1

RIGHT AGAINST
UNREASONABLE SEARCHES
AND SEIZURES

Week 4 Reporters
 SECTION 2 ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION 2

BILL OF RIGHTS

SEC. 2. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BE SECURE IN THEIR PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS, AND
EFFECTS AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES OF WHATEVER NATURE AND
FOR ANY PURPOSE SHALL BE 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.
 3

SEARCH WARRANT
SEARCH
WARRANT ; A search warrant an order in writing issued
REQUISITES in the name of the People of the Philippines,
signed by a judge and directed to a peace
officer, commanding him to search for
personal property described therein and
bring it before the court. ( Sec 1, Rule 126)
 4

REQUISITES OF A VALID A search warrant shall not issue except upon

SEARCH WARRANT probable cause in connection with one
specific offense to be determined personally
by the judge after examination under oath
or affirmation of the complainant and the
witness he may produce, and particularly
describing the place to be searched and the
things to be seized which may be anywhere in
the Philippines.(sec 4, Rule 126)
5
REQUISITES OF A VALID
SEARCH WARRANT
The judge must, before issuing the warrant,
personally examine in the form of searching
questions and answers, in writing and under
oath, the complainant and the witnesses he
may produce on facts personally known to them
and attach to the record their sworn
statements, together with the affidavits
submitted. (Sec 5, Rule 126)
5
 6

Search warrants, issued upon applications stating

that the persons named in it had committed a
GENERAL violation of several laws do not satisfy the
constitutional requirements where no specific
SEARCH offense had been alleged in said applications.
WARRANTS General search warrants are search warrants
issued for more than one specific offense or for
things to be seized which are generally described.
STONEHILL V. 7

DIOKNO, GR L-19950
The Supreme Court, noting that the warrants "were issued upon applications alleging a
violation of Central Bank circulars, the Tariff and Customs Law, the Internal Revenue Code and
the Revised Penal Code," declared through Chief Justice Conception:

In other words; no specific offense had been alleged in said applications. The averme
nts thereof with respect to the offense committed were abstract. As a consequence,
it was impossible for the judges who issued the warrants to have found the existence of
probable cause, for the same presupposes the introduction of competent proof that t
he party against whom it is sought has performed particular acts, or committed specific
omissions, violating a given provision of our criminal laws.
 8

WHAT ARE THE PERSONAL PROPERTY THAT MAY

BE SEIZED UNDER A SEARCH WARRANT?
 9

PROPERTIES Section 3., Rul126 Criminal procedure

WHICH MAY BE Personal property to be seized. - A search warrant may be

SEIZED UNDER issued for the search and seizure of personal property.
1.
2.
Subject of the offense;
Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits of the
A SEARCH 3.
offense;
Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an

WARRANT offense.
 5
10

PROPERTY TO BE
SEARCHED NEED Under subsection (b) of the above
NOT BE OWNED quoted Section 3 of Rule 126, one of
BY THE PERSON the properties that may be seized is
AGAINST WHOM stolen property which necessarily must
THE SEARCH be owned by a person other than the
WARRANT IS one in whose possession it may be at
DIRECTED the time of the search and seizure.
PEOPLE V. CA, GR 11

126379
 12

PLACED TO BE The place to be searched, as set out in the warrant, can

neither be amplified or modified by:
SEARCHED 1. the police officers' own personal knowledge of the
premises; Or
MUST BE 2. the evidence they adduced in support of their application

PARTICULARL for the warrant.

Such amplification or modification is forbidden by the

Y DESCRIBED Constitution itself which requires the search warrant to

particularly describe:
IN THE 3. the place to be searched; and
4. the persons or things to be seized.
WARRANT
 13

WHAT ARE THE GROUNDS FOR QUASHAL OF SEARCH W

ARRANT?
 8
14

GROUNDS A motion to quash a search warrant may be

filed based on grounds extrinsic of the
FOR warrant, such as:
(a) the place searched or the property
QUASHAL OF seized are not those specified or described
SEARCH in the search warrant; and
(b) there is no probable cause for the
WARRANT issuance of the search warrant.
ABUAN V. PEOPLE,
15

GR 168773.
16
 17

Acts of private Constitutional protection against unreasonable

searches and seizures refers to the immunity of
persons not one’s person from interference by government
covered by ”it cannot be extended to acts
constitutional committed by private individuals.”

