ARREST,

SEARCHES &
SEIZURES
MODULE 14 | GROUP 1:
CHALLOY, DE LEON, ERESE, OLIGANE, TABON
ARTICLE III
SECTION 2 AND SECTION 3
ARTICLE III BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of
whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to
be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath
or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce,
and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or
things to be seized.
ARTICLE III BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 3.

(1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be

inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety
or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law.

(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section

shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
PURPOSE AND IMPORTANCE OF GUARANTY

The Constitutional guarantee does not prohibit all forms

of searches and seizures. It is only directed against those
that are unreasonable. Conversely, reasonable searches
and seizures fall outside the scope of the prohibition and
are not forbidden.
 Alvero vs. Dizon, 76 Phil. 63
The purpose of the constitutional provisions against
unlawful searches and seizures is to prevent violations of
private security in person and property, and unlawful
invasions of the sanctity of the home, by officers of the law
acting under legislative or judicial sanction, and to give
remedy against such usurpations when attempted. But it
does not prohibit the Government from taking advantage
of unlawful searches made by a private person or under
authority of state law.
TO WHOM DIRECTED: THE STATE
 People v. Marti, G.R. No. 81561
The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and
seizures therefore applies as a restraint directed only against the
government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the
law. Thus, it could only be invoked against the State to whom the
restraint against arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power is
imposed. the protection against unreasonable searches and
seizures cannot be extended to acts committed by private
individuals so as to bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful
intrusion by the government.
WHO MAY INVOKE THE RIGHTS?
WHO MAY INVOKE THE RIGHTS
The constitutional right against unreasonable searches and
seizures is a personal right, invocable only by those whose rights
have been infringed.
 Bache and Co. v. Ruiz,
G.R. No. L-32409 (1971)

A corporation is entitled to immunity, under the 4th

Amendment, against unreasonable searches and seizures. A
corporation is, after all, an association of individuals under an
assumed name and with a distinct legal entity. In organizing
itself as a collective body it waives no constitutional immunities
appropriate to such body.
 Stonehill, et al. vs. Diokno, et al.
(20 SCRA 383)
The Supreme Court impliedly recognized the right of a corporation to
object against unreasonable searches and seizures; holding that the
corporations have their respective personalities, separate and distinct
from the personality of the corporate officers, regardless of the amount
of shares of stock or the interest of each of them in said corporations,
whatever, the offices they hold therein may be; and that the corporate
officers therefore may not validly object to the use in evidence against
them of the documents, papers and things seized from the offices and
premises of the corporations, since the right to object to the admission of
said papers in evidence belongs exclusively to the corporations, to whom
the seized effects belong, and may not be invoked by the corporate
officers in proceedings against them in their individual capacity.
CONDITIONS FOR A
VALID WARRANT
WHAT IS WARRANT?
A writ permitting or directing someone to take some action.
Frequently, the term refers to a writ from a judge, permitting law
enforcement personnel to take some action, such as make an arrest,
search a location, or seize some piece of property.
 1
GENERAL WARRANT

Defined as a search or arrest warrant that is not particular as to

the person to be arrested or the property to be seized. It is one
that allows the seizure of one thing under a warrant describing
another and gives the officer executing the warrant the
discretion over which items to take. This is a void warrant.
 2
VALID WARRANT
Section 2 of Article III- provides for the requisites of Valid
warrant
1. that no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable
cause;

2. to be determined personally by the judge;

3. after examination under oath or affirmation of the accused and the

witnesses he may produce; and

4. the warrant must particularly describe the place to be search and the
persons or things to be seized.
 TWO KINDS OF VALID WARRANT

SEARCH WARRANT WARRANT OF ARREST

An order in writing, issued Written order commanding
to search for certain to arrest a person
personal property and bring designated, such as to take
it before the court. him into custody in order
that he may be bound to
answer for the commission
of an offense.
1. EXISTENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE
 EXISTENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE

ISSUANCE OF WARRANT HELD FOR TRIAL

The preliminary investigation The preliminary investigation
for purposes of issuing a whether there is a reasonable
warrant of arrest or search ground to believe that the
warrant is made personally by accused should be held for trial
the Judge. is the function of the
investigating prosecutor.
 BURGOS VS CHIEF OF STAFF

Probable cause for a search is defined as such facts and circumstances

which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe
that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in
connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.
01. 03.
Need to be based on clear and It should at least be more than
convinving evidence, or on mere suspicion.
evidence beyond reasonable
doubt.

