Search and Seizure ( Art. 3, Sec.
2)
CASE NAME TOPIC FACTS
Valmonte v. *Right against  The National Capital Region
De Villa unreasonable Searches District Command (NCRDC) was
and Seizure activated and conducted security
G.R. No. operations which includes
83988. installation of checkpoints in
September 29, *Constitutionality of various parts of Valenzuela,
1989 Checkpoints Metro Manila.
 Atty. Ricardo C. Valmonte and
the Union of Lawyers and
Advocates for People's Rights
(ULAP) filed a petition seeking
the declaration of checkpoints in
Valenzuela as unconstitutional,
the dismantling and banning of
the same or, to direct the
respondents to formulate
guidelines in the implementation
of checkpoints, for the protection
of the people.  The setting up of the questioned checkpoints in Valenzuela may be
Petitioners contention:
 The residents of Valenzuela are
worried of being harassed
 Their safety being placed at the
arbitrary, capricious and
whimsical disposition of the
military manning the checkpoints,
considering that their cars and
vehicles are being subjected to
1
ISSUE
Whether the rights of
Petitioner Valmonte
against unreasonable
searches and seizure was
violated due to the searches
made in military
checkpoints
DECISION
No.
No proof has been presented before the Court to show that, in the
course of their routine checks, the military indeed committed specific
violations of petitioners’ right against unlawful search and seizure or
other rights.
The constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures is
a personal right invocable only by those whose rights have been
infringed, or threatened to be infringed. What constitutes a
reasonable or unreasonable search and seizure in any particular
case is purely a judicial question, determinable from a consideration
of the circumstances involved.
Not all searches and seizures are prohibited. Those which are
reasonable are not forbidden. A reasonable search is not to be
determined by any fixed formula but is to be resolved according to
the facts of each case.
considered as a security measure to enable the NCRDC to pursue its
mission of establishing effective territorial defense and 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 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
 regular searches and check-ups,
especially at night or at dawn,
without the benefit of a search
warrant and/or court order.
 Their alleged fear for their safety
increased when a supply officer
of the Municipality
Valenzuela, Bulacan, was gunned
down allegedly in cold blood by
the members of the NCRDC
manning the checkpoint, for
ignoring and/or refusing to
submit himself to the checkpoint
and for continuing to speed off
inspire of warning shots fired in
the air.
 The said checkpoints give the
respondents a blanket authority
to make searches and/or seizures
without search warrant or court
order
2
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.
of
True, the manning of checkpoints by the military is susceptible of
abuse by the men in uniform, in the same manner that all
governmental power is susceptible of abuse. But, 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 price we pay
for an orderly society and a peaceful community.
____________________________________
*Dissenting Opinion:
Justice Cruz:
The bland declaration that individual rights must yield to the
demands of national security ignores the fact that the Bill of Rights
was intended precisely to limit the authority of the State even if
asserted on the ground of national security.
What is worse is that the searches and seizures are peremptorily
pronounced to be reasonable even without proof of probable cause
and much less the required warrant.
Justice Sarmiento:
Existence of checkpoints alone, makes searches done therein
unreasonable, and hence, repugnant to the Constitution.

People v.  Search and  Accused-appellants Usana and
Usana Seizure Lopez and Escaño, were charged
with violation of Section 4, Article II
G.R. No.  Warrantless of Republic Act No. 6425
129756, Search (dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) for
January 28, distributing and transporting 3.3143
2000  Checkpoint kilograms of "HASHISH”
 Exceptions to the  Escaño and Usana were also charged
Warrant with illegal possession of firearms
Requirement in and ammunition in violation of PD
Searches No. 1866 for having have in their
possession, direct custody and
control, a Cal. 45 pistol and carbine
rifle, without first securing the
necessary license or permit from the
proper government authorities and
which firearm and ammunitions he
carried outside of his residence
________________________
 During a COMELEC gun ban, law
enforcers of the Makati Police were
manning a checkpoint.
 They were checking the cars going
to Pasay City, stopping those they
3
Whether the search
conducted on Escano’s car
is violative of his right to
unreasonable search
____________
whether the evidence
acquired therein would be
sufficient to convict Lopez
and Usana for possession
of illegal drugs.