safeguard In the absence of governmental interference, the

liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot
be invoked against the State.
PEOPLE V. MARTI,
GR 81561
2
The constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures refers to the
immunity of one’s person from interference by government; it cannot be extended to
acts committed by private individuals so as to bring it within the ambit of alleged
unlawful intrusion by the government. The contraband in the case at bar having come
into possession of the Government without the latter trangressing appellant’s rights
against unreasonable search and seizure, the Court sees no cogent reason why the
same should not be admitted against him in the prosecution of the offense charged.
18
 19

WHAT ARE THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE PROHIBITION

AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES?
 20

Exceptions to 1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest;

prohibition 2. Seizure of evidence in "plain view";
against 3.
4.
Search of a moving vehicle;
Consented warrantless search or valid waiver of
unreasonable the right against warrantless search and seizure;
searches and 5. Customs search or search in the enforcement of
customs law
seizures 6. Stop and frisk or Terry search; and
7. Search during exigent and emergency
circumstances.
 0 9876543210 9876543210 9876543210
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
“The first will be the last, and the last will be the first,
but both middle numbers will always be the same”
PEOPLE V. ARUTA, 22

GR 120915.
While the power to search and seize may at times be necessary to the public welfare,
still it may be exercised and the law enforced without transgressing the
constitutional rights of the citizens, for the enforcement of no statute is of sufficient
importance to justify indifference to the basic principles of government.
Those who are supposed to enforce the law are not justified in disregarding the
rights of the individual in the name of order. Order is too high a price to pay for the
loss of liberty. As Justice Holmes declared: “I think it is less evil that some criminals
escape than that the government should play an ignoble part.” It is simply not
allowed in free society to violate a law to enforce another, especially if the law
violated is the Constitution itself.
 23

Probable PROBABLE CAUSE

cause a "such facts and circumstances which would
requisite for lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man

validity of to believe that an offense has been

committed, and that objects sought in
warrantless connection with the offense are in the place
sought to be searched.
searches
PEOPLE V. YANSON 24

GR 238453
a solitary tip by a police informant was held as hardly sufficient to constitute
probable cause such that items seized during a warrantless search based on a
solitary tip are inadmissible as evidence.
There must be a confluence of several suspicious circumstances in order to
establish the existence of probable cause
 25

Corpus delicti
It literally means "body of the crime,"
1. the fact of the commission of the crime
charged; or
2. the body or substance of the crime.
 26

WHAT IS THE CORPUS DELICTI IN DRUG CASES?

 27

It is sufficient for the prosecution to be

Proof of able show that:
corpus delicti
1. a certain fact has been proven — say, a
person has died or a building has been
burned; and
2. a particular person is criminally
responsible for the act.
RIMORIN, SR. V. 28

PEOPLE, GR 146481
Corpus delicti refers to the fact of the commission of the crime or the body or
substance of the crime. In its legal sense, it doesn´t refer to the ransom money in the
crime of kidnapping for ransom or the the body of the person murdered. Hence, to
prove the corpus delicti, It is sufficient for the prosecution to be able to show that a
certain fact has been proven-say a person has died or a building has been burned an a
particular person is criminally responsible for the act. Corpus delicti is the fact of the
commission of the crime, this court has ruled that even a single witness uncorroborated
testimony may suffice to prove It and warrant conviction. It may even be established by
circumstantial evidence
 29

Warrantless Rule 126 of the Rules of Court

Sec. 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. – A

search person lawfully arrested may be searched for

dangerous weapons or anything which may have

incidental
been used or constitute proof in the commission of an
offense without a search warrant.

to a lawful “a search incidental to a lawful arrest requires that

there must first be a lawful arrest before a search is

arrest
made”
PEOPLE V. RACHO, 30

GR 186529.
Recent jurisprudence holds that in searches incident to a lawful arrest, the arrest
must precede the search; generally, the process cannot be reversed. Nevertheless, a
search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the arrest if the
police have probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of the search.21 Thus,
given the factual milieu of the case, we have to determine whether the police officers
had probable cause to arrest appellant. Although probable cause eludes exact and
concrete definition, it ordinarily signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion
supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious
man to believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is
charged
 31

For there to be arrest, law enforcers must as a

rule be armed with a valid “warrant of arrest”,
Warrant of arrest which is an order issued by the judge upon
probable cause determined personally by him.
 2
32

