Right Against

Unreasonable Citations seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall beText inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall
Searches and Seizures 1987 Constitution
issue
"Two points must be stressed in connection with Art. III, Sec.by
except upon probable cause to be determined personally thethe
2 of judge after examination
Constitution: 1.) that no under oathshall
warrant or affirmation
issue but
Article III, Section 2
of theprobable
upon complainant
causeand thedetermined
to be witness he may produce,
by the judge inand
thepartcularly
manner setdescribing the 2.)
forth therein; place
thattothe
be warrant
searchedshall
and particularly
the persons
"Artificial beings are also entitled to the guarantee
describe although
the thingsthey may
to be be required to open their books of accounts for
seized.
examination by the State in the exercise of police power."
"It is well settled that the legality of a seizure can be contested only by the party whose rights have been impaired
Stonehill vs. Diokno thereby (Lewis vs. U.S., 6 F. 2d. 22) and that the objection to an unlawful search and seizure is purely personal and
I. Meaning/Extent cannot be availed of by third parties (In. re Dooley, 48 F. 2d. 121: Rouda vs. U.S., 10 F. 2d. 916; Lusco vs. U.S., 287 F.
69; Ganci vs. U.S., 287 F, 60; Moriz vs. U.S., 26 F. 2d. 444)."||| (Stonehill v. Diokno, G.R. No. L-19550, [June 19,
1967], 126 PHIL 738-766)
"What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to statisfy himself
Soliven vs. Makasiar the existece of probable cause. In satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of
arrest, the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witness."
"In the absence of governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked against the
State. Ths constitutional right refers to the immunity of one's person, whether citizen or alien, from interference by
II. Private Intrusion People vs. Andre Marti private purposes, as in the case at bar, and without the intervention of the police authorities, the right against
government."
Mantaring vs. Judge unreasonable searches
criminal activity andthey
and (2) seizures cannot
are found in be
theinvoked
place tofor
be only the act
searched. of not
It is private individuals,
necessary not law enforcers,
that a particular person beis
Roman implicated. On the other hand, in arrest cases, the determination of probable cause is based on a finding that a crime has
On the first issue, we agree with the petitioner's contention that a search warrant proceeding is, in no sense, a criminal
action 37 or the commencement of a prosecution. 38 The proceeding is not one against any person, but is solely for the
discovery and to get possession of personal property. It is a special and peculiar remedy, drastic in nature, and made
necessary because of public necessity. It resembles in some respect with what is commonly known as John Doe
proceedings. 39 While an application for a search warrant is entitled like a criminal action, it does not make it such an
action.||| (United Laboratories Inc. v. Isip, G.R. No. 163858, [June 28, 2005], 500 PHIL 342-364)

III. Search Warrant United Laboratories vs. A search warrant is a legal process which has been likened to a writ of discovery employed by the State to procure
Isip relevant evidence of crime. 40 It is in the nature of a criminal process, restricted to cases of public prosecutions. 41 A
search warrant is a police weapon, issued under the police power. A search warrant must issue in the name of the State,
namely, the People of the Philippines. 42||| (United Laboratories Inc. v. Isip, G.R. No. 163858, [June 28, 2005], 500
PHIL 342-364)

A search warrant has no relation to a civil process. It is not a process for adjudicating civil rights or maintaining mere
private rights. It concerns the public at large as distinguished from the ordinary civil action involving the rights of
private persons. It may only be applied for the furtherance of public prosecution.

"Issuing warrants of arrest in preliminary investigation, the investigating judge must: 1. have exemined in writing and
Mantaring vs. Judge under oath the complaint and his witnesses by searching questions and answers; 2. be satisfied that probable cause
IV. Warrant of Arrest
Roman exists; and 3. that there is a need to place the respondent under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of
justice."
 "The deportation charges instituted by respondent Commissioner are in accordance with Section 37(a) of the Philippine
Immigration Act of 1940, in relation to Section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code. Section 37(a) provides in part:
"(a) The following aliens shall be arrested upon the warrant of the Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation or
Harvey vs. Santiago any other oHcer designated by him for the purpose and deported upon the warrant of the Commissioner of Immigration
and Deportation after a determination by the Board of Commissioners of the existence of the ground for deportation as
V. Administrative charged against the alien."
Warrant specific constraints in both the 1935 1 and 1987 2 Constitutions, which are substantially identical, contemplate
prosecutions essentially criminal in nature. Deportation proceedings, on the other hand, are administrative in character.
because
An orderadministrative searches
of deportation primarily
is never construedensure
as apublic safety instead
punishment. of detecting
It is preventive, not criminal wrongdoing,
a penal process. It need they
notdobenot
People vs. O'Cochlain
require indivual suspicion. Where the risk to public safety issubstantial and real, blanket suspicionless searches
"We have ruled that in deportation cases, an arrest of an undesirable alien ordered by the President or his duly
Salazar vs. Achacoso authorized
"that there berepresentatives,
not only probablein order
causeto before
carry out theaissuance
final decision of deportation
of a search warrant but is valid. It search
that the is valid,warrant
however,must because of
be based
upon an applicationthe recognized
supported supremacy
by oath of the Executive
of the applicant in matters he
and the witnesses involving foreignInaffairs."
may produce. its broadest sense, an oath
VI. Requisites of a includes any form of attestation by which a party signiEes that he is bound in conscience to perform an act faithfully
Valid Warrant Silva vs. Presiding circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed,
and truthfully; and it is sometimes defined as an outward pledge given by the person taking it that his attestation or
A. B.
Probable Cause
Personally Judge
Silvaofvs.
