, their description must be rather knowledge of the affiant
general, it is not required that a
technical description be given, as this WHY?
would mean that no warrant could - The purpose is to convince the
issue; judge and not the affiant
(Adonis Notes: The conjunctive word WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF

“AND” in Art. 3, sec.3 is not to be meant PARTICULARITY OF DECISION?
as BOTH Complainant & Witness should - To prevent the use of discretion by
each produce affidavits. The Judge may the seizing officer
require the affidavit solely of the
complainant if it is itself sufficient to
establish probable cause. – Alvarez vs. UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND
CFI) SEIZURES are prohibited and the
definition is in the case of Alvarez.
WHO ARE PROTECTED?

HOW SHOULD THE COURT DETERMINE - Persons are protected and not
THE EXISTENCE OF A PROBABLE places.
CAUSE?
- Thru oath or affirmation. In oath, a CAN A CORPORATION INVOKE THE
binding force is the belief in God. RIGHT?
Thus, the phrase “so help me God” - Yes. Only through a Board
(Art. 7). While in affirmation, the Resolution
law.
IS IT APPLICABLE AGAINST PRIVATE
WHAT IS THE TEST OF SUFFICIENT INDIVIDUALS?
OATH? - No.
- Personal knowledge and whether
it is sufficient charge affiant with
perjury. Witnesses are not


Page | 53
MENDIOLA, MANILA
SEARCH AND SEIZURE CONDUCTED BY examining Judge has to take depositions

A RANK AND FILE EMPLOYEE, IS THE in writing of the complainant and the
RIGHT AGAINST USS APPLICABLE? witnesses he may produce and to attach
- No. Only on law enforcement them to the record. Such written
officers. Even if they are not on deposition is necessary in order that the
duty, the right may still be invoked Judge may be able to properly determine
against them. the existence or non-existence of the
probable cause, to hold liable for perjury
the person giving it if it will be found later
that his declarations are false.
Mata vs. Bayona [G.R. No. 50720, March We, therefore, hold that the search
26, 1984] warrant is tainted with illegality by the
failure of the Judge to conform with the
BEFORE ISSUING SEARCH WARRANTS, essential requisites of taking the
THE JUDGE MUST CONDUCT depositions in writing and attaching them
DEPOSITIONS to the record, rendering the search
AND ATTACH THEM TO THE RECORDS warrant invalid. The judge's insistence
OF THE CASE. Under the Constitution "no that she examined the complainants
search warrant shall issue but upon under oath has become dubious by
probable cause to be determined by the petitioner's claim that at the particular
Judge or such other responsible officer as time when he examined all the relevant
may be authorized by law after papers connected with the issuance of the
examination under oath or affirmation of questioned search warrant, after he
the complainant and the witnesses he demanded the same from the lower court
may produce". More emphatic and since they were not attached to the
detailed is the implementing rule of the records, he did not find any certification
constitutional injunction, Section 4 of at the back of the joint affidavit of the
Rule 126 which provides that the judge complainants. As stated earlier, before he
must before issuing the warrant filed his motion to quash the search
personally examine on oath or affirmation warrant and for the return of the articles
the complainant and any witnesses he seized, he was furnished, upon his request,
may produce and take their depositions in certified true copies of the said affidavits
writing, and attach them to the record, in by the Clerk of Court but which certified
addition to any affidavits presented to true copies do not bear any certification
him. at the back. Petitioner likewise claims that
his xerox copy of the said joint affidavit
Mere affidavits of the complainant and his obtained at the outset of this case does
witnesses are thus not sufficient. The

Page | 54
MENDIOLA, MANILA
not show also the certification of then handed the records to the Fiscal who
respondent judge. This doubt becomes attached them to the records. This led
more confirmed by respondent Judge's Mata to file a motion to quash and annul
own admission, while insisting that she the search warrant and for the return of
did examine thoroughly the applicants, the articles seized, citing and invoking,
that "she did not take the deposition of among others, Section 4 of Rule 126 of the
Mayote and Goles because to have done Revised Rules of Court. The motion was
so would be to hold a judicial proceeding denied by the Judge, stating that the court
which will be open and public", such that, has made a thorough investigation and
according to her, the persons subject of examination under oath of Bernardo U.
the intended raid will just disappear and Goles and Reynaldo T. Mayote, members
move his illegal operations somewhere of the Intelligence Section of 352nd PC
else. Co./Police District II INP; that in fact the
court made a certification to that effect;
and that the fact that documents relating
SORIANO MATA VS BAYONA to the search warrant were not attached
GR 50720, March 26, 1984, De Castro J. immediately to the record of the criminal
case is of no moment, considering that the
Facts: Soriano Mata was accused under rule does not specify when these
Presidential Decree (PD) 810, as amended documents are to be attached to the
by PD 1306, the information against him records. Mata came to the Supreme Court
alleging that Soriano Mata offered, took and prayed that the search warrant be
and arranged bets on the Jai Alai game by declared invalid for its alleged failure to
“selling illegal tickets known as ‘Masiao comply with the requisites of the
tickets’ without any authority from the Constitution and the Rules of Court
Philippine Jai Alai & Amusement
Corporation or from the government Issue: Whether or not the search warrant
authorities concerned.” was valid.
Petitioner claims that during the hearing Held: NO. We hold that the search
of the case, he discovered that nowhere warrant is tainted with illegality for being
from the records of the said case could be violative of the Constitution and the Rules
found the search warrant and other of Court. Under the Constitution "no
pertinent papers connected to the issuance search warrant shall issue but upon
of the same, so that he had to inquire from probable cause to be determined by the
the City Fiscal its whereabouts, and to Judge or such other responsible officer as
which inquiry Judge Josephine K. Bayona may be authorized by law after
replied, “it is with the court”. The Judge examination under oath or affirmation of


Page | 55
MENDIOLA, MANILA
the complainant and the witnesses he the questioned search warrant, after he
may produce". More emphatic and demanded the same from the lower
detailed is the implementing rule of the court since they were not attached to
constitutional injunction, Section 4 of the records, he did not find any
Rule 126 which provides that the judge certification at the back of the joint
must before issuing the warrant affidavit of the complainants .
personally examine on oath or affirmation
the complainant and any witnesses he As stated earlier, before he filed his
may produce and take their depositions in motion to quash the search warrant and
writing, and attach them to the record, in for the return of the articles seized, he
addition to any affidavits presented to was furnished, upon his request, certified
him. Mere affidavits of the complainant true copies of the said affidavits by the
and his witnesses are thus not sufficient. Clerk of Court but which certified true
The examining Judge has to take copies do not bear any certification at the
depositions in writing of the back. Petitioner likewise claims that his
complainant and the witnesses he may xerox copy of the said joint affidavit
produce and to attach them to the obtained at the outset of this case does not
record . Such written deposition is show also the certification of respondent
necessary in order that the Judge may judge. This doubt becomes more
be able to properly determine the confirmed by respondent Judge's own
existence or non-existence of the admission, while insisting that she did
probable cause, to hold liable for examine thoroughly the applicants, that
perjury the person giving it if it will be "she did not take the deposition of Mayote
found later that his declarations are and Goles because to have done so would
false. be to hold a judicial proceeding which will
be open and public", such that, according
We, therefore, hold that the search to her, the persons subject of the intended
warrant is tainted with illegality by the raid will just disappear and move his
failure of the Judge to conform with the illegal operations somewhere else. Could it
essential requisites of taking the be that the certification was made
depositions in writing and attaching them belatedly to cure the defect of the
to the record, rendering the search warrant? Be that as it may, there was no
warrant invalid. The judge's insistence "deposition in writing" attached to the
that she examined the complainants records of the case in palpable disregard
under oath has become dubious by of the statutory prohibition heretofore
petitioner's claim that at the particular quoted. Respondent Judge impresses this
time when he examined all the relevant Court that the urgency to stop the illegal
papers connected with the issuance of gambling that lures every man, woman


Page | 56
MENDIOLA, MANILA
and child, and even the lowliest laborer The examination or investigation which
who could hardly make both ends meet must be under oath may not be in public.
justifies her action. She claims that in It may even be held in the secrecy of his
order to abate the proliferation of this chambers. Far more important is that the
illegal "masiao" lottery, she thought it examination or investigation is not
more prudent not to conduct the taking of merely routinary but one that is thorough
deposition which is done usually and and elicit the required information. To
publicly in the court room. repeat, it must be under oath and must be
in writing.
Two points must be made clear. The term
"depositions" is sometimes used in a WHAT IS A SEARCH WARRANT?
broad sense to describe any written - According to Section 1, Rule 126 of
statement verified by oath; but in its more the Rules of court, it is limited to
technical and appropriate sense the personal property.
meaning of the word is limited to written - The 10-day validity of search
testimony of a witness given in the course warrant is counted from date
of a judicial proceeding in advance of the - As for the warrant of arrest, it is
trial or hearing upon oral examination. valid until it is served.
A deposition is the testimony of a witness, WHAT ARE THE REQUISITE OF A VALID

put or taken in writing, under oath or WARRANT?
affirmation before a commissioner, - (a) probable cause; (b) to be
examiner or other judicial officer, in determined personally by the
answer to interlocutory and cross judge, (c) examination and (d)
interlocutory, and usually subscribed by
particularly describing the things
the witnesses.
to be seized.
The searching questions propounded to
the applicants of the search warrant and
his witnesses must depend to a large
extent upon the discretion of the Judge People vs. Del Rosario [G.R. No. 109633,
just as long as the answers establish a July 20, 1994]
reasonable ground to believe the
commission of a specific offense and that THE OFFICERS SERVING THE
the applicant is one authorized by law, WARRANT MAY ONLY SEIZE THE
and said answers particularly describe OBJECTS DESCRIBED IN THE
with certainty the place to be searched WARRANT. The search warrant
and the persons or things to be seized. implemented by the raiding party


Page | 57
MENDIOLA, MANILA
authorized only the search and seizure of Constitution of the Republic of the
".. the described quantity of Philippines).With the exclusion in
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride evidence of the illegally seized firearm,
commonly known as shabu and its there is, therefore, a total absence of
paraphernalia" (Exh. O, p. 50, original evidence to support the charge of illegal
record). Thus, the raiding party was possession of firearm, against accused-
authorized to seize only shabu and appellant. The same way may be said of
paraphernalia for the use thereof and no the charge of illegal possession of
other. A search warrant is not a sweeping ammunition.
authority empowering a raiding party to
undertake a fishing expedition to seize
and confiscate any and all kinds of
evidence or articles relating to a crime. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs
NORMANDO DEL ROSARIO
The Constitution itself (Section 2, Article G.R. No. 109633, July 20, 1994, MELO, J.
III) and the Rules of Court (Section 3,
Rule 126) specifically mandate that the Facts:
search warrant must particularly describe Upon application of SPO3 Raymundo
the things to be seized. Thus, the search Untiveros, RTC Judge Arturo de Guia
warrant was no authority for the police issued in the morning of September 4,
officers to seize the firearm which was 1991 a search warrant authorizing the
not mentioned, much less described with search and seizure of an "undetermined
particularly, in the search warrant. quantity of Methamphetamine
Neither may it be maintained that the gun Hydrochloride commonly known as
was seized in the course of an arrest, for shabu and its paraphernalias" in the
as earlier observed, accused-appellant's premises of appellant's house. However,
arrest was far from regular and legal. Said the search warrant was not implemented
firearm, having been illegally seized, the immediately due to the lack of police
same is not admissible in evidence personnel to form the raiding team. At
(Stonehill vs. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383 about 9 o'clock in the evening of that day,
[1967]). a raiding team was finally organized. In
the final briefing of the raiding team at the
The Constitution expressly ordains the police station, it was agreed upon that
exclusion in evidence of illegally seized PO1 Venerando Luna will buy shabu from
articles. Any evidence obtained in appellant and after his return from
violation of this or the preceding section appellant's house, the raiding team will
shall be inadmissible for any purpose in implement the search warrant. A marked
any proceeding.(Section 3 [2], Article III, money consisting of a P100 bill bearing


Page | 58
MENDIOLA, MANILA
serial no. PQ 329406 was given by the station and informed the raiding team that
Station Commander to PO1 Luna and he had already bought the shabu from
entered in the police logbook PO1 Luna accused-appellant. Thereupon, the raiding
with a companion proceeded to team proceeded to the house of accused-
appellant's house to implement the appellant to implement the search warrant.
search warrant. Barangay Capt. Maigue, The version of the prosecution is highly
Norma del Rosario and appellant incredible. The record is devoid of any
witnessed the search at appellant's house. reason why the police officers did not
SPO3 de la Cruz and PO3 Francisco found make any attempt to arrest accused-
a black canister containing shabu, an appellant at the time he allegedly sold the
aluminum foil, a paltik .22 caliber atop the shabu to Veneracion Luna who was
TV set, three used ammunitions in a cup accompanied by another police officer.
and three wallets, one containing the That was the opportune moment to arrest
marked money. SPO1 Novero found inside accused-appellant. The version foisted by
a show box aluminum foils, napkins and a the prosecution upon this Court is
burner. Normando del Rosario was contrary to human experience in the
charged with Illegal Possession of ordinary course of human conduct. The
Firearm and Ammunitions and Illegal Sale usual procedure in a buy-bust
of Regulated Drugs. operation is for the police officers to
arrest the pusher of drugs at the very
Issues: moment he hands over the dangerous
1. Whether or not the implementation of drug to the poseur-buyer. That is the
the search warrant was lawful and that every reason why such a police
the object seized may be used to prove operation is called a "BUY-BUST"
Del Rosario’s guilt? operation. The police poseur-buyer
"buys” dangerous drugs from the
2. Whether the ammunition was validly pusher and "bust" (arrests) him the
seized as an incident to a lawful arrest? moment the pusher hands over the drug
to the police officer.
Held:
We thus entertain serious doubts that the
1. No. According to the version of the shabu contained in a small canister was
prosecution, during the alleged buybust actually seized or confiscated at the
operation, accused-appellant handed over residence of accused-appellant. in
to Veneracion Luna, the alleged poseur- consequence, the manner the police
buyer, a quantity of shabu, and Luna in officers conducted the subsequent and
turn paid accused-appellant a marked much-delayed search is highly irregular.
100 bill and then returned to the police Upon barging into the residence of


Page | 59
MENDIOLA, MANILA
accused-appellant, the police officers which was not mentioned, much less
found him lying down and they described with particularity, in the
immediately arrested and detained him in search warrant .
the living room while they searched the
other parts of the house. Although they 2. NO. Neither may it be maintained that
fetched two persons to witness the search, the gun was seized in the course of an
the witnesses were called in only after the arrest, for as earlier observed, Del
policemen had already entered accused- Rosario's arrest was far from regular
appellant's residence (pp. 22-23, tsn, and legal. Said firearm, having been
December 11, 1991), and, therefore, the illegally seized, the same is not
policemen had more than ample time to admissible in evidence.
plant the shabu. At any rate, accused-
appellant cannot be convicted
ofpossession of the shabu contained in a
canister and allegedly seized at his
house, for the charge against him was SEARCH WARRANT WAS ISSUED FOR
for selling shabu. Sale is totally SS OF SHABU, BUT IN SERVICE, ALSO
different from possession. FOUND AN UNLICENSED FIREARM. IS IS
ADMISSIBLE?
Moreover, the search warrant - No. Only those objects described.
implemented by the raiding party Thus, the phrase “particularly
authorized only the search and seizure describe the things to be seized”.
shabu and paraphernalia for the use Moreover, it must be issued for
thereof and no other. “ the described one offense only. SW “not a
quantity of Methamphetamine sweeping authority.”
Hydrochloride commonly known as
shabu and its paraphernalia". A search WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
warrant is not a sweeping authority GENERAL WARRANT AND SCATTER-
empowering a raiding party to SHOT WARRANT?
undertake a finishing expedition to - “General warrants” are
seize and confiscate any and all kinds of proscribed and unconstitutional
evidence or articles relating to a crime. [Nolasco v. Pano, 139 SCRA 152;
The Constitution itself and the Rules of Burgos v. Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA
Court, specifically mandate that the 800], In Tambasen v. People, 246
search warrant must particularly SCRA 184, where the search
describe the things to be seized. Thus, warrant charged violations of two
the search warrant was no authority for special laws, it was considered a
the police officers to seize the firearm


Page | 60
MENDIOLA, MANILA
“scatter-shot warrant”, and was - Rule 113, Sec. 5; Rule 114, Sec. 23;
declared null and void. arrest by bondsman, etc.
- Indeed, as held in People v. Tee, Hypo: Supposing A was caught in

supra., what the Constitution seeks flagrante delicto, and he was arrested
to avoid are search warrants of by a police officer. On their way to the
broad and general characterization police station he escaped. Is it covered
or sweeping descriptions which by Sec. 13, Rulle 113?
will authorize police officers to - No. It cannot fall under Sec. 5(c)
undertake a fishing expedition to because the suspect is not yet a
seize and confiscate any and all detention prisoner. He must be
kinds of evidence or articles booked first as a detention prisoner
relating to an offense. to be considered so.
While POs were searching for shabu, - The conspicuous illegality of the
they discovered unlicensed firearms. arrest cannot affect the jurisdiction
Plain view? of the trial court, because even in
- No. instances not allowed by law, a
(1) PVD is usually applied where warrantless arrest is not a
POs are not searching for evidence jurisdictional defect, and any
against the accused. objection thereto is waived when
(2) Inadvertently come across an the person arrested submits to
incriminating object – no further search. arraignment without any objection
(3) Right to be in the position. [People v. Del Rosario, G.R. No.
(4) Incriminating character must 127755, April 14, 1999].
be readily apparent.
HYPPO: 2 POs heard that there was NACHURA:

going to be a party. They gate-crashed
and saw from the door that there were It may be conceded, as a matter of policy,
drugs everywhere. Valid? that where a criminal case is pending, the
- No. They had no right to be there! Court wherein it is filed, or the assigned
branch thereof, has primary jurisdiction
to issue the search warrant; and where no
such criminal case has yet been filed, the
HOW MANY PERMISSIBLE executive judges, or their lawful
WARRANTLESS ARREST UNDER THE substitutes, in the areas and for the
RoC? offense contemplated in Circular 1-91,


Page | 61
MENDIOLA, MANILA
shall have primary jurisdiction [Malalaon erroneously filed with the RTC, it was
v. Court of Appeals, 232 SCRA 249], This error for the RTC Judge not to recall the
does not mean, however, that a Court, warrant of arrest issued, because
whose territorial jurisdiction does not contrary to her claim, the issuance of a
embrace the place to be searched, cannot warrant is not a ministerial function of
issue a search warrant therefor, where the judge [Alib v. Judge Labayen, AM No.
the obtention of such search warrant is RTJ-00- 1576, June 28, 2001],
necessitated and justified by compelling
considerations of urgency, subject, time Where a search warrant is issued by one
and place [llano v. Court of Appeals, 244 court and the criminal action based on the
SCRA 346]. results of the search is afterwards
commenced in another court, it is not the
The determination of the existence of rule that a motion to quash the warrant or
compelling considerations of urgency, and to retrieve things thereunder seized may
the subject, time and place necessitating be filed only with the issuing court. Such a
and justifying the filing of an application motion may be filed for the first time in
for a search warrant with a court other either the issuing court or that in which
than the court having territorial the criminal action is pending [People v.
jurisdiction over the place to be searched Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126379, June
and things to be seized or where the 26, 1998]. However, the remedy is
materials are found is addressed to the alternative, not cumulative. The court first
sound discretion of the trial court where taking cognizance of the motion does so
the application is filed, subject to review to the exclusion of the other, and the
by the appellate court in case of grave proceedings thereon are subject to the
abuse of discretion amounting to excess Omnibus Motion Rule and the rule against
or lack of jurisdiction [People v. Chui, G.R. forum-shopping [Garaygay v. People, G.R.
No. 142915-16, February 27, 2004]. No. 135503, July 6, 2000] ,
But the moment an information is filed The judge may order the quashal of the
with the RTC, it is that court which must warrant he issued even after the same
issue the warrant of arrest. The MTC had already been implemented,
Judge who continued with the particularly when such quashal is based
preliminary investigation and issued on the finding that there is no offense
warrants of arrest violated procedure committed. This does not trench upon the
[Espino v. Judge Salubre, AM No. MTJ- duty of the prosecutor. The effect of such
00-1255, February 26, 2001]. If the case a quashal is that the items seized shall be
had already been remanded to the MTCC, inadmissible in evidence [Solid Triangle
after the information for perjury was Sales v. Sheriff, RTC QC, Br. 33, G.R. No.


Page | 62
MENDIOLA, MANILA
144309, November 30, 2001]. Indeed, Thereafter, the three men dragged Blace
when the warrant is shown to bedefective, to a place behind the house of Gerente. At
all evidence obtained from the search about 4:00 p.m. of the same day,
shall be inadmissible in evidence [People Patrolman Jaime Urrutia of the Valenzuela
v. Francisco, G.R. No. 129035, August 20, Police Station received a report from the
2002]. Palo Police Detachment about a mauling
incident. He went to the Valenzuela
District Hospital where the victim was
brought. He was informed by the hospital
PEOPLE VS GERENTE [GR 95847-48, officials that the victim died on arrival.
10 March 1993] The cause of death was massive fracture
First Division, Grino-Aquino (J): 3 of the skull caused by a hard and heavy
concur object. Right away, Patrolman Urrutia,
together with Police Corporal Romeo
Facts: Lima and Patrolman Alex Umali,
At about 7:00 a.m. of 30 April 1990, proceeded to Paseo de Blas where the
Gabriel Gerente, together with Fredo mauling incident took place. There they
Echigoren and Totoy Echigoren, allegedly found a piece of wood with blood stains, a
started drinking liquor and smoking hollow block and two roaches of
marijuana in Gerente's house which is marijuana. They were informed by Reyes
about 6 meters away from the house of that she saw the killing and she pointed to
Edna Edwina Reyes who was in her house Gabriel Gerente as one of the three men
on that day. She overheard the three men who killed Clarito. The policemen
talking about their intention to kill Clarito proceeded to the house of Gerente, who
Blace. She testified that she heard Fredo was then sleeping. They told him to come
Echigoren saying, "Gabriel, papatayin out of the house and they introduced
natin si Clarito Blace." Fredo and Totoy themselves as policemen.
Echigoren and Gerente carried out their
plan to kill Clarito Blace at about 2:00 p.m. Patrolman Urrutia frisked Gerente and
of the same day. Reyes allegedly found a coin purse in his pocket which
witnessed the killing. Fredo Echigoren contained dried leaves wrapped in
struck the first blow against Clarito Blace, cigarette foil. The dried leaves were sent
followed by Totoy Echigoren and Gabriel to the National Bureau of Investigation for
Gerente who hit him twice with a piece of examination. The Forensic Chemist found
wood in the head and when he fell, Totoy them to be marijuana. Only Gerente was
Echigoren dropped a hollow block on the apprehended by the police. The other
victim's head. suspects, Fredo and Totoy Echigoren, are
still at large. On 2 May 1990, two separate


Page | 63
MENDIOLA, MANILA
informations were filed by Assistant (a) When, in his presence, the person to
Provincial Prosecutor Benjamin Caraig be arrested has committed, is actually
against him for Violation of Section 8, Art. committing, or is attempting to commit an
II, of RA 6425, and for Murder. offense;
(b) When an offense has in fact just been
When arraigned on 16 May 1990, Gerente committed, and he has personal
pleaded not guilty to both charges. A joint knowledge of facts indicating that the
trial of the two cases was held. On 24 person to be arrested has committed it;"
September 1990, the Regional Trial Court
of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, Branch 172, The policemen arrested Gerente only
found Gerente guilty of Violation of some 3 hours after Gerente and his
Section 8 of Republic Act 6425 and companions had killed Blace. They saw
sentenced him to suffer the penalty of Blace dead in the hospital and when they
imprisonment for a term of 12 years and inspected the scene of the crime, they
1 day, as minimum, to 20 years, as found the instruments of death: a piece of
maximum; and also found him guilty of wood and a concrete hollow block which
Murder for which crime he was sentenced the killers had used to bludgeon him to
to suffer the penalty of reclusion death. The eye-witness, Edna Edwina
perpetua. . Gerente appealed. Reyes, reported the happening to the
policemen and pinpointed her neighbor,
Issue: Gerente, as one of the killers. Under those
Whether the police officers have the circumstances, since the policemen had
personal knowledge of the killing of Blace personal knowledge of the violent death
to allow them to arrest, and the of Blace and of facts indicating that
subsequent searchly Gerente’s person, Gerente and two others had killed him,
without the necessary warrant. they could lawfully arrest Gerente
without a warrant. If they had postponed
Held: his arrest until they could obtain a
The search of Gerente's person and the warrant, he would have fled the law as his
seizure of the marijuana leaves in his two companions did. The search
possession were valid because they were conducted on Gerente's person was
incident to a lawful warrantless arrest. likewise lawful because it was made as an
Paragraphs (a) and (b), Section 5, Rule incident to a valid arrest. This is in
113 of the Revised Rules of Court provide accordance with Section 12, Rule 126 of
that "A peace officer or a private person the Revised Rules of Court which provides
may, without a warrant, arrest a person: that "A person lawfully arrested may be
searched for dangerous weapons or
anything which may be used as proof of


Page | 64
MENDIOLA, MANILA
the commission of an offense, without a the house. These circumstances

search warrant." The frisk and search of justified the searching party’s
Gerente's person upon his arrest was a forcible entry, as it was done on
permissible precautionary measure of the apprehension that the
arresting officers to protect themselves, execution of their mission would
for the person who is about to be arrested be frustrated unless they did so.
may be armed and might attack them
unless he is first disarmed. b) But in People v. Benny Go, G.R.
No. 144639, September 12, 2003,
even as the police officers were
- There is continuity. armed with a Search Warrant of
appellant’s residence and to seize
shabu, the Supreme Court declared
NACHURA that the manner in which the
officers conducted the search was
CONDUCT OF THE SEARCH. unlawful. The police officers
Sec. 7, Rule 126, Rules of Court, requires arrived at appellant’s residence
that no search of a house, room or any of and to gain entry into the house,
the premises shall be made except in the they “side- swiped (sinagi) a little”
presence of the lawful occupant thereof or appellant’s car which was parked
any member of his family, or in the outside. Jack Go, appellant’s son,
absence of the latter, in the presence of the only one present in the house
two witnesses of sufficient age and at the time, opened the door, and
discretion, residing in the same locality. the policemen at once introduced
Failure to comply with this requirement themselves, informed Jack that
invalidates the search [People v. they had a warrant to search the
Gesmundo, 219 SCRA 743]. premises, and promptly
handcuffed Jack to a chair.
a) The police officers may use
force in entering the dwelling if
justified by Rule 126 of the Rules
of Court. In People v. Salanguit,
supra., the occupants of the house Umil vs. Ramos [G.R. No. 81567, July 9,
refused to open the door despite 1990]
the fact that the searching party
knocked on the door several times, ARREST MAY BE MADE ANYTIME
and the agents saw suspicious AGAINST PERSONS CHARGED WITH
movements of the people inside CONTUNUING CRIMES. However,
Rolando Dural was arrested for being a

Page | 65
MENDIOLA, MANILA
member of the New Peoples Army (NPA), elements, or for committing non-violent
an outlawed subversive organization. acts but in furtherance of the rebellion, is
Subversion being a continuing offense, the more an act of capturing them in the
arrest of Rolando Dural without warrant course of an armed conflict, to quell the
is justified as it can be said that he was rebellion, than for the purpose of
committing an offense when arrested. The immediately prosecuting them in court
crimes of rebellion, subversion, for a statutory offense. The arrest,
conspiracy or proposal to commit such therefore, need not follow the usual
crimes, and crimes or offenses committed procedure in the prosecution of offenses
in furtherance thereof or in connection which requires the determination by a
therewith constitute direct assaults judge of the existence of probable cause
against the State and are in the nature of before the issuance of a judicial warrant
continuing crimes. As stated by the Court of arrest and the granting of bail if the
in an earlier case: offense is bailable.
From the facts as above-narrated, the

claim of the petitioners that they were Obviously, the absence of a judicial
initially arrested illegally is, therefore, warrant is no legal impediment to
without basis in law and in fact. The arresting or capturing persons
crimes of insurrection or rebellion, committing overt acts of violence against
subversion, conspiracy or proposal to government forces, or any other milder
commit such crimes, and other crimes acts but equally in pursuance of the
and offenses committed in the rebellious movement. The arrest or
furtherance, on the occasion thereof, or capture is thus impelled by the exigencies
incident thereto, or in connection of the situation that involves the very
therewith under Presidential survival of society and its government
Proclamation No. 2045, are all in the and duly constituted authorities.
nature of continuing offenses which set If killing and other acts of violence against
them apart from the common offenses, the rebels find justification in the
aside from their essentially involving a exigencies of armed hostilities which is of
massive conspiracy of nationwide the essence of waging a rebellion or
magnitude. Clearly then, the arrest of the insurrection, most assuredly so in case of
herein detainees was well within the invasion, merely seizing their persons and
bounds of the law and existing detaining them while any of these
jurisprudence in our jurisdiction. contingencies continues cannot be less
justified. . . ."
The arrest of persons involved in the
rebellion whether as its fighting armed


Page | 66
MENDIOLA, MANILA
issued the writ of habeas corpus. A Return

UMIL VS RAMOS of the Writ was filed. Umil and Villanueva
GR 81567, 9 June 1990 posted bail before the Regional Trial
Court of Pasay City where charges for
Facts: The Regional Intelligence violation of the Anti-Subversion Act had
Operations Unit of the Capital Command been filed against them, and they were
(RIOU-CAPCOM) received confidential accordingly released.
information about a member of the NPA
Sparrow Unit (liquidation squad) being Issue: Whether Dural can be validly
treated for a gunshot wound at the St. arrested without any warrant of arrest for
Agnes Hospital in Roosevelt Avenue, the crime of rebellion.
Quezon City. Upon verification, it was
found that the wounded person, who was Held: Yes. Dural was arrested for being a
listed in the hospital records as Ronnie member of the New Peoples Army (NPA),
Javelon, is actually Rolando Dural, a an outlawed subversive organization.
member of the NPA liquidation squad, Subversion being a continuing offense,
responsible for the killing of 2 CAPCOM the arrest of Rolando Dural without
soldiers the day before. Dural was then warrant is justified as it can be said
transferred to the Regional Medical that he was committing an offense
Services of the CAPCOM, for security when arrested. The crimes of rebellion,
reasons. While confined thereat, Dural subversion, conspiracy or proposal to
was positively identified by eyewitnesses commit such crimes, and crimes or
as the gunman who went on top of the offenses committed in furtherance
hood of the CAPCOM mobile patrol car, thereof or in connection therewith
and fired at the 2 CAPCOM soldiers seated constitute direct assaults against the State
inside the car. and are in the nature of continuing crimes.
The arrest of persons involved in the
Consequently, Dural was referred to the rebellion whether as its fighting armed
Caloocan City Fiscal who conducted an elements, or for committing non-violent
inquest and thereafter filed with the acts but in furtherance of the rebellion, is
Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City an more an act of capturing them in the
information charging Rolando Dural alias course of an armed conflict, to quell the
Ronnie Javelon with the crime of “Double rebellion, than for the purpose of
Murder with Assault Upon Agents of immediately prosecuting them in court
Persons in Authority.” A petition for for a statutory offense. The arrest,
habeas corpus was filed with the Supreme therefore, need not follow the usual
Court on behalf of Roberto Umil, Rolando procedure in the prosecution of offenses
Dural, and Renato Villanueva. The Court which requires the determination by a


Page | 67
MENDIOLA, MANILA
judge of the existence of probable cause meters away from Regalado's house.
before the issuance of a judicial Fulgencio, within a distance of two meters
warrant of arrest and the granting of saw Sucro conduct his nefarious activity.
bail if the offense is bailable. The He saw Sucro talk to some persons, go
absence of a judicial warrant is no legal inside the chapel, and return to them and
impediment to arresting or capturing exchange some things. These, Sucro did
persons committing overt acts of violence three times during the time that he was
against government forces, or any other being monitored. Fulgencio would then
milder acts but equally in pursuance of relay the on-going transaction to P/Lt.
the rebellious movement. The arrest or Seraspi.
capture is thusimpelled by the exigencies of
the situation that involves the very survival
of society and its government and duly
constituted authorities. PEOPLE VS SUCRO
GR 93239, 18 March 1991
Facts: Pat. Fulgencio went to Arlie

People vs. Sucro [G.R. No. 93239, March Regalado’s house at C. Quimpo to monitor
18, 1991] activities of Edison SUCRO (accused).
Sucro was reported to be selling marijuana
AN OFFENSE IS COMMITTED WITHIN at a chapel 2 meters away from
THE PRESENCE OF THE OFFICER EVEN Regalado’s house. Sucro was monitored to
IF THE LATTER IS AT A DISTANCE. An have talked and exchanged things three
offense is committed in the presence or times.
within the view of an officer, within the
meaning of the rule authorizing an arrest These activities are reported through radio
without a warrant, when the officer sees to P/Lt. Seraspi. A third buyer was
the offense, although at a distance, or transacting with appellant and was
hears the disturbances created thereby reported and later identified as Ronnie
and proceeds at once to the scene thereof Macabante. From that moment,
(U.S. v. Fortaleza, 12 Phil. 472 [1909]; P/Lt.Seraspi proceeded to the area. While
and U.S. v. Samonte, 16 Phil. 516 [1910]). the police officers were at the Youth
Hostel in Maagama St. Fulgencio told Lt.
The records show that Fulgencio went to Seraspi to intercept. Macabante was
Arlie Regalado's house at C. Quimpo intercepted at Mabini and Maagama
Street to monitor the activities of the crossing in front of Aklan Medical center.
accused who was earlier reported to be Macabante saw the police and threw a tea
selling marijuana at a chapel two (2) bag of marijuana on the ground.


