Searches and Seizures

April 5


Unreasonable Searches and Seizures

• Self-executing provision, as part of Art III- Bill of Rights; there to temper unreasonable
interference by govt or any of its agents. Guarantee against gov’t because of its awesome
powers as enunciated by the fundamental powers of the state.

• Import: Constitution bars intrusions to a person’s body, personal effects, or residence

XPN: conducted in the virtue of a valid warrant.

• Safeguards citizens against wanton invasion of privacy and liberty by the state or any of
its agents

• Not a blanket prohibition against all kind of state interference, seizure, searches.

• Question of unreasonabless = justiciable issue; question of facts

• Can be invoked by a person weather a natural/artificial/aliens

Article III, Section 2- The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except
upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath
or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Article III, Section 3- The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable
except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as
prescribed by law.

Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be

inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. (Exclusionary Rule)


Exclusionary Rule- Art III, Sec. 3, No. 2- any evidence found from any illegal arrest/ search
can never be used against. The same is considered a fruit of a poisonous tree.

Illegal Arrest/ Search


>Warrant of Arrest- person

>Search Warrant- thing

Transcriptions from recordings of Atty. Castro’s CONSTI 2 Class

GR: A search/arrest is unconstitutional if the same is done without a valid warrant issued
by the court (judge XPN: Contempt in legislative proceedings, person about to be
deported- Immigration Commissioner)

GR: Arrest warrant is an order form the court directing the proper officer of the law to
effect the arrest. Cannot be executed by anybody.

XPN: Citizen’s Arrest- can only be effected if arresting a person without a warrant, Rule
113 Sec. 5 of Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Rule 113, Section 1. Definition of arrest. — Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in
order that he may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense; to make good t h e
jurisdiction of the court to the person being arrested (by issuing a warrant of arrest); no
jurisdiction= proceeding is null and void

Rule 113., Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private
person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually

committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

(b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe
based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has
committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined
while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred f rom one confinement to
another.

In cases falling under paragraph (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a
warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be
proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule 112. (5a)

Rule 126, ROC

GR: Warrant of arrest must be directed to a specific person of a specific offense. (Several
Offense in one warrant= scattershot warrant)

GR: Lifespan of the warrant of arrest= until the person is arrested; search warrant= 10
days

If a warrant of arrest is filed when there is already a case against a person, such search
warrant is only a discovery remedy- search warrant proceeding; not a commencement of
criminal prosecution, not one against a person but solely for the discovery and to get

Transcriptions from recordings of Atty. Castro’s CONSTI 2 Class

personal property of the person, directed against a thing, special and peculiar remedy,
drastic in nature because of public necessity.

Q: Can the judge just indiscriminately issue a search warrant? 


A: No. Consti provides for these reqs and can’t be relaxed. 



REQUISITES FOR A VALID WARRANT:

1. Must be issued by the judge after he determines probable cause

Probable Cause- X moral certainty, finding of guilt, prosecutor office also determines PC
will warrant if WON a case will be filed in court; only judge can determine the warrant of
arrest (THEY HAVE DIFF DETERMINATION)

- facts/ circumstances preceding from the issuance of a warrant; consists of a

reasonable ground of suspicion supporting by circumstances strong in themselves to
warrant a cautious man to believe that a person has probably/ has committed an offence;
reasonable ground of suspicion, not mere suspicion.

May the court rely on the determination of PC of prosecutor but is not bound to rely. BC
REQ 2 (must be determined personally by the judge)

Private Complainant secure an arrest warrant from the court; cannot execute that court
warrant.

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

doest not mean personal examination. Judge may use the findings made by the
prosecutor. While the judge is not required to make a personal examination, but he
has the personal responsibility to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause.

1. Judge must personally evaluate the report and supporting documents

submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and on the basis
thereof, issue a warrant of arrest. 

2. If on the basis thereof, he finds no PC, he may disregard the fiscal’s report
and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in
arriving at the conclusion as to the existence of PC.