RTC, Negros
Presiding and that objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched'. This probable cause must
promise is made under an immediate sense of his responsibility
that in the to God (Bouvier's Law Dictionary; State vs. Jackson,
Determined By or
A Judge ofOriental
RTC, Negros be the
shownpersonalities to be
to be within theseized, which
personal is identical
knowledge to complainant
of the Search
or theWarrant
witnesses andhesuffers from the
may produce same
and notlack of on
based
C. Under Oath 137 N. W., 1034; In re Sage, 24 Oh. Cir. Ct. [N. S.], 7; Pumphrey vs. State, 122 N.
particularity. The examination conducted was general in nature and merely repetitious of the deposition of saidW., 19; Priest vs. State, 6 N. W.,
witness.
Judge
Affirmation of the Oriental
Alvarez vs. CFI 468; State vs. Jones, 154 Pac., 378; Atwood vs. State, 111 So., 865). The oath required must refer to the truth of the
Complainant facts
"The within
search thewarrant
personal knowledge by
implemented of the
the petitioner
raiding party or his witnesses,
authorized because
only the purpose
the search and seizurethereof is to
of ".. theconvince
describedthe
committing
quantity magistrate, not theHydrochloride
of Methamphetamine individual making the affidavit
commonly knownand as seeking
shabu and theitsissuance of the warrant,
paraphernalia" (Exh. O,ofp.the50,existence
original
of
record). Thus, the raiding party was authorized to seize only shabu and paraphernalia for the use thereof andFed.,
probable cause (U. S. vs. Tureaud, 20 Fed., 621; U. S. vs. Michalski, 265 Fed., 839; U. S. vs. Pitotto, 267 603;
no other.
U. S. vs. Lai Chew, 298 Fed., 652). The true test of sufficiency of an affidavit to warrant issuance
A search warrant is not a sweeping authority empowering a raiding party to undertake a fishing expedition to seize and of a search warrant is
whether
confiscateit has
anybeen
anddrawn in such
all kinds a manner
of evidence or that perjury
articles could
relating tobe charged
a crime. Thethereon and a>ant
Constitution be (Section
itself held liable for damages
2, Article III)
and the caused
Rules of (State
Courtvs.(Section
Roosevelt County
3, Rule 126)20th Jud. Dis.mandate
specifically Ct., 244 that
Pac.,the
280; Statewarrant
search vs. Quartier, 236 Pac., 746)."
must particularly describe the
things to be seized. Thus, the search warrant was no authority for the police officers to seize the firearm which was not
D. Particularly in the mentioned, much less described with particularly, in the search warrant. Neither may it be maintained that the gun was
People vs. Del Rosario
Description seized in the course of an arrest, for as earlier observed, accused-appellant's arrest was far from regular and legal. Said
firearm, having been illegally seized, the same is not admissible in evidence (Stonehill vs. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383
[1967]). The Constitution expressly ordains the exclusion in evidence of illegally seized articles. Any evidence
obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.(Section 3
[2], Article III, Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines).With the exclusion in evidence of the illegally seized
firearm, there is, therefore, a total absence of evidence to support the charge of illegal possession of firearm, against
accused-appellant. The same way may be said of the charge of illegal possession of ammunition."||| (People v. Del
"The 1985 Rules on Criminal Rosario Procedure
y Lopez,alsoG.R.provide that an[July
No. 109633, arrest20,
without
1994],a304warrant
PHILmay be effected by a peace officer
418-428)
or even a private person (1) when such person has committed, actually committing, or is attempting to commit an
Harvey vs. Santiago
offense in his presence; and (2) when an offense has, in fact, been committed and he has personal knowledge of facts
indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it (Rule 113, Section 5)."
"Rule 113 of the Rules of Court identifies three (3) instances when warrantless arrests may be lawfully effected. These
VII. Warrantless are: (a) an arrest of a suspect in flagrante delicto; (b) an arrest of a suspect where, based on personal knowledge of the
Arrest arresting officer, there is probable cause that said suspect was the perpetrator of a crime which had just been
Macad vs. People
committed; and (c) an arrest of a prisoner who has escaped from custody serving final judgment or temporarily
confined during the pendency of his case or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to
another." 19||| (Macad v. People, G.R. No. 227366, [August 1, 2018])
 "An offense is committed in the presence or within the view of an officer, within the meaning of the rule authorizing an
arrest without a warrant, when the officer sees the offense, although at a distance, or hears the disturbances created
thereby and proceeds
A buy-bust operationatis once
a formto of
theentrapment
scene thereof (U.S. v.Fortaleza,
employed 12 Phil.to472
by peace officers trap[1909];and
and catch aU.S. v.Samonte, 16 Phil.
malefactor in flagrante
People vs. Sucro "...had
"In just
warrantless 516 [1910])."||| (People
committed
arrests an
madeillegal act
pursuant v.
of
to Sucro,
which
Section G.R.