Page | 68
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Macabante admitted buying the

marijuana from Sucro in front of the (It was held that when a police officer
chapel. sees the offense, although at a distance, or
hears the distrurbances created thereby,
The police team intercepted and arrested and proceeds at once to the scene thereof,
SUCRO at the corner of C. Quimpo and he may effect an arrest without a warrant.
Veterans. Recovered were 19 sticks and 4 The offense is deemed committed in the
teabags of marijuana from a cart inside presence or within the
the chapel and another teabag from view of the officer.)
Macabante.
Issue: Whether or not the arrest without What is the meaning of “in his
warrant is lawful. presence”?
- Not necessarily in the same place.
Held:
Physical presence not required.
Yes. Search and seizures supported by a Even sense of touch, smell, taste
valid warrant of arrest is not an etc. is sufficient.
absolute rule. Rule 126, Sec 12 of Rules
of Criminal Procedure provides that a
ABCD are in a drinking session in a 3x3
person lawfully arrested may be room. C and D fell asleep. Whey they
searched for dangerous weapons or awoke, they found A dead. Can they
anything, which may be used as proof of arrest B?
the commission of an offense, without a - No. Presence does not refer to
search warrant.(People v. Castiller. The physical presence. Physical presence
failure of the police officers to secure a
is not enough without any showing
warrant stems from the fact that their that they are conscious of what was
knowledge required from the surveillance happening while they were asleep.
was insufficient to fulfill requirements for
its issuance . However, warrantless 3 instances of warrantless arrest
search and seizures are legal as long as under Rule 113, Sec. 5
PROBABLE CAUSE existed. The police a. In flagrante
officers have personal knowledge of the b. Hot pursuit
actual commission of the crime from the c. Escapee’s arrest
surveillance of the activities of the d. person who jumped bail (section 23,
accused. As police officers were the ones rule 114)
conducting thesurveillance, it is
presumed that they are regularly in
performance of their duties.


Page | 69
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Q: What is the meaning of “just continuing crime, it can be

committed”? considered as such only when the
A: There must be a sense of immediacy deprivation of liberty is persistent
between the time the offense is and continuing from one place to
committed and the time of the arrest, and another [Francisco Juan
if there was an appreciable lapse of time Larranaga v. Court of Appeals,
between the arrest and the commission of supra.].
the crime, warrant of arrest must be
secured. (Nachura Reviewer 2009, p. 127) ii) In People v. Sucro, 195 SCRA
388, it was held that when a police
Q: Arrest 6 days after the commission officer sees the offense, although at
of crime, “just committed”? a distance, or hears the
A: No. disturbances created thereby, and
proceeds at once to the scene
thereof, he may effect an arrest
NACHURA without a warrant. The offense is
WARRANTLESS ARREST [Sec. 5, Rule deemed committed in the presence
113, Rules of Court]. of or within the view of the officer.
A peace officer, or even a private person,
may effect an arrest without a warrant: iii) Hot pursuit. In People v. de
Lara, September 5, 1994, and
a) When the person to be arrested has reiterated in People v. Recepcion,
committed. Is actuallv committing or is G.R. No. 141943, November 13,
attempting to commit an offense in his 2002, the arrest of the accused
presence. inside his house following hot
pursuit of the person who
i) In Umil v. Ramos, 187 SCRA 311, committed the offense in flagrante
the Supreme Court held that was held valid.
rebellion is a continuing offense.
Accordingly, a rebel may be iv) An arrest made after an
arrested at any time, with or entrapment operation does not
without a warrant, as he is deemed require a warrant of arrest; it is
to be in the act of committing the reasonable and valid under Sec. 5
offense at any time of day or night. (a), Rule 113 [People v. Bohol, G.R.
See also the Resolution on the No. 171729, July 28, 2008].
Motion for Reconsideration, 202
SCRA 252. However, even if in iva) A “buy-bust”
Parulan v. Director of Prisons, operation is a valid in
kidnapping with serious illegal

Page | 70
MENDIOLA, MANILA
flagrante arrest. The v. Chua, G.R. No. 133789,

subsequent search of the August 23, 2001 and
person arrested and of the People v. Lacap, G.R. No.
premises within his 139114, October 23, 2001.
immediate control is valid The well entrenched
as an incident to a lawful principle is that the accused
arrest [People v. Hindoy, commits the crime of illegal
G.R. No. 132662, May 10, sale of drugs as soon as he
2001], This ruling is consummates the sale
reiterated in People v. transaction, whether
Gonzales, G.R. No. 113255- payment precedes or
56, July 19, 2001, where follows delivery of the drug
the Supreme Court added sold [People v. Chu, G.R. No.
that the defense of “frame- 143793, February 17,
up”, like alibi, is viewed 2004].
with disfavor, as it can
easily be concocted, and ivb) However, in People v.
thus, in the absence of proof Rodrigueza, 205 SCRA 791,
of any ill motive on the part the police officer, acting as
of the apprehending poseur-buyer in a “buy-bust
officers, this defense will operation”, instead of
not prosper. arresting the suspect and
taking him into custody
In People v. Yong Fung after the sale, returned to
Yuen, G.R. No. 145014-15, police headquarters and
February 18, 2004, the filed his report. It was only
Court said that an allegation in the evening of the same
of frame-up and extortion day that the police officer,
by the police officers is a without a warrant, arrested
common and standard the suspect at the latter’s
defense in most dangerous house where dried
drugs cases. It is, however, marijuana leaves were
viewed with disfavour, for found and confiscated. It
such defenses can be easily was held that the arrest and
concocted and fabricated. the seizure were unlawful.
To prove such defenses, the
evidence must be clear and v) But to constitute a valid in
convincing. See also People flagrante arrest, as held in People


Page | 71
MENDIOLA, MANILA
v. Molina, G.R. No. 133917, standing alone, will not

February 19, 2001, reiterated in constitute probable cause
People v. Sy Chua, G.R. Nos. to effect an in flagrante
136066-67, February 4, 2003, in arrest. This is reiterated in
People v. Tudtud, G.R. No. 144037, People v. Galvez, G.R. No.
September 26, 2003, and in the 136790, March 26, 2001,
more recent People v. Nuevas, G.R. and People v. Conde, G.R.
No. 170233, February 22, 2007, No. 113269, April 10, 2001,
“reliable information” alone, although in these cases, for
absent any overt act indicative of a failure of the accused to
felonious enterprise in the assert their constitutional
presence and within the view of right prior to arraignment,
the arresting officers, is not and by entering a plea of
sufficient to constitute probable not guilty and participating
cause to justify the arrest. It is actively in the trial, they
necessary that two requisites were deemed to have
concur: waived their right to raise
the issue of the illegality of
[1] the person to be arrested must the arrest.
execute an overt act indicating that
he had just committed, is actually vb) In Sy Chua, the
committing, or is attempting to apprehending officers had
commit a crime; and already prior knowledge
[2] such overt act is done in the from the very same
presence or within the view of the informant (who had been
arresting officer. telling them about the
activities of the accused for
va) In Molina, the accused two years prior to the
while holding a bag on actual arrest). Considering
board a tricycle cannot be that the identity, address
said to be committing, and activities of the
attempting to commit or to suspected culprit was
have committed a crime. It already ascertained two
matters not that the years previous to the actual
accused responded, “Boss, if arrest, there was no reason
possible, we will settle this”, why the police officers
as such response is an could not have obtained a
equivocal statement which, judicial warrant before


Page | 72
MENDIOLA, MANILA
arresting the accused b) When an offense had iust been

appellant and searching committed and there is probable
him. cause to believe, based on his
personal knowledge of facts or of
vi) For a successful prosecution for other circumstances, that the
the sale of illegal drugs after a buy- person to be arrested has
bust operation, what is important committed the offense.
is the fact that the poseur-buyer
received the goods from the i) Under this paragraph, two stringent
accused-appellant and the same requirements must be complied with,
was presented in court as evidence. namely:
There is no rule of law that
requires that there must be (i) an offense had just been
simultaneous exchange of the committed, and
marked money and the prohibited (ii) the person making the arrest
drug between the poseur-buyer has probable cause to believe,
and the pusher. There is also no based on his personal
rule that requires the police to use knowledge of facts or of other
only marked money in buy-bust circumstances, that the person
operations. The failure to use to be arrested had committed it.
marked money or to present it in
evidence is not material since the Hence, there must be a large measure of
sale cannot be essentially immediacy between the time the offense
disproved, by the absence thereof is committed and the time of the arrest,
[People v. Antinero, G.R. No. and if there was an appreciable lapse of
137612, September 25, 2001]. time between the arrest and the
commission of the crime, a warrant of
a) However, the mere discovery of arrest must be secured. Aside from the
marked money on the person of sense of immediacy, it is also mandatory
the accused did not mean that he that the person making the arrest has
was caught in the act of selling personal knowledge of certain facts
marijuana. The marked money was indicating that the person to be taken into
not prohibited perse. Even if it custody has committed the crime.
were, that fact alone would not
retroactively validate the ii) In People v. Del Rosario, G.R. No.
warrantless search and seizure 127755, April 14, 1999, it was held that
[People v. Enrile, 222 SCRA 586], these requirements were not complied
with. The qrrest came a day after the


Page | 73
MENDIOLA, MANILA
offense was committed and thus, the days after the discovery of the crime was
offense had not been “just” committed. unlawful. In People v. Kimura, 428 SCRA
51, the warrantless arrest of the accused
Furthermore, the arresting officers had no for selling marijuana two days after he
personal knowledge of facts indicating escaped was held invalid. Similarly, in San
that the person to be arrested had Agustin v. People, 432SCRA 392, the
committed the offense, since they were warrantless arrest of the barangay
not present and were not actual chairman for illegal detention seven days
eyewitnesses to the crime, and they after he locked up somebody was
became aware of the identity of the driver declared illegal.
of the getaway tricycle only during the
custodial investigation. The same iii) In People v. Cubcubin, G.R. No.
conclusion was reached in People v. 136267, October 02, 2001, it was held
Samus, G.R. No. 135957, September 17, that the policemen, not having “personal
2002, inasmuch as the killiing was not knowledge” of facts indicating that the
done in the presence of the arresting accused committed the crime, the arrest
officer, and the incident took place eight was invalid.
days before the warrantless arrest.
iv) But in People v. Gerente, 219 SCRA
In Go v. Court of Appeals, 206 SCRA 138, 756, where the policemen saw the victim
six days after the shooting, as the dead at the hospital and when they
petitioner presented himself before the inspected the crime scene, they found the
San Juan Police Station to verify news instruments of death — and the
reports that he was being hunted, the eyewitnesses reported the happening and
police detained him because an pointed to Gerente as one of the killers,
eyewitness had positively identified him the warrantless arrest of Gerente only
as the gunman who shot Maguan. The three hours after the killing was held
Court held that there was no valid arrest; valid, since the policemen had personal
it cannot be considered as within the knowledge of the violent death of the
meaning of “the offense had just been victim and of the facts indicating that
committed” inasmuch as six days had Gerente and two others had killed the
already elapsed; neither did the victim. Further, the search of Gerente’s
policemen have personal knowledge of person and the seizure of the marijuana
facts that Go shot Maguan. leaves were valid as an incident to a
lawful arrest. Thus, in Robin Padilla v.
In People v. Olivarez, G.R. No. 77865, Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121917,
December 5, 1998, it was held that the March 12, 1997, the-Court held that
warrantless arrest of the accused two there was a valid arrest, as there was


Page | 74
MENDIOLA, MANILA
neither supervening event nor a the peace. Probable cause for an arrest
considerable lapse of time between the without warrant is such a reasonable
hit-and-run and the apprehension. After ground of suspicion supported by
the policemen had stationed themselves circumstances sufficiently strong in
at possible exits, they saw the fast themselves to warrant a reasonable man
approaching vehicle, its plate number, in believing the accused to be guilty. This
and the dented hood and railings thereof. was reiterated in People v. Escordial, G.R.
These formed part of the arresting Nos. 138934-35, January 16, 2002, where
officers’ personal knowledge of the fact the Supreme Court added that the
that Padilla’s vehicle was the one involved reasonable suspicion must be founded on
in the incident. probable cause, coupled with good faith
on the part of the peace officer making the
Likewise, in People v. Abriol, G.R. No. arrest.
123137, October 17, 2001, it was held
that the warrantless arrest was valid, as it In Cadua, the Supreme Court held that the
was made after the fatal shooting and arrest without warrant was valid. The fact
pursuit of a fast-moving vehicle seeking to that the robbery case was never brought
elude pursuing police officers, and a more to trial does not mean that the legality of
than reasonable belief on the part of the the arrest was tainted, for such arrest
police officers that the fleeing suspects does not depend upon the indubitable
aboard the motor vehicle had just existence of the crime. The legality of
engaged in criminal activity. apprehending the accused would not
depend on the actual commission of the
v) in Cadua v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. crime but upon the nature of the deed,
123123, August 19, 1999, the Supreme where from such characterization it may
Court, quoting Ricardo Francisco, reasonably be inferred by the officer or
Criminal Procedure, 2nd ed. (1994), pp. functionary to whom the law at the
207-208, said that it has been ruled that moment leaves the decision for the urgent
“personal knowledge of facts” in arrests purpose of suspending the liberty of the
without a warrant must be based on citizen.
probable cause, which means an actual
belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion. vi) However, in People v.. Bans'll, G.R. No.
Peace officers may pursue and arrest 120163, March 10, 1999, the Supreme
without warrant any person found in Court held that there was no probable
suspicious places or under suspicious cause to justify the warrantless arrest,
circumstances reasonably tending to considering the following circumstances:
show that such person has committed, or the arresting team was only armed with
is about to commit, any crime or breach of the knowledge of the suspect’s “attire”


Page | 75
MENDIOLA, MANILA
which the prosecution witness admitted estopped from questioning the illegality
during the trial he could not even of his arrest when he voluntarily
remember; the team did not have a submitted himself to the jurisdiction of
physical description of the suspect nor his the court by entering a plea of not guilty
name; the team was not given a specific and by participating in the trial [People v.
place to search as only a vicinity of the Satvatierra, G.R. No. 104663. July 24,
Muslim area in Quiapo was given; and the 1997; People v. de Guzman, 224 SCRA
team zeroed in on the accused who were 93; People v. Lopez, 245 SCRA 95; People
eating halo-halo, which is not a crime in v. Tidula, 292 SCRA 596; People v.
itself. The “bulging waistline”, in light of Navarro, G.R. No. 130644. March 13,
prevailing circumstances, is insufficient to 1998].
constitute probable cause for the arrest of
the accused. It is necessary, therefore, that the
petitioner should question the validity of
vii) When the attempted arrest does not the arrest before he enters his. plea.
fall under any of the cases provided in Failure to do so would constitute a waiver
Rule 113, Sec. 5, Rules of Criminal of his right against unlawful restraint of
Procedure (for warrantless arrests), his liberty [People v. Cachola, G.R. Nos.
the NBI agents could not, regardless of 148712-15, January 21, 2004; People v.
their suspicion, authorize the arrest of the Penaflonda, G.R. No. 130550, September
students without a warrant, or even effect 2, 1999, citing Filoteo v. Sandiganbayan,
the arrest themselves, because only the 263 SCRA 222]. <
courts could decide the question of
probable cause [Posadas v. Ombudsman, i) Note, however, that the waiver is
G.R. No. 131492, September 29, 2000]. limited to the illegal arrest. It does
not extend to the search made as
c) When the person to be arrested is a an incident thereto, or to the
prisoner who has escaped from a penal subsequent seizure of evidence
establishment or place where he is allegedly found during the search.
serving final judgment or temporarily Thus, when the arrest is incipiently
confined while his case is pending, or has illegal — even if the right to
escaped while being transferred from one question the same is deemed
confinement to another. waived by the accused entering his
plea — it follows that the
d) When the right is voluntarily waived, subsequent search is similarly
then the illegality of the arrest may no illegal. Any evidence obtained in
longer be invoked to effect the release of violation of the constitutional
the person arrested. Appellant is provision is legally inadmissible in


Page | 76
MENDIOLA, MANILA
evidence under the exclusionary VALID WARRANTLESS SEARCHES. As

rule [People v. Peralta, G.R. No. provided in the present Constitution, a
145176, March 30, 2004]. search, to be valid, must generally be
authorized by a search warrant duly
ii) In a number of cases, the issued by the proper government
Supreme Court held that the authority (Section 2, Article III, 1987
posting of a bail bond constitutes a Constitution). True, in some instances,
waiver of any irregularity this Court has allowed government
attending the arrest [Callanta v. authorities to conduct searches and
Villanueva, 77 SCRA 377; Bagcal seizures even without a search warrant.
v. Villaraza, 120 SCRA 525; Thus, when the owner of the premises
People v. Dural, 223 SCRA 207; waives his right against such incursion;
Cojuangco v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. when the search is incidental to a lawful
No. 134307, December 21, 1998]. arrest; when it is made on vessels and
But under Sec. 26, Rule 114, aircraft for violation of customs laws;
Revised Rules of Criminal when it is made on automobiles for the
Procedure, an application for, or purpose of preventing violations of
admission to, bail, shall not bar the smuggling or immigration laws; when it
accused from challenging the involves prohibited articles in plain view;
validity of his arrest, provided that or in cases of inspection of buildings and
he raises the challenge before other premises for the enforcement of fire,
entering his plea. sanitary and building regulations, a
search may be validly made even without
iii) The consequent filing of a search warrant. In the case at bar,
charges and the issuance of a however, the raid conducted by the
warrant of arrest against a person NARCOM agents in the house of Jovencio
invalidiy detained will cure the Rodrigueza was not authorized by any
defect of such detention or, at least, search warrant. It does not appear, either,
deny him the right to be released that the situation falls under any of the
[Francisco Juan Larranaga v. aforementioned cases.
Court of Appeals, supra.].
Hence, appellant's right against
unreasonable search and seizure was
clearly violated. The NARCOM agents
could not have justified their act by
People vs. Rodrigueza [G.R. No. 95902, invoking the urgency and necessity of the
February 4, 1992] situation because the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses reveal that the


Page | 77
MENDIOLA, MANILA
place had already been put under

surveillance for quite some time. Had it Thereafter, agents of the Narcotics
been their intention to conduct the raid, Command (NARCOM) conducted a raid in
then they should, because they easily the house of Jovencio Rodrigueza, father
could, have first secured a search warrant of appellant. During the raid, they were
during that time. able to confiscate dried marijuana leaves
and a plastic syringe, among others. The
search, however, was not authorized by
any search warrant. The RTC found
PEOPLE v. RODRIGUEZA Rodrigueza guilty of violating the
G.R. No. 95902, February 4, 1992, Dangerous Drug Act.
Regalado, J.:
Issue: Whether or not the evidence
Facts: CIC Taduran together with S/Sgt. confiscated during the raid conducted in
Molinawe and other officers received the house of Jovencio Rodrigueza is
from a confidential informer that there admissible in evidence.
was an ongoing illegal traffic of prohibited
drugs in Tagas, Daraga, Albay. Sgt. Held: NO. A buy-bust operation is a form
Molinawe gave the money to Taduran of entrapment employed by peace
who acted as the poseur buyer. He was officers to trap and catch a malefactor
told to look for a certain Don, the alleged in flagrante delicto. Applied to the case
seller of prohibited drugs. After agreeing at bar, the term in flagrante delicto
on the price of P200.00 for 100 grams of requires that the suspected drug dealer
marijuana, Don halted and later on Don must be caught redhanded in the act of
gave Taduran "a certain object wrapped selling marijuana or any prohibited drug
in a plastic" which was later identified as to a person acting or posing as a buyer.
marijuana, and received payment therefor.
In the instant case, however, the procedure
Thereafter, Taduran returned to the adopted by the NARCOM agents failed to
headquarters and made a report meet this qualification. Based on the very
regarding his said purchase of marijuana. evidence of the prosecution, after the
Subsequently, Major Zeidem ordered a alleged consummation of the sale of dried
team to conduct an operation to marijuana leaves, CIC Taduran
apprehend the suspects. In the evening of immediately released appellant
the same date, appellant, Lonceras and Rodrigueza instead of arresting and taking
Segovia was arrested. The constables him into his custody. This act of CIC
were not, however, armed with a warrant Taduran, assuming arguendo that the
of arrest when they apprehended the supposed sale of marijuana did take place,
three accused.

Page | 78
MENDIOLA, MANILA
is decidedly contrary to the natural course house of Jovencio Rodrigueza was not
of things and inconsistent with the authorized by any search warrant. It does
aforestated purpose of a buy-bust not appear, either, that the situation falls
operation . It is rather absurd on his under any of the aforementioned cases.
part to let appellant escape without Hence, appellant's right against
having been subjected to the sanctions unreasonable search and seizure was
imposed by law. It is, in fact, a clearly violated. The NARCOM agents
dereliction of duty by an agent of the could NOT have justified their act by
law. invoking the urgency and necessity of the
situation because the testimonies of the
As provided in the present Constitution, a prosecution witnesses reveal that the place
search, to be valid, must generally be had already been put under surveillance
authorized by a search warrant duly issued for quite some time. Had it been their
by the proper government authority. True, intention to conduct the raid, then they
in some instances, this Court has allowed should, because they easily could, have
government authorities to conduct first secured a search warrant during
searches and seizures even without a that time.
search warrant . Thus,
(In the case at bar, the police officer,
(1) when the owner of the premises acting as poseur-buyer in a “buy-bust
waives his right against such incursion; operation”, inst5ead of arresting the
(2) when the search is incidental to a suspect and taking him into custody after
lawful arrest; the sale, returned to police headquarters
(3) when it is made on vessels and and filed his report. It was only in the
aircraft for violation of customs laws; evening of the same day that the police
(4) when it is made on automobiles for officer, without a warrant, arrested the
the purpose of preventing violations of suspect at the latter’s house where dried
smuggling or immigration laws; marijuana leaves were found and
(5) when it involves prohibited articles confiscated. It was held that the arrest
in plain view; or and the seizure were unlawful.)
(6) in cases of inspection of buildings
and other premises for the enforcement
of fire, sanitary and building Crime committed 5pm, warrantless
regulations, a search may be validly arrest made at 9pm, valid?
made even without a search warrant. - Hot pursuit arrest may be made if
there is “continuity” in the pursuit
In the case at bar, however, the raid from the time of the commission of
conducted by the NARCOM agents in the the crime. Read People vs. Ferrer?


Page | 79
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Herrera (drinking session) In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and

according to Mimay notes. (b) hereof, the person arrested without a
warrant shall be forthwith delivered to
the nearest police station or jail, and he
Go vs. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. shall be proceeded against in accordance
101837, February 11, 1992] with Rule 112, Section 7." Petitioner's
"arrest" took place six (6) days after the
A PESON CANNOT BE ARRESTED shooting of Maguan. The arresting officers
WITHOUT A WARRANT FOR AN obviously were not present, within the
OFFENSE COMMITTED SIX (6) DAYS meaning of Section 5(a), at the time
EARLIER. We do not believe that the petitioner had allegedly shot Maguan.
warrantless "arrest" or detention of Neither could the "arrest" effected six (6)
petitioner in the instant case falls within days after the shooting be reasonably
the terms of Section 5 of Rule 113 of the regarded as effected "when [the shooting
1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure which had] in fact just been committed" within
provides as follows: the meaning of Section 5 (b).
"Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when Moreover, none of the "arresting" officers
lawful. — A peace officer or a private had any "personal knowledge" of facts
person may, without a warrant, arrest a indicating that petitioner was the gunman
person: who had shot Maguan. The information
(a) When, in his presence, the person to upon which the police acted had been
be arrested has committed, is actually derived from statements made by alleged
committing, or is attempting to commit an eyewitnesses to the shooting -- one stated
offense; that petitioner was the gunman; another
(b) When an offense has in fact just been was able to take down the alleged
committed, and he has personal gunman's car's plate number which
knowledge of facts indicating that the turned out to be registered in petitioner's
person to be arrested has committed it; wife's name. That information did not,
and however, constitute "personal
(c) When the person to be arrested is a knowledge." It is thus clear to the Court
prisoner who has escaped from a penal that there was no lawful warrantless
establishment or place where he is arrest of petitioner within the meaning of
serving final judgment or temporarily Section 5 of Rule 113.
confined while his case is pending, or has
escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another.