The judicial determination of probable cause is one

personally made by the judge to ascertain whether a
warrant of arrest should be issued against the
accused.
Determination of
He must satisfy himself that based on the evidence
probable cause
submitted, there is necessity for placing the accused
under custody in order not to frustrate the ends of
justice.
His conclusion as to whether probable cause existed is
final and conclusive and is sufficient basis to issue the
warrant of arrest.
 33

Following established doctrine and procedures, the judge

shall:

1. personally evaluate the report and the supporting

Determination of documents submitted by the public prosecutor
probable cause regarding the existence of probable cause and, on the
basis of it, issue a warrant of arrest; or
2. if on the basis of said report and documents he finds
no probable cause, disregard the report and require
the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to
aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence
of probable cause.
9
SECTION 5, RULE 113 OF THE RULES OF COURT.
34
SECTION 5, ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT; WHEN A LAWFUL. A PEACE OFFICER OR A PRIVATE PERSON MAY,
WITHOUT A WARRANT, ARREST A PERSON;
WHEN IN HIS PRESENCE, THE PERSON TO BE ARRESTED HAS COMMITTED, IS ACTUALLY COMMITTING, OR IS
ATTEMPTING TO COMMIT AN OFFENSE;

A. 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;
B. 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
C. HAS ESCAPED WHILE BEING TRANSFERRED FROM ONE CONFINEMENT TO ANOTHER.
 35

WHAT ARE THE 3 RECOGNIZED EXCEPTION TO THE

CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION ON WARRANTLESS
ARREST?
 36

a. 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
Arrest without a warrant committed it, and;

B. 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

C. has escaped while being transferred from one

confinement to another.
 37

Period of A person arrested without a warrant can only be

detained within the period of:
detention of a  Twelve (12) hours, for crimes or offenses
punishable by light penalties, or their
person equivalent;
 Eighteen (18) hours, for crimes or offenses
arrested punishbale by correctional penalties, or their

without a equivalent; and

Thirthy six (36) hours, for crimesor offenses
warrant punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, or
their equivalen
 38

Period of The arresting officer’s duty under the law was either:
 To deliver the arrestee to the proper judicial

detention of a authorities within the applicable period; or

 To thereafter release him.
person
The period for the conduct of inquest proceedings
arrested where a public prosecutor determines the legality of

without a a warrantless arrest is generally included in the

above time periods.
warrant
 39

 An “inquest” is an informal and summary

investigation conducted by the public
prosecutor in a criminal case involving
Inquest persons arrested and detained without the
proceedings benefit of a warrant of arrest issued by the
court for the purpose of determining
whether said persons should remain under
custody and correspondingly be charged in
court.
 0 9876543210 9876543210 9876543210
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
“number THREE said i will be the second”
3
41

Personal
knowledge of For valid warrantless arrests under Section
5(a) and (b), Rule 113 of the Rules of
the offense by Criminal Procedure, the arresting officer

arresting must have personal knowledge of the

offense.
officer
 SECTION 5(A) AND (B), RULE 113 OF THE RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 42

SEC. 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 FROM ONE CONFINEMENT
TO ANOTHER.
 43

Personal The difference is that under Section 5(a), the arresting

officer must have personally witnessed the crime while
knowledge of under Section 5(b), the arresting officer must have had

the offense by
probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested
committed an offense.

arresting However, whether under Section 5(a) or (b), the lawful

officer arrest must either, the arrest must precede the search;
generally, the process cannot be reversed.
Nevertheless, a search substantially contemporaneous
with an arrest can precede the arrest if the police have
probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of the
search.
LARRY MANIBOG V. 44

PEOPLE GR NO 211214 .
Under the Constitution, search and seizure must be carried out through a judicial
warrant; otherwise, the same would violate the Constitution. Any evidence resulting
from it shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. But this is only the
general rule. Exceptions to this were covered by jurisprudence.
Since the warrantless search and seizure, as well as warrantless arrest, were found
to be lawful, it is only just to hold Manibog guilty of the offense charged against him.
 45

Limitations Where the lawful arrest is the sole justification for the
validity of the warrantless search under the
on exceptions, the same must be limited to and
circumscribed by the subject, time, and place of the
warrantless arrest.
As to its subject, the warrantless search is sanctioned
search only with respect to the person of the suspect and the
things that may be seized from him are limited to:
following a dangerous weapons; or
anything which may be used as proof of the
lawful arrest commission of the offense.
 46