Can be achieved if the supporting documents relied upon by the prosecution in his
determination are also attached so that the court can personally evaluate those
document; need not examine witnesses. But he should be given the opportunity to
personally satisfy himself by personally evaluating the records relied by the
prosecutor. (Soliven V. Makasiar)

It does not follow that when there is PC from prosector, there is already a PC from
the judge. If not satisfied, prosecutor may 1) require more evidence, or 2) dismiss.
This is not a ministerial duty but a constitutional guarantee that he has to
personally determine PC.

Transcriptions from recordings of Atty. Castro’s CONSTI 2 Class

Better if filed by prosecutor, but a civilian may also directly file in court. The judge here
may 1) personally conduct an examination.

3. The determination must be made after the examination under oath of affirmation of the
complainant and witnesses he may produce.

4. Particularity requirement—It must particularly describe the place to be searched and the
persons/ things to be seized. (discriptio personae). If it is proper, he must be
identified by his name or name which he is popular (John Doe warrant). Place to be
searched, persons, or things to be search (General warrant)

Arrest warrant- may not conduct personal examination; but in Search Warrant, the judge is
required to conduct searching inquiries especially with respect to the applicants and
the witnesses that the applicants may produce (Search warrant proceedings).

——

April 6

Only a judge can issue a warrant of arrest or a search warrant

XPN: 1) Legislative Committee- Order through a legislative inquiry a person may

be order arrested 

2) in order to enforce a final order of nations ; in purpose of a commission of a
criminal prosecution

Art 3, Sec, 2 the same is inviolative

-While it is true that only judge can issue a search warrant, they cannot do so
indiscriminately, they are guided by some requirements, issued upon the findings of
probable cause.

1. Must be issued by the judge after he determines probable cause

Proof beyond reasonable doubt not necessary but only reasonable ground of suspicion
supporting by circumstances strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe
that a person has probably/ has committed an offence; reasonable ground of suspicion, not
mere suspicion.

Prosecutor: Determining PC WON a particular case may filed


Judge: Determines PC WON a warrant of arrest may be issued (exclusively by the judge);
even if the judge relied in the determination of the prosecutor, it is still the determination
of the judge (X personal examination, but only personally satisfy himself— A)prosecutor
should attach the evidence relied by the prosecutor in the B) Warrant of arrest by a
civillian- Judge is not required to conduct a hearing (but he could), personal determination
may be done by checking the complaint with its attachments)

Transcriptions from recordings of Atty. Castro’s CONSTI 2 Class

Arrest warrant is an order from the court issued to the police officer in order to arrest a
person. 

Citizen arrest can only be effected if an arrest is without a warrant and if it falls under
Rule 113 Sec 5 and Rule 126 (Rules of Criminal Procedure)

2. 1 offence, one warrant rule 


If not, it will be a scattershot warrant- several offences in one warrant

General Warrant- a warrant that does not specifically describe the thing to be seized,
unconstitutional as is violates “particularity”

Arrest with a warrant- remains standing until the person is arrested;

In arresting a person with warrant, is it a req that one must have in himself the warrant of
arrest? 

GR: Yes

XPN: Sec 7 of Rule 113: The officer need not have the warrant in his possession at the time
of the arrest but after the arrest, if the person arrested so requires, he warrant shall be
shown to him as soon as practicable.

Rule 113, Section 7- Method of arrest by officer by virtue of warrant. — When making an
arrest by virtue of a warrant, the officer shall inform the person to be arrested of the cause of
the arrest and of the fact that a warrant has been issued for his arrest, except when he flees
or forcibly resists before the officer has opportunity to so inform him, or when the giving of
such information will imperil the arrest. The officer need not have the warrant in his
possession at the time of the arrest but after the arrest, if the person arrested so requires,
the warrant shall be shown to him as soon as practicable.

Warrant of arrest in possession, but when you are about to serve a warrant of arrest the
persons ran, can you pursue him inside his residence? 



Ans: Yes. Arrested can break up, especially when you are believing in good faith that the
person to be arrested is in the premises.