Page | 80
MENDIOLA, MANILA
GO VS COURT OF APPEALS Issue: W/N a lawful warrantless arrest

had been effected by the San Juan Police
[G.R. No. 101837, February 11, 1992] in respect of petitioner Go.
Facts: Petitioner, while traveling in the
Held: NO. Section 5 of Rule 113 of the
wrong direction on a one-way street,
1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure
almost had a collision with another
provides that “a peace officer or a private
vehicle. Petitioner thereafter got out of
person may, without warrant, arrest a
his car, shot the driver of the other vehicle,
and drove off. An eyewitness of the person”:
incident was able to take down
petitioner’s plate number and reported (a) When, in his presence, the person to
be arrested has committed, is actually
the same to the police, who subsequently
committing, or is attempting to commit an
ordered a manhunt for petitioner. 6 days
offense;
after the shooting, petitioner presented
himself in the police station, accompanied
(b) When an offense has in fact just been
by 2 lawyers, the police detained him.
committed, and he has personal
Subsequently a criminal charge was
brought against him. Petitioner posted knowledge of facts indicating that the
bail, the prosecutor filed the case to the person to be arrested has committed it;
lower court, setting and commencing trial and
without preliminary investigation.
(c) xxx
Prosecutor reasons that the petitioner has
waived his right to preliminary
investigation as bail has been posted and In this case, there was no lawful
warrantless arrest of petitioner within the
that such situation, that petitioner has
meaning of Section 5 of Rule 113.
been arrested without a warrant lawfully,
Petitioner's "arrest" took place six (6)
falls under Section 5, Rule 113 and
Section 7, Rule 112 of The 1985 Rules of days after the shooting of Maguan. The
Criminal Procedure which provides for "arresting" officers obviously were not
the rules and procedure pertaining to present, within the meaning of Section
5(a), at the time petitioner had allegedly
situations of lawful warrantless arrests.
shot Maguan. Neither could the "arrest"
Petitioner in his petition for certiorari
effected six (6) days after the shooting
assails such procedure and actions
be reasonably regarded as effected
undertaken and files for a preliminary
"when [the shooting had] in fact just
investigation.
been committed" within the meaning of
Section 5(b). Moreover, none of the
"arresting" officers had any "personal


Page | 81
MENDIOLA, MANILA
knowledge" of facts indicating that where he is serving final judgment

petitioner was the gunman who had or temporarily confined while his
shot Maguan . The information upon case is pending, or has escaped
which the police acted had been derived
while being transferred from one
from statements made by alleged
eyewitnesses to the shooting. That confinement to another.
information did not, however,
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and
constitute "personal knowledge."
(b) hereof, the person arrested without a
warrant shall be forthwith delivered to
A PERSON CANNOT BE ARRESTED the nearest police station or jail, and he
WITHOUT A WARRANT FOR A CRIME shall be proceed against in accordance
OR OFFENSE COMMITTED SIX (6) DAYS with Rule 112, Section 7.
EARLIER – [We] do not believe that the
Petitioner's "arrest" took place six (6)
warrantees "arrest" or detention of
days after the shooting of Maguan. The
petitioner in the instant case falls within
"arresting" officers obviously were not
the terms of Section 5 of Rule 113 of the
present, within the meaning of Section
1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure which
5(a), at the time petitioner had allegedly
provides as follows:
shot Maguan. Neither could the "arrest"
Sec. 5 Arrest without warrant; when effected six (6) days after the shooting be
lawful. — A peace officer or a private reasonably regarded as effected "when
person may, without warrant, arrest a [the shooting had] in fact just been
person: committed" within the meaning of Section
5(b). Moreover, none of the "arresting"
a) When, in his presence, the person officers had any "personal knowledge" of
to be arrested has committed, is facts indicating that petitioner was the
actually committing, or is gunman who had shot Maguan. The
attempting to commit an offense; information upon which the police acted
had been derived from statements made
b) When an offense has in fact just
by alleged eyewitnesses to the shooting
been committed, and he has — one stated that petitioner was the
personal knowledge of facts gunman; another was able to take down
indicating that the person to be the alleged gunman's car's plate number
arrested has committed it; and which turned out to be registered in
c) When the person to be arrested is petitioner's wife's name. That information
did not, however, constitute "personal
a prisoner who has escaped from a
knowledge."
penal establishment or place


Page | 82
MENDIOLA, MANILA
It is thus clear to the Court that there was case at bar, there is no question that,
no lawful warrantless arrest of petitioner indeed, the latter is more reasonable
within the meaning of Section 5 of Rule considering that unlike in the former, it
113. was effected on the basis of a probable
cause. The probable cause is that when
What is the meaning of “just the petitioner acted suspiciously and
committed”? attempted to flee with the buri bag there
- There must be a sense of was a probable cause that he was
immediacy between the time the concealing something illegal in the bag
offense is committed and the time and it was the right and duty of the police
of the arrest, and if there was an officers to inspect the same. It is too much
appreciable lapse of time between indeed to require the police officers to
the arrest and the commission of search the bag in the possession of the
the crime, warrant of arrest must petitioner only after they shall have
be secured. (Nachura Reviewer obtained a search warrant for the
2009, p. 127) purpose. Such an exercise may prove to
be useless, futile and much too late.
The Court reproduces with approval the

Posadas vs. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. following disquisition of the Solicitor
89139, August 2, 1990] General:
A LAWFUL SEARCH WITHOUT A "The assailed search and seizure may still
WARRANT MAY BE MADE EVEN be justified as akin to a "stop and frisk"
WITHOUT BEING PRECEDED BY AN situation whose object is either to
ARREST. However, there are many determine the identity of a suspicious
instances where a warrant and seizure individual or to maintain the status quo
can be effected without necessarily being momentarily while the police officer seeks
preceded by an arrest, foremost of which to obtain more information. This is
is the "stop and search" without a search illustrated in the case of Terry vs. Ohio, 392
warrant at military or police checkpoints, U.S. 1 (1968). In this case, two men
the constitutionality or validity of which repeatedly walked past a store window
has been upheld by this Court in and returned to a spot where they
Valmonte vs. de Villa. apparently conferred with a third man.
This aroused the suspicion of a police
As between a warrantless search and officer. To the experienced officer, the
seizure conducted at military or police behavior of the men indicated that they
checkpoints and the search thereat in the were sizing up the store for an armed


Page | 83
MENDIOLA, MANILA
robbery. When the police officer Facts:

approached the men and asked them for
their names, they mumbled a reply. Members of the Integrated National Police
(INP) of the Davao Metrodiscom assigned
Whereupon, the officer grabbed one of with the Intelligence Task Force, Pat.
them, spun him around and frisked him. Ursicio Ungab and Pat. Umbra Umpar
Finding a concealed weapon in one, he did conducted surveillance along Magallanes
the same to the other two and found Street, Davao City. While in the vicinity of
another weapon. In the prosecution for the Rizal Memorial Colleges they spotted
offense of carrying a concealed weapon, petitioner carrying a "buri" bag and they
the defense of illegal search and seizure noticed him to be acting suspiciously.
was put up. The United States Supreme They approached the petitioner and
Court held that "a police officer may in identified themselves as members of the
appropriate circumstances and in an INP. Petitioner attempted to flee but his
appropriate manner approach a person for attempt to get away was unsuccessful.
the purpose of investigating possible They then checked the "buri" bag of the
criminal behavior even though there is no petitioner where they found one (1)
probable cause to make an arrest." caliber .38 Smith & Wesson revolver with
Serial No. 770196, two (2) rounds of live
In such a situation, it is reasonable for an ammunition for a .38 caliber gun, a smoke
officer rather than simply to shrug his (tear gas) grenade, and two (2) live
shoulder and allow a crime to occur, to ammunitions for a .22 caliber gun. They
stop a suspicious individual briefly in brought the petitioner to the police
order to determine his identity or station for further investigation. In the
maintain the status quo while obtaining course of the same, the petitioner was
more information. . . . Clearly, the search asked to show the necessary license or
in the case at bar can be sustained under authority to possess firearms and
the exceptions heretofore discussed, and ammunitions found in his possession but
hence, the constitutional guarantee he failed to do so. He was then taken to
against unreasonable searches and the Davao Metrodiscom office and the
seizures has not been violated." prohibited articles recovered from him
were indorsed to M/Sgt. Didoy the officer
then on duty. He was prosecuted for
illegal possession of firearms and
ammunitions in the Regional Trial Court
of Davao City.
POSADAS VS COURT OF APPEALS [G.R.
No. 89139, August 2, 1990] Issue: W/N the warrantless search on the
person of petitioner is valid.


Page | 84
MENDIOLA, MANILA
warrant for the purpose. Such an

Held: Yes. At the time the peace officers in exercise may prove to be useless, futile
this case identified themselves and and much too late.
apprehended the petitioner as he
attempted to flee they did not know that Clearly, the search in the case at bar can
he had committed, or was actually be sustained under the exceptions
committing the offense of illegal heretofore discussed, and hence, the
possession of firearms and ammunitions. constitutional guarantee against
They just suspected that he was hiding unreasonable searches and seizures
something in the buri bag. The said has not been violated. there are many
circumstances did not justify an arrest instances where a warrant and seizure
without a warrant. can be effected without necessarily being
preceded by an arrest, foremost of which
However, there are many instances where is the "stop and search" without a search
a warrant and seizure can be effected warrant at military or police checkpoints,
without necessarily being preceded by an the constitutionality or validity of which
arrest, foremost of which is the "STOP has been upheld by this Court in
AND SEARCH" (a.k.a. STOP & FRISK Valmonte vs. de Villa, 7 as follows:
without a search warrant at military or
police checkpoints. As "Petitioner Valmonte's general allegation
between a warrantless search and to the effect that he had been stopped and
seizure conducted at military or police searched without a search warrant by the
checkpoints and the search thereat in military manning the checkpoints,
the case at bar , there is no question that, without more, i.e., without stating the
indeed, the latter is more reasonable details of the incidents which amount to a
considering that unlike in the former, it violation of his right against unlawful
was effected on the basis of a probable search and seizure, is not sufficient to
cause. The probable cause is that when enable the Court to determine whether
the petitioner acted suspiciously and there was a violation of Valmonte's right
attempted to flee with the buri bag against unlawful search and seizure. Not
there was a probable cause that he was all searches and seizures are prohibited.
concealing something illegal in the bag Those which are reasonable are not
and it was the right and duty of the forbidden. A reasonable search is not to
police officers to inspect the same. It is be determined by any fixed formula but is
too much indeed to require the police to be resolved according to the facts of
officers to search the bag in the each case.
possession of the petitioner only after
they shall have obtained a search


Page | 85
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Where, for example, the officer merely military is susceptible of abuse by the
draws aside the curtain of a vacant men in uniform in the same manner that
vehicle which is parked on the public all governmental power is susceptible of
fair grounds, or simply looks into a abuse. But, at the cost of occasional
vehicle or flashes a light therein, these inconvenience, discomfort and even
do not constitute unreasonable search. irritation to the citizen, the checkpoints
The setting up of the questioned during these abnormal times, when
checkpoints in Valenzuela (and probably conducted within reasonable limits, are
in other areas) may be considered as a part of the price we pay for an orderly
security measure to enable the NCRDC society and a peaceful community."
to pursue its mission of establishing
effective territorial defense and Thus, as between a warrantless search
maintaining peace and order for the and seizure conducted at military or
benefit of the public. Checkpoints may police checkpoints and the search thereat
also be regarded as measures to thwart in the case at bar, there is no question
plots to destabilize the government in the that, indeed, the latter is more reasonable
interest of public security. In this considering that unlike in the former, it
connection, the Court may take judicial was effected on the basis of a probable
notice of the shift to urban centers and cause. The probable cause is that when
their suburbs of the insurgency the petitioner acted suspiciously and
movement, so clearly reflected in the attempted to flee with the buri bag there
increased killings in cities of police and was a probable cause that he was
military men by NPA "sparrow units," not concealing something illegal in the bag
to mention the abundance of unlicensed and it was the right and duty of the police
firearms and the alarming rise in officers to inspect the same. It is too much
lawlessness and violence in such urban indeed to require the police officers to
centers, not all of which are reported in search the bag in the possession of the
media, most likely brought about by petitioner only after they shall have
deteriorating economic conditions - obtained a search warrant for the
which all sum up to what one can rightly purpose. Such an exercise may prove to
consider, at the very least, as abnormal be useless, futile and much too late.
times. Between the inherent right of the
state to protect its existence and In People vs. CFI of Rizal, this Court held
promote public welfare and an as follows: ". . . In the ordinary cases
individual's right against a warrantless where warrant is indispensably necessary,
search which is however reasonably the mechanics prescribed by the
conducted, the former should prevail. Constitution and reiterated in the Rules of
True, the manning of checkpoints by the Court must be followed and satisfied. But


Page | 86
MENDIOLA, MANILA
We need not argue that there are Whereupon, the officer grabbed one of
exceptions. Thus in the extraordinary them, spun him around and frisked him.
events where warrant is not necessary to Finding a concealed weapon in one, he did
effect a valid search or seizure, or when the same to the other two and found
the latter cannot be performed except another weapon. In the prosecution for
without warrant, what constitutes a the offense of carrying a concealed
reasonable or unreasonable search or weapon, the defense of illegal search and
seizure becomes purely a judicial seizure was put up. The United States
question, determinable from the Supreme Court held that "a police officer
uniqueness of the circumstances involved, may in appropriate circumstances and in
including the purpose of the search or an appropriate manner approach a
seizure, the presence or absence of person for the purpose of investigating
probable cause, the manner in which the possible criminal behavior even though
search and seizure was made, the place or there is no probable cause to make an
thing searched and the character of the arrest." In such a situation, it is
articles procured." The Court reproduces reasonable for an officer rather than
with approval the following disquisition simply to shrug his shoulder and allow a
of the Solicitor General: "The assailed crime to occur, to stop a suspicious
search and seizure may still be justified as individual briefly in order to determine
akin to a "stop and frisk" situation whose his identity or maintain the status quo
object is either to determine the identity while obtaining more information. . . .
of a suspicious individual or to maintain
the status quo momentarily while the Clearly, the search in the case at bar can
police officer seeks to obtain more be sustained under the exceptions
information. heretofore discussed, and hence, the
constitutional guarantee against
This is illustrated in the case of Terry vs. unreasonable searches and seizures has
Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). In this case, two not been violated."
men repeatedly walked past a store
window and returned to a spot where
they apparently conferred with a third LAWFUL SEARCH MAY BE CONDUCTED
man. This aroused the suspicion of a EVEN WITHOUT PRIOR ARREST -
police officer. To the experienced officer, However, there are many instances where
the behavior of the men indicated that a warrant and seizure can be effected
they were sizing up the store for an without necessarily being preceded by an
armed robbery. When the police officer arrest, foremost of which is the "stop and
approached the men and asked them for search" without a search warrant at
their names, they mumbled a reply. military or police checkpoints, the
constitutionality or validity of which has

Page | 87
MENDIOLA, MANILA
been upheld …in Valmonte vs. de Villa, as they shall have obtained a search warrant
follows: for the purpose. Such an exercise may
prove to be useless, futile and much too
Petitioner Valmonte's general allegation late.
to the effect that he had been stopped and
searched without a search warrant by the The Court reproduces with approval the
military manning the checkpoints, following disquisition of the Solicitor
without more, i.e., without stating the General:
details of the incidents which amount to a
violation of his light against unlawful The assailed search and seizure may still
search and seizure, is not sufficient to be justified as akin to a "stop and frisk"
enable the Court to determine whether situation whose object is either to
there was a violation of Valmonte's right determine the identity of a suspicious
against unlawful search and seizure. Not individual or to maintain the status quo
all searches and seizures are prohibited. momentarily while the police officer
Those which are reasonable are not seeks to obtain more information. This is
forbidden. A reasonable search is not to illustrated in the case of Terry vs. Ohio,
be determined by any fixed formula but is 392 U.S. 1 (1968). In this case, two men
to be resolved according to the facts of repeatedly walked past a store window
each case. and returned to a spot where they
apparently conferred with a third man.
Thus, as between a warrantless search This aroused the suspicion of a police
and seizure conducted at military or officer. To the experienced officer, the
police checkpoints and the search thereat behaviour of the men indicated that they
in the case at bar, there is no question were sizing up the store for an armed
that, indeed, the latter is more reasonable robbery. When the police officer
considering that unlike in the former, it approached the men and asked them for
was effected on the basis of a probable their names, they mumbled a reply.
cause. The probable cause is that when Whereupon, the officer grabbed one of
the petitioner acted suspiciously and them, spun him around and frisked him.
attempted to flee with the buri bag there Finding a concealed weapon in one, he did
was a probable cause that he was the same to the other two and found
concealing something illegal in the bag another weapon. In the prosecution for
and it was the right and duty of the police the offense of carrying a concealed
officers to inspect the same. weapon, the defense of illegal search and
seizure was put up. The United States
It is too much indeed to require the police Supreme Court held that "a police officer
officers to search the bag in the may in appropriate circumstances and in
possession of the petitioner only after an appropriate manner approach a


Page | 88
MENDIOLA, MANILA
person for the purpose of investigating i) Requisite. In People v. Sy

possible criminal behaviour even though Chua, G.R. Nos. 136066-67,
there is no probable cause to make an February 4, 2003, the
arrest." In such a situation, it is Supreme Court said that for
reasonable for an officer rather than a “stop-and-frisk” situation,
simply to shrug his shoulder and allow a the police officer should
crime to occur, to stop a suspicious properly introduce himself
individual briefly in order to determine and make initial inquiries,
his identity or maintain the status quo approach and restrain a
while obtaining more information. . . . person who manifests
unusual and suspicious
Clearly, the search in the case at bar can conduct, in order to check
be sustained under the exceptions the latter’s outer clothing
heretofore discussed, and hence, the for possibly concealed
constitutional guarantee against weapons. The
unreasonable searches and seizures has apprehending police officer
not been violated. must have a genuine reason,
in accordance with the
police officer’s experience
NACHURA: and the surrounding
conditions, to warrant the
b) When there is valid reason to “stop- belief that the person to be
and-frisk”. In Manalili v. Court of held has weapons or
Appeals, G.R. No. 113447, October 7, contraband concealed
1997, the Supreme Court upheld the about him. It should,
validity of the search as akin to “stop-and- therefore, be emphasized
frisk” which, in the landmark U.S. case, that a search and seizure
Terry v. Ohio, was defined as the should precede the arrest
vernacular designation of the right of a for the principle to apply.
police officer to stop a citizen on the
street, interrogate him and pat him for ii) Thus, in People v. Solayao,
weapons whenever he observes unusual 262 SCRA 255, the
conduct which leads him to conclude that Supreme Court found
criminal activity may be afoot. In this case, justifiable reason to apply
the policemen chanced upon the accused the “stop-and-frisk” rule,
who had reddish eyes, walking in a because of the drunken
swaying manner, and who appeared to be actuations of the accused
high on drugs; thus, the search. and his companions, and


Page | 89
MENDIOLA, MANILA
because of the fact that his reasonable ground to

companions fled when they believe that the petitioner
saw the policemen, and was armed with a deadly
finally, because the peace weapon.
officers were precisely on
an intelligence mission to
verify reports that armed
persons were roaming the People vs. Mengote [G.R. No. 87059,
vicinity. June 22, 1992]
But the rule was not applied INVALID SEARCH AND ARREST. It is
in Malacat v. Court of submitted in the Appellant's Brief that the
Appeals, G.R. No. 123595, revolver should not have been admitted
December 12, 1997, where in evidence because of its illegal seizure,
police officers, conducting a no warrant therefor having been
patrol on the strength of an previously obtained. Neither could it have
information that a Muslim been seized as an incident of a lawful
group would explode a arrest because the arrest of Mengote was
grenade, saw petitioner and itself unlawful, having been also effected
companions attempting to without a warrant. The defense also
explode a grenade but who, contends that the testimony regarding the
upon seeing the policemen, alleged robbery in Danganan's house was
desisted and ran away; then, irrelevant and should also have been
two days later, police disregarded by the trial court. There is no
officers saw petitioner at a question that evidence obtained as a
street corner, accosted him result of an illegal search or seizure is
when his companions ran inadmissible in any proceeding for any
away, then searched him purpose. That is the absolute prohibition
and found a grenade. In this of Article III, Section 3(2), of the
case, the Supreme Court Constitution.
said that there was no valid
search because there was This is the celebrated EXCLUSIONARY
nothing in the behavior or RULE based on the justification given by
conduct of the petitioner Judge Learned Hand that "only in case the
which could have elicited prosecution which itself controls the
even mere suspicion other seizing officials, knows that it cannot
than that his eyes were profit by their wrong will the wrong be
moving fast. There was no repressed. The Solicitor General, while
conceding the rule, maintains that it is not

Page | 90
MENDIOLA, MANILA
applicable in the case at bar. His reason is information from the telephone caller,
that the arrest and search of Mengote and and about a crime that had yet to be
the seizure of the revolver from him were committed.
lawful under Rule 113, Section 5, of the
Rules of Court. We have carefully
examined the wording of this rule and PEOPLE VS MENGOTE G.R. No. 87059,
cannot see how we can agree with the June 22, 1992
prosecution. Par. (c) of Section 5 is
Facts:
obviously inapplicable as Mengote was
not an escapee from a penal institution The Western Police District received a
when he was arrested. We therefore telephone call from an informer that there
confine ourselves to determining the were three suspicious looking persons at
lawfulness of his arrest under either Par. the corner of Juan Luna and North Bay
(a) or Par. (b) of this section. Par. (a) Boulevard in Tondo, Manila. A
requires that the person be arrested surveillance team of plainclothesmen was
(1) after he has committed or while he is forthwith dispatched to the place. The
actually committing or is at least patrolmen saw two men looking from
attempting to commit an offense, side to side, one of whom holding his
(2) in the presence of the arresting officer. abdomen. They approached the persons
These requirements have not been and identified themselves as policemen,
established in the case at bar. At the time whereupon the two tried to run but
of the arrest in question, the accused- unable to escape because the other
appellant was merely "looking from side lawmen surrounded them. The suspects
to side" and "holding his abdomen," were then searched. One of them the
according to the arresting officers accused-appellant was found with a .38
themselves. There was apparently no caliber with live ammunitions in it, while
offense that had just been committed or his companion had a fan knife. The
was being actually committed or at least weapons were taken from them and they
being attempted by Mengote in their were turned over to the police
presence. Par. (b) is no less applicable headquarters for investigation. An
because its no less stringent requirements information was filed before the RTC
have also not been satisfied. The convicting the accused of illegal
prosecution has not shown that at the possession of firearm arm. A witness
time of Mengote's arrest an offense had in testified that the weapon was among the
fact just been committed and that the articles stolen at his shop, which he
arresting officers had personal knowledge reported to the police including the
of facts indicating that Mengote had revolver. For his part, Mengote made no
committed it. All they had was hearsay effort to prove that he owned the fire arm


Page | 91
MENDIOLA, MANILA
or that he was licensed to possess it but (a) When, in his presence, the person to be
instead, he claimed that the weapon was arrested has committed, is actually
planted on him at the time of his arrest. committing, or is attempting to commit an
He was convicted for violation of offense;
P.D.1866 and was sentenced to reclusion (b) When an offense has in fact just been
perpetua. In his appeal he pleads that the committed, and he has personal knowledge
weapon was not admissible as evidence of facts indicating that the person to be
against him because it had been illegally arrested has committed it; and
seized and therefore the fruit of a (c) When the person to be arrested is a
poisonous tree. prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving
Issue: W/N Mengote can be held liable for final judgment or temporarily confined
illegal possession of firearms. while his case is pending, or has escaped
while being transferred from one
Held: NO. There is no question that confinement to another.
evidence obtained as a result of an illegal
search or seizure is inadmissible in any In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and
proceeding for any purpose. That is the (b) hereof, the person arrested without a
absolute prohibition of Article III, Section warrant shall be forthwith delivered to
3(2), of the Constitution. This is the the nearest police station or jail, and he
celebrated exclusionary rule based on the shall be proceeded against in accordance
justification given by Judge Learned Hand with Rule 112, Section 7. We have
that "only in case the prosecution, which carefully examined the wording of this
itself controls the seizing officials, knows rule and cannot see how we can agree
that it cannot profit by their wrong will with the prosecution. Par. (c) of Section 5
the wrong be repressed." is obviously inapplicable as Mengote was
not an escapee from a penal institution
The Solicitor General, while conceding the when he was arrested. We therefore
rule, maintains that it is not applicable in confine ourselves to determining the
the case at bar. His reason is that the lawfulness of his arrest under either Par.
arrest and search of Mengote and the (a) or Par. (b) of this section. Par. (a)
seizure of the revolver from him were requires that the person be arrested (1)
lawful under Rule 113, Section 5, of the after he has committed or while he is
Rules of Court reading as follows: actually committing or is at least
attempting to commit an offense, (2) in
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when the presence of the arresting officer.
lawful. A peace officer or private person
may without a warrant, arrest a person:


Page | 92
MENDIOLA, MANILA
These requirements have not been at that busy hour in the blaze of the
established in the case at bar. At the time noonday sun.
of the arrest in question, the accused-
appellant was merely "looking from side On the other hand, there could have been a
to side" and "holding his abdomen," number of reasons, all of them innocent,
according to the arresting officers why his eyes were darting from side to side
themselves. There was apparently no and he was holding his abdomen. If they
offense that had just been committed or excited suspicion in the minds of the
was being actually committed or at least arresting officers, as the prosecution
being attempted by Mengote in their suggests, it has nevertheless not
presence. been shown what their suspicion was all
abou t . In fact, the policemen
The Solicitor General submits that the themselves testified that they were
actual existence of an offense was not dispatched to that place only because of
necessary as long as Mengote's acts the telephone call from the informer
"created a reasonable suspicion on the part that there were "suspicious-looking"
of the arresting officers and induced in persons in that vicinity who were about
them the belief that an offense had been to commit a robbery at North Bay
committed and that the accused-appellant Boulevard.(COMPARE THIS WITH PP vs.
had committed it." The question is, What POSADAS) . The caller did not explain why
offense? What offense could possibly have he thought the men looked suspicious nor
been suggested by a person "looking from did he elaborate on the impending crime. It
side to side" and "holding his abdomen" would be a sad day, indeed, if any
and in a place not exactly forsaken? person could be summarily arrested
These are certainly not sinister acts. And and searched just because he is holding
the setting of the arrest made them less so, his abdomen, even if it be possibly
if at all. It might have been different if because of a stomach-ache, or if a peace
Mengote had been apprehended at an officer could clamp handcuffs on any
ungodly hour and in a place where he had person with a shifty look on suspicion
no reason to be, like a darkened alley at 3 that he may have committed a criminal
o'clock in the morning. But he was arrested act or is actually committing or
at 11:30 in the morning and in a crowded attempting it. This simply cannot be
street shortly after alighting from a done in a free society. This is not a police
passenger jeep with his companion. He was state where order is exalted over liberty
not skulking in the shadows but walking in or, worse, personal malice on the part of
the clear light of day. There was nothing the arresting officer may be justified in
clandestine about his being on that street the name of security.


Page | 93
MENDIOLA, MANILA
In the recent case of People v. Malmstedt, officers. He was not even acting
the Court sustained the warrantless arrest suspiciously.
of the accused because there was a bulge
in his waist that excited the suspicion of In short, there was no probable cause that,
the arresting officer and, upon inspection, as the prosecution incorrectly suggested,
turned out to be a pouch containing dispensed with the constitutional
hashish. In People v. Claudio, the accused requirement of a warrant. Par. (b) is no
boarded a bus and placed the buri bag she less applicable because its no less
was carrying behind the seat of the stringent requirements have also not
arresting officer while she herself sat in the been satisfied. The prosecution has not
seat before him. His suspicion aroused, he shown that at the time of Mengote's
surreptitiously examined the bag, which he arrest an offense had in fact just been
found to contain marijuana. He then and committed and that the arresting officers
there made the warrantless arrest and had personal knowledge of facts
seizure that we subsequently upheld on the indicating that Mengote had committed it.
ground that probable cause had been All they had was hearsay information
sufficiently established. from the telephone caller, and about a
crime that had yet to be committed. The
The case before us is different because truth is that they did not know then what
there was nothing to support the offense, if at all, had been committed and
arresting officers' suspicion other than neither were they aware of the
Mengote's darting eyes and his hand on participation therein of the accused-
his abdomen. By no stretch of the appellant. It was only later, after
imagination could it have been inferred Danganan had appeared at the police
from these acts that an offense had just headquarters, that they learned of the
been committed, or was actually being robbery in his house and of Mengote's
committed, or was at least being supposed involvement therein. 8 As for
attempted in their presence. This case is the illegal possession or the firearm found
similar to People v. Aminnudin, where on Mengote's person, the policemen
the Court held that the warrantless arrest discovered this only after he had been
of the accused was unconstitutional. This searched and the investigation conducted
was effected while he was coming down a later revealed that he was not its owners
vessel, to all appearances no less innocent nor was he licensed to possess it.
than the other disembarking passengers.
He had not committed nor was he actually Before these events, the peace officers had
committing or attempting to commit an no knowledge even of Mengote' identity ,
offense in the presence of the arresting let alone the fact (or suspicion) that he
was unlawfully carrying a firearm or


Page | 94
MENDIOLA, MANILA
that he was involved in the robbery of question that evidence obtained as a

Danganan's house. At the time of the result of an illegal search or seizure is
arrest in question, the accused inadmissible in any proceeding for any
appellant was merely "looking from purpose. That is the absolute prohibition
side to side" and "holding his abdomen," of Article III, Section 3(2), of the
according to the arresting officers Constitution. This is the celebrated
themselves. There was apparently no exclusionary rule based on the
offense that had just been committed or justification given by Judge Learned Hand
was being actually committed or at that "only in case the prosecution, which
least being attempted by Mengote in itself controls the seizing officials, knows
their presence . There was nothing to that it cannot profit by their wrong will
support the arresting officers ' the wrong be repressed."
suspicion other than Mengote's darting
eyes and his hand on his abdomen. Par. The Solicitor General, while conceding the
(b) is no less applicable because has not rule, maintains that it is not applicable in
been shown that at the time of the case at bar. His reason is that the
Mengote's arrest an offense had in fact arrest and search of Mengote and the
just been committed and that the seizure of the revolver from him were
arresting officers had personal lawful under Rule 113, Section 5, of the
knowledge of facts indicating that Rules of Court
Mengote had committed it. All they had We have carefully examined the wording
was hearsay information from the of this Rule and cannot see how we can
telephone caller, and about a crime that
agree with the prosecution.
had yet to be committed.
INVALID ARREST - It is submitted in the Par. (c) of Section 5 is obviously
Appellant's Brief that the revolver should inapplicable as Mengote was not an
not have been admitted in evidence escapee from a penal institution when he
because of its illegal seizure. No warrant was arrested. We therefore confine
therefor having been previously obtained. ourselves to determining the lawfulness
Neither could it have been seized as an of his arrest under either Par. (a) or Par.
incident of a lawful arrest because the (b) of this section.
arrest of Mengote was itself unlawful,
having been also effected without a Par. (a) requires that the person be
warrant. The defense also contends that arrested (1) after he has committed or
the testimony regarding the alleged while he is actually committing or is at
robbery in Danganan's house was least attempting to commit an offense, (2)
irrelevant and should also have been in the presence of the arresting officer.
disregarded by the trial court. There is no


Page | 95
MENDIOLA, MANILA
These requirements have not been note that the trial court confused the
established in the case at bar. At the time concepts of a "stop-andfrisk" and of a
of the arrest in question, the accused- search incidental to a lawful arrest. These
appellant was merely "looking from side two types of warrantless searches differ
to side" and "holding his abdomen," in terms of the requisite quantum of proof
according to the arresting officers before they may be validly effected and in
themselves. There was apparently no their allowable scope.
offense that had just been committed or
was being actually committed or at least In a search incidental to a lawful arrest, as
being attempted by Mengote in their the precedent arrest determines the
presence. validity of the incidental search, the
legality of the arrest is questioned in a
large majority of these cases, e.g., whether
an arrest was merely used as a pretext for
Malacat vs. Court of Appeals [G.R. No.
conducting a search. In this instance, the
123595, December 12, 1997]
law requires that there first be a lawful
arrest before a search can be made — the
INVALID APPLICATION OF SEARCH
INCIDENTAL TO A LAWFUL ARREST process cannot be reversed. At bottom,
AND STOP AND FRISK. Turning to valid assuming a valid arrest, the arresting
warrantless searches, they are limited to officer may search the person of the
arrestee and the area within which the
the following:
latter may reach for a weapon or for
evidence to destroy, and seize any money
(1) customs searches;
(2) search of moving vehicles; or property found which was used in the
commission of the crime, or the fruit of
(3) seizure of evidence in plain view;
the crime, or that which may be used as
(4) consent searches;
evidence, or which might furnish the
(5) a search incidental to a lawful arrest;
and arrestee with the means of escaping or
(6) a "stop and frisk." committing violence.
Here, there could have been no valid in

In the instant petition, the trial court
flagrante delicto or hot pursuit arrest
validated the warrantless search as a
preceding the search in light of the lack of
"stop and frisk" with "the seizure of the
personal knowledge on the part of Yu, the
grenade from the accused [as] an
arresting officer, or an overt physical act,
appropriate incident to his arrest,"
on the part of petitioner, indicating that a
hence necessitating a brief discussion on
crime had just been committed, was being
the nature of these exceptions to the
warrant requirement. At the outset, we committed or was going to be committed.