Limitations With respect to the time and place of the warrantless

on search, it must be contemporaneous with the lawful

arrest. This means that the search, to be valid, must
warrantless have been conducted:
at about the time of the arrest or immediately
search thereafter; and
only at the place where the suspect was arrested or
following a the premises or surroundings under his immediate
control.
lawful arrest
 47

7
Limitations The exception is merely intended to:

on 1. protect the arresting officer against physical harm

from the person being arrested who might be
warrantless armed with a concealed weapon; and
2. prevent the person arrested from destroying the
search evidence within his reach.
This particular exception to the constitutional
following a prohibition against unreasonable searches and
seizures should not should not be strained beyond
lawful arrest what is needed in order to serve the above purposes
PEOPLE V. CHE CHUN 48

TING GR 130568-69
The right is not absolute and admits of certain well-recognized exceptions. For
instance, a person lawfully arrested searched for dangerous weapons or anything
which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense, without a search
warrant. The search may extend beyond the person of the one arrested to include the
permissible area or surroundings within his immediate control.
The accused was admittedly outside unit 22 and in the act of delivering to Mabel
Cheung Mei Po a bag of shabu when he was arrested by the NARCOM operatives.
 9
49

During or immediately after a valid arrest, the arresting officer may

Objects of search the person of the arrestee and the area within which the latter
may:
a) reach for:
warrantless 1. a weapon; or

search and b)
2. evidence to destroy; and
seize:

seizure after or 1. any money or property found which was used in the
commission of the crime; or

during lawful 2. the fruit of the crime; or

3. that which may be used as evidence; or

arrest that which might furnish the arrestee with the means of escaping or
committing violence.
 50

The first kind of warrantless arrest is known

as “in flagrante delicto arrest” which falls
under the circumstances contemplated
In flagrante delicto arrest
under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of
Criminal Procedure where a peace officer or
a private person may, without a warrant,
arrest a person when, in his presence, the
person to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense.
MANIBOG V. PEOPLE 51

GR 211214
 52

The validity of in flagrante delicto arrest requires

compliance with the “overt act test.”
Under this test, in order for an in flagrante delicto
Overt act test as to validity warrantless arrest to be ef-fected, the following
of in flagrante delicto elements must concur:
arrest (a) The person to be arrested must execute an
overt act indicating that he:
(1) has just committed;
(2) is actually committing; or
(3) is attempting to commit a crime; and
(b) Such overt act is done in the presence or
within the view of the arresting officer.
 1
53

Failure to comply with the overt act test

renders an in flagrante delicto arrest
Overt act test as to validity constitutionally infirm.
of in flagrante delicto In People v. Cogaed, the warrantless arrest
arrest was invalidated as an in flagrante delicto
arrest because the accused did not exhibit an
overt act within the view of the police officers
suggesting that he was in possession of illegal
drugs at the time he was apprehended.
PEOPLE V. COGAED, 54

GR 200334.
 55

“Hot pursuit” - or what is sometimes called as “fresh pursuit”

- is a doctrine in criminal law holding that law enforcers may
enter the premises where they suspect that a crime has
been committed without the need of securing first a court
Hot pursuit arrest warrant when delay would endanger their lives or the lives of
others and lead to the escape of the alleged perpetrator/s.
An arrest effected in hot pursuit under Section 5(b), Rule
113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure requires for its
application that, at the time of the arrest:
(a) an offense has in fact just been committed; and
(b) the arresting officer has personal knowledge of facts
indicating that the person to be apprehended has committed
it
 0 9876543210 9876543210 9876543210
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
The middle changed position.
 57

RULES OF COURT RULE 113 SECTION 1

RESTAR
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.

Re-arrest of escaped prisoners
58
The third ground for a warrantless arrest is when a prisoner
has escaped from jail or a detainee has escaped his place
of detention.
Such person (also called an “escapee) may be arrested by
any person at sight and wherever he may be found and
must forthwith be brought back to prison or his place of
detention without need of a warrant.
Similarly, a person lawfully arrested (“arrestee”) who
escapes or is rescued by another person may immediately
be pursued and retaken (rearrested) by any person without
a warrant at any time and in any place within the Philippin
NILAP 59

EWVI
Plain View
The plain view doctrine permits the warrantless
seizure of items if the items are discovered
inadvertently and are immediately apparent as
evidence of crime.
PEOPLE VS MUSA 60