Rule 113, Section 11. Right of officer to break into building or enclosure. — An officer, in
order to make an arrest either by virtue of a warrant, or without a warrant as provided in
section 5, may break into any building or enclosure where the person to be arrested is or is
reasonably believed to be, if he is refused admittance thereto, after announcing his
authority and purpose. (11a)

Rule 113, Section 12. Right to break out from building or enclosure. — Whenever an officer
has entered the building or enclosure in accordance with the preceding section, he may
break out therefrom when necessary to liberate himself. (12a)

When you are a police officer, you have to inform him while he is being arrested. After the
arrest, you have to bring him to the nearest police station, and will later on be transported
before the appropriate court.

Transcriptions from recordings of Atty. Castro’s CONSTI 2 Class

Rule 113, Section 3. Duty of arresting officer. — It shall be the duty of the officer executing
the warrant to arrest the accused and to deliver him to the nearest police station or jail
without unnecessary delay. (3a)



If the person is already detained before the filing of the case, is the court requires to issue
an arrest warrant? No need. What the court will issue a commitment order to bring to a
detention/ jail facility.

When/ Why is an arrest warrant issued?

Rule 113 Section 1. Definition of arrest. — Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in
order that he may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense. (1) and in order for
him to answer the charges issued upon him.

On Due Process: So that the court may acquire jurisdiction over the person
accused. (arrest or voluntary surrender) As a req of due process.

If a person is unduly arrested, what may the person do to inform the court that the
arrest was illegal through a motion to quash. If he fails to do that and allows himself to be
arraigned, the court acquires jurisdiction. However, it will only affect/cure the defect in
acquiring jurisdiction over yours person. Can you continuously question the illegality of the
arrest? Yes. Because if does not follow that when you don’t question the illegality of the
arrest in the arraignment, it is tantamount already to waiving your right to quest the
admissibility of the items found in the premises/ your person due to the illegal arrest. It
does not cure admissibility of evidence.

Search Warrant:

Does not require (not necessary) prior filing of a case. Search warrant is not a
criminal proceeding, and not even a commencement of a criminal prosecution. It is not
directed toward a person, but directed only upon a personal property or things.

Things may be subject to seizure: 1) Subject of the offense specifically described in

the warrant, 2) Stolen/ embezzled, or other fruits of the offense, 3) uses or intended to be
use in the commitment of an offense (Stonehill V. Diokno)

Rule 126, Section 3. Personal property to be seized. — A search warrant may be

issued for the search and seizure of personal property:

(a) Subject of the offense;

(b) Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits of the offense; or

(c) Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense. (2a)

Transcriptions from recordings of Atty. Castro’s CONSTI 2 Class

Life span: 10 days, otherwise void. Must be applied again. Rule 126, Section 10. Validity of
search warrant. — A search warrant shall be valid for ten (10) days from its date. Thereafter
it shall be void. (9a)

Is it should be specifically described. Operatives are even required to submit a sketch of the
building to be searched. Specific location not necessary, as long as the premises to be
searched are specifically described. Otherwise, all items found evidence will not be
admissible (exclusionary rule). Moreover, proper inventory of items must be made and
presented to the court. Reason: to avoid these police operatives to conduct a fishing
expedition.

GR: If the items, although incriminating, are not found in the warrant, a police officer
cannot effect the seizure of things. Rule 113, Sec. 5. (a) Arrest without warrant; when
lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

XPN: Arrest in flagrante delicto. Search incident to a lawful arrest; Arrest without warrant;
when lawful

Although search warrant’s object are things, at the end of the day, a person is being
arrested. 

Rule 113, Sec. 5:

Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may,
without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or
is attempting to commit an offense; (IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO)

(b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on
personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it;
and (HOT PURSUIT ARREST)

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment
or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is
pending, or has escaped while being transferred f rom one confinement to another.
(ESCAPEE)

In cases falling under paragraph (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant
shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded
against in accordance with section 7 of Rule 112. (5a)

——————-

April 7

If there be an invalid arrest what could be the possible consequence?