the 5 No.
police
(a), 93239,
officers
Rule 113, [March
had
two 18,
personal
(2) 1991], 272-A
knowledge,
elements must PHIL
being
concur, 362-371)
members of
namely: (a) the the team
person
delicto. Applied to the case at bar, the term in flagrante delicto requires that the suspected drug dealer must be caught
A. In Flagrante Delicto to be arrested must execute an overt which
act monitored
indicating that Sucro's
he has nefarious
just activity."
committed, is actually committing,
redhanded in the act of selling marijuana or any prohibited drug to a person acting or posing as a buyer. In the instant or is attempting
to commit
case, a crime;
however, and (b) such
the procedure overt act
adopted is done
by the NARCOMin the presence or within
agents failed to meetthe this
viewqualification.
of the arrestingBasedofficer.
on the Onvery
the
Macad vs. People
other
evidence of the prosecution, after the alleged consummation of the sale of dried marijuana leaves, CIC Taduranjust
hand, Section 5 (b), Rule 113 requires for its application that at the time of the arrest, an offense had in fact
People vs. Rodrigueza been committed and the arresting officer had personal knowledge of facts indicating that the accused had committed
immediately released appellant Rodrigueza instead of arresting and taking him into his custody. This act of CIC
Under those
Taduran, circumstances,it. "||| (Macad
assuming arguendo that sincethe
thesupposed
policemen
v. People,hadG.R.
sale ofpersonal knowledge
No. 227366,
marijuana of the1,violent
[August
did take place, is2018]) deathcontrary
decidedly of Blacetoand theofnatural
facts
indicating
course of that Gerente
things and and two others
inconsistent with had
the killed him, purpose
aforestated they could
of lawfully
a buy-bust arrest Gerente
operation. It without
is rather aabsurd
warrant.on If
histhey
parthad
to
B. Hot Pursuit People vs. Gerente
postponed his arrest until they could obtain a warrant, he would have fled the law as his two
let appellant escape without having been subjected to the sanctions imposed by law. It is, in fact, a dereliction of dutycompanions did.||| (People
v. Gerentev.yRodrigueza,
by an agent of the law.||| (People Bullo, G.R. G.R.No. 95847-48,
No. 95902, [March
[February10, 1993])
4, 1992], 282 PHIL 829-842)
C. Arrest of Prisoner or
Detainee
D. Arrest after Excape Thus, while the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
or Rescue against unreasonable searches and seizures is guaranteed by Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, 22 a routine
E. Arrest of Accused security"That
checksearches
being conducted in air 23 and sea 24 ports
and seizures must be supported by ahas been
valid a recognized
warrant is not an exception. This(Manipon,
absolute rule is in addition to a
VIII. on Bail
Warrantless Jr. v.Sandiganbayan, 143 SCRA 267 [1986]).Among the exceptions granted by law is a search incidental obtained
string of jurisprudence ruling that search and seizure may be made without a warrant and the evidence to a lawful
People vs. O'Cochlain
Search therefrom
arrest under maySec.be12,admissible
Rule 126inofthe thefollowing
Rules on instances: (1) search incidental
Criminal Procedure, to a lawful
which provides that a arrest;
person(2) searcharrested
lawfully of a movingmay
People vs. Sucro motor vehicle; (3) customsweapons
search; or
(4)anything
seizure of evidence
be searched for dangerous which may inbe"plain
used as view";
proof(5) consented
of the commissionwarrantless search; (6)
of an offense, "stopa
without
searchandwarrant."
frisk" search; and (7) exigentG.R.
(People v.Castiller, and No.
emergency
87783, circumstance. 25||| (People
August 6, 1990)||| (People v.Sucro,
O'Cochlain, G.R. No. 229071,
Section 12, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court which
[December provides:
10, "Section 12.v.Search
2018])
G.R. No.
incident to 93239, [March—18,
lawful arrest. A
1991], 272-A PHIL 362-371)
person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the
commission of an offense, without a search warrant." The frisk and search of appellant's person upon his arrest was a
permissible precautionary measure of arresting officers to protect themselves, for the person who is about to be arrested
People vs. Gerente
may be armed and might attack them unless he is first disarmed. In Adams vs. Williams, 47 U.S. 143, cited in Justice
Isagani A. Cruz's Constitutional Law, 1991 Edition, p. 150, it was ruled that "the individual being arrested may be
frisked for concealed weapons that may be used against the arresting officer and all unlawful articles found his person,
or within his immediate control may be seized."||| (People v. Gerente y Bullo, G.R. No. 95847-48, [March 10, 1993])

A. Search Incidental to In a search incidental to a lawful arrest, as the precedent arrest determines the validity of the incidental search, the
a Lawful Arrest 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 conducting a search. In this instance, the law requires that there first be a lawful arrest before a search can be made
— the process cannot be reversed. At bottom, assuming a valid arrest, the arresting officer may search the person of the
arrestee and the area within which the latter may reach for a weapon or for evidence to destroy, and seize any money or
Malacat vs. Court of property
We nowfound proceedwhich wasjustification
to the used in the for commission of thescope
and allowable crime,ofor the fruit of the crime,
a "stop-and-frisk" or that which
as a "limited may search
protective be usedofas
Appeals evidence,
outer or which
clothing might furnish
for weapons," as laidthedown
arrestee with the
in Terry, means
thus: of escaping
We merely hold or committing
today that where violence.