Page | 96
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Having thus shown the invalidity of the conditions, to warrant the belief that the
warrantless arrest in this case, plainly, the person detained has weapons concealed
search conducted on petitioner could not about him. Finally, a "stop-and-frisk"
have been one incidental to a lawful serves a two-fold interest:
arrest. We now proceed to the
justification for and allowable scope of a (1) the general interest of effective crime
"stop-and-frisk" as a "limited protective prevention and detection, which
search of outer clothing for weapons," underlies the recognition that a police
as laid down in Terry; thus: officer may, under appropriate
circumstances and in an appropriate
We merely hold today that where a police manner, approach a person for purposes
officer observes unusual conduct which of investigating possible criminal
leads him reasonably to conclude in light of behavior even without probable cause;
his experience that criminal activity may and
be afoot and that the persons with whom (2) the more pressing interest of safety
he is dealing may be armed and presently and self-preservation which permit the
dangerous, where in the course of police officer to take steps to assure
investigating this behavior he identifies himself that the person with whom he
himself as a policeman and makes deals is not armed with a deadly weapon
reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in that could unexpectedly and fatally be
the initial stages of the encounter serves to used against the police officer.
dispel his reasonable fear for his own or
others' safety, he is entitled for the
protection of himself and others in the area
to conduct a carefully limited search of the MALACAT VS COURT OF APPEALS
outer clothing of such persons in an
Facts:
attempt to discover weapons which might
be used to assault him. Such a search is a Ombudsman Vasquez required Rogado
reasonable search under the Fourth and Rivera of Economic Intelligence and
Amendment . . . Investigation Bureau (EIIB) to produce all
documents relating to Personal Service
Other notable points of Terry are that Funds yr. 1988 and all evidence for the
while probable cause is not required to whole plantilla of EIIB for 1988. The
conduct a "stop and frisk," it nevertheless subpoena duces tecum was issued in
holds that mere suspicion or a hunch will connection with the investigation of funds
not validate a "stop and frisk." A genuine representing savings from unfilled
reason must exist, in light of the police positions in the EIIB which were legally
officer's experience and surrounding disbursed. Almonte and Perez denied the


Page | 97
MENDIOLA, MANILA
anomalous activities that circulate around exceptions. As regards valid warrantless

the EIIB office. They moved to quash the arrests, these are found in Section 5, Rule
subpoena duces tecum. They claim 113 of the Rules of Court, which reads, in
privilege of an agency of the Government. part: Sec. 5. Arrest, without warrant;
when lawful A peace officer or a private
Petitioner Jose T. Almonte was formerly person may, without a warrant, arrest a
Commissioner of the EIIB, while Villamor person:
C. Perez is Chief of the EIIB's Budget and
Fiscal Management Division. The (a) When, in his presence, the person to
subpoena duces tecum was issued by the be arrested has committed, is actually
Ombudsman in connection with his committing, or is attempting to commit an
investigation of an anonymous letter offense;
alleging that funds representing savings (b) When an offense has in fact just been
from unfilled positions in the EIIB had committed, and he has personal
been illegally disbursed. The letter, knowledge of facts indicating that the
purporting to have been written by an person to be arrested has committed it;
employee of the EIIB and a concerned and
citizen, was addressed to the Secretary of (c) When the person to be arrested is a
Finance, with copies furnished several prisoner who has escaped . . .
government offices, including the Office of
the Ombudsman. A warrantless arrest under the
circumstances contemplated under
Section 5(a) has been denominated as one
Issue: W/N the warrantless arrest of "in flagrante delicto," while that under
petitioner is valid. Section 5(b) has been described as a "hot
pursuit" arrest. Turning to valid
Held: No. Even granting ex gratia that warrantless searches, they are limited
petitioner was in possession of a grenade, to the following:
the arrest and search of petitioner were (1) customs searches;
invalid, as will be discussed below. (2) search of moving vehicles;
(3) seizure of evidence in plain view;
The general rule as regards arrests, (4) consent searches;
searches and seizures is that a warrant is (5) a search incidental to a lawful
needed in order to validly effect the same. arrest; and
The Constitutional prohibition against (6) a "stop and frisk."
unreasonable arrests, searches and
seizures refers to those effected without a In the instant petition, the trial court
validly issued warrant, subject to certain validated the warrantless search as a


Page | 98
MENDIOLA, MANILA
"stop and frisk" with "the seizure of the Here, there could have been no valid in
grenade from the accused as an flagrante delicto or hot pursuit arrest
appropriate incident to his arrest," hence preceding the search in light of the lack
necessitating a brief discussion on the of personal knowledge on the part of Yu,
nature of these exceptions to the warrant the arresting officer, or an overt
requirement. At the outset, we note that physical act, on the part of petitioner,
the trial court confused the concepts of a indicating that a crime had just been
"STOP-AND-FRISK" and of a SEARCH committed, was being committed or
INCIDENTAL TO A LAWFUL ARREST. was going to be committed.
These two types of warrantless searches
differ in terms of the requisite quantum of Having thus shown the invalidity of the
proof before they may be validly effected warrantless arrest in this case, plainly, the
and in their allowable scope. search conducted on petitioner could not
have been one incidental to a lawful
In a SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO A arrest. We now proceed to the
LAWFUL ARREST, as the precedent arrest justification for and allowable scope of a
determines the validity of the incidental "STOP-AND-FRISK" as a "limited
search, the legality of the arrest is protective search of outer clothing for
questioned in a large majority of these weapons," as laid down in Terry, thus: We
cases, e.g., whether an arrest was merely merely hold today that where a police
used as a pretext for conducting a search. officer observes unusual conduct which
leads him reasonably to conclude in light of
In this instance, the law requires that there his experience that criminal activity may
first be a lawful arrest before a search can be afoot and that the persons with whom
be made the process cannot be reversed. At he is dealing may be armed and presently
bottom, assuming a valid arrest, the dangerous, where in the course of
arresting officer may search the person of investigating this behavior he identifies
the arrestee and the area within which the himself as a policeman and makes
latter may reach for a weapon or for reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in
evidence to destroy, and seize any money the initial stages of the encounter serves to
or property found which was used in the dispel his reasonable fear for his own or
commission of the crime, or the fruit of the others' safety, he is entitled for the
crime, or that which may be used as protection of himself and others in the area
evidence, or which might furnish the to conduct a carefully limited search of the
arrestee with the means of escaping or outer clothing of such persons in an
committing violence. attempt to discover weapons which might
be used to assault him. Such a search is a


Page | 99
MENDIOLA, MANILA
reasonable search under the Fourth Miranda two days earlier. This claim is
Amendment . . . neither supported by any police report or
record nor corroborated by any other
Other notable points of Terry are that police officer who allegedly chased that
while probable cause is not required to group. Aside from impairing Yu's
conduct a "stop and frisk," it credibility as a witness, this likewise
nevertheless holds that mere suspicion diminishes the probability that a genuine
or a hunch will not validate a "stop and reason existed so as to arrest and search
frisk." A “genuine reason” must exist, in petitioner. If only to further tarnish the
light of the police officer's experience credibility of Yu's testimony, contrary to
and surrounding conditions , to his claim that petitioner and his
warrant the belief that the person companions had to be chased before
detained has weapons concealed about being apprehended, the affidavit of arrest
him. Finally, a "stopand- frisk" serves a expressly declares otherwise, i.e., upon
TWO-FOLD INTEREST: arrival of five (5) other police officers,
petitioner and his companions were
(1) the general interest of effective crime "immediately collared."
prevention and detection, which underlies
the recognition that a police officer may, Second, there was nothing in petitioner's
under appropriate circumstances and in an behavior or conduct which could have
appropriate manner, approach a person reasonably elicited even mere suspicion
for purposes of investigating possible other than that his eyes were "moving
criminal behavior even without probable very fast" an observation which leaves us
cause; and incredulous since Yu and his teammates
(2) the more pressing interest of safety and were nowhere near petitioner and it was
self-preservation which permit the police already 6:30 p.m., thus presumably dusk.
officer to take steps to assure himself that Petitioner and his companions were
the person with whom he deals is not merely standing at the corner and were
armed with a deadly weapon that could not creating any commotion or trouble, as
unexpectedly and fatally be used against Yu explicitly declared on cross-
the police officer. examination:
Here, there are at least three (3) reasons Q And what were they doing?
why the "stop-and-frisk" was A They were merely standing.
invalid: Q You are sure of that?
First, we harbor grave doubts as to Yu's A Yes, sir.
claim that petitioner was a member of the Q And when you saw them standing, there
group which attempted to bomb Plaza were nothing or they did not


Page | 100
MENDIOLA, MANILA
create any commotion. and frisk with the seizure of the grenade
A None, sir. from the accused [as] an appropriate
Q Neither did you see them create incident to his arrest, hence necessitating
commotion? a brief discussion on the nature of these
A None, sir. exceptions to the warrant requirement.
Third, there was at all no ground, At the outset, we note that the trial court
probable or otherwise, to believe that confused the concepts of a "stop-and-
petitioner was armed with a deadly frisk" and of a search incidental to a
weapon. None was visible to Yu , for as lawful arrest. These two types of
he admitted, the alleged grenade was warrantless searches differ in terms of
"discovered" "inside the front waistline" of the requisite quantum of proof before
petitioner, and from all indications as to they may be validly effected and in their
the distance between Yu and petitioner, allowable scope.
any telltale bulge, assuming that petitioner
In a search incidental to a lawful arrest, as
was indeed hiding a grenade, could not the precedent arrest determines the
have been visible to Yu. In fact, as noted by validity of the incidental search, the
the trial court: legality of the arrest is questioned in a
When the policemen approached the large majority of these cases, e.g., whether
accused and his companions, they were not an arrest was merely used as a pretext for
yet aware that a hand grenade was tucked conducting a search. In this instance, the
inside his waistline. They did not see any law requires that there first be a lawful
bulging object in his person. arrest before a search can be made -- the
What is unequivocal then in this case are process cannot be reversed. At bottom,
blatant violations of petitioner's rights
assuming a valid arrest, the arresting
solemnly guaranteed in Sections 2 and officer may search the person of the
12(1) of Article III of the Constitution. arrestee and the area within which the
INVALID APPLICATION OF SEARCH latter may reach for a weapon or for
INCIDENTAL TO A LAWFUL ARREST evidence to destroy, and seize any money
AND STOP AND FRISK - Turning to valid or property found which was used in the
warrantless searches, they are limited to commission of the crime, or the fruit of
the following: (1) customs searches; (2) the crime, or that which may be used as
search of moving vehicles; (3) seizure of evidence, or which might furnish the
evidence in plain view; (4) consent arrestee with the means of escaping or
searches;(5) a search incidental to a
committing violence.
lawful arrest and (6) a "stop and frisk."
Here, there could have been no valid in
In the instant petition, the trial court flagrante delicto or hot pursuit arrest
validated the warrantless search as a stop

Page | 101
MENDIOLA, MANILA
preceding the search in light of the lack of Other notable points of Terry are that
personal knowledge on the part of Yu, the while probable cause is not required to
arresting officer, or an overt physical act, conduct a "stop and frisk," it nevertheless
on the part of petitioner, indicating that a holds that mere suspicion or a hunch will
crime had just been committed, was being not validate a "stop and frisk." A genuine
committed or was going to be committed. reason must exist, in light of the police
officer's experience and surrounding
Having thus shown the invalidity of the conditions, to warrant the belief that the
warrantless arrest in this case, plainly, the person detained has weapons concealed
search conducted on petitioner could not about him. Finally, a "stop-and-frisk"
have been one incidental to a lawful serves a two-fold interest: (1) the general
arrest. interest of effective crime prevention and
detection, which underlies the recognition
We now proceed to the justification for
that a police officer may, under
and allowable scope of a "stop-and-frisk"
appropriate circumstances and in an
as a "limited protective search of outer
appropriate manner, approach a person
clothing for weapons," as laid down in
for purposes of investigating possible
Terry, thus:
criminal behavior even without probable
We merely hold today that where a police cause; and (2) the more pressing interest
officer observes unusual conduct which of safety and self-preservation which
leads him reasonably to conclude in light permit the police officer to take steps to
of his experience that criminal activity assure himself that the person with whom
may be afoot and that the persons with he deals is not armed with a deadly
whom he is dealing may be armed and weapon that could unexpectedly and
presently dangerous, where in the course fatally be used against the police officer.
of investigating this behavior he identifies
himself as a policeman and makes Difference between stop and frisk and
search incidental to lawful arrest.
reasonable inquiries, and where nothing
- In search incidental to lawful arrest,
in the initial stages of the encounter
there must be prior lawful arrest
serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his
before search is made, but in stop
own or others' safety, he is entitled for the
and frisk search is made first before
protection of himself and others in the
area to conduct a carefully limited search arrest.
of the outer clothing of such persons in an
attempt to discover weapons which might What are the 2 objectives of Search
be used to assault him. Such a search is a and Frisk?
reasonable search under the Fourth
Amendment ***


Page | 102
MENDIOLA, MANILA
- (1) General interest of effective i) Requisite: As a rule, the arrest must

crime prevention and detection, precede the search; the process cannot be
and reversed. Nevertheless, a search
- (2) safety and self-preservation. So substantially contemporaneous with an
if drugs were found during stop arrest can precede the arrest if the police
and frisk, still valid because of have probable cause to make the arrest at
crime prevention. the outset of the search [People v. Nuevas,
G.R. No. 170233, February 22, 2007].
ia) In order that a valid search may

be made as an incident to a lawful
NACHURA
arrest, it is necessary that the
Where the search (and seizure) is an apprehending officer must have
incident to a lawful arrest. Sec. 12, Rule been spurred by probable cause in
126, as clarified in the 1985 Revised Rules effecting the arrest which could be
on Criminal Procedure, provides that “a considered as one in cadence with
person lawfully arrested may be searched the instances of permissible
for dangerous weapons or anything, arrests enumerated in Sec. 5(a),
which may be used as proof of the Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. In
commission of an offense, without a this case, the officers could
search warrant”. reasonably assume — since the
informant was by their side and
In People v. Estella, G.R. Nos. 138539-40, had so informed them and pointed
January 21, 2003, the Supreme Court out the culprit — that the drugs
said that the prevailing rule is that the were in the appellant’s luggage,
arresting officer may take from the and it would have been
arrested individual any money or irresponsible, if not downright
property found upon the latter’s person absurd, for them to adopt a “wait-
— that which was used in the commission and-see” attitude at the risk of
of the crime or was the fruit of the crime, eventually losing their quarry
or which may provide the person arrested [People v. Montilla, G.R. No.
with the means of committing violence or 123872, January 30, 1998].
escaping, or which may be used in
evidence in the trial of the case. The ii) Some cases illustrating the principle.
search must, however, be In People v. De la Cruz, 184 SCRA 416,
contemporaneous to the arrest and made the Supreme Court said that while it may
within a permissible area of search. be conceded that in a ”buybust” operation,
there is seizure of evidence from one’s


Page | 103
MENDIOLA, MANILA
person without a search warrant, discovery of drug paraphernalia and

nonetheless, because the search is an shabu in appellant’s car, as well as the
incident to a lawful arrest, there is no seizure of the same, was justified.
necessity for a search warrant. Similarly,
in People v. Kalubiran, 196 SCRA645, iia) However, in People v. Aruta,
where the accused, arrested in a “buy- G.R. No. 120915, April 13, 1998,
bust” operation, was frisked by the the Court invalidated the search
operatives who found marked money and seizure made on a woman,
which was used to buy two sticks of “Aling Rose”, who, upon alighting
marijuana cigarettes and 17 more from a bus, was pointed out by the
marijuana cigarettes, the search was informant. The Supreme Court
deemed valid as an incident to a lawful declared that in a search and
arrest. In People v. Musa, 217 SCRA 597, seizure as an incident to a lawful
it was held that in a “buy-bust” operation, arrest, it is necessary for probable
the law enforcement agents may seize the cause to be present, and probable
marked money found on the person of the cause must be based on reasonable
pusher immediately after the arrest even ground of suspicion or belief that a
without a search warrant. crime has been committed or is
about to be committed. In this case,
However, in People v. Zapanta, 195 SCRA the accused was merely crossing
200, where, as an incident to a “buybust” the street and was not acting in
entrapment operation, a raid of the house any manner which would
of the accused was conducted and one engender a reasonable ground to
marijuana stick was found under the mat, believe that she was committing or
the Supreme Court said that apart from about to commit a crime. [Note
the uncertainty among the witnesses as to that in this case, there was the
how many marijuana cigarettes, if any, additional fact that the identity of
were found in Zapanta’s possession the accused had been priorly
during the raid, the search was made ascertained and the police officers
without a warrant; therefore, the had reasonable time within which
marijuana cigarettes seized in the raid to obtain a search warrant.*-The
were inadmissible in evidence. In People presence of this circumstance
v. Luisito Go, G.R. No. 116001, March 14, distinguishes this case from
2001, where the police saw a gun, plainly People v. Malmstedt, 196 SCRA
visible, tucked in appellant’s waist, and 401.]
appellant could not show any license for
the firearm, the warrantless arrest was iii) Cases where search was declared valid
held valid, and consequently, the without necessarily being preceded by an


Page | 104
MENDIOLA, MANILA
arrest. In People v. Sucro, 195 SCRA 388, presented urgency; when the informer
the Supreme Court held that a pointed to the accused as one who was
warrantless search and seizure can be carrying marijuana, the police officers,
made without necessarily being preceded faced with such on-the-spot information,
by an arrest provided that the said search had to act quickly. There was not enough
is effected on the basis of probable cause. time to secure a search warrant.
In People v. Valdez, G.R. No. 127801,
March 3, 1999, the arrest of the accused In People v. Malsmtedt, 198 SCRA 401,
and the subsequent search and seizure of where soldiers manning a checkpoint [set
the marijuana by SP01 Mariano was held up because of persistent reports that
valid on the basis of probable cause. vehicles were transporting marijuana and
Mariano had probable cause to stop and other prohibited drugs] noticed a bulge
search the buses coming from Banaue in on the accused’s waist, and the pouch bag
view of the information he got from the was found to contain hashish, the search
“civilian asset” that somebody having the was deemed valid as an incident to a
same appearance as the accused and with lawful arrest [as the accused was then
a green bag would be transporting transporting prohibited drugs] — and
marijuana. there was sufficient probable cause for
the said officers to believe that the
In Posadas v. Court of Appeals, 188 accused was then and there committing a
SCRA 288, the Court upheld the validity of crime.
a search made by police officers on one
who, confronted by the police because “he iiia) However, in People v. Chua
was acting suspiciously”, ran atoay, Ho San, G.R. No. 128222, June 17,
although in People v. Rodriguez, 232 1999, the Supreme Court said that
SCRA 498, the arrest and consequent while a contemporaneous search
search of the accused, simply because “he of a person arrested may be
was acting suspiciously" was held invalid. effected for dangerous weapons or
proofs or implements used in the
In People v. Tangliben, 184 SCRA 220, commission of the crime and
where two policemen on surveillance, which search may extend to the
after receiving a tip from an informer, area within his immediate control
noticed a person carrying a red bag acting where he might gain possession of
suspiciously, then confronted the person a weapon or evidence he can
and found inside the bag marijuana leaves, destroy, a valid arrest must
the Supreme Court held that the seizure precede a search. The process
was valid, as “an incident to a lawful cannot be reversed. In this case,
arrest”. The Court said that the matter there was no valid arrest that


Page | 105
MENDIOLA, MANILA
could justify the search, because include the premises or surroundings

none of the tell-tale clues --- e.g., a under his immediate control [People v.
bag or package emanating the odor Hindoy, G.R. No. 132662, May 10, 2002],
of marijuana or other prohibited Thus, in People v. Cuenco, G.R. No.
drug [People v. Claudio, 160 SCRA 128277, November 16, 1998, where the
646; People v. Lacerna, 278 SCRA accused was arrested in a “buy-bust”
561], or a confidential report operation while standing by the door of
and/or positive identification by the store which was part of the house, it
informers of couriers of prohibited was proper for the police officers to
drugs and/or the time and place search the house of the accused, the same
where they will transport the same being in the area within his immediate
[People v. Maspil, 188 SCRA 751; control.
People v. Lo Ho Wing, 193 SCRA
122], or suspicious demeanor or In Office of the Court Administrator v.
behavior [People v. Tangliben, Barron, A.M. No. RTJ-98-1420, October 8,
184 SCRA 220; Posadas v. Court 1998, where the judge was caught in
of Appeals, 188 SCRA 288], or a flagrante as he was placing the bundles of
suspicious bulge in the waist money under the driver’s seat of his car,
[People v. Malmstedt, 198 SCRA and the money was seized by the NBI
401] — accepted by this Court as agents, it was held that there was no need
sufficient to justify a warrantless for a warrant to seize the fruits of the
arrest was present. There was no offense, the seizure being incidental to a
classified information that a lawful arrest. The same rule was applied
foreigner would disembark at in People v. Catan, 205 SCRA 235, where
Tammocalao Beach bearing a “buy-bust operation” was made at the
prohibited drugs on the date in house of the accused, and immediately
question. The fact that the vessel after the purchase, the accused was
that ferried him to shore bore no arrested and a search made of the
resemblance to the fishing vessels premises.
in the area did not automatically
mark him as in the process of iva) Where the accused was
perpetrating an offense. frisked and arrested in the street
for possession of two cellophane
bags of marijuana, and when asked
if he had more answered that he
iv) Permissible area of search. The had more marijuana at his house,
warrantless search and seizure as an the search conducted by the police
incident to a lawful arrest may extend officers in the house and the
beyond the person of the one arrested to

Page | 106
MENDIOLA, MANILA
consequent seizure of ten

cellophane bags of marijuana was WHAT ARE EXIGENT AND EMERGENCY
held invalid, because the house CIRCUMSTANCES?
was no longer within the reach and
control of the accused [Espano v. - An emergency situation requiring
Court of Appeals, 288 SCRA 558], swift action to prevent imminent
Likewise, in People v. Che Chun danger to life or serious damage to
Ting, G.R. No. 130568, March 31, property, or to forestall the
2000, where the accused was imminent escape of a suspect, or
outside the apartment unit and in
destruction of evidence. There is
the act of delivering to the poseur-
buyer the bag of shabu — and the no ready litmus test for
apartment unit was not even his determining whether such
residence but that of his girlfriend circumstances exist, and in each
— the inside of the apartment unit case the extraordinary situation
was no longer a permissible area must be measured by the facts
of search, as it could not be said to known by officials. (People v.
be within his reach and immediate
Ramey)
control. The warrantless search
therein was, therefore, unlawful. In Those circumstances that would
People v. Cubcubin, G.R. No. cause a reasonable person to
136267, July 10, 2001, it was held believe that entry (or other
that, since neither the T-shirt nor relevant prompt action) was
the gun seized was within the area necessary to prevent physical
of immediate control of the harm to the officers or other
accused, the same could not have persons, the destruction of
been validly seized as an incident relevant evidence, the escape of a
to a lawful arrest. suspect, or some other
consequence improperly
frustrating legitimate law
WHAT IS SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO enforcement efforts. (United
LAWFUL ARREST? States v. McConney)
- Search through the body area
within the immediate control of - This was applied in the case of
the officer. Immediate Control People vs. De Gracia where there
means actual and physical control. were intelligence reports that the
building was being used as
headquarters by the RAM during

Page | 107
MENDIOLA, MANILA
the 1989 coup d’état. Surveillance the height of the December 1989 coup
indicated rebel activities in the d’etat was held valid, considering the
building. Nearby courts were exigent and emergency situation
obtaining. The military operatives had
closed and general chaos and
reasonable ground to believe that a crime
disorder prevailed. The raiding was being committed, and they had no
team had no opportunity to apply opportunity to apply for a search warrant
for and secure a search warrant from the courts because the latter were
from the courts. closed. Under such urgency and exigency,
a search warrant could be validly
Note: The determination of the existence dispensed with.
of compelling considerations of urgency,
and the subject, time and place i) In Guanzon v. de Villa. 181
necessitating and justifying the filing of an SCRA 623. the Supreme Court
application for a search warrant with a uphefd. as a valid exercise of
court other than the court having the military powers of the
territorial jurisdiction over the place to be President, the conduct of “areal
searched and things to be seized or where target zoning” or “saturation
the materials are found is addressed to drive/s”. [NOTE: In this case,
the sound discretion of the trial court the validity of the search was
where the application is filed, subject to not directly questioned; raised
review by the appellate court in case of in issue were the alleged
grave abuse of discretion amounting to abuses committed by the
excess or lack of jurisdiction (People v. military personnel who
Chui) - Nachura conducted the “saturation
drives”. In the absence of
Note: A permission granted for officers to complainants and complaints
enter a house to look for rebel soldiers against specific actors, no
does not include permission for a room to prohibition could be issued.
room search for firearms. However, the Court
temporarily restrained the
alleged banging of walls,
NACHURA kicking of doors, herding of
half-naked men for
Search and seizure under exigent and examination of tattoo marks,
emergency circumstances. In People v. the violation of residences,
de Gracia, 233 SCRA 716, the raid of, and even if these are humble
the consequent seizure of firearms and shanties of squatters, and the
ammunition in, the Eurocar Sales Office at

Page | 108
MENDIOLA, MANILA
other alleged acts which are conviction could be secured on the

shocking to the conscience. The strength of testimonial evidence given in
Supreme Court remanded the open court, the illegality of the arrest
case to the trial court for cannot be invoked to reverse the
reception of evidence on the conviction [People v. Salazar, G.R. No.
alleged abuses.] 99355, August 11, 1997].
c) It does not necessarily follow that the

Q: Are saturation drives property illegally seized will be returned
constitutional? immediately; it could remain in custodia
- SC did not rule on legis [Alih v. Castro, supra.; Roan v.
constitutionality. Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687]. Thus, in
People v. Estrada, G.R. No. 124461, June
26, 2000, even as the search warrant was
Exclusionary Rule: Evidence obtained in declared illegal and the medicines or
violation of Sec. 2, Art. Ill, shall be drugs seized were shown to be genuine,
inadmissible for any purpose in any their return was not ordered because the
proceeding [Sec. 3 (2), Art. Ill], , because producer, manufacturer or seller did not
it is “the fruit of the poisoned tree.” have any permit or license to sell the
same.
a) Objections to the legality of the search
warrant and to the admissibility of the But in Tambasen v. People, supra., the
evidence obtained thereby are deemed money which was not indicated in the
waived when not raised during the trial warrant, andt hus, illegally seized, was
[Demaisip v. Court of Appeals, 193 SCRA ordered returned. For the retention of the
373]. In People v. Diaz, G.R. No. 110829, money, the approval of the Court which
April 18, 1997, because of the failure of issued the warrant is necessary [People v.
the accused to object to the admissibility Gesmundo, supra.]; in like manner, only
of evidence obtained through an unlawful the Court which issued the warrant may
arrest and search, it was held that the order its release.
accused were deemed to have waived
their right, and the trial court did not err In In Re: Wenceslao Laureta, 148 SCRA
in admitting the evidence presented. 382, letters addressed by a lawyer (of one
of the parties to a case) addressed to
b) However, even if the accused were individual Justices of the Supreme Court
illegally arrested, such arrest does not in connection with the performance of
invest eye-witness accounts with their judicial functions, become part of
constitutional infirmity as “fruits of the the judicial record and are a matter of
poisonous tree”; thus, where the

Page | 109
MENDIOLA, MANILA
concern for the entire Court — and thus, probable cause. Contrary to the
are not covered by the constitutional averments of the government, the
guarantee. accused-appellant was not caught in
flagrante nor was a crime about to be
In People v. Albofera,152 SCRA 123, a committed or had just been committed to
letter written by the accused to a witness justify the warrantless arrest allowed
which was produced by the witness under Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.
during the trial is admissible in evidence; Even expediency could not be invoked to
it was not the result of an unlawful search, dispense with the obtention of the
nor through an unwarranted intrusion or warrant as in the case of Roldan v. Arca,
invasion into the privacy of the accused. It for example. Here it was held that vessels
was produced by the recipient of the and aircraft are subject to warrantless
letter who identified the same. Besides, searches and seizures for violation of the
there is nothing self-incriminatory in the customs law because these vehicles may
letter. be quickly moved out of the locality or
jurisdiction before the warrant can be
secured.
d) In Pita v. Court of Appeals, supra.,
because the magazines subject of the The present case presented no such
search and seizure had already been urgency. From the conflicting declarations
destroyed, the Court declined to grant of the PC witnesses, it is clear that they
affirmative relief. had at least two days within which they
could have obtained a warrant to arrest
e) The property illegally seized may be and search Aminnudin who was coming
used in evidence in the case filed against Iloilo on the M/V Wilcon 9. His name was
the officer responsible for the illegal known. The vehicle was identified. The
seizure. date of its arrival was certain. And from
the information they had received, they
could have persuaded a judge that there
was probable cause, indeed, to justify the
People vs. Aminnudin [G.R. No. L- issuance of a warrant. Yet they did
74869, July 6, 1988] nothing. No effort was made to comply
with the law. The Bill of Rights was
INVALID WARRANTLESS ARREST AND ignored altogether because the PC
SEARCH. In the case at bar, there was no lieutenant who was the head of the
warrant of arrest or search warrant arresting team, had determined on his
issued by a judge after personal own authority that "search warrant was
determination by him of the existence of not necessary.