GR 96177
In the instant case, the NARCOM agents searched the whole house and found the plastic
bag in the kitchen. The plastic bag was, therefore, not within their “plain view” when they
arrested the appellant as to justify its seizure. The "plain view" doctrine may not,
however, be used to launch unbridled searches and indiscriminate seizures nor to extend
a general exploratory search made solely to find evidence of defendant's guilt. The "plain
view" doctrine is usually applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence
against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object.
We, therefore, hold that under the circumstances of the case, the "plain view" doctrine
does not apply and the marijuana contained in the plastic bag was seized illegally and
cannot be presented in evidence pursuant to Article III, Section 3(2) of the Constitution.
 61

The seizure of evidence in plain view means that

warrantless search and seizure,
as an incident to a suspect’s lawful arrest, may extend
Seizure of evidence in beyond the person of the one arrested to include the
“plain view;” elements premises or surroundings under his immediate control

such that objects in the plain view of an officer who

has the right to be in the position to have that view are
subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence
in court.
 62

The elements of seizure of evidence in plain view are:

(a) - a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest

in which the police were legally present in the pursuit of their
Seizure of evidence in official duties;
“plain view;” elements
(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.
 63

Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling

in the “plain view” of an officer, who has a
right to be in the position to have that view,
Application of plain view are subject to seizure and may be presented
doctrine; case law as evidence.
CRESCENCIO V. PEOPLE,
GR 205015

64

The authority of the DENR personnel to arrest the petitioner, even without a court
warrant, was upheld. Section 80 of the Revised Forestry Code or Presidential Decree
No. 705 authorizes the forestry officer or employee of the DENR or any police
personnel to arrest, even without a warrant, any person who has committed or is
committing in his presence any of the offenses defined by the Code and to seize and
confiscate the tools and equipment used in committing the offense or the forest
products gathered or taken by the offender.
CRESCENCIO V. PEOPLE,
GR 205015

65

In the course of such lawful intrusion, the DENR personnel had inadvertently come across the
twenty-four (24) pieces of magsihagon lumber which evidently incriminated the petitioner.
The fact of possession by the petitioner of the said lumber and her subsequent failure to
produce the legal documents required under existing forest laws and regulations constituted
criminal liability for violation of the Code. Under Section 68 of the Code, two (2) distinct and
separate offenses are punished, namely:
a) cutting, gathering, collecting, and removing timber or other forest products from any forest
land, or timber from alienable or disposable public land, or from private land without any
authority; and
b) possession of timber or other forest products without the legal documents required under
existing forest laws and regulations.
 66

for a warrantless search of a moving vehicle to be

valid, probable cause remains imperative. Law
enforcers do not enjoy unbridled discretion to conduct
Search of moving
searches.
vehicle Mere mobility of vehicles does not give the police
officers unlimited discretion to conduct indiscriminate
searches without warrants if made within the interior of
the territory and not done upon probable cause, that is,
“upon a belief, reasonably arising out of circumstances
known to the seizing officer, that an automobile or
other vehicle contains an item, article, or object which
by law is subject to seizure and destruction."
 67

Cases where warrantless searches in moving vehicles held to be

valid
ANIAG, JR. V. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, GR 104961.
68

Given these circumstances and relying on its visual observation, the

policemen could not thoroughly search the car and the package lawfully
without violating the constitutional injunction. An extensive search without a
warrant could only be resorted to if the officers conducting the search had
reasonable or probable cause to believe before the search that either:
a) the motorist was a law offender; or
b) they would find any evidence pertaining to the commission
of a crime in the vehicle to be searched.

The existence of probable cause justifying the warrantless search is

determined by the facts of each case.
 69

A checkpoint search is a variant of a search

of a moving vehicle.
In Valmonte v. De Villa, it was held that
checkpoints are not illegal per se. Thus,
Checkpoint under exceptional circumstances, as where
the survival of organized government is on
the balance, or where the lives and safety of
the people are in grave peril, checkpoints
may be allowed and installed by the
government.
 70

Routine inspection and a few questions do not constitute

unreasonable searches. If the inspection becomes more
thorough to the extent of becoming a search, this can be
done when there is deemed to be probable cause. In the

Checkpoint latter situation, it is justifiable as a warrantless search of

a moving vehicle.
Said routine checks cannot be considered as violative
of an individual’s right against unreasonable search
provided that:
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.
 71

THANK YOU FOR LISTENING!

72