a policeHere,
officerthere could
observes
have conduct
unusual been no which
valid in flagrante
leads delicto or hot
him reasonably pursuit arrest
to conclude preceding
in light the searchthat
of his experience in light of theactivity
criminal lack ofmay personal
be afoot
knowledge
and thaton thethe part ofwith
persons Yu, whom
the arresting officer,may
he is dealing or anbeovert
armed physical act, on the
and presently part of petitioner,
dangerous, where in the indicating
course of that a
crime had justthis
investigating been committed,
behavior was being
he identifies committed
himself or was going
as a policeman andtomakes
be committed.
reasonableHaving thusand
inquiries, shown
where thenothing
invalidity
in
of
thethe warrantless
initial stages ofarrest in this case,
the encounter plainly,
serves the search
to dispel conductedfear
his reasonable on for
petitioner
his owncould not have
or others' been
safety, heone incidental
is entitled for to
thea
In Robinson, supra,we
lawful
protection of himself andnoted
arrest.||| (Malacat otherstheintwo
y Mandar v. historical
the Court
area toof rationales
Appeals,
conduct for the
G.R.
a carefully "search
No.limited
123595, incident
of to
[December
search thearrest" exception:
12, 1997],
outer clothing (1)
347ofPHIL
such the need toin
462-492)
persons
disarm
an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him. Such a search is a reasonable search under...But
the suspect in order to take him into custody, and (2) the need to preserve evidence for later use at trial. the
Luz vs. People
Malacat vs. Court of neither
Fourth of these underlying
Amendment . . . rationales
Other notable for the search
points of incident
Terry are towhile
that arrestprobable
exceptioncause
is sufficient
is not to justify
required to the search
conduct a in the
"stop
Neither does the search
present qualifyy under
case.||| (Luz Ong v.the "stop G.R.
People, and frisk"
No. rule. While
197788, the rule29,
[February normally
2012], applies
683 PHIL when a police officer
399-415)
Appeals and frisk,"
observes it nevertheless
suspicious or unusualholdsconduct,
that mere suspicion
which or
may lead a hunch
him to will not that
believe validate a "stopact
a criminal andmayfrisk." A genuine
be afoot, reason
the stop and
B. Stop and Frisk Luz vs. People mustisexist, in light of theprotective
police officer's
frisk merely a limited search experience and surrounding
of outer clothing conditions, toy warrant
for weapons. 20||| (Luz the belief
Ong v. People, thatNo.
G.R. the197788,
person
detained has weapons concealed about him. Finally,
[February 29,a2012],
"stop-and-frisk" serves a two-fold interest: the general interest of
683 PHIL 399-415)
effective crime prevention and detection, which underlies the recognition that a police officer may, under appropriate
circumstances and in an appropriate manner, approach a person for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior
even without probable cause; and (2) the more pressing interest of safety and self-preservation which permit the police
officer to take steps to assure himself that the person with whom he deals is not armed with a deadly weapon that could
 B. Stop and Frisk The "plain
Posadas vs. Court of
The "Stop andview"
warrantless Search doctrine
search Stopmay
or and and not,
seizure, Frisk,however,
conducted
as made
an
be used
incident without to launch
totoafind a warrant
suspect's
unbridled
lawful or arrest,
police searches
checkpoints
may
and indiscriminate
extendThe is effected
beyond the on seizures
the basis
person
nor to
of theofisone
extend
Objects, a general
articles exploratory
or papers search
not described solely
in the warrant but evidence
on plain of
view defendant's
of theObjects guilt.
executing "plain
officer may view" doctrine
bewhether
seized
Appeals
The doctrine
arrested
usually appliedis not
to include wherean
theexception
premises
a police to the
or warrant.
surroundings
officer is Itunder
not searching
probable
merely hisserves
for
cause.
immediate
evidence to supplement
control.
against the
thethe priorinjustification
accused, the
but "plain —
view"
nonetheless of an by it him.
be a
officer
inadvertently
However,
warrant for the
who has seizure
another the by
object, the
hotofficer
pursuit,
right to be object. of objects/articles/papers
search
in the position as an
to have incident
that to not
a
view are described
lawful arrest
subject in or warrant
some
toanseizure other
and cannot be
legitimate
may be presentedpresumed
reason as as
for plain
being
People vs. Musa comes across
view. The anState
incriminating
must adduce Itfollowing
evidence, has also been
testimonial suggested
or that
documentary, even toifprove object
thenot is observed
confluence inthe
of "plain view,"
essential the
C. Seizure of Evidence Relevant
present, to this
unconnecteddetermination
evidence.||| (People with anot are
v.search
Musa thedirected
y Hantatalu, characteristics
against G.R.the accused.