Page | 110
MENDIOLA, MANILA
without trial, we will have only ourselves

In the many cases where this Court has to blame if that kind of arbitrariness is
sustained the warrantless arrest of allowed to return, to once more flaunt its
violators of the Dangerous Drugs Act, it disdain of the Constitution and the
has always been shown that they were individual liberties its Bill of Rights
caught red-handed, as result of what are guarantees.
popularly called "buy-bust" operations of
the narcotics agents. Rule 113 was clearly While this is not to say that the accused-
applicable because at the precise time of appellant is innocent, for indeed his very
arrest the accused was in the act of selling own words suggest that he is lying, that
the prohibited drug. fact alone does not justify a finding that
he is guilty. The constitutional
In the case at bar, the accused-appellant presumption is that he is innocent, and he
was not, at the moment of his arrest, will be so declared even if his defense is
committing a crime nor was it shown that weak as long as the prosecution is not
he was about to do so or that he had just strong enough to convict him.
done so. What he was doing was
descending the gangplank of the M/V
Wilcon 9 and there was no outward
indication that called for his arrest. To all PEOPLE VS AMMINUDIN
appearances, he was like any of the other
Facts:
passengers innocently disembarking from
the vessel. It was only when the informer Idel Aminnudin, accused-appellant was
pointed to him as the carrier of the arrested on June 25, 1984, shortly after
marijuana that he suddenly became disembarking from the M/V Wilcon 9 at
suspect and so subject to apprehension. It about 8:30 in the evening, in Iloilo City.
was the furtive finger that triggered his The PC officers who were in fact waiting
arrest. The identification by the informer for him because of a tip from one their
was the probable cause as determined by informers simply accosted him, inspected
the officers (and not a judge) that his bag and finding what looked liked
authorized them to pounce upon marijuana leaves took him to their
Aminnudin and immediately arrest him. headquarters for investigation. The two
bundles of suspect articles were
Now that we have succeeded in restoring confiscated from him and later taken to
democracy in our country after fourteen the NBI laboratory for examination. It was
years of the despised dictatorship, when found to contain three kilos of what were
anyone could be picked up at will, later analyzed as marijuana leaves by an
detained without charges and punished NBI forensic examiner. An information for


Page | 111
MENDIOLA, MANILA
violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act was 1. W/N the arrest was legal?
filed against him. Later, the information 2. W/N the seized effects may be used as
was amended to include Farida Ali y evidence as the search was allegedly an
Hassen, who had also been arrested with incident to a lawful arrest?
him that same evening and likewise
investigated. Both were arraigned and Held:
pleaded not guilty. Subsequently, the 1. No. There was no warrant of arrest or
fiscal filed a motion to dismiss the charge search warrant issued by a judge after
against Ali on the basis of a sworn personal determination by him of the
statement of the arresting officers existence of probable cause. The accused-
absolving her after a 'thorough appellant was not caught in flagrante nor
investigation." The motion was granted, was a crime about to be committed or had
and trial proceeded only against the just been committed to justify the
accused-appellant, who was eventually warrantless arrest allowed under Rule
convicted . 113 of the Rules of Court. Even
expediency could not be invoked to
In his defense, Aminnudin disclaimed the dispense with the obtention of the
marijuana, averring that all he had in his warrant as in the case of Roldan v. Arca,
bag was his clothing consisting of a jacket, for example. It was held that vessels and
two shirts and two pairs of pants. He aircraft are subject to warrantless
alleged that he was arbitrarily arrested searches and seizures for violation of
and immediately handcuffed. His bag was the customs law because these vehicles
confiscated without a search warrant. At may be quickly moved out of the locality
the PC headquarters, he was manhandled or jurisdiction before the warrant can
to force him to admit he was carrying the be secured.
marijuana, the investigator hitting him
with a piece of wood in the chest and The present case presented no such
arms even as he parried the blows while urgency. From the conflicting
he was still handcuffed. He insisted he did declarations of the PC witnesses, it is
not even know what marijuana looked clear that they had at least two days
like and that his business was selling within which they could have obtained a
watches and sometimes cigarettes. warrant to arrest and search
However the RTC rejected his allegations. Aminnudin. His name was known. The
Saying that he only has two watches vehicle was identified. The date of its
during that time and that he did not arrival was certain. And from the
sufficiently proved the injuries allegedly information they had received, they
sustained. could have persuaded a judge that
Issues: there was probable cause, indeed, to


Page | 112
MENDIOLA, MANILA
justify the issuance of a warrant. Yet them to pounce upon Aminnudin and
they did nothing to comply Moreover, immediately arrest him.
the accused appellant was not, at the
moment of his arrest, committing a 2. NO. The search was not an incident of a
crime nor was it shown that he was lawful arrest because there was no
about to do so or that he had just done warrant of arrest and the warrantless
so. arrest did not come under the exceptions
allowed by the Rules of Court. Hence, the
In the many cases where this Court has warrantless search was also illegal and
sustained the warrantless arrest of the evidence obtained thereby was
violators of the Dangerous Drugs Act, it inadmissible.
has always been shown that they were
caught red-handed, as result of what are
popularly called "buy-bust" operations of INVALID WATTANTLESS ARREST AND
the narcotics agents. Rule 113 was clearly SEARCH - In the case at bar, there was no
applicable because at the precise time of warrant of arrest or search warrant
arrest the accused was in the act of selling issued by a judge after personal
the prohibited drug. determination by him of the existence of
probable cause. Contrary to the
In the case at bar, the accused- averments of the government, the
appellant was not, at the moment of his accused-appellant was not caught in
arrest, committing a crime nor was it flagrante nor was a crime about to be
shown that he was about to do so or committed or had just been committed to
that he had just done so. What he was justify the warrantless arrest allowed
doing was descending the gangplank of under Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.
the M/V Wilcon 9 and there was no Even expediency could not be invoked to
outward indication that called for his dispense with the obtention of the
arrest. To all appearances, he was like warrant as in the case of Roldan v. Arca,
any of the other passengers innocently for example. Here it was held that vessels
disembarking from the vessel. It was and aircraft are subject to warrantless
only when the informer pointed to him searches and seizures for violation of the
as the carrier of the marijuana that the customs law because these vehicles may
suddenly became suspect and so subject be quickly moved out of the locality or
to apprehension. It was the furtive jurisdiction before the warrant can be
finger that triggered his arrest. The secured.
identification by the informer was the The present case presented no such
probable cause as determined by the
urgency. From the conflicting declarations
officers (and not a judge) that authorized of the PC witnesses, it is clear that they


Page | 113
MENDIOLA, MANILA
had at least two days within which they the vessel. It was only when the informer
could have obtained a warrant to arrest pointed to him as the carrier of the
and search Aminnudin who was coming marijuana that he suddenly became
to Iloilo on the M/V Wilcon 9. His name suspect and so subject to apprehension. It
was known. The vehicle was Identified. was the furtive finger that triggered his
The date of its arrival was certain. And arrest. The Identification by the informer
from the information they had received, was the probable cause as determined by
they could have persuaded a judge that the officers (and not a judge) that
there was probable cause, indeed, to authorized them to pounce upon
justify the issuance of a warrant. Yet they Aminnudin and immediately arrest him.
did nothing. No effort was made to
comply with the law. The Bill of Rights Now that we have succeeded in restoring
was ignored altogether because the PC democracy in our country after fourteen
lieutenant who was the head of the years of the despised dictatorship, when
arresting team, had determined on his any one could be picked up at will,
own authority that a "search warrant was detained without charges and punished
not necessary." without trial, we will have only ourselves
to blame if that kind of arbitrariness is
In the many cases where this Court has allowed to return, to once more flaunt its
sustained the warrantless arrest of disdain of the Constitution and the
violators of the Dangerous Drugs Act, it individual liberties its Bill of Rights
has always been shown that they were guarantees.
caught red-handed, as a result of what are
popularly called "buy-bust" operations of While this is not to say that the accused-
the narcotics agents. Rule 113 was clearly appellant is innocent, for indeed his very
applicable because at the precise time of own words suggest that he is lying, that
arrest the accused was in the act of selling fact alone does not justify a finding that
the prohibited drug. he is guilty. The constitutional
presumption is that he is innocent, and he
In the case at bar, the accused-appellant will be so declared even if his defense is
was not, at the moment of his arrest, weak as long as the prosecution is not
committing a crime nor was it shown that strong enough to convict him.
he was about to do so or that he had just
done so. What he was doing was
descending the gangplank of the M/V
What is a buy bust operation?
Wilcon 9 and there was no outward
indication that called for his arrest. To all - A buy-bust operation is the
appearances, he was like any of the other method employed by peace
passengers innocently disembarking from


Page | 114
MENDIOLA, MANILA
officers to trap and catch a e s c r i p t i o n , i t would not

malefactor in flagrante delicto. It is render the arrest valid because
essentially a form of entrapment there was n o s u s p i c i o u s
movements, etc.) Acts of
since the peace officer neither
Malmstedt No reason except for
instigates nor induces the accused furtive finger Distinguishing
to commit a crime. Entrapment is factor: Reasonable ground based
the employment of such ways and on the acts of the accused.
means for the purpose of trapping discovery of evidence in plain view
or capturing a lawbreaker from is inadvertent;
whose mind the criminal intent
- (c) it is immediately apparent to
originated. Oftentimes, it is the
the officer that the item he
only effective way of apprehending observes may be evidence of a
a criminal in the act of the crime, contraband or otherwise
commission of the offense. subject to seizure. The law
enforcement officer must lawfully
make an initial intrusion or
Malmstedt case vs. Amminudin case properly be in a position from
which he can particularly view the
Q: What are the requirements for valid area. In the course of such lawful
seizure in plain view? intrusion, he came inadvertently
- A: The "plain view" doctrine across a piece of evidence
applies when the following incriminating the accused. The
requisites concur: object must be open to eye and
hand and its discovery inadvertent.
- (a) the law enforcement officer in (People v. Lagman, G.R. No.
search of the evidence has a prior 168695, December 8, 2008, citing
justification for an People v. Doria, 361 Phil. 595,
- intrusion or is in a position from 633-634 [1999]).
which he can view a particular
area;
- (b) the Malmstedt Amminudin NACHURA

Stop and frisk not in flagrante
Valid warrantless arrest Invalid Search of vessels and aircraft.
General description “causcasian” T
h e n a m e o f Amminudin was i) A fishing vessel found to be violating
known (had it been a g e n e r a l d fishery laws may be seized without a

Page | 115
MENDIOLA, MANILA
warrant on two grounds: firstly, because

they are usually equipped with powerful iia) The situation in People v.
motors that enable them to elude pursuit, Saycon, 236 SCRA 325, is different,
and secondly, because the seizure would because the NARCOM agents
be an incident to a lawful arrest [Roldan v. received the “tip” in the early
Area, 65 SCRA 336], Thus, in Hizon v. morning of July 8, 1992, and the
Court of Appeals, 265 SCRA 517, the boat on which the accused
Court upheld the warrantless search of a boarded was due to arrive at 6:00
fishing boat made by the police on the a.m. on the same day. Furthermore,
strength of a report submitted by Task there was probable cause
Force Bantay Dagat. consisting of two parts: firstly, the
agents conducted a “buy-bust”
ii) In People v. Aminnudin, 163 SCRA operation; and secondly, they
402, where the accused was searched and received confidential information
arrested upon disembarkation from a that the boat was due to leave soon.
passenger vessel, the Court held that '
there was no urgency to effect a
warrantless search, as it is clear that the iib) Similarly, in People v.
Philippine Constabulary had at least two Ayangao, G.R. No. 142356, April
days (from the time they received the tip 14, 2004, the informant arrived at
until the arrival of the vessel) within the police station at 5:00 a.m. on
which they could have obtained a warrant August 13, 1999, and informed the
to search and arrest the accused. Yet, they officers that the appellant would
did nothing; no effort was made to be arriving at 6:00 a.m. that day.
comply with the law. A similar ruling was The circumstances clearly called
made in People v. Encinada, G.R. No. for an immediate response from
116720, October 2, 1997, when a search the officers.
and seizure was made of a passenger who
disembarked from MA/ Sweet Pearl. The
court noted that since the informer’s tip
was received at 4:00 p.m. on the day
before the arrival of the vessel, the People vs. Malmstedt [G.R. No. 91107,
authorities had ample time to obtain a June 19, 1991]
search warrant. The Tangliben ruling
cannot apply because the evidence did WARRANTLESS SEARCH BASED ON
not show that the accused was acting PROBABLE CAUSE. Accused was
suspiciously when he disembarked from searched and arrested while transporting
the vessel. prohibited drugs (hashish). A crime was
actually being committed by the accused

Page | 116
MENDIOLA, MANILA
and he was caught in flagrante delicto. Commanding Officer also received

Thus, the search made upon his personal information that a Caucasian coming from
effects falls squarely under paragraph (1) Sagada on that particular day had
of the foregoing provisions of law, which prohibited drugs in his possession. Said
allow a warrantless search incident to a information was received by the
lawful arrest. While it is true that the Commanding Officer of NARCOM the very
NARCOM officers were not armed with a same morning that accused came down
search warrant when the search was by bus from Sagada on his way to Baguio
made over the personal effects of accused, City. When NARCOM received the
however, under the circumstances of the information, a few hours before the
case, there was sufficient probable cause apprehension of herein accused, that a
for said officers to believe that accused Caucasian travelling from Sagada to
was then and there committing a crime. Baguio City was carrying with him
Probable cause has been defined as such prohibited drugs, there was no time to
facts and circumstances which could lead obtain a search warrant.
a reasonable, discreet and prudent man to
believe that an offense has been In the Tangliben case, the police
committed, and that the objects sought in authorities conducted a surveillance at
connection with the offense are in the the Victory Liner Terminal located at Bgy.
place sought to be searched. The required San Nicolas, San Fernando Pampanga,
probable cause that will justify a against persons engaged in the traffic of
warrantless search and seizure is not dangerous drugs, based on information
determined by any fixed formula but is supplied by some informers. Accused
resolved according to the facts of each Tangliben who was acting suspiciously
case. and pointed out by an informer was
apprehended and searched by the police
Warrantless search of the personal effects authorities. It was held that when faced
of an accused has been declared by this with on-the spot information, the police
Court as valid, because of existence of officers had to act quickly and there was
probable cause, where the smell of no time to secure a search warrant.
marijuana emanated from a plastic bag
owned by the accused, or where the It must be observed that, at first, the
accused was acting suspiciously, and NARCOM officers merely conducted a
attempted to flee. Aside from the routine check of the bus (where accused
persistent reports received by the was riding) and the passengers therein,
NARCOM that vehicles coming from and no extensive search was initially
Sagada were transporting marijuana and made. It was only when one of the officers
other prohibited drugs, their noticed a bulge on the waist of accused,


Page | 117
MENDIOLA, MANILA
during the course of the inspection, that from Sagada had prohibited drugs in his
accused was required to present his possession. To deprive the NARCOM
passport. The failure of accused to agents of the ability and facility to act
present his identification papers, when accordingly, including, to search even
ordered to do so, only managed to arouse without warrant, in the light of such
the suspicion of the officer that accused circumstances, would be to sanction
was trying to hide his identity. For is it impotence and ineffectiveness in law
not a regular norm for an innocent man, enforcement, to the detriment of society.
who has nothing to hide from the
authorities, to readily present his
identification papers when required to do
so?
PEOPLE VS MALMSTEDT
The receipt of information by NARCOM
that a Caucasian coming from Sagada had Facts:
prohibited drugs in his possession, plus
the suspicious failure of the accused to In an information filed against the
produce his passport, taken together as a accused- appellant Mikael Malmstead was
whole, led the NARCOM officers to charged before the RTC of La Trinidad,
reasonably believe that the accused was Benguet, for violation of Section 4, Art. II
trying to hide something illegal from the of Republic Act 6425, as amended,
authorities. From these circumstances otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs
arose a probable cause which justified the Act of 1972, as amended.
warrantless search that was made on the
Accused Mikael Malmstedt, a Swedish
personal effects of the accused.
national, entered the Philippines for the
third time in December 1988 as a tourist.
In other words, the acts of the NARCOM
He had visited the country sometime in
officers in requiring the accused to open
1982 and 1985.
his pouch bag and in opening one of the
wrapped objects found inside said bag
In the evening of 7 May 1989, accused left
(which was discovered to contain
for Baguio City. Upon his arrival thereat in
hashish) as well as the two (2) travelling
the morning of the following day, he took
bags containing two (2) teddy bears with
a bus to Sagada and stayed in that place
hashish stuffed inside them, were
for two (2) days. Then in the 7 in the
prompted by accused's own attempt to
morning of May 11, 1989, the accused
hide his identity by refusing to present his
went to Nangonogan bus stop in Sagada.
passport, and by the information received
by the NARCOM that a Caucasian coming


Page | 118
MENDIOLA, MANILA
At about 8: 00 o'clock in the morning of required him to bring out whatever it was
that same day (11 May 1989), Captain that was bulging on his waist. The bulging
Alen Vasco, the Commanding Officer of object turned out to be a pouch bag and
the First Regional Command (NARCOM) when accused opened the same bag, as
stationed at Camp Dangwa, ordered his ordered, the officer noticed four (4)
men to set up a temporary checkpoint at suspicious-looking objects wrapped in
Kilometer 14, Acop, Tublay, Mountain brown packing tape, prompting the
Province, for the purpose of checking all officer to open one of the wrapped
vehicles coming from the Cordillera objects. The wrapped objects turned out
Region. The order to establish a to contain hashish, a derivative of
checkpoint in the said area was prompted marijuana.
by persistent reports that vehicles coming
from Sagada were transporting marijuana Thereafter, accused was invited outside
and other prohibited drugs. Moreover, the bus for questioning. But before he
information was received by the alighted from the bus, accused stopped to
Commanding Officer of NARCOM, that get two (2) travelling bags from the
same morning that a Caucasian coming luggage carrier. Upon stepping out of the
from Sagada had in his possession bus, the officers got the bags and opened
prohibited drugs. The group composed of them. A teddy bear was found in each bag.
seven (7) NARCOM officers, in Feeling the teddy bears, the officer
coordination with Tublay Police Station, noticed that there were bulges inside the
set up a checkpoint at the designated area same which did not feel like foam stuffing.
at about 10:00 o'clock in the morning and It was only after the officers had opened
inspected all vehicles coming from the the bags that accused finally presented his
Cordillera Region. passport.
The two (2) NARCOM officers started Accused was then brought to the
their inspection from the front going headquarters of the NARCOM at Camp
towards the rear of the bus. Accused who Dangwa, La Trinidad, Benguet for further
was the sole foreigner riding the bus was investigation. At the investigation room,
seated at the rear thereof. the officers opened the teddy bears and
they were found to also contain hashish.
During the inspection, CIC Galutan Representative samples were taken from
noticed a bulge on accused's waist. the hashish found among the personal
Suspecting the bulge on accused's waist to effects of accused and the same were
be a gun, the officer asked for accused's brought to the PC Crime Laboratory for
passport and other identification papers. chemical analysis.
When accused failed to comply, the officer


Page | 119
MENDIOLA, MANILA
In the chemistry report, it was established are not admissible as evidence against
that the objects examined were hashish. a him.
prohibited drug which is a derivative of
marijuana. Thus, an information was filed ISSUE: Whether the search made by the
against accused for violation of the NARCOM officer was illegal having no
Dangerous Drugs Act. ACCUSED’S search warrant issued.
DEFENSE
HELD: No. The Constitution guarantees
During the arraignment, accused entered the right of the people to be secure in
a plea of "not guilty." For his defense, he their persons, houses, papers and effects
raised the issue of illegal search of his against unreasonable searches and
personal effects. He also claimed that the seizures. However, where the search is
hashish was planted by the NARCOM made pursuant to a lawful arrest, there is
officers in his pouch bag and that the two no need to obtain a search warrant. A
(2) travelling bags were not owned by lawful arrest without a warrant may be
him, but were merely entrusted to him by made by a peace officer or a private
an Australian couple whom he met in person under the following circumstances
Sagada. He further claimed that the stated in Sec. 5, Rule 110 of the rules on
Australian couple intended to take the criminal procedure.
same bus with him but because there
were no more seats available in said bus, Accused was searched and arrested while
they decided to take the next ride and transporting prohibited drugs (hashish).
asked accused to take charge of the bags, A crime was actually being committed by
and that they would meet each other at the accused and he was caught in
the Dangwa Station. flagrante delicto. Thus, the search made
upon his personal effects falls squarely
The trial court found the guilt of the under paragraph (1) of the foregoing
accused Mikael Malmstedt established provisions of law, which allow a
beyond reasonable doubt. warrantless search incident to a lawful
arrest. While it is true that the NARCOM
Seeking the reversal of the decision of the officers were not armed with a search
trial court finding him guilty of the crime warrant when the search was made
charged, accused argues that the search of over the personal effects of accused,
his personal effects was illegal because it however, under the circumstances of
was made without a search warrant and, the case, there was sufficient probable
therefore, the prohibited drugs which cause for said officers to believe that
were discovered during the illegal search accused was then and there committing
a crime.


Page | 120
MENDIOLA, MANILA
City. When NARCOM received the

Probable cause has been defined as such information, a few hours before the
facts and circumstances which could lead apprehension of herein accused, that a
a reasonable, discreet and prudent man to Caucasian travelling from Sagada to
believe that an offense has been Baguio City was carrying with him
committed, and that the objects sought in prohibited drugs, there was no time to
connection with the offense are in the obtain a search warrant. In the Tangliben
place sought to be searched. Warrantless case, the police authorities conducted a
search of the personal effects of an surveillance at the Victory Liner Terminal
accused has been declared by this Court located at Bgy. San Nicolas, San Fernando
as valid, because of existence of Pampanga, against persons engaged in
probable cause, where the smell of the traffic of dangerous drugs, based on
marijuana emanated from a plastic bag information supplied by some informers.
owned by the accused, or where the Accused Tangliben who was acting
accused was acting suspiciously and pointed out by an
suspiciously and attempted to flee. informer was apprehended and searched
by the police authorities. It was held that
Warrantless search of the personal effects when faced with on-the spot information,
of an accused has been declared by this the police officers had to act quickly and
Court as valid, because of existence of there was no time to secure a search
probable cause , where the smell of warrant.
accused was acting suspiciously, and NARCOM officersmerely conducted a
attempted to flee. Aside from the persistent routine check of the bus (where accused
reports received by the NARCOM that was riding) and the passengers therein,
vehicles coming from Sagada were and no extensive search was initially
transporting marijuana and other made. It was only when one of the
prohibited drugs, their Commanding officers noticed a BULGE on the waist of
Officer also received information that a accused, during the course of the
Caucasian coming from Sagada on that inspection, that accused was required
particular day had prohibited drugs in his to present his passport. The failure of
possession. accused to present his identification
papers, when ordered to do so, only
Said information was received by the managed to arouse the suspicion of the
Commanding Officer of NARCOM the very officer that accused was trying to hide
same morning that accused came down his identity. For is it not a regular norm
by bus from Sagada on his way to Baguio for an innocent man, who has nothing


Page | 121
MENDIOLA, MANILA
to hide from the authorities, to readily circumstances, would be to sanction

present his identification papers when impotence and ineffectiveness in law
required to do so? enforcement, to the detriment of society.
(1) The receipt of information by

NARCOM that a Caucasian WARRANTLESS SEARCH BASED ON
coming from Sagada had PROBABLE CAUSE - Accused was
prohibited drugs in his searched and arrested while transporting
possession, plus prohibited drugs (hashish). A crime was
(2) the suspicious failure of the actually being committed by the accused
accused to produce his passport, and he was caught in flagrante delicto.
taken together as a whole, led Thus, the search made upon his personal
the NARCOM officers to effects falls squarely under paragraph (1)
reasonably believe that the of the foregoing provisions of law, which
accused was trying to hide allow a warrantless search incident to a
something illegal from the lawful arrest.
authorities. While it is true that the NARCOM officers
were not armed with a search warrant
From these circumstances arose a probable when the search was made over the
cause which justified the warrantless personal effects of accused, however,
search that was made on the personal under the circumstances of the case, there
effects of the accused. In other words, the was sufficient probable cause for said
acts of the NARCOM officers in requiring officers to believe that accused was then
the accused to open his pouch bag and in
and there committing a crime.
opening one of the wrapped objects found
inside said bag (which was discovered to Probable cause has been defined as such
contain hashish) as well as the two (2) facts and circumstances which could lead
travelling bags containing two (2) teddy a reasonable, discreet and prudent man to
bears with hashish stuffed inside them, believe that an offense has been
were prompted by accused's own attempt committed, and that the objects sought in
to hide his identity by refusing to present connection with the offense are in the
his passport, and by the information place sought to be searched. The required
received by the NARCOM that a Caucasian probable cause that will justify a
coming from Sagada had prohibited drugs warrantless search and seizure is not
in his possession. To deprive the NARCOM determined by any fixed formula but is
agents of the ability and facility to act resolved according to the facts of each
accordingly, including, to search even case.
without warrant, in the light of such


Page | 122
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Warrantless search of the personal effects when faced with on-the-spot information,
of an accused has been declared by this the police officers had to act quickly and
Court as valid, because of existence of there was no time to secure a search
probable cause, where the smell of warrant.
accused was acting suspiciously, and NARCOM officers merely conducted a
attempted to flee. routine check of the bus (where accused
was riding) and the passengers therein,
Aside from the persistent reports and no extensive search was initially
received by the NARCOM that vehicles made. It was only when one of the officers
coming from Sagada were transporting noticed a bulge on the waist of accused,
marijuana and other prohibited drugs, during the course of the inspection, that
their Commanding Officer also received accused was required to present his
information that a Caucasian coming from passport. The failure of accused to
Sagada on that particular day had present his identification papers, when
prohibited drugs in his possession. Said ordered to do so, only managed to arouse
information was received by the the suspicion of the officer that accused
Commanding Officer of NARCOM the very was trying to hide his identity. For is it
same morning that accused came down not a regular norm for an innocent man,
by bus from Sagada on his way to Baguio who has nothing to hide from the
City. authorities, to readily present his
identification papers when required to do
When NARCOM received the information, so?
a few hours before the apprehension of
herein accused, that a Caucasian The receipt of information by NARCOM
travelling from Sagada to Baguio City was that a Caucasian coming from Sagada had
carrying with him prohibited drugs, there prohibited drugs in his possession, plus
was no time to obtain a search warrant. In the suspicious failure of the accused to
the Tangliben case, the police authorities produce his passport, taken together as a
conducted a surveillance at the Victory whole, led the NARCOM officers to
Liner Terminal located at Bgy. San Nicolas, reasonably believe that the accused was
San Fernando Pampanga, against persons trying to hide something illegal from the
engaged in the traffic of dangerous drugs, authorities. From these circumstances
based on information supplied by some arose a probable cause which justified the
informers. Accused Tangliben who was warrantless search that was made on the
acting suspiciously and pointed out by an personal effects of the accused. In other
informer was apprehended and searched words, the acts of the NARCOM officers in
by the police authorities. It was held that requiring the accused to open his pouch


Page | 123
MENDIOLA, MANILA
bag and in opening one of the wrapped right; and thirdly, that the said person had
objects found inside said bag (which was an actual intention to relinquish the right
discovered to contain hashish) as well as [De Garcia v. Locsin, 65 Phil 689]. The
the two (2) travelling bags containing two consent must be voluntary, i.e.,
(2) teddy bears with hashish stuffed unequivocal, specific and intelligently
inside them, were prompted by accused's given, uncontaminated by any duress or
own attempt to hide his identity by coercion. Hence, consent to a search is not
refusing to present his passport, and by to be lightly inferred, but must be shown
the information received by the NARCOM by clear and convincing evidence. The
that a Caucasian coming from Sagada had question whether consent to a search was,
prohibited drugs in his possession. To in fact, voluntary, is a question of fact to
deprive the NARCOM agents of the ability be determined from the totality of all the
and facility to act accordingly, including, circumstances: the age of the defendant,
to search even without warrant, in the whether he was in a public or secluded
light of such circumstances, would be to location, whether he objected to the
sanction impotence and ineffectiveness in search or passively looked on, the
law enforcement, to the detriment of education and intelligence of the
society. defendant, the presence of coercive police
procedure, the defendant’s belief that no
May a person charged with rebellion, incriminating evidence will be found, the
subversion, conspiracy or proposal to nature of police questioning, the
commit such crimes, and crimes or environment in which the questioning
offenses committed in furtherance took place, and the possible vulnerable
thereof be arrested without a warrant? subjective state of the person consenting.
It is the State that has the burden of
Yes since these are continuing offenses
proving, by clear and convincing evidence,
and therefore the accused are assumed to
that the necessary consent was obtained
be always committing the offense (Umil
and that it was voluntarily and freely
and Dural vs. Fidel Ramos)
given [Caballes v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 136292, January 15, 2002],
Warrantless Searches. i) Some cases showing valid

waiver. In People v.
a) When the right is voluntarily waived. Omaweng, 213 SCRA 462,
For the valid waiver of a constitutional the accused, driving a
right, it must appear first that the right vehicle, was stopped at a
exists; secondly, that the person involved checkpoint, and when the
had knowledge, either actual or vehicle was inspected, the
constructive, of the existence of such

Page | 124
MENDIOLA, MANILA
soldiers asked permission evidence during the trial,

to see the contents of a bag and the submissive stance
which was partially covered after the discovery of the
by a spare tire. The accused bag and the absence of any
consented, and upon protest which thus
inspection, the bag was confirmed their
found to contain marijuana. acquiescence. In People v.
In People v. Lacerna, G.R. Ramos, 222 SCRA 557, the
No. 109250, September 5, Supreme Court said that the
1997, the occupants of the evidence for the
taxicab readily consented prosecution clearly
when the policemen sought disclosed that Ramos
permission to search the voluntarily allowed himself
vehicle. to be frisked, and that he
gave the gun voluntarily to
In People v. Correa, 285 the police. Thus, there was
SCRA 679, where police deemed a valid waiver. See
officers, informed that the also People v. Fernandez,
accused would deliver 239 SCRA 174.
marijuana, followed the
accused, then later accosted ia) Searches of
him and one of the passengers at
policemen opened a tin can airports. In People v.
in the jeepney of the Gatward, 267 SCRA
accused but the accused did 785, it was held that
not protest, the Supreme when the accused
Court held that there was checked in his
consent. In People v. luggage as a
Cuizon, 256 SCRA 329, the passenger of a plane,
accused gave written he agreed to the
consent for the NBI agents inspection of his
to search his bags. luggage in
accordance with
In People v. Exala, 221 customs laws and
SCRA 494, the right was regulations, and thus
deemed waived because the waived any
accused did not object to objection to a
the admissibility of the warrantless search.