02. 04.
It does not require that the
Being based merely on opinion
evidence would justify
and reasonable belief does not
conviction.
import absolute certainty.
2. PERSONAL DETERMINATION
BY THE JUDGE
 ABDULLA VS GUIANI

What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and

personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of
the existence of probable cause. In satisfying himself of the
existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of
arrest, the judge is not required to personally examine the
complainant and his witnesses.
 ABDULLA VS GUIANI
The Court furthered, following established doctrine and
procedure, he shall:
(1) Personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the
fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a
warrant of arrest; or

(2) If on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscal's
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.
 ABDULLA VS GUIANI
Whether the Judge may rely upon the findings of the prosecutor in
determining probable cause in the issuance of search or arrest
warrant.
What is required, rather, is that the judge must have sufficient supporting
documents upon which to make his independent judgment or, at the very least,
upon which to verify the findings of the prosecutor as to the existence of
probable cause. A preliminary investigation made by a prosecutor does not bind
the judge. It merely assist him in making the determination of probable cause
for the issuance of the warrant.
3. EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES.
EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
The probable cause must be determined by the judge himself
and not by the applicant or any other person; in the
determination of probable cause, the judge must examine,
under oath or affirmation, the complainant and such witnesses
as the latter may produce.
 A
THE PROBABLE CAUSE MUST BE DETERMINED
BY THE JUDGE HIMSELF AND NOT BY THE THE
APPLICANT OR ANY OTHER PERSON.
 MATA VS BAYUNA

It was established that the Rules provide that the judge must
before issuing the warrant personally examine on oath or
affirmation the complainant and any witnesses he may produce
and take their depositions in writing, and attach them to the
record, in addition to any affidavits presented to him. Mere
affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are thus not
sufficient.
 B
PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE WITNESSES.
B. PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE WITNESSES
The provisions of the constitution require that there be not only
probable cause before the issuance of a search warrant but that
the search warrant must be based upon an application
supported by oath of the applicant and the witnesses he may
produce. The oath required must refer to the truth of the facts
within the personal knowledge of the petitioner or his
witnesses, because the purpose thereof is to convince the
committing magistrate, not the individual making the affidavit
and seeking the issuance of the warrant, of the existence of
probable cause.
 YEE SEE KOY VS ALMEDA

The search warrant was sustained where it was shown that the
complainant and his witnesses, of their own personal knowledge
obtained from the personal investigations conducted by them,
both declared under oath that the petitioner was engaged in
usurious activities. But it was void in Alvarez vs CFI, since
warrant issued is illegal because it was based only on the
affidavit of the agent who had no personal knowledge of the fact.
4. PARTICULARITY OF DESCRIPTION
PARTICULARITY OF DESCRIPTION
The Constitution requires that the place to be searched or the
persons or things to be seized be described with such
particularity as to enable the person serving the warrant to
identify them. Failure of this requirement may result in
erroneous or arbitrary enforcement of the warrant.
 PRUDENTE VS JUDGE DAYRIT

The rule is, that a description of a place to be searched is

sufficient if the officer with the warrant can, with
reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place
intended.
 NOLASCO VS CRUZ-PANO
Search Warrant authorizes the seizure of personal properties
vaguely described and not particularized. It is an all- embracing
description which includes everything conceivable. It is thus in the
nature of a general warrant and infringes on the constitutional
mandate requiring particular description of the things to be seized.
In the recent rulings of this Court, search warrants of similar
description were considered null and void for being too general.

The Court ruled the propriety of the declaration of the arrest and
search as null and void. It was held that the warrant was one of a
general warrant issued in gross violation of the constitutional
mandate against unreasonable searches and seizures.
01. 03.
The person sought to be seized If the warrant is issued without
should be identified by name. a name or with the name in
blank such that in can be
enforced against any person, it
is void.

02. 04.
In a John Doe Warrant is
Whereby the nature of the
generally held in valid, it
article to be seized their
satisfy the constitutional
description must be rather
requirement if there is some
general, it is not required that a
decriptio personae that will
technical description be given.
enable the officer to identify
the accused.
OBJECTS OF SEIZURES
 OBJECTS OF SEIZURES
Rule 126, Sec 2 (Rules of Court)

Personal Property to be Seized: A search warrant may be issued for

the search and seizure of personal property:

1. Subject of the offense;

2. Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits of the offense; or

3. Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense.