No. 96177,of the
The person
doctrine
[January giving
27, may
1993], consent
be
291 andto
used
PHIL the environment
extend
623-642) a general in
"plain
requirements view" doctrine
foristhe doctrine will to justify
apply, the
namely: seizure
(a) the of the object
executing where
law the
the enforcement incriminating
officer nature of
has aItprior the object
justification is not
in Plain View which
United Laboratories vs. apparent
consent
exploratory from search
theor
given:
from
"plain
(1)
onethe
view"
age of
object
of the
the defendant;
to object.
another until
Stated
(2) whether
something
differently,
defendant
incriminating
ithe must be at was
last
immediately
in a public
emerges.
apparent
or
istoaa recognition
secluded
the police offor
location;
that the
the
an
factinitial
(3)
that intrusion
whether
when the otherwise
defendant
executing police properly
objected to in
thea position
search or from which
passively looked can view
on; (4) a particular
the education order;
and (b) the officer
intelligence ofmust
the
Isip Since
items
discover
the
that goods
they were under
observe may beofficers
the custody
evidence comes
andof at across
the
a crime, immediately
disposal of the or
contraband, incriminating
Bureau of Customs
otherwise evidence
subject when
to not
thecovered
petitionby
toseizure.||| (People
forthe warrant,
mandamus
v. Musa y
was theyincriminating
defendant;
filed (5) Court
should
in the the evidence
notpresence
beof required
First of inadvertently;
coercive
to close
Instance,
Hantatalu, G.R. thepolice
their
No.
and
eyes
latter
96177,
(c)
procedures;itnot
must
to[January
could it, bethe
(6)
regardless
exercise
27,
immediately
defendant's
of whether
jurisdiction
1993], 291
apparent
itbelief
PHIL
that
is evidence
over said
623-642)
the
noof
goods police
the
even that
incriminating
crime the
they
if the items
are they
evidence
warrant of
D. Consented Search Luz vs. People observe
would bemay be
found;
investigating
seizure evidence
(7)
and detention the of
nature
or evidence a
of goodscrime,
of the
of for
somecontraband,
police
other crime.
purposes or
questioning; otherwise
of seizure (8)
It would thesubject
environment
be needless
and forfeiture to seizure. 55||| (United
in which
to require the
proceedings the
hadpolice Laboratories
questioning
not yettobeen obtain took Inc. v.
place;
another
issued by the Isip,
and
E. Customs Search Papa vs. Mago (9) the possibly
warrant. 56 Under
Collector. vulnerable
the doctrine,
It is settled that the G.R. No.
subjective
there
Bureau isof 163858,
state of the [June
noCustoms
invasion of a 28,
person
acquires 2005], expectation
consenting.
legitimate
exclusive 500jurisdiction
ItPHIL
is the 342-364)
State
of over thatimported
privacy hasand thethere
burden
goods is no ofsearch
for proving,
purposes by
withinof
clear
the The
enforcing and
meaning positive
theof
Tariff and the testimony,
Customs
Customs laws, Code that
Constitution.||| (United
from the
does necessary
thenot require
moment consent
Laboratories
thea goods
search was
Inc. obtained,
v.actually
warrant
are Isip,for G.R.and
purposes
in was
possession freely
No. 163858,
of enforcingand
and[June voluntarily
control 28, of
2005],
customs said given. 19 In
and 500 PHIL
tariff
Bureau this
342-
laws.
even in
thecase,
Underall that
absence on was
Sec. 2203alleged
any thereof,
warrant was that petitioner
ofpersons
seizure having was alone
police
or detention.||| (Papa at
authority364)themay
v. police
Mago, enter,station
G.R. No.atthrough
pass three inorthe
L-27360, morning,
search
[February any28, accompanied
land, inclosure,
1968], 130 PHILby
several police store
warehouse, officers. These circumstances
or building not being a dwelling weigh heavilyhouse
886-905) against
and also,ato finding
insperct,of valid
search consent to a warrantless
and examine any vehicle search.
or
aircraft and any trunk, package, box or envelope or any person on board or stop and search and examine any vehicle,
beast or person suspected of holding or conveying any dutiable or prohibited article intrduces into the Philippines
cntrary tosecurity
"Airport law, without
searches mentioning
can be deemed the need of a administrative
lawful search warrant searches in said cases. because Except in thesearches
(1) these search ofconstitute
a dwelling house,
relatively
therefore,
limited personsgeared
intrusions exercising toward police
findingauthority under
particular the customs
items (weapons, lawexplosives,
may effectand search and seizure
incendiary without
devices) that warrant
pose grave in
"Airport
danger searches
to airplanes have andreceived judicial(2)sanction
air travelers; essentially
the scrutiny
the enforcement ofbecause
of carry-on customs oflaws.
luggage theismagnitude and pervasiveness
no more intrusive (in both itsofscope the danger
and
to the public
intensity) thansafety and the to
is necessary overriding
achieve the concern has been
legitimate aimsthe of threat of deathprocess
the screening or serious (thatbodily
is, toinjury
ensuretoair members of the
travel safety);
(3) airline passengers public
have psoed
advance by the introduction
notice thatsearch
their carry-on of inherently
luggage lethal
willscope weapons
be subjected or bombs."