1) Failure to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused

Transcriptions from recordings of Atty. Castro’s CONSTI 2 Class

2) Criminal liability of the arresting officer

3) Any search incident to the arrest becomes invalid thus rendering the evidence acquired
as constitutionally inadmissible (exclusionary rule)

- protection against erring officers who deliberately or negligently disregard the

proper procedure in a effecting searches and recklessly trample on one’s right to privacy

GR: Search and arrest can only be affected with a warrant

XPN: (Umil Vs. Ramos) Doctrine: to hold that no one can in any case be arrested or be
searched for the evidence or tokens for a crime without warrant would be leave society to a
large extent at the mercy of the shrewdest and the most depraved of criminal found
facilitating their escape in so many ways

*These xpns can be invoked anytime WON Martial Law, State of Emergency, ordinary
times is implemented

1) In Flagrante Delicto

A peace officer or a private person (citizen’s arrest)

1. When in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is

actually committing, or attempting to commit an offense.

2 elements:

1. Person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he/she has just
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime

2. And such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer

People Vs. Racho: Racho was not committing a crime at the time he was apprehended; the
basis was solely on a tip

Is a tip sufficient to sufficient to warrant warrantless arrest?

The person is about to arrest somebody because in his presence, he has committed an
offense, but when he was about to be arrested, that somebody escaped, so he chased on him
interrupted. Although the arrest came a little later, this is still in flagrante delicto because
the overt act done in the presence of an arresting officer.

In hot pursuit, the arresting officer need not to be presented in the execution of the over
act, what is required is that they have personal knowledge of facts and circumstances
indicating the person sought to be arrested committing it.

SIMILARITIES OF IN FLAGRANTE AND HOT PURSUIT: 1) BOTH HAVE THE

PERFORMANCE OF THE OVERT ACT 2) THE ARREST CAN BE DONE EITHER BY AN
ARRESTING OFFICER OR A PRIVATE PERSON

Transcriptions from recordings of Atty. Castro’s CONSTI 2 Class

DIFFERENCE: IN FLAGRANTE: PRESENCE OF THE ARRESTING OFFICER IS
IMPORTANT; HOT PURSUIT: NOT NECESSARY 



Supposing the arrest happened 3 hours from the time of the commission of the crime, would
that still fall under hot pursuit?

That the crime has just been committed,

Tip is allowed invoking a specific situation if the police officer has probable cause. How? Is
his determination of probable cause the same with the determination of the judge? No. The
determination of the probable cause must be based on his personal knowledge. 



Personal knowledge of facts based on their observation, perception, evaluation of the
circumstances surrounding the case. Judgement call on the part of the arresting
officer. May not be present but must have remnants of the offense. (e.g. seeing crime
scene, instrument used in the crime, eyewitness). Personal knowledge of the remnants of
the event. (victim crying, witness who could corroborate sentiments of the victims) BUT
MERE CLAIM that a person is committing an offense will not warrant HOT PURSUIT

1. Law enforcers need not personally witness the crime, however, they must have
personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances indicating that the person sought to be
arrested has committed the offense.

3) ESCAPEE- person to be arrested must be convicted already and is serving

sentence in a penal institution


Rule 126, Searches and seizures; warrantless searches may be effected:


(People V. Bautista et.al)

1. Search incidental to a lawful arrest

2. Seizure in plain view

3. Search of a moving vehicle 

4. Consented Search

5. Customs Search

6. Stop & Frisk Search

7. Exigent & Emergency Circumstances

8. Search on checkpoints or constructive boarders

The five (5) well-settled instances when a warrantless search and seizure of property is
valid, 44 are as follows:

1. warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section 12, Rule 126 of
the Rules of Court 45 and by prevailing jurisprudence 46,

2. Seizure of evidence in "plain view", the elements of which are: 47

Transcriptions from recordings of Atty. Castro’s CONSTI 2 Class

(a). a  prior valid intrusion  based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are
legally present in the pursuit of their official duties;

(b). the evidence was  inadvertently discovered  by the police who had the right to be where
they are;

(c). the evidence must be immediately apparent, and

(d). "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence without further search. 48

3. search of a moving vehicle.  49 Highly regulated by the government, the vehicle's inherent
mobility reduces expectation of privacy especially when its transit in public thoroughfares
furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause that the occupant
committed a criminal activity. 50

4. consented warrantless search, and

5. customs search.