While the right against unreasonable searches and seizures is a right
personal to the aggrieved party, the petitioners, precisely, have come
to Court because they had been, or had felt, aggrieved. In that event,
the burden is the State's, to demonstrate the reasonableness of the
search.
No. This Court has ruled that not all checkpoints are illegal. Those
which are warranted by the exigencies of public order and are
conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists are allowed. For,
admittedly, routine checkpoints do intrude, to a certain extent, on
motorists’ right to “free passage without interruption,” but it cannot
be denied that, as a rule, it involves only a brief detention of travelers
during which the vehicle’s occupants are required to answer a brief
question or two. For as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor
its occupants subjected to a body search, and the inspection of
the vehicle is limited to a visual search, said routine checks
cannot be regarded as violative of an individual’s right against
unreasonable search. In fact, these routine checks, when
conducted in a fixed area, are even less intrusive.
The checkpoint herein conducted was in pursuance of the gun ban
enforced by the COMELEC. The COMELEC would be hard put to
implement the ban if its deputized agents were limited to a visual
search of pedestrians. It would also defeat the purpose for which
such ban was instituted. Those who intend to bring a gun during said
period would know that they only need a car to be able to easily
perpetrate their malicious designs.
Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement in Searches
(1) search incidental to an arrest;
(2) search of moving vehicles;
(3) evidence in plain view;
 found suspicious, and imposing
merely a running stop on the others.
 They stopped a Kia Pride car driven
by Escaño. They saw a long firearm
on the lap of Virgilio Usana who is
seated at the passenger seat.
 PO3 Suba seized the long firearm
(M-1 US Carbine), from Usana.
Their search yielded another firearm,
a .45 caliber which they seized from
Escaño.
 The three passengers were thereafter
brought to the police station. An
officer was suspicious of the vehicle.
he requested to search the trunk in
which Escaño readily agreed and
opened the trunk himself using his
key. They noticed a blue bag inside
it, which they asked Escaño to open.
The bag contained a parcel wrapped
in tape and upon examination of
forensic chemist of NBI, it was
found positive for hashish.
 Further, certification was issued by
the Firearms and Explosive Office of
the National Police Commission
(NAPOLCOM) to the effect that
Escaño was not a licensed/registered
firearms holder of any kind and
caliber.
 Usana, however, according to the
4
(4) customs searches;
(5) consented warrantless search; and
(6) stop-and-frisk situations.
A warrantless search of a vehicle cannot be invalidated where there
are indications that the same was consented to by the owner.—Even
though there was ample opportunity to obtain a search warrant, we
cannot invalidate the search of the vehicle, for there are indications
that the search done on the car of Escaño was consented to by him.
Both Lopez and Usana testified that Escaño was with the police
officers when they searched the car.
_________________________
No. Lopez and Usana were acquitted.
Despite the validity of the search, the court cannot affirm the conviction of
Usana and Lopez for violation of R.A. No. 6425. The following facts
militate against a finding of conviction: (1) the car belonged to Escaño; (2)
the trunk of the car was not opened soon after it was stopped and after the
accused were searched for firearms; (3) the car was driven by a policeman
from the place where it was stopped until the police station; (4) the car’s
trunk was opened, with the permission of Escaño, without the presence of
Usana and Lopez; and (5) after arrival at the police station and until the
opening of the car’s trunk, the car was in the possession and control of the
police authorities.
No fact was adduced to link Usana and Lopez to the hashish found in the
trunk of the car. Their having been with Escano in the latter’s car before the
“finding” of the hashish sometime after the lapse of an appreciable time
and without their presence left much to be desired to implicate them to the
offense of selling, distributing, or transporting the prohibited drug. In fact,
there was no showing that Usana and Lopez knew of the presence of
hashish in the trunk of the car or that they saw the same before it was
seized.
 same certification is a
licensed/registered holder of a pistol
Colt .45 caliber with license issued
on 14 October 1994 and to expire on
April 1996. Usana also has an
application for a pistol Uzi Cal.
9mm.