to these security measures, thus
"Airport search remains a valid administrative only so long as the of the administrative search exception is
giving passengers
not exceeded; oncethea search
opportunity to placefor
is conducted their personalinvestigatory
a criminal effects in checked purpose, luggage;
it can (4) all passengers
no longer be justified are subject
under an to
the same screening procedures; and (5) passengers administrative are aware search that they can avoid the screening process altogether by
F. Airport Search People vs. O'Cochlain "There it was held that an airport security search is considered asrationale."
reasonable if: (1) the search is no more extensive or
electing not to board the plane. 37 Moreover, abuse is unlikely because of its public nature. "||| (People v. O'Cochlain,
intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to satisfy the administrative need that justifies it, that is to
G.R. No. 229071, [December 10, 2018])
detect the presence of weapons or explosives; (2) the search is confined in good faith to that purpose; and (3) a potential
passenger
True, may avoid
the manning the search bybychoosing
of checkpoints the military not to fly."||| (People
is susceptible v. O'Cochlain,
of abuse by the men G.R. No. 229071,
in uniform, in the [December
same manner 10,
that all governmental power is susceptible of abuse. But,2018]) at the cost of occasional inconvenience, discomfort and even
irritation to the citizen, the checkpoints during these abnormal times, when conducted within reasonable limits, are part
of the
The priceup
setting weofpay thefor an orderly
questioned society andinaValenzuela
checkpoints peaceful community.||| (Valmonte
(and probably in other areas) v. De Villa,
may beG.R. No. 83988,
considered as a
security measure to enable the NCRDC [September 29, 1989],
to pursue 258 PHIL
its mission 838-848) effective territorial defense and
of establishing
maintaining peace and order for the benefit of the public. Checkpoints may also be regarded as measures to thwart plots
to destabilize the government, in the interest of public security. In this connection, the Court may take judicial notice of
G. Checkpoint Search Vamonte vs. De Villa the shift to urban centers and their suburbs of the insurgency movement, so clearly reflected in the increased killings in
cities of police and military men by NPA "sparrow units," not to mention the abundance of unlicensed firearms and the
alarming rise in lawlessness and violence in such urban centers, not all of which are reported in media, most likely
brought about by deteriorating economic conditions — which all sum up to what one can rightly consider, at the very
least, as abnormal times. Between the inherent right of the state to protect its existence and promote public welfare and
an individual's right against a warrantless search which is however reasonably conducted, the former should
prevail.||| (Valmonte v. De Villa, G.R. No. 83988, [September 29, 1989], 258 PHIL 838-848)
H. Exclusionary
I. Fruit of the
Principle
Poisonous Tree
Doctrine

CASES ISSUE FACTS

 Andre 42 Marti
searchbroughtwarrants packages
were issued to Manila upon Packing
the petition andofExport the officersForwarders. of the Thesegovernment packages againstwerethe notpetitioners
inspected an/or beacause
W/N the search made
of his
corporations of which they were officers. It directed the officers to SEARCH THE PERSONS NAMED AND/ORthe
refusal. Before delivery of the packages to the Bureau of Customs and/or Bureau of Posts, Job Reyes opened
People vs. Marti by Job can be invoked
W/N the search packages and
warrant PREMISES OF conducted
THE OFFICE, inspection
WAREHOUSES, according toAND/OR standard RESIDENCES
operating procedure. AND There TOwhereSEIZE he smelled
SEVERAL a peculiarPERSONAL smell
Stonehill vs. Diokno against the state? Issued warrant of arrest against the petitioner forboxes
beingwhich the owner of the property they found firearms. He
W/N the warrant
issued is valid of PROPERTIES as warrant
the SUBJECT coming
OF OFFENSE; from the STOLEN aroused
ORincluded
EMBEZZLED his curiosity.
OR THE FRUITS OF THE OFFENSE,
Mantaring vs. Judge contended that the was erroneous as his name was not in the search warrant nor was he included in the
arrest against the OR USED OR INTENDED TOfiled,BE USED AS THE MEANS OFagainst
COMMITTING THE OFFENSE as violation of
Roman W/N
W/N the search
the contention warrant Apreliminary
petition for investigation
search warrant of witnesses.
was He alleged
accompanied that by the charge
deposition of him
witness. was
On out
the of
samehatred day, and
the revenge
respondent for filing
judge
Soliven vs.Presiding
Makasiar petitioner is valid. is Judge issued a warrant ofCentral arrest against
Bank him without
Laws, Tariff personally
and Customs examining
Laws, NIRC, the complaint
and the RPC.and the witnesses, if any, to
Silva vs. was validly issued; W/N issued search warrant to search the room of Tama
correct. of a case
determine Silva against
and open
probable the cause.
judge.
aparadors, lockers, cabinets, cartoons, containers,
Judge of RTC Negros the judge erred in The petitioners
forthwith seizewereand suspected
take possession pedophiles of thewho were apprehended
following property marijuana by virtue of Mission
dried Order issued
leaves, cigarettes, by In
joint. thethe respondent,
course,
Oriental W/N
denying the
W/N thethe arrest and
petitionof
Secretary after a 3 month surveilance by the Commission on Immigration
to serving officers also seized money beloning to Antonieta Silva. She then filed a petition to return the money, which and Deportation. They were found with young boysthe in
Harvey vs. Santiago POEA Director in Licensing andwith Regulation issued being an office order to implementformal closuredeportation
and seizurecharges order no. 1205 of
search
return was
the valid.
money.