(Padila VS. CA)

———————

April 12

GR: Any arrest without warrant is considered unconstitutional because the command is if
you want to arrest a person, you have to secure a warrant of arrest. However, there are
instances that using as our guide the case of Umil Vs. Ramos, if we will just be focusing on
arresting persons with a warrant, we will be leaving the society at the mercy of the
shrewdest of criminals, we will be facilitating their escape in so many ways.

To hold that no criminal can, in any case, be arrested and searched for the evidence and
tokens of his crime without a warrant, would be to leave society, to a large extent, at the
mercy of the shrewdest, the most expert, and the most depraved of criminals, facilitating
their escape in many instances. (Umil Vs. Ramos)

Warrantless Search: Rule 113 and Rule 126.

Caution to everyone: It does not follow that when certain jurisprudence allow those
warrantless search/ arrest, operatives can indiscriminately use warrantless
searches/ arrest without securing warrant from courts. Securing warrants is still
favored.

Transcriptions from recordings of Atty. Castro’s CONSTI 2 Class

Circumstance where warrantless search can be allowed:

As provided by rules of court:

Rule 126, Sec. 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. — A person lawfully arrested may be
searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or
constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant. (12a)

Two things:

1. There is an arrest, then 2. There is a search; cannot be reversed. Because the search is
premised on the arrest.

What kind of arrest is required before you can use this situation? Lawful arrest (arrest with
warrant; without warrant provided the situation falls under Rule 113, Sec. 5 of crim
pro)

Q: Why is it that despite the person being arrested, what is the import of further
conducting a search? Why do police officers conduct a search after arrest?

Opening of locked cabinets found in the house and unfortunately yielded incriminating
items such as shabu, the person arrested for kidnapping was also charged for
violation of Anti-Drugs? How did the police officers justified the incident? According
to them that is a search incident to a lawful arrest.

Search is connected to the arrest, such is the moving force that prompted the police officer
to conduct the search? But this search should not be indiscriminate and must have a
legitimate purpose. 

What are the legitimate purposes as tolerated in the Rules of Court? (Rule
126, Sec. 13) 1. Protecting the arresting officers because this person might be
concealing a weapon that could risk the lives of the arresting officers. (MAIN
REASON) 2. Prohibit the person from destroying the evidence of the crime 3) To
Find in his possession tokens of the crime

PARAMETERS THAT SHOULD BE FOLLOWED BY OPERATIVES:


Padilla Vs. CA



1. Item must be with arrestees custody (body, actual possession) or area of
immediate control (area which he has dominion, constructive possession). After a
person is arrested, he can be searched normally in his body (persons). Purpose: In
order to find a weapon that is concealed that could harm arresting officer. Suppose,
in finding of those, the officer found an incriminating obj, say, shabu. Can the person
be charged of violation of drugs? YES. Such is considered search incidental to a valid
arrest. Any object found incriminating can be used against you and you may be
charged with a separate offence. 



Facts: Warrant of arrest for kidnapping and even searched the locks of drawers and

Transcriptions from recordings of Atty. Castro’s CONSTI 2 Class

 found shabu. Can the person be separately changed for violation of drugs law? 

Table where one is seated- area of immediate control PURPOSE!!! Preventing him
from destroying evidence. 



Say, that house if not his residence, but he was arrested there. Incriminating objects
found in the search is not within the arrestees area of immediate control. Obj cant
be used agains him. Such is a fruit of a poisonous tree. But since it is a incriminating
obj, the police office may confiscated but cannot be used against arrestee.

2. There must first be an arrest, and then, the search. Can it be simultaneous/
contemporaneous? YES. But it cannot be ahead of the arrest.

If the arrest is illegal or irregular, but was failed to question it. Does it cure the
illegality of the arrest? Failure to question the illegality of arrest cures the defect on
acquiring the jurisdiction over the person accused, and not the effects of the arrest
as to the admissibility of evidence. Therefore, the court can go on with the
proceedings, and cant be considered null and void. Evidence cant continuously be
interposed to be inadmissible due to illegal arrest..

Consented Search

Circumstance: Law student let police officers, even made coffee, in his residence to conduct
search and, then, yielded a firearm.

Q: Is there a consented search?

The person whose right may be violated can be the only one who can give consent.

