7/27/2019 Consti2: Search and Seizure

1/17

PART 1

SEARCH AND SEIZURES

The issuance of a search warrant

2 basic requisites

1. Probable cause

2. Warrant must include the place to be searched andthe things to be seized

PARTICULARITY OF THE PLACE TO BE SEARCH AND THE

THINGS TO BE SEIZED

PLACE TO BE SEARCH: the particularity requirement in the

search is to prevent what is referred to in the case of DIOKNO

VS STONEHILL as a general warrant

GENERAL WARRANT : it is a general warrant it can be use

as a tool for fishing expedition, if there is no particularity of

the place to be search and things to be seize by the police

officer, wherein the police officer executing the warrant would

be able to exercise discretion so it has to be particular and

specific

PARTICULARITY OF THE PLACE TO BE SEARCH: the

description of the place is sufficient if the officer of the

warrant, with reasonable effort ascertain and identify the

place intended to be search and distinguish it from other

places or vicinity . In other words, as long as the description

points out to the place to the exclusion of all others, then it it

sufficient.

CASES

UY VS BIR: the caption of the search warrant states that the

address is HERNAN CORTEZ ST., CEBU CITY , but in the search

warrant it is HERNAN ST., MANDAUE CITY. Now based onthis alone would you say that the search warrant is

valid? It what that the enforcing officers had difficulty in

finding the place as describe in the warrant, now therefore

knowing that the warrant identified the city correctly, it will

not make the warrant invalid. You go back to the basic, as

long as the searching officer can with his reasonable effort

ascertain and identify the place. In other words if there is

discrepancy I will not automatically ipso facto invalidate the

warrant.

UY VS ____: They also question the search warrant because

the search warrant because the name of the of the alleged

owner of the place. There were two warrants issued the

second warrant apparently to correct the inconsistency of the

first search warrant , the first warrant was issued

uychingho*** , I think they thought that it was incorrect, so

they applied for the issuance of the second search warrant,

this time uychingho*** and unit** corporation. Now is there a

defect in the description of the place to be searched? Now the

constitution does not actually require the name of the person

who occupies the named premises, If what is to be searched is

the place and not the person, so if a warrant is issued for the

search of a premises only and not for search of a person, the

error on the occupant of the property does not invalidate the

warrant, because what is to be search is the place and it is

now irrelevant, who occupies the place or who owns the

place.

QUELNAN VS PEOPLE: in that case, a search warrant wasissued against a certain Bernard Lim of Room 615 Cityland

Condominium, South Superhighway, Makati Ciy . Now it

turned out that the police officer, searched the place and no

Bernard Lim was found there, but there was Juan Hernan, and

few grams of shabu. Now charged with dangerous drugs

law, he thinks that the shabu is inadmissible against

him since the warrant as issued against Bernard Lim, is

this contention correct? Again the constitution does not

require, the warrant to named the person who occupies the

place, as long as the intention is to searched the place and

not the person, if he happens to be there and he was found to

have committed a crime, he can still be arrested because he

was caught Inflagrante Delicto.

PEOPLE VS SALANGUIT: the search warrant ordered the

search to the residence of Robert Salanquit at San Jose,

Quezon City, now there is no house number; would you say

that is is not valid because it is not that specific? Now

you have to look into the application of the warrant because

this might be considered. In this case, attached to the

application which states that the premises to be searched was

located in between number 7 and number 11 of Bihanan

Street, to thin that it is sufficient enough because the police

officer can determine which is in bet. number 7 and number

11. And more to the point there is a sketch of the place. So

the location Salanguit being indicated on the affidavit on

record. Again it doesnt have to have technically precise as

long as there is other descriptions. THE PLACE TO BE

SEARCHED CANNOT BE MODIFIED BY THE OFFICERS

OWN PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE PREMISES

meaning if what it is in the warrant then thats it, the

searching officer cannot amplify or modify it.

PEOPLE VS CA: the warrant was issued ordering the search

of Abbygail Variety Store particularly Apartment 1207 in San

Jose del Monte Bulacan, so that is specific enough, now the

searching officers went there, they discovered that it was notthe place they intended to search, it is actually Apartment

Number 1 immediately adjacent to the store, so they

searched that apartment, adjacent to the store because,

because that was what is in their mind when they applied for

search warrant. Now during the search they were able to

arrest 4 Pakistani Nationals and seized several drugs. Are

this evidence admissible? Or is the search valid? It is

not because what is put in the information of search warrant

is the Abigail Variety store, well in fact what they have in mind

is the apartment adjacent to the store. What is important is

what is in the search warrant, not the place in the minds of

the searching officers, because if thats the case the

searching officers can just choose the place to be searched,

even if not included in the warrant.

PEOPLE VS FRANCISICO: Here the judge issued a search

warrant for the seizure of shabu of Francisco at a specific

address 122 M DIZON STREET, CALAOCAN CITY. The

application was in fact is accompanied by a sketch, specifying

the location of the house and during the application the police

even described as having two floors, concrete and green in

color. Now when the executed the warrant they searched the

residence of the accused, which turned out to be not on 122

M Dizon but at 120. There they obtain 200 grams of shabu, is

the evidence admissible?, Now here 120M Dizon St. is not

in anyway similar to the description of 122M Dizon St., 122 is

two-storey residential building owned but some other person,

while 120 is actually a compound, consisting of 3 apartments

enclosed by only one gate, the accused there actually rentedthe 3rd unit. Now it turned out that when they executed the

warrant the searching officer cannot not in any reasonable

effort identify the place intended, precisely because it was

wrongly describe. The searching officer cannot qualify or

amplify. Because again what is material is the description set

in the search warrant.

PEOPLE VS ESTRADA: in relation to the violation of the

consumer act, BFAD applied for and was issued a search

warrant; the warrant was issued against this person of 515

San Jose dela Montana St., Cebu City, for seizure of drug

products. When they went to the place, they found a 5000 sq

meter compound, now that compound has 15 structures used

as residences, office, factories, workshops and houses. Is thesearch warrant valid? Can the searching officer with

reasonable effort ascertain the place to be search? Now how

can he ascertain that, if what is is the warrant 515 **** Cebu

City, saan dun sa 15 structures ang hahanapin nya? Therefore

although prima facie the warrant is valid, when executed it is

already invalid, because it turned out that it did not

particularly describe the place to be searched

PICOP VS ASUNCION: they were searching for illegal

firearms, they also question the validity of the search warrant,

what is included is to search the place located at PICOP

Compound Brgy. Tabon District, Surigao del Sur, now is the

7/27/2019 Consti2: Search and Seizure

2/17

description of the place to be search sufficient? Now when

they went to the place, PICOP is not just even a compound, it

is a 155 hectares property. Now that compound has 200

offices, buildings etc. Again it would seem that on its face that

the warrant is valid but when executed it turned out that the

place was not describe with particularity.

YAO SR. VS PEOPLE: also involves a compound located at

Governors Drive,Barangay Lapidalyo, Trese Martires, Cavite.

The decision of the SC here is for the validity of the search

warrant, the SC said here that the search warrant has

particularly described the place to be search, this is a

compound consisting of 10,000 sq meters, why is this now

valid? The application is in relation to violation of intellectual

property, the accused here is charged for infringement of

petron and phil shell product, they used the logo of shellane in

their cylinders, so merong imitation, now the entire compound

is dedicated to this imitation, from the machinery etc., in

other words there I no need to particularize the place

because, all structures constitute the essential and necessary

components of the petitioners business. The SC said that the

search warrant has particularly describe the place to be

search, because the objective really is to search the whole

compound.

THINGS TO BE SEIZED

What may be seize? Under section 3 of rule 126

-a search warrant may be issued for the search and seizure of

personal property, subject of the offense, documents,

stolen/proceeds of the offense, use/intended to use means of

committing an offense.

RULE:

1. THE THINGS TO BE SEIZED MUST BE DESCRIBE WITH

PARTICULARITY, FOR THE PERSON WHO IS SERVING

THE WARRANT TO DETERMINE THE THING

CO VS MACALINTAL: unlicensed radio communication

equipment, transmitters, scanners, monitoring devices and

others, search for unlicensed firearms etc. ARE THE THINGS

TO BE SEIZED PARTICULARLYDESCRIBED? If you are the

searching officer are you already particular with the things to

be searched for? The law does not require that the things to

be seized must be describe in precise detail. It does not to be

that technically precise, as long as the searching officer with

reasonable effort ascertains the things to be seize. ARE THE

SEARCH WARRANTS VALID? Yes, they particularly

described the things to be seized.