Labor under the their
AThe respective
search warrant rooms,was the one John Sherman
respondent naked.
judge also Consequently,
denied. have been
Salazar vs. Achacoso the secret
alleged service
illegal of issued
recruitment authorizing
the Anti-Usury agencyfiled Board,
of the petitioner
the search
againstof DOJ, and
them,
seizure
submitted
under theof
as undesirable an an
power undertermined
affidavitvested
aliens. alleging quantity
to Secretary of of
that according methamphetamine
Labor to
and hissuchreliable
other
Constitution
W/N the search now may Hydrochloride
warrant source, the petitioner or shabuisand its paraphernalias
a money-lender and in
is the
chargingpremises usurious of the house
rates of of the
interest respondent.
in violation However,
of the law. the He search
did not was
Alvarez vs. CFI Sucro was reported toduty,
be selling responsible
marijuana officer
at aofchapelas may be
2ofmeters authorized
away by
from the Labor
Regalado's Code.house, where Pat. Fulgencio istheto
was issue warrant.
illegally issued. not immediately
SPO1
swear Falolo,
the truth not
at implemented
on
the best boarded
of his due to the
on
personal the alleged
top
knowledge, lack
the bus.
but police
The
according personnel.
petitioner to thealso They then at
boarded
information conducted
the
received top of the
fromthe search
bus
an and
allegedat 9threw
o'clock
reliable
W/N the search was monitor the activities of Sucro. He was monitored to have talked and exchanged items three times. There activities were
People vs. Del Rosario incarton
the evening.
box to They entered
Falolo. There, the
he premises
immediately and found
suspected the respondent
that
source. A search warrant was then issued in the virtue of his affidavit it contained lying down.
marijuana They immediately
because of its detained
distinct smell him andand
validly
W/N the implemented.
arrest was reported through radio to P/Lt. Seraspi. Aentered
thirdwoven buyer was transacting with to appellant, which wassuspectingly
later on identified
People vs. Sucro A also called
irregular
witness 2 witnesses
shape.
testified He
that also
the only
noticedafter
accused they
that
was Sagada
drinking the
with premises.
bag for
the other There,
its supposed
accused, they found
still black
belarge,
at oval shape
andcannister
but
using containing
marijuana. shabu,
washeard
She in as
lawful
W/N the search was aluminum Macabante and
foil, was
a paltik, intercepted.
caliber and When
tothree he saw
wallets, the onepolice, he threw the te bag of marijuana on the ground. Macabante
Macad vs. People
rectangular
thatadmitted
they plannedshape.
tosome
have
Falolo
to kill
bought
planned
Clarito.
marijuanaOn infrorm
thetosameSucro.
the
day, other
Sucroshecontaining
police
also
then witnessedthe marked
officer
was aoperation.
butthem
interecepted
he ran money
kill out of
as Clarito
well
thatload.
and
was
by Heallegedly
hitting
arrested.
then him
The
used awhen
departed
with
authorities
from
wooden they
the
lawful.
W/N the arrest and object bus to buy
and dropped load
a hollowblock but did not succeed.
onofhim. conducted
Thus,
The police he a buy
boarded
officers bust
received tricycle,
a report which and later on
immediately was alsogoneboarded
to the by the
hospital, in
People vs. Gerente recovered
The petitioner 19 sticks
entered and 4report
aarrived
aone teabags marijuana from theAssistance,
cart inside the chapel and another teabag from a Macabante.
searchthe
W/N was lawful.
arrest
The
and which
petitioner.
authorities
the doctor When they
received
informed thatway atof
the street
the
victim and
anCommunitywasstarted
ongoing deadillega ntoarrival.
Police drive
traffic inof the
They opposite
prohobited Falolo
proceeded direction.
called
drugs.to the SPO2
One The
crimeof them petitioner
Suagen
sceneacted and
right then
aswhen
after.andThey
theMaguan
poseur latter
buyer
found
People vs. Rodrigueza and a nearly
approached bumped
was allegedly
piece of them,able
wood each
Falolo
covered toother.then
buywith He
100 askedalighted
grams
blood, the
a of from
petitioner
marijuana
hollow his to
block carfor
andand
open 200. went
twohisThe over
baggage.
roachesposeurandof He shot
buyer Maguan
immediately
marijuana. returnedThey inside thehis
answered
toproceeded car and
in to
headquarters the flee.
affirmative and
house The but
made
of
Go vs. Court of search
W/N thewas lawful.
arrest was Gerente
security guard nearby was able to take down the petitioner's
suddenly ranplateaway.number. Upon verification, it was found out that the
Intelligence
In a
response report.
and Task They
frisked
to bomb Force
thethen planned
was conducting
appellant
threats, the to apprehend
and found
police a surveillance the
a coin purse
authorities appellant
conductedwhen
in his aon
they the
pocket
patrol evening
spotted containing
along of
theQuezon the
petitioner same
driedblvd day
carrying
leaves
Quiapo. without
a buri
wrapped There, a warrant.
bag
in they andchanced
cigarette lookingfoil.