Circumstance: May a property owner grant police officer the premises of Mr. B, where
property is being leased to Mr. B and he is in actual occupation of premises. Mr. A
cannot give consent.

Veridiano Case: Petitioner’s silence or lack or lack of resistance can hardly be considered as
consent to the warrantless search. Mere passiveness conformity or silence to the
warrantless search is only a right acquiesce which amounts to no consent at all.
(respecting the law)

For consent to be established: Categorical statement that he/she is allowing police officers
to search his residence. Consent must be voluntary, unequivocal, specific, and
intelligently given and unattended by duress and/or coercion. 



Silence, as a general rule, is not a consent. Merely allowing police officers to enter, is
not consent.

But as law student, you know among other people what search entails. Offered coffee,
guided them. This can be taken against you. CONSENT IS A QUESTION OF FACT.
STANDARD APPLIED: TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES RULE. Every detail

Transcriptions from recordings of Atty. Castro’s CONSTI 2 Class

 must be considered. 9 factors that has to be evaluated by court: Age, capability of
giving consent, place is public or secluded area, whether he objected or just
passively, education and intelligence of person giving consent, presence of coercive
police procedure, defendants belief that no incriminating obj can be found, nature of
police questioning, environment in which the questioning place took place, possible
vulnerable state of the person consenting. CABALLES VS. CA

Search in Plain View (Plain View Doctrine)

Exposed to the sight.

REQS:

1. There must be a prior valid intrusion (1. Search warrant 2. Situation falls under
circumstances where warrantless arrest of search is permitted

2. Evidence is inadvertently found (YOU REALLY ARE NOT LOOKING FOR THAT
EVIDENCE) by the operatives of the police who have the right to be where they
are at that time.

3. Evidence must be immediately apparent

EX: Search warrant is for firearms but police officer saw shabu. YES. United
Laboratories vs. ISIP

 Seizure of evidence in "plain view", the elements of which are: 47

(a). a  prior valid intrusion  based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are
legally present in the pursuit of their official duties;

(b). the evidence was  inadvertently discovered  by the police who had the right to be where
they are;

(c). the evidence must be immediately apparent, and

(d). "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence without further search

Padilla Vs. CA

Plain View Doctrine. The doctrine is not an exception to the warrant. It merely serves to
supplement the prior justification – whether it be a warrant for another object, hot
pursuit, search as an incident to a lawful arrest or some other legitimate reason for
being present, unconnected with a search directed against the accused. The doctrine
may not be used to extend a general exploratory search from one object to another

Transcriptions from recordings of Atty. Castro’s CONSTI 2 Class

 until something incriminating at last emerges. It is a recognition of the fact that
when executing police officers comes across immediately incriminating evidence not
covered by the warrant, they should not be required to close their eyes to it, regardless
of whether it is evidence of the crime they are investigating or evidence of some other
crime. It would be needless to require the police to obtain another warrant.56 Under
the doctrine, there is no invasion of a legitimate expectation of privacy and there is no
search within the meaning of the Constitution. United Laboratories vs. ISIP

When police officers dont have the right to be where they are right now. 

If they are- YES. Plain View Doctrine.

It can be confiscated BUT it cannot be used against. 


Circumstance: Shabu found in a very small pouch. Note that the subject of the warrant is a
long firearm. Operatives are doing a fishing expedition.

Circumstance: Police operatives received an information re: marijuana plantation in a brgy.

They conducted a travel and was able to fiund a place in an open, unfenced area.
Such charging the caretaker of violation of drug laws invoking plain view doctrine.

Q: Is the plain view doctrine applicable?

A: No. The plantation was not inadvertently found. What should have been done was to file
a search warrant. Also not apparent was not immediately apparent as it took them 2
hours before they were able to find. People VS. VALDEZ

—————-

April 13

Q: Is it required for a person to be searched to manifest his waiver of Art. 3 of Sec 2 of

Consti? 

A: The mere silence of a person of lack of resistance can hardly be considered as a
warrantless search. Waiver must be unequivocal, specific, and intelligently given,
and unattended by duress and coercion. Consent is dependent on the person to be
searched. Whether he is waiving it or not. If he did not manifest anything. The
presumption is that he is not waiving his right. Not dependent on the affirmative
act. The regularity of the conduct of the search must be determined upon the
actuation of the officers. 