Page | 125
MENDIOLA, MANILA
In People v. Susan such circumstances,

Canton, G.R. No. would be to sanction
148825, December impotence and
27, 2002, it was held ineffectiveness in
that a search made law enforcement, to
pursuant to routine the detriment of
airport security society”.
procedure is allowed
under R.A. 6235, Thus, in this case,
which provides that the strip search in
every airline ticket the ladies’ room was
shall contain a justified under the
condition that hand- circumstances. In
carried luggage, etc., People v. Johnson,
shall be subject to G.R. No. 138881,
search, and this December 18, 2000,
condition shall form the Supreme Court
part of the contract upheld the validity
between the of searches
passenger and the Conducted on
air carrier. To limit passengers
the action of the attempting to board
airport security an aircraft whose
personnel to simply carry-on baggage, as
refusing the well as checked-in
passenger entry into luggage, are
the aircraft and subjected to x-ray
sending her home scans, and
(as suggested by the passengers
appellant), and themselves are made
thereby depriving to pass through
the security metal detectors.
personnel of “the Given the minimal
ability and facility to intrusiveness, the
act accordingly, gravity of the safety
including to further interests involved,
search without and the reduced
warrant, in light of privacy expectations


Page | 126
MENDIOLA, MANILA
associated with silence of the accused was

airline travel, these not construed as consent;
searches are rather, it was a
reasonable. “demonstration of regard
for the supremacy of the
In People v. Suzuki, law”. In this case the
G.R. No. 120670, warrantless search was
October 23, 2003, declared invalid because
the Supreme Court there was no showing of
held that PASCOM any circumstance which
agents have the right constituted probable cause
under the law to for the peace officers to
conduct searches for search the carton. Neither
prohibited materials did the peace officers
or substances at the receive any information or
airport, and to effect “tip-off’ from an informer;
the arrest of those nor did they contend that
found to be carrying they detected the odor of
such prohibited dried marijuana.
materials. To simply
refuse passengers In Aniag v. Comelec, 237
carrying suspected SCRA 424, the Supreme
illegal items to enter Court said that, in the face
the pre-departure of 14 armed policemen
area, as claimed by conducting the operation,
the appellant, is to driver Arellano, being alone
deprive the and a mere employee of the
authorities of their petitioner, could not have
duty to conduct marshalled the strength
search, thus and the courage to protest
sanctioning against the extensive search
impotence and conducted on the vehicle.
ineffectiveness of the “Consent” given under
law enforcers, to the intimidating or coercive
detriment of society. circumstances is not
consent within the purview
ii) No waiver. In People v. of the constitutional
Barros, 231 SCRA 557, the guarantee.


Page | 127
MENDIOLA, MANILA
In Lui v. Matillano, G.R. No.

In People v. Tudtud, G.R. 141176, May 27, 2004,
No. 144037, September 26, while admittedly, Paulina
2003, the Supreme Court Matillano failed to object to
said that acquiescence in the opening of her wooden
the loss of fundamental closet and the taking of
rights is not to be presumed. their personal properties,
The fact that a person failed such failure to object or
to object to a search does resist did not amount to an
not amount to permission implied waiver of her right
thereto. In any case, any against the unreasonable
presumption in favor of search and seizure. The
regularity would be petitioners were armed
severely diminished by the with handguns; petitioner
allegation of appellants that Lui had threatened and
the arresting officers intimidated her; and her
pointed a gun at them husband was out of the
before asking them to open house when the petitioner
the subject box. Appellant’s and his cohorts conducted
implied acquiescence, if at the search. Waiver by
all, could not have been implication cannot be
more than mere passive presumed; there must be
conformity given under clear and convincing
coercive or intimidating evidence of an actual
circumstances and thus, is intention to relinquish the
considered no consent at all right in order that there
within the purview of the may be a valid waiver.
constitutional guarantee.
Consequently, appellant’s iii) Waiver must be given by the
lack of objection to the person whose right is violated.
search and seizure is not In People v. Damaso, 212 SCRA
tantamount to a waiver of 457, PC officers sent to verify the
his constitutional right or a presence of CPP/NPA members in
voluntary submission to the Dagupan City, reached a house
warrantless search and suspected to be rented by a rebel.
seizure. Outside the house, they saw one
Luz Tanciangco (who turned out to
be a helper of the accused). The PC


Page | 128
MENDIOLA, MANILA
officers told Luz that they already 142531, October 15, 2002,
knew that she was a member of because at the time the
the NPA, and requested that they bloodstained pair of shorts
be allowed to look around. Luz was recovered, appellant
consented. Inside the house, the Formento, together with his
team found subversive materials wife and mother, was
and firearms, which Luz identified present. Being the subject
as belonging to the accused. The of the search, he himself
Court held that the constitutional should have given consent.
right against unreasonable Added to this is the fact that
searches and seizures, being a the appellant is a deaf-mute
personal one, cannot be waived by who could not understand
anyone except the person whose t what was happening at the
rights are invaded, or one who is moment, there being no
authorized to do so in his behalf. interpreter to assist him.
Here, there was no evidence that His seeming acquiescence
Luz was authorized to open the to the search without a
house of the accused in his absence. warrant may be attributed
Accordingly, the search, as well as to plain and simple
the seizure, was declared illegal. confusion and ignorance.
iiia) But in Lopez v. iv) Scope of the waiver. In Veroy v.

Commissioner of Customs, Layague, 210 SCRA 97, it was held
68 SCRA 320, there was that where permission to enter the
deemed a valid waiver residence is given to search for
where, upon a warrantless rebels, it is illegal to search the
search of a hotel room, rooms therein and seize firearms
consent and voluntary without a search warrant.
surrender of papers
belonging to the registered
but absent occupant was
given by a woman
LUZ VS PEOPLE
identified as the wife of the
occupant although it turned Facts:
out later that she was, in
fact, a “mere manicurist”. On March 10, 2003 at around 3:00 o’clock
This ruling was not applied in the morning, PO2 Emmanuel L. Alteza,
in People v. Asis, G.R. No. who was then assigned as a traffic
enforcer saw the accused, who was

Page | 129
MENDIOLA, MANILA
coming from the direction of Panganiban arrested or by that persons voluntary

Drive and going to Diversion Road, Naga submission to the custody of the one
City, driving a motorcycle without a making the arrest. Neither the application
helmet; that this prompted him to flag of actual force, manual touching of the
down the accused for violating a body, or physical restraint, nor a formal
municipal ordinance which requires all declaration of arrest, is required. It is
motorcycle drivers to wear helmet while enough that there be an intention on the
driving said motor vehicle, invited the part of one of the parties to arrest the
accused to come inside their sub-station other, and that there be an intent on the
since the place is almost in front of the part of the other to submit, under the
said sub-station. He was alerted of the belief and impression that submission is
accused’s uneasy movement and thus necessary.
asked to take out the contents of the
pocket of his jacket as the latter may have ARREST IS NOT ALLOWED IN CASES OF
a weapon inside it; that the accused TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS - there was no
obliged and slowly put out the contents of valid arrest of petitioner. Under R.A. 4136,
the pocket of his jacket which was a or the Land Transportation and Traffic
nickel-like tin or metal container about Code, the general procedure for dealing
two (2) to three (3) inches in size, with a traffic violation is not the arrest of
including two (2) cellphones, one (1) pair the offender, but the confiscation of the
of scissors and one (1) Swiss knife; that drivers license of the latter:
upon seeing the said container, he asked SECTION 29. Confiscation of Driver's
the accused to open it; that after the License. Law enforcement and peace
accused opened the container, he noticed officers of other agencies duly deputized
a cartoon cover and something beneath it;
by the Director shall, in apprehending a
and that upon his instruction, the accused driver for any violation of this Act or any
spilled out the contents of the container regulations issued pursuant thereto, or of
on the table which turned out to be four local traffic rules and regulations not
(4) plastic sachets, the two (2) of which contrary to any provisions of this Act,
were empty while the other two (2) confiscate the license of the driver
contained suspected shabu. concerned and issue a receipt prescribed
Ruling/Doctrines: and issued by the Bureau therefor which
shall authorize the driver to operate a
WHAT IS ARREST? - Arrest is the taking motor vehicle for a period not exceeding
of a person into custody in order that he seventy-two hours from the time and date
or she may be bound to answer for the of issue of said receipt. The period so
commission of an offense. It is effected by fixed in the receipt shall not be extended,
an actual restraint of the person to be and shall become invalid thereafter.


Page | 130
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Failure of the driver to settle his case whether the defendant objected to the
within fifteen days from the date of search or passively looked on; (4) the
apprehension will be a ground for the education and intelligence of the
suspension and/or revocation of his defendant; (5) the presence of coercive
license. police procedures; (6) the defendants
belief that no incriminating evidence
Similarly, the Philippine National Police would be found; (7) the nature of the
(PNP) Operations Manual provides the police questioning; (8) the environment
following procedure for flagging down in which the questioning took place; and
vehicles during the conduct of (9) the possibly vulnerable subjective
checkpoints: state of the person consenting.
SECTION 7. Procedure in Flagging Down
or Accosting Vehicles While in Mobile Car.
This rule is a general concept and will not
apply in hot pursuit operations. The
mobile car crew shall undertake the Can the accused raise the issue of the
following, when applicable: x x x irregularity of his arrest only during
trial?
m. If it concerns traffic violations,
immediately issue a Traffic Citation Ticket No, “Any objection involving a warrant of
(TCT) or Traffic Violation Report (TVR). arrest or procedure in the acquisition by
Never indulge in prolonged, unnecessary the court of jurisdiction over the person
conversation or argument with the driver of the accused must be made before he
or any of the vehicles occupants; enters his plea, otherwise the objection is
deemed waived.”
MANIFESTATION OF CONSENT IN A
CONSENTED WARRANTLESS SEARCH - Espano vs. Court of Appeals [G.R. No.
Whether consent to the search was in fact 120431, April 1, 1998]
voluntary is a question of fact to be
determined from the totality of all the SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO A LAWFUL
circumstances. Relevant to this ARREST MAY EXTEND TO PREMISES
determination are the following WITHIN THE IMMEDIATE CONTROL OF
characteristics of the person giving THE PERSON ARRESTED. An exception
consent and the environment in which to the said rule is a warrantless search
consent is given: (1) the age of the incidental to a lawful arrest for dangerous
defendant; (2) whether the defendant was weapons or anything which may be used
in a public or a secluded location; (3) as proof of the commission of an offense.


Page | 131
MENDIOLA, MANILA
It may extend beyond the person of the the police officers were not armed with a
one arrested to include the premises or search warrant at the time. Moreover, it
surroundings under his immediate was beyond the reach and control of
control. In this case, the ten cellophane petitioner.
bags of marijuana seized at petitioner's
house after his arrest at Pandacan and
Zamora Streets do not fall under the said
exceptions. ESPANO VS COURT OF APPEALS
Facts:
In the case of People v. Lua, 12 this Court
held: "As regards the brick of marijuana Pat. Pagilagan together with other police
found inside the appellant's house, the trial officers went to Zamora and Pandacan
court correctly ignored it apparently in Streets, Manila to confirm reports of drug
view of its inadmissibility. While initially pushing in the area. They saw petitioner
the arrest as well as the body search was selling something to another person. After
lawful, the warrantless search made inside the alleged buyer left, they approached
the appellant's house became unlawful petitioner, identified themselves as
since the police operatives were not armed policemen, and frisked him. The search
with a search warrant. Such search cannot yielded two plastic cellophane tea bags of
fall under "search made incidental to a marijuana. When asked if he had more
lawful arrest," the same being limited to marijuana, he replied that there was more
body search and to that point within in his house. The policemen went to his
reach or control of the person arrested, or residence where they found ten more
that which may furnish him with the cellophane tea bags of marijuana.
means of committing violence or of Petitioner was brought to the police
escaping. headquarters where he was charged of
possession of prohibited drugs.
In the case at bar, appellant was
admittedly outside his house when he ISSUE: W/N the marijuana confiscated
was arrested. Hence, it can hardly be said from the house in addition to the
that the inner portion of his house was marijuana confiscated while Espano waa
within his reach or control. The articles frisked may be used as evidence?
seized from petitioner during his arrest
were valid under the doctrine of search HELD: NO. The 1987 Constitution
made incidental to a lawful arrest. The guarantees freedom against unreasonable
warrantless search made in his house, searches and seizures under Article III,
however, which yielded ten cellophane Section 2 which provides:
bags of marijuana became unlawful since


Page | 132
MENDIOLA, MANILA
"The right of the people to be secure in under " SEARCH MADE INCIDENTAL TO
their persons, houses, papers and effects A LAWFUL ARREST," the same being
against unreasonable searches and limited to body search and to that point
seizures of whatever nature and for any within reach or control of the person
purposes shall be inviolable, and no arrested , or that which may furnish
search warrant or warrant of arrest shall him with the means of committing
issue except upon probable cause to be violence or of escaping. In the case at bar,
determined personally by the judge after appellant was admittedly outside his
examination under oath or affirmation of house when he was arrested. Hence, it can
the complainant and the witnesses he hardly be said that the inner portion of his
may produce, and particularly describing house was within his reach or control.
the place to be searched and the persons
or things to be seized." The articles seized from petitioner during
his arrest were valid under the DOCTRINE
An exception to the said rule is a OF SEARCH MADE INCIDENTAL TO A
warrantless search incidental to a LAWFUL ARREST. The warrantless search
lawful arrest for dangerous weapons or made in his house, however, which yielded
anything which may be used as proof of ten cellophane bags of marijuana became
the commission of an offense. It may unlawful since the police officers were not
extend beyond the person of the one armed with a search warrant at the time.
arrested to include the premises or Moreover, it was beyond the reach and
surroundings under his immediate control of petitioner.
control. In this case, the ten cellophane SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO A LAWFUL
bags of marijuana seized at petitioner's ARREST MAY EXTEND TO PREMISES
house after his arrest at Pandacan and WITHIN THE IMMEDIATE CONTROL OF
Zamora Streets do not fall under the THE PERSON ARRESTED - An exception
said exceptions. to the said rule is a warrantless search
incidental to a lawful arrest for dangerous
As regards the brick of marijuana found weapons or anything which may be used
inside the appellant's house, the trial as proof of the commission of an offense.
court correctly ignored it apparently in It may extend beyond the person of the
view of its inadmissibility. While initially one arrested to include the premises or
the arrest as well as the body search surroundings under his immediate
was lawful, the warrantless search control. In this case, the ten cellophane
made inside the appellant's house bags of marijuana seized at petitioners
became unlawful since the police house after his arrest at Pandacan and
operatives were not armed with a Zamora Streets do not fall under the said
search warrant. Such search cannot fall exceptions.


Page | 133
MENDIOLA, MANILA
In the case of People v. Lua, this Court - May be subject to bodily search
held: and extends to area within his
immediate control. If arrested in
As regards the brick of marijuana found the street, may not extend to his
inside the appellant’s house, the trial house.
court correctly ignored it apparently in
view of its inadmissibility. While initially If suspect does not object, can it be
the arrest as well as the body search was considered consented search?
lawful, the warrantless search made - A: No. Consent must be made
inside the appellants house became voluntarily and knowingly.
unlawful since the police operatives were
not armed with a search warrant. Such
search cannot fall under search made UNITED LABORATORIES (UNILAB) VS
incidental to a lawful arrest, the same ISIP
being limited to body search and to that
point within reach or control of the FACTS:
person arrested, or that which may UNILAB hired a private investigator to
furnish him with the means of committing
investigate a place purported to be
violence or of escaping. In the case at bar, manufacturing fake UNILAB products,
appellant was admittedly outside his especially Revicon multivitamins. The
house when he was arrested. Hence, it can agent took some photographs where the
hardly be said that the inner portion of his clandestine manufacturing operation was
house was within his reach or control. taking place. UNILAB then sought the help
The articles seized from petitioner during of the NBI, which thereafter filed an
his arrest were valid under the doctrine of application for the issuance of search
search made incidental to a lawful arrest. warrant in the RTC of Manila. After
The warrantless search made in his house, finding probable cause, the court issued a
however, which yielded ten cellophane search warrant directing the police to
bags of marijuana became unlawful since seize “finished or unfinished products of
the police officers were not armed with a UNILAB, particularly REVICON
search warrant at the time. Moreover, it multivitamins.” No fake Revicon was
was beyond the reach and control of however found; instead, sealed boxes
petitioner. where seized, which, when opened
contained 60 ml bottles of Disudrin and
200mg tablets of Inoflox, both were
brands used by UNILAB. NBI prayed that
What is the Extent of permissible some of the sized items be turned over to
warrantless searches incidental to the custody of the Bureau of Food and
lawful arrest.

Page | 134
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Drugs (BFAD) for examination. The court testimonial or documentary, to prove the
granted the motion. The respondents then confluence of the essential requirements
filed a motion to quash the search for the doctrine to apply, namely: (a) the
warrant or to suppress evidence, alleging executing law enforcement officer has a
that the seized items are considered to be prior justification for an initial intrusion
fruit of a poisonous tree, and therefore or otherwise properly in a position from
inadmissible for any purpose in any which he can view a particular order; (b)
proceeding, which the petitioners the officer must discover incriminating
opposed alleging that the boxes of evidence inadvertently; and (c) it must be
Disudrin and Inoflox were seized under immediately apparent to the police that
the plain view doctrine. The court, the items they observe may be evidence
however, granted the motion of the of a crime, contraband, or otherwise
respondents. subject to seizure.
It was thus incumbent on the NBI agents

and the petitioner to prove their claim
RULING: APPLICATION OF THE PLAIN that the items were seized based on the
VIEW DOCTRINE - A search warrant, to plain view doctrine. It is not enough to
be valid, must particularly describe the prove that the sealed boxes were in the
place to be searched and the things to be plain view of the NBI agents; evidence
seized. The officers of the law are to seize should have been adduced to prove the
only those things particularly described in existence of all the essential requirements
the search warrant. A search warrant is for the application of the doctrine during
not a sweeping authority empowering a the hearing of the respondents motion to
raiding party to undertake a fishing quash, or at the very least, during the
expedition to seize and confiscate any and hearing of the NBI and the petitioners
all kinds of evidence or articles relating to motion for reconsideration
a crime. The search is limited in scope so
as not to be general or explanatory. The requirement of inadvertence, on the
Nothing is left to the discretion of the other hand, means that the officer must
officer executing the warrant.[ not have known in advance of the location
of the evidence and intend to seize it.
Objects, articles or papers not described Discovery is not anticipated.
in the warrant but on plain view of the
executing officer may be seized by him. The immediately apparent test does not
require an unduly high degree of certainty
The seizure by the officer of as to the incriminating character of
objects/articles/papers not described in evidence. It requires merely that the
the warrant cannot be presumed as plain seizure be presumptively reasonable
view. The State must adduce evidence,

Page | 135
MENDIOLA, MANILA
assuming that there is probable cause to SW was issued for revicon. POs found
associate the property with criminal disudrin openly displayed in
activity; that a nexus exists between a glasscabinets. Can these products be
viewed object and criminal activity. seized?
Incriminating means the furnishing of - No. They have to test them to
evidence as proof of circumstances know that they were counterfeited.
tending to prove the guilt of a person. 4th requisite, i.e. no further inquiry
whether or not object is illegal is
Indeed, probable cause is a flexible, absent. Incriminating character
common sense standard. It merely must be readily apparent.
requires that the facts available to the
officer would warrant a man of
reasonable caution and belief that certain NACHURA
items may be contrabanded or stolen
property or useful as evidence of a crime. Where prohibited articles are in plain
It does not require proof that such belief view. Objects in the “plain view” of an
be correct or more likely than true. A officer who has the right to be in the
practical, non-traditional probability that position to have that view are subject to
incriminating evidence is involved is all seizure and may be presented as evidence.
that is required. The evidence thus The “plain view” doctrine is usually
collected must be seen and verified as applied where the police officer is not
understood by those experienced in the searching for evidence against the
field of law enforcement. accused, but nonetheless inadvertently
comes upon an incriminating object
Note: Where marijuana sticks fall before [People v. Musa, 217 SCRA 597].
before the eyes of a police officer from an
object a person is carrying, seizure of the i) Requisites. In People v. Musa,
sticks would not require a warrant. They supra., reiterated in People v.
are evidence “in plain view”. Where, Aruta, G.R. No. 120515, April 13,
however, police officers find an object 1998; People v. Doria, G.R. No.
only after making some search, the plain 125299, January 22, 1999, and in
view rule cannot be applied. – Bernas People v. Sarap, G.R. No. 132165,
March 26, 2003, the Supreme
- In this case, the plain view Court enumerated the elements of
doctrine is inapplicable because it a valid seizure based on the “plain
is not apparent. view” doctrine, as follows:
Unilab vs. Isip


Page | 136
MENDIOLA, MANILA
(i) a prior valid intrusion based sachets of shabu. These sachets of shabu
on the warrantless arrest in which were, therefore, in “plain view” of the law
the police are legally present in the enforcers.
pursuit of their official duties;
ii) An object is in “plain view” if the object
(ii) the evidence was inadvertently itself is plainly exposed to sight. Where
discovered by the police who have the object seized is inside a closed
the right to be where they are; package, the object is not in plain view
and, therefore, cannot be seized without a
(iii) the evidence must be warrant. However, if the package
immediately apparent; and (iv) proclaims its contents, whether by its
“plain view” justified the seizure of distinctive configuration, its transparency,
the evidence without any further or if its contents are obvious to an
search. observer, then the contents are in plain
view and may be seized [Caballes v.
ia) Thus, in People v. Figueroa, 248 SCRA Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 136292,
679, where, while serving a warrant of January 15, 2002], If the package is such
arrest, police officers searched the house that an experienced observer could infer
and found a pistol, a magazine and seven from its appearance that it contains
rounds of ammunition, the seizure of the prohibited articles, then the article is
firearm and ammunition was held lawful, deemed in plain view [People v. Nuevas,
because the objects seized were in plain G.R. No. 170233, February 22, 2007].
view of the officer who had the right to be
in the place where he was. iii) In People v. Salanguit, G.R No.
133254-55, April 19, 2001, the peace
In People v. Macalaba, G.R. Nos. 146284- officers entered the dwelling armed with
86, January 20, 2003, the evidence a search warrant for the seizure of shabu
clearly shows that on the basis of and drug paraphernalia. In the course of
intelligence information that a carnapped the search, they (presumably) found the
vehicle was driven by Abdul, who was shabu first, and then came upon an article
also a suspect in drug pushing, the wrapped in newspaper which turned out
members of the CIDG of Laguna went to be marijuana. On the issue of whether
around looking for the carnapped car. the marijuana may be validly seized, the
They spotted the suspected carnapped car Supreme Court said once the valid portion
which was indeed driven by Abdul. While of the search warrant has been executed,
Abdul was fumbling about in his clutch the “plain view” doctrine can no longer
bag for the registration papers of the car, provide any basis for admitting the other
the CIDG agents saw four transparent items subsequently found. (Note that the


Page | 137
MENDIOLA, MANILA
marijuana was wrapped in newspaper In People v. Compacion, G.R. No.

which was not transparent.) 124442, July 20, 2001, where the
peace officers had to enter the
iiia) In Musa, the Supreme Court dwelling of the appellant in order
said that the “plain view” doctrine to get to the backyard where they
may not be used to launch seized two marijuana plants, the
unbridled searches and Supreme Court said that the “plain
indiscriminate seizures, nor to view” doctrine cannot be invoked
extend to a general exploratory to justify the seizure. The four
search made solely to find requisites enumerated in Musa
evidence of defendant’s guilt. had to be satisfied.
Thus, in People v. Valdez, G.R. No. iv) The doctrine is not an exception to the
129296, September 25, 2000, it warrant. It merely serves to supplement
was held that although the the prior justification — whether it be a
marijuana plants were found in an warrant for another object, hot pursuit,
unfenced lot, they were not search as an incident to a lawful arrest or
apparent. A police team had to be some other legitimate reason for being
dispatched to search for and present, unconnected with a search
uproot the prohibited flora. directed against the accused. It is
Accordingly, the plain view recognition of the fact that when
doctrine could not be validly executing police officers come across
invoked to justify the seizure. immediately incriminating evidence not
covered by the warrant, they should not
In People v. Pasudag, G.R. No. be required to close their eyes to it,
128822, May 4, 2000, noting that regardless of whether it is evidence of the
the police authorities had ample crime they are investigating or evidence
time to secure a warrant, the of some other crime. It would be needless
seizure of the marijuana plants and to require the police to obtain another
the consequent arrest were held to warrant [United Laboratories v, Isip, G.R.
be tainted with constitutional No. 163858, June 28, 2005].
infirmity. The implied
acquiescence of the appellant iva) The “immediately apparent”
could not have been more than test does not require an unduly
passive conformity given under high degree of certainty as to the
intimidating circumstances. incriminating character of
evidence. It requires merely that
the seizure be presumptively


Page | 138
MENDIOLA, MANILA
reasonable assuming that there is

probable cause to associate the
property with criminal activity; Papa vs. Mago [G.R. No. L-27360,
that a nexus exists between the February 28, 1968]
viewed object and criminal activity
[United Laboratories v. Isip, CUSTOMS SEARCHES. The Tariff and
supra.]. Customs Code does not require a search
warrant for purposes of enforcing
v) In People v. Huang Zhan Hua, 439 customs and tariff laws. Under Sec. 2203
SCRA 350, police officers, in thereof, persons having police authority
implementing a warrant which may enter, pass through or search any
authorized the search of the residence of land, enclosure, warehouse, store or
the accused for methampethamine building not being a dwelling house and
hydrochloride, also seized credit cards, a also, to inspect, search and examine any
passbook, a passport, photographs, and vehicle or aircraft and any trunk, package,
other documents and papers. On the box or envelope or any person on board
contention of the accused that the seizure or stop and search and examine any
of such items was illegal, the Supreme vehicle, beast or person suspected of
Court ruled that the seizure was legal holding or conveying any dutiable or
because the articles were in plain view. prohibited article introduced into the
Their seizure was authorized because of Philippines contrary to law, without
their close connection to the crime mentioning the need of a search warrant
charged. The passport would show when in said cases. Except in the search of a
and how often the accused had been in dwelling house, therefore, persons
and out of the country; her credit cards exercising police authority under the
and passbook would show how much customs law may effect search and
money she had amassed and how she seizure without search warrant in the
acquired them; the pictures would show enforcement of customs laws.
her relationship to the co-accused.
vi) The doctrine allows the seizure of

PAPA VS MAGO
personalty even without a warrant as
long as the area of search is within the Facts:
immediate control of the arrested person
and the object of the seizure is open to the Martin Alagao, head of the counter-
eye [People v. de Guzman, G.R. Nos. intelligence unit of the Manila Police
117952-53, February 14, 2001]. Department, acting upon a reliable
information received on 3 November
1966 to the effect that a certain shipment

Page | 139
MENDIOLA, MANILA
of personal effects, allegedly misdeclared November 1966, Judge Hilarion Jarencio

and undervalued, would be released the issued an order ex parte restraining
following day from the customs zone of Ricardo Papa (as Chief of Police of Manila)
the port of Manila and loaded on two and Juan Ponce Enrile (as Commissioner
trucks, and upon orders of Ricardo Papa, of Customs) in Civil Case 67496. However,
Chief of Police of Manila and a duly when the restraining order was received
deputized agent of the Bureau of Customs, by Papa. et. al., some bales had already
conducted surveillance at gate 1 of the been opened by the examiners of the
customs zone. When the trucks left gate 1 Bureau of Customs in the presence of
at about 4:30 p.m. of 4 November 1966, officials of the Manila Police Department,
elements of the counter-intelligence unit an assistant city fiscal and a
went after the trucks and intercepted representative of Remedios Mago.
them at the Agrifina Circle, Ermita, Manila.
The load of the two trucks, consisting of Under date of 15 November 1966, Mago
nine bales of goods, and the two trucks, filed an amended petition, including as
were seized on instructions of the Chief of party defendants Collector of Customs
Police. Upon investigation, a person Pedro Pacis of the Port of Manila and Lt.
claimed ownership of the goods and Martin Alagao of the Manila Police
showed to the policemen a "Statement Department. At the hearing on 9
and Receipts of Duties Collected on December 1966, the lower court, with the
Informal Entry No. 147-5501", issued by conformity of the parties, ordered that an
the Bureau of Customs in the name of a inventory of the goods be made by its
certain Bienvenido Naguit. Claiming to clerk of court in the presence of the
have been prejudiced by the seizure and representatives of the claimant of the
detention of the two trucks and their goods, the Bureau of Customs, and the
cargo, Remedios Mago and Valentin B. Anti- Smuggling Center of the Manila
Lanopa filed with the Court of First Police Department. On 23 December 1966,
Instance (CFI) of Manila a petition "for Mago filed an ex parte motion to release
mandamus with restraining order or the goods, alleging that since the
preliminary injunction (Civil Case 67496), inventory of the goods seized did not
praying for the issuance of a restraining show any article of prohibited
order, ex parte, enjoining the police and importation, the same should be released
customs authorities, or their agents, from as per agreement of the parties upon her
opening the bales and examining the posting of the appropriate bond that may
goods, and a writ of mandamus for the be determined by the court.
return of the goods and the trucks, as well On 7 March 1967, the Judge issued an
as a judgment for actual, moral and
order releasing the goods to Mago upon
exemplary damages in their favor. On 10 her filing of a bond in the amount of