Appeals
Posadas vs. Court of W/N the lawful
search was car On wasthe registered
suspicious.same They in then
morning, the thename of the petitioner's
NARCOM
approached the received
petitioner wife.
persistent
and The police then
reports
identified that conducted
themselvesvehicles as a man from
coming
members hunt.
of Days
Sagada
the INP. later,
are the petitioner
transporting
However, the
wentupon 2 groups
to the Police ofStation,
Muslim-looking 2 men posted to at opposite sidesreports
of Quezon blvd. The menhunted.
were alleged to beforthwith
acting
Appeals
Malacat vs. Court of W/N the lawful. marijuana.
petitioner
search was suspiciousy The
withCommanding
attempted theirtoeyesfleewith moving
his
butOfficer lawyers,
nevertheless also
fast. The received
thwarted.verify
authorities
the news
an They
information
observedthen checked that for
them athat
the
30
we
Caucasian was
buri
minutesbagbeing
coming
and
but fromthey
found
when
The police
Sagada
firearms,
tried had
tear
to drugs
gs, live
approach in
his Thepossession.
Shortly after
accused The
disembarking
was NARCOM
flagged down officers,
ammunitions.
the M/V by Wilcon,
the in
He response,
was
traffic the detained
conducted
prosecuted
officers
enforcer that
for for
not him.
werea checkpoint
illegal
wearing possession
waiting a for
helmet in the
him,of said
whilefirearms.
inspectedarea.
driving While
his
a bag doing
and
motorcycle. their
finding
He routine
what
then
Appeals W/N the lawful.
search and The one of the groups, the members fled. They were able to caught up with the petitioner, searched him and found
People vs. Aminnudin check
looked NARCOM
invited of the
liked
fragmentation bus,
themarijuana
accusedwithout
conducted
grenade extensive
surveillance
toleaves,
come
tucked took
insidehim search,
and
their
his tofrontthey
test
their buy
sub-station noticed
on
headquarters.
waist linefor athe
theand suspicious
accused-appellant
According
issuance
apprehended buldge onprosecution,
when
of atoacitation
the
caliberthean accused-appellant's
information
ticket
pistol for
from the was of
officers
violation
Casan. waist.
received
received
municipal
Petitioner There,
thata tip
was he
arrest was legal.
W/N the search was is they
selling asked the
marijuana accused
in that to show
place. his
The passport
same but
civilian failed
also to do
described so. The
the officers
appearance then asked
of Musa. him to
Amado bringAni outwas whatever
able to buyithe
People vs. Malmstedt ordinance. fromHowever,
one of their informers
he noticed thatthat thethe
charged accused-appellant
accused
with was uneasy
illegal possession waskept
and on
of board
on getting
hand a vessel
grenade. and was from
something carrying his marijuana.
jacket and that
W/N
W/N thethe legal.
evidence
search wasfound oneA
was search
was thatwarrant
was
newspaper-wrapped
alerted was
andbulging
so. Heissued
on
dried
then concernng
histold
waist.
marijuana
the accused the first
It turned
and out
returned
to and
taketo be second
outtoaNARCOM
pouch
the floorsbagof
contents withthethe
office
of Shalimar
objects
topocket Building
turn wrapped
over
of it. The
his in occupied
jacket.brown
next Theday, and/or
packaging
a buy-bust
accused used
tape,by
obliged was
Luz vs. People Shalimar
prompting Philippines,
theoutofficer owned
to open by one the respondents,
toofbuythe marijuana
wrapped for seizure finished and unfinished products of UNILAB revicon
inside a plastic
legal. bag due conducted.
and slowlyAmado put Ani, again,
the contents tried
of the pocket of his objectsfrom the
jacket that
which was
wasfound
accused thetofront
aatnickel-tin be hashish,
of metal
or a container,
his house derivative
while the 2ofcellphones,
marijuana.
other officers 1
People vs. Musa to an incidental search were multivitamins,
Consequently,
pair assigned
of scissorsasand sundry
beforeonehe
back-up items suchSgt.
alighted
security.
swiss knife. asUpon
from tags,
Belargalabels,
theseeing
bus,saw he boxes,
the stopped
from apackages,
container, to get
far he two
what wrappers,
was
asked travelling
going receptacles,
onbags
the accused tofrom
between open advertisement
the
the luggage
it.twoHe and
noticed and
carrier.
waited other
The
for
a cartoon the
United Laboratory vs, is admissible as an parephernalia
officers
hand got
coversignalandthe usedas
ofbags
Ani
something inan
and the offering
opened
affirmation
beneath andfor
itthem. Asale,
to teddy
arrest
again sale bear
the
instructed and/or
was
accused. thedistribution
found Aniin
accused gave toof
each the
spill counterfeit
bagand
P20 and
outtothe revicon
when
thecontents
accused multivitamins,
thewhich
officers
which opened
after
turned that
out and the
he
to sales
teddy
went
be 4
Isip evidence. invoices,
inside anddelivery
came back receipts,
with official
him 2 receipts, bears,
newspaper-wrapped ledgers,
it also journals,
contained
marijuana.
sachets, 2 of which were empty while he other 2 contained suspected shabu. purchase
hashish.
He raisedorders his and
hand all
as other
a books
signal and of accounts
arrested and
Musa.
documents
They then also usedconducted
in recording the manufacture
incidental search toand/or the house importation,
and founddistribution
a plastic hanging and/or in sales
theod counterfeit
kitchen. Raised revicon
their
vitamins.suspicion
However,ofthere the plastic's content, they opened it and found marijuana, which they took as an evidence. when
were no fake revcon found but instead, sealed boxes at the first and second floors which
opened, contained disudrin.