People Vs. Burgos . . . As the constitutional guaranty is not dependent upon any affirmative
act of the citizen, the courts do not place the citizen in the position of either contesting
an officer's authority by force, or waiving his constitutional rights; but instead they
hold that a peaceful submission to a search or seizure is not a consent or an invitation

Transcriptions from recordings of Atty. Castro’s CONSTI 2 Class

 thereto, but is merely a demonstration of regard for the supremacy of the law. (56
C.J., pp. 1180, 1181).

It is the burden of the operatives to established that they have complied with the statutory
as well as constitutional procedures/ req is effecting a valid search.

Silence is not a consent/ passive actuation is not a consent. There can be no implied
consent.

Plainview justified:

1. There is Nomenclature

2. By experience of operative

Search on a moving vehicle

1. Extensive Search- Needs Probable Cause

The mere mobility of these vehicles, however, does not give the police officers unlimited
discretion to conduct indiscriminate searches without warrants if made within the interior of
the territory and in the absence of probable cause.18 Still and all, the important thing is that
there was probable cause to conduct the warrantless search, which must still be present in
such a case. (Caballes Vs. Court of Appeals)

2. Routinary Searches- No need of Probable Cause; Visual Search only where individuals
have reduced expectation of privacy. Necessitated by public safety; mainly to maintain
peace and order. Normally done on checkpoints. MUST BE LESS INTRUSIVE IN
CHARACTER. No person in the right mind will be bringing a contraband knowing that he
will be passing a checkpoint.

Extensive Searches in public vehicles- when there is probable cause. PV determined

by operatives.

Circumstance: Private Vehicle; only a routinary search. 


How does visual search be manifested? At checkpoints, what are the matters that should
appear at the checkpoint? Does it include physical/bodily search? NO. 



Remember: The expectation of privacy in a public transport is lesser than a private
transport. 


To emphasize, a reasonable search, on the one hand, and a warrantless search, on the other,
are mutually exclusive. While both State intrusions are valid even without a warrant, the
underlying reasons for the absence of a warrant are different. A reasonable search arises
from a reduced expectation of privacy, for which reason Section 2, Article III of the
Constitution finds no application. Examples include searches done at airports, seaports, bus
terminals, malls, and similar public ·places. In contrast, a warrantless search is presumably

Transcriptions from recordings of Atty. Castro’s CONSTI 2 Class

an "unreasonable search," but for reasons of practicality, a search warrant can be dispensed
with. Examples include search incidental to a lawful arrest, search of evidence in plain view,
consented search, and extensive search of a private moving vehicle.

Saluday VS. People

Situations/ Illustrations how a visual search is conducted.

1. A search of a moving vehicle may either be a mere routine inspection or an extensive
search. The search in a routine inspection is limited to the following instances: (1)
where the officer merely draws aside the curtain of a vacant vehicle which is
parked on the public fair grounds; (2) simply looks into a vehicle; (3) flashes a
light therein without opening the car's doors; (4) where the occupants are not
subjected to a physical or body search; (5) where the inspection of the vehicles is
limited to a visual search or visual inspection; and (6) where the routine check is
conducted in a fixed area.2 Agpad Vs. People

The ten (10) checkpoint rules outlined in the Advisory are anchored on the constitutional

guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures (Section 2, Article III). These are:

1. Checkpoint must be well-lighted, properly identified and manned by uniformed

personnel.

2. Upon approach, slow down, dim headlights and turn on cabin lights. Never step out

of the vehicle.

3. Lock all doors. Only visual search is allowed.

4. Do not submit to a physical or bodily search.

5. You are not obliged to open glove compartment, trunk or bags.

6. Ordinary/routine questions may be asked. Be courteous but firm with answers.

7. Assert your rights, have presence of mind and do not panic.

8. Keep your driver’s license and car registration handy and within reach.

9. Be ready to use your cellphone at anytime. Speed dial emergency number.

10. Report violations immediately. Your actions may save others.

Transcriptions from recordings of Atty. Castro’s CONSTI 2 Class