Page | 140
MENDIOLA, MANILA
P40,000.00. On 13 March 1967, Papa, on dutiable or prohibited article introduced

his own behalf, filed a motion for into the Philippines contrary to law,
reconsideration of the order of the court without mentioning the need of a search
releasing the goods under bond, upon the warrant in said cases. But in the search of
ground that the Manila Police department a dwelling house , the Code provides that
had been directed by the Collector of said "dwelling house may be entered and
Customs of the Port of Manila to hold the searched only upon warrant issued by a
goods pending termination of the seizure judge or justice of the peace . . ." It is our
proceedings. Without waiting for the considered view, therefore, that except
court's action on the motion for in the case of the search of a dwelling
reconsideration, and alleging that they house, persons exercising police
had no plain, speedy and adequate authority under the customs law may
remedy in the ordinary course of law, effect search and seizure without a
Papa, et. al. filed the action for prohibition search warrant in the enforcement of
and certiorari with preliminary injunction customs laws.
before the Supreme Court.
In the instant case, we note that petitioner
Martin Alagao and his companion
ISSUE: Where petitioners allowed to policemen did not have to make any search
search and seize the questioned articles before they seized the two trucks and their
cargo. In their original petition, and
even without a warrant?
amended petition, in the court below
Remedios Mago and Valentin Lanopa did
HELD: Yes. The policemen had authority to
effect the seizure without any search not even allege that there was a search.
All that they complained of was,
warrant issued by a competent court. The
Tariff and Customs Code does not require
"That while the trucks were on their way,
said warrant in the instant case. The Code
authorizes persons having police they were intercepted without any search
authority under Section 2203 of the warrant near the Agrifina Circle and taken
Tariff and Customs Code to enter, pass to the Manila Police, where they were
detained." But even if there was a search,
through or search any land, inclosure,
there is still authority to the effect that
warehouse, store or building, not being a
no search warrant would be needed
dwelling house; and also to inspect, search
under the circumstances obtaining in
and examine any vessel or aircraft and any
the instant case. The guaranty of
trunk, package, box or envelope or any
freedom from unreasonable searches
person on board, or stop and search and
and seizures is construed as
examine any vehicle, beast or person
suspected of holding or conveying any recognizing a necessary difference


Page | 141
MENDIOLA, MANILA
between a search of a dwelling house or so-called "bootlegging' or 'rum

other structure in respect of which a running,' which is itself is no small
search warrant may readily be matter.
obtained and a search of a ship,
motorboat, wagon, or automobile for While a possession in the sense of
contraband goods , where it is not private ownership, they are but a
practicable to secure a warrant , vehicle constructed for travel and
because the vehicle can be quickly transportation on highways. Their
moved out of the locality or jurisdiction active use is not in homes or on private
in which the warrant must be sought. premises, the privacy of which the law
especially guards from search and
The question whether a seizure or a seizure without process. The baffling
search is unreasonable in the language of extent to which they are successfully
the Constitution is a judicial and not a utilized to facilitate commission of
legislative question; but in determining crime of all degrees, from those against
whether a seizure is or is not morality, chastity, and decency, to
unreasonable, all of the circumstances robbery, rape, burglary, and murder, is
under which it is made must be looked to. a matter of common knowledge. Upon
that problem a condition, and not a
"The automobile is a swift and powerful theory, confronts proper administration
vehicle of recent development, which of our criminal laws. Whether search of
has multiplied by quantity production and seizure from an automobile upon a
and taken possession of our highways highway or other public place without a
in battalions, until the slower, animal search warrant is unreasonable is in its
drawn vehicles, with their easily noted final analysis to be determined as a
individuality, are rare. judicial question in view of all the
Constructed as covered vehicles to circumstances under which it is made."
standard form in immense quantities,
and with a capacity for speed rivaling Having declared that the seizure by the
express trains, they furnish for members of the Manila Police Department
successful commission of crime a of the goods in question was in
disguising means of silent approach accordance with law and by that seizure
and swift escape unknown in the history the Bureau of Customs had acquired
of the world before their advent . The jurisdiction over the goods for the
question of their police control and purposes of the enforcement of the
reasonable search on highways or other customs and tariff laws, to the exclusion
public places is a serious question far of the Court of First Instance of Manila,
deeper and broader than their use in


Page | 142
MENDIOLA, MANILA
We have thus resolved the principal and

decisive issue in the present case.
CUSTOMS SEARCHES - The Tariff and WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
Customs Code does not require said STOP AND SEARCH AND STOP AND
warrant in the instant case. The Code FRISK?
authorizes persons having police
- In Stop and Search, there is
authority under Section 2203 of the Tariff
probable cause while in stop and
and Customs Code to enter, pass through
or search any land, inclosure, warehouse, frisk, there is genuine reason. In
store or building, not being a dwelling Stop and Frisk, the commission of
house; and also to inspect, search and the offense need not be obvious to
examine any vessel or aircraft and any ordinary man but a seasoned
trunk, package, or envelope or any person police officer can determine the
on board, or to stop and search and
possible offense.
examine any vehicle, beast or person
suspected of holding or conveying any May a fishing vessel found to be
dutiable or prohibited article introduced violating fishery laws be seized
into the Philippines contrary to law, without a warrant?
without mentioning the need of a search
warrant in said cases. But in the search of - Yes, on two grounds:
a dwelling house, the Code provides that 1) they are unusually equipped
said "dwelling house may be entered and with powerful motors that enable
searched only upon warrant issued by a them to elude pursuit. 2) the
judge or justice of the peace. . . ." It is our seizure would be incidental to the
considered view, therefor, that except in lawful arrest of the crew (Roldan,
the case of the search of a dwelling house, Jr. vs. Arca)
persons exercising police authority under
the customs law may effect search and HYPO: Warehouse serves as a dwelling
seizure without a search warrant in the of caretaker, may it be subject to
enforcement of customs laws. warrantless search?
- The custom search is only limited - No. Because it is strictly construes

to dutiable goods. against the state
May valid customs searches be

effected on local products?
- Yes. If previously exported then
imported again in the Phils?

Page | 143
MENDIOLA, MANILA
People vs. Musa [G.R. No. 96177, DOCTRINE OF "PLAIN VIEW”. — The
January 27, 1993] warrantless search and seizure, as an
incident to a suspect's lawful arrest, may
SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO A LAWFUL extend beyond the person of the one
ARREST. While a valid search warrant is arrested to include the premises or
generally necessary before a search and surroundings under his immediate
seizure may be effected, exceptions to this control. Objects in the "plain view" of an
rule are recognized. Thus, in Alvero v. officer who has the right to be in the
Dizon, the Court stated that "the most position to have that view are subject to
important exception to the necessity for a seizure and may be presented as evidence.
search warrant is the right of search and The "plain view" doctrine may not,
seizure as an incident to a lawful arrest." however, be used to launch unbridled
Rule 126, Section 12 of the Rules of Court searches and indiscriminate seizures nor
expressly authorizes a warrantless search to extend a general exploratory search
and seizure incident to a lawful arrest. made solely to find evidence of
defendant's guilt. The "plain view"
There is no doubt that the warrantless doctrine is usually applied where a police
search incidental to a lawful arrest officer is not searching for evidence
authorizes the arresting officer to make a against the accused, but, nonetheless
search upon the person of the person inadvertently comes across an
arrested. As early as 1909, the Court has incriminating object. It has also been
ruled that "an officer making an arrest suggested that even if an object is
may take from the person arrested and observed in "plain view," the "plain view"
money or property found upon his person doctrine will not justify the seizure of the
which was used in the commission of the object where the incriminating nature of
crime or was the fruit of the crime or which the object is not apparent from the "plain
might furnish the prisoner with the means view" of the object. Stated differently, it
of committing violence or of escaping, or must be immediately apparent to the
which may be used as evidence in the trial police that the items that they observe
of the cause . . ." may be evidence of a crime, contraband,
or otherwise subject to seizure.
Hence, in a buy-bust operation conducted
to entrap a drug-pusher, the law In the instant case, the appellant was
enforcement agents may seize the marked arrested and his person searched in the
money found on the person of the pusher living room. Failing to retrieve the
immediately after the arrest even without marked money which they hoped to find,
arrest and search warrants. the NARCOM agents searched the whole
house and found the plastic bag in the


Page | 144
MENDIOLA, MANILA
kitchen. The plastic bag was, therefore, presented in evidence pursuant to Article
not within their "plain view" when they III, Section 3(2) of the Constitution.
arrested the appellant as to justify its
seizure. The NARCOM agents had to move
from one portion of the house to another
before they sighted the plastic bag.
PEOPLE VS MUSA
Moreover, when the NARCOM agents saw
the plastic bag hanging in one corner of Facts:
the kitchen, they had no clue as to its
contents. They had to ask the appellant A civilian informer gave the information
what the bag contained. When the that Mari Musa was engaged in selling
appellant refused to respond, they opened marijuana in Suterville, Zamboanga City.
it and found the marijuana. Unlike Ker v. Sgt. Ani was ordered by NARCOM leader
California, where the marijuana was T/Sgt. Belarga, to conduct a surveillance
visible to the police officer's eyes, the and test buy on Musa. The civilian
NARCOM agents in this case could not informer guided Ani to Musa’s house and
have discovered the inculpatory nature of gave the description of Musa. Ani was
the contents of the bag had they not able to buy one newspaper-wrapped
forcibly opened it. Even assuming then, dried marijuana for P10.00.
that the NARCOM agents inadvertently
The next day, a buy-bust was planned.
came across the plastic bag because it was
Ani was to raise his right hand if he
within their "plain view," what may be
successfully buys marijuana from Musa.
said to be the object in their "plain view"
As Ani proceeded to the house, the
was just the plastic bag and not the
NARCOM team positioned themselves
marijuana. The incriminating nature of
about 90 to 100 meters away. From his
the contents of the plastic bag was not
position, Belarga could see what was
immediately apparent from the "plain
going on. Musa came out of the house and
view" of said object. It cannot be claimed
asked Ani what he wanted. Ani said he
that the plastic bag clearly betrayed its
wanted more marijuana and gave Musa
contents, whether by its distinctive
the P20.00 marked money. Musa went
configuration, its transparency, or
into the house and came back, giving Ani
otherwise, that its contents are obvious to
two newspaper wrappers containing
an observer. We, therefore, hold that
dried marijuana. Ani opened and
under the circumstances of the case, the
inspected it. He raised his right hand as a
"plain view" doctrine does not apply and
signal to the other NARCOM agents, and
the marijuana contained in the plastic bag
the latter moved in and arrested Musa
was seized illegally and cannot be
inside the house. Belarga frisked Musa in


Page | 145
MENDIOLA, MANILA
the living room but did not find the violation of the freedom from
marked money (gave it to his wife who unreasonable searches and seizures.
slipped away). T/Sgt. Belarga and Sgt. While a valid search warrant is
Lego went to the kitchen and found a generally necessary before a search and
‘cellophane colored white and stripe seizure may be effected, exceptions to
hanging at the corner of the kitchen.’ this rule are recognized. Thus, in Alvero
They asked Musa about its contents but v. Dizon, the Court stated that "[t]he
failed to get a response. So they opened it most important exception to the
and found dried marijuana leaves inside. necessity for a search warrant is the
Musa was then placed under arrest. right of search and seizure as an
incident to a lawful arrest." Rule 126,
ISSUE: May all the evidence herein Section 12 of the Rules of Court expressly
confiscated be exluded under the authorizes a warrantless search and
exclusionary rule? seizure incident to a lawful arrest, thus:
There is no doubt that the warrantless
HELD: NO. Built into the Constitution are search incidental to a lawful arrest
guarantees on the freedom ofevery authorizes the arresting officer to make
individual against unreasonable searches a search upon the person of the person
and seizures by providing in Article III, arrested. As early as 1909, the Court has
Section 2, the following: ruled that "[a]n officer making an arrest
may take from the person arrested and
"The right of the people to be secure in money or property found upon his
their persons, houses, papers, and effects person which was used in the
against unreasonable searches and commission of the crime or was the fruit
seizures of whatever nature and for any of the crime or which might furnish the
purpose shall be inviolable, and no search prisoner with the means of committing
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue violence or of escaping, or which may be
except upon probable cause to be used as evidence in the trial of the
determined personally by the judge after cause." Hence, in a buy-bust operation
examination under oath or affirmation of conducted to entrap a drugpusher, the
the complainant and the witness he may law enforcement agents may seize the
produce, and particularly describing marked money found on the person of
the place to be searched and the persons the pusher immediately after the arrest
or things to be seized." even without arrest and search
warrants.
Furthermore, the Constitution, in
conformity with the doctrine laid down in In the case at bar, the NARCOM agents
Stonehill v. Diokno, 34 declares searched the person of the appellant after
inadmissible, any evidence obtained in

Page | 146
MENDIOLA, MANILA
arresting him in his house but found incident to lawful arrest, or some other
nothing. They then searched the entire legitimate reason for being present
house and, in the kitchen, found and unconnected with a search directed
seized a plastic bag hanging in a corner. against the accused - and permits the
The warrantless search and seizure, as an warrantless seizure. Of course, the
incident to a suspect's lawful arrest, may extension of the original justification is
extend beyond the person of the one legitimate only where it is immediately
arrested to include the premises or apparent to the police that they have
surroundings under his immediate control. evidence before them; the 'plain view'
Objects in the "plain view" of an officer doctrine may not be used to extend a
who has the right to be in the position general exploratory search from one
to have that view are subject to seizure object to another until something
and may be presented as evidence. incriminating at last emerges."
The " PLAIN VIEW " doctrine may not, It has also been suggested that even if
however, be used to launch unbridled an object is observed in "plain view," the
searches and indiscriminate seizures nor "plain view" doctrine will not justify the
to extend a general exploratory search seizure of the object where the
made solely to find evidence of incriminating nature of the object is not
defendant's guilt. The "PLAIN VIEW" apparent from the "plain view" of the
DOCTRINE is usually applied where a object. Stated differently, it must be
police officer is not searching for “ IMMEDIATELY APPARENT” to the
evidence against the accused, but police that the items that they observe
nonetheless inadvertently comes across may be evidence of a crime, contraband,
an incriminating object. Furthermore, or otherwise subject to seizure.
the U.S. Supreme Court stated the
following limitations on the application of In the instant case, the appellant was
the doctrine: arrested and his person searched in the
living room. Failing to retrieve the marked
"What the 'plain view' cases have in money which they hoped to find, the
common is that the police officer in each NARCOM agents searched the whole house
of them had a prior justification for an and found the plastic bag in the kitchen.
intrusion in the course of which he came The plastic bag was, therefore, not within
inadvertently across a piece of evidence their "plain view" when they arrested the
incriminating the accused. The doctrine appellant as to justify its seizure. The
serves to supplement the prior NARCOM agents had to move from one
justification - whether it be a warrant for portion of the house to another before they
another object, hot pursuit, search sighted the plastic bag. Unlike Ker v.


Page | 147
MENDIOLA, MANILA
California, where the police officer had marijuana contained in the plastic bag
reason to walk to the doorway of the was seized illegally and cannot be
adjacent kitchen and from which presented in evidence pursuant to Article
position he saw the marijuana, the III, Section 3(2) of the Constitution. The
NARCOM agents in this case went from exclusion of this particular evidence does
room to room with the obvious not, however, diminish, in any way, the
intention of fishing for more evidence. damaging effect of the other pieces of
evidence presented by the prosecution to
Moreover, when the NARCOM agents saw prove that the appellant sold marijuana,
the plastic bag hanging in one corner of in violation of Article II, Section 4 of the
the kitchen, they had no clue as to its Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. We hold
contents. They had to ask the appellant that by virtue of the testimonies of Sgt.
what the bag contained. When the Ani and T/Sgt. Belarga and the two
appellant refused to respond, they opened wrappings of marijuana sold by the
it and found the marijuana. Unlike Ker v. appellant to Sgt. Ani, among other pieces
California, where the marijuana was of evidence, the guilt of the appellant of
visible to the police officer's eyes, the the crime charged has been proved
NARCOM agents in this case could not beyond reasonable doubt.
have discovered the inculpatory nature
of the contents of the bag had they not
forcibly opened it. Even assuming then, SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO A LAWFUL
that the NARCOM agents inadvertently ARREST - While a valid search warrant is
came across the plastic bag because it was generally necessary before a search and
within their "plain view," what may be said seizure may be effected, exceptions to this
to be the object in their "plain view" was rule are recognized. Thus, in Alvero v.
just the plastic bag and not the marijuana. Dizon, the Court stated that. "[t]he most
The incriminating nature of the contents of important exception to the necessity for a
the plastic bag was not immediately search warrant is the right of search and
apparent from the "plain view" of said seizure as an incident to a lawful arrest."
object. It cannot be claimed that the Rule 126, Section 12 of the Rules of Court
plastic bag clearly betrayed its contents, expressly authorizes a warrantless search
whether by its distinctive configuration, and seizure incident to a lawful arrest,
its transparency, or otherwise, that its
thus:
contents are obvious to an observer.
Sec. 12. Search incident to lawful arrest.
We, therefore, hold that under the — A person lawfully arrested may be
circumstances of the case, the "plain searched for dangerous weapons or
view" doctrine does not apply and the anything which may be used as proof of


Page | 148
MENDIOLA, MANILA
the commission of an offense, without a Pedro Labita of Central Bank of the Philippines
search warrant. (CBP) [now Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP)]
went to the Theft and Robbery Section of Western
There is no doubt that the warrantless Police District Command (WPDC), and filed a
complaint for Qualified Theft against Santiago
search incidental to a lawful arrest Peralta, Armando Datuin, Jr., Ulysses Garcia,
authorizes the arresting officer to make a Miguelito de Leon, Librando Flores and Antonio S.
search upon the person of the person Loyola.
arrested. As early as 1909, the Court has
ruled that "[a]n officer making an arrest Pedro Labita submitted to SPO4 Cielito Coronel
may take from the person arrested any punctured currency notes in P100.00 and P500.00
bills with a face value of Php194,190.00 allegedly
money or property found upon his person recovered by the BSP Cash Department during its
which was used in the commission of the cash counting of punctured currency bills
crime or was the fruit of the crime or submitted by different banks to the latter. The
which might furnish the prisoner with the punctured bills were rejected by the BSP money
means of committing violence or of counter machine and were later submitted to the
investigation staff of the BSP Cash Department.
escaping, or which may be used as
evidence in the trial of the cause . . . " As a result of the investigation, it was determined
Hence, in a buy-bust operation conducted that said rejected currency bills were actually
to entrap a drug-pusher, the law punctured notes already due for shredding
enforcement agents may seize the marked because they were no longer intended for
money found on the person of the pusher circulation. Before these notes could be shredded,
they were stolen from the BSP by the above-
immediately after the arrest even without named accused.
arrest and search warrants.
On the basis of the complaint Ulysses Garcia was
If search made in the sala, may extend apprehended in front of Golden Gate Subdivision,
to kitchen? Las Pinas City, while waiting for a passenger bus
- No, unless plain view doctrine on his way to the BSP. Garcia was brought to the
applies. Plain view doctrine police station for investigation. While in the
custody of the police officers, Garcia gave three
applies when evidence is
separate statements admitting his guilt and
inadvertently discovered without participation in the crime charged and identified
further search. the other named accused as his cohorts and
accomplices and narrated the participation of each
and everyone of them.
On the basis of Garcias sworn statements, the

other named accused were invited for questioning
at the police station and were subsequently
PEOPLE VS PERALTA charged with qualified theft together with Garcia.
Facts:


Page | 149
MENDIOLA, MANILA
The trial court found that all the accused Garcia without a warrant, while he had
used to work for the BSP. Garcia was a merely been waiting for a passenger bus
driver assigned to the Security and after being pointed out by the Cash
Transport Department; while Peralta, Department personnel of the BSP. At the
Datuin Jr., De Leon, Flores and Loyola time of his arrest, he had not committed,
were laborers assigned to the Currency was not committing, and was not about to
Retirement Division. Their main task was commit any crime. Neither was he acting
to haul perforated currency notes from in a manner that would engender a
the currency retirement vault to the reasonable ground to suspect that he was
basement of the BSP building for committing a crime. None of the
shredding. circumstances justifying an arrest without
a warrant under Section 5 of Rule 113 of
On several occasions, during 1990-1992,
the Rules of Court was present.
they handed to Garcia perforated
currency notes placed in a coin sack that Hence, Garcia was not lawfully arrested.
he, loaded in an armored escort van and Nonetheless, not having raised the matter
delivered to someone waiting outside the before entering his plea, he is deemed to
premises of the building. have waived the illegality of his arrest.
The trial court held that the coordinated WAIVER LIMITED TO ARREST ONLY -
acts of all the accused led to the Note, however, that this waiver is limited
conclusion that they had conspired to to the arrest. It does not extend to the
pilfer the perforated currency notes search made as an incident thereto or to
belonging to the BSP. the subsequent seizure of evidence
The RTC rejected the disclaimer by Garcia allegedly found during the search.
of his own confessions. The trial court
found his allegations of torture and INSTANCES WHEN SEARCHES MAY BE
coerced confessions unsupported by MADE WITHOUT WARRANT - Without a
evidence. Moreover, it held that the judicial warrant, these are allowed only
recovery of three pieces of under the following exceptional
perforated P100 bills from Garcias wallet circumstances: (1) a search incident to a
and the flight of Peralta and Datuin Jr. lawful arrest, (2) seizure of evidence in
were indicative of the guilt of the accused. plain view, (3) search of a moving motor
vehicle, (4) customs search, (5) stop and
frisk situations, and (6) consented search.
Ruling/Doctrines: WHEN ARREST IS ILLEGAL,
SUBSEQUENT SEARCH IS LIKEWISE
WAIVER OF RAISING THE ILLEGALITY ILLEGAL - Where the arrest was
OF AN ARREST - The police arrested incipiently illegal, it follows that the

Page | 150
MENDIOLA, MANILA
subsequent search was similarly according to the facts of each case. Where,
illegal.[ Any evidence obtained in for example, the officer merely draws
violation of the constitutional provision is aside the curtain of a vacant vehicle which
legally inadmissible in evidence under the is parked on the public fair grounds, or
exclusionary rule. simply looks into a vehicle, or flashes a
light therein, these do not constitute
Note: The conspicuous illegality of the unreasonable search. The setting up of
arrest cannot affect the jurisdiction of the the questioned checkpoints in Valenzuela
trial court, because even in instances not (and probably in other areas) may be
allowed by law, a warrantless arrest is not considered as a security measure to
a jurisdictional defect, and any objection enable the NCRDC to pursue its mission of
thereto is waived when the person establishing effective territorial defense
arrested submits to arraignment without and maintaining peace and order for the
any objection (Nachura) benefit of the public. Checkpoints may
also be regarded as measures to thwart
plots to destabilize the government, in the
RECIT: interest of public security.
People vs Peralta - the waiver of arrest In this connection, the Court may take
does not entail the waiver of legality of judicial notice of the shift to urban centers
seizure. and their suburbs of the insurgency
movement, so clearly reflected in the
HYPO: Police officers went to a party,
increased killings in cities of police and
and discovered drugs, is there a
military men by NPA "sparrow units," not
seizure? to mention the abundance of unlicensed
- No Seizure because there is no firearms and the alarming rise in
lawlessness and violence in such urban
valid intrusion.
centers, not all of which are reported in
media, most likely brought about by
deteriorating economic conditions —
Valmonte vs. De Villa [G.R. No. 83988, which all sum up to what one can rightly
September 29, 1989] consider, at the very least, as abnormal
CHECKPOINTS, VALID. Not all searches state to protect its existence and promote
and seizures are prohibited. Those which public welfare and an individual's right
are reasonable are not forbidden. A against a warrantless search which is
reasonable search is not to be determined however reasonably conducted, the
by any fixed formula but is to be resolved former should prevail.


Page | 151
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Metro Manila and elsewhere as

True, the manning of checkpoints by the unconstitutional. In the alternative, they
military is susceptible of abuse by the prayed that respondents Renato De Villa
men in uniform, in the same manner that and the National Capital Region District
all governmental power is susceptible of Command (NCRDC) be directed to
abuse. But, at the cost of occasional formulate guidelines in the
inconvenience, discomfort and even implementation of checkpoints for the
irritation to the citizen, the checkpoints protection of the people. Petitioners
during these abnormal times, when contended that the checkpoints gave the
conducted within reasonable limits, are respondents blanket authority to make
part of the price we pay for an orderly searches and seizures without search
society and a peaceful community. warrant or court order in violation of the
Constitution.
VALMONTE VS DE VILLA ISSUE: Whether the warrantless search

and seizure without in the present case is
Facts: illegal.
On 20 January 1987, the National Capital
HELD: No. Petitioners' concern for their
Region District Command (NCRDC) was
safety and apprehension at being
activated pursuant to Letter of Instruction
harassed by the military manning the
02/87 of the Philippine General
checkpoints are not sufficient grounds to
Headquarters, AFP, with the mission of
conducting security operations within its declare the checkpoints as per se illegal.
area of responsibility and peripheral No proof has been presented before the
Court to show that, in the course of their
areas, for the purpose of establishing an
routine checks, the military indeed
effective territorial defense, maintaining
peace and order, and providing an committed specific violations of
petitioners' right against unlawful search
atmosphere conducive to the social,
and seizure or other rights. The
economic and political development of
constitutional right against unreasonable
the National Capital Region. As part of its
searches and seizures is a personal right
duty to maintain peace and order, the
invocable only by those whose rights have
NCRDC installed checkpoints in various
been infringed, or threatened to be
parts of Valenzuela, Metro Manila.
infringed. What constitutes a reasonable
Petitioners Atty. Ricardo Valmonte, who is or unreasonable search and seizure in any
a resident of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, particular case is purely a judicial
and the Union of Lawyers and Advocates question, determinable from a
For People’s Rights (ULAP) sought the consideration of the circumstances
declaration of checkpoints in Valenzuela, involved.

Page | 152
MENDIOLA, MANILA
centers and their suburbs of the insurgency

Petitioner Valmonte's general allegation movement, so clearly reflected in the
to the effect that he had been stopped and increased killings in cities of police and
searched without a search warrant by the military men by NPA "sparrow units," not
military manning the checkpoints, to mention the abundance of unlicensed
without more, i.e., without stating the firearms and the alarming rise in
details of the incidents which amount to a lawlessness and violence in such urban
violation of his right against unlawful centers, not all of which are reported in
search and seizure, is not sufficient to media, most likely brought about by
enable the Court to determine whether deteriorating economic conditions ----
there was a violation of Valmonte's right which all sum up to what one can rightly
against unlawful search and seizure. Not consider, at the very least, as abnormal
all searches and seizures are prohibited. times.
Those which are reasonable are not
forbidden. A reasonable search is not to Between the inherent right of the state
be determined by any fixed formula but is to protect its existence and promote
to be resolved according to the facts of public welfare and an individual's right
each case. against a warrantless search which is
however reasonably conducted, the
Where, for example, the officer merely former should prevail. True, the
draws aside the curtain of a vacant manning of checkpoints by the military
vehicle which is parked on the public is susceptible of abuse by the men in
fair grounds, 7 or simply looks into a uniform, in the same manner that all
vehicle, or flashes a light therein, these governmental power is susceptible of
do not constitute unreasonable search. abuse. But, at the cost of occasional
The setting up of the questioned inconvenience, discomfort and even
checkpoints in Valenzuela (and irritation to the citizen, the checkpoints
probably in other areas) may be during these abnormal times, when
considered as a security measure to conducted within reasonable limits, are
enable the NCRDC to pursue its mission part of the price we pay for an orderly
of establishing effective territorial society and a peaceful community.
defense and maintaining peace and
order for the benefit of the public.
Checkpoints may also be regarded as CHECKPOINTS, VALID - Not all searches
measures to thwart plots to destabilize and seizures are prohibited. Those which
the government, in the interest of public are reasonable are not forbidden. A
security. In this connection, the Court may reasonable search is not to be determined
take judicial notice of the shift to urban by any fixed formula but is to be resolved
according to the facts of each case.