ALWOOD CASE: they actually describe the things to be

searched with precise particularity, 1.45 caliber pistol, 15.56

m16 rifle, 19mm pistol, explosives etc., in fact when theymade a search , they found the following but not the same

quantity as that included in the search warrant and found

other things like dynamite not included in the search warrant.

ARE THE THINGS SEIZED ADMISSIBLE? Yes, because

because they are of the same nature, they are of the same

kind, IN OTHER WORDS SUBSTANTIAL SIMILARITY

WOULD SUFFICE!, because it does not need precise

description or technical description as long as they are of the

same description it is sufficient to make the seizure of the

things valid.

MICROSOFT VERSUS: the search warrant issued by the

court partly describe the items to be seized, A. PRINT

PAGKAGES, WRAPPERS, ADVERTISMENTS ETC. AND

TRADEMEARKS OWNED BY MICROSOFT CORPORATION , B.

CDROM DRIVES, KEYBOARD, MONITORS ETC. USED/INTENDED

TO BE USED FOR ILLEGAL REPRODUCTION OF MICROOSOFT

SOFTWARE, this is for alleged copyright infringement. HAS

THE SEARCH WARRANT DESCRIBED WITH

PARTICULARITY THE THINGS TO BE SEIZED? As to

letter B the answer is yes, computer hardware etc.

used/intended to be used for the reproduction of Microsoft

software, the articles to be seized was physically particularize

as related to the used/intended used for the reproduction of

the software of Microsoft. As to letter A those bearing the

trademark of Microsoft Corporation, has that been

particularly describe? The Sc said no? Why? Li Because it

does not specify whether they have been legally or illegally

obtained by the owner, malay mo binili nya yon!, it can be for

personal or business used! Some items might have been

legally obtained, and is not related to copyright infringement.IS THE ENTIRE SEARCH WARRANT INVALID? It could be

valid in one art and invalid in another part, a search warrant

therefore is separable , you can separate the invalid and use

the valid portion.

PEOPLE VS TY: the description is seizure of undetermined

amount of marijuana IS THAT VALID? IS THAT

SUFFICIENT? When they executed the search warrant, they

got 33.93 KILOS, the description in the search warrant is

undetermined amount of marijuana is that sufficient? Yes!, so

again it does need to be technically precise, you cannot be

expected to know the exact weight.

PEOPLE VS NUNEZ: the search warrant is for search of

shabu and paraphernalia in the course of the search he also

get a ladies wallet because for the executing officer he

believed that it can be considered a proceeds of the crime as

well camera, grinder, and speakers etc.! IS THE SEARCH

VALID? Yes, BUT IS THE ACTUAL SEARCH VALID? The

searching officer modified the search warrant, which is what

the constitution is preventing. So in the case the items whichthe officer believed, in his opinion are proceeds of the crime

would be considered inadmissible.

IT MUST BE ISSUED IN RELATION TO ONE SPECIFIC

OFFENSE

STONEHILL VS DIOKNO: in that case the search warrant

was issued with the application stating that the accused

committed a violation of the Central bank laws, tariff and

customs laws, internal revenue code, RPC etc. WHAT DO

YOU HAVE? A GENERAL WARRANT! It is already a fishing

expedition! Because of this case the SC has ruled that a

search warrant must be issued for specific offense, you must

show certain facts and circumstances, that cannot be done in

one application, in other words if there are several offenses,

the presumption is that there is no probable cause, SO ANU

GAGAWIN MU NGYAUN? IF THIS ARE RELATED OFFENSES? You

make as many applications as there are offenses and the

search warrant should be for one specific offense, therefore if

you have 3 offenses, you must have 3 search warrants.

PEOPLE VS DEJOSO: the search warrant is for search of

shabu, marijuana and paraphernalia and the search warrant

mentioned that it is for illegal possession of marijuana, shabu

etc. in connection therewith, the lawyer said that the search

warrant is invalid, because they are able to get shabu,

marijuana and paraphernalia it is invalid accdg to the lawyer

because a search warrant should be for one specific offense

only. The dangerous drugs act penalizes possession of shabu,possession of marijuana and possession of paraphernalia

under different sections or provisions, so accdg to him it is

not one specific offense IS HE CORRECT? No according to SC

it is not persuasive, the DDRUGSACT is a special law and that

offenses punishable under it could be classified as one

because they belong to the same class or species, meaning

one search warrant would be valid. It

FRUDENTE VS DAYRIT: this is an alleged violation of Illegal

possession of firearms, so here it includes illegal firearms and

illegal ammunition it violate the one offense, one warrant, but

according to SC no the violation under this special law and

they are within the same category, they are of the same

species.

PEOPLE VS SIMBANGUN: in this case the search warrant is

for violation of RA 6425, the warrant includes a directive to

search for shabu, paraphernalia and a revolver IS THE

SEARCH WARRANT VALID? Is the revolver categorize the

same as the drugs? No! what you have therefore is s a search

warrant for not none specific offense but 2, one under the

dangerous drugs act and the other illegal possession of

firearms, THIS IS AN EXAMPLE THAT THE WARRANT IS INVALID

BECAUSE THERE ARE TO OFFENSES INCLUDED IN ONE

SEARCH WARRANT.

7/27/2019 Consti2: Search and Seizure

3/17

VALLE VS CA: the search warrant is for falsification of land

titles, offenses under RPC and anti graft and corrupt act, IS

THE SEARCH VALID? This is a scattered search warrant,

KASI ANG WARRANT MARAMING TINATAMAAN, this is invalid

because it is more than one specific offense.

PART 2

CONSTITUTIONAL REQUISITES FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A

WARRANT OF ARREST

The same as that of the issuance of search warrant becauseboth are covered by the same section, Section 2.

1. Probable cause

2. Particularity of the Person to be seized (seizure of a

person)

RELE 112 SECTION 6 OF RULES OF COURT (WARRANT OF

ARREST)

WHAT IS AN ARREST?

-it is a taking of a person in custody in order that, he/ she will

be bound to answer for the commission of an offense, againthe constitutional protection is against unreasonable seizure.

FIRST REQUIREMENT: there must be probable cause in the

issuance of warrant of arrest, what is probable cause? Are

again facts and circumstances which will lead a reasonable

man to believe that a crime has been committed and it has

been committed by the person to be arrested. The same for

the probable cause of the issuance of a warrant of arrest. So

prudent man would not point out is any man with common

sense, so as long as the facts and circumstances would

somehow support the conclusion that the crime has been

committed and the person to be arrested has committed it

then it is sufficient as probable cause.

WHEN SHALL A WARRANT OF ARREST BE ISSUED? INRELATION TO WHO WILL DETERMINE PROBABLE

CAUSE?

We will be talking about the general scenario, when a warrant

of arrest may be issued by the court, It may be issued by the

Regional trial Court or the Municipal Trial Court.

After the filing of the information or complaint the judge may

now start to determine the existence of probable cause and if

there is probable cause he may issue the warrant of arrest.

Now recall the procedure in the issuance of search warrant

1. POLICE DIRETSO SA JUDGE

2. JUDGE WILL DETERMINE THE PROBABLE CAUSE BY

ASKING THE COMPLAINT OR THE APPLICANT

How about in the issuance of warrant of arrest

1. FILING OF A AFFIDAVIT COMPLAINT ( by any person,

police officer, anyone)

2. THE COMPLAINT IS FILED WITH THE PROSECUTOR

(office of the prosecutor)

3. THE PROSECUTOR WILL DETERMINE THE EXISTENCE

OF PROBABLE CAUSE (probable cause that a crime

has been committed and the respondent is probablyguilty)

4. IF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WILL SHOW

THAT THE RESPONDENT HAS ACTUALLY COMMITTED

THE CRIME, THEN HE CAN ALREADY FILE A CASE, HE

WILL NOW CHARGED THE RESPONDENT AND THE

REPSONDENT WILL NOW BECOME THE ACCUSED.

Why would he look for probable cause? Because when he

goes to trial the prosecutor is the lawyer for the state,

remember that in criminal cases it is captioned as PP vs Anne

Curtis, because a criminal proceeding is a proceeding against

an individual, who commits an offense against the state, that

is why in criminal prosecutions, the lawyer is a government

official under DOJ and we call him the prosecutor. So the role

of the prosecutor if he will find that there is a probable cause

then he will file a charge, the charge is called the information.

5. AFTER THE FILING OF THE INFORMATION IN THE

COURT IT IS NOW THE DUTY OF THE JUDGE WITHIN

10 DAYS WILL DETERMINE PROBABLE CAUSE (to

issue warrant of arrest). WE NOW HAVE A CASE THAT

IS DOCKETED.

Why is arrest important? Based on our discussion on

procedural due process in court proceedings. ARREST IS

IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT IS THE TIME THE COURTS CAN

ACQUIRE JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON. So you will have

to determine a probable cause to issue a warrant of arrest.

PROBABLE CAUSE HERE ARE FACTS AND CIRSCUMSTANCES

TO GIVE A REASONABLY PRUDENT MAN TO BELIEVE THAT THE

CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED AND THE PERSON TO BE

ARRESTED ACTUALLY COMMITTED THE CRIME.

HOW WILL THE JUDGE DETERMINE PROBABLE CAUSE? THE

CONSTITUTION SAYS MUST PERSONALLY DETERMINE. BUT IN

REALITY THERE IS ALREADY A COOPERATION MADE BY THEPROSECUTOR IN HE DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE.

PARANG REVIEW NALANG UNG SA JUDGE SO PROBABLE

CAUSE IN THE ISSUANCE OF WARRANTT OF ARREST WOULD

MEAN, PERSONAL EVALUATION OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE

PROSECUTOR, THE RESOLUTION BY THE WAY AY UNG

NARESOLVE NA NG PROSECUTION NA MAY CRIME THE

RESOLUTION IS THAT THERE IS A CRIME, THERE IS A

PROBABLE CAUSE UN NA UNG GAGAWIN NYANG

INFORMATION. SO PERSONAL EVELUATION OF THE

RESOLUTION ANF CERTIFICATION OF THE PROSECUTOR THAT

THERE EXIST PROBABLE CAUSE.

DISTINCTION SEARCH WARRANT AND WARRANT OF

ARREST

In search warrant it is the judge who personally ask questions

from the applicant

In warrant of arrest the prosecutor already ask the applicant,

there will be multiplicity of work if the judge will do it again,

because now the judge will just personally check the

resolution of the prosecution and the supporting evidence,

what can the judge do? If he finds that there is probable cause

he shall issue warrant of arrest. But if he is not satisfied with

the resolution of the prosecution, he may in case of doubt,

may order the prosecutor to present additional evidence

within 5 days from notice. This time he may ask the

prosecutor to present witnesses or complainant in case of

doubt and additional evidence.

PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

In preliminary investigation he prosecutor will determine if

there is probable cause, if the accused can be charge of the

offense committed and once the resolution is forwarded to the

judge the latter with again after confirming that there is

probable cause can immediately issue a warrant of arrest

MAY THE JUDGE RELY SOLELY ON THE PROSECUTION

The judge will satisfy himself before issuing a warrant of

arrest or order of arrest, he may dismiss it, issue a warrant or

require more evidence or testimony of the witnesses, in other

words, the judge should not rely solely on the certification or

resolution of the prosecutor, he must review the records on

file, the documentary evidence etc.

WEBB V DE LEON and SOLIVEN VS MAKASIAR

-exclusive responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself

of the existence of probable cause, the judge is required to

personally examine the complaint and his witnesses.

PROBABLE CAUSE IN PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION VERSUS

PROBABLE CAUSE IN WARRANT OF ARREST.

7/27/2019 Consti2: Search and Seizure

4/17

1. PC in preliminary investigation in done by prosecutor

(executive) PC in warrant done by judge (judiciary)

If the judge are required to personally determine the

complainants and the witnesses if will take much of his time,

he can just do this actual trial, because that is his function

during actual trial and besides there is already initial conduct

done by the prosecutor, ito ang wala sa issuance ng search

warrant, walang involvement ung another office.

PEOPLE VS GREY: the SC said that the judge should not

base solely on the report of the investigating prosecutor.

LIM VS FELIX: this involves the murder of Moises Espinosa,

the crime is committed in Masbate, kung saan nacommit ang

crime dun ang jurisdiction, however because Espinosa is

popular, mga connections, the accussed asked for the transfer

of the venue, which is the function of the supreme court under

article 8, the Sc ordered the transfer of venue, so it was

transferred to Makati. When he received the initial

information, the Makati judge issued the warrant of arrest,

pursuant to the rules,, as it turned out the rest of the records

are still in Masbate Court, what is the conclusion therefore?

The judge in Makati relied solely on the information that there

is probable cause to file the charge against the accussed, so

in this case the warrant of arrest was invalidly issued.

THERE ARE CERTAIN RULES LAID DOWN IN THE

ISSUANCE OF WARRANT OF ARREST

1. Preliminary Investigation, the preliminary inquiry to

determine the probable cause whether a warrant of

arrest should be issued or not.

2. Filing of the information to the court the judge will

personally determine the probable cause if a warrant

of arrest should be issued or not.

a. Personally determine the evidence and

complaints

b. Disregard the report and ask for

additional evidence and personally ask

the witnesses.

ISSUANCE OF SEARCH WARRANT VERSUS ISSUANCE OF

WARRANT OF ARREST:

1. Search Warrant

In search warrant the articles are seizable***

Not necessary that the person to be seized are

included

In the issuance of search warrant the procedure to

be followed section 4 rule 112

REQUIRED PERSONAL DETERMINATION BY THE

JUDGE OF THE EXISTENCE OF PROBABLE

CAUSE.

2. WARRANT OF ARREST

In warrant of arrest crime has been committed and

the person to arrested committed it

A person must be indicated, because the function of

the warrant of arrest is to arrest not to search.

Governed by section 6 rule 112

IT ONLY REQUIRES THE EXCLUSIVE

RESPONSIBILITY OF THE JUDGE TO SATISFY

HIMSELF THE EXISTENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE,

HE IS NOT REQUIRED TO PERSONALLY EXAMINE

THE COMPLAINANT AND THE WITNESSES.

*to avoid duplication of work by the prosecutor and

the judge

ABDULA VS GUIANI: according to the accused the warrant

of arrest is void because the judge did not personally examine

the evidence, nor did he call the complainants to the

witnesses stand. The judge made a reply he commented, that

there was no reason for him to doubt the validity of the

certification made by the prosecutor that the preliminary

investigation was conducted and that probable cause was

found to exist, SAAN DITO MALI ANG JUDGE? There is an

admission that he relies solely on the certification of the

prosecutor, so in that case the warrant of arrest was invalidly

issued, because of the admission of the judge.

TALINGDAN VS EDUARTE: here the complaint or libel was

filed directly with the judge, this is what will happen if you will

not get a lawyer, he is fortunate that the clerk of court issued

the warrant of arrest and according to him he just merely

signed it. So the complaint was filed with the judge and the

warrant of arrest was issued. SHOULD THE JUDGE BE

ABSOLVED? No, it is the exclusive and personal responsibility

of the judge to satisfy himself; he merely relied on the

existence of probable cause making him administratively

liable.

ARE THERE INSTANCES OF WARRANTLESS ARREST

WHICH CAN BE CONSIDERED AS VALID?

When there is material lack of time to secure for

warrant of arrest:

1. Peace officer or a private person may without

warrant arrest a person

a. When in his presence the person to be

arrested has committed, is actually

committing or is about to commit an

offense, inflagrante delicto

cases/caught in the act

-the police officer is a witness to the crime

PEOPLE VS MOLINA: the police man

received an information from an asset that a

drug pusher would be passing by, so he sent

a team to go to the area, consequently the

tricycad carrying the accused was stopped

by the policemen and then the accused was

arrested thereafter he was ordered to open

the bag, so inside the bag there were

marijuana. IS THE ARREST VALID? Is this

an arrest made inflagrante delicto? No,

reliable information alone will not suffice the

accused must perform some overt act to

show that he is attempting to commit, he is

commit or has committed an offense, in this

offense no such overt act was shown, thus itis not an inflgrante delicto.

PEOPLE VS RACHO: an agent transacted

through the phone to the accused (drug

transaction) after the transaction in the

phone the agent reported it to the police

and the police sent a team kasi dun

mangyayari ang transaction to the bus

terminal, the accused after riding a bus rode

a trycicad and there he was arrested, is

this an instance of inflgrante delicto

case? was he caught on the act? So in

this case again the information, the

knowledge only came from a tip/agent, evenif it is called a reliable information alone it

will not be sufficient, there is a need for an

overt act, that the accused is committing an

offense.

PEOPLE VS BOLASA: the police here also

received tip that the man and a woman is

packing a marijuana, there is also an

address given, there they went to the said

address and they saw the man and the

woman packing the marijuana, they entered

the house and arrested the accused, again

7/27/2019 Consti2: Search and Seizure

5/17

is this a case of inflagrante

delicto/caught in the act? No, because

they will not know if it is really marijuana,

unless and until they will enter the house, if

not for the information that they got, they

will not that there a marijuana inside the

house.

PEOPLE VS KIMURA: the accuse who

escaped before he was arrested was seen in

a restaurant and was finally arrested , is

this considered inflgrante delicto, no

because 2 days has passed and here he was

just eating, so there is no case of

committing an offense, in the presence of

the police officer.

b. When an offense have just been committed

and has probable cause to believe that

based on the personal knowledge of facts

and circumstance, that the person has

committed it, hot pursuit cases

-the police officer has actually seen andheard it, indicating that the person to be

arrested was committing or was about to

commit an offense, regarding what the

officer sees he must be in addition know

that the person performed some overt acts,

implicating the commission of the crime

-when an offense has just been committed,

and he has a probable cause to believe base

on personal knowledge of facts and

circumstances, that the person to be

arrested has committed it, so in this case

unlike un inflagrante delicto the police had

missed the commission of the offense, hindi

nya nakita, but the police officer or the

arresting officer has personal knowledge of

the facts indicating that the person to be

arrested has actually committed it.

REQUISITES:

1. AN OFFENSE HAS JUST BEEN

COMMITTED

-if you were rape today and you will

report it on Wednesday, because

nagbaha bukas, and when you report it,

the police officer immediately go to the

accused house and arrest him without awarrant would that be under this

requisite? No it will not be covered

under this,

-so what do you mean by has just been

committed

PEOPLE VS GERENTE: here the victim

was killed around 2 PM, so hours after,

the police came because of the report,

now the police went to the hospital and

saw the victim died, they went to the

scene of the crime and saw the fence

with blood all over it, they ask around

and everybody is pointing to the

accused as one of the 3 perpetrators of

the crime, so based on this

investigations and information that they

gathered and the fact that they saw the

victim died, they went to the house of

the accused, and there he was

arrested, the accused was arrested

around 5 pm, is this covered by the

term has just been committed?, the

SC said yes kakatapos lang, so the SC

said under this circumstances, the

policemen with personal knowledge of

the death of the victim and the fact of

the crime they could lawfully arrest the

accused. If they will postpone the

arrest, the way for securing of a

warrant, the accused would have fled

like what his 2 companions did, so

actually that is one of the valid reasons

for allowing a valid arrest., to prevent

the accused from escaping, just

because there are no time for securing

a warrant of arrest.

PEOPLE VS MANLULU

Narcom agent was killed by his drinking

partners, he was killed around 1 am,

police came investigating and then the

accused was arrested 7 pm without a

warrant is this covered under this

requisite?The SC said no 19 hours has

passed, and it is not under the term a

crime has just been committed.

PEOPLE VS OLIVARES: the body of the

victim was found on December 26 afterinvestigation they went to the house of the

accused, two days after. So on December 28

the accuse was invited, because the

evidence would point to the accused as the

one who committed the offense, and at the

police station the accused made a

confession and so he was arrested , was

the arrest valid? The SC noted that the

policemen instead of arresting the accused,

the latter was just invited the accused. That

is why the arrest was invalid. What should

the police officer do? File a case and

apply for a warrant of arrest.

PEOPLE VS DEL ROSARIO

Robbery by snatching a bag of a woman,

the woman was killed, so the accused

boarded a tricycle at 6 pm, another driver

recognized the accused and reported it to

the police, so they made investigations, that

happened around 6 am, the accused were

arrested before lunch the other day, is it

valid under this requisite? The SC said no,

the crime was committed 19 hours ago.

PEOPLE VS POSADAS

Rumble between fraternities, so the rumblehappened, the arrest was made 4 days

after, it cannot be committed under the

term has just been committed.

WHAT WILL BE THE RULE NOW TO SAY

THE CRIME HAS JUST BEEN

COMMITTED?

When the police officer will have no time to

secure a warrant of arrest, because that is

the essence of the rule, the police is allowed

to arrest, it is because of the lack of time, so

if they have no time to obtain or secure the

warrant of arrest, then that will covered by

HAS JUST BEEN COMMITTED.

2. THE ARRESTING PERSON HAS

PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF FACTS

INDICATING THAT THE PERSON TO BE

ARRESTED HAS JUST COMMITTED IT.

PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE-in arrest without

a warrant this must be base on probable

cause, there is a reasonable ground of

suspicion. In other words if you are a police

officer, someone calls you Mamang Pulis!

7/27/2019 Consti2: Search and Seizure

6/17

Mamang Pulis! Si Mr. Yap ninakaw ung bag

ng ale, would you now have the authority to

arrest him without a warrant? Based on that

information would there be a probable

cause? Or reasonable suspicion that he

committed the offense? Malay mo kalaban

lang pla ni Mr. Yap gusto sya ipahuli!

-it is based on facts, facts

based on circumstances sufficiently strong

in themselves to create the probable cause

of guilt of the person to be arrested, so

reasonable suspicion founded from probable

cause coupled with good faith.

PEOPLE VS DORIA: this is a buy bust

operationDoria was selling drugs, when he

was handed the money he went out to get

the marijuana, now when he came back

Doria was arrested, when interrogated, he

was ask where was the money? Doria said

that it was with Nenith, so the police officer,

went to the house of Nenith, called out

Nenith and arrested Nenith. Is this an

inflagrante case? No. the crime has just

been committed? Pwede but does the policeofficer have personal knowledge that Nineth

committed the offense? Take note was the

information gathered by the police that

Doria gave the money to Nenith? It might be

that the money was given to Nenith with or

without the consent of Nenith.In this case

there was no reasonable suspicion that

Nenith committed an offense. The facts that

they is only that Nenith have the money but

it does not in anyway is an act under the

requisite committing an offense.

CUDIA VS CA: there was a holdup, police

received a radio call, here the victims meetup with the police, the victims identified and

described te accused, since the accussed

were no longer there, they were asked to

board the police car and they look fo the

accussed, then later two men came walking,

which whom the victims identified the

culprits, one of the two attempted tp pull

something from his waist, the policemen

stopped him, and arrested him is this valid?

Now personal knowledge, do they have

personal knowledge? In this case there was

initial reports, meet up with complainants

etc. in this case the SC said there was

personal knowledge.

PEOPLE VS VINALON: Robbery on board a

bus, during the robbery the policeman died,

two passengers were injured and 2 of the

robbers were also injured, so those injured

were taken to the hospital, the passengers

meet up with the police who responded the

report and they went to the hospital that

passengers pointed to the accused ung

isang injured doon, when there were frisk,

found within their possession are bags,

wallets. Etc., that they took, di man lang nila

tinago muna nagpahospital pasila so they

were arrested, was the arrest valid? A

crime has just been committed? Yes!Do the police officer of personal

knowledge indicating that the accused

committed the offense? Yes!The SC said

the personal knowledge of the police officer

is based on the information given by the

victims KUNG UNG BIKTIMA NA MISMO ANG

NAGSABE THEN THAT WOULD BE COVERED

OF THE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE

POLICE OFFICER.

PEOPLE VS CUBCUBIN: a person was

shoot and the police sent the team to

investigate, they saw the victim in his

tricycle along the road the police officer ask

around they came up with this waitress and

a tricycle driver, they asked them who was

the last person last seen with the victim,

both pointed to the accused, so they went

to the house of the accused and then ask

his involvement, of course the accused

denied his involvement, but when they went

inside the house, they saw a t-shirt stained

with blood, and when they pick-up the t-

shirt there were two bullets. They arrested

the accused without a warrant, is the

arrest valid? A crime has just been

committed? Yes! In his presence an offense

was committed? No. the arresting person

has personal knowledge? No, the knowledge

came from witnesses, witnesses will said

that he is the last person seen with the

victim, not that this person killed the victim,

therefore the facts do not form reasonable

suspicion KULANG! So in this case the arrest

of the accused was invalid, anu ang dapat

gawin ng police? They have witness, and

they already saw the blooded t-shirt, but

they cannot take it because they dont havesearch warrant, the policemen should

obtained a search warrant or a warrant of

arrest.

OBTAINING A WARRANT OF ARREST:

REVIEW

File a case and then preliminary

investigation and then information and

then approval of the judge and they

can already secure the warrant of

arrest.

c. When the person to be arrested is a prisonerwho has escaped from penal establishment

or in cases when is serving final judgment in

short when a person is a prisoner who

escaped from prison.

d. If a person lawfully arrested escapes, any

person may immediately pursue without a

warrant, anytime, anywhere within the

Philippines.

PART 3

WARRANTLESS SEARCHED AND SEIZURES

SEARCH INCIDENT TO A VALID ARREST

The rule is an officer making an arrest may take from the

person being arrested any money or property found upon his

person which was use in the commission of the crime of was

the proof of the crime and evidence for the trial of the case.

BAKIT PWEDE MUNG ISEARCH UNG INARREST MO?

1. To protect the arresting officer for possible physical

harm that the arrested person may do to the

arresting officer, so you search for concealed

weapons

2. To prevent destruction of evidence or anything that

may be used during trial.

But it should not be beyond the reason or the purpose.

REQUIRMENTS:

1. The arrest itself must be valid

If you are asked the question of whether or

not this is a search incident to a valid arrest,

the first matter that you will discuss is

whether or not the arrest was valid.

7/27/2019 Consti2: Search and Seizure

7/17

2. The search must be made at the time of the arrest or

immediately thereafter.

Why? Go back to the purpose, the purpose

is just to protect the arresting officer and

prevent destruction of evidence.

3. The search must be limited on the person arrested

So limited lang sa person, or premises under

his immediate control, you can search the

person but you can extend that toimmediate premises within his immediate

control (the area which he might gain

possession of a weapon) or destructible

evidence.

4. The search is limited to dangerous weapons or

anything which may be used as proof of the

commission of the offense, proceeds or fruits of the

crime or any evidence which may used as proof

during trial.

For example you are arresting a person for

the violation of the dangerous drugs act

(MARIJUANA, SHABU, PARAPHERNELIA), canyou take a picture to prove adultery? No. if

in that case, if there is a case, you can apply

for a search warrant pero kung iba hindi

pwede, only to those acts punishable under

the dangerous drugs act.

PEOPLE VS CHUA: the accused based on an information is

going to a motel and will be delivering shabu, he went the

place, when the accused arrived, he was seen carrying a

zesto box, sealed zesto box, siguro ata ung police, they

already called an arrest, arrested him, asked him to open the

box and inside were around 2 kilos of shabu and some bullets

for a firearm. Is the search of this box without a warrant valid?

Is the arrest valid? Is this inflagrante case? No the person that

they saw is a person carrying a box and walking and thats it,

the person was not committing overt acts constituting an

offense. The arrest being invalid, the search is also invalid,

inadmissible evidence.

PEOPLE VS SARAP: the police made an arrest, they arrested

three women, when they interrogated them they came out

with the information that this so and so Sarap is the supplier

of the marijuana and she will be arriving two days after, on

that day the police waited for the accused then they saw the

accused in the alley near her house, while walking they

arrested the accused, believing that they already have a

positive identification of the accused. Is the arrest valid?

No. why? The accused was just walking, but maam there is

information that she is the supplier. THE POLICEMEN SHOULDHAVE SECURED A WARRANT OF ARREST AFTER THE

INFORMATIONS GIVEN BY THE ARRESTED WOMEN!

PEOPLE VS CHE CHUN TING: ay ung bossing ko si mr so

and so, so they went to the apartment of the accused towards

his car, then the policemen approached the accused, upon

hearing his name from the person they arrested earlier, they

asked him to open things and there they found shabu, almost

30 kilos, obtained without a search warrant, obtained after an

arrest that is invalid. So what happens to the shabu, goodbye

PEOPLE VS ANG CHONG KIT: buy bust operation again a

Chinese National; the transaction was consummated in aparking lot. The accused came in his car with a driver, so after

the buy bust transaction, so exchange na then he was

arrested, was it a valid arrest? Now they search the

accused but they searched not only the person of the

accused, but also the car that was parked, they ask the

person to open the car and they secured some items from the

compartment question? Is the search in the car valid? Is it still

within the premises within the immediate control of the

accused? Ordinarily it is not, but under the circumstance take

note that the accused arrived with a driver, and it is safe to

presume by the officers that the driver is under the control of

the accused. So in this case the SC said the premises within

the immediate control of the accused include the car kasi may

driver. But under the circumstances also he took the shabu

from the car, so even under these circumstances alone will

permit policemen can search the car.

PEOPLE VS TIU WON CHUNG: here there is a search

warrant the search warrant is for the police officers to search

the apartment, but when they executed the search warrant,

they seized shabu from the apartment, because of that they

arrested the accused, now after the arrest, they also searched

the car so according to them the search in the latter instance,

is a search incident to a valid arrest, because the search

warrant, particularly, supposedly, describes the place to be

searched, and the description is only the inside portion of the

apartment, they went beyond. Is it now a valid search without

warrant incident to a valid arrest? The arrest was valid, they

made an arrest after they obtain the shabu, so a crime has

just been committed, now was the search inside the car valid?

No. why? Because the car is already beyond the controlled

premises of the accused, there is no need for the protection of

the police officers and destruction of evidence because the

car is not in the control of the accused anymore.

VALEROSO VS CA: The accused here was found inside the

boarding house of his children, there was a warrant of arrest

and the police officers were able to get inside the house,when they saw the accused, the pulled him out of the room,

tied him and the police officers went inside the room searched

they found unlicensed firearm, was the search valid? The

firearm according to the police officer could be use against

them, but the firearms was actually seized from a cabinet, so

the SC said, a gun inside a drawer or a table in front of the

accused is as dangerous as the a gun in the pocket of the

accused. But in this case the unlicensed firearm was taken

inside a cabinet inside another room, so in this case it can no

longer be considered as premises within the immediate

control of the accused. The search and seizures of these

firearms were invalid.

PART 4

CONSENTED SEARCH

If there is a consent to the search and seizure, there

is no need for a warrant, now to constitute a waiver of this

constitutional right, it must appear first that the right exist, or

the person involve have knowledge about that right and that

the person have actual intentions to do so,, thus if a person

consents to a warrantless search and seizure, he KNOWINGLY,

INTELLIGENTLY AND VOLUNTARILY do so,

The consent must be, unequivocal, specific and,

intelligently given.

VALDEZ VS PEOPLE: the consent must be uncontaminated,and in jures or coercion, now whether or not there is consent,

it is a case to case basis and that it must be shown by clear

and convincing evidence, so the court will look at the

instances and the voluntariness and the way that the consent

is given will be based on the circumstances. The SC said

based on the circumstances and character of the person

giving the consent these are the following basis: 1. the

person giving the consent or the defendant 2. Whether

he is on a public or a secured place when he gave the

consent 3. Whether you passively search or you just

look on 4. His education or intelligence 5. Is it in

accordance with police procedures 6. The person

believed that there will be no incriminating evidence

found 7. The nature of the police questioning 8. Theenvironment which the questioning took place 9. The

state of the person consenting. Now based on this mere

failure to resist does not constitute an implied waiver of

constitutional right. (READ THE VALDEZ CASE, FOR A

BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE FOLLOWING

REQUISITES)

PEOPLE VS MONTILLA: Now in this case there was

information by a source that the accused will arrive

somewhere, the following day, somewhere in DASMA the

agent pinpointed to the accused when the later came out of a

jeepney, taken from his travelling bag , during the search

7/27/2019 Consti2: Search and Seizure

8/17

without a warrant are marijuanas, was the warrantless

search valid? It would not be a valid warrantless arrest, so it

cannot fall to a valid warrantless arrest because it cannot fall

into inflagrante delicto case or hot pursuit case, so to justify

the search, the police said this is a consented search because

the accused apparently consented to the search of the bag,

the SC said yes, the details may not be enough to issue a

search warrant but they can actually conduct a warrantless

search, the agents knows the exact place and time, the

search must be incident to a lawful arrest. I dont like the

decision of the SC here this is against what we are studying.

THE RIGHT PROCEDURE IS WHAT IS ENUMERATED IN

VALDEZ VS PEOPLE

PEOPLE VS COMPACION: here it is also based on a tip given

by an informant to a policeman, they made a surveillance of

the residence of the accused, and there they saw marijuana

planted in the backyard of the accused, actually tried to apply

for a warrant, but they cannot wait any longer so they

conducted a seizure at dawn, as if the Marijuana Plant will be

remove anytime soon, so they conducted a search and

seizure without a warrant, they asked for the accused to open

the gate, asked him to let them in, and the accused did and it

is even the accused that lead them to the place where the

marijuana was planted, so was it a consented search? TheSC said under the circumstances, where the accused was

merely silent, it does not mean that the accused

consented to the search, the acts of the accused in

allowing the police in his premises during the search will not

be construed as voluntary submission or consent especially so

when members of the raiding team, were numerous SINO

PABA ANG HIHINDI DIBA? It is but a submission to the

authority of the law a peaceful submission to a search

and seizure is not a consented search, but merely

obedience to the supremacy of law. This is a personal right so,

only the person to whom the search was made can assert the

right that has been violated. It cannot be given for him by

another.

PEOPLE VS ASIS: In this case the accused was a deaf mute,

he was arrested for robbery with homicide, he was brought to

his house, and there, was his wife and mother not knowing

what was going on the sister of the victim and the team asked

the wife of the accused to give the bag and the wife did

without knowing that it contained the bloody short of the

victim, is this a consented search? If it is a consented

search, the consent must be given by the accused not by his

wife. The right being personal one it cannot be given by other

in behalf of him.

VEROY VS LAYAGUE: here a house in skyline was suspected

to be a safe house for rebels, the team went there, the Veroys

are not there, the team even made a telephone call to the

Veroys who are in Manila and the latter said ok if you thinkthat there are rebels in our house take a look at our house

pinapasok sila, now when they entered the house, they search

not only the rooms but cabinets and drawers as well and even

under the bed. So definitely you will not find a rebel inside a

drawer, so what they found are firearms, guns and the likes.

Would these firearms and ammunitions be admissible

as connected to the consented search? The SC said the

consent was only limited to search for rebels it cannot expand

to searches of other objects, so that should be the scope of

the search. Now under the circumstances the SC also noted

that it is undeniable that the police officers had ample time to

procure a search warrant but they did not. What they can do

is to immediately go the court and apply for a search warrant.

SEARCH OF EVIDENCE IN PLAINVIEW

The plainview doctrine states that the law enforcer can make

a search and seizure without a warrant, if he has a prior

justification that the discovery within the plainview is

inadvertent (hindi sinasadya). The illegality of the object is

immediately apparent. So there are actually the requirements

PEOPLE VS QUE MING KHA: here the police having an

information that van with a particular plate passing by and

that van contain a shabu, in response to that one followed the

said van, but unfortunate the van met an accident, the van

stopped, the driver went out of the van, and attempted to

bring a boy to the hospital, the police responded in the

vehicular accident, although the van was tinted he was able

to see sacks or packages containing something that is

crystalline and since he knows that they are actually waiting

for that particular van, there is big possibility that it is the

shabu, so he look into the window of the van and there he saw

the packages of shabu, he search and seize the shabu. Is the

shabu admissible in evidence? Or is the search valid?

Under this circumstances there was prior justification for the

police officer to be there, what is the justification? Vehicular

accident, and then he saw this, there is prior justification ,

thus this is under the Plainview Doctrine. He has the

right to be in that position, and to have that view because of

the vehicular accident.

PEOPLE VS ELAMPARO: this is a very tugma na example

buy bust operation, they arrested the accused the accused

was able to escape, he was able to escaped, so hinabol ng

police, now this person entered the house of another , he

entered that house because it was hot pursuit case the police

also run after the accused who escaped. When he entered the

house, timing the owner/accused here was seen repacking

marijuana, so this is actually a classic case of plainview

doctrine, ndi mu sinasadya diba dumaan ka, so the marijuana

is admissible, it is a valid plainview searched.

PEOPLE VS PASUDAG: the policeman here was urinating at

a fence now he happen to see a garden, and there is kamote

and corn** and laong with this plants are marijuana plants, so

umihi sya, he saw this marijuana plants and reported it to his

superior, the superior sent out the team, saanang mali? They

should get a search warrant! He sent out a team, went

straight to the house and ask accused to bring him to the

backyard. In the first place there was no prior justification to

be there, in fact he was violating an ordinance umiihi sya. The

officer must come into the evidence inadvertently, meaning it

is not deliberately sought, in Plainview it must inadvertent and

the officer must not be poking around, it must be open to the

hand and the eye of the officer, hindi ung hahanapin pa.

PEOPLE VS VALDEZ: the police was informed of a marijuana

plantation n, now a police team was sent the following day,

early morning, accompanied by the informer, they have to

make a 3 hour uphill trek and when they reach the place, they

saw the accused in his nipa hut, and they were still looking for

the exact place the marijuana was planted, would you say

that the marijuana was inadvertently discovered? In

this case what they did was they went there precisely to look

for the marijuana plant. Not a case of inadvertence. The

marijuana plant here was deliberately sought. The evidence of

illegality should be immediately apparent; here they have to

look for the marijuana.

PEOPLE VS DORIA: they have to look into the newspaperused as a wrap for the shabu the evidence of illegality is not

immediately apparent

PEOPLE VS SALANGUIT: there was a search warrant here

for the undetermined amount of shabu and drug

paraphernalia, now during the search however, in addition to

the shabu the police found 2____ marijuana leaves. If there is

search warrant, the search is limited only to the objects or

things describe in the warrant, can the police now search and

seized other objects? The police here inadvertently discovered

the marijuana is it under the plainview doctrine? The SC said

they cannot take the marijuana, because the police knew that

the shabu was in the cabinet, it is reasonable to assume that

they found it first and having found it they have no reason tobe there, they should leave, but the problem here is that it is

just based on an assumption. According to Maam: it

should be admissible because first they have the legal

reason to be there, they have search warrant, and

when they found the marijuana it is inadvertent, the

marijuana should be admissible.

REVALDO VS PEOPLE: here there is a mere information that

the accused is in possession of _____ without necessary

documents and then when the police went to the place

without a warrant, they saw the lumber___ around, they

seized and search the place, I have a problem, it must be

7/27/2019 Consti2: Search and Seizure

9/17

7/27/2019 Consti2: Search and Seizure

10/17

male or female, but thin person with a green bag would be

riding a bus. Now, is that information sufficient? Would that

now constitute probable cause? Actually, no, di ba, as far as

what you have learned. But in this case, the SC said that the

search was valid. The police acted on an on the spot

information. He had to act quickly, thus, the search was valid.

My only problem with that finding is that what if naka-10 na

siya ng buses, ilang thin persons na ang sinearch niya? Ilang

thin persons with green bag? Madali lang naming makahanap

ng green bag. Yung mga backpack, di ba? What if no you

already did a search among several thin persons na Ilokano or

not carrying green bags, would this person is now to

question his act? Im sure meron.

People v Bagista, the informant said that a certain

woman with curly hair around 52 or 53 in height would be

transporting marijuana from upnorth so probably from

Baguio, Ilokos. Based on this information, the police

established a checkpoint, and what they did is to flag down

not only public buses or public transportation, but they also

flag down big cars (private vehicles). So they flag down both

public and private vehicles. Now finally, they chanced upon

this bus, and they found this woman with naturally curly hair

(I dont know if the police can define it as naturally curly). And

so, they found this woman who fitted in the description, they

asked her to open her bag, and inside the bag were somekilos of marijuana. The SC said that the search valid. There

was probable cause for the police to flag down the vehicles

both public and private. There was probable cause for the

police to search this woman. Now read the dissenting opinion

of Justice Padilla. Justice Padilla said If indeed it was true that

they have this information probable cause it must be

before the search. If they have this information earlier, they

would not have searched all of the passengers inside the bus

regardless if he is a man or a woman, which is what they

need(?). They would not also have searched all of the bags

found inside the bus, which is what they did. What happened

is that they conducted a fishing expedition until they found

this person carrying marijuana and then they have arranged

the facts to say that a curly haired woman would be carryingmarijuana. Now, based on these to decisions, Valdez and

Bagista, Im not saying that the SC is wrong, but what Im

saying or what Im asking from you is to be critical about the

decisions of the SC. You go to the basics: what are the

established principles, the law, what is the constitutional

provision and go from there. That is also applicable in all your

other subjects, cases assigned, be critical of the decision of

the SC. in this case no what did we learn? Kulang ang

information. As a police officer would you have reasonable

doubt to flag down every bus flag down every private vehicle,

I dont think so under the circumstances.

People v Aruta, now this case is more like it. They have

information that a certain Aling Rosa would be arriving from

Baguio, the following day, with a large volume of marijuana.Aling rosa. May name, may informant ready to point kung sino

si Aling Rosa. So they deployed themselves on the streets of

Now they know that shell be on board a Victory Liner Bus.

So when she alighted from the Victory Liner Bus, the

informant pointed to her siya si Aling Rosa. Now the police

went after her and then asked her to open her bag and there

was marijuana inside. Saan sa mga exceptions that you have

learned would this search be justified? Is this a search incident

to a valid arrest? Can you justify it a search incident to a valid

arrest? Why? In a valid arrest search, there must be an overt

act that the accused is committing an offense. Here, alighting

from the bus and walking does not show a crime is being

committed. Is this a search of evidence in plainview(?) Of

course not, because she has to open the bag. Now is this asearch of a moving vehicle? No. Why? Because she was no

longer on board the vehicle. Is this a consented search

because she readily handed down the bag? You know the

rules when it comes to consented search. It must be

unequivocal, clear, voluntarily. In that case, when you see the

policeman, anong gagawing mo? So, this just fall under any of

the circumstances that are considered as exceptional, and

this is more like it. Tama to na decision.

People v Gonzales For me, this is the worst of the cases.

woman with long hair wearing maong pants with jacket,

and RayBan sunglasses, with brand hindi Chanel, would be

transporting marijuana along the national hway a black

travelling bag, and she will be on board a trisikad. Not even a

tricycle. Trisikad. To cut the story short, the SC said that the

search was valid. It is a search of a moving vehicle, because

the vehicle can be easily removed from the jurisdiction of the

police

People v Quebral this is a good decision. Here, the police

was informed that two men and a woman on board an owner-

type jeep with a specific plate number; they have a specific

target two men and a woman on board a jeep, and that they

would deliver shabu on the following day at the Petron

gasoline station. So they have this information, this

information, as far as the police are concerned, is probable

cause enough. So they found this jeep, followed the jeep, until

they arrived at the gasoline station. Nag-stake out sila. Until,

finally another vehicle arrived, and then as the driver of this

FX and the jeep talked, there was an exchange of envelope.

So after that the police moved and then seized the envelope

turned out it contained marijuana and shabu. So is this a

search of a moving vehicle? Yes. This is a good example.

There is no probable cause to do an extensive search. Was

there a sufficient time to secure a warrant? No. It was more or

less an on the spot information. So, this is a valid search. It

would have been impractical for the police to apply with the

appropriate court for a search warrant since their immediatesearch was warranted(?). could have gone away by the

time the police could apply for the search warrant.

So what are the common characteristics of all these

cases? That they qualify as a search of a moving vehicle.

First, reliable information is sufficient. Pwede ka lang

may informant. Now that information must be coupled by

other facts and circumstances like in this [Quebral] case, by

handing of shabu. Now, second, the suspect is on board a

vehicle. Thats why in the case of Aruta, she was not on board

there was no search of a moving vehicle, but in the case of

the trisikad, since she was on board the trisikad. Third, theres

a definite target, meaning that the accused or the suspect issufficiently described, or the vehicle is sufficiently described.

More important one is that lack of material time to secure a

warrant. Now a police checkpoint of a moving vehicle.

Actually most searches of a moving vehicle happen during a

police checkpoint. When it comes to searching vehicles, even

if it is a police checkpoint, the police are only limited to visual

search. The police cannot conduct and should not conduct

extensive search, except only when there is probable cause.

Probable causes are facts and circumstances that would lead

the searching officer to believe, before the search, that either

the motorist is a law offender or that they would find the

evidence pertaining the commission of the crime in the

vehicle to be searched. What would be a good example of a

probable cause? Say for example the police is conducting a

visual search and asking regular questions, and the driver oroccupant is acting suspiciously, like they were getting fidgety

you ask a question they give you a different answer, that

would be enough for the police officer to suspect that

something is going on. Another example, you conduct a

vehicle search, and in the process of doing so, you smell

something that as far as your experience goes is marijuana,

so in that case there is reasonable ground to believe that the

crime is being committed, the motorist is a law offender, that

would be probable cause.

People v Vinecario COMELEC gun ban. Police officers

establish several checkpoints, and this case happened in

Davao City particularly in Ulas. Now while manning the

checkpoint, the police saw this motor vehicle where threemen were on board, but they did not stop at the checkpoint,

just passed through or passed by. The police had to blow his

whistle to ask them to stop. They finally stopped and they

were interviewed and one of them said that he is a military

man maybe with the hope of dissuading the officer to ask

further questions, but the police asked him to procure an

identification card which he failed to do so. Now the other one

was carrying a backpack. When asked whats inside the

backpack, he said that it contains a mat (banig). But then he

became fidgety and they passed around the bag

nagpasahanay na sila. So as a police officer, would you say

that there is probable cause to conduct an extensive search?

7/27/2019 Consti2: Search and Seizure

11/17

Yes, because they acted suspiciously, they became fidgety,

they gave out wrong answers. So the police actually

suspected a bomb, and they searched inside the bag they

found instead marijuana. So is the marijuana admissible in

evidence? This is a good example of a search of a moving

vehicle. Now, again, visual search. We observe this usually in

Davao City. The police would flag down motors, ask the driver

to step down and ask the driver to open compartment/trunk,

and not only that, for the driver to show them the bag or

whatever theyre carrying. Actually, thats constitutionally

questionable. Naghihintay lang sila ng someone to file a case,

and so far wala pa.

Aniag v COMELEC Here, there is also COMELEC gun ban.

Now, a Congressman to whom a gun was ordered his driver

to return the gun to the Batasang Pambansa Complex. So his

driver took the gun placed it inside a bag and placed it inside

the trunk of the car. Then he passed by the COMELEC

checkpoint, the police asked him to open the trunk, and the

police opened the bag themselves. In this instance, actually

he was charged for the violation of the gun ban. In this

instance would you say that there is probable cause to open

the trunk? No. In fact the driver was very calm. Theres no

way to say that he was acting suspicious. He was calm

because he knows that he was not violating any law at that

time. So in this case, they abused their authority. Again,limited to visual search.

Enforcement of Customs Laws So the search and seizure of

the goods inspected into the country by nature of customs

laws is one of the exceptions. The constitutional provision that

no search shall be made except of a warrant issued by a

judge; so under your customs code it allows police authorities

to enter, pass through, or search a land, enclosure,

warehouse, store, or building that is not a dwelling house.

Also to inspect search and examine any vessel or aircraft and

any trunk package or any person on board, or to stop and

search or examine any vehicle of holding or conveying any

or prohibited article contrary to law.

Rieta v People it was valid therefore for the officers who

intercepted and the guard in response to the report that

somewhere in the port area. They intercepted the truck and

the car and they searched it and found untaxed cigarettes.

So this is enforcement of customs laws, the search without a

warrant is valid.

Salvador v People Here, the search was conducted by the

Philippine Air force personnel of the Philippine Air force. The

search was conducted within the premises of the NAIA to

check on the reports of smuggling by certain PAL personnel.

Now, while conducting surveillance, they saw these three

persons boarding an airbus. When they alighted from the

airbus, they observed that these three persons abdomens

were already bulging, and they were pretty sure that theseabdomens were not bulging because they ate something. So

they searched these three persons, and they found imported

watches amounting to one million pesos. So is the search

valid or is there a need for them to secure a warrant? This is

an enforcement of customs laws. Watches are dutiable goods

they cannot be introduced to the Philippines without being

of taxes. Now, take note that this is the Philippine Air Force

conducting police works; is that action valid? The SC said yes.

They were given the authority because of this report of

smuggling. They are doing this pursuant to customs laws.

EXIGENCY

People v d Gracia there was a coup attempt againstPresident Ramos, and there was active exchange of fires from

the military men and from the rebels. This is a 3-day or 2-day

war. The military tried to penetrate the Eurocar Office. The

rebels were inside this building. Of course, they were shut

upon kasi nandoon yung mga rebels, but before that, they

happen to see several fires and ammunitions inside. Now they

plan to get inside and search further whatever they could take

from there. So they retrieved these fires and ammunitions

without a search warrant. Can the rebels complain that the

search was made without a search warrant? The SC said this

is an unusual circumstance. Because of the urgency and the

exigency of the situation, there is no need for the state or the

military to secure a search warrant; because what you have

here is actual and active firing between military and the

rebels. It would be impractical to require the military to secure

a search warrant. Because of the urgency and the exigency of

the situation, there is no need to secure a search warrant.

Further, it is a fact that the courts during that time are also

closed.

Exigency up to this point would mean that the very

existence of the government is in the line. So take note here

(de Gracia case) walang courts; delikado sa safety ng

government. Can this be applied in the case of calamity? Its a

case-to-case basis, but if you are critical enough you can

apply this case to a calamity. For example, there is active

calamity tapos there is active looting and then you know

where the looters would take the objects. Would you be

required to secure a search warrant? Perhaps or perhaps not.

Again, case-to-case basis.

Others: Airport and Jail Security Now when it comes to

security procedures in airports and jail, the person or

persons in the search and seizure clause by exposure of

their persons or property to the public in a manner reflecting

the lack of subjective expectation of privacy. Your person or

your property is exposed to the public in a manner reflecting

the lack of subjective expectation o privacy. Whichexpectation is society prepared to recognise as reasonable?

Now what are the searches conducted in the airport as a

matter of standard procedure; and Im sure you have been

subjected to searches. You pass through an x-ray machine,

your bags are passed on x-ray machine, you are frisked. Was

there an instance that you would say that unreasonable ito?

Would you say that these kinds or searches are

unreasonable? So what we have here, it is the society itself

that accepts this minimal intrusion to be reasonable. Why?

The consideration is safety safety of the passengers, or the

crew, or whatever. Its more on safety considerations. So

again, it is the society which accepts these kinds of intrusion

as reasonable given the gravity of consideration that is safety.

You cant say na pagpasok mo sa x-ray machine you say I willnot pass through there, because I have the right to privacy.

Reasonable reduced expectation of privacy.

People v Johnson this former Filipino citizen in Manila,

gate 16 departure area, was frisked by a lady frisker, who felt

something hard(!) lalake diay the lady frisker felt

something hard on her abdominal area, because of this she

was asked to go to the ladies comfort room and asked to strip

down. What was found in there inserted in her girdle were

some packets of shabu around half kilo. Can she invoke

violation of Sec 2 and 3? Again, yun na yung sinasabi ko na

reasonable reduced expectation of privacy.

So there is still question that some searches are reasonable

given the gravity of the safety involved and reduced privacy

expectations associated with it. In addition to that reasoning

for allowing searches inside airports in

People v Canton They frisked this woman, something hard

bulge from her abdominal area, when she was asked to strip

down, hindi lang half kilo, one kilo of shabu. Kulang siya ng

imagination, sana sa bra nlng. The same thing happened. Now

the SC said other than that reasoning yung sa People v

Johnson; the SC there is in fact a law governing and allowing

this search. Now that is R.A. 6235. There is a section there

that provides that Every ticket issued to a passenger by the

airline or air carrier concerned shall contain among others thefollowing condition printed thereon: "Holder hereof and his

hand-carried luggage(s) are subject to search for, and seizure

of, prohibited materials or substances. Holder refusing to be

searched shall not be allowed to board the aircraft, so what

you have here: when you are issued a ticket, there is already

an agreement to abide by the rules of the aircraft. What we

have therefore is a contract between the aircraft and the

passenger. This provision constitutes that contract. So apart

from the reasoning in P v Johnson, in P v Canton there is in

fact an agreement or the person has already agreed to be

searched and the illegal substances be seized. Holder refusing

to be searched shall not be allowed to board the aircraft.

7/27/2019 Consti2: Search and Seizure

12/17

Jail Security

People v Conde The accused here was detained as a

suspect in a robbery with homicide. Now one day, he was

visited by his wife. Before the wife was allowed to, her bag

was checked. Inside the bag, the prison officer found the

knife allegedly used to kill the victim dun sa homicide case.

Now can this knife be used as evidence against that prisoner

inside? In other words, is the search valid? The reasoning with

airport security, jail security procedure, so reduced

expectancy of privacy consideration of the safety not only of

the personnel inside but also of the prisoners inside. So the

search was found to be in order, to search was part of the

police standard operating procedure, and is part of the

precautionary measures by the police to safeguard the safety

of the detainees as well as the over-all security of the jail

premises. Imagine nalang if you can invoke Sec 2 and then

searches of any articles brought inside would not be

allowed, ang yayaman ng mga prisoners ngayon, di ba?

Search by Private Persons

People v Marti - that it was the courier who opened the

package, and when he saw the illegal substance for further

investigation. The SC said that that search was a search by a

private person, and in the absence of governmentinterference, the ??? is guaranteed by the constitution cannot

be invoked against the state. So this constitutional right

against ??? search and seizure refers to ??? of ones persons

whether citizen ??? from interference by the government, so

included is which his residence, his papers, his personal

possessions. The Bill of Rights embodied in the constitution is

not meant to be invoked against private individuals.

People v Bongcawaran the accused here was on board

MV Super Ferry, so a ship, public transport. Now inside the

ship, there were complaints of theft of jewellery, which is

common kung sumakay ka ng public transport. Because of

this complaint, the security personnel of that vessel

conducted searches on the baggage of the passengers. Now

when they open the baggage of the accused, they did not find

the jewellery, but they found shabu. Could that shabu be

admissible in evidence? The security personnel, actually,

when they found the shabu, called the Phil Coast Guard. The

Phil Coast Guard arrested the accused. Did the Phil Coast

Guard acted properly? Was the search valid? Now, there was

an argument that the security personnel acted as agents of

the state. Is that argument valid? No. The security is and

believed to be the agents of the vessel which is a private

entity. There is no way that they can be the agents of the

state. Now the Phil Coast Guard can validly arrest him, and

then hereafter the evidence presented against the accused,

because there was no constitutional right violated.

People v Mendoza this is a case of parricide. Husbandkilled his wife. So the father of the deceased went to the

house of the husband to secure the belongings of his

daughter. In the process of taking the properties of his

daughter, he also was able to get certain documents such as

he ??? order and the memorandum receipt for a .38 calibre

revolver issued in favour of the accused. These documents

were used as evidence against the accused. Can this evidence

be admissible? Can the police use this as evidence against the

accused? Remember that the police took these documents

from the father of the deceased, and not from the accused or

house of the accused. Therefore, who conducted the search

and seizure? The father. Therefore, the accused cannot claim

the violation of his constitutional right against the father.

Recall, anong maku-complain natin sa father? Was there aright violated? Now if there was any, that would be governed

by Civil Law. Individual against individual, Civil Laws.

Individual against violation by the state, Constitutional Law.

Individual against the State, Criminal Law.

PART 6

Without proof it took judicial notice of the fact that

rebels started basing in urban areas, so in order to flush-out

these alleged criminals, the Supreme Court said that it was

proper for the military to establish the checkpoint. Now, the

problem on the decision is that it declared that the checkpoint

was valid without looking at the circumstances, and even one

of the justice said that he had experienced one of the

checkpoints. Was the Philippines under Martial Law that time?

No

Martial law does not suspend the operation or

effectivity of the constitution. So in this case there is no

martial law, but there is just this fact of criminal activities in

urban areas such as in the case Valenzuela, the Supreme

Court said that it clarified that it was not declaring that all

checkpoints are legal, only that check points on these

particular area is valid, and checkpoints per se is not illegal.

So the motion for reconsideration, the Supreme

Court enumerated requirements for the checkpoint which was

actually the prayer of the petitioners in the first case at

least it would require the military to make some issuances

with regards to what would be the proceedings or what would

be observed when it comes to establishing checkpoints.

So that was only declared in the motion for

reconsideration, thus to declare valid are checkpoints

should involve a brief detention of travellers, during which

travellers are required to answer a brief question.

Was this what happened in Valenzuela? Actually,there were reports that the military were committing

mangotong kotong ay hindi! Checkpoints become centres

or areas where the military to commit these crimes against

individuals. Other than that, there was this incident that there

was this principal employees that got ???in cold blood,

because he refused to the checkpoint.

So checkpoint must be for brief detention for

travellers, and the traveller can only be required to answer a

question or two. Second, the vehicle searched or their

occupants subject inspection of the vehicle is only limited

to visual search. Finally, based on US declaration or

jurisprudence, the location of these checkpoints is fixed and is

not chosen by the officers in the field but by the officers

responsible for making over-all decisions as to the most

effective location of limited enforcement of resources. This is

also in relation to the fact that checkpoints could also affect

the flow of the traffic. Besides, the reason of the SC is it is

inconvenient for the travellers to know where the checkpoint

is.

They can easily escape or avoid checkpoints. It must

be fixed and the reason of the place of the checkpoint must

be made by the officials making overall decisions and not

whimsically or capriciously by officers in the field. Now, read

the dissenting opinions, however. In the dissenting opinions of

Justice Cruz and Justice Sarmiento, they do not accept thereasoning of the SC, because search and seizures must be

made pursuant to the warrant, and checkpoints in these

places would authorise the military and the police to conduct

further searches. As to the ???extensive search can only be

done when there is probable cause to believe that the

motorist is committing a crime.

Now probable cause, example is in the case of

People vs ???, ayawnilangidiscloseito because there seems to

be a ??? declaration that the ??? must yield the demands of

national security, and this ignores the fact that the Bill of

Rights was intended precisely to limit the authority of the

state even if this authority is ascertained on national security.

The more that the national security is in the balance, themore that the individuals rights should be protectedthats

their point. It doesnt mean that since military and the police

failed in the law-enforcement area, kasidumami daw yungmga

rebels, dumami daw angmga firearms and illegal trade, its

the freedom(?) of the military and the police and then

because of that failure(?) the individuals rights could suffer,

so that is the point of Justice Cruz and Justice Sarmiento. So

that is why, when it comes to checkpoints, remember the

requirements: brief momentary detention, limited visual

search and takes place.

7/27/2019 Consti2: Search and Seizure

13/17

Case: People v Exala- so the issue of