 United Laboratories v. Isip,
G.R. No. 163858, June 28, 2005

The officers of the law are to seize only those things particularly
described in the search warrant. A search warrant is not a sweeping
authority empowering a raiding party to undertake a fishing expedition
to seize and confiscate any and all kinds of evidence or articles relating to
a crime. The search is limited in scope so as not to be general or
explanatory. Nothing is left to the discretion of the officer executing the
warrant.
 WARRANTLESS SEARCHES
Warrantless searches are allowable in the following
circumstances:
1. Waiver of right 5. Search of a Moving vehicle

2. Search Incidental to a 6. Stop and frisk rule (Terry Search)

lawful arrest 7. Customs search

3. Seizure of evidence in Plain view 8. Airport searches

4. During exigent and 9. Checkpoint Search

Emergency circumstances 10. Warrantless search by a private

individual
 People v. Damaso,
G.R. No. 93516, Aug. 12, 1992
The constitutional immunity from unreasonable searches
and seizures, being personal one, cannot be waived by
anyone except:

1. The person whose rights are invaded; or

2. One who is expressly authorized to do so in his or her behalf.
 Pollo Vs Constantino-David (G.R. No.
181881, October 18, 2011)

The "special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement
make the probable cause requirement impracticable," for legitimate,
work-related non-investigatory intrusions as well as investigations of
work-related misconduct. A standard of reasonableness will neither
unduly burden the efforts of government employers to ensure the
efficient and proper operation of the workplace, nor authorize arbitrary
intrusions upon the privacy of public employees…
 Pollo Vs Constantino-David (G.R. No.
181881, October 18, 2011)

We hold, therefore, that public employer intrusions on the

constitutionally protected privacy interests of government
employees for non-investigatory, work-related purposes, as well
as for investigations of work-related misconduct, should be
judged by the standard of reasonableness under all the
circumstances.
 Pollo Vs Constantino-David (G.R. No.
181881, October 18, 2011)
Under this reasonableness standard, both the inception and the
scope of the intrusion must be reasonable:

Determining the reasonableness of any search involves a

twofold inquiry: first, one must consider ‘whether the action
was justified at its inception,’; second, one must determine
whether the search as actually conducted ‘was reasonably
related in scope to the circumstances which justified the
interference in the first place“.
VALID WAIVER AND WHO MAY WAIVE?
 People v. Tudtud,
G.R. No. 144037, Sept. 26, 2003
There is an effective waiver of rights against unreasonable
searches and seizures if the following requisites are present:

1. It must appear that the rights Exist;

2. The person involved had Knowledge, actual or constructive, of
the existence of such right; and
3. Said person had an actual Intention to relinquish the right.
CONDITIONS FOR A
VALID WARRANT
 INCIDENTS TO LAWFUL ARREST

Rule 126, Sec 13 (Rules of Court)

Section 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. — A person lawfully

arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which
may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an
offense without a search warrant. (12a)
 INCIDENTS TO LAWFUL ARREST

REQUISITES

1. The search must be substantially contemporaneous to the arrest;

2. Made within a permissible area of search; and

3. If the police have probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of
the search.
 People v. De la Cruz,
G.R. 83988, April 18, 1990
While it is conceded that in a buy-bust operation, there is
seizure of evidence from one’s person without a search warrant,
nonetheless, because the search being incident to a lawful
arrest, there is no necessity for a search warrant. A peace officer
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.
PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE
 PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE

An object is in plain view if the object itself is plainly exposed to sight.

An object seized inside closed package is not in “plain view”, therefore
cannot be seized without a warrant.
 PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE

PEOPLE VS MUSA

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.
 PEOPLE VS VALDEZ
REQUISITES

1. A prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which

the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties;

2. The evidence is inadvertently discovered by the police who have the

right to be where they are;

3. The evidence must be immediately apparent; and

4. Plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without any further

search.
ENFORCING OF FISHING, CUSTOMS, AND
CUSTOMARY LAWS
 ENFORCING OF FISHING, CUSTOMS, AND
CUSTOMARY LAWS

Search and seizure without warrant of vessels and aircrafts for

violation of customs laws have been the traditional exception to the
constitutional requirement of a search warrant.

Should also apply to fishing vessels breaching our fishery laws. They
are usually equipped with powerful motors that enable them to elude
pursuing ships of the Philippine Navy or Coast Guard
 Roldan vs. Area, 1975

Fishing vessels used for coastwide trade without permit and

unlawfully fishing with explosives are subject to search and
seizure without search warrant. (Roldan v. Area, 1975)
SEARCH OF MOVING VEHICLES
 Papa v. Mago,
22 SCRA 857 (1968)
JUSTIFIED on the ground that it is not practicable to secure a
warrant because the vehicle can move quickly out of the locality
or jurisdiction in which the warrant may be sought.

Also ALLOWED IF the purpose is to prevent violations of

smuggling or immigration laws, PROVIDED that such searches
are made at borders or constructive borders like checkpoints.
 Papa v. Mago,
22 SCRA 857 (1968)
For the purposes of the enforcement of the customs and tariff
laws, effect searches, seizures, and arrests, and it was the duty of
Ricardo Papa, as the Chief of Police of Manila, to make seizure,
among others of any cargo, articles or other movable property
when the same may be subject to forfeiture or liable for any fine
imposed under customs and tariff laws.
STEP AND FRISK
 STEP AND FRISK

The vernacular designation of the right of a police officer to stop a

citizen on the street, interrogate him and pat him for weapons
whenever he observes unusual conduct which leads him to conclude
that criminal activity may be underway.
 MANALILI VS. COURT OF APPEALS

The policeman chanced upon the accused who had reddish eyes,
walking in a swaying manner, and who appeared to be high on
drugs, hence the search without warrant.

Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the

circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that
of others is endangered.
CHECKPOINTS
 VALMONTE VS. GEN DE VILLA

Warrantless searches and seizures in checkpoints are

constitutional.

The setting up of questioned checkpoints may be considered as

a security measure to enable the National Capital District
Command (NCRDC) to pursue its mission of establishing
effective territorial defense and maintaining peace and order for
the benefit of the public.
EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES
 PEOPLE VS DE GARCIA
The warrantless search conducted by a raiding team is legal and valid.
The presence of an unusual quantity of high-powered firearms and
explosives could not be justifiably or even colorably explained. In
addition, there was general chaos and disorder at that time because of
simultaneous and intense firing within the vicinity of the office and in
the nearby Camp Aguinaldo which was under attack by rebel forces. The
courts in the surrounding areas were obviously closed and, for that
matter, the building and houses therein were deserted.

Due to this reasons, the instant case falls under the exception to the
prohibition against a warrantless search.
INSPECTION OF BUILDING
 CAMARA VS MUNICIPAL COURT

Basically an exercise of the police power of the State and would

not require a search warrant. These are routine inspections
which however, must be conducted during reasonable hours.

However, if the inspection of premises is without probable cause

to sustain the search and no urgency about it to justify the
inspection, then obtaining first a search warrant is needed.
WARRANTLESS
ARRESTS
REBELLION AS CONTINUING OFFENSE
 UMIL VS RAMOS

The Supreme Court held that rebellion is a continuing offense.

Accordingly, a rebel may be arrested at any time, with or without
a warrant, as he is deemed to be in the act of committing the
offense at any time of day or night.
 PEOPLE VS SUCRO

It was held that when a police officer sees the offense, although
at a distance, or hears the disturbances created thereby, and
proceeds at once to the scene thereof, he may effect an arrest
without a warrant. The offense is deemed committed in the
presence of or within the view of the officer.
 PEOPLE VS BAULA
The proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures is
not absolute, and the Court has had occasions to rule that a
warrantless search and seizure of property is valid under certain
circumstances. There can, for instance, be a lawful warrantless
search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section 12,
Rules 126 of the Rules of Court and by prevailing jurisprudence;
or seizure of evidence in "plain view," its elements being extant;
or search of a moving vehicle; or consented search; or customs
search.
 PEOPLE VS RODRIGUEZA

The police officer, acting as poseur-buyer in a “buy-bust

operation”, instead of arresting the suspect and taking him into
custody after the sale, returned to police headquarters and filed
his report. It was only in the evening of the same day that the
police officer, without a warrant, arrested the suspect at the
latter’s house where dried marijuana leaves were found and
confiscated. It was held that the arrest and the seizure were
unlawful.
MARKED MONEY
 PEOPLE VS ENRILE

The mere discovery of marked money on the person of the

accused did not mean that he was caught in the act of selling
marijuana. The marked money was not prohibited perse. Even if
it were, that fact alone would not retroactively validate the
warrantless search and seizure.
LACK OF URGENCY
 PEOPLE VS PASUDAG

Noting that the police authorities had ample time to secure a

warrant, the seizure of the marijuana plants and the consequent
arrest were held to be tainted with constitutional infirmity.
The implied acquiescence of the appellant could not have been
more than passive conformity given under intimidating
circumstances.
EFFECT OF ENTRY OF PLEA
 PEOPLE VS PLANA

By pleading “not guilty” at their arraignment, the accused

submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court, thereby curing
any defect in their arrest, for the legality of an arrest affects only
the jurisdiction of the court over their persons.