Page | 153
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Where, for example, the officer merely True, the manning of checkpoints by the
draws aside the curtain of a vacant military is susceptible of abuse by the
vehicle which is parked on the public fair men in uniform, in the same manner that
grounds, or simply looks into a vehicle, or all governmental power is susceptible of
flashes a light therein, these do not abuse. But, at the cost of occasional
constitute unreasonable search. inconvenience, discomfort and even
irritation to the citizen, the checkpoints
The setting up of the questioned during these abnormal times, when
checkpoints in Valenzuela (and probably conducted within reasonable limits, are
in other areas) may be considered as a part of the price we pay for an orderly
security measure to enable the NCRDC to society and a peaceful community.
pursue its mission of establishing
effective territorial defense and
maintaining peace and order for the
benefit of the public. Checkpoints may CAN A HEAVILY TINTED VEHICLE BE
also be regarded as measures to thwart REQUIRED TO ROLL DOWN WINDOWS?
plots to destabilize the government, in the
- No. The lAw does not distinguish
interest of public security. In this
connection, the Court may take judicial visual search.
notice of the shift to urban centers and HOW ABOUT AERIAL SATURATION
their suburbs of the insurgency
DRIVES?
movement, so clearly reflected in the
increased killings in cities of police and - Yes they are valid, provided that
military men by NPA "sparrow units," not the constitutional rights are
to mention the abundance of unlicensed
respected.
firearms and the alarming rise in
lawlessness and violence in such urban Q: Yung car may curtain, may the PO
centers, not all of which are reported in request that it be opened? How about
media, most likely brought about by compartments?
deteriorating economic conditions — - A: Yes. Nasa book yata ni Bernas. ?
which all sum up to what one can rightly
consider, at the very least, as abnormal
state to protect its existence and promote
public welfare and an individual's right NACHURA
against a warrantless search which is
Search of moving vehicles. A
however reasonably conducted, the
warrantless search of a moving vehicle is
former should prevail. justified on the ground that it is not


Page | 154
MENDIOLA, MANILA
practicable to secure a warrant because either the motorist is a law

the vehicle can be moved quickly out of offender or they will find the
the locality or jurisdiction in which the instrumentality or evidence
warrant may be sought. Searches without pertaining to a crime in the vehicle
warrant of automobiles are also allowed to be searched [Caballes v. Court
for the purpose of preventing violations of of Appeals, G.R. No. 136292,
smuggling or immigration laws, provided January 15, 2002; People v.
that such searches are made at borders or Libnao, G.R. No. 136860, January
“constructive borders”, like checkpoints 20, 2003].
near the boundary lines of the State.
iia) In Caballes,
i) One such form of search is the petitioner’s vehicle
“stop and search” without a was flagged down
warrant at military or police because the police
checkpoints, which has been officers on routine
declared not to be illegal per se so patrol became
long as it is required by the suspicious when
exigencies of public order and they saw that the
conducted in a way least intrusive back of the vehicle
to motorists [Valmonte v. de Villa, was covered with
178 SCRA 211]. kakawati leaves. The
fact that the vehicle
ii) A checkpoint search may either looked suspicious
be a mere routine inspection, or it because it is not
may involve an extensive search. common for such to
For a mere routine inspection, the be covered with
search is normally permissible kakawati leaves does
when it is limited to a mere visual not constitute
search, where the occupants are probable cause as
not subjected to a physical or body would justify the
search. On the other hand, when search without a
the vehicle is stopped and warrant.
subjected to an extensive search, it
would be constitutionally iib) On the other
permissible only if the officers hand, in L/bnao, it
conducting the search had was held that the
reasonable or probable cause to warrantless search
believe, before the search, that was not bereft of


Page | 155
MENDIOLA, MANILA
probable cause. The

Tarlac Police
Intelligence Division iic) In People v.
had been conducting Vinecario, G.R. No.
surveillance 141137, January 20.
operations for three 2004, when the
months in the area. appellants sped
The surveillance away after noticing
yielded the the checkpoint and
information that even after having
once a month, been flagged down
appellant and her by police officers,
co-accused transport their suspicious and
drugs in big bulks. At nervous gestures
10 p.m. of October when interrogated
19, 1996, the police on the contents of
received a tip that the backpack which
the two will be they passed to one
transporting drugs another, the reply of
that night riding a Vinecario that he
tricycle. The two was a member of the
were intercepted Philippine Army,
three hours later, apparently in an
riding a tricycle and attempt to dissuade
carrying a suspicious the policemen from
looking bag, which proceeding with the
possibly contained inspection, and the
the drugs in bulk. smell of marijuana
When they were that emanated from
asked who owned it the package
and what its content wrapped in paper:
was, both became all these showed
uneasy. Under these probable cause to
circumstances, the justify a reasonable
warrantless search belief on the part of
and seizure of the law enforcers
appellant’s bag was that the appellants
not illegal. were offenders of


Page | 156
MENDIOLA, MANILA
the law and the described to the satisfaction of the

contents of the issuing judge — a requirement
backpack were which borders on the impossible in
instruments used in, the case of smuggling effected by
or subject of the the use of a moving vehicle that
offense. can transport contraband from one
place to another with impunity. It
iii) Some cases. In People v. is not practicable to secure a
Balingan, 241 SCRA 277, the warrant because the vehicle can be
search of the luggage of a quickly moved out of the locality
passenger in a bus after the or jurisdiction in which the
officers had tailed the bus for 15 to warrant must be sought. In this
20 minutes was held valid because case, the ruling in Aminnudin was
of a tip received by the officers. held not applicable, because the
This reiterates the ruling in People police authorities had already
v. Lo Ho Wing, 193 SCRA 122, identified the shabu dealer, and
where the Court gave approval to a even if they did not know the time
warrantless search done on a he would show up in the vicinity
taxicab which eventually yielded and were uncertain what type of
shabu because of a confidential vehicle he would use, there was
report made by an informer. In probable cause inasmuch as the
Mustang Lumber v. Court of same police officers had a previous
Appeals, 257 SCRA 430, the encounter with the petitioner who
Supreme Court declared that the was then able to evade arrest.
search of a moving vehicle is one of
the doctrinally accepted iiia) However, in Bagalihog
exceptions to the rule that no v. Fernandez, 198 SCRA
search or seizure shall be made 615, where respondent
except by virtue of a warrant Roxas confiscated and
issued by a judge. impounded petitioner’s
motorcycle which was
The rationale for this exception, as believed one of the vehicles
explained by the Court in used by the killers of Rep.
Asuncion v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Moises Espinosa, the
No. 125959, February 1, 1999, is Supreme Court ruled that
that before a warrant could be the confiscation, without
obtained, the place, things and warrant, was unlawful. The
persons to be searched must be constitutional provision


Page | 157
MENDIOLA, MANILA
protects not only those who confiscation of the magazines; they were
appear to be innocent but not possessed of a lawful court order
also those who appear to be
guilty but are nevertheless (i) finding the materials to be
presumed innocent until pornographic, and
the contrary is proved. The
necessity for the immediate (ii) authorizing them to carry out a
seizure of the motorcycle search and seizure. To justify a
had not been established; warrantless search as an
neither can the vehicle be incident to a lawful arrest, the
detained on the ground that arrest must be on account of a
it is a prohibited article. In crime having been committed.
Valmonte, the rationale for Here, no party has been
allowing the “checkpoints” charged, neither is any charge
was to enable the NCRRDC being pressed against any
to pursue its mission of party. The Supreme Court
establishing effective outlined the procedure to be
territorial defense and followed, thus: a criminal
maintaining peace and charge must be brought against
order for the benefit of the the person/s for purveying the
public. After all, as held in pornographic materials; an
the resolution on the application for a search and
motion for reconsideration, seizure warrant obtained from
the inspection is limited to the judge (who shall determine
a visual search, and neither the existence of probable cause
the vehicle nor the before issuing such warrant);
occupants are subjected to the materials confiscated
a search. brought to court in the
prosecution of the accused for
the crime charged; the court
will determine whether the
confiscated items are really
ADDED NOTES FROM NACHURA
pornographic, and the
Seizure of allegedly pornographic judgment of acquittal or
materials. In Pita v. Court of Appeals, conviction rendered by the
178 SCRA 362, it was held that the court accordingly.
respondents had not shown the required
proof to justify a ban and to warrant


Page | 158
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Inspection of buildings and other cause the warrant to be executed within

premises for the enforcement of fire, ten (10) days from its receipt. Within ten
sanitary and building regulations. This (10) days after the expiration of the
is basically an exercise of the police period, the officer to whom it was
power of the State, and would not require assigned for execution shall make a report
a search warrant. These are routine to the judge who issued the warrant. In
inspections which, however, must be case of his failure to execute the warrant,
conducted during reasonable hours. he shall state the reason therefore.
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when

lawful. – A peace officer or a private
RULE 113 - ARREST person may, without a warrant, arrest a
person:
Section 1. Definition of arrest. – Arrest
is the taking of a person into custody in (a) When, in his presence, the person to
order that he may be bound to answer for be arrested has committed, is actually
the commission of an offense. committing, or is attempting to commit an
offense;
Sec. 2. Arrest; how made. – An arrest is
made by an actual restraint of a person to (b) When an offense has just been
be arrested, or by his submission to the committed and he has probable cause to
custody of the person making the arrest. believe based on personal knowledge of
facts or circumstances that the person to
No violence or unnecessary force shall be be arrested has committed it; and
used in making an arrest. The person
arrested shall not be subject to a greater (c) When the person to be arrested is a
restraint than is necessary for his prisoner who has escaped from a penal
detention. establishment or place where he is
serving final judgment or is temporarily
Sec. 3. Duty of arresting officer. – It confined while his case is pending, or has
shall be the duty of the officer executing escaped while being transferred from one
the warrant to arrest the accused and confinement to another.
deliver him to the nearest police station
or jail without unnecessary delay. In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and
(b) above, the person arrested without a
Sec. 4. Execution of warrant. – The head warrant shall be forthwith delivered to
of the office to whom the warrant of the nearest police station or jail and shall
arrest was delivered for execution shall be proceeded against in accordance with


Page | 159
MENDIOLA, MANILA
section 7 of Rule 112. private person shall inform the person to

be arrested of the intention to arrest him
Sec. 6. Time of making arrest. – An and the case of the arrest, unless the latter
arrest may be made on any day and at any is either engaged in the commission of an
time of the day or night. offense, is pursued immediately after its
commission, or has escaped, flees, or
Sec. 7. Method of arrest by officer by forcibly resists before the person making
virtue of warrant. the arrest has opportunity to so inform
– When making an arrest by virtue of a him, or when the giving of such
warrant, the officer shall inform the information will imperil the arrest.
person to be arrested of the cause of the
arrest and the fact that a warrant has Sec. 10. Officer may summon
been issued for his arrest, except when he assistance. – An officer making a lawful
flees or forcibly resists before the officer arrest may orally summon as many
has opportunity to so inform him, or persons as he deems necessary to assist
when the giving of such information will him in effecting the arrest. Every person
imperil the arrest. The officer need not so summoned by an officer shall assist
have the warrant in his possession at the him in effecting the arrest when he can
time of the arrest but after the arrest, if render such assistance without detriment
the person arrested so requires, the to himself.
warrant shall be shown to him as soon as
practicable. Sec. 11. Right of officer to break into
building or enclosure. – An officer, in
Sec. 8. Method of arrest by officer order to make an arrest either by virtue of
without warrant. – When making an a warrant, or without a warrant as
arrest without a warrant, the officer shall provided in section 5, may break into any
inform the person to be arrested of his building or enclosure where the person to
authority and the cause of the arrest, be arrested is or is reasonably believed to
unless the latter is either engaged in the be, if he is refused admittance thereto,
commission of an offense, is pursued after announcing his authority and
immediately after its commission, has purpose.
escaped, flees, or forcibly resists before
the officer has opportunity to so inform Sec. 12. Right to break out from
him, or when the giving of such building or enclosure. – Whenever an
information will imperil the arrest. officer has entered the building or
enclosure in accordance with the
Sec. 9. Method of arrest by private preceding section, he may break out
person. – When making an arrest, a therefrom when necessary to liberate


Page | 160
MENDIOLA, MANILA
himself. filed with the following:
Sec. 13. Arrest after escape or rescue. – (a) Any court within whose territorial
If a person lawfully arrested escapes or is jurisdiction a crime was committed.
rescued, any person may immediately
pursue or retake him without a warrant (b) For compelling reasons stated in the
at any time and in any place within the application, any court within the judicial
Philippines. region where the crime was committed if
the place of the commission of the crime
Sec. 14. Right of attorney or relative to is known, or any court within the judicial
visit person arrested. – Any member of region where the warrant shall be
the Philippine Bar shall, at the request of enforced.
the person arrested or of another acting
in his behalf, have the right to visit and However, if the criminal action has
confer privately with such person in the already been filed, the application shall
jail or any other place of custody at any only be made in the court where the
hour of the day or night. Subject to criminal action is pending.
reasonable regulations, a relative of the
person arrested can also exercise the Sec. 3. Personal property to be seized. –
same right. A search warrant may be issued for the
search and seizure of personal property:
(a) Subject of the offense;
RULE 126 - SEARCH AND SEIZURE (b) Stolen or embezzled and other
proceeds, or fruits of the offense; or
Section 1. Search warrant defined. – A
search warrant is an order in writing (c) Used or intended to be used as the
issued in the name of the People of the means of committing an offense.
Philippines, signed by a judge and
directed to a peace officer, commanding Sec. 4. Requisites for issuing search
him to search for personal property warrant. – A search warrant shall not
described therein and bring it before the issue except upon probable cause in
court. connection with one specific offense to be
determined personally by the judge after
Sec. 2. Court where application for examination under oath or affirmation of
search warrant shall be filed. – An the complainant and the witness he may
application for search warrant shall be produce, and particularly describing the


Page | 161
MENDIOLA, MANILA
place to be searched and the things to be room, or any other premises shall be
seized which may be anywhere in the made except in the presence of the lawful
Philippines. occupant thereof or any member of his
family or in the absence of the latter, two
Sec. 5. Examination of complainant; witnesses of sufficient age and discretion
record. – The judge must, before issuing residing in the same locality.
the warrant, personally examine in the
form of searching questions and answers, Sec. 9. Time of making search. – The
in writing and under oath, the warrant must direct that it be served in
complainant and the witnesses he may the day time, unless the affidavit asserts
produce on facts personally known to that the property is on the person or in
them and attach to the record their sworn the place ordered to be searched, in which
statements, together with the affidavits case a direction may be inserted that it be
submitted. served at any time of the day or night.
Sec. 6. Issuance and form of search Sec. 10. Validity of search warrant. – A
warrant. – If the judge is satisfied of the search warrant shall be valid for ten (10)
existence of facts upon which the days from its date. Thereafter, it shall be
application is based or that there is void.
probable cause to believe that they exist,
he shall issue the warrant, which must be Sec. 11. Receipt for the property seized.
substantially in the form prescribed by – The officer seizing the property under
these Rules. the warrant must give a detailed receipt
for the same to the lawful occupant of the
Sec. 7. Right to break door or window premises in whose presence the search
to effect search. – The officer, if refused and seizure were made, or in the absence
admittance to the place of directed search of such occupant, must, in the presence of
after giving notice of his purpose and at least two witnesses of sufficient age
authority, may break open any outer or and discretion residing in the same
inner door or window of a house or any locality, leave a receipt in the place in
part of a house or anything therein to which he found the seized property.
execute the warrant to liberate himself or
any person lawfully aiding him when Sec. 12. Delivery of property and
unlawfully detained therein. inventory thereof to court; return and
proceedings thereon. –
Sec. 8. Search of house, room, or (a) The officer must forthwith deliver the
premises to be made in presence of property seized to the judge who issued
two witnesses. – No search of a house, the warrant, together with a true


Page | 162
MENDIOLA, MANILA
inventory thereof duly verified under and acted upon only by the court where
oath. the action has been instituted. If no
criminal action has been instituted, the
(b) Ten (10) days after issuance of the motion may be filed in and resolved by
search warrant, the issuing judge shall the court that issued search warrant.
ascertain if the return has been made, and However, if such court failed to resolve
if none, shall summon the person to the motion and a criminal case is
whom the warrant was issued and subsequently filed in another court, the
require him to explain why no return was motion shall be resolved by the latter
made. If the return has been made, the court.
judge shall ascertain whether section 11
of this Rule has been complied with and
shall require that the property seized be
delivered to him. The judge shall see to it
that subsection (a) hereof has been ALBA-NOTES
complied with.
(c) The return on the search warrant shall Q- State the constitutional guarantee
be filed and kept by the custodian of the on the right of the people against
log book on search warrants who shall unreasonable searches and seizures
enter therein the date of the return, the
result, and other actions of the judge. ANS - the Constitution provides that
“the right of the people to be secure in
A violation of this section shall constitute their persons, houses, papers and effects
contempt of court. against a reasonable searches and
seizures whatever nature and for any
Sec. 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. purpose shall be inviolable, and no search
– A person lawfully arrested may be or warrant of arrest shall issue exit upon
searched for dangerous weapons or probable cause to be determined
anything which may have been used or personally by the judge after examination
constitute proof in the commission of an under oath or affirmation of the
offense without a search warrant. complainant and the witnesses he may
produce, and particularly describing the
Sec. 14. Motion to quash a search place to be searched and the persons or
warrant or to suppress evidence; things to be seized.
where to file. – A motion to quash a
search warrant and/or to suppress Q- when a search warrant considered
evidence obtained thereby may be filed in valid? Explain.


Page | 163
MENDIOLA, MANILA
ANS - a search warrant to be valid, evidence of crime. It is in nature of a

particularly describing the place to be criminal process restricted to cases of
searched and things to be seized. The public prosecutions. A search warrant is a
officers of the law are to seize only those police weapon issued under police power.
things particularly described in the search Hey search warrant must issue in the
warrant. A search warrant is not a name of the state namely the people of
sweeping authority and power in a raging the Philippines.
party to undertake a fishing expedition to
season confiscate any and all kinds of A search warrant has no relation to a civil
evidence or articles relating to a crime. process. It is not a process for
The search is limited in scope so as not to adjudicating civil rights for maintaining
be general or explanatory. Nothing is left mere private rights. It concerns the public
to the discretion of the officer executing at large as distinguished from the
the warrant ordinary similar action involving the
rights of private persons. It may only be
applied for in the furthermore of public
prosecution
Q- what is the nature of a search
warrant proceeding? Explain.
ANS - a search warrant proceeding is, Q- me a private individual complaining

in no sense, a criminal action or the to the NBI or a government agency
commencement of a prosecution. The participate in file pleadings in the
preceding is not one against any person search warrant proceedings to
but solely for the discovery and to get maintain the validity of the search
possession of personal property. It is a warrant? Explain.
special and peculiar remedy drastic in
nature and made necessary because of ANS - yes. A private individual or a private
public necessity. It resembles in some corporation complaining to the NBI or
respects with what is commonly known government agencies charge to the
as John doe proceedings. When an enforcement of special penal laws, such
application for search warrant is entitled
like a criminal action it does not make it
such an action.
Q- What is a “scatter-shot warrant?” Is
The search warrant is legal process which it valid? Why?
has been likened to a writ of discovery
employed by the state to procure relevant


Page | 164
MENDIOLA, MANILA
ANS- A “scatter-shot warrant” is a search 216 SCRA 101 (1992)). In fact, a careful
warrant issued for more than one (1) perusal of the application for warrant
specific offense, like violation of P.D. No. shows that the applicant did not allege
1866 and R.A. No. 1700. It is void because any specific act performed by the
it violates the constitutional requirement petitioner constituting a violation of any
that there must be particularity of the of the aforementioned offenses. The
things to be seized and persons and warrant must be struck down for having
places to be searched. (Leon Tambasen vs. been issued in contravention of
People, et al., 62 SCAD 679, G.R. No. 8104, Constitution and Rules of Court. (Vallejeo
July 14, 1995). vs. CA, et al., No. 156413, April 14, 2004).
Q- A search warrant was issued (2) The contention that the warrant is
directing the peace officers to search void for lack of particularity is correct.
and seize undetermined number of The things to be seized must be described
fake titles, official receipts, etc., blank with particularity. Technical precision of
titles and undetermined number of description is not required. It is only
land transfer transactions kept at the necessary that there be reasonable
office of the Register of deeds, Ilagan, particularity and certainty as to the
Isabela. The OSG submitted a position identity of the property to be searched for
paper that the warrant was a complete and seized, so that the warrant shall not
nullity due to the following reasons: be a mere roving commission. (U.S. vs.
(1) it was issued for three (3) separate Quantity of Extracts, Bottles, Etc., 54 F. 2d
offenses (Arts.171, 213, RPC, and R.A. 643 (1931). Indeed, the law does not
No. 3019); (2) the things sought to be require that the things to be seized must
searched and seized were not be described in precise and minute detail
particularly described. Rule on the as to leave no room for doubt on the part
contention of the OSG. Explain. of the searching authorities. If this were
the rule, it would be virtually
ANS- (1) The contention is correct that
the search warrant is a patent nullity Impossible for the applicants to obtain a
because it was issued for three (3) warrant as they would not know exactly
separate offenses. It should be issued only what kind of things to look for. (Kho vs,
for a specific offense. A warrant must be Macalintal, 306 SCRA 70 (1999). Any
issued upon probable cause in connection description of the place or thing to be
with one specific offense. (Sec. 4, Rule searched that will enable the officer
126, RRC), otherwise, it is a more scatter- making the search with reasonable
shot warrant for having been issued for certainty to locate such place or thing is
more than one offense. (People vs. CA, sufficient. (Boarders vs. State, 104 So. 145


Page | 165
MENDIOLA, MANILA
(1925); Vallejo vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. seized, is repugnant to the constitution.
156413, April 14, 2004). (Rep. vs. SB, supra.; People vs. Veloso, 48
Phil. 169 (1925); Vallejo vs. CA, et al., G.R.
No. 156413, April 14, 2004).
Q- Discuss the effect of a general

warrant. Explain.
Q- Search warrant No. 365 was issued
ANS- The requirement that search to search for subversive documents
warrants shall particularly describe the and illegally possessed arms and
things to be seized makes general ammunitions. During the search, two
searches under them impossible and (2) envelopes containing the amount of
prevents the seizure of one thing under a P14,000.00 were seized together with
warrant describing another. As to what it the above-mentioned documents and
is to be taken, nothing is left to thhe ammunitions. Can the owner file a
discretion of the officer executing the motion for the Return of the money?
warrant, (Standford, Jr. vs. Texas , 379 U.S. Why?
476 (1965),13 L. e. 2d 431). Thus, the
specific property to be searched for ANS- Yes, because the money was not
should be so particularly described as to indicated in the search warrant, hence,
preclude any possibility of seizing any illegally seized. The fact that the members
other property. (Lea vs. State, 181 S.W. of the police were doing their task
351 (1994). pursuing subversives is not a valid excuse
for illegal seizure. The presumption juris
The tenor of a seizure warrant which is to tantum of regularity in the performance
all embracing contravenes the explicit of official duty cannot by itself prevail
command of the Constitution that there against the constitutionally protected
be a particular description of the things to rights of an individual. (Tambasen vs.
be seized. (Rep. vs. SB, 225 SCRA 438 People, et al., 62 SCAD 679, G.R. No.
(1996)). The executing officer’s sole 89103,, July 14, 1995).
function is to apply the description to its
subject matter, which function may
frequently involve the exercise of limited
discretion in identifying the property Q- What is the basis of the power to
described. A description of such search? Is its exercise absolute?
generality, however, as to lodge in the Explain.
executing officer virtually unlimited
discretion as to what property shall be


Page | 166
MENDIOLA, MANILA
ANS: It is based on public policy. the respondent Ramas objected to the

However, in Tambasen vs. People, et al., presentation of such objects claiming
62 SCAD 679, G.R. No. 898103, July 14, that the search warrant was merely to
1995, it was said that although public seize 5 baby armalites and five boxes
welfare is the foundation of the power to of ammunition. In short, he invoked
search and seize, such power must be the exclusionary rule as far as the
exercised and the law enforced without other objects are concerned. The
transgressing the constitutional rights of Republic however contended that
the citizens. (People v Damaso, supra, since the search was made after
citing Rodriguez v Evangelista, 65 Phil. February 1986 Revolution, the
230, 235 [1937]). As the Court aptly puts revolutionary government effectively
it in Bagalihog v Fernandez, 198 SCRA withheld the operation of the 1973
(1991), zeal in the pursuit of criminals Constitution which guaranteed his
cannot ennoble the use of arbitrary exclusionary right. It further
methods that the Constitution itself contended that the exclusionary right
abhors. arising from an illegal search applies
only beginning February 2, 1987, the
date of the ratification of the 1987
Constitution. It contended that all
Q- After the February 1986 Revolution, rights under the Bill of Rights had
a Constabulary raiding team served a already reverted to its embryonic
search warrant at the house of a stage at the time of the search, hence,
certain Elizabeth Dimaano, a perceived the government may confiscate the
mistress of Gen. Josephus Ramas and monies and items taken from Dimaano
who used to be her secretary. The and use the same in evidence against
raiding team seized one baby armalite her and Gen. Ramas as they did not
rifle with magazines; 40 rounds of 5.56 enjoy any constitutional right.
caliber ammunitions; one pistol, .45
caliber; communication equipment; 1. State the effect of the 1986
P2,870,000.00 and US$50,000 in cash; February Revolution on the
pieces of jewelry and titles. He was 1973 Constitution. Explain.
investigated and charged with
illegally-gotten wealth pursuant to E.O. Ans- The 1986 February Revolution was
No. vesting the PCGG with the power to done in defiance of the provisions of the
recover all ill-gotten wealth of former 1973 Constitution. The resulting
President Marcos, his immediate government was indisputably a
family, relatives, subordinates, close revolutionary government bound by no
associates. All the pieces of evidence constitution or legal limitations except
seized were sought to be presented but

Page | 167
MENDIOLA, MANILA
treaty obligations that the revolutionary during that interregnum. (Republic v SB,
government, as the de jure government, et al., supra)
assumed under international law. The Bill
of Rights under the 1973 Constitution was 3. State the effect if the Bill of
inoperative during that period, as it was Rights under the 1973
abrogated by the Revolutionary Constitution remained
government. But since the Philippines is a operative during the
signatory to the International Covenant
interregnum or during the
on Civil and Political Rights and the
Human Declaration of Human Rights, the Revolutionary government?
protection accorded to individuals under Explain.
the same remained in effect even without
the 1973 Constitution. (Republic v SB, Maj. Ans- It render void all sequestration
Gen. Josephus Ramas, et al., G.R. No. orders issued by the PCGG before the
104768, July 21, 2003). adoption of the Freedom Constitution.
The sequestration orders, which direct
2. If the 1973 Constitution was the freezing and even the take-over of
abrogated by the Revolutionary private property by mere executive
government, what was the issuance without judicial action, would
violate the due process and search and
supreme law then at that time?
seizure clauses of the Bill of Rights.
Explain. During the interregnum the government
in power was concededly a revolutionary
Ans- During the interregnum (from the government bound by no constitution. No
time of the Revolutionary government up one could validly question the
to February 2, 1987), the directives and sequestration orders as violative of the
orders of the revolutionary government Bill of Rights because there was no Bill of
were the supreme law because no Rights at that time. (Republic v SB, et, al.,
constitution limited the extent and scope supra).
of such directives and orders. With the
abrogation of the 1973 Constitution by
the successful resolution, there was no
municipal higher than the directives and Q- Upon the adoption of the Freedom
orders of the revolutionary government. Constitution, the sequestered
Thus, during the interregnum, a person companies questioned the
could not invoke any exclusionary right sequestration orders and their
under a Bill of Rights because there was continued sequestration. Decide.
neither a constitution nor a Bill of Rights


Page | 168
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Ans- The sequestration can continue. The the Covenant requires each signatory
Freedom Constitution and later the 1987 State to respect and ensure to all
Constitution expressly recognized the individuals within its territory and
validity of sequestration orders. The subject to its jurisdiction the rights
framers of the Freedom Constitution and recognized in the Covenant. Under Article
1987 Constitution were aware that the 17 (1) of the Covenant, the revolutionary
sequestration orders would clash with the government had the duty to insure that
Bill of Rights. That is why they provided a no one shall be subjected to arbitrary or
specific language recognizing the validity unlawful interference with his privacy,
of the sequestration orders, otherwise, family, home and correspondence.
sequestration orders would not stand the Furthermore, Article 17 (2) of the
test of due process under the Bill of Rights. Declaration provides that no one shall be
In short, were the Bill of Rights of the arbitrarily deprived of his property. While
1973 Constitution existing during the the signatories to the Declaration did not
interregnum, absent a constitutional intend it as a legally binding document, it
provision excepting sequestration orders being only a declaration, it was
from such Bill of Rights, would render all interpreted to be part of the generally
sequestration orders void during the accepted principles of international law
interregnum. (Republic v SB, et, al., supra). and binding on the State. Thus, the
Revolutionary government was also
obligated under international law to
observe the rights of individuals under
Q- If there was no Bill of Rights as basis the Declaration. This is because the
of the exclusionary right of the people revolutionary government did not
during the interregnum, then, what repudiate the Covenant or the Declaration
laws or rules protected them from during the interregnum. The State has the
undue interference by the State over responsibility to comply in good faith
their rights? Explain. with its treaty obligations under
international law. (Republic v SB, et, al.,
Ans- The people continued to enjoy,
supra).
under the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights and the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, almost the
same rights found in the Bill of Rights of Q- The application for the search
the 1973 Constitution. The revolutionary warrant and the search warrant
government assumed responsibility for merely included the guns and
the State’s good faith compliance with the ammunitions. But monies and other
Covenant and the Declaration to which things were seized. Was the seizure of
the Philippines is a signatory. Article 21 of those other things valid? Why?

Page | 169
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Ans- No. The search warrant did not While it is true that the property to be
particularly describe the items and the seized under a warrant must be
raiding team confiscated them on its own particularly described therein and no
authority. It had no legal basis to seize other property can be taken thereunder,
them, hence, the seizure was void. Unless yet the description is required to be
these items are contraband per se (People specific only in so far as the
v Lim, GR No. 141699, August 7, 2002; Del circumstances will ordinarily allow. The
Rosario v People, 258 SCRA 373), and law does not require that the things to be
they are not, they must be returned to the seized must be described in precise and
person from whom the raiding team minute details as to leave no room for
seized them. (Republic v SB, et, al., supra). doubt on the part of the searching
authorities; otherwise it would be
virtually impossible for the applicants to
obtain a search warrant as they would not
Q- The search warrant commanded know exactly what kind of things they are
any peace officer to make an looking for.
immediate search of MASAGANA
compound located at Governor’s Drive,
Barangay Lapidario, Trece Martires,
Cavite City. It was contended that there
was no proper description since there
are many structures inside the
compound, hence, the warrants are
general, thus, void. Is the contention
correct? Why?
Ans- A search warrant may be said to

particularly describe the things to be
seized when the description therein is a
specific as the circumstances will
ordinarily allow; or when the description
expresses a conclusion of fact not of law
by which the warrant officer may be
guided in making the search and seizure;
or when the things described are limited
to those which bear direct relation to the
offense for which the warrant is being
issued.


Page | 170

Sec 2 - Searches and Seizures Chap 8 - 9 - 29 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Sec 2 - Searches and Seizures Chap 8 - 9 - 29 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017

Malasugui, infra.], but the waiver must be

c) The right applies as a distraint directed

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | DOMINGO, KEVIN

- The filing of charges and the

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | DOMINGO, KEVIN

- A search warrant is an order in days from its receipt. Within ten

WHAT IS THE LIFETIME OF A SEARCH ia) In Pangandaman v. .Casar,

- A warrant of arrest has no lifetime iii) Search Warrant. A search warrant

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | DOMINGO, KEVIN

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | DOMINGO, KEVIN

In Veroy v. Layague, 210 SCRA 97, support of their application

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | DOMINGO, KEVIN

upholding the validity of Chairman, a receipt evidencing

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | DOMINGO, KEVIN

affirmation of the complainant and penalizes categories of offenses which are

ii) Probable cause as applied to

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | DOMINGO, KEVIN

b) Determination of probable cause In Reyes v. Montesa, 247 SCRA 85,

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | DOMINGO, KEVIN

probability, not the certainty, of witnesses to aid him in

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | DOMINGO, KEVIN

arrest. In this case,

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | DOMINGO, KEVIN

1997, the warrant of arrest

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | DOMINGO, KEVIN

conducted the investigating

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | DOMINGO, KEVIN

Eduarte, A. M. No. RTJ-01- officer designated for that

ie) The determination of Accordingly, in Gozos v.

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | DOMINGO, KEVIN

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | DOMINGO, KEVIN

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | DOMINGO, KEVIN

which Congressman Mate actually

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | DOMINGO, KEVIN

unlawful invasions of the sanctity of the THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | DOMINGO, KEVIN

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | DOMINGO, KEVIN

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | DOMINGO, KEVIN

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | DOMINGO, KEVIN

cannot be extended to acts committed them in said corporations, and whatever

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | DOMINGO, KEVIN

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE | DOMINGO, KEVIN

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM